Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 4823 

608.8.0 for address) for additional 

information. 

b. Pay for postage by using a permit 

imprint. 

c. Enter a minimum of 500 pieces of 

mail for each presorted mailing or a 

minimum of 200 pieces or 50 pounds of 

mail for each single-piece mailing. 

d. Use the Electronic Verification 

System (eVS) or submit an electronic 

postage statement with a computerized 

manifest. 

1.5 Surcharge 

Unless prepared in 5-digit/scheme 

containers, presorted parcels are subject 

to a surcharge if any of the following 

characteristics apply: 

[Revise 1.5 by deleting current item a 

in its entirety and redesignating current 

items b and c as new items a and b, and 

revise to read as follows:] 

a. The parcels do not bear a GS1–128 

or Intelligent Mail package barcode. 

b. The parcels weigh less than 2 

ounces or are irregularly shaped, such 

as rolls, tubes, and triangles. 

* * * * * 

3.0 Basic Standards for First-Class 

Mail Parcels 

3.1 Description of Service 

[Delete the heading of current 3.1.1, 

Service Objectives, in its entirety and 

make the text of current 3.1.1 the new 

text of 3.1.] 

[Delete the current 3.1.2, Price 

Options, in its entirety.] 

* * * * * 

4.0 Price Eligibility for Presorted 

First-Class Mail Parcels 

* * * * * 

4.4 Single-Piece Price 

[Revise the text of 4.4 as follows:] 

Single-piece prices apply to presorted 

parcels in a mixed ADC sack, with no 

minimum volume requirement. 

Nonpresorted parcels are also eligible 

for commercial single-piece parcel 

prices. See 1.3b for commercial base 

eligibility and 1.4 for commercial plus 

eligibility. 

434 Postage Payment and 

Documentation 

1.0 Basic Standards for Postage 

Payment 

1.1 Postage Payment Options 

[Revise the text of 1.1 as follows:] 

Postage for presorted First-Class Mail 

parcels must be paid with affixed 

postage or permit imprint as specified 

below. All pieces in a mailing must be 

paid with the same method unless 

otherwise authorized by Business 

Mailer Support (see 608.8.0 for address). 

[Revise the title of 2.0 as follows:] 

2.0 Postage Payment for Presorted 

First-Class Mail Parcels 

[Revise the title and text of 2.1 as 

follows:] 

2.1 Permit Imprint Postage 

All presorted First-Class Mail parcels 

may bear permit imprint postage under 

604.5.0. Parcels entered at commercial 

plus prices and all mail manifested 

using the Electronic Verification System 

(eVS) under 705.2.9 must be paid using 

a permit imprint. A permit imprint may 

be used for mailings of nonidenticalweight pieces only if authorized by 

Business Mailer Support. 

2.2 Affixed Postage for Presorted 

First-Class Mail 

[Revise the text of 2.2 as follows:] 

Each presorted First-Class Mail parcel 

bearing affixed postage (not allowed for 

commercial plus parcels) must bear: 

a. The full postage at the First-Class 

Mail price for which it qualifies. 

b. A precanceled stamp (see 604.3.0) 

or the full postage at the lowest 

applicable First-Class Mail 1-ounce 

price, and full postage on pieces with 

postage evidencing imprints (see 

604.4.0) for additional ounce(s) and any 

fees. 

c. Postage in an amount not less than 

the lowest applicable First-Class Mail 

parcel price if authorized by Business 

Mailer Support, plus full postage for 

additional ounces. 

2.3 Additional Postage 

[Revise the text of 2.3 as follows:] 

Additional postage for pieces with 

insufficient postage must be paid using 

an advance deposit account or a meter 

stamp affixed to the postage statement. 

* * * * * 

600 Basic Standards for All Mailing 

Services 

* * * * * 

604 Postage Payment Methods 

* * * * * 

2.0 Stamped Stationery 

2.1 Plain Stamped Envelope 

* * * * * 

2.1.2 Availability 

[Revise 2.1.2 by deleting item b in its 

entirety and incorporating item a into 

the introductory text to read as follows:] 

Plain stamped envelopes are 

available at all Post Offices. Only sizes 

63⁄4 and 10 envelopes are sold in less 

than full box lots (a full box contains 

500 envelopes). 

* * * * * 

2.2 Personalized Stamped Envelopes 

* * * * * 

2.2.6 Optional Information 

The following endorsements and 

instructions printed in at least 8-point 

type may be included as part of the 

return address: 

* * * * * 

[Revise item 2.2.6b as follows:] 

a. Any sender instruction that 

specifies a period for holding mail, not 

fewer than 3 and not more than 30 days. 

The instruction must appear directly 

above the return address. 

* * * * * 

We will publish an appropriate 

amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect 

these changes. 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Chief Counsel, Legislative. 

[FR Doc. 2011–1702 Filed 1–26–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R05–RCRA–2010–0843; SW–FRL– 

9259–1] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identifying and Listing 

Hazardous Waste Exclusion 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ‘‘the Agency’’ 

or ‘‘we’’ in this preamble) is granting a 

petition submitted by Owosso Graphic 

Arts Inc. (OGAI), in Owosso, Michigan 

to exclude (or ‘‘delist’’) up to 244 cubic 

yards of wastewater treatment sludge 

per year from the list of hazardous 

wastes. 

The Agency has decided to grant the 

petition based on an evaluation of 

waste-specific information provided by 

OGAI and a consideration of public 

comments received. This action 

conditionally excludes the petitioned 

waste from the requirements of 

hazardous waste regulations under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA) when disposed of in a 

Subtitle D landfill permitted, licensed, 

or registered by a State to manage 

industrial solid waste. The rule also 

imposes testing conditions for waste 

generated in the future to ensure that 

this waste continues to qualify for 

delisting. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

January 27, 2011. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
4824 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. [EPA–R05–RCRA–2010–0843]. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the Records Center, 7th floor, 

U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This 

facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. We recommend you telephone 

Christopher Lambesis at (312) 886–3583 

before visiting the Region 5 office. The 

public may copy material from the 

regulatory docket at 15 cents per page. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Lambesis, Land and 

Chemicals Division, (Mail Code: LR–8J), 

EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; telephone 

number: (312) 886–3583; fax number: 

(312) 692–2195; e-mail address: 

lambesis.christopher@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information in this section is organized 

as follows: 

I. Background 

A. What is a delisting petition? 

B. What regulations allow a waste to be 

delisted? 

II. OGAI’s Petition 

A. What waste did OGAI petition to delist? 

B. What information was submitted in 

support of this petition? 

III. EPA’s Evaluation and Public Comments 

A. What decision is EPA finalizing and 

why? 

B. Public Comments Received and EPA’s 

Response 

IV. Final Rule 

A. What are the terms of this exclusion? 

B. When is the delisting effective? 

C. How does this action affect the States? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. What is a delisting petition? 

A delisting petition is a request from 

a generator to exclude waste from the 

list of hazardous wastes under RCRA 

regulations. In a delisting petition, the 

petitioner must show that waste 

generated at a particular facility does 

not meet any of the criteria for which 

EPA listed the waste as set forth in 40 

CFR 261.11 and the background 

document for the waste. In addition, a 

petitioner must demonstrate that the 

waste does not exhibit any of the 

hazardous waste characteristics (that is, 

ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and 

toxicity) and must present sufficient 

information for us to decide whether 

factors other than those for which the 

waste was listed warrant retaining it as 

a hazardous waste. See 40 CFR 260.22, 

42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 6921(f) 

and the background documents for a 

listed waste. 

A generator remains obligated under 

RCRA to confirm that its waste remains 

nonhazardous based on the hazardous 

waste characteristics even if EPA has 

‘‘delisted’’ the wastes and to ensure that 

future generated wastes meet the 

conditions set. 

B. What regulations allow a waste to be 

delisted? 

Under 40 CFR 260.20, 260.22, and 42 

U.S.C. 6921(f), facilities may petition 

the EPA to remove their wastes from 

hazardous waste control by excluding 

them from the lists of hazardous wastes 

contained in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32. 

Specifically, 40 CFR 260.20 allows any 

person to petition the Administrator to 

modify or revoke any provision of parts 

260 through 266, 268, and 273 of 40 

CFR. 40 CFR 260.22 provides a 

generator the opportunity to petition the 

Administrator to exclude a waste from 

the lists of hazardous wastes on a 

‘‘generator specific’’ basis. 

II. OGAI’s Petition 

A. What waste did OGAI petition EPA 

to delist? 

In May 2005, OGAI petitioned EPA to 

exclude an annual volume of 244 cubic 

yards of F006 wastewater treatment 

sludges generated at its facility located 

in Owosso, Michigan from the list of 

hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 

261.31. OGAI generates this wastewater 

treatment sludge from spent solutions 

that were used for chemical etching of 

magnesium plates and claims that it 

does not meet the criteria for which 

F006 was listed (i.e., cadmium, 

hexavalent chromium, nickel and 

complexed cyanide) and that there are 

no other factors which would cause the 

waste to be hazardous. 

B. What information was submitted in 

support of this petition? 

OGAI submitted detailed descriptions 

of the process generating the waste 

including Material Safety Data Sheets 

(MSDSs) and other information 

regarding the makeup of materials 

contributing to the sludge. OGAI also 

asserted that its waste does not meet the 

criteria for which F006 waste was listed 

and there are no other factors that might 

cause the waste to be hazardous. 

To support its assertion that the waste 

is not hazardous, OGAI collected 

numerous samples of the waste for 

analysis. Sample collection and 

chemical analysis were conducted in 

accordance with a pre-approved 

sampling plan. The data was validated 

and any deviations from the sampling 

plan were reviewed and documented. 

The data was assessed for its intended 

use and, in some instances, additional 

samples were collected or analysis 

performed to confirm the data were of 

sufficient quality. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation and Public 

Comments 

A. What decision is EPA finalizing and 

why? 

Today the EPA is finalizing an 

exclusion for up to 244 cubic yards of 

wastewater treatment sludge generated 

annually at the OGAI facility in Owosso, 

Michigan. OGAI petitioned EPA to 

exclude, or delist, the wastewater 

treatment sludge because OGAI believed 

that the petitioned waste does not meet 

the criteria for which it was listed and 

that there are no additional constituents 

or factors which could cause the waste 

to be hazardous. Review of this petition 

included consideration of the original 

listing criteria, as well as the additional 

factors required by the Hazardous and 

Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 

(HSWA). See § 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C. 

6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)–(4). 

On November 4, 2010, EPA proposed 

to exclude or delist the wastewater 

treatment sludge generated at OGAI’s 

facility from the list of hazardous wastes 

in 40 CFR 261.31 and accepted public 

comment on the proposed rule (75 FR 

67919). EPA considered all comments 

received, and for reasons stated in both 

the proposal and this document, we 

believe that the wastewater treatment 

sludge from OGAI’s facility should be 

excluded from hazardous waste control. 

B. Public Comments Received and 

EPA’s Response 

EPA received one public comment 

expressing concern over temporal 

variability of the waste and the potential 

for data manipulation. In response, we 

believe OGAI and EPA adequately 

addressed these concerns in the 

preparation of the petition. OGAI 

sampled the waste 15 different times 

over a span of almost six years. All 

samples were collected in accordance 

with an EPA-approved sampling plan or 

under specific approval of Agency 

scientists. EPA and OGAI responded to 

two changes in process chemicals with 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 4825 

additional rounds of sampling and all 

data were scrutinized for adequacy by 

independent validation. Several issues 

with quality assurance were 

documented and corrective measures 

implemented. 

Conservative assumptions were 

applied to the data before use to ensure 

the safety of the waste such as: 

assuming that all chromium present was 

comprised of hexavalent chromium (the 

most toxic form); assuming 100% of a 

hazardous constituent present in the 

waste leached into the hypothetical 

landfill; and including conservative 

quantitation of tentatively identified 

compounds in analysis by mass 

spectoscopy. EPA representatives also 

visited the facility to review the waste 

generating process. Furthermore, OGAI 

remains obligated to periodically 

sample the waste and report changes to 

the process (see below). 

IV. Final Rule 

A. What are the terms of this exclusion? 

OGAI must dispose of this waste in a 

Subtitle D landfill permitted or licensed 

by a state, and will remain obligated to 

verify that the waste meets the 

allowable concentrations set forth here. 

OGAI must also continue to determine 

whether the waste is identified in 

subpart C of 40 CFR pursuant to 

§ 261.11(c). This exclusion applies only 

to a maximum annual volume of 244 

cubic yards and is effective only if all 

conditions contained in this rule are 

satisfied. 

B. When is the delisting effective? 

This rule is effective January 27, 2011. 

The Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 amended section 

3010 of RCRA to allow rules to become 

effective in less than six months when 

the regulated community does not need 

the six-month period to come into 

compliance. This rule reduces rather 

than increases the existing requirements 

and, therefore, is effective immediately 

upon publication under the 

Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. 553(d). 

C. How does this action affect the 

States? 

Today’s exclusion is being issued 

under the federal RCRA delisting 

program. Therefore, only states subject 

to federal RCRA delisting provisions 

would be affected. This exclusion is not 

effective in states that have received 

authorization to make their own 

delisting decisions. Also, the exclusion 

may not be effective in states having a 

dual system that includes federal RCRA 

requirements and their own 

requirements. EPA allows states to 

impose their own regulatory 

requirements that are more stringent 

than EPA’s, under section 3009 of 

RCRA. These more stringent 

requirements may include a provision 

that prohibits a federally issued 

exclusion from taking effect in the state. 

Because a dual system (that is, both 

Federal (RCRA) and State (non-RCRA) 

programs) may regulate a petitioner’s 

waste, we urge petitioners to contact the 

state regulatory authority to establish 

the status of their wastes under the state 

law. If a participating facility transports 

the petitioned waste to or manages the 

waste in any state with delisting 

authorization, it must obtain a delisting 

from that state before it can manage the 

waste as nonhazardous in the state. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is 

not of general applicability and 

therefore is not a regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). This 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it 

applies to a particular facility only. 

Because this rule is of particular 

applicability relating to a particular 

facility, it is not subject to the regulatory 

flexibility provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or 

to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). Because this 

rule will affect only a particular facility, 

it will not significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as specified in 

section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule 

will affect only a particular facility, this 

final rule does not have federalism 

implications. It 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, ‘‘Federalism’’ 

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this rule. 

Similarly, because this rule will affect 

only a particular facility, this final rule 

does not have tribal implications, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175, 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule. This rule also is not subject 

to Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not have reason to believe 

the environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. The 

basis for this belief is that the Agency 

used DRAS, which considers health and 

safety risks to children, to calculate the 

maximum allowable concentrations for 

this rule. 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. This rule does not involve 

technical standards; thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. As required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, 

February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, 

EPA has taken the necessary steps to 

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, 

minimize potential litigation, and 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report which includes a 

copy of the rule to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. Section 804 

exempts from section 801 the following 

types of rules: (1) Rules of particular 

applicability; (2) rules relating to agency 

management or personnel; and (3) rules 

of agency organization, procedure, or 

practice that do not substantially affect 

the rights or obligations of non-agency 

parties (5 U.S.C. 804(3)). EPA is not 

required to submit a rule report 

regarding today’s action under section 

801 because this is a rule of particular 

applicability. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

waste, Recycling, and Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 

6921(f). 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
4826 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Dated: January 19, 2011. 

Bruce F. Sypniewski, 

Acting Director, Land and Chemicals 

Division. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND 

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 261 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 

6922, and 6938. 

■ 2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX of part 

261 the following waste stream is added 

in alphabetical order by facility to read 

as follows: 

Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes 

Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22 

TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description 

* * * * * * * 

Owosso Graphic Arts Inc. .... Owosso, Michigan ............... Wastewater treatment sludges, F006, generated at Owosso Graphic Arts, Inc. 

(OGAI) facility in Owosso, Michigan, at a maximum annual rate of 244 cubic 

yards per year. The sludge must be disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill licensed, 

permitted, or otherwise authorized by a state to accept the delisted wastewater 

treatment sludge. The exclusion becomes effective as of January 27, 2011. 

1. Delisting Levels: (A) The constituent concentrations measured in a leachate extract may not exceed the following concentrations (mg/L): antimony—3.15; arsenic—0.25; cadmium—1; chromium—5; lead—5; and zinc—6,000. (B) Maximum allowable groundwater concentrations (mg/L) are as follows: antimony— 

0.006; arsenic—0.0005; cadmium—0.005; chromium—0.1; lead—0.015; and 

zinc—11.3. 

2. Annual Verification Testing: To verify that the waste does not exceed the specified delisting concentrations, OGAI must collect and analyze one waste sample 

on an annual basis using methods with appropriate detection concentrations 

and elements of quality control. SW–846 Method 1311 must be used for generation of the leachate extract used in the testing of the delisting levels if oil and 

grease comprise less than 1 percent of the waste. SW–846 Method 1330A 

must be used for generation of the leaching extract if oil and grease comprise 1 

percent or more of the waste. SW–846 Method 9071B must be used for determination of oil and grease. SW–846 Methods 1311, 1330A, and 9071B are incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11. A total analysis of the waste (accounting for any filterable liquids and the dilution factor inherent in the TCLP 

method) may be used to estimate the TCLP concentration as provided for in 

section 1.2 of Method 1311. 

3. Changes in Operating Conditions: OGAI must notify the EPA in writing if the 

manufacturing process, the chemicals used in the manufacturing process, the 

treatment process, or the chemicals used in the treatment process significantly 

change. OGAI must handle wastes generated after the process change as hazardous until it has: demonstrated that the wastes continue to meet the delisting 

concentrations in section 1; demonstrated that no new hazardous constituents 

listed in appendix VIII of part 261 have been introduced; and it has received 

written approval from EPA. 

4. Data Submittals: OGAI must submit the data obtained through verification testing or as required by other conditions of this rule to U.S. EPA Region 5, RCRA 

Delisting Program (LR–8J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604. 

The annual verification data and certification of proper disposal must be submitted upon the anniversary of the effective date of this exclusion. OGAI must 

compile, summarize, and maintain on site for a minimum of five years records 

of operating conditions and analytical data. OGAI must make these records 

available for inspection. All data must be accompanied by a signed copy of the 

certification statement in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12). 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 4827 

TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued 

Facility Address Waste description 

5. Reopener Language—(A) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste, OGAI 

possesses or is otherwise made aware of any data (including but not limited to 

leachate data or groundwater monitoring data) relevant to the delisted waste indicating that any constituent is at a concentration in the leachate higher than 

the specified delisting concentration, or is in the groundwater at a concentration 

higher than the maximum allowable groundwater concentration in paragraph (1), 

then OGAI must report such data, in writing, to the Regional Administrator within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that data. (B) Based on 

the information described in paragraph (A) and any other information received 

from any source, the Regional Administrator will make a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires Agency action to protect 

human health or the environment. Further action may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to protect human 

health and the environment. (C) If the Regional Administrator determines that 

the reported information does require Agency action, the Regional Administrator 

will notify OGAI in writing of the actions the Regional Administrator believes are 

necessary to protect human health and the environment. The notice shall include a statement of the proposed action and a statement providing OGAI with 

an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed Agency action is 

not necessary or to suggest an alternative action. OGAI shall have 30 days 

from the date of the Regional Administrator’s notice to present the information. 

(D) If after 30 days OGAI presents no further information or after a review of 

any submitted information, the Regional Administrator will issue a final written 

determination describing the Agency actions that are necessary to protect 

human health or the environment. Any required action described in the Regional 

Administrator’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless the 

Regional Administrator provides otherwise. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–1768 Filed 1–26–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket No. 05–337, CC Docket No. 96– 

45; FCC 10–205] 

High-Cost Universal Service Support 

and Federal-State Joint Board on 

Universal Service 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission takes 

action to reclaim high-cost universal 

service support surrendered by a 

competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier (ETC) when 

it relinquishes ETC status in a particular 

state. This change would reduce the 

overall cap on competitive ETC support 

in a state when a competitive ETC 

relinquishes its designation in the state, 

rather than redistributing the excess 

funding to other competitive ETCs in 

the state. 

DATES: Effective January 27, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kenneth Burnley, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, Telecommunications Access 

Policy Division, (202) 418–7400 or TTY: 

(202) 418–0484. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Order in 

WC Docket No. 05–337, CC Docket No. 

96–45, FCC 10–205, adopted December 

30, 2010, and released December 30, 

2010. The complete text of this 

document is available for inspection 

and copying during normal business 

hours in the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

The document may also be purchased 

from the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 

378–3160 or (202) 863–2893, facsimile 

(202) 863–2898, or via the Internet at 

http://www.bcpiweb.com. It is also 

available on the Commission’s Web site 

at http://www.fcc.gov. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

I. Introduction 

1. In this Order, we take action to 

reclaim high-cost universal service 

support surrendered by a competitive 

eligible telecommunications carrier 

(ETC) when it relinquishes ETC status 

in a particular state. 

II. Discussion 

2. We adopt the proposal to amend 

the interim cap rule (WC Docket No. 05– 

337, CC Docket No. 96–45, 23 FCC Rcd 

8834 (2008)) so that a state’s interim cap 

amount will be adjusted if a competitive 

ETC serving the state relinquishes its 

ETC status. As discussed in the 

September 2010 NPRM, 75 FR 56494, 

September 16, 2010, the goal of the 

Interim Cap Order, 73 FR 37882, July 2, 

2008, is to rein in high-cost universal 

service disbursements for potentially 

duplicative voice services. We find that 

the proposal is consistent with that goal. 

It would reduce the overall cap on 

competitive ETC support in a state 

when a competitive ETC relinquishes its 

designation in the state, rather than 

redistributing the excess funding to 

other competitive ETCs in the state. 

Providing the excess support to other 

competitive ETCs in a state would not 

necessarily result in future deployment 

of expanded voice service, much less 

broadband service. It could simply 

subsidize duplicative voice service. On 

the other hand, reducing the pool of 

support in a state could enable excess 

funds from the legacy high-cost program 

to be used more effectively to advance 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES