Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 86 / Monday, May 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 25505 

(2) The lower 95 percent confidence 

limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by 

0.95, where: 

And x ̄ is the sample mean; s is the 

sample standard deviation; n is the 

number of samples; and t0.95 is the t 

statistic for a 95% one-tailed confidence 

interval with n¥1 degrees of freedom 

(from Appendix A to subpart B of part 

429). 

(2) Alternative efficiency 

determination methods. In lieu of 

testing, a represented value of efficiency 

or consumption for a basic model of 

commercial packaged boiler must be 

determined through the application of 

an AEDM pursuant to the requirements 

of § 429.70 and the provisions of this 

section, where: 

(i) Any represented value of energy 

consumption or other measure of energy 

use of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor lower values 

shall be greater than or equal to the 

output of the AEDM and less than or 

equal to the Federal standard for that 

basic model; and 

(ii) Any represented value of energy 

efficiency or other measure of energy 

consumption of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor higher values 

shall be less than or equal to the output 

of the AEDM and greater than or equal 

to the Federal standard for that basic 

model. 

(b) Certification reports. (1) The 

requirements of § 429.12 are applicable 

to commercial packaged boilers; and 

(2) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a 

certification report must include the 

following public equipment-specific 

information: The combustion efficiency 

in percent (%) or the thermal efficiency 

in percent (%), as required in § 431.87 

of this chapter; and the maximum rated 

input capacity in British thermal units 

per hour (Btu/h). 

(3) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a 

certification report must include the 

following additional equipment-specific 

information: 

(i) Whether the basic model is 

engineered-to-order; and 

(ii) For any basic model rated with an 

AEDM, whether the manufacturer elects 

the witness test option for verification 

testing. (See § 429.70(c)(5)(iii) for 

options). However, the manufacturer 

may not select more than 10% of 

AEDM-rated basic models to be eligible 

for witness testing. 

(4) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a 

certification report may include 

supplemental testing instructions in 

PDF format. A manufacturer may also 

include with a certification report other 

supplementary items in PDF format 

(e.g., manuals) for DOE consideration in 

performing testing under subpart C of 

this part. 

(c) Alternative methods for 

determining efficiency or energy use for 

commercial packaged boilers can be 

found in § 429.70. 

■ 10. Section 429.70 is amended by 

revising the section heading and the 

heading of paragraph (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 429.70 Alternative methods for 

determining energy efficiency and energy 

use. 

* * * * * 

(c) Alternative efficiency 

determination method (AEDM) for 

commercial HVAC (includes 

commercial warm air furnaces and 

commercial packaged boilers), WH, and 

refrigeration equipment—(1) * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–10085 Filed 5–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 312 

[Docket ID: DoD–2014–OS–0060] 

Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation 

AGENCY: Office of Inspector General, 

DoD. 

ACTION: Direct final rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Inspector 

General is exempting a new system of 

records, CIG–29, entitled, ‘‘Privacy and 

Civil Liberties Complaint Reporting 

System’’ from subsections (c)(3); (d)(1), 

(2), (3), (4); (e)(1) and (e)(4); (G), (H), (I); 

and (f) of the Privacy Act, pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. 552a. 

This direct final rule makes no 

substantive changes to the Office of 

Inspector General Privacy Program 

rules. 

These changes will allow the 

Department to add an exemption rule to 

the Office of Inspector General Privacy 

Program rules that will exempt 

applicable Department records and/or 

material from certain portions of the 

Privacy Act. This will improve the 

efficiency and effectiveness of DoD’s 

program by preserving the exempt status 

of the applicable records and/or 

material when the purposes underlying 

the exemption(s) are valid and 

necessary. 

This rule is being published as a 

direct final rule as the Department of 

Defense does not expect to receive any 

adverse comments, and so a proposed 

rule is unnecessary. 

DATES: This rule will be effective on July 

14, 2014 unless adverse comment is 

received by July 7, 2014. If adverse 

comment is received, the Department of 

Defense will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the rule in the Federal 

Register. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and title, 

by any of the following methods: 

* Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

* Mail: Federal Docket Management 

System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 

East Tower, 2nd Floor, Suite 02G09, 

Alexandria, VA 22350–3100. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this Federal Register 

document. The general policy for 

comments and other submissions from 

members of the public is to make these 

submissions available for public 

viewing on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov as they are 

received without change, including any 

personal identifiers or contact 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Dorgan, DoD IG FOIA/Privacy 

Office, Department of Defense, Inspector 

General, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 

Alexandria, VA 22350–1500 or 

telephone: (703) 699–5680. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Direct Final Rule and Significant 

Adverse Comments 

DoD has determined this rulemaking 

meets the criteria for a direct final rule 

because it involves nonsubstantive 

changes dealing with DoD’s 

management of its Privacy Programs. 

DoD expects no opposition to the 

changes and no significant adverse 

comments. However, if DoD receives a 

significant adverse comment, the 

Department will withdraw this direct 

final rule by publishing a notice in the 

Federal Register. A significant adverse 

comment is one that explains: (1) Why 

the direct final rule is inappropriate, 

including challenges to the rule’s 

underlying premise or approach; or (2) 

why the direct final rule will be 

ineffective or unacceptable without a 

change. In determining whether a 

comment necessitates withdrawal of 

this direct final rule, DoD will consider 

whether it warrants a substantive 

response in a notice and comment 

process. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULESER05MY14.007</GPH>
25506 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 86 / Monday, May 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ and Executive 

Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review’’ 

It has been determined that this rule 

is not a significant rule. This rule does 

not (1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy; a sector of the economy; 

productivity; competition; jobs; the 

environment; public health or safety; or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; (2) Create a serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interfere 

with an action taken or planned by 

another Agency; (3) Materially alter the 

budgetary impact of entitlements, 

grants, user fees, or loan programs, or 

the rights and obligations of recipients 

thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy 

issues arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in these Executive orders. 

Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory 

Flexibility Act’’ (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6) 

This rule will not have significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities because it is 

concerned only with the administration 

of Privacy Act systems of records within 

the Department of Defense. A 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not 

required. 

Public Law 96–511, ‘‘Paperwork 

Reduction Act’’ (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) 

This rule does not contain any 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Section 202, Public Law 104–4, 

‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’ 

These amendments do not involve a 

Federal mandate that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

and that such rulemaking will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ 

These amendments do 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. Therefore, no 

Federalism assessment is required. 

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 312 

Privacy. 

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 312 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 312—OFFICE OF THE 

INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG) PRIVACY 

PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for 32 CFR 

part 312 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1896 

(5 U.S.C. 552a). 

■ 2. Section 312.12 is amended by 

adding paragraph (k) to read as follows: 

§ 312.12 Exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(k) System identifier: CIG–29. 

(1) System Name: Privacy and Civil 

Liberties Complaint Reporting System. 

(2) Exemptions: Any portion of this 

record system which falls within the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a (j)(2), 

(k)(2)and (k)(5) may be exempt from the 

following subsections of 5 U.S.C. 552a: 

(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), 

(e)(4)(I). 

(3) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), 

(k)(2), and (k)(5). 

(4) Reasons: To ensure the integrity of 

the privacy and civil liberties process. 

The execution requires that information 

be provided in a free and open manner 

without fear of retribution or 

harassment in order to facilitate a just, 

thorough, and timely resolution of the 

complaint or inquiry. Disclosures from 

this system can enable individuals to 

conceal their wrongdoing or mislead the 

course of the investigation by 

concealing, destroying, or fabricating 

evidence or documents. In addition, 

disclosures can subject sources and 

witnesses to harassment or intimidation 

which may cause individuals not to 

seek redress for wrongs through privacy 

and civil liberties channels for fear of 

retribution or harassment. There is a 

clear need to protect national security 

information from inadvertent 

disclosure. 

Dated: April 30, 2014. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2014–10190 Filed 5–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0005; FRL–9910–33– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Delaware; 

Regional Haze Five-Year Progress 

Report State Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Delaware 

through the Delaware Department of 

Natural Resources and Environmental 

Control (DNREC). Delaware’s SIP 

revision addresses requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s rules 

that require states to submit periodic 

reports describing progress towards 

reasonable progress goals (RPGs) 

established for regional haze and a 

determination of the adequacy of the 

state’s existing implementation plan 

addressing regional haze (regional haze 

SIP). EPA is approving Delaware’s SIP 

revision on the basis that it addresses 

the progress report and adequacy 

determination requirements for the first 

implementation period for regional 

haze. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

June 4, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0005. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Delaware Department of 

Natural Resources and Environmental 

Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 

1401, Dover, Delaware 19903. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Irene Shandruk, (215) 814–2166, or by 

email at shandruk.irene@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On February 25, 2014 (79 FR 10442), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the State of 

Delaware. In the NPR, EPA proposed 

approval of Delaware’s progress report 

SIP, a report on progress made in the 

first implementation period towards 

RPGs for the Class I area outside the 

State that is affected by emissions from 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES