Nondiscrimination in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Assistance from the Environmental Protection Agency, 77284-77289 [2015-31050]
Download as PDF
77284
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 239 / Monday, December 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Class E airspace designations are
published in paragraph 6005, of FAA
Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015
and effective September 15, 2015, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR
71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace
designations listed in this document
will be published subsequently in the
Order.
Regulatory Notices and Analyses
The FAA has determined that this
regulation only involves an established
body of technical regulations for which
frequent and routine amendments are
necessary to keep them operationally
current, is non-controversial and
unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)
does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated
impact is so minimal. Since this is a
routine matter that will only affect air
traffic procedures and air navigation, it
is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
Environmental Review
This proposal will be subject to an
environmental analysis in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F,
‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final
regulatory action.
effective September 15, 2015, is
amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas
Extending Upward from 700 feet or More
Above the Surface of the Earth.
*
*
*
*
Issued in Seattle, Washington, on
December 7, 2015.
Tracey Johnson,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western
Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2015–31273 Filed 12–11–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 7 and 9
[EPA–HQ–OA–2013–0031, FRL–9933–69–
OA]
RIN 2090–AA39
Nondiscrimination in Programs or
Activities Receiving Federal
Assistance from the Environmental
Protection Agency
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).
AGENCY:
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the
authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to
amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
SUMMARY:
PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,
B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND
REPORTING POINTS
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR
part 71 continues to read as follows:
■
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
ANM MT E5 Deer Lodge, MT [Modified]
Deer Lodge-City-County Airport, MT
(Lat. 46°23′16″ N., long. 112°45′54″ W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius
of Deer Lodge-City-County Airport; that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet
above the surface bounded by a line
beginning at lat. 46°41′00″ N., long.
114°08′00″ W.; to lat. 47°03′00″ N., long.
113°33′00″ W.; to lat. 46°28′00″ N., long.
112°15′00″ W.; to lat. 45°41′00″ N., long.
112°13′00″ W.; to lat. 45°44′00″ N., long.
113°03′00″ W.; thence to the point of origin.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103,
40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR,
1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
§ 71.1
[Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in
14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z,
Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 6, 2015, and
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:50 Dec 11, 2015
Jkt 238001
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) proposes to amend its
regulations with regard to compliance
information, post-award compliance
reviews, and complaint investigations.
This proposed rule will improve the
EPA’s ability to ensure that recipients of
federal financial assistance comply with
their affirmative obligation under the
Civil Rights Act of 1965 and other
nondiscrimination statutes not to
discriminate, while also ensuring that
the EPA has sufficient flexibility and
discretion to carry out its
nondiscrimination compliance work.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before February 12, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OA–2013–0031, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeryl
Covington or Helena Wooden-Aguilar,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Civil Rights, (Mail Code
1201A), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, D,C. 20460, telephone
(202) 564–7272, (202) 564–7713 or (202)
564–0792.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background Information
The EPA is proposing to amend its
regulations implementing title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (‘‘Title VI’’),
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (‘‘Section 504’’), section 13 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (Pub. L. 92–500),
and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975
(‘‘Age Discrimination Act’’) in order to
enable it to create a model civil rights
program which can nimbly and
effectively enforce civil rights statutes in
the environmental context. Together,
these statutes prohibit discrimination on
the basis of race, color, national origin,
(including discrimination based on
language ability or limited English
proficiency), disability, sex, and age in
programs or activities that receive
federal financial assistance. This
rulemaking proposes to amend subpart
D (Requirements for Applicants and
Recipients) and subpart E (Agency
Compliance Procedures) provisions
regarding compliance information, postaward compliance reviews, and
complaint investigations. This
rulemaking also proposes to make a
technical correction to subpart D to
E:\FR\FM\14DEP1.SGM
14DEP1
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 239 / Monday, December 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules
remove citations to expired Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) control
numbers and to place the current OMB
control number for information
collection requests under 40 CFR part 7
in the consolidated list of OMB
approvals under the Paperwork
Reduction Act in 40 CFR part 9.
Applicants for and recipients of EPA
assistance already are obligated to
comply with Title VI and other
nondiscrimination statutes as a
condition of receiving EPA assistance.
This proposed rule is consistent with
the broad discretion that, as recognized
by the Supreme Court, has been
afforded all federal agencies with regard
to the enforcement of federal
nondiscrimination obligations,1 and is
part of a package of efforts intended to
improve EPA’s civil rights program. One
effort, for example, is the draft External
Compliance and Complaints Program
Strategic Plan, which was published for
comment on September 10, 2015 (https://
www.epa.gov/ocr/external-compliancetitle-vi-new-developments). This
package, as a whole, will increase
transparency and accountability and
move EPA closer to its goal of
establishing a model civil rights
program. This proposed rule—another
part of the package—will assist the EPA
in continuing to be more proactive in
monitoring and enforcing recipients’
compliance with Title VI and other
nondiscrimination statutes.
The EPA has sought to improve its
External Compliance and Complaints
Program. In 2009, EPA made a
commitment to strengthen and revitalize
EPA’s civil rights program. In addition
to increasing staff, securing additional
training and improving processes, as
part of that effort, in 2010, EPA funded
an independent in-depth evaluation of
its civil rights program by the firm
Deloitte Consulting LLP. Following
receipt of the evaluation, the
Administrator established an internal
Civil Rights Executive Committee to
review Deloitte’s evaluation, and other
sources of information, and make
recommendations for building a model
civil rights program for EPA. The
Executive Committee posted its draft
report for public review in February
2012, and the Administrator approved
the final report and recommendations
on April 13, 2012.
One of the Executive Committee’s
recommendations was for the EPA to be
more proactive in terms of achieving
compliance with Title VI and other
nondiscrimination obligations by, in
1 See Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 293–294
(1985); FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U.S.
134 (1940).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:50 Dec 11, 2015
Jkt 238001
part, analyzing data and information
obtained from recipients and developing
consistent processes. Accordingly, as
part of its efforts to create a robust preand post- award compliance program (as
identified in the EPA Draft EJ 2014 Plan
Supplement dated April 12, 2012), the
EPA began the process of reevaluating
its regulations to identify what data and
information it currently obtains from
recipients. The EPA first looked to other
federal agencies for their best practices
in terms of an External Compliance and
Complaints Program. Specifically, the
EPA evaluated its External Compliance
and Complaints Program by comparing
its Title VI and other nondiscrimination
regulations to those of over twenty other
federal agencies. The EPA found that
the other agencies’ regulations were the
same or extremely similar, while the
EPA’s regulations were different. Many
of these other agencies have successful
external compliance programs because,
in part, their regulations provide for a
robust compliance program, (including
routine access to recipient data through
compliance reports and compliance
reviews), and explicitly affirm the
agency’s discretion to appropriately
tailor complaint resolution paths based
on the nature and complexity of the
allegations presented. While some
aspects of EPA’s External Compliance
and Complaints Program will continue
to have unique characteristics that are
tailored to EPA’s needs, the EPA,
recipients, complainants, and industry
will benefit from the predictability,
consistency and familiarity arising from
this effort to conform these aspects of
the EPA’s regulations with regulations
promulgated by other federal agencies
with a record of proven success and
with the Department of Justice’s
Coordination Regulations at 28 CFR part
42, subpart F. Thus, this proposed rule
will give the EPA a similar level of
flexibility and discretion as is afforded
to other federal agencies when
collecting compliance information,
conducting post-award compliance
reviews, and investigating complaints.
Finally, these amendments recognize
that the EPA’s current, self-imposed
regulatory deadlines are impracticable
given the inherent scientific complexity
associated with determining which and
how populations are impacted by
environmental pollutants; the number of
discrimination allegations and theories
that may be asserted in any one
complaint under Title VI or the other
nondiscrimination statutes; and the
volume of the complaints received.
Indeed, there are several examples of
the analytical and logistical complexity
of discrimination complaints
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
77285
historically filed with the EPA on its
Web site. For instance, in one case
alleging disparate health impacts, the
EPA developed a pesticide exposure
analysis to predict daily air
concentrations of a specific pesticide at
different distances from an application
site, based on information concerning
the amount of the pesticide applied
during a seven-year period. In order to
conduct such an analysis, the EPA had
to gather and enter the available raw
data into a database and then have the
appropriate scientific models created
that took into account several factors
including, time of day, location, wind
speed, proximity and temperature. Next,
this analysis was peer reviewed before
the EPA was ultimately able to resolve
the complaint. The EPA recognizes that
not every administrative complaint will
require this same level of scientific
analysis to determine who is potentially
exposed to a particular pollutant. Also,
the EPA recognizes that there may be
several potential resolution paths,
including informal resolution and
Alternative Dispute Resolution, even for
those cases raising disparate health
claims, which the EPA will pursue,
when appropriate. By eliminating
arbitrary deadlines, the EPA will be
better positioned to strategically manage
its administrative complaint docket by
identifying the specific aspects of
individual complaints, such as
complaints that present the potential for
high-impact resolution. Further, the
EPA will be able to explore the best
resolution option for those complaints,
including tailored goals and
benchmarks for specific phases of the
individual case, rather than a cookiecutter approach that assumes all cases
should follow the same approach,
resolution strategy, and timeframes.
Tailoring the appropriate resolution
path to each complaint based on the
unique factual pattern and legal issues
presented, will further allow the EPA to
dedicate the appropriate amount of time
and resources to resolve each individual
complaint.
It is important to note that even with
the elimination of the arbitrary
deadlines, the EPA must promptly
process and investigate complaints.
Removal of deadlines will not allow the
EPA to unreasonably delay its
resolution of complaints because, in
part, the definition of a prompt
investigation and resolution turns on
the factual context of the complaint.
Indeed, the language in the proposed
rule is subject to judicial review and is
consistent with judicial precedent that
recognizes that any investigatory
timeframe may be affected by the
E:\FR\FM\14DEP1.SGM
14DEP1
77286
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 239 / Monday, December 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules
breadth and complexity of the issues in
the complaint.
Thus, based on the entire proposed
regulatory amendments that will
conform the EPA’s regulations to those
of more than twenty other federal
agencies, the EPA will take another step
in its journey to continue to create a
model Civil Rights Program. In light of
the flexibility, discretion, and
accountability for individual cases
affirmed by this proposed rule, the EPA
will be better able to strategically
implement its external civil rights
enforcement program to ensure prompt,
effective and efficient complaint docket
management and to enhance its
proactive compliance program.
The EPA is subject to the Department
of Justice’s Coordination Regulations
describing specific implementation,
compliance, and enforcement
obligations of federal funding agencies
under Title VI and similar provisions in
federal grant statutes. See 28 CFR 42.401
through 42.415. In accordance with 28
CFR 42.403, the EPA submitted this
proposed rule to the Assistant Attorney
General, Civil Rights Division,
Department of Justice, and received her
approval. The final rule will be
submitted to the Attorney General
through the Assistant Attorney General
for final approval pursuant to 28 CFR
42.403(c)(3).
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
II. Overview of This Proposed
Rulemaking
A. Sub-Part D: Compliance Information
Requirements for Recipients of EPA
Financial Assistance
The EPA proposes to amend § 7.85(b)
by deleting the following text describing
when additional information will be
sought from recipients—‘‘where there is
reason to believe that discrimination
may exist in a program or activity
receiving EPA assistance.’’ In this same
regulatory section, the EPA also
proposes deleting ‘‘and shall be
accompanied by a written statement
summarizing the complaint or setting
forth the basis for the belief that
discrimination may exist.’’ These
changes reaffirm the agency’s existing
authority to use compliance reviews to
identify and resolve compliance
concerns with recipients of EPA
financial assistance to prevent costly
investigations and litigation.
Compliance reviews are an important
part of the implementation of all EPA
programs and essential to the
functioning of comprehensive
compliance and enforcement efforts.
EPA will work with states and other
recipients of financial assistance to
ensure that compliance reviews are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:50 Dec 11, 2015
Jkt 238001
focused on a review of data and
information that is relevant to
determining compliance. EPA solicits
comments on how to schedule and
conduct compliance reviews in ways
that minimize unnecessary burdens to
both EPA and the recipients.
Further, the revised language is
consistent with the regulatory
provisions of more than twenty other
federal agencies with regard to the
routine collection of data and
information from recipients. Several of
those federal agencies have successful
compliance review programs that have
been well-established for many years, so
the concept of conducting compliance
reviews is something with which EPA’s
external stakeholders should already
have a great deal of familiarity based on
engagement with those other federal
agencies. In other words, this proposed
rule is not a significant change, as it
affords the EPA the same discretion and
flexibility granted to those agencies in
their compliance reviews. Such routine
collection is also considered a best
practice for Title VI programs as
reflected in the Department of Justice’s
Coordination Regulations, which
require federal agencies to ‘‘provide for
the collection of data and information
from applicants for and recipients of
federal assistance sufficient to permit
effective enforcement of Title VI,’’ 28
CFR 42.406(a). Thus, this proposed rule
is intended to clarify the EPA’s ability
to access such information under the
current regulations, while providing the
flexibility to establish a successful
compliance review program and
improve the EPA’s External Compliance
and Complaints Program. The EPA is
requesting comment on EPA’s proposed
modifications to its compliance review
regulations; especially its proposed
phased-approach to conducting
compliance reviews that is discussed in
the accompanying cost analysis.
Additionally, this proposed rule gives
the EPA discretion to require recipients
to submit compliance reports. This
proposed rule would, as demonstrated
by the successful compliance report
programs of sister agencies, be an
invaluable tool in prioritizing complaint
investigations, selecting recipients for
compliance reviews, and conducting
targeted outreach to provide technical
assistance. Currently, § 7.85 of the
regulation imposes an obligation ‘‘to
collect, maintain, and on request . . .
provide’’ specific information to the
EPA. Similarly, § 7.115 notifies
recipients that the EPA may request
‘‘data and information’’ pertaining to
any recipient’s programs or activities
receiving EPA assistance. Consistent
with § 7.35, recipients of EPA assistance
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
are also responsible for collecting such
reports from any entity through which
a recipient operates the program and
activity receiving EPA financial
assistance, including sub-recipients,
licensees, or contractors. In other words,
recipients already have a regulatory
obligation to collect and maintain
relevant information. With this
proposed rule, recipients may be asked
to submit a report containing the
relevant and current information.
Adding this proposed rule allows the
EPA to more proactively enforce Title VI
and other nondiscrimination
obligations. This proposed modification
makes clear that compliance reports
would be required at such times and in
such form and containing such
information as the EPA may determine
to be necessary to enable the EPA to
ascertain whether the recipient has
complied or is complying with 40 CFR
part 7. The proposed regulation,
however, does not identify or prescribe
the exact content of such reports. The
EPA is requesting written comment on
the content, frequency and prioritization
of which recipients will be expected to
submit compliance reports. During the
notice and comment period, the EPA
will also engage stakeholders through
listening sessions in order to explore the
compliance reports process and their
content. At this time, the EPA’s estimate
of the potential burden associated with
compliance with this proposed
regulation is based on assumptions
about what type of information a
recipient will be required to include in
such a report—from involving the
compilation or gathering of pre-existing
information, including information
specifically identified in the current
regulations and Standard Form 4700–4,
to including information related to
public involvement, limited English
proficiency, or data and information
demonstrating that the program or
activity receiving the EPA assistance
complies with its nondiscrimination
obligations.
The EPA understands that
stakeholders may have questions about
what specific information should be
contained in such reports. Accordingly,
the EPA may continue to request
compliance reports related to
information gathering in the context of
compliance reviews and complaint
investigations conducted under
§§ 7.110, 7.115, and 7.120. However, the
EPA does not intend to request
compliance reports, unrelated to
compliance reviews and complaint
investigations, from recipients any
sooner than 90 days after it has drafted
guidance about such reports, sought
E:\FR\FM\14DEP1.SGM
14DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 239 / Monday, December 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules
stakeholder input on the guidance, put
the guidance out for notice and
comment, and finalized the guidance.
This process will allow the EPA,
recipients, and other stakeholders to
work collaboratively to improve the
EPA’s External Compliance and
Complaints Program.
B. Sub-Part E: Agency Compliance
Procedures
1. Post-Award Compliance
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Under the current regulations, on-site
reviews for post-award compliance may
occur when the Office of Civil Rights
(OCR) ‘‘has reason to believe that
discrimination may be occurring in such
programs or activities.’’ For the reasons
set forth above, the EPA proposes
amending 40 CFR 7.110(a) and 7.115(a),
to affirm the OCR’s flexibility and
discretion to structure how it conducts
pre-award and post-award compliance
reviews. This modification is consistent
with the Title VI regulations of more
than twenty other federal agencies.
Additionally, the EPA proposes to
remove the provision to provide postreview notice to a recipient within 180
calendar days from the start of a
compliance review or complaint
investigation pursuant to 40 CFR
7.115(c)(1). Instead of this calendar
deadline, the EPA proposes to conform
to the regulations of over twenty other
federal agencies that state that
complaints will be ‘‘promptly’’
investigated. The EPA proposes to adopt
this language because it has found that
this self-imposed, inflexible deadline is
impracticable given the inherent
scientific complexity associated with
determining which and how
populations are impacted by
environmental pollutants; the number of
discrimination allegations and theories
that may be asserted in any one
complaint under Title VI or the other
nondiscrimination statutes; and the
volume of the complaints received.
Without the burden of an unrealistic,
self-imposed deadline, the EPA will be
in a better position to improve the entire
External Compliance and Complaints
Program, including the compliance
review and reports efforts discussed
above. Even without this deadline, the
EPA still must promptly investigate
complaints.
2. Complaint Investigations
This proposed rule removes the
introductory text of 40 CFR 7.120
concerning the investigation of ‘‘all
complaints’’ and to adopt language,
substantially similar to the regulations
of other federal agencies, requiring
investigation of complaints that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:50 Dec 11, 2015
Jkt 238001
‘‘indicate a possible failure to comply.’’
This change will allow the EPA to
prioritize and dedicate resources to
complaints that—after an initial
review—reveal a possible failure to
comply. Yet, the proposed rule does not
alter the reasons for rejecting or closing
a complaint upon which the EPA and
other agencies have relied. Instead, the
proposed regulatory language clarifies
the agency’s discretion to pursue a path
to resolution in light of the particular
facts of each case. The EPA seeks to
conform to the regulatory text of its
sister agencies in order to affirm that it
will not seek to impose a one-size fits
all approach to resolution. In other
words, the proposed rule is intended to
reflect that a path to resolution must be
tailored to the specific facts of the case
and such a path may not be identical for
every complaint. Not every complaint,
for example, will require the completion
of a costly and time-consuming
investigation in order to resolve it.
This proposed rule also removes the
deadline for notifying complainants and
recipients of receipt of a complaint
against the recipient and for reviewing
a complaint for acceptance, rejection, or
referral to the appropriate federal
agency. Currently, the EPA’s
notification regulation requires the EPA
to notify the complainant and the
recipient of receipt of a complaint
within five calendar days under 40 CFR
7.120(c). The current regulations also
require the EPA to initiate complaint
processing procedures by conducting a
jurisdictional review to determine
whether to accept, reject, or refer a
complaint within twenty calendar days
of acknowledgement of the complaint.
The current regulatory provisions
imposing a deadline on complaint
notification and jurisdictional review
are unique to the EPA. This proposed
rule removes these deadlines and, as
with complaint investigations, it
proposes that the EPA will ‘‘promptly’’
acknowledge receipt of a complaint and
issue a decision on whether a complaint
is accepted, rejected, or referred. The
substitution of ‘‘promptly’’ for specific
deadlines ensures EPA has the
flexibility to improve its External
Compliance and Complaints Program.
The EPA believes this removal is not
only reasonable, but will provide EPA
with the flexibility and time necessary
to complete a comprehensive and
thorough initial review to identify the
most appropriate path to resolve the
complaint. Although, as reflected in the
regulations of more than twenty other
federal agencies, it is not common
practice to include specific deadlines,
the EPA is fully committed to
processing complaints and compliance
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
77287
reviews expeditiously. In fact, the EPA
intends, like other federal agencies, to
create internal procedures and policies
to provide guidance to staff, including
the expectation that a determination of
what constitutes reasonably prompt
action varies based on the stage of
administrative processing. For instance,
a purely administrative task, (such as,
issuing an acknowledgment of a
correspondence), will take significantly
less time than the more complex and
nuance evaluation associated with
conducting jurisdictional reviews,
investigations and compliance reviews.
