Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-11-17

Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.

FR Doc. 95-28461 Meeting With Manufacturers of Vehicles Built in Two or More Stages

[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 222 (Friday, November 17, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57693-57695]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28461]

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

[[Page 57694]]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 567 and 568

[Docket No. 91-62, Notice 2]
RIN 2127-AE27

Meeting With Manufacturers of Vehicles Built in Two or More 
Stages

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a public meeting at which NHTSA will 
seek information from final stage and intermediate manufacturers of 
vehicles built in two or more stages, manufacturers of incomplete 
vehicles, and the public on certification of vehicles that are 
manufactured in stages. NHTSA is requesting suggestions for actions 
with respect to NHTSA's regulations and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards that govern the certification of such vehicles. This notice 
also invites written comments on the same subject.
    The meeting will be held on December 12, 1995 at 9:00 a.m. The 
agency is interested in obtaining the views of its customers both 
orally and in writing. An agenda for the meeting will be made based on 
the number of persons wishing to make oral presentations and will be 
available on the day of the meeting. Those wishing to make oral 
presentations at the meeting should contact Charles Hott, at the 
address or telephone number listed below, by November 24, 1995.

DATES: The meeting will be held on December 12, 1995 at 9:00 a.m.
    Written comments. Written comments are due by January 12, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Public meeting. The public meeting will be held at the 
following location: Holiday Inn, Fair-Oaks Mall, 11787 Lee Jackson 
Memorial Highway, Fairfax, VA 22033, Tel: (703) 352-2525, Fax: (703) 
352-4471.
    Written comments. All written comments should be mailed to the 
Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 
5109, 400 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Please refer to the 
docket number when submitting written comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hott, Office of Vehicle Safety 
Standards, NPS-15, NHTSA, 400 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590 
(telephone 202-366-0247).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Reform

    Calling for a new approach to the way Government regulate the 
private sector, President Clinton asked Executive Branch agencies to 
improve the regulatory process. Specifically, the President requested 
that agencies: (1) Cut obsolete regulations; (2) reward agency and 
regulator performance by rewarding results, not red tape; (3) create 
grassroots partnerships by meeting with those affected by regulations 
and other interested parties; and (4) use consensual rulemaking, such 
as regulatory negotiation, more frequently.
    This is the first of NHTSA's announced meetings to create 
grassroots partnerships with regulated industries that do not deal with 
NHTSA on a daily basis. By meeting with these groups, NHTSA believes 
that it can build a better understanding of their needs and concerns. 
Other groups that the agency will have meetings with are school bus 
manufacturers, heavy truck manufacturers, child seat manufacturers, 
lamp/reflector manufacturers, and small volume manufacturers.
    NHTSA recognizes that manufacturers who build vehicles in more than 
one stage are faced with somewhat different problems than manufacturers 
who build vehicles in a single stage, especially when it comes to 
certifying vehicles to meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 
(FMVSS). Therefore, the agency has decided to hold a public meeting to 
listen to the views of these groups and others with respect to 
improving the vehicle certification process.
    The agency is interested in obtaining the views of incomplete, 
intermediate and final stage manufacturers on how the agency can 
improve its regulations that govern the manufacture of vehicles in more 
than one stage. Suggestions should be accompanied by a statement of the 
rationale for the proposed action and of the expected consequences of 
that action. Recommendations should address at least the following 
considerations:

administrative/compliance burdens
cost effectiveness
costs of the existing regulation and the proposed changes to consumers
costs of testing or certification to regulated parties
effects on safety
effects on small business
enforceability of the standard
whether the regulation reflects a ``common sense'' approach to solving 
the problem

    Written statements should be as specific as possible and provide 
the best available supporting information. Statements also should 
specify whether any change recommended in the regulatory process would 
require a legislative change in NHTSA's authority.

Certification of Vehicles Manufactured in More Than One Stage

    In National Truck and Equipment Association v. NHTSA, 919 F.2d 1148 
(6th Cir. 1990), the 6th Circuit remanded a portion of a final rule 
that extended the requirements of FMVSS No. 204 to trucks and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings of up 
to 10,000 pounds. A majority of the court concluded that the final rule 
was not practicable for final stage manufacturers that cannot ``pass 
through'' the certification of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. The 
court cited passages in the preamble in which NHTSA stated that most 
final stage manufacturers did not have the capability to perform 
dynamic testing or in-house engineering analysis, as well as the fact 
that ``pass through'' certification is not available unless the 
incomplete vehicle is a chassis cab.
    In response to the court decision, on December 3, 1991, NHTSA 
published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 56 FR 61392, to amend 
the certification requirements that apply to incomplete vehicles. In 
the NPRM, the agency proposed to extend the certification labeling 
requirements that currently apply only to manufacturers of chassis-cabs 
to all incomplete vehicle manufacturers, and to permit all final stage 
manufacturers to ``pass through'' the certification of the incomplete 
vehicle.
    Incomplete vehicles are vehicles that include at least a frame and 
chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and 
braking system, but need further manufacturing to become completed 
vehicles. Currently, incomplete vehicle manufacturers are required to 
provide a document with every incomplete vehicle that establishes 
guidelines for completing the vehicle. For chassis-cabs (incomplete 
vehicles with completed occupant compartments), incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers are currently required both to provide a guidance 
document and to affix a certification label to each chassis cab. If the 
intermediate and final stage manufacturers complete the chassis-cab in 
accordance with the guidelines provided in the guidance document, the 
final stage manufacturer is allowed to ``pass through'' the 
certification of the 

[[Page 57695]]
chassis-cab manufacturer, rather than itself certifying equipment or 
components manufactured by another manufacturer. Currently, 
manufacturers of incomplete vehicles that are not chassis cabs because 
they lack completed occupant compartments (e.g., ``stripped chassis'' 
or ``bare chassis'') are not required to certify the conformity of 
their vehicles to NHTSA safety standards. However, like the chassis-cab 
manufacturers, they are required to provide a guidance document with 
every vehicle that establishes guidelines for completing the vehicle. 
If the intermediate and/or final stage manufacturer follows the 
guidelines, the completed vehicle will conform to the applicable 
FMVSSs. The final stage manufacturer is required to place on the 
completed vehicle a certification label stating that the vehicle meets 
all applicable FMVSSs.
    The NPRM proposing the amendments to the regulations governing 
certification of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages engendered 
considerable controversy and virtually no support. In the comments, 
there was a clear division in positions among the various segments of 
the multistage vehicle industry. The three major domestic manufacturers 
generally opposed the rule, although General Motors did propose some 
changes to the text and a delay of the effective date. The final stage 
manufacturers of commercial vehicles, represented by the National Truck 
Equipment Association (NTEA), favored the portion of the rule which 
provided for certification of incomplete vehicles other than chassis 
cabs, but stated that the proposed rule did not resolve the 
difficulties faced by numerous final stage manufacturers that depart 
from the guidelines set by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. The 
Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) responded that the 
proposed rule did not resolve the most serious problems faced by the 
final stage manufacturers which must certify compliance with standards 
that include dynamic testing.
    The agency performed a limited study of the multistage vehicle 
manufacturing industry. The study was completed in August 1994 and has 
been placed in the docket. (Docket Number 91-62) The study concluded 
that final stage manufacturers lack timely information and guidance on 
how to comply when new standards or amendments are promulgated; that 
they rely primarily on customer needs and preferences in selecting 
incomplete vehicles, with particular emphasis on cost; and that they 
depend heavily on timely guidance and information from incomplete 
vehicle manufacturers and trade associations.
    The study also concluded that most final stage manufacturers, with 
the exception of some very large van converters, must rely on outside 
engineering services if they are to conduct dynamic testing of 
completed vehicles. All rely heavily on their suppliers for 
certification and warranty. The contractor noted the consensus among 
final stage manufacturers who are van converters with respect to the 
difficulties they faced in conducting dynamic testing for compliance 
with FMVSS No. 208 during the 1992 model year launch, when that portion 
of the Standard first took effect for light trucks, vans and sport 
utility vehicles. They cited problems in obtaining critical dimensional 
data on each vehicle make and model from the incomplete vehicle 
manufacturers sufficiently in advance to be able to create the 
necessary equipment to perform testing prior to the effective date of 
the rule, and stated that this forced production delays and lost sales. 
They contend that it is unrealistic for final stage manufacturers to be 
held to the same effective dates as those imposed on single stage 
manufacturers.
    The agency believes that multistage vehicle certification is an 
area in which negotiated rulemaking may be beneficial. Negotiated 
rulemaking is a process in which representatives of all interests are 
assembled to discuss the issue and all potential solutions, reach 
consensus, and prepare a proposed rule for consideration by the agency. 
After public comment on any proposal issued by the agency, the group 
reconvenes to review the comments and make recommendations for a final 
rule. This inclusive process is intended to make the rule more 
acceptable to all affected interests and prevent the petitions for 
reconsideration (and litigation) that often follow the issuance of a 
final rule. The agency is interested in the commenters' views on the 
feasibility of negotiated rulemaking on the subject matter of this 
notice.

Procedural Matters

    The agency intends to conduct the meeting informally so as to allow 
for maximum participation by all who attend. Interested persons may ask 
questions or provide comments during any period after a party has 
completed its presentation on a time allowed basis as determined by the 
presiding official. If time permits, persons who have not requested 
time to speak, but would like to make a statement, will be afforded an 
opportunity to do so.
    Those speaking at the public meeting should limit their 
presentations to 20 minutes. If the presentation will include slides, 
motion pictures, or other visual aids, please indicate so that the 
proper equipment may be made available. Presenters should bring at 
least one copy of their presentation to the meeting so that NHTSA can 
readily include the material in the public record.
    A schedule of participants making oral presentations will be 
available at the designated meeting room. NHTSA will place a copy of 
any written statement in the docket for this notice. A verbatim 
transcript of the meeting will be prepared and also placed in the NHTSA 
docket as soon as possible after the meeting.
    Participation in the meeting is not a prerequisite for the 
submission of written comments. NHTSA invites written comments from all 
interested parties. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be 
submitted.
    If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim 
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including 
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to 
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, Room 5219, at the street address given above, 
and copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been 
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for 
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth 
the information specified in the agency's confidential business 
information regulation (49 CFR Part 512.)
    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date indicated above will be considered. Comments will be 
available for inspection in the docket.
    After the closing date, NHTSA will continue to file relevant 
information in the docket as it becomes available. It is therefore 
recommended that interested persons continue to examine the docket for 
new material.

    Issued: November 14, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-28461 Filed 11-14-95; 10:54 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M

Complete official Federal Register PDF

FR Doc. 95-28433 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Past Performance

[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 222 (Friday, November 17, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57691-57693]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28433]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
48 CFR Parts 213, 214, 215, and 242

[DFARS Case 95-D715]

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Past 
Performance

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is proposing to amend the Defense 
Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to reflect the 
requirements of Section 1091 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining 
Act of 1994 and the requirements of OFPP Policy Letter 92-5, Past 
Performance Information.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to 
the DFARS Secretariat at the address shown below on or before January 
16, 1996 to be considered in the formulation of the final rule.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties should submit written comments to: 
Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, Attn: IMD 3D139, PDUSD (A&T), 
3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Please cite DFARS 
Case 95-D715 in all correspondence related to this issue.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Melissa D. Rider, at (703) 602-
0131. Please cite DFARS case 95-D715.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-355 
(FASA), provides authorities that streamline the acquisition process 
and minimize burdensome government-unique requirements. Major changes 
in the acquisition process as a result of FASA implementation include 
changes in the areas of Commercial Item Acquisition, Simplified 
Acquisition Procedures, the Truth in Negotiations Act, and introduction 
of the Federal Acquisition Computer Network (FACNET).
    At the request of the Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement 
Policy, the DoD Past Performance Coordinating Council (PPCC) was tasked 
by the FASA DFARS Implementation Manager to develop DFARS coverage for 
implementing Section 1091 of FASA. There were no associated FAR changes 
that were published as a FASA-related rule, as the final FAR rule 
published in the Federal Register on March 31, 1995 (60 FR 16718) 
already complied with FASA requirements.
    The following changes to DFARs were developed by the PPCC to 
implement OFPP Policy Letter 92-5, Past Performance Information, and 
Section 1091 of FASA:

[[Page 57692]]

    1. DFARS Part 213 coverage has been added to provide guidance for 
actions using simplified acquisition procedures.
    2. DFARS Part 214 coverage allows contracting officers to quantify 
past performance information (PPI) as a price-related factor.
    3. DFARS Past 215 coverage accelerates the FAR phase-in schedule, 
taking two years to get to the $100,000 threshold; assures appropriate 
weighting of PPI; encourages (rather than mandates) use under $100,000; 
and requires validation of PPI before it is used.
    4. DFARS 242.1502 provides requirements for preparing evaluations 
of performance on individual contracts; accelerates the preparation of 
the evaluation beyond the use requirements in 214 and 215; provides 
instructions for interim evaluations--this is the agency direction 
required by the FAR; and provides a list of required information for 
performing evaluations. Use of a standardized list will help the 
exchange of PPI among the DoD components. The list is based on the form 
in the OFPP Interim Guide to Best Practices for Past Performance, and 
has been tailored to meet the needs of DoD Components. This is not a 
standard form, but in the future may be an evaluation tool that can be 
readily accessible via electronic commerce/electronic data interchange 
(EC/EDI).
    5. DFARS 242.1503(a) states the contracting officer specifies who 
provides performance evaluations (as a default, Defense Contract 
Management Command (DCMC) ACOs will fill out the form unless the 
contracting officer specifies otherwise); requires the evaluator to 
validate PPI with the contractor; addresses non-response by contractors 
who were asked for validation; and defines contract completion as the 
time all contract close-out actions are complete.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The proposed DFARS changes 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 the 
requirements for use of past performance information in contract award 
decisions may preclude award to otherwise successful offerors. The 
extent of this impact is not known, although it is believed that the 
regulatory flexibility analysis performed for FAR Case 93-2, Past 
Performance Information (60 FR 16718, March 31, 1995), has already 
addressed the effects on small businesses. However, an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been performed for this proposed 
DFARS rule. Comments are invited from small businesses and other 
interested parties. Comments from small entities concerning the 
affected DFARS subparts will also be considered in accordance with 
Section 610 of the Act. Such comments must be submitted separately and 
cite DFARS Case 95-D715 in correspondence.

C. The Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed rule does not contain any information collection 
requirements which require the approval of Office of Management and 
Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 213, 214, 215, and 242

    Government procurement.
Michele P. Peterson,
Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council.

    Therefore, it is proposed that 48 CFR parts 213, 214, 215, and 242 
be amended as set forth below:
    1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 213, 214, 215, and 242 
continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.

PART 213--SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES

    2. The heading of Part 213 is revised to read as set forth above.
    3. Section 213.106-1 is added to read as follows:

213.106-1  Soliciting competition, evaluation of quotes, and award.

    (b)(1) Use of past performance information is not mandatory for 
solicitations less than $100,000; however, it is encouraged.

PART 214--SEALED BIDDING

    4. Section 214.201-8 is added to read as follows:

214.201-8  Price related factors.

    (a) An offeror's record of past performance may be used as an 
indication of foreseeable costs and delays and may be evaluated where 
these costs can be reduced to a price-related evaluation factor. For 
example, where a poor performance record requires a preaward survey or 
where a record of delivering nonconforming parts would require source 
inspection, and a preaward survey or source inspection would not 
otherwise be required, an evaluation factor covering those additional 
costs may be applied. The method by which these price-related factors 
will be determined and applied shall be included in the solicitation.
PART 215--CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION
    5. Section 215.605 is amended by redesignating paragraph (b) as 
paragraph (b)(2) and by adding paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to read as follows:
215.605  Evaluation factors.
    (b)(1)(ii) Notwithstanding FAR 15.605(b)(ii), past performance 
shall be evaluated in all competitively negotiated acquisitions in 
excess of $1 million issued on or after July 1, 1995, in excess of 
$500,000 issued on or after July 1, 1996, and in excess of $100,000 
issued on or after July 1, 1997. When past performance is evaluated, it 
should be a significant evaluation factor or significant subfactor. 
Although the use of past performance is not mandatory for solicitations 
less than $100,000, it is encouraged. Past performance information from 
contractor performance evaluations shall not be used in source 
selections until the requirements of 242.1503(b) have been met.
* * * * *
PART 242--CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
    6. Subpart 242.15 is added to read as follows:

Subpart 242.15--Contractor Performance Information

Sec.
242.1502  Policy.
242.1503  Procedures.

242.1502  Policy.

    (a) Notwithstanding FAR 42.1502, contractor performance evaluations 
shall be prepared for all contracts in excess of $1 million effective 
July 1, 1995, and $100,000 effective July 1, 1996. For contracts 
exceeding 18 months, interim evaluations should be prepared annually.
    (S-70) Agencies shall prepare an evaluation of contractor 
performance including the following information:
    (1) Whether the report is a final or interim report;
    (2) What period the report covers;
    (3) The contractor's name, address, and telephone number;
    (4) The contract number, value, award date, and completion date;
    (5) The type of contract;
    (6) A description of the requirement;
    (7) An evaluation of the contractor's performance in the following 
areas, including a rating and supporting rationale:
    (i) Quality of Product or Service;

[[Page 57693]]

    (ii) Cost Control;
    (iii) Timeliness of Performance;
    (iv) Customer Satisfaction (Contracting/Business Relations);
    (v) Customer Satisfaction (End User/Business Relations); and
    (vi) Rater's Overall Assessment.
    (8) An evaluation of key contractor personnel for services and R&D 
contracts;
    (9) The evaluator's name, address, telephone number and dated 
signature;
    (10) Whether the contractor provided comments, rebuttals or 
additional information. If such information was provided, it shall be 
attached to the Government evaluation;
    (11) A resolution of contractor comments; and
    (12) The final review authority's name, address, phone number, and 
dated signature.
    (S-71) Evaluations completed in accordance with paragraph (S-70) of 
this section shall consider the following areas:
    (1) Quality of product or service. This includes the following 
aspects of performance:
    (i) Compliance with contract requirements;
    (ii) Accuracy of reports;
    (iii) Appropriateness of contractor personnel assigned to the 
contract; and
    (iv) Technical excellence of delivered supplies or services.
    (2) Cost Control. This includes the following aspects of 
performance:
    (i) Current, accurate, and complete billings;
    (ii) The relationship of negotiated cost to actuals;
    (iii) Cost containment initiatives; and
    (iv) The number and cause of change orders issued.
    (3) Timeliness of Performance. This includes the following aspects 
of performance:
    (i) Whether the contractor met interim milestones;
    (ii) Contractor's responsiveness to technical direction;
    (iii) Contractor's responsiveness to contract change orders and 
administrative requirements;
    (iv) Whether the contract was completed on time, including wrap-up 
and contract administration; and
    (v) Whether liquidated damages were assessed.
    (4) Business Relations/Customer Satisfaction. This includes the 
following aspects of performance:
    (i) Whether the contractor effectively managed the contract effort;
    (ii) How responsive the contractor was to contract requirements;
    (iii) How promptly the contractor notified the Government of 
problems;
    (iv) Whether the contractor was reasonable and cooperative;
    (v) How flexible the contractor was;
    (vi) Was the contractor proactive;
    (vii) How effective were contractor-recommended solutions; and
    (viii) Did the contractor effectively implement socio-economic 
programs, including compliance with requirements of the clause at FAR 
52.219-8, Utilization of Small, Small Disadvantaged and Women-Owned 
Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9, Small, Small Disadvantaged and 
Women-Owned Small Business Subcontracting Plan.
    (S-72) The following adjectival ratings shall be used when rating 
each area described in paragraph (S-71):
    (1) Unsatisfactory.
    (i) Quality of Product or Service.
    Nonconformances are compromising the achievement of contract 
requirements, despite the use of Agency resources.
    (ii) Cost Control. Cost issues are compromising performance of 
contract requirements.
    (iii) Timeliness of Performance. Delays are compromising the 
achievement of contract requirements, despite the use of Agency 
resources.
    (iv) Business Relations Customer Satisfaction. Response to 
inquiries, technical service, and administrative issues is not 
effective and responsive.
    (2) Poor.
    (i) Quality of Product or Service. Nonconformances require major 
Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.
    (ii) Cost Control. Cost issues require major Agency resources to 
ensure achievement of contract requirements.
    (iii) Timeliness of Performance. Delays require major Agency 
resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.
    (iv) Business Relations Customer Satisfaction. Response to 
inquiries, technical service, and administrative issues is marginally 
effective and responsive.
    (3) Fair.
    (i) Quality of Product or Service. Nonconformances require minor 
Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.
    (ii) Cost Control. Cost issues require minor Agency resources to 
ensure achievement of contract requirements.
    (iii) Timeliness of Performance. Delays require minor Agency 
resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.
    (iv) Business Relations Customer Satisfaction. Response to 
inquiries, technical service, and administrative issues is somewhat 
effective and responsive.
    (4) Good.
    (i) Quality of Product or Service. Nonconformances do not impact 
achievement of contract requirements.
    (ii) Cost Control. Cost issues do not impact achievement of 
contract requirements.
    (iii) Timeliness of Performance. Delays do not impact achievement 
of contract requirements.
    (iv) Business Relations Customer Satisfaction. Response to 
inquiries, technical service, and administrative issues is usually 
effective and responsive.
    (5) Excellent.
    (i) Quality of Product or Service. There are no quality problems.
    (ii) Cost Control. There are no cost issues.
    (iii) Timeliness of Performance. There are no delays.
    (iv) Business Relations Customer Satisfaction. Response to 
inquiries, technical service, and administrative issues is effective 
and responsive.
    (6) Plus. The contractor has demonstrated an exceptional 
performance level in any of the four categories described in paragraph 
(S-71). It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare 
circumstances when contractor performance clearly exceeds the 
performance levels described as ``excellent.''

242.1503  Procedures.

    (a) The contracting officer will determine who provides input on 
the contractor performance evaluations. Where the contract has been 
delegated for administration, the cognizant ACO shall complete 
performance evaluations unless otherwise advised by the PCO.
    (b) (S-70) The agency preparing the performance evaluation shall be 
responsible for validating the past performance information.
    (S-71) If the contractor does not respond within the period 
specified, the data may be assumed to be accurate and may be used in 
source selections.
    (e) The date of completion of contract performance is the date of 
contract closeout.

[FR Doc. 95-28433 Filed 11-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M

Complete official Federal Register PDF

FR Doc. 95-28432 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Specifications and Standards

[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 222 (Friday, November 17, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 57691]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28432]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

48 CFR Parts 210, 215, and 252

[DFARS Case 94-D003]

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Specifications 
and Standards

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense (DoD) has decided to withdraw a 
proposed rule published on December 23, 1994 (59 FR 66287). The rule 
proposed DFARS revisions to reflect DoD's commitment to minimizing the 
use of military and Federal specifications and standards and maximizing 
the use of performance specifications and non-Government standards. The 
DoD has determined that changes to DoD Instruction 5000.2 would result 
in more effective implementation of those commitments. Therefore, the 
proposed DFARS rule is withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, Attn: Ms. Melissa D. Rider, 
PDUSD(A&T)DP(DAR), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 
20301-3062, (703) 602-0131.
Michele P. Peterson,
Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council.
[FR Doc. 95-28432 Filed 11-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M

Complete official Federal Register PDF

FR Doc. 95-28388 Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle Engines: Voluntary Standards for Light-Duty Vehicles

[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 222 (Friday, November 17, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 57691]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28388]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 222 / Friday, November 17, 1995 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 57691]]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51, 85 and 86

[AMS-FRL-5333-3]
RIN 2060-AF75

Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New Motor 
Vehicle Engines: Voluntary Standards for Light-Duty Vehicles

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of public comment 
period.

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

SUMMARY: This action extends the comment period for the notice of 
proposed rulemaking relating to the establishment of a National Low 
Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program published October 10, 1995 (60 FR 
52734). EPA is extending the public comment period to December 1, 1995.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed rule must be received no later 
than December 1, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this document are contained in Public 
Docket A-95-27. The docket is located at the above address in Room M-
1500, Waterside Mall, and may be inspected weekdays between 8:30 a.m. 
and 5:30 p.m. A reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for copying docket 
materials.
    Comments on this document should be sent to Public Docket A-95-26, 
at: Air Docket Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M 
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460 (Telephone 202-260-7548; FAX 202-260-
4000).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Shields, Office of Mobile 
Sources, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20460. Telephone (202) 260-7757. FAX (202) 260-6011.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA published a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) October 10, 1995 regarding the NLEV program. The 
public comment period was originally scheduled to end on November 9, 
1995. A public hearing on the proposal was held on November 1, 1995 and 
the comment period is extended to December 1, 1995.

    Dated: November 8, 1995.
Richard D. Wilson,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 95-28388 Filed 11-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Complete official Federal Register PDF

FR Doc. 95-28360 Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Notice of Availability of Amendment 5

[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 222 (Friday, November 17, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57695-57696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28360]

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

[[Page 57696]]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 655

[I.D. 110995B]

Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Notice of 
Availability of Amendment 5

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this notice that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 
Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 5 to the Fishery 
Management Plan for Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries 
(FMP) for Secretarial review and is requesting comments from the 
public. The amendment would revise the management program for Atlantic 
mackerel, squid, and butterfish. Copies of the amendment may be 
obtained from the Council (see ADDRESSES).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 8, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Dr. Andrew Rosenberg, Regional Director, 
National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office, 1 
Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-3799. Mark the outside of the 
envelope ``Comments on Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Plan.''
    Copies of Amendment 5, the environmental impact statement, and the 
regulatory impact review are available from David R. Keifer, Executive 
Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115 Federal 
Building, 300 S. New Street, Dover, DE 19904-6790.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myles Raizin, Fishery Policy Analyst, 
508-281-9104.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) (Magnuson Act) requires that 
each fishery management council submit any fishery management plan or 
plan amendment it prepares to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) for 
review and approval, disapproval, or partial disapproval. The Magnuson 
Act also requires that the Secretary, upon receiving the plan or 
amendment, immediately make a preliminary evaluation of whether the 
amendment is sufficient to warrant continued review, and publish a 
notice that the plan or amendment is available for public review and 
comment. The Secretary will consider the public comments in determining 
whether to approve the amendment.
    Amendment 5 would eliminate joint ventures and directed foreign 
fishing for Illex and Loligo squid (squids) and butterfish; establish a 
moratorium on new entrants to the directed fisheries for the squids and 
butterfish; establish new permit requirements; establish a quota-
setting process that includes recommendations made by a Technical 
Monitoring Committee; establish minimum mesh requirements for the 
Loligo fishery with exemptions for the sea herring fishery and the 
summer Illex fishery occurring outside the 50-fathom curve; require 
mandatory reporting for permitted vessels and dealers; revise certain 
biological reference points for Atlantic mackerel and Loligo squid; and 
specify conditions under which annual seasonal quotas may be 
established for the Loligo fishery.
    The receipt date for this amendment was November 8, 1995. Proposed 
regulations to implement this amendment are scheduled to be published 
within 15 days of the receipt date.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: November 13, 1995.
Richard H. Schaefer,
Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 95-28360 Filed 11-13-95; 4:39 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F

Complete official Federal Register PDF