        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0749; FRL-9974-59—Region 10]
        Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Alaska; Regional Haze Progress Report

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Alaska Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the State of Alaska on March 10, 2016. Alaska submitted its Regional Haze Progress Report (“progress report” or “report”) and a negative declaration stating that further revision of the existing regional haze SIP is not needed at this time. Alaska submitted both the progress report and the negative declaration in the form of implementation plan revisions as required by federal regulations. The progress report addresses the federal Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to submit a report describing progress in achieving reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing plan addressing regional haze. We are also proposing to approve minor updates to the Enhanced Smoke Management Plan, Long-Term Strategy, and Commitment to Future 308 Plan Revision sections of the regional haze SIP, submitted concurrently with the progress report.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before March 19, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0749 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Jeff Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency—Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206) 553-0256, email address: hunt.jeff@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
        I. Background
        Alaska submitted its initial regional haze SIP to the EPA on March 29, 2011, for the first regional haze planning period ending in 2018, which the EPA approved on February 14, 2013.1
           Five years after submittal of the initial regional haze plan, states are required to submit progress reports that evaluate progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area 2
           (Class I area) within the state and in each Class I area outside the state which may be affected by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). States are also required to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze plan. 40 CFR 51.308(h). On March 10, 2016, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) submitted as a SIP revision a report on the progress made in the first implementation period towards the RPGs for Class I areas. EPA is proposing to approve Alaska's progress report on the basis that it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. We also propose to find that Alaska's progress report demonstrates that the state's long-term strategy and emission control measures in the existing regional haze SIP are sufficient to enable Alaska to meet all established RPGs for 2018.

            1 See 78 FR 10546.

            2 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)). Listed at 40 CFR part 81 subpart D.

        II. Context for Understanding Alaska's Progress Report
        To facilitate a better understanding of Alaska's progress report as well as the EPA's evaluation of it, this section provides background on the regional haze program in Alaska.
        A. Framework for Measuring Progress

        The EPA has established a metric for determining visibility conditions at Class I areas referred to as the “deciview index,” which is measured in deciviews, as defined in 40 CFR 51.301. The deciview index is calculated using monitoring data collected from the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network monitors. Alaska has four Class I areas within its borders: Denali National Park and Preserve, Tuxedni National Wildlife Refuge, Simeonof Wilderness Area, and the Bering Sea Wilderness Area. In developing its initial regional haze SIP, Alaska determined, and the EPA in its approval agreed, that due to lack of proximity to other states, visibility in Alaska's Class I areas is not affected by emission sources in other states. Likewise, Alaska determined, and the EPA agreed, that emission sources in Alaska do not affect visibility in Class I areas in other states. Therefore, Alaska's progress report does not address visibility impacts from sources in other states or the visibility impact of Alaska sources on Class I areas in other states.
        Under the RHR, a state's initial regional haze SIP must establish two RPGs for each of its Class I areas: One for the 20 percent least impaired days and one for the 20 percent most impaired days. The RPGs must provide for an improvement in visibility on the 20 percent most impaired days and ensure no degradation in visibility on the 20 percent least impaired days, as compared to visibility conditions during the baseline period. In establishing the RPGs, a state must consider the uniform rate of visibility improvement from the baseline to natural conditions in 2064 and the emission reductions measures needed to achieve it. Alaska set the RPGs for the Denali, Tuxedni, and Simeonof Class I areas. In setting the RPGs for these three Class I areas, Alaska used atmospheric air quality modeling based on projected emission reductions from control strategies in Alaska's regional haze SIP, as well as emission reductions expected to result from other federal, state and local air quality programs.
        Alaska's fourth Class I area, the Bering Sea Wilderness Area, is extremely remote, with no IMPROVE monitoring site. Therefore, no RPG was established for this area in Alaska's regional haze SIP, and Alaska's progress report does not address visibility progress in this area.3

            3 As explained in the EPA's proposed rule to approve Alaska's RH SIP on February 24, 2012, the Bering Sea Wilderness Area is 350 miles southwest of Nome, Alaska and dominated by a harsh environment. There is no electricity in the Wilderness Area and the nearest major stationary sources are located hundreds of miles away. Accordingly, establishing and maintaining an IMPROVE monitoring site in the area is unnecessary and impractical. 77 FR 11022, 11028.

        B. Data Sources for Alaska's Progress Report
        Alaska relied on the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) technical data and analyses in a report titled “Western Regional Air Partnership Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Summary Report” (WRAP Report), dated June 28, 2013, included as an appendix in the progress report. The WRAP Report analyzes monitoring data collected in Alaska during the 2005-2009 period, and relies on emission data reported to the EPA's National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for 2008. Alaska then supplemented the information in the WRAP report with more current 2009-2013 visibility data for its Class I areas as part of the progress report adopted by the state in 2015.
        III. The EPA's Evaluation of Alaska's Progress Report
        This section describes the contents of Alaska's progress report and the EPA's evaluation of the report, as well as the EPA's evaluation of the determination of adequacy required by 40 CFR 51.308(h) and the requirement for state and Federal Land Manager coordination in 40 CFR 51.308(i).
        A. Status of Implementation of All Measures Included in the Regional Haze SIP
        In its progress report, Alaska provides a description of the control measures in the state's regional haze SIP that the state relied on to implement the regional haze program. According to the progress report, Alaska relied in its regional haze SIP upon, among other things, Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) controls, its Prevention of Significant Deterioration/New Source Review permitting program, and its smoke management programs for agricultural and forestry burning to achieve the reasonable progress goals it established for its Class I areas. Alaska included a description of these programs in the progress report, which are summarized below.
        1. BART-Level Controls

        Alaska's regional haze SIP imposed BART-level controls on one source, the Golden Valley Electric Association's (GVEA) Healy Power Plant, Unit 1. The Healy Power Plant consists of two power generating units. Unit 1 is a nominal 25 megawatt (MW) coal-fired electric generating unit. The EPA approved the state's BART determination for this unit when we approved the Alaska regional haze SIP. Alaska determined that BART for Unit 1 included installation of Selective Non Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions. Accordingly, GVEA installed SNCR on Unit 1 in August of 2016. Unit 2, also referred to as the Healy Clean Coal Project, is a nominal 50 MW coal-fired electric generating unit not subject to BART.4
           At the time of Alaska's regional haze SIP submittal, Unit 2 had not operated since test runs were completed in the late 1990's. GVEA started burning coal at Unit 2 in August 2015; however, Unit 2 ceased operation due to operational problems in March 2016 and then again a few days after a startup attempt in November 2016.

            4 78 FR 10546, February 14, 2013.

        On November 19, 2012, the United States and GVEA entered into a consent decree that specifies conditions on Unit 1 and Unit 2 at the Healy Power Plant, separate from the BART-level controls required by Alaska's regional haze SIP.5

           In particular, by December 31, 2022, GVEA must elect to either permanently retire Unit 1 by December 31, 2024, or install Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) on that unit to further reduce NOX emissions and begin operation of SCR by no later than December 31, 2024. In addition, the November 19, 2012, decree required GVEA to install SCR on Unit 2 by the later of September 30, 2015, or 24 months after it first fires coal, and to comply with specified emission limits. On August 8, 2017, the United States and GVEA filed amendments to the Consent Decree that require GVEA to install SCR on Unit 2 no later than 120 unit operating days after restart.6
           In its progress report, Alaska provided an assessment of, among other things, the emissions limits that will be achieved through installation of SCR on Unit 2 once it becomes operational.7

            5 United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. and Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, Civ. No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB (D. Alaska).

            6 United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc., Civ. No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB (D. Alaska).

            7 Appendix III.K10-38, Comment Section C2.d.

        2. Major New Source Review (NSR)/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
        Alaska's progress report states that a key regulatory program for addressing visibility impairment from new or modified industrial stationary sources is the state's Major New Source Review (NSR)/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) rule. According to Alaska, this rule protects visibility in Class I areas from impacts from new or modified major stationary sources. Alaska's regulations (18 AAC 50 Article 3) and the Alaska SIP require visibility impact assessments and mitigation of emissions from new and modified major stationary sources through protection of air quality related values (AQRVs). AQRVs are scenic and environmentally related values that may be adversely affected by a change in air quality, including visibility, odor, noise, vegetation, and soils. These visibility requirements were approved by the EPA into the Alaska SIP in 1983.
        3. Smoke Management

        In its regional haze SIP, Alaska predicted that implementation of more effective smoke management techniques in its Enhanced Smoke Management Plan (ESMP) would mitigate impacts of planned prescribed burning on visibility in its Class I areas. ADEC developed and implemented an ESMP, and included this ESMP as part of the long-term strategy approved as part of the initial 2011 regional haze SIP. According to the progress report, Alaska continues to implement the ESMP to reduce the impact of prescribed burns on air quality. The progress report contains an assessment of the emissions reduced as a result of prescribed fires. Alaska concludes in the progress report that prescribed fires have reduced the emissions from the area burned to close to half of what they would have been if they had burned during a wildfire.
        Additionally, On June 3, 2015, the Alaska Wildfire Coordinating Group approved a routine 5-year update to the Alaska ESMP, which ADEC submitted as a SIP revision along with the progress report. The 2015 revisions to the ESMP were generally minor in nature, such as updating the summary text to note the EPA's approval of the initial regional haze SIP and availability of additional electronic tools for submitting controlled burn applications developed since the original ESMP. The most substantive change to the ESMP was an update of Chapter 6.2 “Public Notification and Exposure Reduction” to reflect changes to Alaska's air quality episode and advisory regulations, which the EPA approved in a separate action on September 8, 2017 (82 FR 42457).
        Alaska also submitted a minor update to the long-term strategy, with two sentences edited to reflect adoption of the revised ESMP in 2015. The EPA is proposing to approve this set of minor revisions to the SIP.
        B. Summary of Visibility Conditions
        In addition to the evaluation of control measures, Alaska documented in the progress report the differences between the visibility conditions during the baseline period (2000-2004), the first progress period (2005-2009), and the most current five year averaging period (2009-2013) available at the time Alaska adopted the progress report in 2015. As part of our review, the EPA supplemented this information with current 2012-2016 data, as shown in Table 1.8

            8 See “visibility data trends” included in the docket.

          Table 1—Alaska Class I Area Visibility Conditions on the 20% Most and Least Impaired Days

            Class I area
            Baseline(2002-2004) (dv) 9

            First progress period(2005-2009) (dv)

            Progressreport update
              (2009-2013) (dv)

            Most recent data(2012-2016) (dv)

            2018Reasonable
              progress goal
              (dv)

            Naturalconditions
              (dv)

            20% Most Impaired Days:

            Denali Headquarters
            9.9
            10.6
            10.2
            9.2
            9.3
            7.3

            Trapper Creek (Denali)
            11.6
            11.9
            10.7
            10.0
            10.9
            8.4

            Tuxedni
            14.1
            13.5
            12.2
            * 12.4
            13.4
            11.3

            Simeonof
            18.6
            18.5
            17.7
            17.0
            17.9
            15.6

            20% Least Impaired Days:

            Denali Headquarters
            2.4
            2.4
            2.5
            2.3
            2.4
            1.77

            Trapper Creek (Denali)
            3.5
            3.9
            3.8
            3.4
            3.5
            2.71

            Tuxedni
            4.0
            4.1
            3.9
            * 3.8
            4.0
            3.15

            Simeonof
            7.6
            8.0
            7.9
            7.5
            7.6
            5.28

          * 2015-16 data not available, see discussion below.

        Alaska's concluded that for the 20% most impaired days, five-year average visibility remained about the same at the Simeonof and Tuxedni sites for the first progress period (2005-2009) compared to baseline conditions, but improved for the 2009-2013 averaging period. At the Denali Headquarters site, the visibility decreased during the first progress period compared to the baseline period, but showed an improvement in visibility for the 2009-2013 period. This improvement continued in the 2012-2016 period with the Denali Headquarters site now meeting the 2018 RPG. The Trapper Creek site showed a small visibility decrease during the first progress period compared to baseline conditions, but a visibility improvement during the 2009-2013 and 2012-2016 periods. Overall, visibility conditions for Denali Headquarters, Trapper Creek, Simeonof, and Tuxedni are all meeting 2018 RPGs for the 20% most impaired days based on 2012-2016 data. Regarding the visibility conditions on the 20% least impaired days, the WRAP performed a statistical trends analysis for the period 2002-2009, with only the 2005-2009 Trapper Creek monitoring data showing a statistically significant increase from the baseline.10
           The most current 2012-2016 data shows all monitors meeting the 2018 RPGs for the 20% least impaired days.

            9 For several Alaska Class I area sites, monitoring began in late 2001; therefore, only three complete years of monitoring data, 2002-2004, define their baselines. See page III.K.4-2 of the 2011 regional haze SIP.

            10 Using an 85% confidence interval. Please see the WRAP supporting documentation included as Appendix D of the progress report for a full site by site analysis.

        Regarding visibility monitoring, Alaska intends to continue relying on the IMPROVE network sites that represent the state's Class I areas for complying with the monitoring requirement in the RHR. As described in the progress report, the Tuxedni monitor discontinued operation in December 2014, when the property owner and site operator notified the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that he would no longer be able to service the site. The progress report also noted efforts by the U.S. National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to establish a new site across the Cook Inlet, which they succeeded in doing roughly 3 miles south of the community of Ninilchik.11
           EPA finds that Alaska has adequately reviewed its visibility monitoring strategy, and proposes to determine that the strategy meets the regulatory requirements and that no modifications to the monitoring strategy are needed at this time.

            11 See 2016 Air Quality Monitoring Plan, included in the docket for this action.

        C. Summary of Emissions Reductions

        Alaska's progress report summarizes the emissions reductions attributable to anthropogenic sources and attributable to managing wildfire emissions. Regarding anthropogenic sources, the progress report summarizes reductions in sulfur dioxide (SO2), NOX, and PM2.5 emissions from implementation of the measures discussed above, as well as other emission reduction programs. Statewide anthropogenic NOX and SO2 emissions showed a downward trend between 2008 and 2013. These reductions, according to the progress report, are primarily attributable to (1) replacement of electric generating units, and (2) federal motor vehicle requirements.

        Regarding the replacement of electric generating units, Alaska concludes that some of the reductions in NOX and SO2 point source emissions during the 2009-2013 period and beyond resulted from electricity generation sources installing cleaner generation units. Over the last several years, power plant owners and operators in south central Alaska have brought new generation facilities online and are reducing their use of older, more polluting equipment; typically, these older units have become reserves. Specifically, Alaska described three recent, significant changes made to the electricity generation sector in south central Alaska:
        • Anchorage Municipal Light and Power's George Sullivan Plant Two's unit 1, a gas turbine generator rated for 480 million British thermal units (BTU)/hour, was put into limited operation as a reserve unit, resulting in reduced emissions from this unit.
        • Chugach Electric Association's Beluga plant's units 3 and 5, both rated for 940 million BTU/hour, were put on reserve status, resulting in reduced emissions from these units.
        • In 2014, Alaska Electricity and Energy Cooperative's Nikiski plant added a steamer unit to improve efficiency, reducing overall fuel requirements within the grid and thus reducing emissions from this plant.
        Overall, Alaska concluded that NOX emissions show a downward trend for the 2009-2013 period, from 43,896 to 41,930 tons per year. Similarly, the SO2 annual emissions generally decreased with the exception of 2009, when emissions were noticeably higher. Alaska concluded that the SO2 increase during 2009 was primarily driven by operational changes at the North Pole Power Plant. The quantity of fuel combusted at this one power plant dropped by almost half from 2009 to 2010. Alaska also determined that over the same period, statewide PM10 emissions increased from 1,002 to 1,115 tons per year.
        In addition, the progress report includes a discussion of control measures to attain and maintain the particulate matter national ambient air quality standards, such as wood smoke reduction programs for Eagle River, the Mendenhall Valley, and the Fairbanks North Star Borough. Current control measures in Fairbanks include an opacity limit and mandatory curtailment program for solid-fuel fired heating devices, emission standards for new wood-fired heating devices installed in the area, a requirement to burn only dry wood in wood heaters, a woodstove changeout program, a prohibition on open burning, and public education, among other requirements. Alaska noted in its progress report that these control measures could potentially reduce overall area source emissions inventories in the future.

        In addition to reductions of emissions from anthropogenic sources, the progress report describes emissions reductions attributable to wildfire management. Specifically, the report states that in recent years, prescribed fires have reduced the emissions from the area burned by close to half of what they would have been if they had burned during a wildfire. According to the progress report, over the period of 2007 to 2013, hundreds of tons of PM2.5 emissions were averted by using prescribed burning to prevent wildfires.
        The progress report also contains an analysis tracking the change in statewide emissions between 2002 and 2008. The 2002 inventory was used in the development of the original Alaska regional haze SIP. At the time Alaska prepared the progress report, the 2008 inventory was the most recent year that complete emission inventories were available for the state. Alaska notes that the differences between the 2002 and 2008 inventories for some source categories do not accurately reflect a change in emissions, as a number of methodology changes and enhancements have occurred between the developments of the individual inventories, as described in more detail below. Summaries from the progress report are included in Tables 2 and 3. A more detailed description of each inventory is provided in section 3.2.1 of Appendix A to the progress report.

          Table 2—Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides, and Ammonia Emissions
          [Tons/year]

            SO2

            2002
            2008
            NOX

            2002
            2008
            Ammonia
            2002
            2008

            Point
            6,813
            5,039
            74,471
            68,564
            580
            178

            Area
            1,872
            3,365
            14,742
            19,404
            0
            356

            On-Road Mobile
            324
            490
            7,077
            15,696
            307
            230

            Off-Road Mobile
            49
            395
            4,111
            3,387
            8
            7

            Aviation
            335
            (*)
            3,265
            (*)
            6
            (*)

            Commercial Marine
            4,979
            5,180
            11,258
            24,370
            5
            11

            Total Anthropogenic
            * 14,037
            * 14,469
            * 111,659
            * 131,421
            * 900
            * 782

            Fire
            34,304
            4,482
            125,110
            16,344
            26,233
            3,417

            Total
            * 48,341
            * 18,951
            * 236,769
            * 147,765
            * 27,133
            * 4,199

          * Sums and differences do not include aviation emissions, as 2008 inventory totals were not available from this source for comparison purposes.

          Table 3—Volatile Organic Compound, Fine Soil, and Coarse Mass Emissions
          [Tons/year]

            VOC
            2002
            2008
            Fine soil
            2002
            2008
            Coarse mass
            2002
            2008

            Point
            5,697
            4,582
            1,237
            563
            4,696
            2,392

            Area
            128,271
            10,890
            30,636
            2,289
            76,349
            121

            On-Road Mobile
            7,173
            6,740
            158
            1,194
            46
            164

            Off-Road Mobile
            7,585
            19,094
            392
            670
            24
            46

            Aviation
            1,566
            (*)
            667
            (*)
            20
            (*)

            Commercial Marine
            356
            609
            643
            1,114
            32
            64

            Total Anthropogenic
            * 149,082
            * 41,915
            * 33,066
            * 5,830
            * 81,147
            * 2,787

            Fire
            274,436
            35,761
            478,057
            63,330
            79,346
            10,495

            Total
            * 423,518
            * 77,676
            * 511,123
            * 69,160
            * 160,493
            * 13,282

          * Sums and differences do not include aviation emissions, as 2008 inventory totals were not available from this source for comparison purposes.

        Regarding emissions inventories, Alaska made the following observations:
        • Fire emission inventory estimates decreased. Note that these differences are not necessarily reflective of changes in monitored data, as the five-year baseline period is represented by a 2000-2004 average of fire emissions developed by the WRAP, and the five-year progress period is represented by fires that occurred in 2008.
        • Point source inventories showed decreases for all species.
        • Area source inventories showed increases in SO2 and NOX, but large decreases in volatile organic compounds (VOCs), fine soil, and coarse mass.

        • On-road mobile source inventory comparisons showed increases in SO2, NOX, fine soil, and coarse mass, but a decrease in VOCs. Off-road mobile source inventories showed decreases in NOX, but increases in VOCs. (See section 6.1.2 of Appendix C.)
        • Commercial marine sources showed large increases in NOX inventories, and only small changes in other parameters. Alaska attributed this increase, at least in part, to different emission inventory methodologies.
        Alaska also notes that during high fire years, emissions from wildland fires can make up a significant portion of the state's overall emissions for some pollutants. Further, wildfire activity varies greatly from year to year, and unlike other emission sources, the locations vary from year to year. Alaska also notes that one contributing source of anthropogenic emissions not included in the emissions inventory is international anthropogenic emissions. According to the progress report, Alaska receives a significant amount of globally transported pollution, particularly from Asia and Russia. Continued industrial growth in these areas is likely to increase emissions of pollutants that contribute to regional haze in Alaska, although the extent of this contribution to haze in Alaska has not been determined due to lack of accurate international emission inventories.
        D. Determination of Adequacy (40 CFR 51.308(h))
        In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), “If the state determines [at the time the five-year progress report is submitted] that the existing implementation plan requires no further substantive revision at this time in order to achieve established goals for visibility improvement and emissions reductions, the state must provide to the Administrator a negative declaration that further revision of the existing implementation plan is not needed at this time.” Within the progress report, the State of Alaska provided a negative declaration stating that further revision of the existing implementation plan is not needed. The basis for the state's negative declaration is the finding that visibility on the 20% most impaired days has improved, and 2018 RPGs attained, at all Alaska IMPROVE monitors, except for the Denali Headquarters monitor, which shows a slight decrease in visibility for the current period compared to the baseline due to smoke from wildfires in Alaska in 2009.
        Accordingly, the EPA proposes to find that Alaska adequately addressed the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(h) in its determination that the existing Alaska regional haze SIP requires no substantive revisions at this time to achieve the established RPGs for Alaska Class I areas. We note in particular that, based on the visibility conditions for the most recent five-year period (2012-2016), Alaska is meeting 2018 RPGs at all Alaska IMPROVE monitors.
        E. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (40 CFR 51.308(i))
        In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i), the state must provide the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) with an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to holding any public hearings on an implementation plan (or plan revision). The state must also include a description of how it addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. The State of Alaska provided an opportunity for FLM consultation at least 60 days prior to holding any public hearing on a draft progress report. This progress report was submitted to the FLMs on April 27, 2015, for review and comment. Comments were received from the FLMs on June 30, 2015. The FLM comments and state responses are presented in the progress report. In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), Alaska's progress report reaffirms the state' commitment to the regional haze SIP procedures for continuing consultation between the State of Alaska and FLMs on, among other things, the implementation of Alaska's regional haze SIP.
        The EPA proposes to find that Alaska has addressed the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(i) to provide the FLMs with an opportunity for consultation in person and at least 60 days prior to a public hearing on the progress report, included a description of how it addressed any comments from the FLMs, and provided a commitment for continuing consultation between the state and the FLMs. FLM comments and ADEC responses are provided in section E of the progress report.
        IV. Additional Revision to the Regional Haze SIP To Reflect Adoption of Progress Report

        Concurrent with the progress report, Alaska submitted an update to the “Commitment to Future 308 Plan Revisions” chapter of the regional haze SIP. The revision notes the adoption and submission of the progress report. The EPA is proposing to approve this revision to the regional haze SIP.
        V. The EPA's Proposed Action
        The EPA is proposing to approve the Alaska Regional Haze Progress Report submitted to the EPA on March 10, 2016, as meeting the applicable requirements of the CAA and RHR, as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g). The EPA proposes to find that the existing regional haze SIP is adequate to meet the state's visibility goals and requires no substantive revision at this time, as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(h). We propose to find that Alaska fulfilled the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(i) regarding state coordination with FLMs. Lastly, we propose to approve updates to the Enhanced Smoke Management Plan, Long-Term Strategy, and Commitment to Future 308 Plan Revision sections of the regional haze SIP, submitted concurrently with the Alaska Regional Haze Progress Report.
        VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations.12
           Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements, and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

            12 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).

        • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
        • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because actions such as SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

        • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

        • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
        • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
        • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
        • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
        • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
        • Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and
        • Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
        In addition, this proposed action does not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility, and Volatile organic compounds.

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

          Dated: February 7, 2018.
          Chris Hladick,
          Regional Administrator, Region 10.

      [FR Doc. 2018-03269 Filed 2-15-18; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 7
        [EPA-HQ-OA-2004-0002; FRL-9159-1]
        RIN 2090-AA37
        Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Age in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Assistance From the Environmental Protection Agency

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is proposing to take action on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Age in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Assistance from the Environmental Protection Agency. This document sets out EPA rules for implementing the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended. The Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving Federal assistance.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before August 3, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2004-0002, by mail to OEI Docket, U.S. EPA, Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460. Comments can also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Tom Walker, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Civil Rights, (Mail Code 1201A), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 343-9894.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Why is EPA Issuing This Proposed Rule?

        This document proposes to take action on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Age in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Assistance from the Environmental Protection Agency. We have published a direct final rule approving regulations for implementing the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving Federal assistance in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule.
        If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.

        We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information, please see the information provided in the ADDRESSES section of this document.
        I. General Information

        These regulations implement provisions of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended. The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, 42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq., (The Act) prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving Federal assistance. The Act applies to persons of all ages. The Act also contains specific exceptions that permit the use of certain age distinctions and factors other than age that meet the Act's requirements. The Act however, does not cover employment discrimination on the basis of age. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. 621 et. seq., (ADEA) applies specifically to employment practices and programs, both in the public and private sectors, and applies only to persons 40 and over. Complaints of employment discrimination based on age against an individual by recipients of federal financial assistance are subject to the ADEA and should be filed administratively with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (see 29 CFR part 1626). The EEOC has recently published in the Federal Register a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) under the authority of the ADEA (see 75 FR 7212 (Feb. 18, 2010)). EEOC's NPRM defines the term “reasonable factors other than age” (RFOA) under the ADEA, a term that is also used in the Age Discrimination Act and in the subject regulation. Because of the different statutory bases for the two regulations, the use of the term RFOA in EPA's regulation implementing the Age Discrimination Act has no effect on EEOC's regulation under the ADEA and the use of the term RFOA in EEOC's regulation has no effect on EPA's regulation. Nonetheless, EPA would accept comments about any potential impact of EEOC's definition on EPA's regulation. Parties interested in the ADEA action should refer to the Federal Register; 75 FR 7212 (Feb. 18, 2010).

        The Act required the former Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) to issue general, government-wide regulations setting standards to be followed by all Federal agencies implementing the Act. These government-wide regulations, which were issued on June 12, 1979, (45 CFR part 90; 44 FR 33768) and became effective on July 1, 1979, required each Federal agency providing assistance to any program or activity to publish final regulations implementing the Act, and to submit final agency regulations to HEW (now the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)), before publication in the Federal Register. (See 45 CFR 90.31.) The Act became effective on the effective date of HEW's final government-wide regulations (i.e., July 1, 1979). The Act was amended by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, Public Law 100-259, 102 Stat. 28, to add a definition for the term “program or activity.”
        The Age discrimination regulations apply to all applicants for, and recipients of, EPA assistance in the operation of their programs or activities, and only establish and enforce statutory rights that prohibit discrimination on the basis of age. These regulations do not apply to any program or activity unless that program or activity applies for and/or receives Federal assistance from the Agency.
        EPA's Age discrimination regulations which implement the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, will amend the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 7) by adding Age as a protected classification to the Agency's nondiscrimination regulations. Currently, the Agency's nondiscrimination regulations prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex (gender), or disability in any program or activity receiving EPA assistance. The Age Discrimination regulations will become the new Part 7 Subpart F—Discrimination Prohibited on the Basis of Age.
        The regulation states, “No person in the United States may, on the basis of age, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving EPA assistance.” (40 CFR 7.140) The specific prohibited actions are patterned after the regulations issued under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (40 CFR 7.30). As a general rule, separate or different treatment which denies or limits services from, or participation in, a program receiving Federal funds will be prohibited by these regulations.
        The Act does include some exceptions to the general rule against age discrimination. The regulations provide definitions for two terms “normal operations” and “statutory objective” (40 CFR 7.25) that provide the framework for which the exceptions can apply. (40 CFR 7.150) For example, the normal operations and objectives of our public schools are to educate our nation's children. Public schools, for instance, have received federal environmental grants, to establish ecology clubs or educate students on water restoration and beach ecology. These school programs are just a few examples of recipients operating under normal conditions and meeting their objectives while receiving federal assistance targeted at a specific age group, and are therefore, permissible under the Act.

        Recipients of EPA funds are also permitted to take an action otherwise prohibited by the Act, if the action is based on “reasonable factors other than age.” (40 CFR 7.155) For example, children may be more vulnerable to environmental exposures (i.e. lead poisoning) than adults because their bodily systems are still developing. Providing grants to recipients to research these specific exposure risks in children play an important role in protecting children's health. Even though environmental toxins may also affect adults, it is thought that children are generally more vulnerable to such environmental exposures. Thus, recipients that are solely studying the unique environmental exposure risks to children (targeting a specific age group) are taking actions based on “reasonable factors other than age”, and, such studies are therefore permissible under the Act. As noted above, the use of the term “reasonable factors other than age” in EPA's regulation has no effect on EEOC's RFOA definition under the ADEA and, conversely, the use of the term RFOA by the EEOC has no effect on EPA's regulation.
        In addition, these regulations incorporate the provisions of the general regulations (45 CFR part 90; 44 FR 33768) permitting a recipient of a program to provide special benefits for children and the elderly. (40 CFR 7.165) These special benefits often take the form of special discounts or reduced fees for the elderly or children in a federally funded program.
        II. Rulemaking History

        EPA first proposed regulations implementing the Age Discrimination Act as part of its proposed consolidated nondiscrimination regulations on January 8, 1981 (46 FR 2306-2312). The Age Discrimination Act provisions were not included in the final rule published on January 12, 1984 (49 FR 1656-66), because they had not been approved by HHS as required by the Act. During 1993 through 1998, the regulations were submitted to HHS and went through different revisions in an on-going effort between EPA and HHS. Because of the time lapse since the regulations were initially drafted, in 2002 EPA had conducted an internal re-review of the draft regulations. The draft Age Discrimination Act regulations were then resubmitted to HHS in 2002, which granted its approval later that year. In January 2003, new regulatory development guidelines were issued, which spurred another delay in the publication of EPA's draft Age regulations. Between 2003 and 2004, EPA's internal re-review resulted in various revisions to the draft regulations based on the new regulatory development guidelines. In 2005, EPA resubmitted its final draft Age discrimination regulations to HHS. The revised regulations were subsequently approved by HHS in 2006. EPA is now publishing these regulations as a direct final rule along, with a parallel proposed rule. Any comments submitted during the 1981, public comment period pertaining to the Age provisions of the consolidated nondiscrimination regulations are no longer available for viewing. Comments on the current rule are welcome. If we receive comment on the current rule, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule as mentioned above.
        III. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews
        A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
        Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a “significant regulatory action.” Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
        B. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

        This action does not impose any new information collection burden. EPA Form 4700-4 (Preaward Compliance Review Report for All Applicants Requesting Federal Financial Assistance), which is used to collect compliance information under EPA's nondiscrimination regulations, already requests civil rights compliance information based on age under the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. The current version, which also requests civil rights compliance information based on race, color, national origin, sex, or handicap as well as age, has been in use since January 1990. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations at 40 CFR part 7 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2030-0020. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
        C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
        The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute 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 organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

          For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration in 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
        After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        This proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities because it only formalizes existing requirements for entities receiving assistance from EPA and would not substantively change existing obligations on recipients. The requirements prohibiting age discrimination by recipients of Federal assistance that are in the Age Discrimination Act and the government-wide regulations have been in effect since 1979. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
        D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
        Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
        Today's rule contains no Federal mandates under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector for the following reasons: (1) The UMRA excludes from the definitions of “Federal intergovernmental mandate” and “Federal private sector mandate” duties that arise from conditions of Federal assistance; (2) The UMRA generally excludes from the definition of “Federal intergovernmental mandate” duties that arise from participation in a voluntary Federal program; (3) The UMRA excludes from the definition of “Federal private sector mandate” duties that arise from participation in a voluntary Federal program; and (4) The UMRA does not apply to rules that establish or enforce statutory rights that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or disability. These regulations were mandated by Congress in the Act. These regulations only establish and enforce statutory rights that prohibit discrimination on the basis of age. These regulations do not apply to any program or activity unless that program or activity applies for and receives Federal assistance from the Agency. Application for, and receipt of, Federal assistance from the Agency is entirely voluntary. No program or activity is required to apply for, or accept, Federal assistance from the Agency. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

        EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. These regulations apply uniformly to all recipients of Federal assistance from the Agency, regardless of whether the recipient is a small government. Moreover, the application for, and acceptance of, Federal assistance from the Agency that triggers the applicability of these regulations is entirely voluntary. Furthermore, it has already been determined that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on small entities.
        E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
        Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255), entitled “Federalism,” 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 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.”
        This proposed 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. This rule does not directly impose any obligations on the States and there are no significant compliance costs associated with it. This rule only applies to State and non-State entities that apply for and receive assistance from EPA. When the recipient receives the EPA assistance, they accept the obligation to comply with EPA's Age Discrimination Act implementing regulations. Compliance obligations are, therefore, voluntary and contractual. No entity is required to apply for or accept EPA assistance. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
        In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials.
        F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
        Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249), entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” 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. This rule does not directly impose any obligations on the Tribes and there are no significant compliance costs associated with it. This rule only applies to Tribal and non-Tribal entities that apply for and receive assistance from EPA. When the recipient receives the EPA assistance, it accepts the obligation to comply with EPA's Age Discrimination Act implementing regulations. Compliance obligations are, therefore, voluntary and contractual. No entity is required to apply for or accept EPA assistance. 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 & Safety Risks
        Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885), “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks,” applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
        EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
        H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
        This rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. EPA is proposing to approve rules for implementing the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended. The Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving Federal assistance. Accordingly, we have concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects.
        I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

        Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 n) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
        J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
        Executive Order 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 has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. EPA is proposing to approve rules for implementing the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended. The Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving Federal assistance. This rule does not adversely affect minority or low-income populations therefore, we have concluded that this rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 7

          Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Age discrimination, Civil rights, Equal employment opportunity, Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex discrimination.

          Dated: May 27, 2010.
          Lisa P. Jackson,
          Administrator.

      [FR Doc. 2010-13469 Filed 6-3-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P