Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 18177 

requirements. The Department instead 

believes that a compliance assistance 

approach is more likely to increase 

proper reporting than a revocation 

approach that is counter-intuitive and 

likely to damage compliance assistance 

efforts. 

One public policy organization 

commented that the effects of the 

revocation had been inflated by some 

commenters, and that until the 

Secretary is given the authority to issue 

civil monetary penalties to delinquent 

and deficient filers, the revocation 

procedure should serve as that penalty. 

The commenter went on to state that the 

approach seemed harmless and thus not 

problematic. The Department disagrees 

with this commenter. The purposes for 

which the Secretary may revoke an 

organization’s authorization to file a 

simpler form are the purposes of 

transparency and enhanced disclosure, 

not punishment. As shown above, those 

purposes are not served by imposing a 

requirement that there is no realistic 

expectation that most small labor 

organizations will be able to meet. 

Other commenters listed several 

possibly detrimental consequences of 

the revocation procedure, such as the 

diversion of union officials from 

grievance handling and other core 

business; the resignation of union 

officials; and the merger and imposition 

of trusteeships by international unions. 

The Department believes that the 

January 21 rule did not adequately 

address these comments, as it failed to 

appropriately balance the need for 

transparency with the need to limit 

burden and intrusion upon smaller 

unions. Further, the Department does 

not believe that it can justify revocation 

by merely lessening or playing down the 

acknowledged increased burden 

imposed by the Form LM–2 reporting 

requirements. As a matter of policy, the 

Department does not intend to 

encourage or discourage the 

participation of union members from 

running and serving in union office, nor 

does it otherwise desire to unnecessarily 

interfere in the internal affairs of 

unions. The Department intends to 

implement the LMRDA with as little 

interference as possible, with the 

overarching goal of empowering 

members to govern their unions 

democratically. Compliance assistance 

is a vital aspect of this approach, as are 

audit and enforcement options and both 

are better approaches than a revocation 

procedure that is viewed as punitive to 

Form LM–3 filers. 

IV. Regulatory Procedures 

Executive Order 12866 

This proposed rule has been drafted 

and reviewed in accordance with 

Executive Order 12866, section 1(b), 

Principles of Regulation. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires 

agencies to prepare regulatory flexibility 

analyses, and to develop alternatives 

wherever possible, in drafting 

regulations that will have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The Department does not 

believe that this proposed rule will have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, as 

the rule contains no collection of 

information and relieves the additional 

burden imposed upon labor 

organizations through the rescission of 

the regulations published on January 21, 

2009. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility 

analysis under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act is not required. The 

Secretary has certified this conclusion 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform 

This proposed rule will not include 

any Federal mandate that may result in 

increased expenditures by State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

of $100 million or more, or in increased 

expenditures by the private sector of 

$100 million or more. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains no new 

information collection requirements for 

purposes of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq.). The January 21, 2009 rule would 

increase the burden of reporting under 

OMB No. 1215–0188, if the Department 

determines rescission is inappropriate 

and the January 21, 2009 rule become 

effective. Under the January 21, 2009 

rule the total burden hours per Form 

LM–2 respondent would be increased 

by approximately 60.06 hours, and the 

total burden hours will be increased by 

274,539. The average cost per Form 

LM–2 respondent would be increased 

by $1,939 and the total cost would be 

increased by $8,863,038. If this 

proposed rule is adopted these increases 

in reporting burden under OMB No. 

1215–0188 will not occur. The 

Department will seek OMB approval of 

any revisions of the existing information 

collection requirements, in accordance 

with the PRA. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

This proposed rule is not a major rule 

as defined by section 804 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not 

result in an annual effect on the 

economy of $100,000,000 or more; a 

major increase in costs or prices; or 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of the United States-based 

companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and 

export markets. 

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 403 

Labor unions, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Text of Proposed Rule 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated 

herein, the Secretary proposes to 

withdraw the rule published on January 

21, 2009 (74 FR 3677) and retain the text 

of the regulations prior to that date. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 16th day of 

April 2009. 

