This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

17708 

Vol. 80, No. 63 

Thursday, April 2, 2015 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

13 CFR Part 130 

RIN 3245–AE05 

Small Business Development Center 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business 

Administration. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) is seeking 

comments on this Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) 

regarding the Small Business 

Development Center (SBDC) Program 

(the Program). Specifically, the SBA is 

seeking comments on development of 

potential proposed amendments to 

current regulations governing the 

Program, which is authorized by the 

Small Business Act. This ANPRM is 

being issued to commence the 

consultative process with stakeholders 

to examine several issues such as 

International Trade counselor 

certification requirements, steps to 

selecting State/Region Directors, 

procedures for international travel, 

clarifying the use of carryover funds and 

procedures regarding the determination 

to affect suspension, termination or nonrenewal of an SBDC’s cooperative 

agreement to name a few. This ANPRM 

also addresses other policy and 

procedural changes necessary for the 

implementation of the Program. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

June 1, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 3245–AE05 by one of 

the following methods (1) Federal 

Rulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov, following the 

instructions for submitting comments; 

or (2) Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: J. 

Chancy Lyford, Deputy Associate 

Administrator, SBDC Program, 409 

Third Street SW., Room 6253, 

Washington, DC 20416. SBA will not 

accept comments submitted by email to 

this Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. 

SBA will post all comments to this 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking on www.regulations.gov. If 

you wish to submit confidential 

business information (CBI) as defined in 

the User Notice at www.regulations.gov, 

you must submit such information to 

the U.S. Small Business Administration, 

J. Chancy Lyford, Deputy Associate 

Administrator, SBDC Program, 409 

Third Street SW., Room 6253, 

Washington, DC 20416, or send email to 

sbdcregs@sba.gov. Highlight the 

information that you consider to be CBI 

and explain why you believe SBA 

should hold this information as 

confidential. SBA will review your 

information and determine whether it 

will make the information public. 

Requests to redact or remove posted 

comments cannot be honored and the 

request to redact/remove posted 

comments will be posted as a new 

comment. See the www.regulations.gov 

help section for information on how to 

make changes to your comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

J. Chancy Lyford, Deputy Associate 

Administrator for the SBDC Program, at 

202–205–6766 or chancy.lyford@

sba.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Statutory Authority 

The Small Business Development 

Center (SBDC) Program (the Program) 

was established as a pilot program in 

1977 and was later officially authorized 

in 1980 by the Small Business 

Development Center Act of 1980 (Pub. 

L. 96–302) now codified in section 21(a) 

of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 

648. According to Section 21(a)(1) the 

purpose of the Program is to assist in 

establishing small business 

development centers explicitly to 

provide ‘‘management and technical 

assistance’’ to small businesses. Section 

21(a)(3)(A) requires the SBA to consult 

with the recognized association of 

SBDCs in any rulemaking action for the 

Program. The issuance of this ANPRM 

is for purposes of undertaking the 

consultative process required by this 

section. 

B. Background 

The SBDC Program provides small 

businesses and aspiring entrepreneurs 

with a wide array of technical assistance 

to help support and strengthen business 

performance and sustainability as well 

as assist the U.S. economy by the 

creation of new business entities. Under 

the statute governing the SBDC Program, 

the Associate Administrator of Office of 

Small Business Development Centers 

(AA/OSBDC) holds responsibility for 

the general management and oversight 

of the SBDC Program by means of a 

cooperative agreement with the 

Recipient Organization. 

The SBDC rules were last revised in 

1995, See 60 FR 31506 (June 13, 1995). 

However, statute authorizing the SBDC 

Program has been amended numerous 

times since the last rulemaking. The 

annual Program Announcement and 

Notice of Award have become SBA’s 

primary means of adjusting SBDC 

program rules and policies in the wake 

of statutory and other changes. The SBA 

believes it is time for regulations 

outlining guidance for the policies and 

procedures for the SBDC Program. It is 

the intention of the SBA that by 

soliciting public comments through this 

Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM), the SBDC 

Program policies and procedures will be 

updated to reflect current best practices, 

become more streamlined, and less 

onerous on the SBDC grantees and SBA. 

SBA would like comment on changes to 

any of its existing policies and 

procedures as well as any new ideas for 

how to best implement and operate the 

SBDC Program. 

Because of the amount of information 

contained within this ANPRM to 

address the necessary modifications, it 

is SBA’s intention that the public, 

especially the recognized association 

and other stakeholders in the Program, 

be given ample opportunity to submit 

comments and help shape any possible 

future regulatory proposals. 

This ANPRM solicits public 

comments on, among other things, 

implementation of statutory 

amendments, current practices, 

guidance on new grantee applicants, 

and provisions regarding the collection 

and use of individual SBDC client data. 

Many of the statutory changes have been 

significant, including amendment to the 

types of entities that are eligible to 

apply to be an SBDC grantee. 

C. Definitions 

The SBA asks for comment on: 

Whether or not new definitions for 

defining Program requirements are 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17709 

needed, if there are other terms that are 

missing from the list below that need 

defining, and the draft definitions 

themselves. 

The SBA seeks comment on the 

possible addition of and content of the 

following new definitions: 

• Associate Administrator/OSBDC. 

The individual who is statutorily 

mandated to manage the SBDC Program. 

• Carryover funds. Unobligated 

federal funds reallocated from one 

funding period to the next for specified 

purposes through an amendment to the 

Notice of Award. 

• District Office. The local SBA office 

that, among other responsibilities, is 

charged with SBDC grant oversight 

responsibilities by ensuring: compliance 

with the Notice of Award; the local 

small business market needs are met by 

the SBDC; the regularly scheduled 

reviews are completed as required; and 

by collaborating with the SBDC to 

perform joint events and trainings. 

• State Director. An individual for 

whose time and effort is 100% allocated 

to overseeing and managing the SBDC 

grant and other grants that provide 

comparable management and technical 

assistance to the small businesses 

community in accordance with the 

cooperative agreement. 

• Key personnel. SBDC State/Region 

Directors and SBDC Service Center 

Directors or managers and International 

Trade Center Directors. 

• Matching Funds. Funds that will be 

supplied to meet the statutory match 

requirements of the SBA SBDC grant. 

Matching Funds may include cash and 

non-cash equivalents, provided those 

forms of matching comply with the 

percentage restrictions on non-cash 

contributions and source restrictions on 

both forms of funds. 

• Notice of Award (NOA). Also 

known as the Cooperative Agreement, 

the legal agreement between SBA and a 

Recipient Organization containing the 

terms and conditions under which SBA 

provides federal funds for the 

performance of SBDC activities. 

• Office of Small Business 

Development Centers (OSBDC). The 

main program office which manages the 

funding, budget, programmatic 

oversight, and the establishment and 

maintenance of all program policy over 

the national SBDC network. 

• Program funds. Also referred to as 

Project funds and defined as all funds 

authorized under the Cooperative 

Agreement including, but not limited to, 

federal funds, cash match, non-cash 

match from indirect costs, in-kind 

contributions, program income 

revenues, and funds authorized or 

reported as carryover. 

• Project Officer. The individual in 

the SBA District Office appointed by 

SBA as the primary local contact for the 

SBDC. This person conducts regular 

compliance oversight as required by 

OSBDC working in conjunction with the 

Program Manager as well as other 

responsibilities. 

• Proposal. Also known as the 

Application, this is the written 

submission by a new Applicant 

Organization or an existing Recipient 

Organization describing its projected 

SBDC activities for the upcoming 

Budget Period and requesting federal 

funding for use in its operations. 

• Prior Approval. The written 

concurrence from the appropriate SBA 

official for a proposed action or 

amendment to the SBDC Cooperative 

Agreement. 

• Recognized Association. The 

association established by statute whose 

members are SBDCs for the purpose of 

representing the SBDC’s interests. 

• SBDC Service Center Director. The 

individual responsible for SBDC 

program implementation and 

management at a Service Center within 

an SBDC network. 

• Specialized Services. SBDC services 

other than counseling or training, e.g., 

extensive research, hiring outside 

consultants for a particular client, 

translation services, etc. 

• Sub-recipient Organization/

Subcenters. An entity, identified in the 

Cooperative Agreement, having a 

written agreement with the Recipient 

Organization that (1) receives federal 

financial assistance; and/or (2) 

administers matching resources for 

purposes of conducting SBDC activities. 

D. General 

SBA also seeks comment on any other 

information that should be considered 

for possible future regulatory proposals, 

including whether the addition of a 

general description of the authority 

establishing SBDCs, the governing 

documentation (Program 

Announcement), and the administration 

of the Program (Notice of Award) should 

be included in a future rulemaking. 

