Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR Case 2006-030, Electronic Products Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT), 2740-2741 [E9-549]
Download as PDF
2740
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Parts 11, 23, 39, and 52
[FAC 2005–30; FAR Case 2006–030; Item
VI; Docket 2007–0001, Sequence 9]
RIN 9000–AK85
Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR
Case 2006–030, Electronic Products
Environmental Assessment Tool
(EPEAT)
AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD),
General Services Administration (GSA),
and National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Final rule.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency
Acquisition Council and the Defense
Acquisition Regulations Council
(Councils) have agreed to adopt as final,
without change, the interim rule
published in the Federal Register at 72
FR 73215 on December 26, 2007. The
interim rule amended the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to provide
regulations for purchasing
environmentally preferable products
and services when acquiring personal
computer products such as desktops,
notebooks (also known as laptops), and
monitors with use of Electronic
Products Environmental Assessment
Tool (EPEAT) pursuant to the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 and Executive Order
13423, ‘‘Strengthening Federal
Environmental, Energy, and
Transportation Management.’’
DATES: Effective Date: February 17,
2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
William Clark, Procurement Analyst, at
(202) 219–1813 for clarification of
content. For information pertaining to
status or publication schedules, contact
the FAR Secretariat at (202) 501–4755.
Please cite FAC 2005–30, FAR case
2006–030.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
The EPEAT is a system to help
purchasers in the public and private
sectors evaluate, compare, and select
desktop computers, notebooks and
monitors based on their environmental
attributes. The EPEAT also provides a
clear and consistent set of performance
criteria for the design of products, and
provides an opportunity for
manufacturers to secure market
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:43 Jan 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
recognition for efforts to reduce the
environmental impact of their products.
This case was opened to amend the
FAR to require the use of the EPEAT
Product Registry and the IEEE (Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)
1680 Standard for the Environmental
Assessment of Personal Computer
Products in all solicitations and
contracts for personal computer
desktops, laptops, and monitors. On
January 24, 2007, President Bush issued
Executive Order 13423, Strengthening
Federal Environmental, Energy, and
Transportation Management. Section
2(h) states that the head of each Agency
shall ‘‘ensure that the agency (i) when
acquiring an electronic product to meet
its requirements, meets at least 95
percent of those requirements with an
Electronic Product Environmental
Assessment Tool (EPEAT)-registered
electronic product, unless there is no
EPEAT standard for such product…’’.
The Councils published an interim
rule on December 26, 2007 (72 FR
73215). Two respondents submitted
comments.
1. One respondent fully supports the
interim rule. As a taxpayer, he considers
that EPEAT is a critical step in
facilitating sound purchasing policy.
Response: None required.
2. The same respondent encourages
DoD to expand the use of EPEAT in all
COTS purchases of related equipment,
even computers that are ruggedized for
operational use.
Response: DoD implementation of this
rule is outside the scope of this case.
3. Another respondent considers the
goals of the regulation laudable, but
objects to the process by which the
Development Team initiated the
development of EPEAT standards. The
respondent objects that the
Development Team was not rightly
identified as a Federal Advisory
Committee at its formation, and that
neither the requirements of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), nor
even its spirit, were met in the
development of EPEAT. The respondent
considers that their industry was
deprived of the proper and necessary
notice of the development of the EPEAT
and any associated policies regarding
implementation.
Response: The development of the
EPEAT is not an issue in this
rulemaking. Although the Councils were
not involved in the development of the
standards, they have reviewed these
issues with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB). The
EPA has demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the Councils that the
Development Team was not subject to
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
FACA, and appropriate procedures were
followed for development of voluntary
consensus standards. The Councils have
forwarded the respondent’s concerns to
EPA. If the respondent has further
questions with regard to the EPEAT, key
EPEAT points of contact are provided
on the EPEAT Website at https://
www.epeat.net/faq.aspx#21.
4. The same respondent expresses
particular concern because this rule
takes a non-governmental program that
was to be used voluntarily by
purchasers and now mandates its use by
all Federal Government agencies. The
respondent also questions the urgency
for issuance of an interim rule rather
than a proposed rule.
Response: With regard to mandating
the use of the EPEAT for Government
purchases, the rule implements the
Executive Order 13423, Strengthening
Federal Environmental, Energy, and
Transportation Management. Section
2(h) states that the head of each Agency
shall ‘‘ensure that the agency (i) when
acquiring an electronic product to meet
its requirements, meets at least 95
percent of those requirements with an
Electronic Product Environmental
Assessment Tool (EPEAT)-registered
electronic product, unless there is no
EPEAT standard for such product’’.
The rule was issued as an interim rule
because the Executive Order mandating
use of the EPEAT standards was already
in effect. Rules that implement a statute
or Executive Order are generally issued
as interim rules.
This is not a significant regulatory
action and, therefore, was not subject to
review under Section 6(b) of Executive
Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review, dated September 30, 1993. This
rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C.
804.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The rule may have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities within the
meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because it
mandates standards in orders for
personal computer products that will be
offered for sale to the Government. A
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA) has been prepared and is
summarized as follows:
This final rule was initiated to implement
Executive Order 13423, Strengthening
Federal Environmental, Energy, and
Transportation Management, Section 2(h)
and the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers) 1680 Standard for the
Environmental Assessment of Personal
Computers, for Federal use in meeting green
purchasing requirements when acquiring
personal computer products.
E:\FR\FM\15JAR3.SGM
15JAR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
There were no significant issues raised by
the public comments in response to the
initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
As of June 2008, seven of the twenty-seven
vendors who have registered products on the
EPEAT Product Registry reported that they
are small businesses. Data are not available
on how many small businesses are reselling
personal computer products to the
Government, but according to the EPA’s
Office of Small Disadvantaged Business
Utilization, at the time of publication of the
interim rule, there were approximately 613
Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small
Businesses (SDVOSBs) selling IT hardware to
the Federal Government. These small
businesses were not manufacturers of IT
hardware, but resold IT hardware
manufactured by other companies to the
Federal Government. Many of the products
these resellers sold could meet the IEEE 1680
Standard, and the manufacturers of these
products had the option of getting these
products EPEAT registered to verify that they
do meet this standard.
Because manufacturers are the parties
responsible for determining if their products
meet the IEEE 1680 Standard or not, there
will be little to no impact on small
businesses selling IT products to the Federal
Government, who are selling EPEATregistered products. In addition, the EPEAT
Product Registry has been designed to
encourage small business manufacturer
participation. There is a sliding scale for the
annual EPEAT registration fee vendors pay to
have their products EPEAT registered based
on the annual revenue of the vendor.
The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with any other Federal rules.
The FAR Secretariat has submitted a
copy of the FRFA to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration. A copy of the FRFA
may be obtained from the FAR
Secretariat. The Councils will consider
comments from small entities
concerning the affected FAR Parts 11,
23, 39, and 52 in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must
submit such comments separately and
should cite 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (FAR
case 2006–030), in correspondence.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act does
not apply because the changes to the
FAR do not impose information
collection requirements that require the
approval of the Office of Management
and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 11, 23,
39, and 52
Government procurement.
Dated: December 24, 2008
Edward Loeb,
Acting Director, Office of Acquisition Policy.
Interim Rule Adopted as Final
Without Change
Accordingly, the interim rule
amending 48 CFR parts 11, 23, 39, and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:43 Jan 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
52 which was published in the Federal
Register at 72 FR 73215 on December
26, 2007, is adopted as a final rule
without change.
[FR Doc. E9–549 Filed 1–14–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–EP–S
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Parts 12, 22, and 52
[FAC 2005–30; FAR Case 2005–012; Item
VII; Docket 2006–0020; Sequence 25]
RIN 9000–AK31
Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR
Case 2005–012, Combating Trafficking
in Persons
AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD),
General Services Administration (GSA),
and National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency
Acquisition Council and the Defense
Acquisition Regulations Council
(Councils) have agreed to adopt as final,
with changes, the second interim rule
published in the Federal Register at 72
FR 46335, August 17, 2007, amending
the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR) to implement 22 U.S.C. 7104(g).
This statute requires that contracts
include a provision that authorizes the
department or agency to terminate the
contract, if the contractor or any
subcontractor engages in trafficking in
persons.
DATES: Effective Date: February 17,
2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Ernest Woodson, Procurement Analyst,
at (202) 501–3775 for clarification of
content. For information pertaining to
status or publication schedules, contact
the Regulatory Secretariat at (202) 501–
4755. Please cite FAC 2005–30, FAR
case 2005–012.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
The Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2003,
as amended by TVPRA of 2005,
addresses the victimization of countless
men, women, and children in the
United States and abroad. In order to
implement the law, DoD, GSA, and
NASA published a second interim rule
in the Federal Register at 72 FR 46335,
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2741
August 17, 2007 with request for
comments by October 16, 2007. Five
respondents submitted comments on the
second interim rule. Those comments,
summarized as follows, were considered
by the Councils in the formation of this
final rule:
1. Applicability to Commercial Items.
Four comments were received from
three different respondents regarding
the applicability of the rule to
commercial items.
(a) One respondent is concerned that
although the FAR Matrix indicates that
FAR clause 52.222–50 is not applicable
to commercial items, FAR 52.212–5
includes 52.222–50 as a clause that the
contracting officer may mark as being
applicable to commercial items.
Response: The Councils concur with
the respondent’s concern and agrees to
indicate in the FAR clause matrix that
clause 52.222–50 is required.
(b) One respondent believes that by
making the rule applicable to
commercial items, the Councils
misinterpreted the separate Federal
crimes created under Chapter 77 of Title
18, United States Code, as providing the
necessary criminal or civil penalties for
the contract violations to which the
Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act
was meant to apply. The respondent
requests the Councils to reconsider the
applicability to commercial items.
Response: The Councils note that
application of the rule to all contracts
for supplies and services, including
those for commercial items, is
consistent with the broad scope of the
statutory directive and is in compliance
with the Federal Acquisition
Streamlining Act’s (FASA) provision
concerning commercial contracts.
Specifically, the statutory language at 22
U.S.C. 7104(g) contained no exceptions
or limitations with regard to its
application to Federal contracts. While
FASA governs and limits the
applicability of laws to commercial
items, it also provides that if a provision
of law contains criminal or civil
penalties, or if the Federal Acquisition
Regulatory Council determines that it is
not in the best interest of the Federal
Government to exempt commercial item
contracts, then the provision of law will
apply to contracts for commercial items.
(c) Another respondent asked the
Councils to give further consideration to
not applying the rule to commercial
items (subcontracts), indicating that the
application will give rise to unintended
consequences and create an effect
inconsistent with Federal acquisition
goals.
Response: The Councils believe that
the TVPRA of 2003 and 2005 reflects
Congress’s intent to allow for the
E:\FR\FM\15JAR3.SGM
15JAR3
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 10 (Thursday, January 15, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2740-2741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-549]
[[Page 2740]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Parts 11, 23, 39, and 52
[FAC 2005-30; FAR Case 2006-030; Item VI; Docket 2007-0001, Sequence 9]
RIN 9000-AK85
Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR Case 2006-030, Electronic
Products Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT)
AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration
(GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense
Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) have agreed to adopt as
final, without change, the interim rule published in the Federal
Register at 72 FR 73215 on December 26, 2007. The interim rule amended
the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to provide regulations for
purchasing environmentally preferable products and services when
acquiring personal computer products such as desktops, notebooks (also
known as laptops), and monitors with use of Electronic Products
Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) pursuant to the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 and Executive Order 13423, ``Strengthening Federal
Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management.''
DATES: Effective Date: February 17, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. William Clark, Procurement
Analyst, at (202) 219-1813 for clarification of content. For
information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the
FAR Secretariat at (202) 501-4755. Please cite FAC 2005-30, FAR case
2006-030.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
The EPEAT is a system to help purchasers in the public and private
sectors evaluate, compare, and select desktop computers, notebooks and
monitors based on their environmental attributes. The EPEAT also
provides a clear and consistent set of performance criteria for the
design of products, and provides an opportunity for manufacturers to
secure market recognition for efforts to reduce the environmental
impact of their products.
This case was opened to amend the FAR to require the use of the
EPEAT Product Registry and the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers) 1680 Standard for the Environmental Assessment
of Personal Computer Products in all solicitations and contracts for
personal computer desktops, laptops, and monitors. On January 24, 2007,
President Bush issued Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal
Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management. Section 2(h)
states that the head of each Agency shall ``ensure that the agency (i)
when acquiring an electronic product to meet its requirements, meets at
least 95 percent of those requirements with an Electronic Product
Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT)-registered electronic product,
unless there is no EPEAT standard for such product[hellip]''.
The Councils published an interim rule on December 26, 2007 (72 FR
73215). Two respondents submitted comments.
1. One respondent fully supports the interim rule. As a taxpayer,
he considers that EPEAT is a critical step in facilitating sound
purchasing policy.
Response: None required.
2. The same respondent encourages DoD to expand the use of EPEAT in
all COTS purchases of related equipment, even computers that are
ruggedized for operational use.
Response: DoD implementation of this rule is outside the scope of
this case.
3. Another respondent considers the goals of the regulation
laudable, but objects to the process by which the Development Team
initiated the development of EPEAT standards. The respondent objects
that the Development Team was not rightly identified as a Federal
Advisory Committee at its formation, and that neither the requirements
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), nor even its spirit, were
met in the development of EPEAT. The respondent considers that their
industry was deprived of the proper and necessary notice of the
development of the EPEAT and any associated policies regarding
implementation.
Response: The development of the EPEAT is not an issue in this
rulemaking. Although the Councils were not involved in the development
of the standards, they have reviewed these issues with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). The EPA has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
Councils that the Development Team was not subject to FACA, and
appropriate procedures were followed for development of voluntary
consensus standards. The Councils have forwarded the respondent's
concerns to EPA. If the respondent has further questions with regard to
the EPEAT, key EPEAT points of contact are provided on the EPEAT
Website at https://www.epeat.net/faq.aspx#21.
4. The same respondent expresses particular concern because this
rule takes a non-governmental program that was to be used voluntarily
by purchasers and now mandates its use by all Federal Government
agencies. The respondent also questions the urgency for issuance of an
interim rule rather than a proposed rule.
Response: With regard to mandating the use of the EPEAT for
Government purchases, the rule implements the Executive Order 13423,
Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation
Management. Section 2(h) states that the head of each Agency shall
``ensure that the agency (i) when acquiring an electronic product to
meet its requirements, meets at least 95 percent of those requirements
with an Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT)-
registered electronic product, unless there is no EPEAT standard for
such product''.
The rule was issued as an interim rule because the Executive Order
mandating use of the EPEAT standards was already in effect. Rules that
implement a statute or Executive Order are generally issued as interim
rules.
This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not
subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is
not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The rule may have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because it mandates standards
in orders for personal computer products that will be offered for sale
to the Government. A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) has
been prepared and is summarized as follows:
This final rule was initiated to implement Executive Order
13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and
Transportation Management, Section 2(h) and the IEEE (Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers) 1680 Standard for the
Environmental Assessment of Personal Computers, for Federal use in
meeting green purchasing requirements when acquiring personal
computer products.
[[Page 2741]]
There were no significant issues raised by the public comments
in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
As of June 2008, seven of the twenty-seven vendors who have
registered products on the EPEAT Product Registry reported that they
are small businesses. Data are not available on how many small
businesses are reselling personal computer products to the
Government, but according to the EPA's Office of Small Disadvantaged
Business Utilization, at the time of publication of the interim
rule, there were approximately 613 Service Disabled Veteran Owned
Small Businesses (SDVOSBs) selling IT hardware to the Federal
Government. These small businesses were not manufacturers of IT
hardware, but resold IT hardware manufactured by other companies to
the Federal Government. Many of the products these resellers sold
could meet the IEEE 1680 Standard, and the manufacturers of these
products had the option of getting these products EPEAT registered
to verify that they do meet this standard.
Because manufacturers are the parties responsible for
determining if their products meet the IEEE 1680 Standard or not,
there will be little to no impact on small businesses selling IT
products to the Federal Government, who are selling EPEAT-registered
products. In addition, the EPEAT Product Registry has been designed
to encourage small business manufacturer participation. There is a
sliding scale for the annual EPEAT registration fee vendors pay to
have their products EPEAT registered based on the annual revenue of
the vendor.
The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other
Federal rules.
The FAR Secretariat has submitted a copy of the FRFA to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of
the FRFA may be obtained from the FAR Secretariat. The Councils will
consider comments from small entities concerning the affected FAR Parts
11, 23, 39, and 52 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties
must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601, et
seq. (FAR case 2006-030), in correspondence.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to
the FAR do not impose information collection requirements that require
the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C.
3501, et seq.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 11, 23, 39, and 52
Government procurement.
Dated: December 24, 2008
Edward Loeb,
Acting Director, Office of Acquisition Policy.
Interim Rule Adopted as Final Without Change
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 48 CFR parts 11, 23, 39, and
52 which was published in the Federal Register at 72 FR 73215 on
December 26, 2007, is adopted as a final rule without change.
[FR Doc. E9-549 Filed 1-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S