Shelby Hallmark, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment 

Standards. 

Andrew D. Auerbach, 

Deputy Director, Office of Labor-Management 

Standards. 

[FR Doc. E9–9175 Filed 4–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2007–1045; FRL–8893–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Minnesota 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a site-specific revision to the Minnesota 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 

Olmsted Waste to Energy Facility 

(OWEF), located in Rochester, Olmsted 

County, Minnesota. In its September 28, 

2007, submittal, the Minnesota 

Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) 

requested that EPA approve certain 

conditions contained in OWEF’s revised 

Federally enforceable Title V operating 

permit into the Minnesota SO2 SIP. The 

request is approvable because it satisfies 


tjames on PRODPC75 with PROPOSALS
18178 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(Act). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 21, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2007–1045, by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 886–5824. 

4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, 

Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, 

Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christos Panos, Environmental 

Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8328, 

panos.christos@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Rules section of this Federal Register, 

EPA is approving the State’s SIP 

submittal as a direct final rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the Rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: March 30, 2009. 

Walter W Kovalick Jr., 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. E9–9043 Filed 4–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 300 

[Docket No. 080630798–9258–01] 

RIN 0648–AW92 

Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Limited 

Access for Guided Sport Charter 

Vessels in Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations 

that would implement a limited access 

system for charter vessels in the guided 

sport fishery for Pacific halibut in 

waters of International Pacific Halibut 

Commission (IPHC) Regulatory Areas 2C 

(Southeast Alaska) and 3A (Central Gulf 

of Alaska). If approved, this limited 

access system would limit the number 

of charter vessels that may participate in 

the guided sport fishery for halibut in 

these areas. NMFS would issue a charter 

halibut permit to a licensed charter 

fishing business owner based on his or 

her past participation in the charter 

halibut fishery for halibut and to a 

Community Quota Entity representing 

specific rural communities. All charter 

halibut permit holders would be subject 

to limits on the number of permits they 

could hold and on the number of charter 

vessel anglers who could catch and 

retain halibut on their charter vessels. 

This action is necessary to achieve the 

halibut fishery management goals of the 

North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council. The intended effect is to curtail 

growth of fishing capacity in the guided 

sport fishery for halibut. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by June 5, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue 

Salveson, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: 

Ellen Sebastian. You may submit 

comments identified by 0648–AW92 by 

any one of the following methods: 

• Electronic submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal website at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

• Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802–1668. 

• Fax: 907–586–7557. 

• Hand delivery: 709 West 9th Street, 

Room 420A, Juneau, AK. 

All comments received are part of the 

public record and will be posted to 

http://www.regulations.gov without 

change. All personal identifying 

information (such as name, address, 

etc.) voluntarily submitted by the 

commenter may be publicly accessible. 

Do not submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments (enter N/A in the required 

fields, if you wish to remain 

anonymous). You may submit 

attachments to electronic comments in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or 

Adobe PDF file format only. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection–of–information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule may be submitted to NMFS at the 

above address and by e–mail to 

DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov or fax to 

202–395–7285. 

Copies of the Environmental 

Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/ 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

prepared for this action may be obtained 

from the Alaska Region, NMFS at the 

address above or from the Alaska Region 

website at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay 

Ginter, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The IPHC 

and NMFS manage fishing for Pacific 

halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) 

through regulations established under 

authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut 

Act of 1982 (Halibut Act). The IPHC 

promulgates regulations governing the 

Pacific halibut fishery under the 

Convention between the United States 

and Canada for the Preservation of the 

Halibut Fishery of the North Pacific 

Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention), 

signed at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 2, 

1953, as amended by a Protocol 

Amending the Convention (signed at 

Washington, D.C., on March 29, 1979). 

Regulations developed by the IPHC are 

subject to approval by the Secretary of 


tjames on PRODPC75 with PROPOSALS