[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 119 (Thursday, June 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37274-37276]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14717]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0026]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 7 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions are effective June 20, 2013. The exemptions
expire on June 20, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgement that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

Background

    On April 16, 2013, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption
applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the
public (78 FR 22598). That notice listed 7 applicants' case histories.
The 7 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement in
49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 7 applications on their merits and
made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye

without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/
40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity
of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective
lenses, field of vision of at least 70[deg] in the horizontal meridian
in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals
and devices showing requirement red, green, and amber (49 CFR
391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 7
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including amblyopia, a macular pucker, a scarred corneal
retinal detachment, toxoplasmosis, a prosthetic eye, and choroidal
melanoma. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently
developed. Four of the applicants were either born with their vision
impairments or have had them since childhood.
    The three individuals that sustained their vision conditions as
adults have had them for a period of 8 to 21 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 7 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from 5 to 22
years. In the past 3 years, none of the drivers was involved in crashes
but one was convicted of a moving violation in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the April 16, 2013
notice (78 FR 22598).

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 7 applicants, none of the drivers was involved in a crash and one
was convicted of a moving violation in a CMV. All the applicants
achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in

interstate commerce as safely as he/she has been performing in
intrastate commerce. Consequently, FMCSA finds that exempting these
applicants from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption. For this reason, the Agency is granting the exemptions for
the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to the 7
applicants listed in the notice of April 16, 2013 (78 FR 22598).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 7 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2)
that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a
copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 7 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Fred Boggs (WV), James M. Del Sasso (IL), Stephen R. Dykstra
(WI), Troy A. Gray (MI), Darryl W. Hardy (AL), George E. Mulherin, III
(PA), and Nathan G. Pettis (FL) from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR
391.64(b)).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on: June 10, 2013.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-14717 Filed 6-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD i Final Draft TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Chapter I. Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 1 Chapter II. Physical and Chemical Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II 1 Chapter III. Toxicokinetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III 1 A. Absorption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III 1 B. Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III 3 C. Metabolism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III 9 D. Excretion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III 18 E. Bioaccumulation and Retention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III 20 F. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III 20 Chapter IV. Human Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV 1 Chapter V. Health Effects in Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V 1 A. Short Term Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V 1 B. Long Term Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V 16 C. Reproductive and Developmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V 26 D. Mutagenicity and Genotoxicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V 49 E. Carcinogenicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V 60 F. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V 65 Chapter VI. Health Effects in Humans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI 1 . Mechanisms of Toxicity and Sensitive Subpopulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII 1 A. Biochemical Basis of Toxicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII 1 B. Mechanisms of Carcinogenesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII 11 C. Interactions and Suceptibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII 14 D. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII 16 Chapter VIII. Quantification of Toxicological Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII 1 A. Introduction to Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII 1 B. Noncarcinogenic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII 8 C. Carcinogenic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII 42 D. Characteristics of Uncertainties and Data Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII 44 Chapter IX. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX 1 Appendix A. Benchmark Dose Modeling Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A 1 Appendix B. Benchmark Dose Modeling Output ( Available only in electronic form) Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD ii Final Draft Acknowledgements This document is an update and expansion of the Rough Final Draft for the Drinking Water Criteria Document on Haloacetonitriles, Chloropicrin and Cyanogen Chloride ( U. S. EPA, 1987) and the 1993 Draft Drinking Water Health Advisory for Haloacetonitriles, from EPA's Office of Water. This document includes an evaluation of literature on the HANs resulting from a full literature search for toxicity data conducted in December 1999, and exposure data in May 2002. Key newer studies identified after the literature search date have been included as available at the time of document preparation.

Chemical Manager:

Nancy Chiu, Ph. D.

Contractor Authors:

Andrew Maier, Ph. D., C. I. H. ( TERA) Claudine Kasunic ( GRAM, Inc.) Lynne T. Haber, Ph. D. ( TERA) Joan S. Dollarhide, M. S., M. T. S. C., J. D. ( TERA) Bruce Allen, M. S. ( ENVIRON) Nathan Bowles ( GRAM, Inc.)

External Peer Reviewers Patricia McGinnis, Ph. D., DABT, Syracuse Research Corporation John Reif, M. Sc. ( Med), D. V. M., Colorado State University Alan Stern, Dr. P. H., DABT, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 225 (Friday, November 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74338-74339]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25652]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9053-9]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed November 9, 2020 10 a.m. EST Through November 16, 2020 10 a.m.
EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters

on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20200225, Final, USFWS, REG, The Management of Conflicts
Associated with Double-crested Cormorants, Review Period Ends: 12/21/
2020, Contact: Lesley Kordella<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200227, Draft Supplement, BOP, KS, Proposed Federal
Correctional Institution and Federal Prison Camp Leavenworth, Kansas,
Comment Period Ends: 01/04/2021, Contact: Kimberly Hudson<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200228, Draft, BR, WA, Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery
Surface Water Intake Fish Screens and Fish Passage Project, Comment
Period Ends: 01/04/2021, Contact: Jason Sutter<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200229, Final Supplement, BLM, CO, Northwest Colorado Final
Supplemental EIS, Greater Sage-Grouse 2020, Review Period Ends: 12/21/
2020, Contact: Leah Waldner<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200230, Final Supplement, BLM, ID, Idaho Final Supplemental
EIS, Greater Sage-Grouse 2020, Review Period Ends: 12/21/2020, Contact:
Pam Murdock<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200231, Final Supplement, BLM, BLM, NV, Nevada and
Northeastern California Final Supplemental EIS, Greater Sage-Grouse
2020, Review Period Ends: 12/21/2020, Contact: Colleen Dulin 775-861-
6708.
EIS No. 20200232, Final Supplement, BLM, OR, Oregon Final Supplemental
EIS, Greater Sage-Grouse 2020, Review Period Ends: 12/21/2020, Contact:
Jim Regan-Vienop<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200233, Final Supplement, BLM, UT, Utah Final Supplemental
EIS, Greater Sage-Grouse 2020, Review Period Ends: 12/21/2020, Contact:
Christine Fletcher<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200234, Final Supplement, BLM, WY, Wyoming Final Supplemental
EIS, Greater Sage-Grouse 2020, Review Period Ends: 12/21/2020, Contact:
Jennifer Marzluf<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200235, Final Supplement, BR, CA, Shasta Lake Water Resources
Investigation, Review Period Ends: 12/21/2020, Contact: David Brick
916-202-7158.
EIS No. 20200236, Final Supplement, USACE, AL, Allatoona Lake Water
Supply Storage Reallocation Study and Updates to Weiss and Logan Martin
Reservoirs Project Water Control Manuals, Alabama and Georgia (or
Allatoona-Coosa Reallocation Study), Review Period Ends: 12/21/2020,
Contact: Mr. Mike Malsom<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200237, Draft Supplement, FHWA, OR, Hood River--White Salmon
Interstate Bridge Replacement Project, Comment Period Ends: 01/04/2021,
Contact: Emily Cline<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Amended Notice

EIS No. 20200226, Final, USFS, CO, Pike & San Isabel National Forests
Motorized Travel Management (MVUM) Analysis, Review Period Ends: 12/21/
2020, Contact: John Dow<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 11/6/2020; Correction to CEQ Number
from 20200217 to 20200226.

    Dated: November 17, 2020.
Cindy S. Barger,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2020-25652 Filed 11-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 56 (Monday, March 24, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15921-15924]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06262]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

48 CFR Parts 1542, 1552, and 1553

[EPA-HQ-OARM-2013-0736; FRL-9908-08-OARM]

Environmental Protection Agency Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR);
Contractor Performance Information

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct Final Rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing a direct
final rule to rescind EPAARs, which include EPA's policies for
collecting and maintaining contractor past performance information. A
final rule updating the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) was
published in Federal Register on August 1, 2013. The changes to the FAR
make the information in the referenced EPAAR subparts redundant. The
impact of removing these sections is administrative in nature and will
not change the overall policies for collecting and maintaining
contractor past performance which are now detailed in the FAR. EPA does
not anticipate any adverse comments.

DATES: This rule is effective May 23, 2014 without further action,
unless adverse comment is received April 23, 2014. If adverse comment
is received, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in
the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OARM-2013-0736 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Mail: EPA-HQ-OARM-2013-0736, OEI Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency, 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460. Please include a total of three (3) copies.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center--Attention OEI Docket,
EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-
2013-0736. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket, and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment, and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties, and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the Government
Property--Contract Property Administration Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Staci Ramrakha, Policy, Training, and
Oversight Division, Acquisition Policy and Training Service Center
(3802R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

    Do not submit any Classified Business Information (CBI) to EPA Web
site http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all
of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a
disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or
CD-ROM as CBI, and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-
ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives,
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
    3. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

Background

    EPAAR subpart 1542.15 was last updated July 5, 2011 to establish
responsibilities for recording and maintaining EPA contractor past
performance information. Subpart 1542.15 requires the use of the
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS); establishes
frequency and types of reports that are congruent with CPARS;
establishes EPA personnel responsibilities related to CPARS; provides
instructions for rating small business subcontracting; provides
instructions for novation agreements, requires CPARS be documented in
the official contract file; and requires the use of EPAAR clause
1552.242-71 which notifies contractors the EPA utilizes the CPARS
system. EPAAR 1553.209 contains outdated forms previously used by EPA
personnel to evaluate contractor performance. These forms are no longer
relevant or utilized. Additionally, recent changes to FAR subpart 42.15
via a final rule published in Federal Register on August 1, 2013 (78 FR
46783), make the information in EPAAR subpart 1542.15 redundant. The
new FAR requirements mirror the current EPA policies for collecting and
maintaining contractor past performance, and there is no need for an
agency supplement. FAR subpart 42.15, combined with the CPARS guidance
and reference material included on the CPARS Web site (www.CPARS.gov)
provide sufficient policies and procedures for the EPA to satisfy the
EPA's needs. Specific guidance, such as defining roles and
responsibilities for EPA acquisition personnel in relation to CPARS
will be included in the internal EPA Acquisition Guide.

Final Rule

    This final rule makes the following changes: 1. Delete EPAAR
1542.15, Contractor Performance Information, in its entirety including
all subsections. 2. Delete EPAAR 1552.242-71, Contractor Performance
Evaluations. 3. Delete EPAAR 1553.209, Contractor Qualifications, in
its entirety, including all subsections.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute; unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the
impact of today's proposed rule on small entities, ``small entity'' is
defined as: (1) A small business that meets the definition of a small
business found in the Small Business Act and codified at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any
not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated,
and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic
impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on
small entities, because the primary purpose of the regulatory
flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives
``which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule
on small entities'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify
that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory
burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small
entities subject to the rule. Since documenting past performance is
applicable to large and small entities, this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on small entities. We continue to be
interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This
action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and
State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this
proposed action from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not
establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or
safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This action
does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering
the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this final
rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it
does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment.

K. Congressional Review Act

    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. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types
of rules (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801
because this is a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice
that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-
agency parties.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1542, 1552, and 1553

    Contractor performance information, Contractor performance
evaluations, Contractor qualifications, Government procurement,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 6, 2014.
John R. Bashita,
Director, Office of Acquisition Management.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 48 CFR Chapter
15 as follows:

0
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 1542, 1552 and 1553
continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended,
40 U.S.C. 486(c); and 41 U.S.C. 418b.

PART 1542--CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

Subpart 1542.15--[Removed]

0
2. Remove subpart 1542.15.

PART 1552--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

Sec.  1552.242-71  [Removed]

0
3. Remove Sec.  1552.242-71.

PART 1553--FORMS

Sec. Sec.  1553.209, 1553.209-70, and 1553.209-71  [Removed]

0
4. Remove Sec. Sec.  1553.209, 1553.209-70, and 1553.209-71.

[FR Doc. 2014-06262 Filed 3-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P