2392 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas are those national parks exceeding 6,000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks 

which were in existence on August 7, 1977. 

Visibility has been identified as an important value 

in 156 of these areas. See 40 CFR part 81, subpart 

D. 

EPA’s maintenance plan guidance 

document dated May 20, 2005. The EPA 

therefore approved the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS maintenance plan for the 

area of El Paso County on January 15, 

2009. 

[FR Doc. E9–708 Filed 1–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[FRL–8762–7] 

Finding of Failure To Submit State 

Implementation Plans Required by the 

1999 Regional Haze Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking a final 

action finding that 37 states, the District 

of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

have failed to submit for EPA review 

and approval State Implementation 

Plans (SIPs) for improving visibility in 

the nation’s national parks and 

wilderness areas. Under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) and EPA’s implementing 

regulations, states were required to 

submit these SIPs to EPA by December 

17, 2007. These SIPs must contain a 

number of elements, including 

importantly: For each mandatory Class 

I federal area in a state, reasonable 

progress goals providing for an 

improvement in visibility for the most 

impaired days and ensuring no 

degradation in visibility for the least 

impaired days; a long-term strategy for 

improving visibility, including 

enforceable emissions limitations, for 

meeting the reasonable progress goals; 

and Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) determinations for certain older 

existing stationary sources. By this 

action, the EPA is making a finding of 

failure to submit for those states that 

have not submitted a SIP or have 

submitted a SIP that addresses only part 

of the requirements. 

DATES: Effective Date: This action is 

effective on January 15, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

General questions concerning this 

notice should be addressed to Mr. Todd 

Hawes, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Air Quality Policy 

Division, Mail Code: C539–04, 109 TW 

Alexander Drive, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27709; telephone (919) 541– 

5591. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

questions related to a specific state 

please contact the appropriate regional 

office: 

Regional offices States 

Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, EPA New England, I 

Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114–2023.

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, 

Vermont. 

Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region II, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10007–1866.

New Jersey, New York, Virgin Islands. 

Christina Fernandez, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, EPA Region 

III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103–2187.

District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia. 

Dick A. Schutt, Chief, Air Planning Branch, EPA Region IV, Sam Nunn 

Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth, Street, SW., 12th Floor, Atlanta, 

GA 30303.

Florida, Georgia. 

Jay Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region V, 77 West 

Jackson Street, Chicago, IL 60604.

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin. 

Tom Diggs, Associate Director Air Programs, EPA Region VI, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202–2733.

Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas. 

Joshua A. Tapp, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region VII, 901 

North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101–2907.

Kansas, Nebraska. 

Monica S. Morales, Unit Chief, Air Quality Planning Unit, EPA Region 

VIII Air Program, 1595 Wynkoop St. (8P–AR), Denver, CO 80202– 

1129.

Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming. 

Lisa Hanf, Chief, Air Planning Office, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada. 

Mahbubul Islam, Manager, State and Tribal Air Programs, EPA Region 

X, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics, Mail Code OAQ–107, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.

Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements 

B. Consequences of Findings of Failure To 

Submit 

II. This Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Notice and Comment Under the 

Administrative Procedure Act 

B. Effective Date Under the Administrative 

Procedure Act 

C. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

D. Paperwork Reduction Act 

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

I. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

J. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

K. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

L. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

M. Congressional Review Act 

N. Judicial Review 

I. Background 

In CAA section 169A, Congress 

declared as a national goal the 

prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory class I Federal 

areas (Class I areas) 1 which impairment 

results from manmade air pollution. 

EPA’s visibility regulations, codified at 

40 CFR 51.300–51.309, require states to 

develop regional haze SIPs with 

measures necessary to make reasonable 

progress towards remedying visibility 

impairment in Class I areas. The 

required SIP elements include: (1) For 

states with one or more Class I areas, the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 2393 

setting of reasonable progress goals for 

each Class I area; (2) calculations of 

baseline and natural visibility 

conditions for each Class I area located 

in a state; (3) the development of long 

term strategies addressing visibility 

impairment; (4) a monitoring strategy 

that is representative of all Class I areas 

within a state and reporting 

requirements; (5) the BART 

requirements; and (6) a description of 

how the state addressed any comments 

provided by Federal Land Managers. 40 

CFR 51.308. EPA’s visibility regulations 

also provide certain states with the 

option to submit regional haze SIPs 

based on the recommendations of the 

Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 

Commission. Such SIPs are required to 

include certain emission reduction 

strategies, including a program to 

reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide from 

stationary sources. 40 CFR 51.309. 

Some states have submitted regional 

haze SIPs as required under the CAA 

and EPA’s implementing regulations, 

but at present a number of states have 

not yet submitted final SIPs to EPA to 

satisfy these requirements of the CAA. 

The EPA is by this action making a 

finding of failure to submit for those 

states. 

A. Statutory and Regulatory 

Requirements 

Sections 169A and 169B of the CAA 

set forth the goals of the regional haze 

program and mandate that states 

develop SIPs to ensure that reasonable 

progress is made towards meeting those 

goals, including the requirements for 

BART. The regional haze rule issued in 

1999 specifies the requirements and 

deadlines for state and local SIPs 

designed to meet the visibility 

protection provisions of the CAA. See 

64 FR 35714. EPA revised certain 

requirements of the regional haze rule 

on July 6, 2005 (70 FR 39104) including 

the deadline for submitting regional 

haze SIPs, pursuant to the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004, 

Public Law 108–199, January 23, 2004 

(codified at 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(7), CAA 

section 107(d)(7)). This statutory 

deadline for SIP submittals was 

December 17, 2007. 

B. Consequences of Findings of Failure 

To Submit 

Under the CAA section 110(c), EPA is 

required to promulgate a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) within two 

years of the effective date of a finding 

that a state has failed to submit a SIP. 

The FIP requirement is void if a state 

submits a regional haze SIP, and EPA 

approves that SIP within the two year 

period. 

II. This Action 

In this action, EPA is finding that 37 

states, the District of Columbia, and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands have failed to make 

all or part of the required SIP 

submissions to address regional haze. 

This finding starts the two year clock for 

the promulgation by EPA of a FIP. EPA 

is not required to promulgate a FIP if the 

state makes the required SIP submittal 

and EPA takes final action to approve 

the submittal within two years of EPA’s 

finding. 

At approximately the same time as the 

signing of this notice, EPA Regional 

Administrators are sending letters 

informing each state identified below 

that they have failed to make the 

required regional haze SIP submissions. 

These letters, and any accompanying 

enclosures, have been included in the 

docket to this action. This action will be 

effective on January 15, 2009. The states 

listed in the tables below failed to 

submit all or part of the required SIP 

elements per section 169A of the CAA 

and associated implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.308 and 40 

CFR 51.309. 

Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming 

have opted to develop SIPs based on the 

recommendations of the Grand Canyon 

Visibility Transport Commission under 

40 CFR 51.309. All three States have 

failed to submit the plan elements 

required by 40 CFR 51.309(g), the 

reasonable progress requirements for 

areas other than the 16 Class I areas 

covered by the Grand Canyon Visibility 

Transport Commission Report. Arizona 

and New Mexico have also failed to 

submit the plan element required by 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(4), the alternate 

stationary source program for control of 

sulfur dioxide (SO2). 

Colorado has failed to submit plan 

elements required by 40 CFR 51.308(d), 

specifically, reasonable progress goals 

and long-term strategy elements 

addressing reasonable progress. 

Colorado has also failed to submit a 

plan meeting the BART requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e), specifically, BART 

determinations and requirements, for 

two sources located in the state, 

Colorado Springs Utilities’ Martin Drake 

Power Plant in Colorado Springs, 

Colorado and Cemex, Inc. Lyons 

Portland Cement Plant in Lyons, 

Colorado. 

Michigan has also failed to submit 

plan elements required by 40 CFR 

51.308(d), specifically, reasonable 

progress goals and long-term strategy 

elements addressing reasonable 

progress. In addition, Michigan has 

failed to submit a plan meeting the 

BART requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e). 

Specifically, for the following six 

sources located in the state, Michigan 

has failed to submit a plan with BART 

determinations and requirements: 

LaFarge Midwest, Inc. in Alpena, 

Michigan; St. Mary’s Cement in 

Charlevoix, Michigan; Smurfit/Stone 

Container Corporation in Ontonagon, 

Michigan; Escanaba Paper Company in 

Escanaba, Michigan; and Cleveland 

Cliffs Corporation Tilden Mining 

Company and the Empire Iron Mining, 

both in Marquette, Michigan. 

States and Territories Failing To Submit 

SIPs Addressing Any of the Required 

Regional Haze SIP Elements of 40 CFR 

51.308 

Alaska, California, Connecticut, 

District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, 

Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, 

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, 

New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South 

Dakota, Texas, Vermont, U.S. Virgin 

Islands, Virginia, Washington, and 

Wisconsin. 

States Failing To Submit SIPs 

Addressing Part of the Required 

Regional Haze SIP Elements 

Arizona—40 CFR 51.309(g) and 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(4). 

Colorado—40 CFR 51.308(d) and 40 

CFR 51.308(e) for two sources. 

Michigan—40 CFR 51.308(d) and 40 

CFR 51.308(e) for six sources. 

New Mexico—40 CFR 51.309(g) and 

40 CFR 51.309(d)(4). 

Wyoming—40 CFR 51.309(g). 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Notice and Comment Under the 

Administrative Procedure Act 

This is a final EPA action, but is not 

subject to notice-and-comment 

requirements of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b). 

EPA believes that because of the limited 

time provided to make findings of 

failure to submit regarding SIP 

submissions, Congress did not intend 

such findings to be subject to noticeand-comment rulemaking. However, to 

the extent such findings are subject to 

notice-and-comment rulemaking, EPA 

invokes the good cause exception 

pursuant to the APA, 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(3)(B). Notice and comment are 

unnecessary because no EPA judgment 

is involved in making a finding of 

failure to submit a SIP or required 

elements of SIP submissions pursuant to 

the CAA. Furthermore, providing notice 

and comment would be impracticable 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

2394 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

because of the limited time provided 

under the statute for making such 

determinations. Finally, notice and 

comment would be contrary to the 

public interest because it would divert 

agency resources from the critical 

substantive review of SIPs that have 

already been submitted. See 58 FR 

51270, 51272, n.17 (Oct. 1, 1993); 59 FR 

39832, 39853 (Aug. 4, 1994). 

B. Effective Date Under the 

Administrative Procedure Act 

This action will be effective on 

January 15, 2009. Under the APA, 5 

U.S.C. 553(d)(3), agency rulemaking 

may take effect before 30 days after the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register if the agency has good cause to 

specify an earlier effective date. This 

action concerns SIP submissions that 

are already overdue; and EPA 

previously cautioned the affected states 

that the SIP submissions were overdue 

and that EPA was considering taking 

this action. In addition, this action 

simply starts a ‘‘clock’’ for EPA to 

promulgate a SIP within two years. 

There are no mandatory sanctions 

enacted against the states by this action, 

although the Agency may employ 

discretionary sanctions, and the clock 

may be ‘‘turned off’’ through the 

submission of complete SIPs by the 

states followed by approval of the SIPs 

by EPA. These reasons support an 

effective date prior to 30 days after the 

date of publication. 

C. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore 

not subject to review under the EO. 

However, the EPA submitted this action 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review on December 11, 

2008, and any changes made in 

response to OMB’s recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. The OMB released it on 

January 6, 2009. 

D. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

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

defined at 5 CFR 1320(b). This rule 

relates to the requirement in the CAA 

for states to submit SIPs under section 

Part D of title I of the CAA. 

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

This final rule is not subject to the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis for any 

rule that will have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The RFA 

applies only to rules subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) or any other statute. This rule is 

not subject to notice and comment 

requirements under the APA or any 

other statute because, although the rule 

is subject to the APA, the Agency has 

invoked the ‘‘good cause’’ exemption 

under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), and therefore it 

is not subject to the notice and comment 

requirement. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1998 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for state, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. This 

action imposed no enforceable duty on 

any state, local, or tribal governments or 

the private sector. The action imposes 

no enforceable duty on any State, local 

or tribal governments or the private 

sector. Therefore, this action is not 

subject to the requirements of sections 

202 and 205 of the UMRA. 

This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

action does not impose any new 

obligations or enforceable duties on any 

small governments. 

G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), 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, or the relationship 

between the national government and 

the states, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This action 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. The CAA 

establishes the scheme whereby states 

take the lead in developing plans to 

meet the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards and the Federal government 

acts as a backstop where states fail to 

take the required actions. This rule will 

not modify the relationship of the states 

and EPA for purposes of developing 

programs to implement the regional 

haze program. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this rule. 

H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This rule responds to the 

requirement in the CAA for states to 

submit SIPs to satisfy the requirements 

of the 1999 Regional Haze Regulations; 

Final Rule. The CAA requires each state 

to develop a SIP describing how the 

state will minimize the impacts of 

emissions emanating from within the 

state and contributing to visibility 

impairment in Class I areas. Tribes have 

elected not to submit Regional Haze 

SIPs and EPA will ensure air quality 

protection in Indian country consistent 

with the provisions of 40 CFR 49.11(a). 

Therefore, Executive Order 13175 does 

not apply to this action. 

I. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because this action is a 

procedural step toward reducing 

visibility impairment, which may also 

reduce pollution that may be harmful to 

children. 

J. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

K. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer Advancement Act 

of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104– 

113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impracticable. VCS are 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 2395 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by VCS 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable VCS. 

This action does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, EPA did not 

consider the use of any VCS. 

L. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this final 

rule will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not directly affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. This notice finds that 

certain states have not met the 

requirement to submit one or more SIPs 

and begins a clock requiring them to do 

so to meet this statutory obligation. If 

the state fails to submit the required 

SIPs or if they submit SIPs that EPA 

cannot approve, then EPA will be 

required to develop the plans in lieu of 

the states. 

M. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

rule report, a copy of this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A Major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule 

will be effective January 15, 2009. 

N. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit within 60 days from 

the date this final action is published in 

the Federal Register. Filing a petition 

for reconsideration by the Administrator 

of this final rule does not affect the 

finality of this rule for the purposes of 

judicial review nor does it extend the 

time within which a petition for judicial 

review must be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. 

Thus, any petitions for review of this 

action making findings of failure to 

submit regional haze SIPs identified in 

section II above, must be filed in the 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit within 60 days from 

the date final action is published in the 

Federal Register. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: January 9, 2009. 

Robert J. Meyers, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–779 Filed 1–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

41 CFR Part 102–42 

[FMR Amendment 2009–01; FMR Case 

2008–102–2; Docket 2008–0001; Sequence 

3] 

RIN 3090–AI60 

Federal Management Regulation; FMR 

Case 2008–102–2, Utilization, 

Donation, and Disposal of Foreign 

Gifts and Decorations 

AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide 

Policy, General Services Administration 

(GSA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The General Services 

Administration is amending the Federal 

Management Regulation (FMR) to revise 

its policy on appraisals of foreign gifts 

and decorations, and to encourage 

agencies to use various methods in 

obtaining appraisals, including reliable 

retail Web sites. 

DATES: Effective Date: February 17, 

2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Robert Holcombe, Director, Asset 

Management (MTA), at (202) 501–3828, 

or e-mail at robert.holcombe@gsa.gov for 

clarification of content. For information 

pertaining to status or publication 

schedules, contact the Regulatory 

Secretariat, Room 4041, GS Building, 

Washington, DC 20405, (202) 501–4755. 

Please cite FMR Amendment 2009–01, 

FMR Case 2008–102–2. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

This final rule amends part 102–42 of 

the Federal Management Regulation 

(FMR) (41 CFR part 102–42) to bring 

this policy into alignment with 5 U.S.C. 

7342 by placing the responsibility and 

guidelines for obtaining appraisals for 

foreign gifts and decorations onto the 

agencies (as required by 5 U.S.C. 

7342(g)(2)(b)). Removing the policies 

from this part that specify the format 

and content of an appraisal will give 

agencies greater flexibility in obtaining 

appraisals. The flexibility is not 

intended to preclude the reporting of 

gifts, nor does it eliminate the need for 

a commercial appraisal when a retail 

value appraisal is not an option. This 

applies to all gifts, even when the 

recipient wishes to retain and/or 

purchase the item. This flexibility may 

include agency use of reliable retail Web 

sites (e.g., Department store Web sites, 

Commercial merchandise catalogs) to 

obtain the retail value in the United 

States of the items(s). This excludes the 

use of any auction or discount sale 

offerings that appear on the Internet or 

written publications (e.g., EBAY, Craig’s 

List, or other non-commercial sites). 

Also, GSA now requires the employing 

agency to obtain an appraisal of a gift or 

decoration that the agency has retained 

for official use and no longer needs 

before accepting the agency’s report of 

the item as excess personal property. 

Additionally, appraisals are required for 

gifts that are personalized (e.g., Books 

signed by the author, or gifts personally 

labeled). 

This final rule also updates the 

address in section 102–42.95. 

B. Executive Order 12866 

This final rule is excepted from the 

definition of ‘‘regulation’’ or ‘‘rule’’ 

under Section 3(d)(3) of Executive Order 

12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 

dated September 30, 1993 and, 

therefore, was not subject to review 

under Section 6(b) of that executive 

order. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES