Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 56661 

this section and now deleted without 

replacement: R9–3–218 and Appendix 

11. 

* * * * * 

(110) New and amended regulations 

were submitted on July 15, 1998, and 

supplemented on May 16, 2014, by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(3) Arizona Administrative Code, title 

18 (‘‘Environmental Quality’’), chapter 2 

(‘‘Department of Environmental 

Quality—Air Pollution Control’’), supp. 

12–2, June 30, 2012: R18–2–601 

(‘‘General’’); R18–2–604 (‘‘Open Areas, 

Dry Washes, or Riverbeds’’); R18–2–605 

(‘‘Roadways and Streets’’); R18–2–606 

(‘‘Material Handling’’); R18–2–607 

(‘‘Storage Piles’’); and R18–2–614 

(‘‘Evaluation of Nonpoint Source 

Emissions’’); R18–2–706 (‘‘Standards of 

Performance for Existing Nitric Acid 

Plants’’); R18–2–707 (‘‘Standards of 

Performance for Existing Sulfuric Acid 

Plants’’); R18–2–714 (‘‘Standards of 

Performance for Existing Sewage 

Treatment Plants’’); R18–2–723 

(‘‘Standards of Performance for Existing 

Concrete Batch Plants’’); R18–2–726 

(‘‘Standards of Performance for 

Sandblasting Operations’’); and R18–2– 

728 (‘‘Standards of Performance for 

Existing Ammonium Sulfide 

Manufacturing Plants’’). 

* * * * * 

(161) The following plan revision was 

submitted on July 28, 2011, and 

supplemented on May 16, 2014, by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

(1) West’s Arizona Revised Statutes, 

2012–2013 Compact Edition; title 49 

(‘‘Environment’’), chapter 3 (‘‘Air 

Quality’’), article 2 (‘‘State Air Pollution 

Control’’) section 49–426 (‘‘Permits; 

duties of director; exceptions; 

applications; objections; fees’’), 

excluding paragraphs (D), (E)(1), (F), (I), 

(J), and (M). 

(2) Arizona Administrative Code, title 

18 (‘‘Environmental Quality’’), chapter 2 

(‘‘Department of Environmental 

Quality—Air Pollution Control’’), supp. 

09–1, March 31, 2009: R18–2–608 

(‘‘Mineral Tailings’’); R18–2–703 

(‘‘Standards of Performance for Fossilfuel Fired Steam Generators and General 

Fuel-burning Equipment’’); R18–2–704 

(‘‘Standards of Performance for 

Incinerators’’); R18–2–715 (‘‘Standards 

of Performance for Existing Primary 

Copper Smelters; Site-Specific 

Requirements’’), excluding paragraphs 

(A) through (E); R18–2–720 (‘‘Standards 

of Performance for Existing Lime 

Manufacturing Plants’’); R18–2–724 

(‘‘Standards of Performance for Fossilfuel Fired Industrial and Commercial 

Equipment’’); R18–2–729 (‘‘Standards of 

Performance for Cotton Gins’’); and 

R18–2–730 (‘‘Standards of Performance 

for Unclassified Sources’’). 

(3) Arizona Administrative Code, title 

18 (‘‘Environmental Quality’’), chapter 2 

(‘‘Department of Environmental 

Quality—Air Pollution Control’’), supp. 

09–2, June 30, 2009: R18–2–732 

(‘‘Standards of Performance for Existing 

Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste 

Incinerators’’). 

(4) Arizona Administrative Code, title 

18 (‘‘Environmental Quality’’), chapter 2 

(‘‘Department of Environmental 

Quality—Air Pollution Control’’), supp. 

12–2, June 30, 2012: R18–2–204 

(‘‘Carbon Monoxide’’); R18–2–719 

(‘‘Standards of Performance for Existing 

Stationary Rotating Machinery’’); and 

Appendix 2 (‘‘Test Methods and 

Protocols’’). 

(5) Arizona Testing Manual for Air 

Pollutant Emissions, Revision F, March 

1992, excluding sections 2 through 7. 

(162) The following plan revision was 

submitted on October 29, 2012, and 

supplemented on September 6, 2013, by 

the Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality 

(1) West’s Arizona Revised Statutes, 

2012–2013 Compact Edition; title 49 

(‘‘Environment’’), chapter 3 (‘‘Air 

Quality’’), section 49–402 (‘‘State and 

county control’’). 

(2) Arizona Administrative Code, title 

18 (‘‘Environmental Quality’’), chapter 2 

(‘‘Department of Environmental 

Quality—Air Pollution Control’’), supp. 

12–2, June 30, 2012: R18–2–101 

(‘‘Definitions’’), excluding definitions 

(2), (20), (32), (87), (109), and (122); 

R18–2–102 (‘‘Incorporated Materials’’); 

R18–2–201 (‘‘Particulate matter: PM10

and PM2.5’’); R18–2–202 (‘‘Sulfur Oxides 

(Sulfur Dioxide)’’); R18–2–203 (‘‘Ozone: 

One-hour Standard and Eight-hour 

Averaged Standard’’) R18–2–205 

(‘‘Nitrogen Oxides (Nitrogen Dioxide)’’); 

R18–2–206 (‘‘Lead’’); R18–2–210 

(‘‘Attainment, Nonattainment, and 

Unclassifiable Area Designations’’); 

R18–2–215 (‘‘Ambient air quality 

monitoring methods and procedures’’); 

R18–2–216 (‘‘Interpretation of Ambient 

Air Quality Standards and Evaluation of 

Air Quality Data’’); and R18–2–701 

(‘‘Definitions’’). 

[FR Doc. 2014–22480 Filed 9–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

48 CFR Parts 3002, 3007, 3009, 3016, 

3034, 3035, and 3052 

[Docket No. DHS–2009–0006] 

RIN 1601–AA49 

Homeland Security Acquisition 

Regulation; Lead System Integrators 

[HSAR Case 2009–003] 

AGENCY: Office of the Chief Procurement 

Officer, DHS 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule implements 

statutory restrictions on contractors 

acting as lead system integrators in the 

acquisition of DHS major systems, if 

they have direct financial interests in 

the development or construction of the 

system. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective September 23, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nancy Harvey, Senior Procurement 

Analyst, at (202) 447–0956 for 

clarification of content. Please cite 

HSAR Case 2009–003. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

II. Discussion of Comments 

III. Discussion of Final Rule 

IV. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Executive Order 12866 Assessment 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

D. National Environmental Policy Act 

I. Background 

DHS published an interim rule at 75 

FR 41097 on July 15, 2010 to implement 

section 6405 of the U.S. Troop 

Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina 

Recovery, and Iraq Accountability 

Appropriations Act, 2007, Public Law 

110–28, 121 Stat. 112, 176 (2007) 

(codified as 6 U.S.C. 396; hereinafter 

‘‘Section 396’’). Section 396 places 

limits on firms that can serve as lead 

system integrators on DHS acquisitions 

of major systems. Such contractors may 

have no direct financial interest in the 

development or construction of any 

individual system or element of any 

system of systems they would integrate, 

unless one of the exceptions stated in 

the rule has been satisfied. 

This final rule adopts the interim rule 

with minor changes to the authorities to 

conform to Public Law 111–350, the 

recodification of title 41 of the United 

States Code, and to remove references to 

DHS’s internal delegation of authorities 

that do not directly affect the HSAR. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

56662 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

II. Discussion of Comments 

One source submitted comments on 

the interim rule. A discussion of the 

comments is provided below. 

1. Comment: One comment supported 

the rule, but recommended that, for 

purposes of consistency throughout the 

Department when executing the policy, 

the final rule be clarified to ensure that 

the purchase of Lead System Integrator 

services for DHS from Government-wide 

Agency Contracts, Federal Supply 

Schedules, Multiple Award Contracts, 

or Interagency Acquisition, also be 

included in the rule. 

DHS Response: DHS notes the support 

and recommendation but believes that 

clarification in the regulatory text is 

unnecessary. The rule prohibits, with 

limited exceptions, any entity 

performing lead system integrator 

functions in the acquisition of a major 

system by DHS from having any direct 

financial interest in the development or 

construction of the system or any 

element of it. The rule applies without 

regard to the contract type, contracting 

method, or contract instrument. 

Therefore, acquisitions of supplies and 

services under Government-wide 

Agency Contracts, Federal Supply 

Schedules, Multiple Award Contracts, 

or by means of Interagency Acquisition, 

are already covered under the rule. 

2. Comment: The commenter also 

asked two questions on the 

implementation of the interim rule. The 

commenter asked whether it would be 

appropriate to include the clause at 48 

CFR 3052.209–75, Prohibited Financial 

Interests for Lead System Integrators, by 

reference or whether the clause should 

be included as full text. The commenter 

also wrote that the provision at 

3052.209–74 reads as a representation 

and certification provision, and 

suggested that the provision should be 

included in Section K, Representations 

and Certifications, under the Uniform 

Contract Format, or possibly Section L, 

Instructions to Offerors. 

DHS Response: DHS notes that these 

comments are not requests for changes 

to the regulatory text, but, rather, are 

questions on the implementation of the 

rule. The DHS HSAR Provision and 

Clause Matrix, available both on the 

DHS.gov Web site at http://

www.dhs.gov/acquisition-policiesregulations and on the FARSite Web site 

at http://farsite.hill.af.mil, provide 

answers to both questions. DHS will 

also respond to the questions in the 

below paragraphs. 

Both the provision at 48 CFR 

3052.209–74 and the clause at 48 CFR 

3052.209–75 should be used in full text. 

Given that the provision and the clause 

would be used infrequently, that is, only 

in solicitations and resulting contracts 

for the acquisition of major systems 

when the acquisition strategy envisions 

the use of a lead system integrator, 

inclusion of the provision and clause in 

full text will ensure that the potential 

offerors are fully aware of the 

restrictions on the use of lead system 

integrators. 

DHS concurs that the provision is a 

representation and certification 

provision and should be used in Section 

K, which incorporates representations, 

certifications and other statements of 

offerors. 

III. Discussion of Final Rule 

Accordingly, the interim HSAR rule 

published in the Federal Register at 75 

FR 41097 is adopted as a final rule with 

minor changes to the authorities. 

IV. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Executive Order 12866 Assessment 

This is not a significant regulatory 

action under Section 6 of Executive 

Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, dated September 30, 1993, as 

amended by Executive Order 13563, 

dated January 21, 2011. The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has not 

reviewed it under that Order. This rule 

is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

DHS certifies that this final rule 

amending (HSAR) 48 CFR 3009.5 will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

within the meaning of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. The 

factual basis for certification is 

presented in the following analysis of 

the effects of this rule. Application of 

the rule is limited to offerors or 

contractors providing services as lead 

system integrators or considering the 

provision of such services. Lead system 

integrators are limited to contracts for 

the development or production of major 

systems, and often involve the 

contractor performing functions closely 

associated with inherently 

governmental functions. 

Under this final rule, an entity that 

receives a contract as a lead system 

integrator cannot have any direct 

financial interest in the development or 

construction of any individual system or 

element of any system of systems while 

performing lead system integrator 

functions in the acquisition of a major 

system by DHS under this contract. 

Lead system integrator contracts usually 

extend several years, and we estimate 

that a limited number of such contracts 

are in effect within DHS at any one 

time. Very few contracts of this 

character are awarded in any given year. 

The limitations on entities (both large 

and small) apply only to contractors 

who choose to perform work for DHS as 

a lead system integrator. Such an entity 

could still choose to propose as a 

subcontractor under the prime contract, 

thereby mitigating the effect of this rule. 

In addition, DHS received no public 

comments on the interim rule 

suggesting this rule was a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Furthermore, 

this rule is not discretionary and is 

issued in accordance with the 

requirements of section 6405 of the U.S. 

Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, 

Katrina Recovery, and Iraq 

Accountability Appropriations Act, 

2007, Public Law 110–28, 121 Stat. 112, 

176 (2007) (codified as 6 U.S.C. 396; 

hereinafter ‘‘Section 396’’), which 

requires DHS to address these matters in 

its acquisition regulation. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The rule does not impose any 

information collection requirements that 

require the approval of the OMB under 

44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. 

D. National Environmental Policy Act 

We have analyzed this rule under 

DHS Directive 023–01, Environmental 

Planning Program, which guides the 

Department in complying with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), 

and have concluded that this action is 

one of a category of actions which do 

not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule, which does not 

involve any extraordinary 

circumstances, is categorically excluded 

under paragraphs A3(b) and A3(d) in 

Table I of Appendix A of Directive 023– 

01 because it implements legislation by 

amending acquisition regulations 

without changing the regulation’s 

environmental effect. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 3002, 

3007, 3009, 3016, 3034, 3035, and 3052 

Government procurement. 

David R. Dasher, 

Acting Deputy Chief Procurement Officer. 

■ Accordingly, DHS adopts as a final 

rule the interim HSAR rule published in 

the Federal Register at 75 FR 41097 on 

July 15, 2010, with the following 

changes: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 56663 

1This provision of the statute reads: ‘‘(d) 

Imposition of Fee.—(1) In general.— 

Notwithstanding section 9701 of title 31 and the 

procedural requirements of section 553 of title 5, 

the Under Secretary shall impose the fee under 

subsection (a)(1), and may impose a fee under 

subsection (a)(2), through the publication of notice 

of such fee in the Federal Register and begin 

collection of the fee within 60 days of the date of 

enactment of this Act, or as soon as possible 

thereafter. * * * (3) Subsequent modification of 

fee.—After imposing a fee in accordance with 

paragraph (1), the Under Secretary may modify, 

from time to time through publication of notice in 

the Federal Register, the imposition or collection of 

such fee, or both. * * * *’’ 

2Public Law 113–67 (Dec. 26, 2013; 127 Stat. 

1165). 

3See 49 U.S.C. 44940(a)(2) (2002). 

4See 67 FR 7926 (Feb. 20, 2002) codified at 49 

CFR part 1511. 

5TSA amended its regulations to implement the 

restructured fee through an Interim Final Rule. See 

79 FR 35462 (June 20, 2014). The Budget Act 

increased revenue to be collected directly from 

passengers and removed revenue to be collected 

directly from air carriers. 

6See Budget Act at § 601(a). 

7See 49 CFR part 1511. 

PARTS 3002, 3007, 3009, 3016, 3034, 

3035, and 3052—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for parts 

3002, 3007, 3009, 3016, 3034, 3035, and 

3052 is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301–302, 41 U.S.C. 

1707, 41 U.S.C. 1702, and 48 CFR part 1 and 

subpart 1.3. 

[FR Doc. 2014–22495 Filed 9–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–9B–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Transportation Security Administration 

49 CFR Part 1511 

[Docket No. TSA–2002–11334; Amendment 

No. 1511–3] 

RIN 1652–AA01 

Cessation of the Aviation Security 

Infrastructure Fee (ASIF) 

AGENCY: Transportation Security 

Administration, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) is issuing this 

final rule to conform its regulations to 

the repeal of the authority to impose the 

Aviation Security Infrastructure Fee 

(ASIF) on air carriers and foreign air 

carriers in air transportation. 

DATES: This rule is effective at 11:59 

p.m. (Eastern Daylight Time) on 

September 30, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Gambone, Office of Revenue, 

TSA–14, Transportation Security 

Administration, 601 South 12th Street, 

Arlington, VA 20598–6014; telephone 

(571) 227–2323; email: tsa-fees@

dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability of Rulemaking Document 

You may obtain an electronic copy 

using the Internet by— 

(1) Searching the electronic Federal 

Docket Management System (FDMS) 

Web page at http://www.regulations.gov; 

(2) Accessing the Government 

Printing Office’s Web page at http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/

collection.action?collectionCode=FR to 

view the daily published Federal 

Register edition; or accessing the 

‘‘Search the Federal Register by 

Citation’’ in the ‘‘Related Resources’’ 

column on the left, if you need to do a 

Simple or Advanced search for 

information, such as a type of document 

that crosses multiple agencies or dates; 

or 

(3) Visiting TSA’s Security 

Regulations Web page at http://

www.tsa.gov and accessing the link for 

‘‘Stakeholders’’ at the top of the page, 

then the link ‘‘Research Center’’ in the 

left column. 

In addition, copies are available by 

writing or calling the individual in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. Make sure to identify the docket 

number of this rulemaking. 

Small Entity Inquiries 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires TSA to comply with small 

entity requests for information and 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within TSA’s 

jurisdiction. Any small entity that has a 

question regarding this document may 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Persons can obtain further information 

regarding SBREFA on the Small 

Business Administration’s Web page at 

http://www.sba.gov/advo/laws/law_

lib.html. 

Good Cause for Immediate Adoption 

This action is being taken without 

providing the opportunity for notice and 

comment. Section 44940(d) of title 49, 

U.S.C., exempts the imposition of the 

civil aviation security fees authorized in 

section 44940 from the procedural 

rulemaking notice and comment 

procedures set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553 of 

the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA).1

Apart from the statutory exemption 

discussed above, the APA allows an 

agency to forego notice and comment 

rulemaking when ‘‘the agency for good 

cause finds . . . that notice and public 

procedure thereon are impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest.’’ 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Section 601(a) 

of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 2

(Budget Act) repeals TSA’s authority to 

collect the fee beginning October 1, 

2014. Because collection of the fee will 

end on that date regardless of whether 

this rulemaking is published, TSA finds 

that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b) for making this a final rule 

without notice and comment. As this 

rulemaking simply conforms TSA’s 

regulations to the statute, notice and an 

opportunity for public comment 

unnecessary. 

I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

The purpose of this final rule is to 

conform TSA’s regulations to changes in 

its authorities. In 2001, the Aviation and 

Transportation Security Act (ATSA) 

authorized TSA to impose a fee to 

defray the government’s costs for 

providing U.S. civil aviation security 

services. One fee was imposed on 

passengers (49 U.S.C. 44940(a)(1)). To 

the extent the revenue collected from 

that fee did not defray all of the relevant 

costs, TSA was authorized to impose a 

second fee on air carriers and foreign air 

carriers in air transportation 

(collectively referred to as ‘‘carriers’’).3

Implementing regulations to impose the 

ASIF were published in 2002.4 The 

Budget Act restructured the fee imposed 

on passengers (increasing the estimated 

revenue from this fee) 5 and repealed 

TSA’s authority to impose the fee on 

carriers, effective October 1, 2014.6

Therefore, imposition of the ASIF will 

cease based on the statute, regardless of 

any changes to TSA’s regulations, but 

TSA is also issuing this final rule to 

conform 49 CFR part 1511 to its 

statutory authority. 

II. Background 

As authorized by the Aviation and 

Transportation Security Act (ATSA), 

regulations of the Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA) require 

U.S. air carriers and foreign air carriers 

to pay a fee reflecting the costs for 

screening passengers and property in 

calendar year (CY) 2000 in order to 

defray the Federal Government’s costs 

for assuming these responsibilities. 

Current 49 CFR part 1511 requires U.S. 

air carriers and foreign air carriers 

(collectively referred to as ‘‘carriers’’) to 

pay an ASIF based on their actual 

passenger and property screening costs 

for calendar year (CY) 2000.7 While 

ATSA provides authority for TSA to 

reapportion the fee across the industry 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES