Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 7 / Thursday, January 10, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 1819 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301 and 31 U.S.C. 321. 

Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552 as 

amended. Subpart C also issued under 5 

U.S.C. 552a. 

■ 2. Section 1.36 paragraph (g)(1)(viii) is 

amended by adding the following text to 

the table in numerical order. 

§ 1.36 Systems exempt in whole or in part 

from provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a and this 

part. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(viii) * * * 

Number Name of system 

* * * * * 

IRS 42.005 ....... Whistleblower Office 

Records. 

* * * * * 

* * * * * 

Dated: December 21, 2007. 

Peter B. McCarthy, 

Assistant Secretary for Management and 

Chief Financial Officer. 

[FR Doc. E8–130 Filed 1–9–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2007–1104; FRL–8512–7] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Air Pollution Control District 

and Sacramento Metropolitan Air 

Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the San 

Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control 

District (SJVAPCD) and Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District (SMAQMD) portions of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). These revisions concern oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) emissions from internal 

combustion engines and stationary gas 

turbines. We are approving local rules 

that regulate these emission sources 

under the Clean Air Act as amended in 

1990 (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective on March 

10, 2008 without further notice, unless 

EPA receives adverse comments by 

February 11, 2008. If we receive such 

comments, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register to 

notify the public that this direct final 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09–

OAR–2007–1104, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. 

If EPA cannot read your comment due 

to technical difficulties and cannot 

contact you for clarification, EPA may 

not be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Francisco Do ́n ̃ ez, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3956, Donez.Francisco@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these rules? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revisions? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rules 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rules we are 

approving with the dates that they were 

adopted by the local air agencies and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board. 

TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SJVAPCD ..................................................... 4702 Internal Combustion Engines—Phase 2 ....................... 01/18/07 05/08/07 

SMAQMD ..................................................... 413 Stationary Gas Turbines ............................................... 03/24/05 09/05/07 

On July 23, 2007 and October 16, 

2007, respectively, EPA determined that 

these rule submittals met the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, 

Appendix V, which must be met before 

formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of these 

rules? 

The SJVAPCD first adopted Rule 4702 

on August 21, 2003. That version was 

submitted to EPA on October 9, 2003, 

and approved on May 18, 2004 (69 FR 

28061). The SJVAPCD adopted revisions 

to the SIP-approved version on June 16, 

2005 and April 20, 2006, and CARB 

submitted them to us on October 20, 

2005 and October 5, 2006. The 

SMAQMD first adopted Rule 413 on 

May 6, 1995, and EPA approved the rule 

into the SIP on March 1, 1996 (61 FR 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
1820 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 7 / Thursday, January 10, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

7992). The SMAQMD adopted revisions 

to Rule 413 on May 1, 1997 and CARB 

submitted them to us on May 18, 1998. 

We approved those revisions into the 

SIP on February 11, 1999 (64 FR 6803). 

While we can act on only the most 

recently submitted version of each rule, 

we have reviewed materials provided 

with previous submittals. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revisions? 

NOX helps produce ground-level 

ozone, smog and particulate matter, 

which harm human health and the 

environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA 

requires States to submit regulations 

that control NOX emissions. SJVAPCD 

Rule 4702 limits emissions of NOX, 

carbon monoxide (CO), and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) from internal 

combustion engines. Changes from the 

SIP-approved version include the 

following: 

• Rule 4702 now applies to 

compression-ignited engines, 

transportable engines, and engines in 

agricultural operations. The compliance 

date for agricultural engines is January 

1, 2009. 

• The amended rule contains new 

exemptions for engines used to propel 

instruments of husbandry, engines used 

exclusively to power mobile agricultural 

equipment, engines used to power wind 

machines for crop protection, and 

certain de-rated engines. 

• The amended rule establishes 

requirements for District certification of 

exhaust control systems. These changes 

are meant to reduce the overall number 

of source tests required for Rule 4702 

compliance, without affecting emission 

reductions. 

• The amended rule allows the use of 

a portable NOX analyzer for agricultural 

spark-ignited engines, to show initial 

compliance with Rule 4702 emissions 

standards until a source test can be 

arranged. 

• The amended rule allows 

representative testing for spark-ignited 

engines, and specifies requirements for 

that testing. 

SMAQMD Rule 413 limits emissions 

of NOX from stationary gas turbines. 

Amended Rule 413 extends the startup 

exemption for turbines with a rated 

output greater than or equal to 160 MW, 

and which are part of a combined cycle 

process, to up to 4 hours following a 

shutdown of the associated steam 

turbine of 72 hours or more; and up to 

3 hours following a shutdown of the 

associated steam turbine of between 8 

and 72 hours. It also allows a 6-hour 

averaging period for compliance with 

NOX limits for gas turbines with a rated 

output greater than 100 MW, and which 

are part of a combined cycle process, 

during a transient increase in emissions. 

EPA’s technical support documents 

(TSDs) have more information about 

these rules. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

Generally, SIP rules must be 

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 

Act) and must not relax existing 

requirements (see sections 110(l) and 

193). The SJVAPCD and the SMAQMD 

both regulate serious ozone 

nonattainment areas (see 40 CFR part 

81.305), so Rule 4702 and Rule 413 

must implement Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) for control 

of NOX emissions (see CAA 182(b)(2), 

(c) and 182(f)). Both areas also regulate 

PM–10 nonattainment areas (see 40 CFR 

81.305). The SJVAPCD is a serious PM–

10 nonattainment area, so Rule 4702 

must implement Best Available Control 

Measures (BACM), including Best 

Available Control Technology (BACT), 

for control of NOX emissions (see CAA 

189(b)(1)(B) and 189(e)). The SMAQMD 

is a moderate PM–10 nonattainment 

area, so Rule 413 must implement 

Reasonably Available Control Measures 

(RACM), including RACT, for control of 

NOX emissions (see CAA 189(a)(1)(C) 

and 189(e)). 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to help evaluate enforceability, 

BACM/BACT and RACM/RACT 

requirements consistently include the 

following: 

1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; 

Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the 

General Preamble; Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990 Implementation of 

Title I; Proposed Rule,’’ (the NOX

Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November 

25, 1992. 

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook). 

3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

4. EPA Memorandum to Regional 

Administrators from Steven A. Herman, 

Assistant Administrator for Enforcement 

and Compliance Assurance, and Robert 

Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation: ‘‘State 

Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding 

Excess Emissions during Malfunctions, 

Startup, and Shutdown,’’ September 20, 

1999. 

5. ‘‘Clean Air Act National Testing 

Guidance,’’ EPA, September 30, 2005. 

6. ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques 

Document—NOX Emissions from 

Stationary Reciprocating Internal 

Combustion Engines,’’ EPA, EPA–453/ 

R–93–032, July 1993. 

7. ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques 

Document—NOX Emissions from 

Stationary Gas Turbines,’’ EPA, EPA–

453/R–93–007, January 1993. 

8. State Implementation Plans; 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 

13498 (April 16, 1992). 

9. State Implementation Plans for 

Serious PM–10 Nonattainment Areas, 

and Attainment Date Waivers for PM–10 

Nonattainment Areas Generally; 

Addendum to the General Preamble for 

the Implementation of Title I of the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 59 

FR 41998 (August 16, 1994). 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe these rules are consistent 

with the CAA, EPA regulations, and 

relevant policy and guidance regarding 

enforceability, BACM/BACT, RACM/ 

RACT, and SIP relaxations. The 

inclusion of agricultural, transportable, 

and compression-ignited engines in 

SJVAPCD Rule 4702 clearly strengthens 

the rule, and the added exemptions are 

supported by District staff analysis. The 

representative testing provisions in Rule 

4702 are based on EPA’s ‘‘Clean Air Act 

National Testing Guidance,’’ and 

contain appropriate requirements to 

assure the achievement of emissions 

limits. The use of portable NOX

analyzers allowed in Rule 4702 is a 

reasonable manner of checking 

compliance before the required 

performance of a full source test. The 

Rule 4702 requirements for certification 

of exhaust control systems are adequate 

to ensure control of emissions while 

simplifying rule compliance and 

enforcement. 

In our prior action to approve Rule 

4702 into the SIP, we concluded that 

Rule 4702 implemented BACM/BACT 

as required for serious PM–10 

nonattainment areas under CAA 

sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 189(e) for NOX

emissions from non-agricultural 

stationary internal combustion engines. 

See 69 FR 7098, 7102 (February 12, 

2004) (proposed rule); 69 FR 28061 

(May 18, 2004) (final rule). Revised Rule 

4702 continues to implement BACM/ 

BACT for these engines. In addition, 

these revisions satisfy SJVAPCD’s 

commitment to apply BACT-level 

controls to agricultural engines, 

consistent with its Amended 2003 PM–

10 Plan. (The ‘‘Amended 2003 PM–10 

Plan’’ is the San Joaquin Valley Plan to 

Attain Federal Standards for Particulate 

Matter 10 Microns and Smaller, as 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 7 / Thursday, January 10, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 1821 

revised and supplemented by the plan 

amendments SJVAPCD adopted and 

submitted to EPA in December 2003. 

See 69 FR 30006, May 26, 2004, for the 

final rule approving these plan 

amendments into the California SIP.) 

As to SMAQMD Rule 413, while the 

extension of allowable startup periods 

and the provision for short-term 

excursions appear to relax the rule, 

these changes apply to only a small 

subset of the permitted plants in the 

District that cannot feasibly meet the 

current SIP rule’s requirements during 

these limited periods. All of these 

sources have installed BACT-level NOX

emission controls in accordance with 

SMAQMD’s New Source Review (NSR) 

requirements. New turbines covered by 

the revised exemptions (i.e., combinedcycle turbines with capacities exceeding 

100 MW) will also be subject to BACT 

for control of NOX emissions. These 

revisions to Rule 413 only provide 

limited flexibility to address operational 

necessities at large turbines during 

narrowly defined periods, and do not 

alter the control technology 

requirements that apply to these 

sources. 

In our prior actions to approve Rule 

413 into the SIP, we concluded that this 

rule implemented RACT for NOX

control as required for serious ozone 

nonattainment areas under CAA 

sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f). See 61 FR 

7992 (March 1, 1996); 64 FR 6803 

(February 11, 1999). Revised Rule 413 

continues to implement RACT for 

control of NOX emissions, as a precursor 

to both ozone and PM–10, from 

stationary gas turbines. 

The TSDs have more information on 

our evaluation of these rules. 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rules 

EPA has no recommendations to 

further improve these rules. 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 

the Act, EPA is fully approving the 

submitted rules because we believe they 

fulfill all relevant requirements. We do 

not think anyone will object to this 

approval, so we are finalizing it without 

proposing it in advance. However, in 

the Proposed Rules section of this 

Federal Register, we are simultaneously 

proposing approval of the same 

submitted rules. If we receive adverse 

comments by February 11, 2008, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register to notify the public 

that the direct final approval will not 

take effect and we will address the 

comments in a subsequent final action 

based on the proposal. If we do not 

receive timely adverse comments, the 

direct final approval will be effective 

without further notice on March 10, 

2008. This will incorporate these rules 

into the federally enforceable SIP. 

Please note that if EPA receives 

adverse comment on an amendment, 

paragraph, or section of this rule and if 

that provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

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.). 

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. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by March 10, 2008. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
1822 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 7 / Thursday, January 10, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: December 5, 2007. 

Jane Diamond, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

■ Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(350)(i)(C) and 

(c)(352) to read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(350) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(C) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District. 

(1 ) Rule 4702, adopted on August 21, 

2003 and amended on January 18, 2007. 

* * * * * 

(352) New and amended regulations 

were submitted on September 5, 2007, 

by the governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Sacramento Metropolitan Air 

Quality Management District. 

(1 ) Rule 413, adopted on April 6, 

1995 and amended on March 24, 2005. 

[FR Doc. E8–171 Filed 1–9–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 204, 212, and 252 

RIN 0750–AF55 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; DoD 

Representations and Certifications in 

the Online Representations and 

Certifications Application (DFARS 

Case 2006–D032) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD has issued a final rule 

amending the Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

(DFARS) to address the DFARS 

provisions included in the Online 

Representations and Certifications 

Application (ORCA). Use of ORCA 

eliminates the need for offerors to 

repetitively submit the same 

information in response to Government 

solicitations. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 10, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Felisha Hitt, Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) 

DPAP (DARS), IMD 3D139, 3062 

Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 

20301–3062. Telephone 703–602–0310; 

facsimile 703–602–7887. Please cite 

DFARS Case 2006–D032. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

Subpart 4.12 of the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires 

prospective contractors to complete 

electronic annual representations and 

certifications in ORCA, in conjunction 

with required registration in the Central 

Contractor Registration database. FAR 

4.1202 prescribes use of the solicitation 

provision at 52.204–8, Annual 

Representations and Certifications; 

provides a list of the FAR 

representations and certifications in 

ORCA; and provides direction to the 

contracting officer to exclude those 

representations and certifications from 

solicitations that contain the clause at 

FAR 52.204–7, Central Contractor 

Registration. 

Similarly, this DFARS rule contains a 

list of the DFARS representations and 

certifications in ORCA, and provides 

direction to the contracting officer to 

exclude those representations and 

certifications when using the provision 

at FAR 52.204–8. In addition, the 

DFARS rule contains a substitute 

paragraph (c) for use with the provision 

at FAR 52.204–8 to permit inclusion of 

information relating to both the FAR 

and the DFARS. An offeror must 

include information in paragraph (c) 

only if changes to the offeror’s annual 

representations and certifications apply 

to a particular solicitation. 

DoD published a proposed rule at 72 

FR 6515 on February 12, 2007. DoD 

received comments from one 

respondent. A discussion of the 

comments is provided below. 

1. Comment: The respondent 

suggested administrative changes to the 

organization of the contents of ORCA to 

enhance the certification process. 

DoD Response: The comment is 

outside the scope of this DFARS case. 

However, the comment has been 

forwarded to the Government officials 

responsible for managing the ORCA 

system. 

2. Comment: The respondent 

recommended revision of the 

introductory statement at 204.1202(2), 

from ‘‘Do not include the following 

representations and certifications’’ to 

‘‘Do not include the following 

representations and certifications in 

solicitations and contracts.’’

DoD Response: DoD believes that the 

direction in the introductory statement 

is clear as written, and that the 

additional phrase is unnecessary. 

3. Comment: The respondent 

recommended amendment of the second 

sentence in the introductory text at 

212.301(f) pertaining to commercial 

item solicitations, to change ‘‘may’’ to 

‘‘shall’’ with regard to direction to the 

contracting officer to consider the 

information in ORCA. 

DoD Response: DoD has retained 

‘‘may’’ in this sentence to provide 

flexibility to the contracting officer in 

the review of representations and 

certifications. 

This rule was not subject to Office of 

Management and Budget review under 

Executive Order 12866, dated 

September 30, 1993. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

DoD has prepared a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis consistent with 5 

U.S.C. 604. A copy of the analysis may 

be obtained from the point of contact 

specified herein. The analysis is 

summarized as follows: 

The objective of the rule is to 

maintain a centralized location for the 

representation and certification 

information required by the DFARS, 

thereby eliminating the need for offerors 

to submit the same information to 

various DoD offices in response to 

individual solicitations. The rule will 

apply to prospective DoD contractors 

registered in the Central Contractor 

Registration database. FAR 4.1102 

requires that prospective contractors be 

registered in the database before the 

award of a contract or agreement, with 

certain exceptions. Administrative 

personnel that have general knowledge 

of the contractor’s business should be 

able to enter the applicable 

representation and certification 

information into ORCA. The rule is 

expected to have a positive impact on 

small business concerns by reducing 

administrative burdens. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements of the representations and 

certifications addressed in this rule that 

require offerors to provide specific fillin information have been approved by 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES