Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-05-18 · Food and Drug Administration, HHS · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Final rule

17,914 words·~81 min read·/register/2007/05/18/07-2473

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 510 New Animal Drugs; Change of Sponsor's Address AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect a change of sponsor's address for Modern Veterinary Therapeutics, LLC. DATES: This rule is effective May 18, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David R. Newkirk, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-100), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-6967, e-mail: *david.newkirk@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Modern Veterinary Therapeutics, LLC, 18301 SW. 86th Ave., Miami, FL 33157, has informed FDA of a change of address to 1550 Madruga Ave., suite 329, Coral Gables, FL 33146. Accordingly, the agency is amending the regulations in 21 CFR 510.600(c) to reflect the change. This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 510 Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 510 is amended as follows: PART 510—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 510 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e. 2. In § 510.600, in the table in paragraph (c)(1) revise the entry for “Modern Veterinary Therapeutics, LLC”; and in the table in paragraph (c)(2) revise the entry for “015914” to read as follows: § 510.600 Names, addresses, and drug labeler codes of sponsors of approved applications.
(c)* * *
(1)* * * Firm name and address Drug labeler code * * * * * Modern Veterinary Therapeutics, LLC, 1550 Madruga Ave., suite 329, Coral Gables, FL 33146 015914 * * * * *
(2)* * * Drug labeler code Firm name and address * * * * * 015914 Modern Veterinary Therapeutics, LLC, 1550 Madruga Ave., suite 329, Coral Gables, FL 33146 * * * * * Dated: May 7, 2007. Bernadette Dunham, Deputy Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. [FR Doc. E7-9555 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Parts 510 and 520 Oral Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Phenylbutazone Powder AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of an abbreviated new animal drug application (ANADA) filed by Superior Equine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The ANADA provides for the veterinary prescription use of phenylbutazone powder administered to horses in feed for the relief of inflammatory conditions associated with the musculoskeletal system. DATES: This rule is effective May 18, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Harshman, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-104), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-0169, e-mail: *john.harshman@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Superior Equine Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Pleasant Grove, UT 84062, filed ANADA 200-333 that provides for the veterinary prescription use of SUPERIORBUTE (phenylbutazone) Powder administered to horses in feed for the relief of inflammatory conditions associated with the musculoskeletal system. Superior Equine Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s SUPERIORBUTE Powder is approved as a generic copy of IVX Animal Health, Inc.'s Phenylbutazone Tablets, USP, approved under NADA 91-818. The ANADA is approved as of April 20, 2007, and the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 520.1720e to reflect the approval. The basis of approval is discussed in the freedom of information summary. In addition, Superior Equine Pharmaceuticals, Inc., has not been previously listed in the animal drug regulations as a sponsor of an approved application. At this time, 21 CFR 510.600(c) is being amended to add entries for the firm. In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. FDA has determined under 21 CFR 25.33 that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 510 Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 21 CFR Part 520 Animal drugs. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR parts 510 and 520 are amended as follows: PART 510—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 510 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e. 2. Section 510.600 is amended in the table in paragraph (c)(1) by alphabetically adding a new entry for “Superior Equine Pharmaceuticals, Inc.” and in the table in paragraph (c)(2) by numerically adding a new entry for “027053” to read as follows: § 510.600 Names, addresses, and drug labeler codes of sponsors of approved applications.
(c)* * *
(1)* * * Firm name and address Drug labeler code * * * * * Superior Equine Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Pleasant Grove, UT 84062 027053 * * * * *
(2)* * * Drug labeler code Firm name and address * * * * * 027053 Superior Equine Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Pleasant Grove, UT 84062. * * * * * PART 520—ORAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 3. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 520 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. 4. Revise § 520.1720e, to read as follows: § 520.1720e Phenylbutazone powder.
(a)*Specifications* —(1) Each 1.15 grams
(g)of powder contains 1 g phenylbutazone.
(2)Each 10 g of powder contains 1 g phenylbutazone.
(b)*Sponsors* . See sponsor numbers in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
(1)No. 027053 for use of product described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(2)No. 057699 for use of product described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(c)*Conditions of use in horses* —(1) *Amount* . Administer 1 to 2 g (1 to 2 level scoops, using the scoop provided) per 500 pounds of body weight on a small amount of palatable feed, not exceed 4 g per animal daily.
(2)*Indications for use.* For the relief of inflammatory conditions associated with the musculosketetal system.
(3)*Limitations* . Do not use in horses intended for human consumption. Federal law prohibits the extralabel use of this product in female cattle 20 months of age or older. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian. Dated: May 7, 2007. Bernadette Dunham, Deputy Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. [FR Doc. E7-9559 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 522 Implantation or Injectable Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Butorphanol AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of an abbreviated new animal drug application (ANADA) filed by IVX Animal Health, Inc. The ANADA provides for veterinary prescription use of butorphanol tartrate injectable solution in cats for the relief of pain. DATES: This rule is effective May 18, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Harshman, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-104), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-0169, e-mail: *john.harshman@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: IVX Animal Health, Inc., 3915 South 48th Street Ter., St. Joseph, MO 64503, filed ANADA 200-408 that provides for veterinary prescription use of Butorphanol Tartrate Injection (2mg/mL) in cats for the relief of pain. IVX Animal Health, Inc.'s Butorphanol Tartrate Injection (2mg/mL) is approved as a generic copy of Fort Dodge Animal Health, a Div. of Wyeth's TORBUGESIC-SA (butorphanol tartrate, USP), approved under NADA 141-047. The ANADA is approved as of April 20, 2007, and the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 522.246 to reflect the approval and a current format. In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. FDA has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 522 Animal drugs. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 522 is amended as follows: PART 522—IMPLANTATION OR INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 522 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. 2. Revise § 522.246 to read as follows: § 522.246 Butorphanol.
(a)*Specifications* . Each milliliter of solution contains butorphanol (as butorphanol tartrate) in the following amounts:
(1)0.5 milligrams (mg);
(2)2 mg; or
(3)10 mg
(b)*Sponsors* . See sponsors in § 510.600(c) of this chapter as follows:
(1)No. 000856 for use of the product described in paragraph (a)(1) as in paragraph (d)(1) of this section; for use of the product described in paragraph (a)(2) as in paragraph (d)(2) of this section; and for use of the product described in paragraph (a)(3) as in paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
(2)No. 059130 for use of the product described in paragraph (a)(2) as in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(3)Nos. 057926 and 059130 for use of the product described in paragraph (a)(3) as in paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
(c)*Special considerations* . Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
(d)*Conditions of use* —(1) *Dogs* —(i) *Amount* . Administer 0.025 mg per pound of body weight by subcutaneous injection at intervals of 6 to 12 hours, as required. If necessary, increase dose to a maximum of 0.05 mg per pound of body weight. Treatment should not normally be required for longer than 7 days.
(ii)*Indications for use* . For the relief of chronic nonproductive cough associated with tracheo-bronchitis, tracheitis, tonsillitis, laryngitis, and pharyngitis associated with inflammatory conditions of the upper respiratory tract.
(2)*Cats* —(i) *Amount* . Administer 0.2 mg per pound of body weight by subcutaneous injection. Dose may be repeated up to 4 times per day. Do not treat for more than 2 days.
(ii)*Indications for use* . For the relief of pain in cats caused by major or minor trauma, or pain associated with surgical procedures.
(3)*Horses* —(i) *Amount* . Administer 0.05 mg per pound of body weight by intravenous injection. Dose may be repeated within 3 to 4 hours. Treatment should not exceed 48 hours.
(ii)*Indications for use* . For the relief of pain associated with colic and postpartum pain in adult horses and yearlings.
(iii)*Limitations* . Do not use in horses intended for human consumption. Dated: May 3, 2007. Bernadette Dunham, Deputy Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. [FR Doc. E7-9557 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [MD201-3117; FRL-8313-2] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule; Notice of administrative change. SUMMARY: EPA is updating the materials submitted by Maryland that are incorporated by reference
(IBR)into the State implementation plan (SIP). The regulations affected by this update have been previously submitted by the Maryland Department of the Environment
(MDE)and approved by EPA. This update affects the SIP materials that are available for public inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center located at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the Regional Office. EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective May 18, 2007. ADDRESSES: SIP materials which are incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 52 are available for inspection at the following locations: Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, EPA Headquarters Library, Room Number 3334, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and the National Archives and Records Administration. If you wish to obtain materials from a docket in the EPA Headquarters Library, please call the Office of Air and Radiation
(OAR)Docket/Telephone number:
(202)566-1742; or the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harold A. Frankford,
(215)814-2108 or by e-mail at *frankford.harold@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SIP is a living document which the State revises as necessary to address the unique air pollution problems. Therefore, EPA from time to time must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised regulations to make them part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference Federally-approved SIPs, as a result of consultations between EPA and the Office of the Federal Register (OFR). The description of the revised SIP document, IBR procedures and “Identification of plan” format are discussed in further detail in the May 22, 1997 **Federal Register** document. On November 29, 2004 (69 FR 69304), EPA published a document in the **Federal Register** beginning the new IBR procedure for Maryland. On February 2, 2006 (72 FR 5607), EPA published an update to the IBR material for Maryland. In this document, EPA is doing the following: 1. Announcing the update to the IBR material as of March 15, 2007. 2. Making corrections to the following entries listed in the paragraph 52.1070(c) chart, as described below: a. COMAR 26.11.01.04—revising the text in the “Additional explanation/citation at 40 CFR § 52.1100” column by adding the SIP effective date. b. COMAR 26.11.09.01—revising the text in the “Additional explanation/citation at 40 CFR § 52.1100” column by correcting the COMAR citation. c. Technical Memorandum
(TM)91-01—This entry is revised to reflect EPA's approval of revisions to this TM document on September 7, 2001 (66 FR 46727). 3. Making corrections to the following entries listed in the paragraph 52.1070(d) chart, as described below: a. Entry for Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO)—Chalk Point—amending the **Federal Register** citation for EPA's approval action. b. Entry for Kaydon Ring and Seal, Inc.—revising the text in the “Additional explanation” column by removing the SIP effective date. 4. Making a correction to the paragraph 52.1070(e) chart by adding an entry for the Mobile budgets associated with the 2005 Rate of Progress plan for the Metropolitan Baltimore (1-hour) Ozone Nonattaiment Area. The revised entry adds a date and **Federal Register** citation, inadvertently omitted in the November 29, 2004 and February 2, 2006 **Federal Register** documents, on which EPA approved revisions to these mobile budgets. EPA has determined that today's rule falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act
(APA)which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation, and section 553(d)(3) which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). Today's rule simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved State programs. Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment is “unnecessary and contrary to the public interest” since the codification only reflects existing law. Immediate notice in the CFR benefits the public by removing outdated citations and incorrect chart entries. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the Maryland SIP compilations had previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA sees no need in this action to reopen the 60-day period for filing such petitions for judicial review for this “Identification of plan” reorganization update action for Maryland. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: April 27, 2007. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority for citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42.U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart V—Maryland 2. Section 52.1070 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and
(e)to read as follows: § 52.1070 Identification of plan.
(b)*Incorporation by reference.*
(1)Material listed as incorporated by reference in paragraphs
(c)and
(d)was approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Material incorporated as it exists on the date of the approval, and notice of any change in the material will be published in the **Federal Register** . Entries in paragraphs
(c)and
(d)of this section with EPA approval dates on or after March 15, 2007 will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.
(2)EPA Region III certifies that the rules/regulations provided by EPA at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an exact duplicate of the officially promulgated State rules/regulations which have been approved as part of the State implementation plan as of March 15, 2007.
(3)Copies of the materials incorporated by reference may be inspected at the EPA Region III Office at 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103; the EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Room Number 3334, EPA West Building, 1301Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.*
(c)*EPA approved regulations.* EPA-Approved Regulations in the Maryland SIP Code of Maryland administrative regulations (COMAR) citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Additional explanation/citation at 40 CFR § 52.1100 26.11.01 General Administrative Provisions 26.11.01.01A., .01B *Exceptions:* .01B(3), (13),
(21)through (23),
(25)Definitions 10/10/01 5/28/02, 67 FR 36810 (c)(171); Additional EPA approvals are codified at §§ 52.1100(c)(119), (c)(122), (c)(143), (c)(148), (c)(158), (c)(159), and (c)(164). 26.11.01.01B(53) Definitions—definition of volatile organic compound
(VOC)9/12/05 3/31/06, 71 FR 16239 Definition reflects the version of 40 CFR 51.100(s) in effect as of 12/31/2004. 26.11.01.02 Relationship of Provisions in this Subtitle 8/1/88 11/3/92, 57 FR 49651 (c)(90)(i)(B)( *1* ). 26.11.01.03 Delineation of Areas 8/1/88 11/3/92, 57 FR 49651 (c)(90)(i)(B)( *1* ). 26.11.01.04 Testing and Monitoring 6/19/06 1/3/07, 72 FR 18 Paragraph .04C(2) is added. The SIP effective date is 3/6/07. 26.11.01.05 Records and Information 6/30/97, 12/10/01 5/28/02, 67 FR 36810 (c)(172). 26.11.01.05-1 Emission Statements 12/7/92 10/12/94, 59 FR 51517 (c)(109). 26.11.01.06 Circumvention 8/1/88 11/3/92, 57 FR 49651 (c)(90)(i)(B)( *1* ). 26.11.01.07 Malfunctions and Other Temporary Increases in Emissions 8/1/88 11/3/92, 57 FR 49651 (c)(90)(i)(B)( *1* ). 26.11.01.08 Determination of Ground Level Concentrations-Acceptable Techniques 8/1/88 11/3/92, 57 FR 49651 (c)(90)(i)(B)( *5* ). 26.11.01.09 Vapor Pressure of Gasoline 8/1/88 11/3/92, 57 FR 49651 (c)(90)(i)(B)( *5* ). 26.11.01.10 Continuous Emission Monitoring
(CEM)Requirements 7/22/91 2/28/96, 61 FR 7418 (c)(106); TM90-01 was approved as “additional material”, but not IBR'd. 26.11.02 Permits, Approvals, and Registration 26.11.02.01 Definitions 5/8/95 2/27/03, 68 FR 9012 (c)(182); Exceptions: 26.11.02.01B(1), (1-1), (4)-(6), (10), (15), (16), (22), (29)-(33), (37), (39), (42), (46), (49), (50), (54). 26.11.02.02 General Provisions 5/8/95 2/27/03, 68 FR 9012 (c)(182); Exception: .02D. 26.11.02.03 Federally Enforceable Permits to Construct and State Permits to Operate 5/8/95 2/27/03, 68 FR 9012 (c)(182). 26.11.02.04 Duration of Permits 5/8/95 2/27/03, 68 FR 9012 (c)(182); Exception: .04C(2). 26.11.02.05 Violation of Permits and Approvals 5/8/95 2/27/03, 68 FR 9012 (c)(182). 26.11.02.06 Denial of Applications for State Permits and Approvals 5/8/95, 6/16/97 2/27/03, 68 FR 9012 (c)(182). 26.11.02.07 Procedures for Denying, Revoking, or Reopening and Revising a Permit or Approval 5/8/95 2/27/03, 68 FR 9012 (c)(182). 26.11.02.08 Late Applications and Delays in Acting on Applications 5/8/95 2/27/03, 68 FR 9012 (c)(182). 26.11.02.09 Sources Subject to Permits to Construct and Approvals 5/8/95, 5/4/98 2/27/03, 68 FR 9012 (c)(182). 26.11.02.10 Sources Exempt from Permits to Construct and Approvals 5/8/95, 6/16/97, 9/22/97, 3/22/99 2/27/03, 68 FR 9012 (c)(182). 26.11.02.11 Procedures for Obtaining Permits to Construct Certain Significant Sources 5/8/95, 6/16/97 2/27/03, 68 FR 9012 (c)(182); Exception: .11C. 26.11.02.12 Procedures for Obtaining Approvals of PSD Sources and NSR Sources, Permits to Construct, Permits to Construct MACT Determinations on a Case-by-Case Basis in Accordance with 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart B, and Certain 100-Ton Sources 5/8/95 2/27/03, 68 FR 9012 (c)(182). 26.11.02.13 Sources subject to State Permits to Operate 5/8/95 2/27/03, 68 FR 9012 (c)(182). 26.11.02.14 Procedures for Obtaining State Permits to Operate and Permits to Construct Certain Sources and Permits to Construct Control Equipment on Existing Sources 5/8/95, 6/16/97 2/27/03, 68 FR 9012 (c)(182). 26.11.04 Ambient Air Quality Standards 26.11.04.02 State-Adopted National Ambient Air Quality Standards 5/8/95 8/20/01, 66 FR 43485 (c)(165). 26.11.04.03 Definitions, Reference Conditions, and Methods of Measurement 2/28/05 6/14/06, 71 FR 34257 26.11.04.04 Particulate Matter 2/28/05 6/14/06, 71 FR 34257 Addition of ambient air quality standard for PM <sup>2.5.</sup> 26.11.04.05 Sulfur Oxides 2/28/05 6/14/06, 71 FR 34257 26.11.04.06 Carbon Monoxide 1/5/88; recodified 8/1/88 4/7/93, 58 FR 18010 (c)(92). 26.11.04.07 Ozone 2/28/05 6/14/06, 71 FR 34257 Addition of an 8-hour ambient air quality standard for ozone. 26.11.04.08 Nitrogen Dioxide 2/28/05 6/14/06, 71 FR 34257 26.11.04.09 Lead 8/1/88 11/3/92, 57 FR 49651 (c)(90)(i)(B)( *3* ). 26.11.05 Air Quality Episode System 26.11.05.01 Definitions 6/18/90 4/14/94, 59 FR 17698 (c)(100). 26.11.05.02 General Requirements 6/18/90 4/14/94, 59 FR 17698 (c)(100). 26.11.05.03 Air Pollution Episode Criteria 6/18/90 4/14/94, 59 FR 17698 (c)(100). 26.11.05.04 Standby Emissions Reduction Plan 8/1/88 11/3/92, 57 FR 49651 (c)(90)(i)(B)( *4* ). 26.11.05.05 Control Requirements and Standby Orders 6/18/90 4/14/94, 59 FR 17698 (c)(100). 26.11.05.06 Tables 8/1/88 11/3/92, 57 FR 49651 (c)(90)(i)(B)( *4* ). 26.11.06 General Emissions Standards, Prohibitions, and Restrictions 26.11.06.01 Definitions 5/8/91 11/29/94, 59 FR 60908 (c)(102)(i)(B)( *14* ). 26.11.06.02 [ *Except:* .02A(1)(e), (1)(g), (1)(h), (1)(i)] Visible Emissions 11/11/02 8/6/03, 68 FR 46487 (c)(181). 26.11.06.03 Particulate Matter 11/11/02 86/03, 68 FR 46487 (c)(181). 26.11.06.04 Carbon Monoxide in Areas III and IV 1/5/88; recodified 8/1/88 4/7/93, 58 FR 18010 (c)(92). 26.11.06.05 Sulfur Compounds from Other than Fuel Burning Equipment 11/11/02 8/6/03, 68 FR 46487 (c)(181). 26.11.06.06 Volatile Organic Compounds 9/22/97 5/7/01, 66 FR 22924 (c)(156). Note: On 2/27/03 (68 FR 9012), EPA approved a revised rule citation with a State effective date of 5/8/95 [(c)(182)(i)(C)]. 26.11.06.10 Refuse Burning Prohibited in Certain Installations 8/1/88 11/3/92, 57 FR 49651 (c)(90)(i)(B)( *5* ). 26.11.06.14 Control of PSD sources 10/10/01 5/28/02, 67 FR 36810 (c)(171). 26.11.06.15 Nitrogen Oxides from Nitric Acid Plants 8/1/88 11/3/92, 57 FR 49651 (c)(90)(i)(B)( *5* ). 26.11.06.16 Tables 8/1/88 11/3/92, 57 FR 49651 (c)(90)(i)(B)( *5* ). 26.11.07 Open Fires 26.11.07.01 Definitions 5/22/95 6/11/02, 67 FR 39856 (c)(173). 26.11.07.02 General 5/22/95 2/25/97, 62 FR 8380 (c)(120). 26.11.07.03 Control Officer May Authorize Certain Open Fires 8/11/97 6/11/02, 67 FR 39856 (c)(173). 26.11.07.04 Public Officers May Authorize Certain Fires 5/22/95 2/25/97, 62 FR 8380 (c)(120). 26.11.07.05 Open Fires Allowed Without Authorization of Control Officer or Public Officer 5/22/95 2/25/97, 62 FR 8380 (c)(120), .05A(3) & (4), and .05B(3) are State-enforceable only. 26.11.07.06 Safety Determinations at Federal Facilities 8/11/97 6/11/02, 67 FR 39856 (c)(173). 10.18.08 Control of Incinerators 10.18.08.01 Definitions 3/25/84 7/2/85, 50 FR 27245 (c)(82). 10.18.08.02 Applicability 7/18/80 8/5/81, 46 FR 39818 (c)(45). 10.18.08.03 Prohibition of Certain Incinerators in Areas III and IV 6/8/81 5/11/82, 47 FR 20126 (c)(58). 10.18.08.04 Visible Emissions 3/25/84 7/2/85, 50 FR 27245 (c)(82). 10.18.08.05 Particulate Matter 3/25/84 7/2/85, 50 FR 27245 (c)(82). 10.18.08.06 Prohibition of Unapproved Hazardous Waste Incinerators 3/25/84 7/2/85, 50 FR 27245 (c)(82). 26.11.09 Control of Fuel Burning Equipment and Stationary Internal Combustion Engines, and Certain Fuel-Burning Installations 26.11.09.01 Definitions 9/12/05 6/13/06, 71 FR 34014 Revised definition of “interruptible gas service” in 26.11.09.01B(4). 26.11.09.02 Applicability 8/1/88 11/3/92, 57 FR 49651 (c)(90)(i)(B)( *7* ). 26.11.09.03 General Conditions for Fuel Burning Equipment 6/21/04 7/6/05, 70 FR 38774 Revised paragraphs 26.11.09.03C(1) and .03C(2). 26.11.09.04 Prohibition of Certain New Fuel Burning Equipment 8/1/88 11/3/92, 57 FR 49651 (c)(90)(i)(B)( *7* ). 26.11.09.05 Visible Emissions 11/11/02 5/1/03, 68 FR 23206 (c)(183). 26.11.09.06 Control of Particulate Matter 6/21/04 7/6/05, 70 FR 38774 Addition of paragraph 26.11.09.06C. 26.11.09.07 Control of Sulfur Oxides from Fuel Burning Equipment 8/1/88 11/3/92, 57 FR 49651 (c)(90)(i)(B)( *7* ). 26.11.09.08 Control of NO <sup>X</sup> Emissions for Major Stationary Sources 11/24/03 9/20/04, 69 FR 56170 (c)(191). 26.11.09.09 Tables and Diagrams 11/11/02 5/1/03, 68 FR 23206 (c)(183); Revised Table 1. 26.11.10 Control of Iron and Steel Production Installations 26.11.10.01 Definitions 12/25/00 11/7/01, 66 FR 56222 (c)(163). 26.11.10.02 Applicability 11/2/98 9/7/01, 66 FR 46727 (c)(153). 26.11.10.03 Visible Emissions 11/2/98 9/7/01, 66 FR 46727 (c)(153). 26.11.10.04 Control of Particulate Matter 11/2/98 9/7/01, 66 FR 46727 (c)(153). 26.11.10.05 Sulfur Content Limitations for Coke Oven Gas 11/2/98 9/7/01, 66 FR 46727 (c)(153). 26.11.10.06[1] Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Iron and Steel Production Installations 12/25/00 11/7/01, 66 FR 56222 (c)(163). 26.11.10.06[2] Carbon Monoxide 8/1/88 11/3/92, 57 FR 49651 (c)(90)(i)(B)( *8* ). 26.11.10.07 Testing and Observation Procedures 12/25/00 11/7/01, 66 FR 56222 (c)(163). 26.11.11 Control of Petroleum Products Installations, Including Asphalt Paving, Asphalt Concrete Plants, and Use of Waste Oils 26.11.11.01 Applicability 8/1/88 11/3/92, 57 FR 49651 (c)(90)(i)(B)( *9* ). 26.11.11.02 Asphalt Paving 4/26/93 1/6/95, 60 FR 2018 (c)(113)(i)(B)( *1* ). 26.11.11.03 Asphalt Concrete Plants in Areas I, II, V, and VI 8/1/88 11/3/92, 57 FR 49651 (c)(90)(i)(B)( *9* ). 26.11.11.06 Use of Waste Oils as Fuel 8/1/88 11/3/92, 57 FR 49651 (c)(90)(i)(B)( *9* ). 26.11.12 Control of Batch Type Hot-Dip Galvanizing Installations 26.11.12.01 Definitions 5/8/95 7/25/00, 64 FR 45743 (c)(149). 26.11.12.02 Applicability 5/8/95 7/25/00, 64 FR 45743 (c)(149). 26.11.12.03 Prohibitions and Exemptions 5/8/95 7/25/00, 64 FR 45743 (c)(149). 26.11.12.04 Visible Emissions 8/1/88 11/3/92, 57 FR 49651 (c)(90)(i)(B)( *10* ). 26.11.12.05 Particulate Matter 8/1/88 11/3/92, 57 FR 49651 (c)(90)(i)(B)( *10* ). 26.11.12.06 Reporting Requirements 8/1/88 11/3/92, 57 FR 49651 (c)(90)(i)(B)( *10* ). 26.11.13 Control of Gasoline and Other Volatile Organic Compound Storage and Handling 26.11.13.01 Definitions 8/11/97 12/22/98, 63 FR 70667 (c)(130). 26.11.13.02 Applicability and Exemption 4/26/93 1/6/95, 60 FR 2018 (c)(113)(i)(B)( *3* ). 26.11.13.03 Large Storage Tanks 8/1/88 11/3/92, 57 FR 49651 (c)(90)(i)(B)( *12* ). 26.11.13.04 Loading Operations 8/11/97 12/22/98, 63 FR 70667 (c)(132). 26.11.13.05 Gasoline Leaks from Tank Trucks 2/15/93 1/6/95, 60 FR 2018 (c)(112). 26.11.13.06 Plans for Compliance 4/26/93 1/6/95, 60 FR 2018 (c)(113)(i)(B)( *5* ). 26.11.13.07 Control of VOC Emissions from Portable Fuel Containers 1/21/02 6/29/04, 69 FR 38848 (c)(184). 26.11.14 Control of Emissions from Kraft Pulp Mills 26.11.14.01 Definitions 1/8/01, 10/15/01 11/7/01, 66 FR 56220 (c)(170). 26.11.14.02 Applicability 1/8/01 11/7/01, 66 FR 56220 (c)(170). 26.11.14.06 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds 1/8/01, 10/15/01 11/7/01, 66 FR 56220 (c)(170). 26.11.17 Requirements for Major New Sources and Modifications 26.11.17.01 Definitions 11/24/03 9/20/04, 69 FR 56170 52.1070(c)(191). 26.11.17.02 Applicability 4/26/93, 10/2/00 2/12/01, 66 FR 9766 52.1070(c)(148). 26.11.17.03 General Conditions 4/26/93, 10/2/00 2/12/01, 66 FR 9766 52.1070(c)(191). 26.11.17.04 Baseline for Determining Credit for Emission and Air Quality Offsets 4/26/93, 10/2/00 2/12/01, 66 FR 9766 52.1070(c)(148). 26.11.17.05 Administrative Procedures 4/26/93, 10/2/00 2/12/01, 66 FR 9766 52.1070(c)(148). 26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes 26.11.19.01 Definitions 6/5/95 9/2/97, 62 FR 46199 (c)(126). Note: On 5/13/1998 (63 FR 26462), EPA approved the revised definition of “major stationary source of VOC” with a State effective date of 5/8/1995 [(c)(128)]. 26.11.19.02 Applicability, Determining Compliance, Reporting, and General Requirements 5/4/98, 12/10/01 2/3/03, 68 FR 5228 (c)(174), (c)(175). 1. Limited approval of paragraph .02G (9/4/98, 63 FR 47174) [(c)(131)( (c)(133)]. 2. On 2/27/03 (68 FR 9012), EPA approved a revised rule citation with a State effective date of 5/8/95 [(c)(182)(i)(D)]. 26.11.19.03 Automotive and Light-Duty Truck Coating 9/22/97 11/5/98, 63 FR 59720 (c)(140). 26.11.19.04 Can Coating 8/1/88 11/3/92, 57 FR 49651 (C)(90)(i)(B)( *12* ). 26.11.19.05 Coil Coating 8/1/88 11/3/92, 57 FR 49651 (C)(90)(i)(B)( *12* ). 26.11.19.06 Large Appliance Coating 8/1/88 11/3/92, 57 FR 49651 (C)(90)(i)(B)( *12* ). 26.11.19.07 Paper, Fabric, Vinyl and Other Plastic Parts Coating 8/24/98 1/14/2000, 64 FR 2334 (c)(147). 26.11.19.07-1 Control of VOC Emissions from solid Resin Decorative Surface Manufacturing 6/15/98 6/17/99, 64 FR 32415 (c)(142). 26.11.19.08 Metal Furniture Coating 8/1/88 11/3/92, 57 FR 49651 (C)(90)(i)(B)( *12* ). 26.11.19.09 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC)Emissions from cold and Vapor Degreasing 6/5/95 8/4/97, 62 FR 41853 (c)(123). 26.11.19.10 Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing 6/5/95 9/2/97, 62 FR 46199 (c)(126). 26.11.19.11 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC)Emissions from Sheet-Fed and Web Lithographic Printing 6/5/95 9/2/97, 62 FR 46199 (c)(126). 26.11.19.12 Dry Cleaning Installations 9/22/97 9/2/98, 63 FR 46662 (c)(131). 26.11.19.13 Miscellaneous Metal Coating 5/8/91 11/29/94, 59 FR 60908 (c)(102)(i)(B)( *6* ). 26.11.19.13-1 Aerospace Coating Operations 10/2/00, 10/15/01 11/7/01, 66 FR 56220 (c)(169). 26.11.19.13-2 Control of VOC Emissions from Brake Shoe Coating Operations 8/24/98 6/17/99, 64 FR 32415 (c)(142). 26.11.19.13-3 Control of VOC Emissions from Structural Steel Coating Operations 6/29/98 6/17/99, 64 FR 32415 (c)(142). 26.11.19.14 Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products 5/8/91 11/29/94, 59 FR 60908 (c)(102)(i)(B)( *14* ). 26.11.19.15 Paint, Resin, and Adhesive Manufacturing and Adhesive Application 5/4/98, 3/22/99 10/28/99, 64 FR 57989 (c)(145). 26.11.19.16 Control of VOC Equipment Leaks 8/19/91 9/7/94, 59 FR 46180 (c)(103)(i)(B)( *9* ). 26.11.19.17 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC)Emissions from Yeast Manufacturing 9/12/05 3/31/06, 71 FR 16237 26.11.19.18 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC)Emissions from Screen Printing and Digital Imaging 6/10/02 1/15/03, 68 FR 1972 (c)(177). 26.11.19.19 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC)Emissions from Expandable Polystyrene Operations 10/2/00 5/7/01, 66 FR 22924 (c)(156). 26.11.19.21 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC)Emissions from Commercial Bakery Ovens 7/3/95 10/15/97, 62 FR 53544 (c)(125)(i)(B)( *4* ). 26.11.19.22 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC)Emissions from Vinegar Generators 8/11/97 9/23/99, 64 FR 41445 (c)(137). 26.11.19.23 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC)Emissions from Vehicle Refinishing 5/22/95 8/4/97, 62 FR 41853 (c)(124). 26.11.19.24 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC)Emissions from Leather Coating Operations 8/11/97 9/23/99, 64 FR 41445 (c)(137). 26.11.19.25 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Explosives and Propellant Manufacturing 8/11/97 1/26/99, 64 FR 3852 (c)(141). 26.11.19.26 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Reinforced Plastic Manufacturing 8/11/97 8/19/99, 64 FR 45182 (c)(139). 26.11.19.27 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Marine Vessel Coating Operations 10/20/97 9/5/01, 66 FR 46379 (c)(166). 26.11.19.28 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Bread and Snack Food Drying Operations 10/2/00 5/7/01, 66 FR 22924 (c)(157). 26.11.19.29 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Distilled Spirits Facilities 10/2/00, 10/15/01 11/7/01, 66 FR 56220 (c)(160). 26.11.19.30 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Organic Chemical Production and Polytetrafluoroethylene Installations 12/10/01, 11/11/02 6/3/03, 68 FR 33000 (c)(176). 26.11.19.31 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Medical Device Manufacturing 6/5/06 1/11/07, 72 FR 1289 26.11.20 Mobile Sources 26.11.20.02 Motor Vehicle Emission Control Devices 8/1/88 11/3/92, 57 FR 49651 (c)(90)(i)(B)( *13* ) [as 26.11.20.06]. 26.11.20.03 Motor Vehicle Fuel Specifications 10/26/92 6/10/94, 59 FR 29957 (c)(101)(i)(B)( *3* ). 26.11.20.04 National Low Emission Vehicle Program 3/22/99 12/28/99, 64 FR 72564 (c)(146). 26.11.24 Stage II Vapor Recovery at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities 26.11.24.01 Definitions 4/15/02 5/7/03, 68 FR 24363 (c)(178). 26.11.24.01-1 Incorporation by Reference 4/15/02 5/7/03, 68 FR 24363 (c)(178). 26.11.24.02 Applicability, Exemptions, and Effective Date 4/15/02 5/7/03, 68 FR 24363 (c)(178). 26.11.24.03 General Requirements 4/15/02 5/7/03, 68 FR 24363 (c)(178). 26.11.24.04 Testing Requirements 02/28/05 5/8/06, 71 FR 26688 26.11.24.05 Inspection Requirements 2/15/93 6/9/94, 59 FR 29730 (c)(107). 26.11.24.06 Training Requirements for Operation and Maintenance of Approved Systems 2/15/93 6/9/94, 59 FR 29730 (c)(107). 26.11.24.07 Record-Keeping and Reporting Requirements 2/28/05 5/8/06, 71 FR 26688 26.11.24.08 Instructional Signs 2/15/93 6/9/94, 59 FR 29730 (c)(107). 26.11.24.09 Sanctions 2/15/93 6/9/94, 59 FR 29730 (c)(107). 26.11.25 Control of Glass Melting Furnaces 26.11.25.01 Definitions 10/5/98 10/19/05, 70 FR 60738 26.11.25.02 Applicability and Exemptions 10/5/98 10/19/05, 70 FR 60738 26.11.25.03 Visible Emissions from Glass Melting Furnaces 10/5/98 10/19/05, 70 FR 60738 26.11.25.04 Particulate Matter Emissions from Glass Melting Furnaces 10/5/98 10/19/05, 70 FR 60738 26.11.26 Conformity 26.11.26.01 Definitions 5/15/95, 6/5/95 12/9/98, 63 FR 67782 (c)(136); definitions of Applicable implementation plan, Governor, State, and State air agency. 26.11.26.03 General Conformity 5/15/95, 6/5/95 12/9/98, 63 FR 67782 (c)(136); current COMAR citation is 26.11.26.04. 26.11.29 NO <sup>X</sup> Reduction and Trading Program 26.11.29.01 Definitions 5/1/00 1/10/01, 66 FR 1866 (c)(154)(i)(B)( *1* ). 26.11.29.02 Incorporation by Reference 5/1/00 1/10/01, 66 FR 1866 (c)(154)(i)(B)( *1* ). 26.11.29.03 Scope and Applicability 5/1/00 1/10/01, 66 FR 1866 (c)(154)(i)(B)( *1* ). 26.11.29.04 General Requirements for Affected Trading Sources 5/1/00 1/10/01, 66 FR 1866 (c)(154)(i)(B)( *1* ). 26.11.29.05 NO <sup>X</sup> Allowance Allocations 5/1/00 1/10/01, 66 FR 1866 (c)(154)(i)(B)( *1* ). 26.11.29.06 Compliance Supplement Pool 5/1/00 1/10/01, 66 FR 1866 (c)(154)(i)(B)( *1* ). 26.11.29.07 Allowance Banking 5/1/00 1/10/01, 66 FR 1866 (c)(154)(i)(B)( *1* ). 26.11.29.08 Emission Monitoring 5/1/00 1/10/01, 66 FR 1866 (c)(154)(i)(B)( *1* ). 26.11.29.09 Requirements for New Sources and Set-Aside Pool 11/24/03 3/22/04, 69 FR 13236 (c)(184)(i)(C)(1)-(5). 26.11.29.10 Reporting 5/1/00 1/10/01, 66 FR 1866 (c)(154)(i)(B)( *1* ). 26.11.29.11 Record Keeping 5/1/00 1/10/01, 66 FR 1866 (c)(154)(i)(B)( *1* ). 26.11.29.12 End-of-Season Reconciliation 5/1/00 1/10/01, 66 FR 1866 (c)(154)(i)(B)( *1* ). 26.11.29.13 Compliance Certification 5/1/00 1/10/01, 66 FR 1866 (c)(154)(i)(B)( *1* ). 26.11.29.14 Penalties 5/1/00 1/10/01, 66 FR 1866 (c)(154)(i)(B)( *1* ). 26.11.29.15 Requirements for Affected Nontrading Sources 5/1/00 1/10/01, 66 FR 1866 (c)(154)(i)(B)( *1* ). 26.11.30 Policies and Procedures Relating to Maryland's NO <sup>X</sup> Reduction and Trading Program 26.11.30.01 Scope and Applicability 5/1/00 1/10/01, 66 FR 1866 (c)(154)(i)(B)( *2* ). 26.11.30.02 Definitions 5/1/00 1/10/01, 66 FR 1866 (c)(154)(i)(B)( *2* ). 26.11.30.03 Procedures Relating to Compliance Accounts and Overdraft Accounts 5/1/00 1/10/01, 66 FR 1866 (c)(154)(i)(B)( *2* ). 26.11.30.04 Procedures Relating to General Accounts 5/1/00 1/10/01, 66 FR 1866 (c)(154)(i)(B)( *2* ). 26.11.30.05 Allowance Banking 5/1/00 1/10/01, 66 FR 1866 (c)(154)(i)(B)( *2* ). 26.11.30.06 Allowance Transfers 5/1/00 1/10/01, 66 FR 1866 (c)(154)(i)(B)( *2* ). 26.11.30.07 Early Reductions 5/1/00 1/10/01, 66 FR 1866 (c)(154)(i)(B)( *2* ). 26.11.30.08 Opt-In Procedures 5/1/00 1/10/01, 66 FR 1866 (c)(154)(i)(B)( *2* ). 26.11.30.09 Allocation of Allowances 6/19/06 11/03/06, 71 FR 64647 New column for 2008 allocations. 26.11.32 Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds from Consumer Products 26.11.32.01 Applicability and Exemptions 8/18/03 12/9/03, 68 FR 68523 (c)(185). 26.11.32.02 Incorporation by Reference 8/18/03 12/9/03, 68 FR 68523 (c)(185). 26.11.32.03 Definitions 8/18/03 12/9/03, 68 FR 68523 (c)(185). 26.11.32.04 Standards(General 8/18/03 12/9/03, 68 FR 68523 (c)(185). 26.11.32.05 Standards—Requirements for Charcoal Lighter Materials 8/18/03 12/9/03, 68 FR 68523 (c)(185). 26.11.32.06 Standards—Requirements for Aerosol Adhesives 8/18/03 12/9/03, 68 FR 68523 (c)(185). 26.11.32.07 Standards—Requirements for Floor Wax Strippers 8/18/03 12/9/03, 68 FR 68523 (c)(185). 26.11.32.08 Innovative Products—CARB Exemption 8/18/03 12/9/03, 68 FR 68523 (c)(185). 26.11.32.09 Innovative Products—Department Exemption 8/18/03 12/9/03, 68 FR 68523 (c)(185). 26.11.32.10 Administrative Requirements 8/18/03 12/9/03, 68 FR 68523 (c)(185). 26.11.32.11 Reporting Requirements 8/18/03 12/9/03, 68 FR 68523 (c)(185). 26.11.32.12 Variances 8/18/03 12/9/03, 68 FR 68523 (c)(185). 26.11.32.13 Test Methods 8/18/03 12/9/03, 68 FR 68523 (c)(185). 26.11.32.14 Alternative Control Plan
(ACP)8/18/03 12/9/03, 68 FR 68523 (c)(185). 26.11.32.15 Approval of an ACP Application 8/18/03 12/9/03, 68 FR 68523 (c)(185). 26.11.32.16 Record Keeping and Availability of Requested Information 8/18/03 12/9/03, 68 FR 68523 (c)(185). 26.11.32.17 Violations 8/18/03 12/9/03, 68 FR 68523 (c)(185). 26.11.32.18 Surplus Reductions and Surplus Trading 8/18/03 12/9/03, 68 FR 68523 (c)(185). 26.11.32.19 Limited-Use Surplus Reduction Credits for Early Reformulations of ACP Products 8/18/03 12/9/03, 68 FR 68523 (c)(185). 26.11.32.20 Reconciliation of Shortfalls 8/18/03 12/9/03, 68 FR 68523 (c)(185). 26.11.32.21 Modifications to an ACP 8/18/03 12/9/03, 68 FR 68523 (c)(185). 26.11.32.22 Cancellation of an ACP 8/18/03 12/9/03, 68 FR 68523 (c)(185). 26.11.32.23 Transfer of an ACP 8/18/03 12/9/03, 68 FR 68523 (c)(185). 26.11.33 Architectural Coatings 26.11.33.01 Applicability and Exemptions 3/29/04 5/12/05, 70 FR 24979 26.11.33.02 Test Methods—Incorporation by Reference 3/29/04 5/12/05, 70 FR 24979 26.11.33.03 Definitions 3/29/04 5/12/05, 70 FR 24979 26.11.33.04 General Standard—VOC Content Limits 3/29/04 5/12/05, 70 FR 24979 26.11.33.05 VOC Content Limits 3/29/04 5/12/05, 70 FR 24979 26.11.33.06 Most Restrictive VOC Limit 2/28/05 10/19/05, 70 FR 60740 Addition of sections B(15) through B(19). 26.11.33.07 Painting Restrictions 3/29/04 5/12/05, 70 FR 24979 26.11.33.08 Thinning 3/29/04 5/12/05, 70 FR 24979 26.11.33.09 Rust Preventive Coatings 3/29/04 5/12/05, 70 FR 24979 26.11.33.10 Coatings Not Listed in Regulation .05 2/28/05 10/19/05, 70 FR 60740 26.11.33.11 Lacquers 3/29/04 5/12/05, 70 FR 24979 26.11.33.12 Container Labeling Requirements 2/28/05 10/19/05, 70 FR 60740 Deleted section K. 26.11.33.13 Recordkeeping Requirements 2/28/05 10/19/05, 70 FR 60740 26.11.33.14 Compliance Provisions and Test Methods 3/29/04 5/12/05, 70 FR 24979 11.14.08 Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program 11.14.08.01 Title 1/02/95 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.02 Definitions 1/02/95, 10/19/98 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.03 Applicability 6/10/02 1/16/03, 68 FR 2208 (c)(179). 11.14.08.04 Exemptions 1/02/95 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.05 Schedule of the Program 1/02/95, 12/16/96 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.06 Certificates 6/10/02 1/16/03, 68 FR 2208 (c)(179). 11.14.08.07 Extensions 1/02/95, 10/19/98 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.08 Enforcement 1/02/95 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.09 Inspection Standards 6/10/02 1/16/03, 68 FR 2208 (c)(179). 11.14.08.10 General Requirements for Inspection and Preparation for Inspection 1/02/95, 12/16/96, 10/19/98 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.11 Idle Exhaust Emissions Test and Equipment Checks 10/18/98 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.11-1 Transient Exhaust Emissions Test and Evaporative Purge Test Sequence 12/16/96, 10/19/98 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.12 Evaporative Integrity Test, Gas Cap Leak Test, and On-Board Diagnostics Interrogation Procedures 6/10/02 1/16/03, 68 FR 2208 (c)(179). 11.14.08.13 Failed Vehicle and Reinspection Procedures 1/02/95 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.14 Dynamometer System Specifications 1/02/95 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.15 Constant Volume Sampler, Analysis System, and Inspector Control Specifications 1/02/95, 10/19/98 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.16 Evaporative Test Equipment, Gas Cap Leak Test Equipment, and on-Board Diagnostics Interrogation Equipment Specifications 6/10/02 1/16/03, 68 FR 2208 (c)(179). 11.14.08.17 Quality Assurance and Maintenance—General Requirements 1/02/95 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.18 Test Assurance Procedures 1/02/95 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.19 Dynamometer Periodic Quality Assurance Checks 1/02/95 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.20 Constant Volume Sampler Periodic Quality Assurance Checks 1/02/95 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.21 Analysis System Periodic Quality Assurance Checks 1/02/95 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.22 Evaporative Test Equipment, Gas Cap Leak Test Equipment and On-board Diagnostics Interrogation Equipment Periodic Quality Assurance Checks 1/02/95, 10/19/98 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.23 Overall System Performance quality Assurance 1/02/95 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.24 Control Charts 1/02/95 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.25 Gas Specifications 1/02/95 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.26 Vehicle Emissions Inspection Station 1/02/95 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.27 Technician's Vehicle Report 1/02//95, 10/19/98 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.28 Feedback Reports 1/02/95, 10/19/98 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.29 Certified Emissions Technicians 1/02/95, 12/16/96 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.30 Certified Emissions Repair Facility 1/02/95, 12/16/96 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.31 On-Highway Emissions Test 1/02/95 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.32 Fleet Inspection Station 1/02/95, 12/16/96, 10/19/98 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.33 Fleet Inspection Standards 1/02/95 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.34 Fleet Inspection and Reinspection Methods 1/02/95 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.35 Fleet Equipment and Quality Assurance Requirements 1/02/95 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.36 Fleet Personnel Requirements 1/02/95 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.37 Fleet Calibration Gas Specifications and Standard Reference Materials 1/02/95 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.38 Fleet Record-Keeping Requirements 1/02/95 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.39 Fleet Fees 1/02/95 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.40 Fleet License Suspension and Revocation 1/02/95 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.41 Audits 1/02/95 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 11.14.08.42 Fleet Inspection After 1998 1/02/95, 2/16/96, 10/19/98 10/29/99, 64 FR 58340 (c)(144). 03.03.05 Motor Fuel Inspection [Contingency SIP Measure] 03.03.05.01 Definitions 12/18/95 1/30/96, 61 FR 2982 (c)(101)(i)(B)( *4* ); Approved as a contingency SIP measure as part of the CO Maintenance Plans for Baltimore and DC. [(c)(117) and (c)(118)]. 03.03.05.01-1 Standard Specifications for Gasoline 12/18/95 1/30/96, 61 FR 2982 03.03.05.02-1 Other Motor Vehicle Fuels 10/26/92 6/10/94, 58 FR 29957 03.03.05.05 Labeling of Pumps 12/18/95 1/30/96, 61 FR 2982 03.03.05.08 Samples and Test Tolerance 10/26/92 6/10/94, 58 FR 29957 03.03.05.15 Commingled Products 10/26/92 6/10/94, 58 FR 29957 03.03.06 Emissions Control Compliance [Contingency SIP Measure] 03.03.06.01 Definitions 12/18/95 1/30/96, 61 FR 2982 (c)(101)(i)(B)( *5* ); Approved as a contingency SIP measure as part of the CO Maintenance Plans for Baltimore and DC. [(c)(117) and (c)(118)]. 03.03.06.02 Vapor Pressure Determination 10/26/92 6/10/94, 58 FR 29957 03.03.06.03 Oxygen Content Determination 12/18/95 1/30/96, 61 FR 2982 03.03.06.04 Registration 10/26/92 6/10/94, 58 FR 29957 03.03.06.05 Recordkeeping 10/26/92 6/10/94, 58 FR 29957 03.03.06.06 Transfer Documentation 12/18/95 1/30/96, 61 FR 2982 TM Technical Memoranda TM81-04 Procedures for Observing and Evaluating Visible Emissions from Stationary Sources 5/1/81 6/18/82, 47 FR 26381 (c)(67). TM83-05 Stack Test Methods for Stationary Sources 6/1/83 2/23/85, 50 FR 7595 (c)(80). TM91-01 [Except Methods 1004A through E] Test Methods and Equipment Specifications for Stationary Sources 11/2/98 9/7/01, 66 FR 46727 (c)(153)(i)(D)( *5* ) (Supplement 3 is added).
(d)*EPA approved state source-specific requirements* . Name of source Permit No./type State effective date EPA approval date Additional explanation (PEPCO)—Chalk Point Units #1 and #2 #49352 Amended Consent Order 1/27/78 4//2/79, 44 FR 19192 52.1100(c) (22); FRN republished 5/3/79 (44 FR 25840). Beall Jr./Sr. High School Consent Order 1/30/79 3/18/80, 45 FR 17144 52.1100(c)(26). Mt. Saint Mary's College Consent Order 3/8/79 3/18/80, 45 FR 17144 52.1100(c)(26). Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO)—Chalk Point Secretarial Order 7/19/79 9/3/80, 45 FR 58340 52.1100(c)(34). Maryland Slag Co Consent Agreement (Order) 10/31/80 9/8/81, 41 FR 44757 52.1100(c)(49). Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority Secretarial Order 11/20/81 7/7/82, 47 FR 29531 52.1100(c)(65) (Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc.). Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority and Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc. and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore and BEDCO Development Corp Secretarial Order 2/25/83 8/24/83, 45 FR 55179 52.1100(c)(70) (Shutdown of landfill for offsets). Westvaco Corp Consent Order 9/6/83, Rev. 1/26/84 12/20/84, 49 FR 49457 52.1100(c)(74). Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO) Administrative Consent Order 9/13/99 12/15/00, 65 FR 78416 52.1100(c)(151). Thomas Manufacturing Corp. Consent Decree 2/15/01 11/15/01, 66 FR 57395 52.1100(c)(167). Constellation Power Source Generation, Inc.—Brandon Shores Units #1 & 2; Gould Street Unit #3; H.A. Wagner Units #1, 2, 3 & 4; C.P. Crane Units #1 & 3; and Riverside Unit #4 Consent Order and NO <sup>X</sup> RACT Averaging Plan Proposal 4/25/01 2/27/02, 67 FR 8897 52.1100(c)(168). Kaydon Ring and Seal, Inc Consent Order 3/5/04 8/31/04, 69 FR 53002 (c)(190); SIP effective date is 11/1/04. Perdue Farms, Inc Consent Order 2/1/05 1/11/07, 72 FR 1291 52.1070(d)(1).
(e)*EPA-approved nonregulatory and quasi-regulatory material* . Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation Base Year Emissions Inventory Metropolitan Baltimore Ozone Nonattainment Area 1990 9/20/95 10/30/95, 60 FR 55321 52.1075(a) CO. 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory Metropolitan Washington Ozone Nonattainment Area 3/21/94, 10/12/95 1/30/96, 61 FR 2931 52.1075(b), CO. 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory All ozone nonattainment areas 3/21/94 9/27/96, 61 FR 50715 52.1075(c), VOC, NO <sup>X</sup> , CO. 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory Kent & Queen Anne's Counties 3/21/94 4/23/97, 62 FR 19676 52.1075(d), VOC, NO <sup>X</sup> , CO. 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory Metropolitan Washington Ozone Nonattainment Area 3/21/94 4/23/97, 62 FR 19676 52.1075(e), VOC, NO <sup>X</sup> , CO. 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory Metropolitan Washington Ozone Nonattainment Area 12/24/97 7/8/98, 63 FR 36854 52.1075(f), VOC, NO <sup>X</sup> . 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory Metropolitan Baltimore Ozone Nonattainment Area 12/24/97 2/3/00, 63 FR 5245 52.1075(g), VOC, NO <sup>X</sup> . 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton Ozone Nonattainment Area (Cecil County) 12/24/97, 4/29/98, 12/21/99, 12/28/00 2/3/00, 63 FR 5252 9/19/01, 66 FR 44809 52.1075(h), VOC, NO <sup>X</sup> . 15% Rate of Progress Plan Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton Ozone Nonattainment Area (Cecil County) 7/12/95, #95-20 7/29/97, 62 FR 40457 52.1076(a). Stage II Vapor Recovery Comparability Plan Western Maryland & Eastern Shore Counties 11/5/97 12/9/98, 63 FR 67780 52.1076(b). 15% Rate of Progress Plan Metropolitan Baltimore Ozone Nonattainment Area 10/7/98 2/3/00, 65 FR 5245 52.1076(c). 15% Rate of Progress Plan Metropolitan Washington Ozone Nonattainment Area 5/5/98 7/19/00, 65 FR 44686 52.1076(d). Post-1996 Rate of Progress Plan & contingency measures Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton Ozone Nonattainment Area (Cecil County) 12/24/97, 4/24/98, 8/18/98, 12/21/99, 12/28/00, 3/8/04 2/3/00, 63 FR 5252 9/19/01, 66 FR 44809 4/15/04, 69 FR 19939 52.1076(f). 52.1076(f)(3). Ozone Attainment Plan Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton Ozone Nonattainment Area (Cecil County) 4/29/98, 8/18/98, 12/21/99, 12/28/00, 8/31/01 10/29/01, 66 FR 54578 52.1076(h). 9/2/03 10/27/03, 68 FR 61103 Transportation Conformity Budgets Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton Ozone Nonattainment Area (Cecil County) 4/29/98, 8/18/98, 12/21/99, 12/28/00 10/29/01, 66 FR 54578 52.1076(i). Post-1996 Rate of Progress Plan & contingency measures Metropolitan Baltimore Ozone Nonattainment Area 12/24/97, 4/24/98, 8/18/98, 12/21/99, 12/28/00 9/26/01, 66 FR 49108 52.1076(j). Ozone Attainment Plan Metropolitan Baltimore Ozone Nonattainment Area 4/29/98, 8/18/98, 12/21/99, 12/28/00, 8/31/01 10/30/01, 66 FR 54666 52.1076(k). 9/2/03 10/27/03, 68 FR 61103 52.1076(k). Mobile budgets Metropolitan Baltimore Ozone Nonattainment Area 8/31/01 9/2/03 10/30/01, 66 FR 54666 10/27/03, 68 FR 61103 52.1076(l) Mobile budgets
(2005)Metropolitan Baltimore Ozone Nonattainment Area Piladelphia-Wilmington-Trenton Ozone Nonattainment Area (Cecil County) 9/2/03 10/27/03, 68 FR 61103 52.1076(m). Mobile budgets (2005 Rate of Progress Plan) Metropolitan Baltimore Ozone Nonattainment Area 11/3/03 2/13/04, 69 FR 7133 52.1076(n). Extension for incorporation of the on-board diagnostics
(OBD)testing program into the Maryland I/M SIP All ozone nonattainment areas 7/9/02 1/16/03, 68 FR 2208 52.1078(b). Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations
(PAMS)Program Metropolitan Baltimore and Metropolitan Washington Ozone Nonattainment Areas 3/24/94 9/11/95, 60 FR 47081 52.1080. Consultation with Local Officials (CAA Sections 121 & 127) All nonattainment & PSD areas 10/8/81 4/8/82, 47 FR 15140 52.1100(c)(63). Lead
(Pb)SIP City of Baltimore 10/23/80 2/23/82, 47 FR 7835 52.1100(c)(60), (61). TM#90-01-“Continuous Emission Monitoring Policies and Procedures”-October 1990 Statewide 9/18/91 2/28/96, 61 FR 7418 52.1100(c)(106); approved into SIP as “additional material”, but not IBR'd. Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan City of Baltimore—Regional Planning District 118 9/20/95 10/31/95, 60 FR 55321 52.1100(c)(117). 7/15/04 04/04/05, 70 FR 16958 Revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan Base Year Emissions Inventory using MOBILE6. Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan Montgomery County Election Districts 4, 7, and 13; Prince Georges County Election Districts 2, 6, 16, 17 and 18 10/12/95 1/30/96 61 FR 2931 52.1100(c)(118). 3/3/04 04/04/05, 70 FR 16958 Revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan Base Year Emissions Inventory using MOBILE6. Ozone Maintenance Plan Kent and Queen Anne's Counties 2/4/04 10/21/04, 69 FR 61766 52.1100(c)(187); SIP effective date is 11/22/04. 1996-1999 Rate-of-Progress Plan SIP and the Transportation Control Measures
(TCMs)in Appendix H Washington DC 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 12/20/97, 5/20/99 5/16/05, 70 FR 25688 Only the TCMs in Appendix H of the 5/20/1999 revision. 1999 motor vehicle emissions budgets of 128.5 tons per day
(tpy)of VOC and 196.4 tpy of NO <sup>X</sup> . 1990 Base Year Inventory Revisions Washington DC 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 9/2/03, 2/24/04 5/16/05, 70 FR 25688 1999-2005 Rate-of-Progress Plan SIP Revision and the Transportation Control Measures
(TCMs)in Appendix J Washington DC 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 9/2/03, 2/24/04 5/16/05, 70 FR 25688 Only the TCMs in Appendix J of the 2/24/2004 revision. 2002 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) of 125.2 tons per day
(tpy)for VOC and 290.3 tpy of NO <sup>X</sup> , and, 2005 MVEBs of 97.4 tpy for VOC and 234.7 tpy of NO <sup>X</sup> . VMT Offset SIP Revision Washington DC 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 9/2/03, 2/24/04 5/16/05, 70 FR 25688 Contingency Measure Plan Washington, DC Area 9/2/03, 2/24/04 5/16/05, 70 FR 25688 1-hour Ozone Modeled Demonstration of Attainment Washington DC 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 9/2/03, 2/24/04 5/16/05, 70 FR 25688 Attainment Demonstration and Early Action Plan for the Washington County Ozone Early Action Compact Area Washington County 12/20/04, 2/28/05 8/17/05, 70 FR 48283 1-hour Ozone Attainment Plan Washington DC 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 9/2/2003, 2/24/2004 11/16/05, 70 FR 69440 8-hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for the Kent and Queen Anne's Area Kent and Queen Anne's Counties 05/2/06, 05/19/06 12/22/06, 71 FR 76920 [FR Doc. E7-9518 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families 45 CFR Part 98 RIN 0970-AC18 Child Care and Development Fund State Match Provisions AGENCY: Administration for Children and Families (ACF), HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This final rule revises the Child Care and Development Fund
(CCDF)regulations to permit States to designate multiple public and/or private entities as eligible to receive private donations that may be certified as child care expenditures for purposes of receiving CCDF Federal matching funds. This final rule also raises from 20 to 30 percent the amount of each State's match requirement that may be met with public pre-kindergarten expenditures in order to implement a provision of the President's Good Start, Grow Smart initiative. These provisions are intended to give States increased flexibility in making the necessary State expenditures on child care to draw down their full allotment of CCDF Federal matching funds. DATES: *Effective:* October 1, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Williams, Child Care Program Specialist, Child Care Bureau, 1250 Maryland Ave, SW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20024, telephone
(202)401-4795, e-mail *awilliams@acf.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background A. Child Care and Development Fund B. Summary of the Statutory Provisions Related to the State Match Requirement C. State Match Requirement Regulations D. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking II. Statutory Authority III. Provisions of Final Rule A. Certifying Private Donations as State Expenditures 1. Summary of the Former Regulations Regarding Certifying Private Donations as State Expenditures in the CCDF Regulations 2. Consultation With States and Other Organizations 3. Discussion of Comments 4. Changes Made in Final Rule B. Public Pre-Kindergarten Expenditures 1. Summary of the Former Regulations Regarding Public Pre-Kindergarten Expenditures in the CCDF Regulations 2. Consultation With States and Other Organizations 3. Discussion of Comments 4. Changes Made in Final Rule IV. Regulatory Impact Analyses A. Executive Order 12866 B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis C. Assessment of the Impact on Family Well-Being D. Paperwork Reduction Act E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 F. Congressional Review G. Executive Order 13132 I. Background This final rule makes revisions to the matching fund requirements of the Child Care and Development Fund
(CCDF)regulations. The new requirements permit States to designate multiple public and/or private entities as eligible to receive donated funds that States certify as child care expenditures for purposes of receiving Federal CCDF matching funds and permit States to use public pre-kindergarten expenditures for up to 30 percent of the expenditures required to claim their full allotment of CCDF Federal matching funds. A discussion of comments to the final rule's revisions that were received in response to the publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM)on November 9, 2004, (69 FR 64881) may be found below in the preamble. This final rule is not substantively different from the revisions proposed by the NPRM; however, minor technical changes have been made to address concerns raised by some commenters. A. Child Care and Development Fund
(CCDF)CCDF assists low-income families, including families receiving or transitioning from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF), in the purchase of child care services, thereby allowing parents to work or attend training or education. States must spend a portion of their CCDF allotment on expenditures to improve the quality and availability of child care. B. Summary of the Statutory Provisions Related to the State Match Requirement CCDF is comprised of three funding streams—discretionary funds subject to annual appropriation by Congress as authorized under Sec. 658B of the CCDBG Act, 42 U.S.C. 9858, and mandatory and matching funds appropriated under Sec. 418 of the Social Security Act (“SSA”), 42 U.S.C. 618. Pursuant to Sec. 418(a)(2) of the SSA, the Federal CCDF matching funds are the funds remaining after the mandatory funds have been distributed to the States. Matching funds are allocated to the States on the basis of the number of children under age 13 in the State compared with the number of children under age 13 in the Nation. These funds must be matched by States at the State's Federal medical assistance percentage
(FMAP)rate. C. State Match Requirement Regulations CCDF regulations are codified at 45 CFR part 98. Previously, the relevant matching fund requirements of the CCDF regulations provided that donated funds from private sources could be qualified as State expenditures for purposes of receiving Federal CCDF matching funds, provided that such funds were transferred to or under the control of the State CCDF Lead Agency or given to the single entity designated by the State to receive donated funds. 45 CFR 98.53(f). In order to qualify as State CCDF matching funds, the former CCDF regulations also stipulated that private donations, whether they were transferred directly to the State or to a designated entity,
(i)must have been donated without any restriction that would require their use for a specific individual, organization, facility or institution;
(ii)could not revert to the donor's facility or use;
(iii)were not used to match other Federal funds;
(iv)shall have been certified both by the donor and by the Lead Agency as available and representing expenditures eligible for Federal match; and
(v)shall have been subject to the audit requirements in Sec. 98.65. 45 CFR 98.53(e)(2). The former relevant matching fund requirements also provided that States could use public pre-kindergarten expenditures for up to 20 percent of the expenditures serving as maintenance-of-effort and up to 20 percent of the expenditures meeting CCDF matching requirements. 45 CFR 98.53(h). States seeking to use pre-kindergarten expenditures for between 10 and 20 percent of the expenditures serving as maintenance-of-effort or meeting CCDF matching requirements had to provide a description of the efforts they would undertake to ensure that pre-kindergarten programs meet the needs of working families. They also were required to demonstrate how they will coordinate their pre-kindergarten and child care services to expand the availability of child care. 45 CFR 98.53(h)(4). While retaining most of the provisions governing CCDF State matching requirements, this rule finalizes the provisions of the NPRM to give States more flexibility in making the necessary State expenditures for child care to draw down their full allotment of Federal CCDF matching funds. Since FY1999, nine States have failed to draw down their full allotment of Federal CCDF matching funds in at least one year. Five of these States have failed to draw down their full allotment of Federal CCDF matching funds in multiple years. Three States failed to draw down their full allotment of Federal CCDF matching funds in each of fiscal years 2003 and 2004. State expenditure and allotment data can be found at *http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ccb/data/index.htm* . In recent months, ACF Regions and the Child Care Bureau have received requests from States for increased flexibility in the use of donated funds and public pre-kindergarten expenditures to meet CCDF matching requirements. Furthermore, Good Start, Grow Smart: The Bush Administration's Early Childhood Initiative, the document that describes the President's Good Start, Grow Smart initiative, specifically provides that the amount of State pre-kindergarten expenditures that may be used for Federal match should be increased to give States more flexibility in funding quality activities in support of early learning. This final rule implements that recommendation. Good Start, Grow Smart: The Bush Administration's Early Childhood Initiative may be downloaded from the President's Web site at *http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/earlychildhood/toc.html* . Finally, this final rule makes technical corrections and clarifies some ambiguities in the CCDF regulations. D. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM)was published in the **Federal Register** on November 9, 2004 (69 FR 64881) with a 60-day public comment period. As discussed later in this preamble, we received comments from 9 commenters: three State child care administrators and six national advocacy groups for child care. II. Statutory Authority This final rule is being issued under the authority granted to the Secretary of Health and Human Services
(HHS)by Sec. 658E of the CCDBG Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9858c. III. Provisions of Final Rule A. Certifying Private Donations as State Expenditures 1. Summary of the Former Regulations Regarding Certifying Private Donations as State Expenditures in the CCDF Regulations In order to certify funds donated from private sources that are not transferred to or under State control as expenditures for the purpose of receiving Federal CCDF matching funds, former CCDF regulations provided that States must designate a single entity to receive such privately donated funds and all such privately donated funds must be transferred to this single designated entity. The specific provisions setting forth this requirement appeared at § 98.53(f) of the CCDF regulations and provided that funds donated from private sources “may be given to the entity designated by the State to receive donated funds” in the State Plan. 2. Consultation With States and Other Organizations Requests have been made by State officials for increased flexibility in meeting the States' CCDF matching requirements. The Child Care Bureau has also learned that States found the CCDF regulations too restrictive when States sought to encourage coordination among early childhood education programs or to implement the President's Good Start, Grow Smart initiative. For example, the requirement for a single designated entity to receive privately donated funds has impeded the ability of some States to partner with multiple organizations that are interested in contributing towards the State's match requirement. 3. Discussion of Comments Greater Flexibility and Coordination *Comment:* Two commenters noted that the proposed rule would allow greater flexibility in making the necessary State expenditures on child care to draw down the full allotment of Federal CCDF matching funds and would promote the ability of States to coordinate the use of private funds in a more cohesive system of early care and education. However, several commenters noted concerns regarding the tracking and reporting that would be needed to comply with Federal requirements. *Response:* It is the intent of the Child Care Bureau that the flexibility created by this rule will ease the burden on States in meeting their CCDF matching requirement and free more State funds for use in coordinated efforts that emphasize quality child care and early education. With respect to the concerns raised by the commenters regarding the tracking and reporting of privately donated funds, we note that States are responsible for ensuring that private donations counted towards a State's CCDF match requirements meet all the rules and restrictions set forth for such funds in CCDF regulations. As provided in the Child Care Bureau's October 30, 1996 Program Instruction on Matching Funds, Maintenance of Effort, and Administrative Costs (ACYF-PI-CC-96-17), “Federal matching funds are only available to match State expenditures for those child care service [sic] and related activities, including quality activities, that are allowable and are also included by the State as part of its program under the Act and noted in the approved State Plan.” Sec. 98.53(e)(2) of the CCDF regulations (as amended by this final rule) provides for special rules concerning privately donated funds:
(1)Such funds must be donated without any restriction that would require their use for a specific individual, organization, facility or institution;
(2)such funds may not revert to the donor's facility or use;
(3)such funds may not be used to match other Federal funds;
(4)such funds must be certified both by the Lead Agency and by the donor (if funds are donated directly to the Lead Agency) or the entity designated by the State to receive donated funds pursuant to Sec. 98.53(f) (if funds are donated directly to the designated entity) as available and representing funds eligible for Federal match; and
(5)such funds shall be subject to the audit requirements in Sec. 98.65 of the CCDF regulations. States must take responsibility to ensure compliance with CCDF rules and restrictions regarding private donations when considering which and how many private or public entities will be designated as eligible to receive private donations for CCDF match. We take this opportunity to make a technical change to the CCDF regulations in response to the concern raised regarding the tracking of private donations. Sec. 98.53(e)(2)(iv) of the former CCDF regulations required both the donor and the Lead Agency to certify that privately donated funds were “available and representing expenditures eligible for Federal match.” Read literally in the case of a State using private donations to an entity designated by the State to receive such funds for the purpose of meeting CCDF matching requirements, this would require the State and/or the designated entity to obtain numerous certifications from individual donors who neither had control over funds they had already donated to the designated entity, nor had the expertise to determine whether such funds represented expenditures eligible for Federal match. We believe that requiring donors to certify to the availability and eligibility of unrestricted funds donated to a designated entity would be unduly burdensome on donors, designated entities, and Lead Agencies. Requiring designated entities to make or collect numerous certifications from donors who contributed some portion of unrestricted funds, often in small amounts, that were used to pay for an expenditure meeting CCDF State match requirements, would have a chilling effect on the donation process. Further, we see little value in certifications from donors who have neither control over funds that have already been donated, nor the expertise to determine whether such funds represent expenditures eligible for CCDF State match. We therefore revise Sec. 98.53(e)(2)(iv) to provide that privately donated funds must “be certified both by the Lead Agency and by the donor as available and representing funds eligible for Federal match if funds are donated directly to the Lead Agency. If private funds are donated directly to the designated entity, those funds must be certified both by the Lead Agency and the entity designated by the State to receive donated funds as available and representing funds eligible for Federal match, pursuant to Sec. 98.53(e).” The preamble to the CCDF regulations supports this interpretation, noting, “Both the Lead Agency and the entity designated by the State to receive donated funds must * * * certify that the donated funds are available and eligible for Federal match.” 63 FR 39965. Therefore, we believe that the intent of the CCDF regulations has always been that the Lead Agency and the entity designated by the State to receive donated funds should certify to the availability and eligibility of privately donated funds donated to the designated entity, and thus consider this revision to be a technical change. In cases where private donations are made directly to the Lead Agency, donors are still required to make the required certifications. Reduced Accountability/Increased Fraud and Misexpenditure *Comment:* Several commenters opined that allowing States to designate multiple entities to receive private donations would lead to reduced accountability and increased fraud and misexpenditure. According to these commenters, it would be difficult under the proposed rule for States to independently determine whether funds reported as collected were actually collected in a manner consistent with the CCDF regulations and harder to determine whether the safeguards were being followed. The commenters suggested:
(1)Making funds subject to audit requirements that would specifically focus on determining compliance with safeguards applicable to donated funds;
(2)collecting and publishing information on the amount of donated funds used to help States draw down Federal matching funds and ensuring that program reviews include components designed to monitor compliance with Federal requirements applicable to donated funds; and
(3)requiring the State agency, rather than the agency receiving the donated funds, to make determinations on whether donated funds count as a State match. *Response:* It is important to recognize that under existing CCDF regulations, States have the flexibility to designate a single entity to receive privately donated funds. To date, we are not aware of any documented instances of fraud or misexpenditure by these designated entities despite regular audits. We see no reason why simply allowing States to designate more than one entity to receive privately donated funds would lead to greater fraud or misexpenditure. At the same time, we recognize the importance of maintaining accountability and integrity in the program, and we reiterate that Sec. 98.53(e)(2)(v) of the CCDF regulations explicitly requires that State match funds derived from privately donated funds are subject to the audit requirements in Sec. 98.65 of the CCDF regulations. Therefore, pursuant to Sec. 98.65(d), any Federal match funds drawn down with privately donated funds that are determined through the audit process not to have been expended in accordance with CCDF statutory or regulatory provisions, or with the State Plan, are subject to disallowance and being returned to the Federal government. States using privately donated funds to meet their CCDF State match requirement, whether such funds are received by the State or a designated third party, should be cognizant of this requirement and implement all necessary systems and procedures to ensure that all funds used to meet CCDF State match requirements comply with CCDF's statutory and regulatory requirements. We also note that States are required to report their use of privately donated funds to meet their CCDF State match requirement in two places. First, in Sec. 1.8 of the Child Care and Development Fund Plan for FFY 2006-2007, States must answer whether they will use privately donated funds to meet a part of their CCDF State match requirement and identify and describe the entity or entities designated to receive privately donated funds. Second, States must report on a quarterly basis the amount of privately donated funds used to meet their CCDF State match requirement on the ACF-696 Financial Report. We recommend that States take appropriate measures with respect to their own data-collection requirements to ensure that donors and entities designated to receive private donations comply with CCDF statutory and regulatory requirements. Further, we note that the State as well as the donor or the entity receiving privately donated funds are required by CCDF regulations to certify that the privately donated funds are both available and represent expenditures eligible for Federal match. Through the certification process, States are held accountable for all privately donated funds used as CCDF State match whether such funds are donated to the State directly or donated to a designated entity. Further, we reiterate that designations of privately donated funds as eligible for CCDF Federal matching funds are subject to verification through audit. Finally, in an effort to reduce the chances of fraud or misexpenditure and to further clarify our regulations, we take this opportunity to make another technical change by removing the word “and” after Sec. 98.53(e)(2)(ii). One Lead Agency interpreted the inclusion of the word “and” between clauses
(ii)and
(iii)of Sec. 98.53(e)(2) to mean that privately donated funds were only required to meet the requirements of clauses
(i)and
(ii)or clauses (iii)-(v), but not all five clauses. We believe that the word “and” was inadvertently left in the regulations when they were revised in 1998. We further believe that removing the word “and” does not change the meaning or our interpretation of Sec. 98.53(e)(2). However, we want to avoid any misinterpretation of Sec. 98.53(e)(2) that might lead to privately donated funds being claimed as CCDF State match without meeting all five requirements of Sec. 98.53(e)(2). We consider this revision to be a technical change. Distorted Program Priorities *Comment:* Several commenters argued that CCDF rules that prohibit special conditions on private donations and the reversion of donations back to the donor may be interpreted to apply only to donors and not the entities designated to receive donations. According to these commenters, if private donations are generated with special conditions, entities could raise funds that would be limited to the benefit of their members. Allowing the entity receiving donated funds to impose special conditions or spend donated funds on their own programs increases the risk that overall program priorities would be distorted. The commenters suggested:
(1)Specifying that the entity receiving funds may not impose a requirement that the funds be used for a specific individual or group of individuals, organization, facility or institution;
(2)specifying that funds may not revert to such entity's facility or use; and
(3)specifying that decisions about the appropriate expenditures of donated funds counting as State match must be made by the State agency rather than the entity receiving donated funds. *Response:* Sec. 98.53(e)(2) prohibits donors from placing special conditions on private donations that would require their use for a specific individual, organization, facility or institution or that would result in their reversion to the donor's facility or use. However, the preamble to the CCDF regulations makes clear that limiting the use of privately donated funds to a specific geographic area, such as within the limits of a specific city or even a single neighborhood, is permissible, as this was one of the intentions of allowing separate entities to receive privately donated funds for use as CCDF State match. 63 FR 39965. CCDF regulations provide that restrictions on placing special conditions on privately donated funds apply only to donors and not to the entities receiving them. However, CCDF regulations also provide that the entities receiving privately donated funds as well as the State must certify that such donated funds are both available and eligible for Federal match. Therefore, both the entities receiving privately donated funds as well as the State must take appropriate steps to ensure that such funds are spent on allowable activities, as described in the approved State Plan, that meet the goals and purposes of the CCDBG Act. States must be vigilant in monitoring the entities that they designate as eligible to receive privately donated funds, and should act quickly and decisively to remove their designation if any impropriety has occurred. Entities that receive privately donated funds may expend such funds on their own activities, provided that such activities qualify as eligible child care activities under the CCDBG Act and CCDF regulations, and provided further that such activities are permissible under State or local law and regulations governing conflict of interest. Qualifying child care activities may include child care direct services or related activities, including quality activities, provided that such services and activities meet eligibility and other program requirements, are consistent with the goals and purposes of the CCDBG Act, and are noted in the approved State Plan. Again, States have the responsibility of ensuring that the activities funded through private donations meet all the requirements to qualify as CCDF State match. If a State determines that an entity designated to receive private donations is acting improperly, it must remove that entity's designation and find another source to meet the State's CCDF State match requirement. Competition/Inequitable Distribution of Funds *Comment:* Several commenters believed that allowing States to designate multiple entities to receive private donations creates the risk that that such entities would compete in the collection of private funds. These commenters opined that competition could lead to inequitable distribution of funds because wealthy communities could generate more private donations than poor communities. They also argued that the proposed rule could result in competition among child care providers that might be put in a position of having to raise funds to contribute to match. The commenters suggested:
(1)Specifying that any State electing to use donated funds as CCDF State match must provide assurances that CCDF matching funds will be allocated in an equitable manner that does not result in disproportionate allocation of resources to communities or entities based on the collection of donated funds; and
(2)requiring States to describe in their State Plans how the allocation of funds for services and quality activities between areas of the State is reasonable and appropriate in light of the identified needs of the respective areas of the State. *Response:* As noted above, the preamble to the CCDF regulations makes clear that limiting the use of privately donated funds to a specific geographic area, such as within the limits of a specific city or even a single neighborhood, was one of the intentions of allowing separate entities to receive privately donated funds for use as CCDF State match. To date, we have found no evidence that this has led to inequity in child care spending among communities of varying economic status. We see no reason why simply allowing States to designate more than one entity to receive privately donated funds would lead to greater inequities among various regions of a State. We take this opportunity to remind States of CCDF's parental choice requirements. Sec. 98.30(f) of the CCDF regulations prohibits States or local governments from establishing rules, procedures or other requirements promulgated for purposes of the CCDF that significantly restrict parental choice by:
(i)Expressly or effectively excluding any category of care or type of provider, or any type of provider within a category of care;
(ii)having the effect of limiting parental access to or choice from among such categories of care or types of providers; or
(iii)excluding a significant number of providers in any category of care or of any type of care. If a State enacted a rule, procedure or other requirement to take advantage of the additional flexibility provided by this final rule that had the effect of limiting parental choice in violation of CCDF regulations, then that State would be subject to losing all or a portion of its CCDF grant. We urge States to consider CCDF's parental choice requirements carefully in crafting new rules, procedures, or other requirements designed to take advantage of this final rule. We further urge States to monitor how State and Federal child care funds are distributed across a State and use the flexibility provided by CCDF statute and regulations to ensure that child care resources are distributed equitably and optimally. Further, we will take under advisement prior to the 2010-2011 State Plan submission process the recommendation to require States to describe in their State Plans how they make use of privately donated funds and whether such use leads to disparate services across varying regions of a State. We will, at that time, publish a **Federal Register** notice (OMB Control Number 0970-0114) to solicit public comment as to the availability of child care services that meet the needs of working parents. Reduced Funding for Child Care *Comment:* Several commenters opined that child care is not adequately funded and that the proposed changes to CCDF regulations may actually result in fewer child care services, particularly for infants and toddlers. They argue that increased use of private donations to meet CCDF State match requirements could result in shrinkage of public commitment because legislatures might reduce appropriations in the expectation that agencies or communities should generate private match instead. Those commenters suggest that States be prohibited from reducing their current child care spending for subsidies, quality improvement, and infants and toddlers. *Response:* Allowing more than one public or private entity to receive private donations in no way changes States' CCDF matching and MOE requirements. Whether the source of the CCDF matching or MOE funds is from the State or from a private donation to a designated entity, the amount required to draw down a State's full allotment of CCDF matching funds is not altered by this regulatory change. Further, these rules are intended to increase State flexibility and should have a positive impact on funding child care. States ultimately have responsibility to determine how best to address child care and this regulation will give States additional flexibility to meet the needs of children and families. With respect to child care funding for certain ages of eligible children, such as infants and toddlers, we note that States already have the flexibility to allocate funds between direct services and quality activities and among the various ages of eligible children according to the particular circumstances within the State. However, there are several requirements of States that ensure that CCDF funds are spread across all eligible children and types of child care activities. States are required to spend at least four percent of their CCDF allotment on quality activities and at least 70 percent of their allotment of CCDF mandatory and matching funds on direct services for families receiving TANF assistance, transitioning off of TANF assistance, or at risk of becoming dependent on TANF assistance. Additionally, set-asides in annual appropriation of CCDF discretionary funds require States to spend CCDF funds on specified activities, such as “activities that improve the quality of infant and toddler care.” This rule is not intended to reward one group of children at the expense of the other. Rather, this rule hopes to facilitate greater funding opportunities for all eligible children through private donations and to encourage greater cooperation and coordination between the child care and early education communities. We feel this is in the best interests of all children. However, we will continue to monitor States' implementation of the CCDF program through State Plans, annual State expenditure data and other reporting requirements. We also will publish a **Federal Register** notice (OMB Control Number 0970-0114) to solicit public comment as to the availability and coordination of child care services that meet the needs of working parents prior to 2010-2011 State Plan submission process. Lack of Rationale *Comment:* Several commenters noted that the NPRM does not adequately explain why the existing requirement restricting States to the designation of a single entity for receipt of private donations has been a problem and offers no examples of any instance in which it has impeded coordination or discouraged the use of private contributions. They argue that States should be required to demonstrate in their State plan how they are using any increase in available funds to both improve coordination and to increase the availability of services for low-income working families. *Response:* As noted above, since FY1999, nine States have failed to draw down their full allotment of Federal CCDF matching funds in at least one year, and five of these States have failed to draw down their full allotment of Federal CCDF matching funds in multiple years. It is our belief that greater flexibility in meeting their State match could have helped these States draw down their full allotment of CCDF Federal match funds. We also reiterate that the Child Care Bureau has received requests from State officials for increased flexibility in meeting the States' CCDF matching requirements, particularly for States seeking to encourage coordination among early childhood education programs or to implement the President's Good Start, Grow Smart initiative. It is our belief that this rule change will enable States to raise more funds for child care and encourage more public-private partnerships in increasing the quality and availability of affordable child care. We do see merit in the suggestion that States should be required to demonstrate in their State Plan how they are using privately donated funds to both improve coordination and to increase the availability of services for low-income working families. While no regulatory changes are needed, we will take that suggestion under advisement prior to the 2010-2011 State Plan submission process. We will, at that time, publish a **Federal Register** notice (OMB Control Number 0970-0114) to solicit public comment as to the availability and coordination of child care services that meet the needs of working parents. 4. Changes Made in Final Rule In order to grant States greater flexibility in meeting the matching requirements for Federal CCDF matching funds, this final rule provides that States shall be allowed to designate multiple public and/or private entities to receive privately donated funds that may be certified as State expenditures for purposes of receiving Federal CCDF matching funds. We revised Sec. 98.53(f) to provide that privately donated funds “may be given to the public or private entities designated by the State to implement the child care program in accordance with Sec. 98.11 provided that such entities are identified and designated in the State Plan to receive donated funds pursuant to Sec. 98.16(c)(2).” Additionally, conforming changes to Secs. 98.16(c)(2) and 98.53(e)(2)(iv) reflect the fact that privately donated funds may be given to “public or private entities.” Also, as discussed above, two technical changes are made to address concerns noted in comments. First, Sec. 98.53(e)(2)(iv) is revised to provide that privately donated funds must “be certified both by the Lead Agency and by the donor (if funds are donated directly to the Lead Agency) or the entity designated by the State to receive donated funds pursuant to Sec. 98.53(f) (if funds are donated directly to the designated entity) as available and representing funds eligible for Federal match.” Second, the word “and” after Sec. 98.53(e)(2)(ii) is removed. B. Public Pre-Kindergarten Expenditures 1. Summary of the Former Regulations Regarding Public Pre-Kindergarten Expenditures in the CCDF Regulations Former CCDF regulations provided that, once States had met their maintenance-of-effort requirement, they could use public pre-kindergarten expenditures for up to 20 percent of their child care expenditures designated toward meeting CCDF matching requirements. States seeking to use the full 20 percent of pre-kindergarten expenditures to meet the matching requirements were required to provide a description of the efforts they would undertake to ensure that pre-kindergarten programs met the needs of working families. They were also required to demonstrate how they would coordinate their pre-kindergarten and child care services to expand the availability of child care. The specific provisions setting forth this requirement appeared at Sec. 98.53(h)(3) of the CCDF regulations and provided that “[i]n any fiscal year, a State may use other public pre-K funds for up to 20% of the expenditures serving as the State's matching funds under this subsection.” 2. Consultation With States and Other Organizations Requests have been made by State officials for increased flexibility in meeting the States' CCDF matching requirements. The Child Care Bureau has also been informed that States were finding the former CCDF regulations to be too restrictive when States sought to encourage coordination among early childhood education programs or to implement the President's Good Start, Grow Smart initiative. This rule will provide greater leverage to ensure coordination between pre-kindergarten and child care. 3. Discussion of Comments More Funds for Quality Enhancements *Comment:* Two commenters noted that CCDF funds freed by the proposed change could be directed toward quality enhancements supporting early learning, and that increased coordination could lead to increased efficiencies, improved service effectiveness, and the potential to leverage additional private donations. *Response:* We agree. It is the intent of the Child Care Bureau that the flexibility created by this rule will ease the burden on States in meeting their CCDF matching requirement, free more State funds for use in funding quality activities in support of early learning, and encourage coordination among those working to improve and expand early education and child care. Reduced Funding for Child Care *Comment:* Several commenters reiterated their argument that child care is not adequately funded and the proposed changes to the CCDF regulations may actually result in fewer child care services, particularly for infants and toddlers. One commenter argued that if preschool children move away from community-based child care to State pre-K programs, child care providers would be left with a disproportionate share of infants and toddlers who are more expensive to serve. Commenters noted that increased use of pre-k expenditures for CCDF State match could lead to the supplanting of current State investments in child care subsidy programs and an overall reduction of funding for child care. The commenters suggested:
(1)Prohibiting States from reducing their current child care spending for subsidies, quality improvement, and infants and toddlers; and
(2)specifying that any State using pre-k expenditures for more than 20 percent of their matching funds provide assurances that the State will not supplant existing services and demonstrate that the increase in funds has not resulted in a decline in State child care expenditures. *Response:* Increasing the allowable pre-K funds for State match from 20% to 30% is intended to provide an incentive for States to more closely link their pre-K and child care systems and establish a coordinated system that better meets the needs of working families for full-day/full-year services that prepare children to enter school ready to learn. The intent is not to create an incentive for States to divert State funds away from other child care programs to meet their Matching requirements solely through pre-K expenditures. Additionally, we note that to address potential concerns about the use of pre-K expenditures in meeting CCDF requirements, expenditures for pre-K programs may constitute no more than 30 percent of State match expenditures. To reiterate what we stated in the 1998 final rule, a chief concern to working parents is that many pre-K services are only part-day and or part-year and such programs may not serve the family's real needs. CCDF regulations require a State using pre-k expenditures to meet its CCDF State match requirement to describe in its State Plan the efforts it will undertake to ensure that pre-K programs meet the needs of working parents. We further note that CCDF regulations require that State Plans shall reflect a State's intent to use public pre-K funds in excess of 10% of its or State matching funds in a fiscal year and how the State will coordinate its pre-K and child care services to expand the availability of child care. Thus, the CCDF regulations do require States to take steps to ensure that their pre-k programs meet the needs of working parents and, in some instances, to coordinate their pre-k and child care services to expand the availability of child care to all. Rationale for Rule Change A number of commenters argued that it is unclear how increasing the amount of State pre-k dollars that can be used to meet the match requirement will in any way improve coordination. These commenters suggested requiring States to demonstrate in their State plan how they are using any increase in available funds to both improve coordination and to increase the availability of services for low-income working families. *Response:* As discussed above, since FY1999, nine States have failed to draw down their full allotment of Federal CCDF matching funds in at least one year, and five of these States have failed to draw down their full allotment of Federal CCDF matching funds in multiple years. It is our belief that greater flexibility in meeting their State match could have helped these States draw down their full allotment of CCDF Federal match funds. We also reiterate that the Child Care Bureau has received requests from State officials for increased flexibility in meeting the States' CCDF matching requirements, particularly for States seeking to encourage coordination among early childhood education programs or to implement the President's Good Start, Grow Smart initiative. It is our belief that this rule change will enable States to raise more funds for child care and encourage more public-private partnerships in increasing the quality and availability of affordable child care. We do see merit in the suggestion that States should be required to demonstrate in their State Plan how they are using any increase in available funds to both improve coordination and to increase the availability of services for low-income working families. While no regulatory changes are needed, we will take that suggestion under advisement prior to the 2010-2011 State Plan submission process.. We will, at that time, publish a **Federal Register** notice (OMB Control Number 0970-0114) to solicit public comment as to the availability and coordination of child care services that meet the needs of working parents. 4. Changes Made in This Final Rule In order to grant States greater flexibility in meeting the matching requirements for Federal CCDF matching funds, this final rule provides that once a State has met its maintenance-of-effort requirement, it may designate a portion of its public pre-kindergarten expenditures as expenditures toward Federal CCDF matching funds; provided that the portion of public pre-kindergarten expenditures designated as State matching funds may not exceed 30 percent of the amount of expenditures required by the State to draw down its full allotment of Federal CCDF matching funds. We propose to revise Sec. 98.53(h)(3) to provide that, “[i]n any fiscal year, a State may use other public pre-K funds as expenditures serving as State matching funds under this subsection; such public pre-K funds used as State expenditures may not exceed 30% of the amount of a State's expenditures required to draw down the State's full allotment of Federal matching funds available under this subsection.” Additionally, conforming changes would be made to Sec. 98.53(h)(4) to provide that the CCDF Plan “shall reflect the State's intent to use public pre-K funds in excess of 10%, but not for more than 20% of its maintenance-of-effort or 30% of its State matching funds in a fiscal year.” III. Regulatory Impact Analyses A. Executive Order 12866 Executive Order 12866 requires that regulations be drafted to ensure that they are consistent with the priorities and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866. The Department has determined that this final rule is consistent with these priorities and principles. Moreover, we have consulted with the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)and determined that these final rules meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Thus, they were subject to OMB review. Executive Order 12866 encourages agencies, as appropriate, to provide the public with meaningful participation in the regulatory process. As described earlier, the Child Care Bureau and ACF regional offices have been contacted by numerous States expressing their desire for greater flexibility in meeting their matching requirement for Federal CCDF matching funds. This rule addresses these concerns. In addition, we have provided a 60-day public comment period and have responded to or addressed all comments in this final rule. B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Ch. 6)
(RFA)requires the Federal government to anticipate and reduce the impact of rules and paperwork requirements on small businesses and other small entities. Small entities are defined in the RFA to include small businesses, small non-profit organizations, and small governmental entities. This rule will affect only the 50 States and the District of Columbia. Therefore, the Secretary certifies that this rule will not have a significant impact on small entities. C. Assessment of the Impact on Family Well-Being We certify that we have made an assessment of this final rule's impact on the well-being of families, as required under Sec. 654 of the Treasury and General Appropriations Act of 1999. This final rule will make it easier for States to receive their full allotment of Federal matching funds through CCDF. These funds are to be used by States to assist low-income families in purchasing child care services, to provide comprehensive consumer education to parents and the public, and to improve the quality and availability of child care. D. Paperwork Reduction Act In order for States to use the increased flexibility provided by the final rule, Lead Agencies must amend their Lead Agency Plans, the information requirements of which are set forth in Sec. 98.16 of the CCDF regulations. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507 (d)), the Administration for Children and Families has submitted a copy of this section, together with a copy of this final rule to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for its review. *Title:* Amendment to State/Territorial Plan Pre-Print (ACF-118) for the Child Care and Development Fund (Child Care and Development Block Grant). *Description:* The legislatively-mandated plans serve as the agreement between the Lead Agency and the Federal Government as to how CCDF programs will be administered in conformance with legislative requirements, pertinent Federal regulations, and other applicable instructions and guidelines issued by ACF. This information is used for Federal oversight of the Child Care and Development Fund. Because the State Plans must accurately reflect the manner in which a State meets the matching requirements for Federal CCDF matching funds, in order for a State to use the increased flexibility provided by this final rule, it must submit an amendment to its plan reflecting the change in the manner in which it meets the matching requirement for Federal CCDF matching funds. Because the information required to take advantage of the provisions of this final regulation are already collected in the ACF-118 (OMB Control Number 0970-0114), a new information collection document will not be necessary. *Respondents:* State and territorial governments. Annual Burden Estimates Number of respondents* Number of submittals Average burden hour per submittal Total burden hours 22 1 2 44 * Estimate based upon the total number of States using private donations and/or their public pre-kindergarten expenditures as their expenditures toward Federal CCDF matching funds in FY2002, plus an additional number of States that are expected to take advantage of the increased flexibility in using private donations and/or public pre-kindergarten expenditures to meet their State CCDF matching requirement. The Administration for Children and Families will consider comments by the public on this proposed collection of information in the following areas:
(1)Evaluating whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of ACF, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluating the accuracy of the ACF's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimizing the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information contained in this final rule between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the **Federal Register** . Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect the deadline for the public to comment to the Department on the final rule. Written comments to OMB for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, either by fax to 202-395-6974 or by e-mail to *OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov* . Please mark faxes and e-mails to the attention of the desk officer for ACF. E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Sec. 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)requires that a covered agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. This final rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Expenditures made to meet the requirements for Federal CCDF matching funds are made entirely at the option of the State or Tribal government seeking the Federal CCDF matching funds. F. Congressional Review This final rule is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804. G. Executive Order 13132 Executive Order 13132 guarantees “the division of governmental responsibilities between the national government and the States that was intended by the Framers of the Constitution, to ensure that the principles of federalism established by the Framers guide the executive departments and agencies in the formulation and implementation of policies, and to further the policies of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.” The Secretary certifies that this final rule does not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This final rule does not preempt State law and does not impose unfunded mandates. This final rule does not contain regulatory policies with federalism implications that would require specific consultations with State or local elected officials. List of Subjects Charitable donation, Child care, Day care, Early education, Grant programs—social programs, Pre-kindergarten, State match. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs: 93.575, Child Care and Development Block Grant; 93.596, Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds) Dated: April 13, 2007. Daniel C. Schneider, Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families. Approved: May 9, 2007. Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Part 98 of Subtitle A of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows: PART 98—CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND 1. The authority for part 98 continues to read: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 618, 9858. 2. Amend 45 CFR 98.16 to revise paragraph (c)(2) as follows: § 98.16 Plan provisions.
(c)* * *
(2)Identification of the public or private entities designated to receive private donated funds and the purposes for which such funds will be expended, pursuant to Sec. 98.53(f); 3. Amend 45 CFR 98.53 to revise paragraphs (e)(2), (f), (h)(3), and (h)(4) to read as follows: § 98.53 Matching fund requirements.
(e)An expenditure in the State for purposes of this subpart may be:
(2)Donated from private sources when the donated funds:
(i)Are donated without any restriction that would require their use for a specific individual, organization, facility or institution;
(ii)Do not revert to the donor's facility or use;
(iii)Are not used to match other Federal funds;
(iv)Shall be certified both by the Lead Agency and by the donor (if funds are donated directly to the Lead Agency) or the Lead Agency and the entity designated by the State to receive donated funds pursuant to § 98.53(f) (if funds are donated directly to the designated entity) as available and representing funds eligible for Federal match; and
(v)Shall be subject to the audit requirements in § 98.65 of these regulations.
(f)Donated funds need not be transferred to or under the administrative control of the Lead Agency in order to qualify as an expenditure eligible to receive Federal match under this subsection. They may be given to the public or private entities designated by the State to implement the child care program in accordance with § 98.11 provided that such entities are identified and designated in the State Plan to receive donated funds in accordance with § 98.16(c)(2).
(h)* * *
(3)In any fiscal year, a State may use public pre-K funds for up to 20% of the funds serving as maintenance-of-effort under this subsection. In addition, in any fiscal year, a State may use other public pre-K funds as expenditures serving as State matching funds under this subsection; such public pre-K funds used as State expenditures may not exceed 30% of the amount of a State's expenditures required to draw down the State's full allotment of Federal matching funds available under this subsection.
(4)If applicable, the CCDF Plan shall reflect the State's intent to use public pre-K funds in excess of 10%, but not for more than 20% of its maintenance-of-effort or 30% of its State matching funds in a fiscal year. Also, the Plan shall describe how the State will coordinate its pre-K and child care services to expand the availability of child care. [FR Doc. E7-9626 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 070213033-7033-01] RIN 0648-XA25 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Catcher Vessels Less than 60 Feet (18.3 m) LOA Using Pot or Hook-and-Line Gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters (m)) length overall
(LOA)using pot or hook-and-line gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2007 Pacific cod total allowable catch
(TAC)allocated to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using pot or hook-and-line gear in the BSAI. DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), May 15, 2007, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Hogan, 907-586-7228. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area
(FMP)prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. The 2007 and 2008 final harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (72 FR 9451, March 2, 2007), the reallocation on March 5, 2007 (72 FR 10428, March 8, 2007), and the reallocation on April 31, 2007 (72 FR 18595, April 30, 2007) allocated a directed fishing allowance for Pacific cod of 2,853 metric tons to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using pot or hook-and-line gear in the BSAI. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that the 2007 Pacific cod directed fishing allowance allocated to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using pot or hook-and-line gear in the BSAI has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using pot or hook-and-line gear in the BSAI. After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and
(f)apply at any time during a trip. Classification This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using pot or hook-and-line gear in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of May 14, 2007. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment. This action is required by section 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: May 15, 2007. James P. Burgess, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 07-2473 Filed 5-15-07; 1:42 pm]
Connectionstraces to 25
Traces to 25 documents
19 references not yet in our index
  • 21 CFR 510
  • 5 USC 801-808
  • 21 CFR 520.1720
  • 21 CFR 20
  • 21 CFR 520
  • 21 CFR 522
  • 40 CFR 52
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 1 CFR 51
  • 40 CFR 63
  • 45 CFR 98
  • 45 CFR 98.53(f)
  • 45 CFR 98.53(e)(2)
  • 45 CFR 98.53(h)
  • 45 CFR 98.53(h)(4)
  • 45 CFR 98.16
  • 45 CFR 98.53
  • 50 CFR 679
  • 50 CFR 600
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Final rule
C.F.R.§ 510.600
U.S.C.§ 804
U.S.C.§ 321
C.F.R.§ 514.11
C.F.R.§ 25.33
U.S.C.§ 360b
C.F.R.§ 522.246
C.F.R.§ 52.1100
Fed. Reg.Notices
Cite21 CFR 510
Cite5 USC 801-808
Cite21 CFR 520.1720
Cites 44 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.