Nonetheless, as discussed above with
complaint investigations, because of the
volume and complexity of the
complaints that the EPA receives, these
self-imposed regulatory deadlines have
proven to be impracticable, even at
these early stages.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act Technical
Correction
The EPA proposes to remove the
reference to expired OMB control
number 2000–0006 which currently
appears after the text of 40 CFR 7.80 and
7.85. The OMB control number for the
collection of information under the
EPA’s 40 CFR part 7 regulations is OMB
control number 2030–0020. Because no
person is required to respond to an
information collection request regulated
by the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
a valid control number assigned by
OMB is displayed in 40 CFR part 9,
another part of the Code of Federal
Regulations, a valid Federal Register
notice, or by any other appropriate
means, the EPA proposes to add the
citation for the OMB control no. 2030–
0020 and the provisions in 40 CFR part
7 under which the OCR collects
information from applicants and
recipients to the table located in 40 CFR
part 9. These technical corrections will
provide clarity to applicants and
recipients of EPA assistance regarding
which Information Collection Request
control number applies to the EPA’s
requests for information under 40 CFR
part 7.
III. Statutory and Executive Orders
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant
regulatory action and was therefore not
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review. The EPA
prepared an analysis of the potential
costs and benefits associated with this
E:\FR\FM\14DEP1.SGM
14DEP1
77288
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 239 / Monday, December 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules
action. A copy of the analysis is
available in the docket for this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new
information collection burden. This
proposed rule will allow the EPA to
enforce civil rights laws. It therefore
falls under the exemption to the
Paperwork Reduction Act found at 44
U.S.C. 3518(e) that exempts agencies
from Paperwork Reduction Act
requirements when they are exercising
their substantive enforcement authority
regarding civil rights laws. Even though
this action is covered by the section
3518(e) exemption, this action is
covered by an Information Collection
Request that was approved by the Office
of Management and Budget in June
2015. The information collection
request contained in the existing
regulations at 40 CFR part 7 was
assigned OMB control number 2030–
0020. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed
in 40 CFR part 9.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. In making this
determination, the impact of concern is
any significant adverse economic
impact on small entities. An agency may
certify that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities if
the rule relieves regulatory burden, has
no net burden or otherwise has a
positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. The deadline
and technical amendments being
proposed are not expected to have a
direct impact on any grant recipients.
The direct cost to any particular entity
under a compliance review will not
increase because they already are
potentially subject to compliance
reviews under the existing regulations.
The impact of the proposed
amendments related to compliance
report requirements for any particular
entity would only be the cost of
assembling data and information that it
already must collect and maintain under
the existing regulations. We have
therefore concluded that this action will
have no net regulatory burden for all
directly regulated small entities.
Although this proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities,
the EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce
the impact of this proposed rule on
small entities. (See Economic Analysis
in the docket for this rulemaking for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:50 Dec 11, 2015
Jkt 238001
more detailed information on potential
impacts.)
We continue to be interested in the
potential impacts of this proposed rule
on small entities and welcome
comments on issues relating to such
impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action does not contain any
mandate as described in UMRA, 2
U.S.C. 1531 through 1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Because this proposed
rule enforces statutory rights that
prohibit discrimination as described in
the exception at 2 U.S.C. 1503(2), it is
not subject to the requirements of
section 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This proposed rule does not have
federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states,
on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132,
and consistent with the EPA policy to
promote communications between the
EPA and state and local governments,
the EPA specifically solicits comment
on this proposed rule from state and
local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This proposed rule does not directly
impose any new obligations on the
federally recognized tribes that receive
or apply for EPA financial assistance.
Moreover, the proposed rule would not
impose compliance costs on tribes or
preempt tribal law. Therefore,
consultation under Executive Order
13175 is not required.
However, EPA welcomes the views of
tribes and is interested in considering
any comments that tribes may offer on
the proposed rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern
environmental health or safety risks that
the EPA has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, per
the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory
action’’ in section 2–202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not concern an
environmental health risk or safety risk.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
This proposed rule does not involve
technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 establishes
federal executive policy on
environmental justice. Its main
provision directs federal agencies, to the
greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make
environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
The EPA believes that improving its
External Compliance and Complaints
Program will have a positive impact on
the agency’s efforts to advance
environmental justice. More precisely,
by bringing the EPA’s regulations into
alignment with the regulations of more
than twenty other agencies, the EPA
will have the regulatory tools necessary
to exercise its discretion to make the
complex determination of what sorts of
disparate impacts upon communities
constitute ‘‘sufficiently significant social
problems,’’ and are ‘‘readily enough
remediable, to warrant altering the
practices of the federal grantees that had
produced those impacts.’’ Alexander v.
Choate 469 U.S. 287, 293–294 (1985).
Such regulatory tools also will improve
the EPA’s External Compliance and
Complaints Program by forging an
appropriate path to resolution tailored
to the specific facts and circumstances
of each matter. However, the EPA
welcomes comments from minority,
low-income or indigenous populations
about these proposed regulatory
modifications.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 7
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Age discrimination, Civil rights, Equal
employment opportunity, Individuals
with disabilities, Reporting and
E:\FR\FM\14DEP1.SGM
14DEP1
77289
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 239 / Monday, December 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules
recordkeeping requirements, Sex
discrimination.
40 CFR Part 9
Environmental protection, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 1, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 7—NONDISCRIMINATION IN
PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES
RECEIVING FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
ascertain whether the recipient has
complied or is complying with this
subpart. In general, recipients should
have available for the Agency the racial
composition of affected neighborhoods.
In the case in which a primary recipient
extends federal financial assistance to
any other recipient or subcontracts with
any other person or group, such other
recipient shall also submit such
compliance reports to the primary
recipient as may be necessary to enable
the primary recipient to carry out its
obligations under this Subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart E—Agency Compliance
Procedures
§ 7.110
[Amended]
4. Section 7.110 paragraph (a), fourth
sentence is amended by removing ‘‘only
when it has reason to believe that
discrimination may be occurring in a
program or activity which is the subject
of the application’’.
■
1. The Authority citation for part 7
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2000d to 200d–7 and
6101 et seq.; 29 U.S.C. 794; 33 U.S.C. 1251nt.
Subpart D—Requirements for
Applicants and Recipients
§ 7.115
§ 7.80
8. In § 9.1, the table is amended by
adding the heading titled
‘‘Nondiscrimination in Programs or
Activities Receiving EPA Assistance’’
and entries 7.80, 7.85, 7.110, and 7.115
above the heading ‘‘Protection of
Human Subjects’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
*
*
■
5. Amend § 7.115 by revising
paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) to read as
follows:
(a) Periodic review. The OCR may
periodically conduct compliance
reviews of any recipient’s programs or
activities receiving EPA assistance,
including the request of data and
information, and may conduct on-site
reviews.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * * (1) The OCR will notify the
recipient in writing by certified mail,
return receipt requested, of:
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. Amend § 7.120 by revising the
introductory text and paragraphs (c) and
(d)(1)(i) to read as follows:
§ 7.85
§ 7.120
Recipients.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Additional compliance
information. If necessary, the OCR may
require recipients to submit data and
information specific to certain programs
or activities to determine compliance or
to investigate a complaint alleging
discrimination in a program or activity
receiving EPA assistance. Requests shall
be limited to data and information
which is relevant to determining
compliance.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Compliance reports. Each recipient
shall keep such records and submit to
the OCR timely, complete, and accurate
compliance reports at such times, and in
such form and containing such
information, as the OCR may determine
to be necessary to enable the OCR to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:50 Dec 11, 2015
Jkt 238001
Complaint investigations.
The OCR will make a prompt
investigation whenever a complaint
indicates a possible failure to comply.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Notification. The OCR will notify
the complainant and the recipient of the
agency’s receipt of the complaint.
(d) * * *
(1) * * * (i) After the
acknowledgment, the OCR will
promptly review the complaint for
acceptance, rejection, or referral to the
appropriate Federal agency.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 9—OMB APPROVALS UNDER
THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
7. The Authority citation for part 9
continues to read as follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
*
*
*
*
40 CFR citation
*
OMB control No.
*
*
*
Nondiscrimination in Programs or
Activities Receiving EPA Assistance
Postaward compliance.
2. Section 7.80 is amended by
removing the parenthetical citation
‘‘(Approved by the Office of
Management and Budget under control
number 2000–0006)’’ following
paragraph (c)(3).
■ 3. Section 7.85 is amended by:
■ a. Revising paragraph (b);
■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (f) and (g)
as paragraphs (g) and (h) respectively,
and adding a new paragraph (f); and
■ c. Removing the parenthetical citation
‘‘(Approved by the Office of
Management and Budget under control
number 2000–0006)’’ following the
newly redesignated paragraph (h).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
[Amended]
■
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136–136y;
15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601–2671;
21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318,
1321, 1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and
(e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR
1971–1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241,
242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g–1, 300g–2,
300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–1,
300j–2, 300j–3, 300j–4, 300j–9, 1857 et seq.,
6901–6992k, 7401–7671q, 7542, 9601–9657,
11023, 11048.
7.80 .................................
7.85 .................................
7.110 ...............................
7.115 ...............................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
2030–0020
2030–0020
2030–0020
2030–0020
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2015–31050 Filed 12–11–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 10 and 11
[PS Docket No. 15–91; FCC 15–154]
Improving Wireless Emergency Alerts
and Community-Initiated Alerting
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
This document proposes
revisions to Wireless Emergency Alert
(WEA) rules designed to improve the
clarity of WEA messages, ensure that
WEA alerts reach only those individuals
to whom a WEA alert is relevant, and
establish a WEA testing program that
will improve the effectiveness of the
system for public safety officials and the
public. This document also seeks
comment on issues necessary to ensure
that WEA keeps pace with evolving
technologies and thus empowers
communities to initiate these life-saving
alerts. By this action, the Commission
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\14DEP1.SGM
14DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 239 (Monday, December 14, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77284-77289]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31050]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 7 and 9
[EPA-HQ-OA-2013-0031, FRL-9933-69-OA]
RIN 2090-AA39
Nondiscrimination in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal
Assistance from the Environmental Protection Agency
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to amend
its regulations with regard to compliance information, post-award
compliance reviews, and complaint investigations. This proposed rule
will improve the EPA's ability to ensure that recipients of federal
financial assistance comply with their affirmative obligation under the
Civil Rights Act of 1965 and other nondiscrimination statutes not to
discriminate, while also ensuring that the EPA has sufficient
flexibility and discretion to carry out its nondiscrimination
compliance work.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 12, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-
2013-0031, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeryl Covington or Helena Wooden-
Aguilar, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Civil Rights,
(Mail Code 1201A), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, D,C. 20460,
telephone (202) 564-7272, (202) 564-7713 or (202) 564-0792.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background Information
The EPA is proposing to amend its regulations implementing title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (``Title VI''), section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (``Section 504''), section 13 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-500), and
the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (``Age Discrimination Act'') in
order to enable it to create a model civil rights program which can
nimbly and effectively enforce civil rights statutes in the
environmental context. Together, these statutes prohibit discrimination
on the basis of race, color, national origin, (including discrimination
based on language ability or limited English proficiency), disability,
sex, and age in programs or activities that receive federal financial
assistance. This rulemaking proposes to amend subpart D (Requirements
for Applicants and Recipients) and subpart E (Agency Compliance
Procedures) provisions regarding compliance information, post-award
compliance reviews, and complaint investigations. This rulemaking also
proposes to make a technical correction to subpart D to
[[Page 77285]]
remove citations to expired Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
control numbers and to place the current OMB control number for
information collection requests under 40 CFR part 7 in the consolidated
list of OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act in 40 CFR part
9.
Applicants for and recipients of EPA assistance already are
obligated to comply with Title VI and other nondiscrimination statutes
as a condition of receiving EPA assistance. This proposed rule is
consistent with the broad discretion that, as recognized by the Supreme
Court, has been afforded all federal agencies with regard to the
enforcement of federal nondiscrimination obligations,\1\ and is part of
a package of efforts intended to improve EPA's civil rights program.
One effort, for example, is the draft External Compliance and
Complaints Program Strategic Plan, which was published for comment on
September 10, 2015 (https://www.epa.gov/ocr/external-compliance-title-vi-new-developments). This package, as a whole, will increase
transparency and accountability and move EPA closer to its goal of
establishing a model civil rights program. This proposed rule--another
part of the package--will assist the EPA in continuing to be more
proactive in monitoring and enforcing recipients' compliance with Title
VI and other nondiscrimination statutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 293-294 (1985); FCC
v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U.S. 134 (1940).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has sought to improve its External Compliance and
Complaints Program. In 2009, EPA made a commitment to strengthen and
revitalize EPA's civil rights program. In addition to increasing staff,
securing additional training and improving processes, as part of that
effort, in 2010, EPA funded an independent in-depth evaluation of its
civil rights program by the firm Deloitte Consulting LLP. Following
receipt of the evaluation, the Administrator established an internal
Civil Rights Executive Committee to review Deloitte's evaluation, and
other sources of information, and make recommendations for building a
model civil rights program for EPA. The Executive Committee posted its
draft report for public review in February 2012, and the Administrator
approved the final report and recommendations on April 13, 2012.
One of the Executive Committee's recommendations was for the EPA to
be more proactive in terms of achieving compliance with Title VI and
other nondiscrimination obligations by, in part, analyzing data and
information obtained from recipients and developing consistent
processes. Accordingly, as part of its efforts to create a robust pre-
and post- award compliance program (as identified in the EPA Draft EJ
2014 Plan Supplement dated April 12, 2012), the EPA began the process
of reevaluating its regulations to identify what data and information
it currently obtains from recipients. The EPA first looked to other
federal agencies for their best practices in terms of an External
Compliance and Complaints Program. Specifically, the EPA evaluated its
External Compliance and Complaints Program by comparing its Title VI
and other nondiscrimination regulations to those of over twenty other
federal agencies. The EPA found that the other agencies' regulations
were the same or extremely similar, while the EPA's regulations were
different. Many of these other agencies have successful external
compliance programs because, in part, their regulations provide for a
robust compliance program, (including routine access to recipient data
through compliance reports and compliance reviews), and explicitly
affirm the agency's discretion to appropriately tailor complaint
resolution paths based on the nature and complexity of the allegations
presented. While some aspects of EPA's External Compliance and
Complaints Program will continue to have unique characteristics that
are tailored to EPA's needs, the EPA, recipients, complainants, and
industry will benefit from the predictability, consistency and
familiarity arising from this effort to conform these aspects of the
EPA's regulations with regulations promulgated by other federal
agencies with a record of proven success and with the Department of
Justice's Coordination Regulations at 28 CFR part 42, subpart F. Thus,
this proposed rule will give the EPA a similar level of flexibility and
discretion as is afforded to other federal agencies when collecting
compliance information, conducting post-award compliance reviews, and
investigating complaints.
Finally, these amendments recognize that the EPA's current, self-
imposed regulatory deadlines are impracticable given the inherent
scientific complexity associated with determining which and how
populations are impacted by environmental pollutants; the number of
discrimination allegations and theories that may be asserted in any one
complaint under Title VI or the other nondiscrimination statutes; and
the volume of the complaints received. Indeed, there are several
examples of the analytical and logistical complexity of discrimination
complaints historically filed with the EPA on its Web site. For
instance, in one case alleging disparate health impacts, the EPA
developed a pesticide exposure analysis to predict daily air
concentrations of a specific pesticide at different distances from an
application site, based on information concerning the amount of the
pesticide applied during a seven-year period. In order to conduct such
an analysis, the EPA had to gather and enter the available raw data
into a database and then have the appropriate scientific models created
that took into account several factors including, time of day,
location, wind speed, proximity and temperature. Next, this analysis
was peer reviewed before the EPA was ultimately able to resolve the
complaint. The EPA recognizes that not every administrative complaint
will require this same level of scientific analysis to determine who is
potentially exposed to a particular pollutant. Also, the EPA recognizes
that there may be several potential resolution paths, including
informal resolution and Alternative Dispute Resolution, even for those
cases raising disparate health claims, which the EPA will pursue, when
appropriate. By eliminating arbitrary deadlines, the EPA will be better
positioned to strategically manage its administrative complaint docket
by identifying the specific aspects of individual complaints, such as
complaints that present the potential for high-impact resolution.
Further, the EPA will be able to explore the best resolution option for
those complaints, including tailored goals and benchmarks for specific
phases of the individual case, rather than a cookie-cutter approach
that assumes all cases should follow the same approach, resolution
strategy, and timeframes. Tailoring the appropriate resolution path to
each complaint based on the unique factual pattern and legal issues
presented, will further allow the EPA to dedicate the appropriate
amount of time and resources to resolve each individual complaint.
It is important to note that even with the elimination of the
arbitrary deadlines, the EPA must promptly process and investigate
complaints. Removal of deadlines will not allow the EPA to unreasonably
delay its resolution of complaints because, in part, the definition of
a prompt investigation and resolution turns on the factual context of
the complaint. Indeed, the language in the proposed rule is subject to
judicial review and is consistent with judicial precedent that
recognizes that any investigatory timeframe may be affected by the
[[Page 77286]]
breadth and complexity of the issues in the complaint.
Thus, based on the entire proposed regulatory amendments that will
conform the EPA's regulations to those of more than twenty other
federal agencies, the EPA will take another step in its journey to
continue to create a model Civil Rights Program. In light of the
flexibility, discretion, and accountability for individual cases
affirmed by this proposed rule, the EPA will be better able to
strategically implement its external civil rights enforcement program
to ensure prompt, effective and efficient complaint docket management
and to enhance its proactive compliance program.
The EPA is subject to the Department of Justice's Coordination
Regulations describing specific implementation, compliance, and
enforcement obligations of federal funding agencies under Title VI and
similar provisions in federal grant statutes. See 28 CFR 42.401 through
42.415. In accordance with 28 CFR 42.403, the EPA submitted this
proposed rule to the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division,
Department of Justice, and received her approval. The final rule will
be submitted to the Attorney General through the Assistant Attorney
General for final approval pursuant to 28 CFR 42.403(c)(3).
II. Overview of This Proposed Rulemaking
A. Sub-Part D: Compliance Information Requirements for Recipients of
EPA Financial Assistance
The EPA proposes to amend Sec. 7.85(b) by deleting the following
text describing when additional information will be sought from
recipients--``where there is reason to believe that discrimination may
exist in a program or activity receiving EPA assistance.'' In this same
regulatory section, the EPA also proposes deleting ``and shall be
accompanied by a written statement summarizing the complaint or setting
forth the basis for the belief that discrimination may exist.'' These
changes reaffirm the agency's existing authority to use compliance
reviews to identify and resolve compliance concerns with recipients of
EPA financial assistance to prevent costly investigations and
litigation. Compliance reviews are an important part of the
implementation of all EPA programs and essential to the functioning of
comprehensive compliance and enforcement efforts. EPA will work with
states and other recipients of financial assistance to ensure that
compliance reviews are focused on a review of data and information that
is relevant to determining compliance. EPA solicits comments on how to
schedule and conduct compliance reviews in ways that minimize
unnecessary burdens to both EPA and the recipients.
Further, the revised language is consistent with the regulatory
provisions of more than twenty other federal agencies with regard to
the routine collection of data and information from recipients. Several
of those federal agencies have successful compliance review programs
that have been well-established for many years, so the concept of
conducting compliance reviews is something with which EPA's external
stakeholders should already have a great deal of familiarity based on
engagement with those other federal agencies. In other words, this
proposed rule is not a significant change, as it affords the EPA the
same discretion and flexibility granted to those agencies in their
compliance reviews. Such routine collection is also considered a best
practice for Title VI programs as reflected in the Department of
Justice's Coordination Regulations, which require federal agencies to
``provide for the collection of data and information from applicants
for and recipients of federal assistance sufficient to permit effective
enforcement of Title VI,'' 28 CFR 42.406(a). Thus, this proposed rule
is intended to clarify the EPA's ability to access such information
under the current regulations, while providing the flexibility to
establish a successful compliance review program and improve the EPA's
External Compliance and Complaints Program. The EPA is requesting
comment on EPA's proposed modifications to its compliance review
regulations; especially its proposed phased-approach to conducting
compliance reviews that is discussed in the accompanying cost analysis.
Additionally, this proposed rule gives the EPA discretion to
require recipients to submit compliance reports. This proposed rule
would, as demonstrated by the successful compliance report programs of
sister agencies, be an invaluable tool in prioritizing complaint
investigations, selecting recipients for compliance reviews, and
conducting targeted outreach to provide technical assistance.
Currently, Sec. 7.85 of the regulation imposes an obligation ``to
collect, maintain, and on request . . . provide'' specific information
to the EPA. Similarly, Sec. 7.115 notifies recipients that the EPA may
request ``data and information'' pertaining to any recipient's programs
or activities receiving EPA assistance. Consistent with Sec. 7.35,
recipients of EPA assistance are also responsible for collecting such
reports from any entity through which a recipient operates the program
and activity receiving EPA financial assistance, including sub-
recipients, licensees, or contractors. In other words, recipients
already have a regulatory obligation to collect and maintain relevant
information. With this proposed rule, recipients may be asked to submit
a report containing the relevant and current information. Adding this
proposed rule allows the EPA to more proactively enforce Title VI and
other nondiscrimination obligations. This proposed modification makes
clear that compliance reports would be required at such times and in
such form and containing such information as the EPA may determine to
be necessary to enable the EPA to ascertain whether the recipient has
complied or is complying with 40 CFR part 7. The proposed regulation,
however, does not identify or prescribe the exact content of such
reports. The EPA is requesting written comment on the content,
frequency and prioritization of which recipients will be expected to
submit compliance reports. During the notice and comment period, the
EPA will also engage stakeholders through listening sessions in order
to explore the compliance reports process and their content. At this
time, the EPA's estimate of the potential burden associated with
compliance with this proposed regulation is based on assumptions about
what type of information a recipient will be required to include in
such a report--from involving the compilation or gathering of pre-
existing information, including information specifically identified in
the current regulations and Standard Form 4700-4, to including
information related to public involvement, limited English proficiency,
or data and information demonstrating that the program or activity
receiving the EPA assistance complies with its nondiscrimination
obligations.
The EPA understands that stakeholders may have questions about what
specific information should be contained in such reports. Accordingly,
the EPA may continue to request compliance reports related to
information gathering in the context of compliance reviews and
complaint investigations conducted under Sec. Sec. 7.110, 7.115, and
7.120. However, the EPA does not intend to request compliance reports,
unrelated to compliance reviews and complaint investigations, from
recipients any sooner than 90 days after it has drafted guidance about
such reports, sought
[[Page 77287]]
stakeholder input on the guidance, put the guidance out for notice and
comment, and finalized the guidance. This process will allow the EPA,
recipients, and other stakeholders to work collaboratively to improve
the EPA's External Compliance and Complaints Program.
B. Sub-Part E: Agency Compliance Procedures
1. Post-Award Compliance
Under the current regulations, on-site reviews for post-award
compliance may occur when the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) ``has reason
to believe that discrimination may be occurring in such programs or
activities.'' For the reasons set forth above, the EPA proposes
amending 40 CFR 7.110(a) and 7.115(a), to affirm the OCR's flexibility
and discretion to structure how it conducts pre-award and post-award
compliance reviews. This modification is consistent with the Title VI
regulations of more than twenty other federal agencies.
Additionally, the EPA proposes to remove the provision to provide
post-review notice to a recipient within 180 calendar days from the
start of a compliance review or complaint investigation pursuant to 40
CFR 7.115(c)(1). Instead of this calendar deadline, the EPA proposes to
conform to the regulations of over twenty other federal agencies that
state that complaints will be ``promptly'' investigated. The EPA
proposes to adopt this language because it has found that this self-
imposed, inflexible deadline is impracticable given the inherent
scientific complexity associated with determining which and how
populations are impacted by environmental pollutants; the number of
discrimination allegations and theories that may be asserted in any one
complaint under Title VI or the other nondiscrimination statutes; and
the volume of the complaints received. Without the burden of an
unrealistic, self-imposed deadline, the EPA will be in a better
position to improve the entire External Compliance and Complaints
Program, including the compliance review and reports efforts discussed
above. Even without this deadline, the EPA still must promptly
investigate complaints.
2. Complaint Investigations
This proposed rule removes the introductory text of 40 CFR 7.120
concerning the investigation of ``all complaints'' and to adopt
language, substantially similar to the regulations of other federal
agencies, requiring investigation of complaints that ``indicate a
possible failure to comply.'' This change will allow the EPA to
prioritize and dedicate resources to complaints that--after an initial
review--reveal a possible failure to comply. Yet, the proposed rule
does not alter the reasons for rejecting or closing a complaint upon
which the EPA and other agencies have relied. Instead, the proposed
regulatory language clarifies the agency's discretion to pursue a path
to resolution in light of the particular facts of each case. The EPA
seeks to conform to the regulatory text of its sister agencies in order
to affirm that it will not seek to impose a one-size fits all approach
to resolution. In other words, the proposed rule is intended to reflect
that a path to resolution must be tailored to the specific facts of the
case and such a path may not be identical for every complaint. Not
every complaint, for example, will require the completion of a costly
and time-consuming investigation in order to resolve it.
This proposed rule also removes the deadline for notifying
complainants and recipients of receipt of a complaint against the
recipient and for reviewing a complaint for acceptance, rejection, or
referral to the appropriate federal agency. Currently, the EPA's
notification regulation requires the EPA to notify the complainant and
the recipient of receipt of a complaint within five calendar days under
40 CFR 7.120(c). The current regulations also require the EPA to
initiate complaint processing procedures by conducting a jurisdictional
review to determine whether to accept, reject, or refer a complaint
within twenty calendar days of acknowledgement of the complaint.
The current regulatory provisions imposing a deadline on complaint
notification and jurisdictional review are unique to the EPA. This
proposed rule removes these deadlines and, as with complaint
investigations, it proposes that the EPA will ``promptly'' acknowledge
receipt of a complaint and issue a decision on whether a complaint is
accepted, rejected, or referred. The substitution of ``promptly'' for
specific deadlines ensures EPA has the flexibility to improve its
External Compliance and Complaints Program. The EPA believes this
removal is not only reasonable, but will provide EPA with the
flexibility and time necessary to complete a comprehensive and thorough
initial review to identify the most appropriate path to resolve the
complaint. Although, as reflected in the regulations of more than
twenty other federal agencies, it is not common practice to include
specific deadlines, the EPA is fully committed to processing complaints
and compliance reviews expeditiously. In fact, the EPA intends, like
other federal agencies, to create internal procedures and policies to
provide guidance to staff, including the expectation that a
determination of what constitutes reasonably prompt action varies based
on the stage of administrative processing. For instance, a purely
administrative task, (such as, issuing an acknowledgment of a
correspondence), will take significantly less time than the more
complex and nuance evaluation associated with conducting jurisdictional
reviews, investigations and compliance reviews. Nonetheless, as
discussed above with complaint investigations, because of the volume
and complexity of the complaints that the EPA receives, these self-
imposed regulatory deadlines have proven to be impracticable, even at
these early stages.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act Technical Correction
The EPA proposes to remove the reference to expired OMB control
number 2000-0006 which currently appears after the text of 40 CFR 7.80
and 7.85. The OMB control number for the collection of information
under the EPA's 40 CFR part 7 regulations is OMB control number 2030-
0020. Because no person is required to respond to an information
collection request regulated by the Paperwork Reduction Act unless a
valid control number assigned by OMB is displayed in 40 CFR part 9,
another part of the Code of Federal Regulations, a valid Federal
Register notice, or by any other appropriate means, the EPA proposes to
add the citation for the OMB control no. 2030-0020 and the provisions
in 40 CFR part 7 under which the OCR collects information from
applicants and recipients to the table located in 40 CFR part 9. These
technical corrections will provide clarity to applicants and recipients
of EPA assistance regarding which Information Collection Request
control number applies to the EPA's requests for information under 40
CFR part 7.
III. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review. The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and
benefits associated with this
[[Page 77288]]
action. A copy of the analysis is available in the docket for this
action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
This proposed rule will allow the EPA to enforce civil rights laws. It
therefore falls under the exemption to the Paperwork Reduction Act
found at 44 U.S.C. 3518(e) that exempts agencies from Paperwork
Reduction Act requirements when they are exercising their substantive
enforcement authority regarding civil rights laws. Even though this
action is covered by the section 3518(e) exemption, this action is
covered by an Information Collection Request that was approved by the
Office of Management and Budget in June 2015. The information
collection request contained in the existing regulations at 40 CFR part
7 was assigned OMB control number 2030-0020. The OMB control numbers
for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. The deadline and technical amendments
being proposed are not expected to have a direct impact on any grant
recipients. The direct cost to any particular entity under a compliance
review will not increase because they already are potentially subject
to compliance reviews under the existing regulations. The impact of the
proposed amendments related to compliance report requirements for any
particular entity would only be the cost of assembling data and
information that it already must collect and maintain under the
existing regulations. We have therefore concluded that this action will
have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small
entities.
Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, the EPA nonetheless
has tried to reduce the impact of this proposed rule on small entities.
(See Economic Analysis in the docket for this rulemaking for more
detailed information on potential impacts.)
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues relating
to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action does not contain any mandate as described in UMRA, 2
U.S.C. 1531 through 1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. Because this proposed rule enforces statutory rights
that prohibit discrimination as described in the exception at 2 U.S.C.
1503(2), it is not subject to the requirements of section 202 or 205 of
the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with the EPA
policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local
governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed
rule from state and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not directly impose any new obligations on
the federally recognized tribes that receive or apply for EPA financial
assistance. Moreover, the proposed rule would not impose compliance
costs on tribes or preempt tribal law. Therefore, consultation under
Executive Order 13175 is not required.
However, EPA welcomes the views of tribes and is interested in
considering any comments that tribes may offer on the proposed rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This proposed rule does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 establishes federal executive policy on
environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to
the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make
environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States.
The EPA believes that improving its External Compliance and
Complaints Program will have a positive impact on the agency's efforts
to advance environmental justice. More precisely, by bringing the EPA's
regulations into alignment with the regulations of more than twenty
other agencies, the EPA will have the regulatory tools necessary to
exercise its discretion to make the complex determination of what sorts
of disparate impacts upon communities constitute ``sufficiently
significant social problems,'' and are ``readily enough remediable, to
warrant altering the practices of the federal grantees that had
produced those impacts.'' Alexander v. Choate 469 U.S. 287, 293-294
(1985). Such regulatory tools also will improve the EPA's External
Compliance and Complaints Program by forging an appropriate path to
resolution tailored to the specific facts and circumstances of each
matter. However, the EPA welcomes comments from minority, low-income or
indigenous populations about these proposed regulatory modifications.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 7
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Age discrimination, Civil rights, Equal employment opportunity,
Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and
[[Page 77289]]
recordkeeping requirements, Sex discrimination.
40 CFR Part 9
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 1, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 7--NONDISCRIMINATION IN PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES RECEIVING
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
0
1. The Authority citation for part 7 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2000d to 200d-7 and 6101 et seq.; 29
U.S.C. 794; 33 U.S.C. 1251nt.
Subpart D--Requirements for Applicants and Recipients
Sec. 7.80 [Amended]
0
2. Section 7.80 is amended by removing the parenthetical citation
``(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number
2000-0006)'' following paragraph (c)(3).
0
3. Section 7.85 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (f) and (g) as paragraphs (g) and (h)
respectively, and adding a new paragraph (f); and
0
c. Removing the parenthetical citation ``(Approved by the Office of
Management and Budget under control number 2000-0006)'' following the
newly redesignated paragraph (h).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 7.85 Recipients.
* * * * *
(b) Additional compliance information. If necessary, the OCR may
require recipients to submit data and information specific to certain
programs or activities to determine compliance or to investigate a
complaint alleging discrimination in a program or activity receiving
EPA assistance. Requests shall be limited to data and information which
is relevant to determining compliance.
* * * * *
(f) Compliance reports. Each recipient shall keep such records and
submit to the OCR timely, complete, and accurate compliance reports at
such times, and in such form and containing such information, as the
OCR may determine to be necessary to enable the OCR to ascertain
whether the recipient has complied or is complying with this subpart.
In general, recipients should have available for the Agency the racial
composition of affected neighborhoods. In the case in which a primary
recipient extends federal financial assistance to any other recipient
or subcontracts with any other person or group, such other recipient
shall also submit such compliance reports to the primary recipient as
may be necessary to enable the primary recipient to carry out its
obligations under this Subpart.
* * * * *
Subpart E--Agency Compliance Procedures
Sec. 7.110 [Amended]
0
4. Section 7.110 paragraph (a), fourth sentence is amended by removing
``only when it has reason to believe that discrimination may be
occurring in a program or activity which is the subject of the
application''.
Sec. 7.115 Postaward compliance.
0
5. Amend Sec. 7.115 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) to read as
follows:
(a) Periodic review. The OCR may periodically conduct compliance
reviews of any recipient's programs or activities receiving EPA
assistance, including the request of data and information, and may
conduct on-site reviews.
* * * * *
(c) * * * (1) The OCR will notify the recipient in writing by
certified mail, return receipt requested, of:
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec. 7.120 by revising the introductory text and paragraphs
(c) and (d)(1)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 7.120 Complaint investigations.
The OCR will make a prompt investigation whenever a complaint
indicates a possible failure to comply.
* * * * *
(c) Notification. The OCR will notify the complainant and the
recipient of the agency's receipt of the complaint.
(d) * * *
(1) * * * (i) After the acknowledgment, the OCR will promptly
review the complaint for acceptance, rejection, or referral to the
appropriate Federal agency.
* * * * *
PART 9--OMB APPROVALS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
0
7. The Authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001,
2003, 2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C.
9701; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326,
1330, 1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3
CFR 1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f,
300g, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-
2, 300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q,
7542, 9601-9657, 11023, 11048.
0
8. In Sec. 9.1, the table is amended by adding the heading titled
``Nondiscrimination in Programs or Activities Receiving EPA
Assistance'' and entries 7.80, 7.85, 7.110, and 7.115 above the heading
``Protection of Human Subjects'' to read as follows:
Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR citation OMB control No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nondiscrimination in Programs or Activities Receiving EPA Assistance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.80................................................. 2030-0020
7.85................................................. 2030-0020
7.110................................................ 2030-0020
7.115................................................ 2030-0020
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-31050 Filed 12-11-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P