### 49013 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Authority: The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq.

■ 2. Section 122.21, is amended by adding a new paragraph (e)(3), to read as follows:

**§ 122.21 Application for a permit (applicable to State programs, see § 123.25).** 
* * * * *

(e) * * * (3) Except as specified in 122.21(e)(3)(ii), a permit application shall not be considered complete unless all required quantitative data are collected in accordance with sufficiently sensitive analytical methods approved under 40 CFR part 136 or required under 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter N or O.

(i) For the purposes of this requirement, a method approved under 40 CFR part 136 or required under 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter N or O is ‘‘sufficiently sensitive’’ when:

(A) The method minimum level (ML) is at or below the level of the applicable water quality criterion for the measured pollutant or pollutant parameter; or

(B) The method ML is above the applicable water quality criterion, but the amount of the pollutant or pollutant parameter in a facility’s discharge is high enough that the method detects and quantifies the level of the pollutant or pollutant parameter in the discharge;

or (C) The method has the lowest ML of the analytical methods approved under 40 CFR part 136 or required under 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter N or O for the measured pollutant or pollutant parameter.

Note to paragraph (e)(3)(i)(C): Consistent with 40 CFR part 136, applicants have the option of providing matrix or sample specific minimum levels rather than the published levels. Further, where an applicant can demonstrate that, despite a good faith effort to use a method that would otherwise meet the definition of ‘‘sufficiently sensitive’’, the analytical results are not consistent with the QA/QC specifications for that method, then the Director may determine that the method is not performing adequately and the applicant should select a different method from the remaining EPA-approved methods that is sufficiently sensitive consistent with40 CFR 122.21(e)(3)(i). Where no other EPAapproved methods exist, the applicant should select a method consistent with 40 CFR 122.21(e)(3)(ii).

(ii) When there is no analytical method that has been approved under 40 CFR part 136, required under 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter N or O, and is not otherwise required by the Director, the applicant may use any suitable method but shall provide a description of the method. When selecting a suitable method, other factors such as a method’s precision, accuracy, or resolution, may be considered when assessing the performance of the method.

* * * * *

■ 3. Section 122.44 is amended by revising paragraph (i) (1) (iv) to read as follows:

**§ 122.44 Establishing limitations, standards, and other permit conditions**  **(applicable to State NPDES programs, see § 123.25).** 
* * * * *

(i) * * * (1) * * * (iv) According to sufficiently sensitive test procedures (i.e., methods) approved under 40 CFR part 136 for the analysis of pollutants or pollutant parameters or required under 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter N or O.

(A) For the purposes of this paragraph, a method is ‘‘sufficiently sensitive’’ when:

( 1 ) The method minimum level (ML) is at or below the level of the effluent limit established in the permit for the measured pollutant or pollutant parameter; or

(2) The method has the lowest ML of the analytical methods approved under 40 CFR part 136 or required under 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter N or O for the measured pollutant or pollutant parameter.

Note to paragraph (i)(1)(iv)(A)(2): Consistent with 40 CFR part 136, applicants or permittees have the option of providing matrix or sample specific minimum levels rather than the published levels. Further, where an applicant or permittee can demonstrate that, despite a good faith effort to use a method that would otherwise meet the definition of ‘‘sufficiently sensitive’’, the analytical results are not consistent with the QA/QC specifications for that method, then the Director may determine that the method is not performing adequately and the Director should select a different method from the remaining EPA-approved methods that is sufficiently sensitive consistent with 40 CFR122.44(i)(1)(iv)(A). Where no other EPAapproved methods exist, the Director should select a method consistent with 40 CFR 122.44(i)(1)(iv)(B).

(B) In the case of pollutants or pollutant parameters for which there are no approved methods under 40 CFR part 136 or methods are not otherwise required under 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter N or O, monitoring shall be conducted according to a test procedure specified in the permit for such pollutants or pollutant parameters.

* * * * * **PART 136—GUIDELINES ESTABLISHING TEST PROCEDURES**  **FOR THE ANALYSIS OF POLLUTANTS**

■ 4. The authority citation for part 136 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 301, 304(h), 307, and 501(a) Pub. L. 95–217, 91 Stat. 1566, et seq. (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. ) (The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977.)

■ 5. Section 136.1 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:

**§ 136.1 Applicability.**
* * * * *

(c) For the purposes of the NPDES program, when more than one test procedure is approved under this part for the analysis of a pollutant or pollutant parameter, the test procedure must be sufficiently sensitive as defined at 40 CFR 122.21(e)(3) and 122.44(i)(1)(iv).

[FR Doc. 2014–19265 Filed 8–18–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR**

**Office of the Secretary**

**43 CFR Part 2**

**[145D0102DM DLSN00000.000000 DS62400000 DX62401]** 

**RIN 1090–AA94**

**Privacy Act Regulations; Exemption for the Debarment and Suspension**  **Program**

**AGENCY :**  Office of the Secretary, Interior.

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Department of the Interior is issuing a final rule to amend its regulations to exempt certain records of the Debarment and Suspension Program system of records from particular provisions of the Privacy Act because these records contain investigatory material.

**DATES :**  This final rule is effective September 18, 2014.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Teri Barnett, Departmental Privacy Officer, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Mail Stop 5547 MIB, Washington, DC 20240. Email at privacy@ios.doi.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Background

The Department of the Interior (DOI) published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register, 76 FR 52295, August 22, 2011, proposing to


### 49014 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

exempt certain records of the Debarment and Suspension Program system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because these records contain investigatory material within the provision of 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) and (k)(5). The Debarment and Suspension Program system of records notice was published concurrently in the Federal Register, 76 FR 52341, August 22, 2011, and comments were invited on both the notice of proposed rulemaking and system of records notice. DOI received no comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking or system of records notice and will therefore implement the rulemaking as proposed.
Procedural Requirements 1. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866)

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation’s regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior certifies that this document will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. ). This rule does not impose a requirement for small businesses to report or keep records on any of the requirements contained in this rule. The exemptions to the Privacy Act apply to individuals, not to entities covered under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act. 3. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:

a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-basedenterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises.

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or on the private sector, of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. This rule makes only minor changes to 43 CFR part 2. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required. 5. Takings (E.O. 12630)

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have significant takings implications. This rule makes only minor changes to 43 CFR part 2. A takings implication assessment is not required.
6. Federalism (E.O. 13132)

In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have any federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The rule is not associated with, nor will it 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. A Federalism Assessment is not required.
7. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule:

a. Does not unduly burden the judicial system.

b. Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and c. Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

8. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175)

In accordance with Executive Order 13175, the Department of the Interior has evaluated this rule and determined that it would have no substantial effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes. 9. Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not require an information collection from 10 or more parties and a submission under the Paperwork Reduction Act is not required. 10. National Environmental Policy Act

This rule does not constitute a major Federal action and would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, this rule does not require the preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 11. Effects on Energy Supply (E.O. 13211)

This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required. List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 2

Administrative practice and procedure, Classified information, Courts, Freedom of information, Government employees, Privacy.

Dated: August 12, 2014. Amy Holley, Chief of Staff, Policy, Management and Budget.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the Interior amends 43 CFR part 2 as follows:

**PART 2—FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT; RECORDS AND TESTIMONY** 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 553; 31 U.S.C. 3717; 43 U.S.C. 1460, 1461.

■ 2. In § 2.254, add paragraphs (b)(14) and (c)(4) to read as follows:

**§ 2.254 Exemptions.**

(b) * * * (14) Debarment and Suspension Program, DOI–11.

* * * * *

(c) * * *


### 49015 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

(4) Debarment and Suspension Program, DOI–11.

* * * * * [FR Doc. 2014–19651 Filed 8–18–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4310–RK–P**

**FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION** 

**47 CFR Part 73**

**[MB Docket No. 05–112; MB Docket No. 05– 151; RM–11185; RM–11374; RM–11222; RM–**  **11258]**

**Radio Broadcasting Services; Converse, Flatonia, Georgetown,**  **Goldthwaite, Ingram, Junction, Lago Vista, Lakeway, Llano, McQueeney,**  **Nolanville, San Antonio, Waco, TX**

**AGENCY :**  Federal Communications Commission.

**ACTION :**  Final rule; denial of petition for reconsideration.

**SUMMARY :**  This document denies a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Rawhide Radio, LLC, Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc., CCB Texas Licenses, LP, and Capstar TX Limited Partnership (‘‘Joint Parties’’) of a Report and Order that denied a Counterproposal filed by the Joint Parties and granted a mutually exclusive Counterproposal filed by Munbilla Broadcasting Properties, Ltd. See Supplementary Information.

**ADDRESSES :**  Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

**DATES :**  August 19, 2014.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Andrew J. Rhodes, Media Bureau (202)
418–2700.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  This is a synopsis of the consolidated Memorandum Opinion and Order in MB Docket No. 05–112 and MB Docket No. 05–151, adopted July 23, 2014, and released July 24, 2014 The full text of this decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center at Portals ll, CY–A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission’s copy contractor, Best Copying and Printing, Inc. 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1–800–378–3160 or www.BCPIWEB.com. Because the Commission is denying the Petition for Reconsideration, the Commission will not send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order in a report to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

The Memorandum Opinion and Order denied the Joint Parties Petition for Reconsideration because no error was committed in the Report and Order by requiring the Joint Parties Counterproposal to protect a previously filed and cut-off application. See 72 FR 37673, July 1, 2007. Although the Joint Parties Counterproposal had been filed and dismissed in an earlier proceeding, the refilling of the Counterproposal does not revive that dismissed proposal or create cut-off rights with regard to proposals in the present proceeding. Likewise, the Memorandum Opinion and Order determined that no error was committed by processing a ‘‘cut-off’’ application and relying on the effective but non-final dismissal of the Joint Parties Counterproposal in the earlier proceeding. Finally, the Memorandum Opinion and Order concluded that an engineering solution submitted by the Joint Parties could not be considered because it was filed late. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio, Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission. Peter H. Doyle, Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2014–19417 Filed 8–18–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6712–01–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES** 

**48 CFR Parts 327 and 352**

**RIN 0991–AB87**

**Acquisition Regulations**

**AGENCY :**  Division of Acquisition, Office of Grants and Acquisition Policy and Accountability, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources, Department of Health and Human Services.

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is issuing a final rule to amend its Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Supplement—the HHS Acquisition Regulation (HHSAR)— to add two clauses, Patent Rights— Exceptional Circumstances and, Rights in Data—Exceptional Circumstances, and their prescriptions.

**DATES :**  Effective Date: September 18,
2014.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Cheryl Howe, Procurement Analyst, Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources, Office of Grants and Acquisition Policy and Accountability, Division of Acquisition at (202) 690–5552.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  I. Background

The HHS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 78 FR 2229 on January 10, 2013, to ensure that providers of proprietary material(s) to the Government will retain all their preexisting rights to their material(s), and rights to any inventions made under a contract or subcontract (at all tiers), when a Determination of Exceptional Circumstances (DEC) has been executed.

‘‘Material’’ means any proprietary material, method, product, composition, compound, or device, whether patented or unpatented.

A DEC is executed consistent with the policy and objectives of the Bayh-Dole Act, 35 U.S.C. 200, et seq., to ensure that subject inventions made under contracts and subcontracts (at all tiers) are used in a manner to promote free competition and enterprise without unduly encumbering future research and discovery; to encourage maximum participation of small business firms in federally supported research and development efforts; to promote collaboration between commercial concerns and nonprofit organizations including universities; to ensure that the Government obtains sufficient rights in federally supported inventions to meet its needs; to protect the public against nonuse or unreasonable use of inventions, and in the case of fulfilling the mission of the Department of Health and Human Services, to ultimately benefit the public health.

Under certain circumstances, in order to ensure that pharmaceutical companies, academia, and others will collaborate with HHS in identifying, testing, developing, and commercializing new drugs, therapeutics, diagnostics, prognostics and prophylactic measures affecting human health, a DEC must be executed and Contractor’s and subcontractor’s rights (at all tiers) in subject inventions should be limited accordingly, consistent with DEC requirements and through appropriate contract clauses. II. Discussion and Analysis A. Summary of Significant Changes

The comment period for the proposed rule closed on March 11, 2013. The HHS received responses from four respondents with 11 comments, collectively; however, only three of those comments resulted in minor