Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 105 / Tuesday, June 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 31305 

answer thereto, setting forth simple, 

concise, and direct statements of the 

respondent’s defenses to each claim 

asserted by the appellant. * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 7. In § 955.10, revise the final 

sentence to read as follows: 

§ 955.10 Prehearing briefs. 

* * * In any case where a prehearing 

brief is submitted, it shall be filed with 

the Board at least 15 days prior to the 

date set for hearing. 

■ 8. In § 955.13, revise the first sentence 

of paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 955.13 Optional Small Claims 

(Expedited) and Accelerated Procedures. 

(a) * * * 

(3) In cases proceeding under the 

Expedited Procedure, the respondent 

shall file with the Board a copy of the 

contract, the contracting officer’s final 

decision, and the appellant’s claim 

letter or letters, if any, within ten days 

from the respondent’s first receipt from 

either the appellant or the Board of a 

copy of the appellant’s notice of election 

of the Expedited Procedure. * * * 

* * * * * 

§ 955.14 [Amended] 

■ 9. In § 955.14, remove the sentence at 

the end of paragraph (a). 

■ 10. In § 955.15, add a sentence to the 

end of paragraph (a), to read as follows: 

§ 955.15 Discovery. 

(a) * * * Except in connection with 

motions to compel or for a protective 

order, discovery requests and responses 

should not be filed with the Board. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Revise § 955.26 to read as follows: 

§ 955.26 Representation of the parties. 

(a) The term appellant means a party 

that has filed an appeal for resolution by 

the Board. An individual appellant may 

appear before the Board in his or her 

own behalf, a corporation may appear 

before the Board by an officer thereof, a 

partnership or joint venture may appear 

before the Board by a member thereof. 

Any appellant may appear before the 

Board by an attorney at law duly 

licensed in any state, commonwealth, 

territory of the United States, or in the 

District of Columbia. An attorney 

representing an appellant shall register 

in the electronic filing system, and file 

a notice of appearance. The notice of 

appearance must include an email 

address, mailing address, telephone 

number, fax number, and a jurisdiction 

in which the attorney is licensed to 

practice law. 

(b) The term respondent means the 

U.S. Postal Service. Postal Service 

counsel, who shall be an attorney at law 

licensed to practice in a state, 

commonwealth, or territory of the 

United States, or in the District of 

Columbia, designated by the General 

Counsel, will represent the interest of 

the Postal Service before the Board. 

Postal Service counsel shall register in 

the electronic filing system, and file a 

written notice of appearance with the 

Board. The notice of appearance must 

include an email address, mailing 

address, telephone number, fax number, 

and a jurisdiction in which the attorney 

is licensed to practice law. 

(c) References to contractor, 

appellant, contracting officer, 

respondent and parties shall include 

respective counsel for the parties, as 

soon as appropriate notices of 

appearance have been filed with the 

Board. A self-represented party or an 

attorney representing either party shall 

inform the Board promptly of any 

change in his or her email address, 

mailing address, telephone number, or 

fax number, and must enter the 

appropriate changes promptly in the 

electronic filing system. 

■ 12. Revise § 955.27 to read as follows: 

§ 955.27 Withdrawal of attorney. 

Any attorney for either party who has 

filed a notice of appearance and who 

wishes to withdraw from a case must 

file a motion or notice which includes 

the name, email address, mailing 

address, telephone number, and fax 

number of the person who will assume 

responsibility for representation of the 

party in question. 

■ 13. In § 955.29, revise the first 

sentence to read as follows: 

§ 955.29 Decisions. 

Decisions of the Board will be made 

in writing and sent to both parties 

through the electronic filing system, or 

otherwise as appropriate. * * * 

■ 14. Revise § 955.36 to read as follows: 

§ 955.36 Effective dates and applicability. 

These revised rules govern 

proceedings under this part docketed on 

or after July 2, 2015. 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Attorney, Federal Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2015–13167 Filed 6–1–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0824; FRL–9928–35– 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Michigan; Part 3 Rules 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to 

the Part 3 rules into the Michigan State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). On 

December 13, 2013, the Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ) submitted to EPA for approval 

revisions to Part 3, Emission Limitations 

and Prohibitions—Particulate Matter 

(PM), for open burning and electro-static 

precipitators (ESPs). The revisions for 

open burning eliminate specific 

provisions to allow household waste 

burning, and add a provision to allow 

for burning of fruit and vegetable storage 

bins for pest or disease control with 

specific location limitations. The SIP 

request also removes rule 330 dealing 

with operation parameters for 

electrostatic precipitators because of 

redundancy, and rule 349 dealing with 

compliance dates for coke ovens 

because it is now obsolete. EPA is 

approving this SIP revision because it 

will not interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS). 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective August 3, 2015, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by July 2, 

2015. If adverse comments are received, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 

the direct final rule in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2013–0824, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
31306 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 105 / Tuesday, June 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2013– 

0824. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Carolyn 

Persoon, Environmental Engineer, at 

(312) 353–8290, before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carolyn Persoon, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8290, 

persoon.carolyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is EPA’s analysis of the Part 3 

Emission Limitations and Prohibitions— 

Particulate Matter Revisions? 

II. What Action is EPA taking? 

III. Incorporation by Reference. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews. 

I. What is EPA’s analysis of the Part 3 

Emission Limitations and 

Prohibitions—Particulate Matter 

Revisions? 

A. Background of Rule 310, 330, and 

349 

EPA approved the Part 3 open 

burning rule (rule 310) into the 

Michigan SIP on November 2, 1988 (53 

FR 44189), and amended it on June 28, 

2002 (67 FR 43548). The rule prohibits 

open burning, with exceptions that 

originally included household waste, 

structures for fire training, trees, logs, 

brush and stumps located outside 

incorporated areas, beekeeping 

equipment, and logs, charcoal, and 

brush used for cooking or recreation. 

Revisions to the rule promulgated by the 

state on October 8, 2012, further 

prohibited residential burning of plastic, 

rubber, foam, chemically treated wood, 

textiles, electronics, chemicals, or 

hazardous materials. The revisions also 

allowed for burning of fruit or vegetable 

untreated wooden storage bins for 

disease or pest control, only if the 

burning did not occur in a class I or II 

area, in a city or village, or within 1400 

feet of a city or village. 

Along with the October 8, 2012, 

revisions to open burning rule 310, 

Michigan rescinded both rule 330 and 

349, electrostatic precipitator control 

parameters, and coke-oven compliance 

date, respectively. EPA originally 

approved rule 330 into the Michigan SIP 

on May 6, 1980 (45 FR 29790), and most 

recently approved a revision to it in an 

update of the Part 3 rules on June 1, 

2006 (71 FR 31093). Rule 330 outlined 

operational parameters for ESPs on 

cement kilns, kraft recovery boilers, 

lime kilns, calciners, pulverized coal 

fired boilers, basic oxygen furnaces, and 

gypsum dryers, requiring that these 

electrostatic precipitators have an 

automatic control system approved by 

MDEQ. MDEQ found that the rule was 

redundant and rescinded it on April 1, 

2013. MDEQ has provided 

documentation showing PM emission 

limits for the facilities subject to rule 

330 have not changed, and that proper 

operation of control devices is still 

required by rule 910 in the Michigan 

SIP. 

MDEQ also rescinded rule 349, which 

contained a compliance date of 

December 31, 1982, for coke ovens to 

meet requirements outlined in rules 350 

and 357. Since the compliance date has 

long passed, and coke ovens must still 

comply with rules 350 and 357, MDEQ 

and EPA find this rule to be obsolete, 

and no analysis was required by the 

state. 

On October 8, 2012, and March 25, 

2013, the MDEQ filed, and the Michigan 

Secretary of State approved these rule 

changes in accordance with the 

provisions of Section 46(1) of Act 306, 

Public Acts of 1969, as amended, and 

Executive Order 1995–6. The rules 

became effective on April 1, 2013. 

Subsequently, MDEQ published in the 

May 6, 2013 MDEQ Environmental 

Calendar, located at http:// 

www.michigan.gov/envcalendar, a 

public notice addressing revision of the 

SIP, and asking for public comment if 

the rules should be incorporated into 

the SIP. There were no requests for a 

public hearing, and no public comments 

were received. 

B. Analysis of Revisions to Rules 310, 

330, and 349 

EPA’s approval is based on 

consideration of whether the revisions 

to and rescissions of rules meet the 

requirements of section 110(l) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). 

In particular, EPA considered whether 

the changes made to the Part 3 rules in 

the Michigan SIP will impact 

Michigan’s ability to attain and 

maintain both the annual PM standard 

(2012) and the 24-hour PM standard 

(2006). 

Under CAA section 110(l), the state 

must show that the SIP revision will not 

interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of all existing PM 

standards, which, in the case of 

revisions to Part 3 of the Michigan SIP, 

would be the annual standard of 12 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) 

promulgated in 2012 and the 24-hour 

standard of 35 mg/m3 promulgated in 

2006. Based on the most current threeyear monitoring design values (2011– 

2013), the entire state of Michigan is 

attaining the annual and 24-hour 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 105 / Tuesday, June 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 31307 

1The state’s analysis can be found in the docket 

for this rulemaking. 

standard, with annual design values 

ranging from 5.9 to 11.3 mg/m3, and 24- 

hour design values ranging from 16 to 

26 mg/m3. See EPA’s Web site under the 

Design Values tab for PM, Table 6, at 

http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/ 

values.html; data can also be found in 

the docket. Initial data from 2012–2014 

indicates the entire state continues to 

attain and PM monitoring values 

continue to decline, indicating that the 

2013 revisions to these rules has not 

interfered with attainment of the 

standards. 

To support the revisions and address 

the ability of Michigan to maintain the 

PM standards in the future with these 

revisions, the state did a conservative 

analysis of potential emissions and 

impacts from the additional open 

burning of fruit and vegetable crates. 

MDEQ has estimated annual maximum 

emissions from these additional sources 

to be 30 tons per year (tpy) across the 

entire state.1 The rule only allows open 

burning of crates happen in rural areas. 

The highest monitored background 

concentrations in rural areas are 8mg/m3

for the annual standard and 20mg/m3 for 

the 24-hour standard. EPA’s 

AERSCREEN tool estimates a maximum 

localized concentration increase of 3mg/ 

m3. This maximum addition of 3mg/m3

PM2.5 to the highest maximum rural 

concentration, where burning is 

allowed, does not cause a violation of 

either the annual PM2.5 or the 24-hour 

standard. EPA also considered the air 

quality impact on urban areas, because 

the rule does not allow burning in an 

urban area EPA considered the potential 

increase to be 0mg/m3, resulting in no 

increase to the attaining monitored 

values. Therefore, EPA has concluded 

that changes to the Michigan SIP 310 

Open Burning Rule does not interfere 

with attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS. 

For the analysis of the rescission of 

the ESP operations rule 330, MDEQ 

provided a list of facilities subject to the 

ESP operating parameters, which can be 

found in the docket. EPA has 

determined that emission limits for 

either PM or opacity exist for each of the 

sources, either through permits to 

install, which are permanent and 

enforceable construction permits, or the 

National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants, 40 CFR part 

63, subpart UUUUU (utility MACTs or 

MATs). Thus, rescission of rule 330 will 

not affect the obligation of these 

facilities to continue to meet their PM 

or opacity emission limits. These 

existing limits are permanent and 

enforceable. Further, the utility MACT 

standards are Federal rules which 

require installation of the maximum 

control technology available to the 

sector at this point in time and, if 

updated, will reflect greater efficiency 

and removal as technology evolves. The 

permits to install are permanent and 

enforceable and, if the facility would 

like to change the limits, it must either 

find offsets (for nonattainment new 

source review (NSR)) or provide 

modeling that shows compliance with 

the NAAQS (for prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD)/NSR), 

the same analysis under Section 110(l) 

of the CAA that the state must use when 

proposing changes to a SIP. Therefore 

no future protection of the NAAQS is 

lost. 

EPA has determined that the 

rescission of this rule will not interfere 

with attainment of the NAAQS, as the 

area is currently attainment and the 

current emission limits for the facilities 

that were subject to 330 are not affected 

by the rescission. EPA has also 

determined that the rescission will not 

affect maintenance. MDEQ has 

demonstrated that any changes to 

current PM or opacity emission limits in 

permits will become more stringent 

through the utility MACTs and that 

sources will have to demonstrate 

compliance with the NAAQS through 

modeling or offsets if a permit to install 

is modified. 

EPA finds that the recession of rule 

340, compliance date for coke ovens, 

does not require a 110(l) analysis, since 

the compliance date has long past, and 

the rule is obsolete. 

EPA has determined that the 

Michigan SIP revisions are therefore 

approvable because they meet the 

requirements of 110(l). 

II. What Action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving into the Michigan 

SIP revisions to Part 3, including the 

revisions to open burning rule 310, 

removal of rule 330, ESP operating 

provisions, and removal of rule 340, 

compliance date. Specifically, EPA is 

approving into the SIP R 336.1310 and 

removing R 336.1330 and R 336.1349. 

The revisions to Part 3 are approvable, 

since EPA’s analysis under worst case 

conditions indicates these revisions will 

not interfere with attaining or 

maintaining the NAAQS, as prescribed 

by section 110(l) of the CAA. We are 

publishing this action without prior 

proposal because we view this as a 

noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipate no adverse comments. 

However, in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register publication, we 

are publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

state plan amendment if relevant 

adverse written comments are filed. 

This rule will be effective August 3, 

2015 without further notice unless we 

receive relevant adverse written 

comments by July 2, 2015. If we receive 

such comments, we will withdraw this 

action before the effective date by 

publishing a subsequent document that 

will withdraw the final action. All 

public comments received will then be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed action. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of this rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. If we do not receive any 

comments, this action will be effective 

August 3, 2015. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation 

by reference of the Michigan 

Regulations described in the 

amendments to 40 CFR part 52 as set 

forth below. EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

generally available electronically 

through www.regulations.gov and/or in 

hard copy at the appropriate EPA office 

(see the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble for more information). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
31308 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 105 / Tuesday, June 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

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 

report containing this action 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). 

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 appropriate 

circuit by August 3, 2015. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: May 18, 2015. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

■ 2. In § 52.1170 the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended under ‘‘Part 3. Emission 

Limitations and Prohibitions-Particulate 

Matter’’ by: 

■ a. Revising the entry for R 336.1310. 

■ b. Removing the entries for R 

336.1330 and R 336.1349. 

The revised text reads as follows: 

§ 52.1170 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MICHIGAN REGULATIONS

Michigan citation Title 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Part 3. Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—Particulate Matter 

*******

R 336.1310 .............................. Open burning .......................... 04/01/13 06/02/15, [insert Federal Register citation].

* * * * * * * 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 105 / Tuesday, June 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 31309 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–13118 Filed 6–1–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Part 225 

RIN 0750–AI59 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement: Offset Costs 

(DFARS Case 2015–D028) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Interim rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is issuing an interim rule 

amending the Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

(DFARS) to clarify requirements related 

to costs associated with indirect offsets 

under Foreign Military Sales 

agreements. 

DATES: Effective June 2, 2015. 

Comment Date: Comments on the 

interim rule should be submitted in 

writing to the address shown below on 

or before August 3, 2015, to be 

considered in the formation of a final 

rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by DFARS Case 2015–D028, 

using any of the following methods: 

Æ Regulations.gov: http://

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

entering ‘‘DFARS Case 2015–D028’’ 

under the heading ‘‘Enter keyword or 

ID’’ and selecting ‘‘Search.’’ Select the 

link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that 

corresponds with ‘‘DFARS Case 2015– 

D028.’’ Follow the instructions provided 

at the ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ screen. 

Please include your name, company 

name (if any), and ‘‘DFARS Case 2015– 

D028’’ on your attached document. 

Æ Email: osd.dfars@mail.mil. Include 

DFARS Case 2015–D028 in the subject 

line of the message. 

Æ Fax: 571–372–6094. 

Æ Mail: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Attn: Mr. Mark 

Gomersall, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP/DARS, 

Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060. 

Comments received generally will be 

posted without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. To 

confirm receipt of your comment(s), 

please check www.regulations.gov, 

approximately two to three days after 

submission to verify posting (except 

allow 30 days for posting of comments 

submitted by mail). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Mark Gomersall, telephone 571–372– 

6099. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

This interim rule revises DFARS 

225.7303–2, ‘‘Cost of doing business 

with a foreign government or an 

international organization,’’ by adding 

paragraph (a)(3)(iii) to provide 

guidelines to contracting officers when 

an indirect offset is a condition of a 

Foreign Military Sales (FMS) 

acquisition. A reference to the Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency manual is 

also updated at DFARS 225.7301. 

This interim rule specifically 

addresses indirect offsets as they are 

applied to the Defense Security 

Cooperation Agency’s FMS cases. 

II. Discussion and Analysis 

DoD administers FMS programs to 

maintain and strengthen relationships 

with partner nations. Failure to nurture 

these relationships may create a threat 

to national security. DoD’s FMS 

program allows foreign customers to 

request, and pay for, through inclusion 

of the cost in the FMS Letter of Offer 

and Acceptance (LOA) and DoD 

contract, offsets that are directly related 

to the FMS end items (i.e., ‘‘direct 

offsets’’), as well as offsets that are not 

directly related to the end item (i.e., 

‘‘indirect offsets’’). 

DoD recognizes the need to have 

offsets embedded in DoD FMS contracts. 

However, the decision whether to 

engage in indirect offsets and the 

responsibility for negotiating and 

implementing these offset arrangements 

ultimately reside with the FMS 

customer and contractor(s) involved. 

Thus, the DoD contracting officer is not 

provided the information necessary to 

negotiate cost or price of the indirect 

offsets, particularly with respect to price 

reasonableness determinations pursuant 

to FAR part 15. This interim rule 

provides that under these 

circumstances, when the provision of an 

indirect offset is a condition of the FMS 

acquisition, and provided that the U.S. 

defense contractor submits to the 

contracting officer an offset agreement 

or other substantiating documentation, 

the indirect offset costs are deemed 

reasonable for the purposes of FAR part 

31. 

III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 

13563 direct agencies to assess all costs 

and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. This is not a significant 

regulatory action and, therefore, was not 

subject to review under section 6(b) of 

E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, dated September 30, 1993. This 

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

804. 

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

DoD does not expect this rule to 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. 

However, an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis has been performed, and is 

summarized as follows: 

The objective of this rule is to provide 

clarification to contracting officers when 

indirect offsets are a condition of an 

FMS acquisition. This rule revises 

DFARS 225.7303–2, ‘‘Cost of doing 

business with a foreign government or 

an international organization,’’ by 

adding paragraph (a)(3)(iii) to provide 

guidelines to contracting officers when 

an indirect offset is a condition of a 

Foreign Military Sales (FMS) 

acquisition. This interim rule 

specifically addresses indirect offsets as 

they are applied to the Defense Security 

Cooperation Agency’s FMS cases. 

This rule does not add any reporting 

or recordkeeping requirements. The rule 

does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict 

with any other Federal rules. This rule 

does not impose any significant 

economic burden on small firms 

because the DFARS amendments merely 

clarify that contracting officers are not 

responsible for making a determination 

of price reasonableness for indirect 

offset agreements, which are not within 

their purview. 

DoD did not identify any alternatives 

that could reduce the burden and still 

meet the objectives of the rule. 

DoD invites comments from small 

business concerns and other interested 

parties on the expected impact of this 

rule on small entities. 

DoD will also consider comments 

from small entities concerning the 

existing regulations in subparts affected 

by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

610. Interested parties must submit such 

comments separately and should cite 5 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES