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

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 with 

40 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 CFR 

122.44(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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
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-based 

enterprises 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) * * * 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 49015 

(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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES