Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 54993 

levels of government. NCUA has 

determined that this rule does not 

constitute a policy that has federalism 

implications for purposes of the 

executive order. 

The Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act, 1999—Assessment 

of Federal Regulations and Policies on 

Families 

NCUA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not affect family 

well-being within the meaning of 

section 654 of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999, 

Public Law 105–277, 112 Stat. 2681 

(1998). 

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 704 

Credit unions, Corporate credit 

unions, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

By the National Credit Union 

Administration Board on August 29, 2011. 

Mary F. Rupp, 

Secretary of the Board. 

For the reasons stated above, the 

National Credit Union Administration 

proposes to amend 12 CFR part 704 as 

set forth below: 

PART 704—CORPORATE CREDIT 

UNIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 704 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1762, 1766(a), 1772a, 

1781, 1789, and 1795e. 

2. Amend § 704.2 by removing the 

definition of ‘‘daily average net riskweighted assets’’ and revising the 

definition of ‘‘net assets’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 704.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Net assets means total assets less 

Central Liquidity Facility (CLF) stock 

subscriptions, loans guaranteed by the 

NCUSIF, and member reverse 

repurchase transactions. For its own 

account a corporate credit union’s 

payables under reverse repurchase 

agreements and receivables under 

repurchase agreements may be netted 

out if the GAAP conditions for offsetting 

are met. Also, any amounts deducted 

from core capital in calculating adjusted 

core capital are also deducted from net 

assets. 

* * * * * 

3. Amend § 704.6 by removing 

paragraphs (c)(3) and (f)(4) and adding 

new p(h) to read as follows: 

§ 704.6 Credit risk management. 

* * * * * 

(h) Requirements for investment 

action plans. An investment is subject 

to the requirements of § 704.10 of this 

part if: 

(1) There is reason to believe that the 

obligor no longer has a very strong 

capacity to meet its financial obligations 

for the remaining projected life of the 

security; or 

(2) The investment is part of an asset 

class or group of investments that 

exceeds the issuer, sector, or subsector 

concentration limits of this section. For 

purposes of measurement, each new 

credit transaction must be evaluated in 

terms of the corporate credit union’s 

capital at the time of the transaction. An 

investment that fails a requirement of 

this section because of a subsequent 

reduction in capital will be deemed 

non-conforming. A corporate credit 

union is required to exercise reasonable 

efforts to bring nonconforming 

investments into conformity within 90 

calendar days. Investments that remain 

nonconforming for more than 90 

calendar days will be deemed to fail a 

requirement of this section and the 

corporate credit union will have to 

comply with § 704.10 of this part. 

4. Amend § 704.8 by: 

a. Revising the first two sentences in 

paragraphs (f) and (g); and 

b. Revising (j)(2)(ii) and (iii). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 704.8 Asset and liability management. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * The weighted average life 

(WAL) of a corporate credit union’s 

financial assets, consisting of cash, 

investments, and loans, but excluding 

derivative contracts and equity 

investments, may not exceed 2 years. A 

corporate credit union must test its 

financial assets at least quarterly, 

including once on the last day of the 

calendar quarter, for compliance with 

this WAL limitation. * * * 

(g) * * * The weighted average life 

(WAL) of a corporate credit union’s 

financial assets, consisting of cash, 

investments, and loans, but excluding 

derivative contracts and equity 

investments, may not exceed 2.25 years 

when prepayment speeds are reduced 

by 50 percent. A corporate credit union 

must test its financial assets at least 

quarterly, including once on the last day 

of the calendar quarter, for compliance 

with this WAL limitation. * * * 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) If presently categorized as 

adequately capitalized or well 

capitalized for prompt corrective action 

purposes, and the violation was of 

paragraph (d) of this section, 

immediately be recategorized as 

undercapitalized until the violation is 

corrected, and 

(iii) If presently less than adequately 

capitalized, and the violation was of 

paragraph (d) of this section, 

immediately be downgraded one 

additional capital category. 

* * * * * 

5. Amend § 704.18 by revising the 

table in paragraph (e)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 704.18 Fidelity bond coverage. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Core capital ratio Maximum deductible 

Less than 1.0 percent 7.5 percent of core 

capital. 

1.0–1.74 percent ....... 10.0 percent of core 

capital. 

1.75–2.24 percent ..... 12.0 percent of core 

capital. 

Greater than 2.25 

percent.

15.0 percent of core 

capital. 

* * * * * 

6. Amend § 704.19 by revising the 

section heading to read as follows: 

§ 704.19 Disclosure of executive 

compensation. 

* * * * * 

7. Amend the introductory note in 

Model Form D, Appendix A to Part 704, 

to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Part 704—Capital 

Prioritization and Model Forms 

* * * * * 

Model Form D 

Note: This form is for use on and after 

October 20, 2011, in the circumstances where 

the corporate credit union has determined 

that it will give newly issued capital priority 

over older capital as described in Part I of 

this Appendix. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–22540 Filed 9–2–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7535–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0536; FRL–9459–9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Placer County 

Air Pollution Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
54994 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

revisions to the Placer County Air 

Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX) emissions from biomass fuel-fired 

boilers. We are proposing action on a 

local rule that regulates these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We 

are taking comments on this proposal 

and plan to follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

October 6, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0536, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

http://www.regulations.gov, some 

information may be publicly available 

only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material, large maps), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Idalia Pe ́rez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3248, perez.idalia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. What are the rule deficiencies? 

D. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal with the dates that it was 

adopted by the local air agency and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

PCAPCD ......................................................... 233 Biomass Boilers ............................................. 12/10/09 05/07/10 

On June 8, 2010, the submittal for 

PCAPCD Rule 233 was found to meet 

the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 

51 Appendix V, which must be met 

before formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

We approved an earlier version of 

Rule 233 into the SIP on April 30, 1996 

(61 FR 18959). PCAPCD adopted 

revisions to the SIP-approved version on 

October 11, 2007, CARB submitted it to 

us on March 7, 2008 and it was 

officially withdrawn on November 5, 

2008. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

NOX helps produce ground-level 

ozone, smog and particulate matter, 

which harm human health and the 

environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA 

requires States to submit regulations 

that control NOX emissions. Rule 233 

regulates emissions of NOX from 

biomass boilers and steam generators. 

EPA’s technical support document 

(TSD) has more information about this 

rule. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

Generally, SIP rules must be 

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 

Act) and must not relax existing 

requirements (see sections 110(l) and 

193 of the Act). Section 172(c)(1) of the 

Act also requires nonattainment areas to 

implement all reasonably available 

control measures (RACM), including 

such reductions in emissions from 

existing sources in the area as may be 

obtained through the adoption, at a 

minimum, of reasonably available 

control technology (RACT), as 

expeditiously as practicable. 

Additionally, ozone nonattainment 

areas classified as moderate or above 

must require RACT for all major sources 

of NOX (CAA section 182(b)(2) & (f); 40 

CFR section 51.912(a)). Because 

PCAPCD regulates an ozone 

nonattainment area that is classified as 

Severe-15 under both the 1-hr ozone 

and 8-hr ozone standards (40 CFR 

section 81.305), submitted Rule 233 

must fulfill RACT requirements for 

NOX. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we used to evaluate enforceability and 

RACT requirements for Rule 233 

included the following: 

1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; 

Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the 

General Preamble; Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990 Implementation of 

Title I; Proposed Rule,’’ (the NOX

Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November 

25, 1992. 

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook). 

3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

4. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990’’; 57 FR 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 54995 

13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 

(April 28, 1992). 

5. Preamble, ‘‘Final Rule to 

Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 

2,’’ 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005). 

6. ‘‘Determination of Reasonably 

Available Control Technology and Best 

Available Retrofit Control Technology 

for Industrial, Institutional, and 

Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, 

and Process Heaters’’, CARB, July 18, 

1991. 

7. ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques 

Document—NOX Emissions from 

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional 

(ICI) Boilers’’, US EPA, March 1994. 

8. ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques 

Document—NOX Emissions from Utility 

Boilers’’, US EPA, March 1994. 

9. ‘‘State Implementation Plans (SIPs): 

Policy Regarding Excess Emissions 

During Malfunctions, Startup and 

Shutdown’’, Memorandum from Steven 

A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, September 20, 1999. 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

Rule 233 improves the SIP by 

establishing more stringent emission 

limits. We believe the rule is consistent 

with the applicable requirements and 

guidance regarding enforceability and 

SIP revisions. Rule provisions which do 

not meet the evaluation criteria are 

summarized below and discussed 

further in the TSD. 

C. What are the rule deficiencies? 

PCAPCD has not demonstrated that 

the NOX emission limits for biomass 

boilers found in Section 301 implement 

RACT. The NOX emission limits should 

be lowered to ensure implementation of 

RACT. Alternatively, PCAPCD may 

submit additional information to 

demonstrate that lower emission limits 

are not reasonably achievable. 

D. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

We do not currently have additional 

rule revisions that we recommend for 

the next time the local agency modifies 

the rule. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing a limited approval 

of the submitted rule under sections 

110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act. If 

finalized, this action would incorporate 

the submitted rule into the SIP, 

including those provisions identified as 

deficient. This approval is limited 

because EPA is simultaneously 

proposing a limited disapproval of the 

rule under section 110(k)(3). If this 

disapproval is finalized, sanctions will 

be imposed under section 179 of the Act 

unless EPA approves subsequent SIP 

revisions that correct the rule 

deficiencies within 18 months of the 

disapproval. These sanctions would be 

imposed according to 40 CFR 52.31. A 

final disapproval would also trigger the 

2-year clock for the federal 

implementation plan (FIP) requirement 

under section 110(c). Note that the 

submitted rule has been adopted by the 

PCAPCD, and EPA’s final limited 

disapproval would not prevent the local 

agency from enforcing it. The limited 

disapproval also would not prevent any 

portion of the rule from being 

incorporated by reference into the 

federally enforceable SIP (see EPA 

memo regarding ‘‘Processing of State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittals’’ 

(July 9, 1992), available at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/nsr/ttnnsr01/gen/pdf/

memo-s.pdf). 

We will accept comments from the 

public on the proposed limited approval 

and limited disapproval for the next 30 

days. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals or 

disapprovals under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act 

do not create any new requirements but 

simply approve or disapprove 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because the 

proposed Federal SIP limited approval/ 

limited disapproval does not create any 

new requirements, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-State relationship under the 

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 

analysis would constitute Federal 

inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of state action. The 

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its 

actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 

7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 

prepare a budgetary impact statement to 

accompany any proposed or final rule 

that includes a Federal mandate that 

may result in estimated costs to State, 

local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate; or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more. Under section 

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule and is consistent with 

statutory requirements. Section 203 

requires EPA to establish a plan for 

informing and advising any small 

governments that may be significantly 

or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPA has determined that the limited 

approval/limited disapproval action 

proposed does not include a Federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs of $100 million or more to either 

State, local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. This 

Federal action proposes to approve and 

disapprove pre-existing requirements 

under State or local law, and imposes 

no new requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
54996 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely proposes to approve or 

disapprove a State rule implementing a 

federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed rule from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, because it 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: August 19, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2011–22662 Filed 9–2–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

42 CFR Part 5 

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on 

Designation of Medically Underserved 

Populations and Health Professional 

Shortage Areas; Notice of Meeting 

AGENCY: Health Resources and Services 

Administration, HHS. 

ACTION: Correction. 

SUMMARY: The Health Resources and 

Services Administration published a 

notice in the Federal Register, (76 FR 

50442, Doc. 2011–20690), on August 15, 

2011, announcing the meeting of the 

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on 

Designation of Medically Underserved 

Populations and Health Professional 

Shortage Areas on September 20, 21, 

and 22, 2011. The dates of the meeting 

and contact information were incorrect. 

Correction 

In the Federal Register published 

Monday, August 15, 2011 (76 FR 50442, 

FR Doc. 2011–20690), please make the 

following corrections: 

In the DATES section, correct to read 

September 21, 2011, 9:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.; 

September 22, 2011, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.; 

and September 23, 2011, 9 a.m. to 

3 p.m. EST. 

In the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section, correct to read: For 

more information, please contact 

LaCrystal McNair, National Center for 

Health Care Workforce Analysis, Bureau 

of Health Professions, Health Resources 

and Services Administration, Room 9– 

29, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers 

Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857. 

Telephone (301) 443–3578, E-mail: 

lmcnair@hrsa.gov or visit http:// 

www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/ 

shortage/. 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2