Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 122 / Friday, June 23, 2000 / Proposed Rules 39115

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

48 CFR Parts 1504 and 1552

[FRL–6721–2]

Acquisition Regulation: Business

Ownership Representation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend the

EPA Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR) to

add a new clause designed to provide

the Agency with information regarding

its contract awards. This new clause

will request the successful awardee of

an EPA contract to voluntarily identify

the specific racial/ethnic category that

best represents the ownership of its

business. The information provided by

the clause will not be used for the

establishment of a set-aside or quota.

The information will only be used for

general statistical purposes or for the

purpose of focusing future outreach

initiatives to those businesses owned by

racial/ethnic groups who are unaware of

EPA contracting opportunities.

DATES: Comments should be submitted

not later than August 22, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be submitted to the contact listed below

at the following address: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Acquisition Management

(3802R), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC 20460. Comments

will also be accepted on disks in

WordPerfect format or by electronic

mail (E-mail) to:

smith.frances@epamail.epa.gov. E-mail

comments must avoid the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

No Confidential Business Information

(CBI) should be submitted through Email.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frances Smith, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Acquisition

Management, (3802R), 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20460, Telephone: (202) 564–4368.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background Information

A new Environmental Protection

Agency Acquisition Regulation clause

has been developed to provide

statistical data concerning awards made

by EPA to businesses owned by various

racial/ethnic groups. The identification

of these groups will help EPA target

future outreach initiatives to those

businesses owned by racial/ethnic

groups who are unaware of EPA

contracting opportunities. In addition,

these outreach initiatives would not be

limited to small businesses. Large

businesses would participate as well.

Any outreach initiatives provided by

EPA would be open to the general

public and may include how to do

business with EPA or understanding the

Government contracting process.

The business ownership categories in

this newly created clause are nearly

identical to the categories listed in the

Federal Acquisition Regulation clause at

52.219–1 (ALT II). In addition, the

categories are consistent with the Office

of Management and Budget Statistical

Policy Directive No. 15, Race and Ethnic

Standards of Federal Statistics and

Administrative Reporting. It is

necessary to establish this EPA

acquisition clause because the Federal

Acquisition Regulation clause at

52.219–1 (ALT) only pertains to offerors

who represent themselves as small

disadvantaged business concerns, as

defined in Title 13 of the Code of

Federal Regulations, part 124.1002.

EPA’s proposed clause would, however,

apply to all Agency contractors

regardless of size or disadvantaged

status. This new clause will be

incorporated into all EPA solicitations

and contracts expected to exceed the

simplified acquisition threshold

($100,000).

The Civilian Agency Acquisition

Council (CAAC) has been consulted

concerning a class deviation to Federal

Acquisition Regulation 19.307(a)(3) for

this newly developed clause. The CAAC

has not voiced any objections to the

class deviation.

B. Executive Order 12866

This proposed rule is not a significant

regulatory action for the purposes of

Executive Order 12866. Therefore, no

review was required by the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs

within the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB).

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) applies to this

proposed rule. The information

collection request (ICR) in this proposed

rule is currently being evaluated by the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB). Comments regarding Paperwork

Reduction Act concerns should be sent

to OMB (Attn: EPA Desk Officer). OMB

is required to make a decision

concerning the collection of information

contained in the proposed rule between

30 and 60 days after publication of this

document in the Federal Register.

Therefore, a comment to OMB is best

assured of having its full effect if OMB

receives it within 30 days of

publication. This does not affect the

deadline for the public to comment to

EPA on this proposed rule.

D. 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 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 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; and (3)

a small organization that is any not-forprofit 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, the Agency certifies that

this proposed rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The impact on small entities will not be

significant. This proposed rule is

voluntary and will have no effect on the

evaluation criterion for award. EPA

estimates that contractors will require

only a minimal amount of time to

complete the clause in the proposed

rule. Therefore, to the extent that this

does result in some contractor-incurred

costs, EPA anticipates that these will be

de minimus. Further, because the clause

will only be applicable over the

simplified acquisition threshold, this

proposed rule will not have an impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. Small businesses do not receive

a substantial percentage of those EPA

contract awards which exceed the

simplified acquisition threshold.

E. Unfunded Mandates

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess their

regulatory actions on State, local, and

tribal governments, and the private

39116 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 122 / Friday, June 23, 2000 / Proposed Rules

sector. This proposed rule does not

contain a Federal mandate that may

result in expenditures of $100 million or

more for State, local, and tribal

governments, in aggregate, or the private

sector in one year. Any private sector

costs for this action relate to paperwork

requirements and associated

expenditures that are far below the level

established for UMRA applicability.

Thus, the rule is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of

the UMRA.

F. Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045, Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that:

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it is not an

economically significant rule as defined

by Executive Order 12866, and because

it does not involve decisions on

environmental health or safety risks that

have a disproportionate effect on

children.

G. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian Tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay for the direct

compliance costs incurred by the Tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the OMB, in

a separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of

the extent of EPA’s prior consultation

with representatives of affected Tribal

governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order

13084 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected and

other representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

Today’s rule does not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian Tribal governments.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this rule.

H. 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, section 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. The NTTAA directs

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,

explanations when the Agency decides

not to use available and applicable

voluntary consensus standards.

This rule does not involve technical

standards. Therefore, EPA did not

consider the use of any voluntary

consensus standards.

I. Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), 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 Section 6 of 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 proposed rule does not have

federalism implications. It will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. The rule

amends the EPA Acquisition Regulation

relating to internal agency procedures

addressing business ownership

categories of contractors who receive

EPA awards. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply to this rule.

Authority: The provisions of this

regulation are issued under 5 U.S.C. 301;

section 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended 40

U.S.C. 486(c).

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1504

and 1552

Government procurement.

Therefore, 48 CFR Chapter 15 is

proposed to be amended as set forth

below:

1. The authority citation for Parts

1504 and 1552 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); 41

U.S.C. 418b.

2. Revise Part 1504 to read as follows:

PART 1504—ADMINISTRATIVE

MATTERS

Subpart 1504.6—Contract Reporting

1504.670 Business Ownership

Representation

Authority: Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as

amended, 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 41 U.S.C. 418b.

Subpart 1504.6—Contract Reporting

1504.670 Business Ownership

Representation.

Contracting officers shall insert the

clause at 1552.204–70, Business

Ownership Representation, in

solicitations and contracts with an

estimated dollar value greater than the

simplified acquisition threshold.

Completion of the clause by the

successful awardee is voluntary.

3. Amend subpart 1552.2 by adding

1552.204–70 to read as follows:

1552.204–70 Business Ownership

Representation.

As prescribed in 1504.670, insert the

following clause in solicitations and

contracts:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 122 / Friday, June 23, 2000 / Proposed Rules 39117

Business Ownership Representation (NOV

20XX)

The successful awardee should check one

or more of the categories below that

represents its business ownership and return

this information to the contracting officer

within ten (10) calendar days after award.

Completion of this clause by the successful

awardee is voluntary.

‘‘Ownership,’’ as used in this clause,

means: (a) At least 51 percent of the concern

is owned by one or more individuals from a

category listed below; or, in the case of any

publicly owned business, at least 51 percent

of the stock of the concern is owned by one

or more such individuals; and (b) The

management and daily business operations of

the concern are controlled by one or more

such individuals.

[ ] American Indian or Alaska Native. A

person having origins in any of the

original peoples of North and South

America (including Central America),

and who maintains tribal affiliation or

community attachment.

[ ] Asian. A person having origins in any of

the original peoples of the Far East,

Southeast Asia, or the Indian

subcontinent including, for example,

Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea,

Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine

Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.

[ ] Black or African American. A person

having origins in any of the black racial

groups of Africa. Terms such as

‘‘Haitian’’ or ‘‘Negro’’ can be used in

addition to ‘‘Black or African American.’’

[ ] Hispanic or Latino. A person of Cuban,

Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or

Central American, or other Spanish

culture or origin, regardless of race. The

term, ‘‘Spanish origin,’’ can be used in

addition to ‘‘Hispanic or Latino.’’

[ ] Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific

Islander. A person having origins in any

of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam,

Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.

[ ] White. A person having origins in any of

the original peoples of Europe, the

Middle East, or North Africa.

(End of clause)

Dated: June 1, 2000.

Judy Davis,

Acting Director, Office of Acquisition

Management.

[FR Doc. 00–15840 Filed 6–22–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AF98

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Reopening of Comment

Period on Draft Economic Analysis of

Critical Habitat for the Alameda

Whipsnake (Masticophis Lateralis

Euryxanthus)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of

comment period.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) gives notice of the

availability of the draft Economic

Analysis for the proposal to designate

critical habitat for the Alameda

whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis

euryxanthus) and the reopening of the

public comment period for the proposal.

The new comment period will allow all

interested parties to submit comments

on the draft Economic Analysis and

proposed designation.

DATES: The comment period for this

proposal closes on July 24, 2000.

Comments on the draft Economic

Analysis and proposed designation

must be received by the closing date.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to the Field Supervisor,

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800

Cottage Way, Suite W–2605,

Sacramento, California 95825. Copies of

the draft Economic Analysis are

available from the aforementioned

address. Comments and materials

received will be available for public

inspection, by appointment, during

normal business hours at the above

Service address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jason Davis or Heather Bell, at the above

address, phone 916–414–6600, facsimile

916–414–6710.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 8, 2000, the Service

published a proposed rule to designate

critical habitat for the Alameda

whipsnake in the Federal Register (65

FR 12155). The original comment period

closed on May 8, 2000. The comment

period for the proposed designation was

re-opened through June 12, 2000 (65 FR

30951, May 15, 2000). The comment

period for the draft Economic Analysis

is open until July 24, 2000. Written

comments should be submitted to the

Service (see ADDRESSES section).

A total of approximately 164,663

hectares (406,708 acres) of land fall

within the boundaries of the proposed

critical habitat designation. Proposed

critical habitat is located in Contra

Costa, Alameda, San Joaquin, and Santa

Clara counties, California. If this

proposal is made final, section 7 of the

Act prohibits destruction or adverse

modification of critical habitat by any

activity funded, authorized, or carried

out by any Federal agency. Section 4 of

the Act requires us to consider

economic and other impacts of

specifying any particular area as critical

habitat.

The comment period on this proposal

and the draft Economic Analysis closes

on July 24, 2000. Written comments

should be submitted to the Service

office listed in the ADDRESSES section.

Author

The primary author of this notice is

Stephanie Brady (see ADDRESSES

section).

Authority

The authority for this action is the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: June 15, 2000.

Don Weathers,

Acting Regional Director, Region 1.

[FR Doc. 00–15772 Filed 6–22–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AF30

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposed Special

Regulations for the Preble’s Meadow

Jumping Mouse; Availability for

Comment of the Draft Record of

Compliance and Reopening of

Comment Period

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of

availability; reopening of comment

period.

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service), announce the

availability of a draft Record of

Compliance (ROC) for a previously

proposed section 4(d) rule under the

Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse

(Preble’s). The proposed section 4(d)

rule, published in the Federal Register

on December 3, 1998 (63 FR 66777),