33950 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

requirements under State or local law, 

and imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications( is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that 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.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This rule 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, because it 

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. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, 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. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed rule from 

tribal officials. 

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 rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, because it 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (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 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: June 30, 2009. 

Jane Diamond, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. E9–16644 Filed 7–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0024; FRL–8930–4] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan. These revisions 

concern a local fee rule that applies to 

major sources of volatile organic 

compound and nitrogen oxide 

emissions within the San Joaquin Valley 

ozone nonattainment area. We are 

approving a local rule that regulates 

these emission sources under the Clean 

Air Act as amended in 1990. We are 

taking comments on this proposal and 

plan to follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

August 13, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2009–0024, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

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 http://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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http:// 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33951 

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. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://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: Mae 

Wang, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4124, 

wang.mae@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What Rule did the State Submit? 

B. What is the Purpose of the Submitted 

Rule? 

C. Why was this Rule Submitted? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule? 

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation 

Criteria? 

C. What are the Rule Deficiencies? 

D. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What Rule Did the State Submit? 

The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) 

adopted Rule 3170, Federally Mandated 

Ozone Nonattainment Fee, on May 16, 

2002. This rule was submitted by the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

on August 6, 2002, for incorporation 

into the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). On August 30, 2002, this rule 

submittal was found to meet the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 

Appendix V, which must be met before 

formal EPA review. 

B. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted 

Rule? 

SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 requires major 

stationary sources of volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) in the San Joaquin Valley ozone 

nonattainment area to pay a fee to the 

SJVUAPCD if the area fails to attain the 

1-hour national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS) for ozone by its 

Federally established attainment year. 

The fee must be paid beginning in the 

second year after the attainment year, 

and in each calendar year thereafter, 

until the area is redesignated to 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

standard. 

C. Why Was This Rule Submitted? 

Under sections 182(d)(3), (e), and 185 

of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 

(CAA or the Act), States are required to 

adopt an excess emissions fee regulation 

for ozone nonattainment areas classified 

as severe or extreme. The 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS classification for the San 

Joaquin Valley area is extreme (see 69 

FR 20550, April 16, 2004). The fee 

regulation specified by the Act requires 

major stationary sources of VOCs in the 

nonattainment area to pay a fee to the 

State if the area fails to attain the 

standard by the attainment date set forth 

in the Act. Section 182(f) of the Act 

requires States to apply the same 

requirements to major stationary sources 

of NOX as are applied to major 

stationary sources of VOCs. Emissions 

of VOCs and NOX play a role in 

producing ground-level ozone and 

smog, which harm human health and 

the environment. SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 

applies to major sources of both NOX

and VOCs. EPA’s technical support 

document (TSD) has more information 

about this rule. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA Evaluating the Rule? 

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). Due to the limited national 

guidance available relevant to these 

sorts of nonattainment fee rules, Rule 

3170 was primarily evaluated for 

compliance with the requirements in 

CAA section 185. The rule was also 

evaluated for consistency with the CAA 

and EPA’s general SIP policies, as well 

as a March 21, 2008, memorandum from 

William Harnett, Director of the Air 

Quality Policy Division, to the Regional 

Air Division Directors, entitled, 

‘‘Guidance on Establishing Emissions 

Baselines under Section 185 of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) for Severe and 

Extreme Ozone Nonattainment Areas 

that Fail to Attain the 1-hour Ozone 

NAAQS by their Attainment Date.’’ 

Guidance and policy documents that we 

use to help evaluate specific 

enforceability requirements typically 

include the following: 

1. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook). 

2. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

3. ‘‘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. 

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation 

Criteria? 

Rule 3170 improves the SIP by 

establishing an excess emissions fee 

regulation as required by the CAA. The 

rule is largely consistent with the CAA, 

as well as relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability and SIP 

relaxations. Rule provisions which do 

not meet the evaluation criteria are 

summarized below and discussed 

further in the TSD. 

C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies? 

The following provisions conflict 

with section 185 of the Act and prevent 

full approval of the SIP revision: 

Section 4.2 exempts units that begin 

operation after the attainment year. CAA 

Section 185 does not provide for such 

an exemption, so this exemption does 

not fully comply with the CAA. 

Section 4.3 exempts any ‘‘clean 

emission unit’’ from the requirements of 

the rule. Section 3.6 defines a clean 

emission unit as a unit that is equipped 

with an emissions control technology 

that either has a minimum 95% control 

efficiency (or 85% for lean-burn internal 

combustion engines), or meets the 

requirements for achieved-in-practice 

Best Achievable Control Technology as 

accepted by the APCO during the 5 

years immediately prior to the end of 

the attainment year. The District’s staff 

report for Rule 3170 states that the 

exemption is intended to address ‘‘the 

difficulty of reducing emissions from 

units with recently installed BACT.’’ 

Although EPA understands the District’s 

intended purpose for including the 

exemption, the exemption does not 

comply with CAA section 185. 

Section 3.2.1 defines the baseline 

period as two consecutive years 

consisting of the attainment year and 

the year immediately prior to the 

attainment year. CAA Section 185(b)(2) 

provides the option for calculating 

baseline emissions over a period of 

more than one calendar year if a 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
33952 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

source’s emissions are irregular, 

cyclical, or otherwise vary significantly 

from year to year. Since Section 3.2.2 

allows an alternative baseline, then 

Section 3.2.1 should describe the 

normal baseline calculation which 

should be based only on the attainment 

year emissions. 

Section 3.2.2 allows averaging over 2– 

5 years to establish baseline emissions. 

CAA Section 185(b)(2) states that EPA 

may issue guidance authorizing such an 

alternative method of calculating 

baseline emissions if a source’s 

emissions are irregular, cyclical, or 

otherwise vary significantly from year to 

year. EPA issued guidance on 

alternative methods for calculating 

baseline emissions in the form of the 

memorandum from William Harnett, 

mentioned above. The averaging period 

allowed in Section 3.2.2 of Rule 3170 

appears consistent with the March 21, 

2008, guidance. However, the language 

in Section 3.2.2 allows such averaging 

‘‘if those years are determined by the 

APCO as more representative of normal 

source operation.’’ This language is 

considered less stringent than the CAA 

criteria. The rule should be amended to 

specify use of the expanded averaging 

period only if a source’s emissions are 

irregular, cyclical, or otherwise vary 

significantly from year to year. 

D. Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) 

and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is proposing 

a limited approval of the submitted rule 

to improve the SIP. If finalized, this 

action would incorporate the submitted 

rule into the SIP, including those 

provisions identified as deficient. This 

approval is limited because EPA is 

simultaneously proposing a limited 

disapproval of the rule under section 

110(k)(3). If this disapproval is 

finalized, sanctions will be imposed 

under section 179 of the Act unless EPA 

approves subsequent SIP revisions that 

correct the rule deficiencies within 18 

months. These sanctions would be 

imposed according to 40 CFR 52.31. A 

final disapproval would also trigger the 

Federal implementation plan (FIP) 

requirement under section 110(c). Note 

that the submitted rule has been 

adopted by the SJVUAPCD, and EPA’s 

final limited disapproval would not 

prevent the local agency from enforcing 

it. 

However, the limited approval of Rule 

3170 does not override specific CAA 

mandates. If the area fails to attain by its 

2010 attainment date, fees will accrue 

beginning in 2011 for emissions above 

80% of source baselines for clean units 

and new units which are exempted from 

fee collection under the State rule. The 

State must adopt and submit a rule to 

collect fees for 2011 and future years 

from those units or, consistent with the 

Administrator’s obligation under 

§ 185(d), EPA will collect those fees. In 

addition, all sources are liable for fees 

calculated in accordance with the 

baseline definition in § 185(b)(2) and 

EPA guidance issued pursuant to that 

provision. The State must adopt and 

submit a rule that ensures fees are 

collected for 2011 and all future 

applicable years based on the statutory 

baseline requirement. If the State fails to 

do so, EPA will collect any additional 

fees owed pursuant to a Federal 

program under § 185(d). 

We will accept comments from the 

public on the proposed limited approval 

and limited disapproval for the next 30 

days. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

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 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements 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 not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals under 

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of 

the Clean Air Act do not create any new 

requirements but simply approve 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because the 

Federal SIP approval does not create 

any new requirements, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-State relationship under the 

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 

analysis would constitute Federal 

inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of State action. The 

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its 

actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. 

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 

prepare a budgetary impact statement to 

accompany any proposed or final rule 

that includes a Federal mandate that 

may result in estimated costs to State, 

local, or Tribal governments in the 

aggregate; or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more. Under section 

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule and is consistent with 

statutory requirements. Section 203 

requires EPA to establish a plan for 

informing and advising any small 

governments that may be significantly 

or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPA has determined that the approval 

action proposed does not include a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

estimated costs of $100 million or more 

to either State, local, or Tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. This Federal action 

proposes to approve pre-existing 

requirements under State or local law, 

and imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or Tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that 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.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33953 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This rule 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, because it 

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. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

Tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have Tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have Tribal implications, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. It 

will not have substantial direct effects 

on Tribal governments, 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. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed rule from 

Tribal officials. 

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 rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, because it 

approves a State rule implementing a 

Federal standard. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (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 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: June 30, 2009. 

Jane Diamond, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. E9–16642 Filed 7–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 2, 17, 22, 36, and 52 

[FAR Case 2009–005; Docket 2009–0024; 

Sequence 1] 

RIN 9000–AL31 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR 

Case 2009–005, Use of Project Labor 

Agreements for Federal Construction 

Projects 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency 

Acquisition Council and the Defense 

Acquisition Regulations Council 

(Councils) are proposing to amend the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to 

implement Executive Order (E.O.) 

13502, Use of Project Labor Agreements 

for Federal Construction Projects. The 

new E.O. encourages Federal 

departments and agencies to consider 

requiring the use of project labor 

agreements for Federal construction 

projects where the total cost to the 

Government is more than $25 million in 

order to promote economy and 

efficiency in Federal procurement. 

DATES: Interested parties should submit 

written comments to the Regulatory 

Secretariat on or before August 13, 2009 

to be considered in the formulation of 

a final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by FAR case 2009–005 by any 

of the following methods: 

• Regulations.gov: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

inputting ‘‘FAR Case 2009–005’’ under 

the heading ‘‘Comment or Submission’’. 

Select the link ‘‘Send a Comment or 

Submission’’ that corresponds with FAR 

Case 2009–005. Follow the instructions 

provided to complete the ‘‘Public 

Comment and Submission Form’’. 

Please include your name, company 

name (if any), and ‘‘FAR Case 2009– 

005’’ on your attached document. 

• Fax: 202–501–4067. 

• Mail: General Services 

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat 

(VPR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4041, 

ATTN: Hada Flowers, Washington, DC 

20405. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite FAR case 2009–005 in all 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS