Privacy Act Regulations; Exemption for the Debarment and Suspension Program, 49013-49015 [2014-19651]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Authority: The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq.
2. Section 122.21, is amended by
adding a new paragraph (e)(3), to read
as follows:
■
§ 122.21 Application for a permit
(applicable to State programs, see § 123.25).
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(3) Except as specified in
122.21(e)(3)(ii), a permit application
shall not be considered complete unless
all required quantitative data are
collected in accordance with
sufficiently sensitive analytical methods
approved under 40 CFR part 136 or
required under 40 CFR chapter I,
subchapter N or O.
(i) For the purposes of this
requirement, a method approved under
40 CFR part 136 or required under 40
CFR chapter I, subchapter N or O is
‘‘sufficiently sensitive’’ when:
(A) The method minimum level (ML)
is at or below the level of the applicable
water quality criterion for the measured
pollutant or pollutant parameter; or
(B) The method ML is above the
applicable water quality criterion, but
the amount of the pollutant or pollutant
parameter in a facility’s discharge is
high enough that the method detects
and quantifies the level of the pollutant
or pollutant parameter in the discharge;
or
(C) The method has the lowest ML of
the analytical methods approved under
40 CFR part 136 or required under 40
CFR chapter I, subchapter N or O for the
measured pollutant or pollutant
parameter.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:25 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
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.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
49013
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
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
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:
SUMMARY:
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
E:\FR\FM\19AUR1.SGM
19AUR1
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)
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
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.
14:25 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
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
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
3. Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
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
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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) * * *
E:\FR\FM\19AUR1.SGM
19AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
(4) Debarment and Suspension
Program, DOI–11.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2014–19651 Filed 8–18–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–RK–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MB Docket No. 05–112; MB Docket No. 05–
151; RM–11185; RM–11374; RM–11222; RM–
11258]
Radio Broadcasting Services;
Converse, Flatonia, Georgetown,
Goldthwaite, Ingram, Junction, Lago
Vista, Lakeway, Llano, McQueeney,
Nolanville, San Antonio, Waco, TX
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; denial of petition for
reconsideration.
AGENCY:
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
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:25 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
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
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.
AGENCY:
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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
49015
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
E:\FR\FM\19AUR1.SGM
19AUR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 19, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49013-49015]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19651]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 49014]]
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 foreign-based
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
0
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.
0
2. In Sec. 2.254, add paragraphs (b)(14) and (c)(4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 2.254 Exemptions.
(b) * * *
(14) Debarment and Suspension Program, DOI-11.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
[[Page 49015]]
(4) Debarment and Suspension Program, DOI-11.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-19651 Filed 8-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-RK-P