E. Applications 

By statute, any Women’s Business 

Center operating pursuant to section 29 

of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

656) is now eligible to apply to be a new 

SBDC Recipient Organization. This 

ANPRM seeks comments on how to 

address statutory requirements for an 

SBDC Network to primarily utilize 

institutions of higher education and 

Women’s Business Centers as new 

Service Centers. 

SBA invites comments on the 

following: 

Regarding the application procedures, 

how should SBA instruct all SBDC 

applicants to comply with the annual 

Program Announcement? Possible 

topics to comment on could include 

program integrity, allowable costs, 

conflicts of interests as well as format, 

conditions, submission requirements 

and due dates, for their new or renewal 

application to receive consideration. 

Regarding new applications, how 

should the SBA clarify which 

Applicants within the State or Region of 

service are eligible to be an SBDC 

Recipient Organization? SBA believes a 

clarification is advisable regarding its 

standard policy of recruiting and 

selecting New SBDC Recipient 

Organizations using a fair and open 

competitive process, including an 

objective review and on-site sufficiency 

review before the Associate 

Administrator (AA) of the OSBDC 

makes a final selection. 

Regarding renewal applications, what 

should SBA propose to describe the 

procedure when a Recipient is not 

renewed, either by SBA’s or the 

Recipient’s choice? Does any other 

aspect of renewal need to be considered 

for program regulatory proposals? 

Comments are requested as how best to 

update the process, including details on 

the negotiations with the District Office 

and how the Recipient Organization 

must submit the renewal application to 

the SBA. 

F. Operating Requirements 

This ANPRM requests comments on 

how to incorporate these statutory 

requirements in a future rulemaking. 

The SBA seeks comments on the 

following: 

Comments are requested on how each 

SBDC could comply with the 

requirement to maintain export and 

trade certified counselors on staff? 

Should there be a minimum number of 

export and trade certified counselors on 

staff? If so, what should be the 

minimum? Comments are requested on 

how the AA/OSBDC should set policy 

development and program 

administration, in consultation, to the 

extent practicable, with the Recognized 

Association. 

Comments are requested on how to 

clarify the specific identification of a 

‘‘Small Business Development Center’’ 

and whether that name should be a part 

of the official name of every SBDC Lead 

Center and Service Center within the 

SBDC network? How should SBA 

consider other names, such as those 

grandfathered in or subsequently 

waived by the AA/OSBDC? SBA 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17710 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

welcomes comments on any other 

information needed to be considered for 

program regulatory proposals at this 

time. 

Currently, there are SBDC Networks 

with other identifying characteristics, 

such as ‘‘Small Business Technology 

Development Centers.’’ How should an 

SBDC Network seeking the designation 

as a ‘‘Small Business Technology 

Development Center’’ operate in 

accordance with SBA policies and 

procedures? Should there be different 

rules for Small Business Technology 

Development Centers? If so, what 

should they be? 

Comments are requested on how the 

selection and retention of the SBDC 

State/Region Director should be 

accomplished. How should the policy 

guidelines already contained in the 

current Program Announcement and 

Notice of Award be incorporated? In 

particular, how should SBA mandate a 

Recipient Organization to have a State/ 

Regional Director from another SBDC as 

a member of a selection panel? How 

much time should a State Director 

devote specifically to the SBDC grant? 

In addition, how much time should pass 

before any vacancy is reported to SBA? 

What percentage of their time and 

efforts should an Interim State/Region 

Director allocate to the SBDC program? 

What length of time should the 

appointment period for such Interim 

State/Region Director be? Should more 

time be needed for the Recipient 

Organization to hire a permanent State/ 

Regional Director, how should it obtain 

prior approval from the AA/OSBDC? 

The responsibilities of SBDC State/

Region Directors are currently set forth 

in policy in the Program Announcement 

and Notice of Award. What percentage 

of time should the Director dedicate to 

the SBDC? How much of the Director’s 

time should be devoted to other projects 

which complement the SBDC mission? 

Can the position be held by a company 

or contractor or other choice? What 

should be the minimum direct reporting 

authority that a State Director should 

have? Should it be to that of a college 

dean in a university setting or the third 

level of management or administration 

within a State Agency or should some 

other level within the organization be 

considered? If so, what should that level 

be? 

Should SBA consider an amendment 

stating the names, addresses and phone 

numbers of small businesses or 

individuals receiving counseling 

assistance from an SBDC Network 

cannot be released to any person or 

entity outside of the SBDC without the 

consent of the client? Should a possible 

exemption be made if: SBA believes it 

necessary for grant oversight activities; 

SBA wants to conduct allowable client 

surveys or; the SBA Administrator is 

ordered to make such a disclosure by a 

court? 

How should a SBDC Lead Center or a 

Sub-recipient Organization enter into a 

contract or grant with a Federal 

department or agency to provide 

specific assistance to small business 

concerns? Prior to bidding on a nonSBA federal award or contract, how 

should potential conflict of interest 

situations be handled by the SBDC Lead 

Center or Service Center? What should 

the SBDC Lead Center or Service Center 

be required to obtain from the AA/

OSBDC regarding the subject and 

general scope of the award or contract 

to ensure that there is no conflict of 

interest with the SBA? How should the 

notification procedure indicate to SBA 

how the additional award will not 

conflict with the Cooperative Agreement 

and identify how the additional funding 

will be tracked to ensure separate 

sources and uses of funds? 

G. Notice of Awards/Cooperative 

Agreements 

Section 21(k)(3)(A) of the Small 

Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648(k)(3)(A)) 

states that in extending or renewing a 

cooperative agreement of a Small 

Business Development Center, the 

Administration shall consider the 

results of the examinations and 

accreditation reviews. In addition, 15 

U.S.C. 648(k)(3)(B) states the 

Administration cannot renew or extend 

any cooperative agreement with a small 

business development center unless the 

center has been approved under the 

accreditation program conducted 

pursuant to this subsection, except that 

the AA/OSBDC can waive such 

accreditation requirement, at his or her 

discretion, upon a showing that the 

center is making a good faith effort to 

obtain accreditation. SBA seeks 

comment on how best to incorporate 

these statutory changes into a proposed 

rulemaking. 

The SBA seeks comments on the 

following: 

What language should SBA propose 

regarding cooperative agreements and 

contracts, including the incorporation of 

a common set of performance measures 

for SBDC Networks established by the 

SBA? What should the District Office, in 

conjunction with OSBDC, negotiate 

with the Lead Center? Some ideas 

include annual goals, milestones, 

activities for the cooperative agreement, 

or other information needed to be 

considered for the program? 

For procurement/contracting policies 

and procedures, what should Recipient 

Organizations and Sub-Recipient 

Organizations have in the way of 

written procurement and contracting 

procedures in order to comply with the 

applicable federal procurement 

standards, the procurement procedures 

of the Recipient Organization, and 

openly compete their procurements? 

Are there any other issues regarding 

procurement/contracting that should be 

considered for program regulatory 

proposals at this time? While this and 

many other references are already 

established policy in the Program 

Announcement and Notice of Award, 

the SBA welcomes comments on new 

ideas, procedures and policies. 

In the event of a Disaster, the 

AA/OSBDC can amend one or more 

cooperative agreements to authorize 

unanticipated out-of-state travel by 

SBDC personnel responding to a need 

for services in a Presidentially-Declared 

Major Disaster Area. How should 

notification of this type of authorization 

be accomplished? Some possible ideas 

are either through the publication of an 

SBA procedural or policy notice or 

through a Lead Center individual 

approval approach? Are there other or 

issues related to any program travel 

information that should be considered 

for program regulatory proposals at this 

time? What compliance standards 

should proposed and actual travel costs 

incurred under an emergency 

authorization use? Should they comply 

with the established rule, Program 

Announcement and OMB guidelines? 

How should SBA clarify the 

conditions and procedures for effecting 

a suspension, termination or nonrenewal of an SBDC’s cooperative 

agreement? How should SBA set forth 

the administrative review procedures? 

Are there any other issues related to 

renewal needed to be considered for 

program regulatory proposals at this 

time? What should SBA consider in 

developing a new Administrative 

Procedure for Suspension, Termination 

and Non-Renewal? Should SBA include 

processes for taking action; notice 

requirements; relationship to 

government-wide suspension; and 

debarment? Also, what standards 

should SBA consider for administrative 

review of suspension, termination and 

non-renewal actions? Should SBA 

include details on a prescribed format; 

service; timeliness; standard of review; 

conduct of the proceeding; evidence; 

and decision? SBA seeks comments on 

the following. 

(1) Termination. How should SBA 

consider whether a recipient 

organization can incur further 

obligations under the Cooperative 

Agreement after the date of termination 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17711 

without express authorization to do so 

in the Notice of Termination? Are there 

other issues related to termination for 

program regulatory proposals? Should 

award funds be available for obligations 

incurred after the effective date of 

termination unless expressly authorized 

under the Notice of Termination or are 

there other ways to handle obligations 

incurred after termination? When a 

Cooperative Agreement has been 

terminated, how many days should the 

Recipient Organization have to submit 

final closeout documents to SBA? Can 

extenuating circumstances be 

considered and how should they be 

handled? 

(2) Non-Renewal. How can SBA elect 

not to renew a Cooperative Agreement 

with a Recipient Organization? In 

undertaking a non-renewal action, how 

should SBA either choose not to accept 

or consider any application for renewal 

from the Recipient Organization? Under 

what circumstances could the Agency 

choose not to exercise option years 

remaining under the Cooperative 

Agreement? When would a Cooperative 

Agreement not be renewed? Should the 

Recipient Organization continue to 

conduct project activities and incur 

allowable expenses until the end of the 

current budget period? If a Recipient 

Organization decides to not renew its 

grant, must it notify the District Director 

and send a letter of intent to withdraw 

to the AA/OSBDC no less than 180 days 

before the end of its performance period 

or would there be another time period 

that would be more acceptable? 

(3) Suspension. When should the 

suspension of a Recipient Organization 

begin? Should it begin on the date the 

Notice of Suspension is issued? How 

long should the period of suspension 

last? Should it last no longer than 6 

months? At the end of the period of 

suspension, or any point during that 

period, how should the SBA either 

reinstate the cooperative agreement or 

commence an action for termination or 

non-renewal? 

Why should the SBA be obligated to 

reimburse any expenses incurred by a 

Recipient Organization while its 

cooperative agreement is under 

suspension? Where SBA decides to lift 

a suspension and reinstate a Recipient 

Organization’s cooperative agreement, 

under what circumstances should the 

Agency consider reimbursing a 

Recipient Organization for some or all of 

the expenses it incurred in carrying out 

project objectives during the suspension 

period? Should SBA state that there is 

no guarantee that the Agency will 

accept expenses incurred in furtherance 

of project objectives during the period of 

suspension or is there some other way 

this should be handled? 

SBA seeks comment on whether, or 

not to add the following to the list of 

causes for suspension actions and if 

there are other causes not listed that 

should be considered: 

• Poor performance; 

• Unwillingness or inability to 

implement changes to improve 

performance; 

• Failure to implement 

recommendations from programmatic 

reviews and/or examinations within the 

time frame established by the AA/

OSBDC; 

• Failure to implement 

recommendations from accreditation 

reviews within the time frame 

established by the accreditation 

committee and by the AA/OSBDC; 

• Failure to maintain adequate client 

service facilities or service hours; 

• Failure to maintain and enforce a 

conflict of interest policy; 

• Failure to provide records to the 

SBA or the SBA OIG on demand; 

• Failure to maintain records and; 

• Failure to maintain and enforce a 

procurement policy. 

How should SBA define the closeout 

procedures to be followed when an 

SBDC Lead or Service Center has left the 

program, either voluntarily or 

involuntarily to ensure that Program 

funds and property acquired or 

developed under the SBDC Cooperative 

Agreement are fully reconciled and 

transferred seamlessly between 

Recipient Organizations, sub-recipients, 

or other federal programs? How should 

the responsibility for conducting 

closeout procedures be vested with the 

Recipient Organization whose 

cooperative agreement is not being 

renewed? How should the procedures 

be documented and accomplished in 

accordance with the applicable property 

standards and the provisions of the 

SBDC Program regulations? Although 

stipulated in Subpart D of 2 CFR part 

215, the SBA welcomes comments 

regarding this matter. 

H. Financial Requirements 

SBA seeks comments on the 

following: 

How can SBA clarify the policy for 

carryover requests? Should a Recipient 

Organization request that SBA 

reauthorize any remaining unexpended 

and unobligated federal funds from their 

cooperative agreement for use in the 

ensuing Program/Budget Year or is there 

other information that needs to be 

considered when considering how to 

obligate the unexpended program 

funds? Should carryover requests not 

submitted within the timeframe 

designated by the AA/OSBDC be 

considered or are there other issues that 

need to be considered in extending the 

timeframe? Should carryover requests 

adhere to the format stipulated in the 

Program Announcement for renewal 

applications and contain the 

appropriate budget and narrative 

information along with a justification 

for the carryover? How should the 

AA/OSBDC determine whether good 

cause exists for funds remaining 

unobligated? If planned obligations 

could not be carried out because of a 

bona fide reason, how should the AA/ 

OSBDC determine program objectives 

would be better served by deferring 

obligation of the funds to the following 

year or is there other information that 

needs to be considered? Should 

repeated requests for Carryovers (for 

more than two consecutive years) 

require substantial justification, and 

without this justification should they 

not be approved or is there other 

information that needs to be 

considered? 

In addition, cash match should equal 

at least 50% of the SBA funds used by 

the SBDC. The remaining 50% of 

matching funds may be provided 

through allowable combinations of cash, 

in-kind contributions, or authorized 

indirect costs. Should costs or the 

values of third party in-kind 

contributions count towards satisfying a 

cost sharing or matching requirement of 

a grant agreement if they have been or 

will be counted towards satisfying a cost 

sharing or matching requirement of 

another Federal grant agreement, a 

Federal Procurement Contract, or any 

other award of Federal funds or is there 

other information that needs to be 

considered? Should in-Kind services 

performed during the current Budget 

Period not be carried over to a 

subsequent Budget Period even if they 

were not previously claimed as match or 

is there other information that needs to 

be considered? 

Should SBA require all foreign travel 

requests to be submitted to the 

appropriate District Director/Project 

Officer and to the OSBDC Program 

Manager for review and dispatch to the 

AA/OSBDC for final approval in 

accordance with the Program 

Announcement or is there other 

information that needs to be 

considered? Should foreign travel 

charged to the SBDC cooperative 

agreement or performed by SBDC staff 

while on duty for the Recipient 

Organization be approved in advance in 

accordance with the Program 

Announcement or is there other 

information that needs to be 

considered? Should planned foreign 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17712 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

travel costs allocable to the SBDC 

cooperative agreement for SBDC 

Network staff be approved by the SBA 

through the annual proposal process 

and should such planned costs be fully 

disclosed and justified in the budget 

narrative for Agency review or is there 

other information that needs to be 

considered? Should unanticipated 

foreign travel be approved in advance in 

accordance with the Program 

Announcement or is there other 

information that needs to be 

considered? 

The SBA prohibits the use of Program 

Funds for purposes identified as 

unallowable following OMB guidance, 

including a Recipient Organization 

cannot use such funds to provide 

financial assistance, including 

subgrants, seed money for venture 

capital, or fund-raising activities and 

costs, including financial or capital 

campaigns, the solicitation of gifts and 

bequests, and similar activities intended 

to raise capital or obtain contributions. 

Should SBA identify further restrictions 

and prohibitions on expenditures that 

can be reimbursed from this grant or is 

there other information that needs to be 

considered? 

SBA also welcomes comments on any 

other issues that the agency should 

address in a proposed rulemaking 

related to the SBDC Programs. 

Maria Contreras-Sweet, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06854 Filed 4–1–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0040; FRL–9925–48– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

State Boards Requirements; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2008 Lead and Ozone and 2010 

Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Virginia for the 

purpose of meeting the requirements of 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 128. This 

rulemaking action also proposes to 

approve an infrastructure element 

directly related to the regulations being 

added for several previously submitted 

infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 Lead 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS), the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, the 

2010 Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS, and the 

2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS. In the 

Final Rules section of this issue of the 

Federal Register, EPA is approving the 

Commonwealth’s SIP submittal as a 

direct final rule without prior proposal 

because the Agency views this as a 

noncontroversial submittal and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the direct final rule. If no 

adverse comments are received in 

response to this action, no further 

activity is contemplated. If EPA receives 

adverse comments, the direct final rule 

will be withdrawn and all public 

comments received will be addressed in 

a subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. 

DATES: Comments must be received in 

writing by May 4, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2015–0040 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: powers.marilyn@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0040, 

Marilyn Powers, Acting Associate 

Director, Office of Air Program 

Planning, Air Protection Division, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2015– 

0040. 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 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., 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 in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy 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 Commonwealth’s 

submittal are available at the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality, 

629 East Main Street, Richmond, 

Virginia 23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814–5787, or by 

email at schmitt.ellen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

further information, please see the 

information provided in the direct final 

action, with the same title, that is 

located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ 

section of this Federal Register 

publication. 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 the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS