issue-1995-11-13•Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-11-13
Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-11-13
issue-1995-11-13Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-11-13Proposed Regulation
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. 95-28079 Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West; Hearing on Proposed Amendment of Marketing Order No. 985
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 218 (Monday, November 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 57144]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28079]
[[Page 57143]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VII
Department of Agriculture
_______________________________________________________________________
Agricultural Marketing Service
_______________________________________________________________________
7 CFR Part 985
Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West; Hearing on Proposed Amendment;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 218 / Monday, November 13, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 57144]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 985
[Docket No. AO-79-2; FV95-985-4]
Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West; Hearing on Proposed
Amendment of Marketing Order No. 985
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of public hearing: correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action corrects language in the text of the notice of
hearing to consider amending Marketing Order No. 985, which regulates
spearmint oil grown in the Far West. Language is added to exempt
certain employees of the Office of the General Counsel who may be
assigned to represent the Spearmint Oil Administrative Committee at the
hearing from the prohibition of discussing the merits of this
rulemaking proceeding on an ex parte basis.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 13, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caroline C. Thorpe, Marketing
Specialist, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable
Division, AMS, USDA, Room 2523-S., P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC
20090-6456; telephone: (202) 720-5127 or FAX (202) 720-5698; or Robert
Curry, Marketing Specialist, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Fruit
and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, 1220 S.W. Third Avenue, room 369,
Portland, OR 97204-2807; telephone: (509) 326-2724 or FAX (509) 326-
7440.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action makes a correction in a notice
of hearing which appeared in the Federal Register (60 FR 52869, October
11, 1995). This correction adds language to exempt designated employees
of the Department of Agriculture's Office of General Counsel assigned
to represent the Spearmint Oil Administrative Committee in the
rulemaking proceeding from the prohibition of discussing the merits of
this case on an ex parte basis. This Committee, which is appointed by
the Secretary, is responsible for administering the Order. This action
adds language to the sixth full paragraph in the third column on page
52869. In the last sentence of the paragraph after the words ``Office
of the General Counsel'', the following language is added ``, except
designated employees of the General Counsel assigned to represent the
Spearmint Oil Administrative Committee in this rulemaking proceeding.''
Dated: Novemember 8, 1995.
Kenneth C. Clayton,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-28079 Filed 11-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27966 Coalbed Methane
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 218 (Monday, November 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 56970]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27966]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Part 3170
Coalbed Methane
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of extension of public comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) hereby gives notice that
it is extending the public comment period on a Notice of Proposed Rule,
which was published in the Federal Register on September 15, 1995 (60
FR 47920). The proposed rule would add a new part to the oil and gas
leasing regulations. This regulation is intended to encourage the
production of coalbed methane in States where production has been
impeded by conflicts in ownership. In response to public requests for
additional time, BLM extends the comment period 15 days from November
14, 1995, to November 29, 1995.
DATES: Comments should be submitted by November 29, 1995. Comments
received or postmarked after the above date may not be considered in
the decision making process on the final rule.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to: Director (420), Bureau of Land
Management, Room 401 LS, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240.
Comments can also be sent to internet!WO[email protected]. Please include
``attn:AC27'' and your name and address in your internet message.
Comments will be available for review at the above address during
regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.), Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David R. Stewart, Bureau of Land
Management, Eastern States Office at (703) 440-1728.
Dated: November 6, 1995.
W. Hord Tipton,
Assistant Director, Resource Use and Protection.
[FR Doc. 95-27966 Filed 11-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27961 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of Extension of Comment Period on Reports and Other Data Pertaining to the Listing of the Bruneau Hot Springsnail
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 218 (Monday, November 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56976-56977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27961]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of
Extension of Comment Period on Reports and Other Data Pertaining to the
Listing of the Bruneau Hot Springsnail
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of extension of public comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) gives notice that
the comment period on reports and other data pertaining to the listing
of the Bruneau hot springsnail (Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis) is extended.
The notice of availability opening the public comment period was
published on September 12, 1995 (60 FR 47339), which opened the comment
period until November 13, 1995. This document extends the comment
period until December 15, 1995.
DATES: The comment period is extended until December 15, 1995. Any
comments and materials received by the closing date will be considered
in the final determination.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials concerning the reports and other
information pertaining to the listing of the Bruneau hot springsnail
should be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Snake River
Basin Office, 4696 Overland Road, Room 576, Boise, Idaho 83705. Reports
and other data cited in this notice, and public comments and other
materials received will be available for public inspection during
normal business hours at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Ruesink, Supervisor, at the address listed above (telephone 208/
334-1931, facsimile 208/334-9493).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 25, 1993, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
published a final rule in the Federal Register determining the Bruneau
hot springsnail (Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis) to be an endangered species
(58 FR 5946). In its decision to list the springsnail the Service
relied, in part, on a provisional draft of a U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) report (Berenbrock 1992) analyzing the hydrology of the
geothermal aquifer in the Bruneau Valley area. The USGS provided the
Service with the draft report, but did not release it to the public and
requested that the Service not release the report to the public,
pending agency review and approval.
On May 7, 1993, the Idaho Farm Bureau Federation Owyhee County Farm
Bureau, Idaho Cattleman's Association, and Owyhee County Board of
Supervisors challenged the listing decision on several grounds in a
lawsuit filed in United States District Court for the District of
Idaho. The plaintiffs argued that the Service committed a number of
procedural violations during the listing process, including not
allowing the public to review the draft USGS report. On December 14,
1993,
[[Page 56977]]
the district court determined that the Service committed several
procedural errors and set aside the final rule listing the springsnail
as an endangered species.
The district court decision was appealed to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by two intervening conservation
groups, the Idaho Conservation League and Committee for Idaho's High
Desert. On June 29, 1995, the appellate court overturned the district
court decision and reinstated the Bruneau hot springsnail to the
endangered species list. However, the appellate court concluded that
the Service should have made the draft USGS report (i.e., Berenbrock
1992) available for public review, as the Service relied largely on
this report to support the final listing rule. The appellate court
directed the Service to provide an opportunity for public comment on
the USGS report and other relevant information, and to reconsider its
listing decision. The notice of availability complied with the court's
direction.
On October 24, 1995, Susan E. Buxton requested on behalf of her
client (John B. Urquidi, J & J Ranches, Bruneau, Idaho) an extension in
the comment period until November 24, 1995. Ms. Buxton requested the
extension in order that she and her client may review all available
data. Because the Service has no objection to this short extension, the
comment period is extended until December 15, 1995.
Available Reports and Data
In addition to the draft USGS report, which was finalized in August
1993 (i.e., Berenbrock 1993), the Service has additional reports and
information pertinent to the listing decision received since the
original listing rule was published January 25, 1993. The following
reports, plans, and letters contained in Service files, including other
non-cited information, are available for public review and comment:
Berenbrock, C. 1992. Effects of well discharges on hydraulic heads
in and spring discharges from the geothermal aquifer system in the
Bruneau area, Owyhee County, southwestern Idaho. U.S. Geological
Survey, Water-Resources Investigations, Boise, Idaho. Preliminary
report.
Berenbrock, C. 1993. Effects of well discharges on hydraulic heads
in and spring discharges from the geothermal aquifer system in the
Bruneau area, Owyhee County, southwestern Idaho. U.S. Geological
Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 93-4001, Boise, Idaho.
Bruneau Valley Coalition, Inc. 1995. Habitat maintenance and
conservation plan for the Bruneau hot springsnail, January, 1995.
Unpublished plan.
Bruneau Valley Coalition, Inc. 1995. Proposed amendment to the
``Threatened and Endangered Species'' section of the Interim
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the federally and state managed
lands in Owyhee County. Unpublished amendment.
Idaho Water Resources Research Institute. 1994, Bruneau hot springs
aquifer restoration report: a proposal. Unpublished report,
University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.
Lee, J.A. 1994. Summary report for the control survey of the Bruneau
hot springsnail. Unpublished report, Bureau of Land Management,
Boise District Office, Boise, Idaho.
Mladenka, G.C. 1993. Report on the 1993 Bruneau hot springsnail site
survey. Unpublished report.
Mladenka, G.C. 1995. Bruneau Hot Springs invertebrate survey.
Unpublished report, Stream Ecology Center, Idaho State University,
Pocatello, Idaho.
Royer, T.V. and G.W. Minshall. 1993. 1993 Annual Monitoring Report:
Bruneau hot springsnail (Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis). Unpublished
report, Stream Ecology Center, Idaho State University, Pocatello,
Idaho.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1993. Unpublished letter addressing error in
estimating natural recharge to geothermal aquifer system, and status
of Bruneau-area ground water-levels and spring discharges. Boise,
Idaho.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1995a. Unpublished letter summarizing
results of Bruneau-area ground water-level and spring discharge
monitoring data through December 1994. Boise, Idaho.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1995b. Unpublished letter commenting on
Idaho Water Resources Research Institute's report and summarizing
provisional, spring discharge data collected from June 1994 through
July 1995 from three hot springs above Hot Creek, Idaho.
Varricchione, J.T. and G.W. Minshall. 1995. 1994 Monitoring Report:
Bruneau hot springsnail (Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis). Technical
Bulletin No. 95-14, Idaho Bureau of Land Management.
Varricchione, J.T. and G.W. Minshall. 1995. Gut content analysis of
wild Gambusia and Tilapia in Hot Creek, Bruneau, Idaho. Unpublished
report, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho.
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544.)
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Dated: November 6, 1995.
H. Dale Hall,
Acting Regional Director, Region I, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 95-27961 Filed 11-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27871 Visas: Documentation of Immigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act as Amended
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 218 (Monday, November 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56961-56962]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27871]
========================================================================
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. 218 / Monday, November 13, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 56961]]
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Bureau of Consular Affairs
22 CFR Part 42
[Public Notice 2284]
Visas: Documentation of Immigrants Under the Immigration and
Nationality Act as Amended
AGENCY: Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes certain amendments to the regulations
implementing the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program provided for in
sections 201(a)(3), 201(e), 203(c), and 204(a)(1)(G) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, as amended. In order to enhance the Department's
ability to combat fraudulent practices in this program, the Department
proposes to require aliens seeking to compete for immigration under the
program to sign their petitions for consideration and to furnish a
photograph with their petitions. Also the Department is adding a
provision to authorize collection of a processing fee from those
petitioners selected for further processing.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 13,
1995.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments in
duplicate to: Director, Office of Legislation, Regulations, and
Advisory Assistance, Visa Office, Department of State, Washington, DC,
20522-0113.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cornelius D. Scully, III, Director,
Office of Legislation, Regulations, and Advisory Assistance, Bureau of
Consular Affairs, Department of State, (202) 663-1184.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During the processing of the immigrant visa
applications of aliens selected to compete for an immigrant visa in the
Fiscal Year 1995 Diversity Immigrant Visa Program, several consular
sections encountered cases in which the visa applicant was proven, or
strongly suspected, to be an impostor--that is, not the individual who
had submitted the petition which had been selected. In order to deter
such abuses, the Department proposes to modify the provisions of
Sec. 42.33(b)(1), Form of Petition, to require aliens competing for
immigration under the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program to sign their
petitions and affix thereto a photograph of the kind which is required
to be affixed to Form OF-156, the Nonimmigrant Visa Application.
The photograph must be recent and must be 1 and \1/2\ inches square
(37mm x 37mm). The petitioner must clearly print his or her name on the
reverse of the photograph.
This proposed new requirement is intended to apply to petitions
submitted early in Calendar Year 1996 by aliens seeking consideration
to compete for visa issuance under the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program
during Fiscal Year 1997 (October 1, 1996 to September 30, 1997).
The Department also proposes to add to Sec. 42.33 a new paragraph
(i) to authorize collection of a processing fee from each Diversity
Immigrant visa applicant, in addition to the immigrant visa application
and issuance fees which are collected from all immigrant visa
applicants to cover the cost of the visa lottery. The Department has
not yet determined the amount of the fee to be charged which will
depend on a thorough cost analysis. The Department, however, seeks to
amend the applicable regulations to permit collection of the fee should
the decision be made that charging such a fee is necessary. If it
should be so decided to do so, there will be a separate rulemaking
process in the form of a proposal to amend the Department's Tariff of
Fees set forth in Part 22 of this Title.
This rule is not expected to have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. In addition, this rule would not impose
information collection requirements under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. This rule has been reviewed as
required under E.O. 12778 and certified to be in compliance therewith.
This rule is exempt from review under E.O. 12866, but has been reviewed
internally by the Department to ensure consistency with the objectives
thereof.
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 42
Aliens, Documentation, Immigrants, Passports and visas.
It is proposed to amend 22 CFR Part 42 as follows:
PART 42 --[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 42 would continue to read:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104.
2. Section 42.33 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) and, by
adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 42.33 Diversity immigrants.
* * * * *
(b) Petition for Consideration.- (1) Form of Petition. An alien
claiming to be entitled to compete for consideration under INA 203(c)
shall file a petition for such consideration. The petition shall
consist of a sheet of paper on which shall be typed or legibly printed
in the Roman alphabet the petitioner's name; date and place of birth
(including city and county, province or other political subdivision,
and country); the country of which the alien claims to be a native, if
other than the country of birth; name(s) and date(s) and place(s) of
birth of spouse and child(ren), if any, a current mailing address and
location of consular office nearest to current residence or, if in the
United States, nearest to last foreign residence prior to entry into
the U.S. The alien shall affix his or her signature to the sheet of
paper, using his or her usual signature. The alien shall also affix to
the sheet of paper a recent photograph of himself or herself. The
photograph shall be 1 and 1/2 inches square (37mm x 37mm) and the alien
shall clearly print his or her name on the reverse of the photograph
before affixing the photograph to the sheet of paper.
* * * * *
(i) Processing Fee. In addition to collecting the immigrant visa
application and, if applicable, issuance fees, as provided in
Sec. 42.71(b) of this part, the consular officer shall also collect
from each applicant for a visa under the Diversity Immigrant Visa
Program such processing fee as the Secretary of State shall prescribe.
[[Page 56962]]
Dated: November 5, 1995.
Mary A. Ryan,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs.
[FR Doc. 95-27871 Filed 11-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27869 International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as Revised by the 1995 Amendments to It
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 218 (Monday, November 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56970-56972]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27869]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
46 CFR Parts 10, 12, and 15
[CGD 95-062]
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification
and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as Revised by the 1995 Amendments
to It
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard seeks information that may be useful in
calculating the costs and benefits of implementing the 1995 Amendments
to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification
and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978. This information will be useful
in evaluating alternative regulatory approaches, especially where the
1995 Amendments allow some flexibility in how particular new
requirements can be implemented to improve the training and assessment
of candidates for merchant mariners' licenses and endorsements.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Executive Secretary, Marine
Safety Council (G-LRA, 3406) [CGD 95-062], U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, or may
be delivered to room 3406 at the same address between 8 a.m. and 3
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is (202) 267-1477. Comments on collection-of-information
requirements must be mailed also to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.
The Executive Secretary maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments will become part of this docket and will be
available for inspection or copying at room 3406, U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
A copy of the 1995 Amendments to STCW may be obtained by writing
Commandant (G-MOS), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20593-0001, or by calling (202) 267-0214, between 8 a.m.
and 3 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Requests may
also be submitted by facsimile at (202) 267-4570.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Randall N. Crenwelge, Standards Evaluation and Development Division
(G-MES), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC
20593-0001, telephone (202) 267-6220.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Information
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this inquiry by submitting written data, views, or arguments. Persons
submitting comments should include their names and addresses, identify
this inquiry [CGD 95-062] and the specific section or question of this
document to which each comment or question applies, and give the reason
for each comment. Please submit two copies of all comments and
attachments in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. Persons wanting
acknowledgment of receipt of comments should enclose stamped, self-
addressed postcards or envelopes. The Coast Guard will consider all
comments received during the comment period.
The Coast Guard held a public meeting on August 31, 1995, in
Washington, DC. Persons may request additional public meetings by
writing to the Marine Safety Council at the address under ADDRESSES.
The request should include the reasons why a hearing would be
beneficial. If it determines that another opportunity for oral
presentations will aid this rulemaking, the Coast Guard will hold
another public meeting at a time and place announced by a later notice
in the Federal Register.
Drafting Information. The principal persons involved in drafting
this document are Mr. Randall N. Crenwelge, Project Manager,
Standards Evaluation and Development Division (G-MES), and Mr.
Patrick J. Murray, Project Counsel, Regulations and Administrative
Law Division (G-LRA).
Background and Purpose
On July 7, 1995, a Conference of Parties to STCW, meeting at the
headquarters of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in
London, adopted a package of amendments to STCW. The amendments will
enter into force on February 1, 1997, unless a third of the
[[Page 56971]]
parties to the Convention, or parties representing over 50 percent of
the world's shipping tons, subject to them by August 1, 1996. Because
they were adopted unanimously by the Conference, no objections are
expected.
The Coast Guard held a public meeting on August 31, 1995 [60 FR
39306 (August 2, 1995)], to discuss the outcome of the 1994 Conference
of Parties to the International Convention on Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW).
Discussion of Prospective Rules
The Coast Guard must consider how to revise the current rules on
licensing and documentation, as well as those on workhours and
watchkeeping [46 CFR parts 10, 12, and 15], to reflect the requirements
of the 1995 Amendments to STCW. The most important changes for
implementation are these:
1. All candidates for STCW certificates (for instance, licenses and
documents for service on seagoing ships) will have to undergo approved
training and assessment of competence.
2. Mariners engaged in training, whether aboard ship or at shore-
side facilities, will have to meet standards of IMO. All training will
have to meet standards, which will be subject to a system of approval
and independent monitoring. Many mariners will have to use training-
record books.
3. Assessment of competence [section A-I/6 of the STCW Code] will
involve both examination, to verify knowledge and understanding of
essential subjects, and demonstration, to verify practical skills.
Either kind of assessment will require documented proof. Persons
engaged in either kind, whether aboard ship or at shore-side
facilities, will themselves undergo assessment against standards.
4. Simulators used in training or assessment will have to meet
certain standards of performance.
5. Mariners employed or engaged on seagoing ships (all persons
aboard except passengers) will have to undergo familiarization training
to ensure that they can safely handle themselves in an emergency or a
life-threatening situation. Persons responsible for safety or for
preventing pollution--whether or not part of the required complement--
will have to acquire further basic training in safety, including fire-
fighting. Persons responsible for medical care must also meet certain
standards.
6. All persons employed or engaged aboard seagoing ships must meet
standards of medical fitness.
7. Ratings for members of navigational watches on ships of 500
gross tons or more, or for members of engine-room watches or for those
designated to perform duties in periodically unmanned engine-rooms on
seagoing ships powered by propulsion machinery of 750 kW [1,000 hp] or
more, must come into line with the 1995 Amendments to STCW. This
revises current rules and their standards respecting even unlicensed
mariners.
8. Watch-standing personnel must receive a minimum of rest. Masters
must arrange watch-rotations adequate for safety.
9. Suspension-and-revocation procedures must enable the taking of
appropriate action against a license or document whose holder has
either (a) allowed the performance of a shipboard function by a non-
holder of a required STCW certificate or (b) certified that a non-
holder has properly demonstrated a skill when either (i) the non-holder
has not properly demonstrated a skill or (ii) the holder has not
observed the non-holder properly demonstrate a skill.
10. Companies must ensure that new crewmembers are familiar with
ship-specific equipment, procedures, and other arrangements necessary
for performing their jobs.
11. Tankers and roll-on/roll-off (ro-ro) passenger ships needs
renewed scrutiny, through the prism of STCW.
12. New policy will be necessary to implement expanded port-state
control.
Beyond the above, specific revisions will be necessary to ensure
that requirements for being issued a license or document under domestic
regulations fully meet those of the 1995 Amendments to STCW. For
example, officers of the navigational watch will need training in the
use of Automatic Radar Plotting Aids (ARPA) for service on ships fitted
with ARPA. Also, such officers will have to hold radio operators'
certificates valid under the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System
(GMDSS) for service in ships operating in the GMDSS.
Likewise, in revising domestic requirements, the Coast Guard should
consider harmonizing the license categories with structure outlined in
the 1995 Amendments to STCW, which is as follows:
Deck Department
1. Officers of the navigational watch on ships of 500 gross tons or
more.
2. Officers of the navigational watch on ships of less than 500
gross tons not engaged on near-coastal voyages.
3. Officers of the navigational watch on ships of less than 500
gross tons engaged on near-coastal voyages.
4. Masters and Chief Mates on ships of 3,000 gross tons or more.
5. Master and Chief Mates on ships of between 500 and 3,000 gross
tons.
6. Masters on ships of less than 500 gross tons not engaged on
near-coastal voyages.
7. Masters on ships of less than 500 gross tons engaged on near-
coastal voyages.
Engine Department
1. Officers in charge of the engineering watch in manned engine-
rooms of more than 750 kW [1,000 hp].
2. Designated duty engineers in periodically unmanned engine-rooms
of more than 750 kW [1,000 hp].
3. Chief engineer officers of ships powered by main propulsion
machinery of 3,000 kW [4,000 hp] or more.
4. Second engineer officers of ships powered by main propulsion
machinery of 3,000 kW [4,000 hp] or more.
5. Chief engineer officers of ships powered by main propulsion
machinery of between 750 kW [1,000 hp] and 3,000 kW [4,000 hp].
6. Second engineer officers of ships powered by main propulsion
machinery of between 750 kW [1,000 hp] and 3,000 kW [4,000 hp].
Questions
To adequately address the cost and benefits of these issues, the
Coast Guard needs more information. Public response to the questions
contained in this notice will assist the Coast Guard in developing a
more complete and carefully considered rulemaking. Responses to the
following questions would be particularly useful in determining the
economic impact in terms of costs and benefits of a future rulemaking.
What new costs would be imposed on you as employee, employer,
training institution, union, or other affected member of the maritime
industry, if you had to comply with the following conditions?
1. If all candidates for a license and upgrade as master or mate on
a seagoing (e.g., ocean or near-coastal) ship were required to--
a. Hold a GMDSS radio-operator certificate, unless they were
serving on ships not required to participate in the GMDSS (i.e., less
than 300 gross tons);
b. Complete simulator training in the use of ARPA, if they were
serving on ships fitted with ARPA;
c. Complete training in techniques of personal survival;
d. Complete training in personal safety and social responsibility;
e. Demonstrate competence in bridge-teamwork procedures; and
[[Page 56972]]
f. Demonstrate familiarity with the contents of the IMO Merchant
Ship Search and Rescue Manual (MERSAR).
2. If all seafarers ( i.e., all persons employed on board other
than passengers) were required to receive familiarization training or
instruction on what to do in an emergency?
3. If all seafarers with responsibility for safety or for
preventing pollution (including all subject to manning requirements or
members of fire parties) had to receive basic safety-training in fire-
fighting, first aid, personal survival, and personal safety?
4. If all candidates for engineering licenses and upgrades for
service on seagoing ships were required to demonstrate competence in
electronic an control engineering (some training institutions or
schools call this ``automated-process-control engineering'')?
5. If all candidates for deck and engineer licenses and upgrades
were required to demonstrate competence in first aid aboard ship?
6. If all instructors were required to receive guidance in
instructional techniques?
7. If all candidates' competence and proficiency in a skill or area
of knowledge had to be evaluated by an ``assessor'' (one that evaluates
a candidate's competence and proficiency in a skill or area of
knowledge)?
8. If all assessors were required to receive guidance in assessment
methods and practice?
9. If all training and assessment were subject to a qualify-
standards system that included independent monitoring and evaluation to
ensure that stated objectives were being achieved? (Please address
costs of development, implementation, and operating, as well as other
costs you consider important.)
10. If companies that own or operate seagoing ships were required
to (a) maintain records on their seafarers' experience, training,
medical fitness, and competency; (b) ensure that those persons newly
assigned to their ships were familiarized with their specific duties
there, the ships' arrangements, and their equipment; and (c) ensure
that the ships' complements can coordinate their activities in an
emergency?
11. If watchkeeping personnel on seagoing ships had to get not less
than 10 hours of rest a day, including not less than 6 continuous
hours, with only strictly limited exceptions?
12. If simulator training were required or necessary for compliance
with the 1995 Amendments to STCW? (Please address costs of acquisition
and operating, and costs to modify existing programs.)
13. If new training courses needed development to meet some
requirements? (Please estimate the complete cost of development and
state a range of costs.)
The above list may not be complete. It should suggest the scope and
nature of requirements that must be addressed in the implementation of
the 1995 Amendments to STCW. The Coast Guard also seeks comments on the
impacts associated with requiring practical demonstration in addition
to an exam.
The Coast Guard would also appreciate having a breakdown of costs,
beyond these costs, associated with courses that currently offer
training in the areas mentioned in questions 1 through 11.
The Coast Guard also requests views on the distribution of new
costs that may result from implementation of the 1995 Amendments to
STCW. For example, to what degree might training costs be borne by
employers, schools, employees, unions, or individuals as prospective
future employees?
In responding to the above questions, please identify your status
or affiliation in the marine industry (e.g., owner-operator, union,
maritime school, seafarer), and please explain the basis on which your
costs were calculated.
Dated: November 1, 1995.
J.C. Card,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office of Marine Safety,
Security and Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 95-27869 Filed 11-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27868 Anchorage Grounds, Mississippi River Below Baton Rouge, LA., Including South and Southwest Passes
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 218 (Monday, November 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56964-56968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27868]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[CGD08-95-019]
RIN 2115-AA98
Anchorage Grounds, Mississippi River Below Baton Rouge, LA.,
Including South and Southwest Passes
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to revise the anchorage
regulations for the Mississippi River below Baton Rouge, La., including
South and Southwest Passes in order to expand seven anchorages and
establish four new anchorages in response to revetment work along the
banks of the Mississippi River by the Army Corps of Engineers which has
reduced the available space within existing anchorages.
DATES: Comments must be received by January 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to: Commander (oan), Eighth Coast
Guard District, 501 Magazine Street, New Orleans, LA 70130-3396. The
comments and other material related to this notice will be available
for inspection and copying in Room 1211 at the above address. Normal
office hours are between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except holidays. Comments may also be hand-delivered to this address.
[[Page 56965]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. M. M. Ledet, Project Officer,
Commander (oan), Eighth Coast Guard District, 501 Magazine Street, New
Orleans, LA 70130-3396. Telephone (504) 589-4686.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Interested persons are invited to
participate in this rulemaking by submitting written views, data or
arguments. Persons submitting comments should include their names and
addresses, identify this notice, [CGD08-95-019], the specific section
of the proposal to which their comments apply, and give reasons for
each comment. Receipt of comments will be acknowledged if a stamped
self-addressed postcard or envelope is enclosed.
The regulations may be changed in light of comments received. All
comments received before the expiration of the comment period will be
considered before the final action is taken on this proposal. No public
hearing is planned, but one may be held if written requests for a
hearing are received and it is determined that the opportunity to make
oral presentations will aid the rulemaking process.
Drafting Information. The drafters of this regulation are Mr.
M. M. Ledet, Project Officer, Eighth Coast Guard District Aids to
Navigation Branch, and LCDR C.D. Michel, Project Attorney, Eighth
Coast Guard District Legal Office.
Discussion of Regulation
The Army Corps of Engineers conducts revetment work along the banks
of the Mississippi River to protect against erosion and caving. The
work is essential to preserve the levee system. Current articulated
concrete mattress revetment is used in a number of designated
anchorages serving the Lower Mississippi River below Baton Rouge, LA.
Federal regulations prohibit vessels from anchoring over this
revetment. Because usable space in these designated anchorages was
reduced due to the placement of this revetment, members of the maritime
community have expressed concerns regarding the devastating impact on
the amount of available space within the designated anchorages. To
alleviate these concerns, and provide for safe and efficient use of the
waterway, the Coast Guard is proposing the expansion of certain
anchorages where practical and the establishment of new anchorage
ground where available.
The lower limit of Ostrica Anchorage will be moved down to mile
23.0 providing an additional 0.5 mile of anchorage ground. The Davant
Anchorage lower limit will be moved down to mile 52.8 providing an
additional 0.7 mile of anchorage ground. The lower limit of New Orleans
General Anchorage will be moved to mile 90.1 to accommodate the
establishment of the New Orleans Emergency Anchorage. The lower limit
of Lower Kenner Bend Anchorage will be moved down to mile 113.3 adding
an additional 0.5 mile to this anchorage. The upper limit of lower
Grandview Reach Anchorage will be moved to mile 147.2 adding 0.1 mile
to this anchorage. The lower limit of Upper Grandview Reach Anchorage
will be moved down to mile 147.5 adding 0.2 of a mile to this
anchorage. The Lower Sunshine and Upper Sunshine Anchorage will be
combined to form one anchorage with limits of mile 165.0 to mile 167.0.
The pipeline at mile 166.1 has been removed allowing for the addition
of 0.3 of a mile.
Four new anchorages will be established, the Point Celeste
Anchorage will extend from mile 49.8 to mile 52.0 with a width of 800
feet along the right descending bank, New Orleans Emergency anchorage
will be established from mile 89.6 to mile 90.1 extending 800 feet
along the right descending bank, the Geismar Anchorage from mile 184.0
to mile 185.0 with a width of 700 feet along the right descending bank
and the White Castle Anchorage from mile 190.6 to mile 191.3 with a
width of 700 feet along the right descending bank. The establishment of
these four anchorages will provide an additional 4.4 mile of safe
anchorage for deep draft vessels on the Lower Mississippi river.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rule is not significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. It
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that
order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and
procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040;
February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this
proposal to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under
paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is
unnecessary. The regulation will in fact have a positive impact on
steamship companies and shipping support activities. The regulation
will also enhance safe navigation on the Lower Mississippi River by
providing additional safe anchorage space outside the navigation
channel for large vessels.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider whether this regulation will have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
``Small entities'' include independently owned and operated small
businesses that are not dominant in their field and that otherwise
qualify as ``small business concerns'' under section 3 of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632). For the reasons specified in the
Regulatory Evaluation section of this rule, the Coast Guard has
determined that this rule will have minimal, if not a positive, impact
on non-participating small entities. Therefore, the Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this regulation will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Collection of Information
This action contains no collection of information requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq).
Federalism Assessment
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that this proposed rule does not raise sufficient federalism concerns
to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environmental Assessment
This proposed rule has been thoroughly reviewed by the Coast Guard.
It has been determined not to have a significant effect on the human
environment or environmental conditions and to be categorically
excluded from further environmental documentation in accordance with
section 2.B.2.c. of Commandant Instruction M16475.1B. The Coast Guard
welcomes comments on potential environmental impacts of this proposal.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110
Anchorage grounds.
Regulations
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend Part 110 of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 2030, 2035 and 2071; 49 CFR 1.46 and
33 CFR 1.05-1(g).
[[Page 56966]]
Section 110.1a and each section listed in 110.1a are also issued under
33 U.S.C. 1223 and 1231.
2. Section 110.195 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 110.195 Mississippi River Below Baton Rouge, LA., including South
and Southwest Passes.
(a) The anchorage grounds. Unless otherwise specified, all
anchorage widths are measured from the average low water plane (ALWP).
(1) Pilottown Anchorage. An area 5.2 miles in length along the
right descending bank of the river from mile 1.5 to mile 6.7 above Head
of Passes, extending in width to 1,600 feet from the left descending
bank of the river.
Caution: A wreck is located within the boundaries of this
anchorage. Mariners are urged to use caution in this anchorage.
(2) Lower Venice Anchorage. An area 1.6 miles in length along the
left descending bank of the river from mile 8.0 to mile 9.6 above Head
of Passes with the west limit 1,200 feet from the ALWP of the right
descending bank.
Caution: A pipeline crossing exists at mile 9.8 above Head of
Passes. Mariners are urged to use caution between mile 9.6 and mile
10.0 above Head of Passes.
(3) Upper Venice Anchorage. An area 1.2 miles in length along the
left descending bank of the river from mile 10.0 to mile 11.2 above
Head of Passes with the west limit 1,200 feet from the ALWP of the
right descending bank.
(4) Boothville Anchorage. An area 6.3 miles in length along the
right descending bank of the river, 1,000 feet wide, extending from
mile 12.2 to mile 18.5 above Head of Passes. A 250 foot wide revetment
as measured from the Low Water Reference Plane (LWRP) extends from mile
12.2 to mile 17.9 above Head of Passes within this anchorage.
(5) Ostrica Anchorage. An area 1.4 miles in length along the right
descending bank of the river, 800 feet wide, extending from mile 23.0
to mile 24.4 above Head of Passes.
(6) Port Sulphur Anchorage. An area 2.2 miles in length along the
left descending bank of the river, 800 feet wide, extending from mile
37.5 to mile 39.7 above Head of Passes.
(7) Magnolia Anchorage. An area 2.1 miles in length along the right
descending bank of the river, 1,100 feet wide, extending from mile 45.5
to mile 47.6 above Head of Passes. A 300 foot wide revetment as
measured from the LWRP extends from mile 45.5 to mile 45.7 above Head
of Passes within this anchorage. Additional revetment, 400 feet wide as
measured from the LWRP, extends from mile 47.1 to mile 47.6 above Head
of Passes within this anchorage area.
(8) Point Celeste Anchorage. An area 2.2 miles in length along the
right descending bank of the river, 800 feet wide, extending from mile
49.8 to mile 52.0 above Head of Passes. A 400 foot wide revetment as
measured from the LWRP extends from mile 51.6 to mile 52.0 above Head
of Passes within this anchorage.
(9) Davant Anchorage. An area 1.1 miles in length along the left
descending bank of the river, 800 feet wide, extending from mile 52.8
to mile 53.9 above Head of Passes.
(10) Alliance Anchorage. An area 2.0 miles in length along the
right descending bank of the river, 800 feet wide, extending from mile
63.8 to mile 65.8 above Head of Passes. A 400 foot wide revetment as
measured from the LWRP extends from mile 65.1 to mile 65.8 above Head
of Passes within this anchorage.
(11) Wills Point Anchorage. An area 1.1 miles in length along the
left descending bank of the river, 800 feet wide, extending from mile
66.5 to mile 67.6 above Head of Passes. A 200 foot wide revetment as
measured from the LWRP extends from mile 66.5 to mile 66.9 above Head
of Passes within this anchorage.
(12) Cedar Grove Anchorage. An area 1.2 miles in length along the
right descending bank of the river, 700 feet wide, extending from mile
69.9 to mile 71.1 above Head of Passes. A 200 foot wide revetment as
measured from the LWRP extends from mile 69.9 to mile 70.4 above Head
of Passes within this anchorage.
(13) Belle Chasse Anchorage. An area 2.1 miles in length along the
right descending bank of the river, 1,000 feet wide, extending from
mile 73.1 to mile 75.2 above Head of Passes. A 250 foot wide revetment
as measured from the LWRP extends from mile 73.1 to mile 74.4 above
Head of Passes within this anchorage. Additional revetment, 425 feet
wide as measured from the LWRP, extends from mile 74.9 to mile 75.2
above Head of Passes within this anchorage.
(14) Lower 12 Mile Point Anchorage. An area 2.2 miles in length
along the right descending bank of the river, 800 feet wide, extending
from mile 78.6 to mile 80.8 above Head of Passes. A 300 foot wide
revetment as measured from the LWRP extends from mile 78.6 to mile 79.0
above Head of Passes within this anchorage.
(15) Lower 9 Mile Point Anchorage. An area 2.3 miles in length
along the right descending bank of the river, 800 feet wide, extending
from mile 82.7 to mile 85.0 above Head of Passes. A 300 foot wide
revetment as measured from the LWRP extends from mile 82.7 to mile 84.4
above Head of Passes within this anchorage.
Caution: A wreck is located within the boundaries of this
anchorage. Mariners are urged to use caution in this anchorage.
(16) New Orleans Emergency Anchorage. An area 0.5 miles in length
along the right descending bank of the river, 800 feet wide, extending
from mile 89.6 to mile 90.1 above Head of Passes. A 250 foot wide
revetment as measured from the LWRP extends from mile 89.6 to mile 90.1
above Head of Passes within this anchorage.
Note: No vessel shall occupy this anchorage unless expressly
authorized by the Captain of the Port. No vessel may anchor in this
anchorage exceeding 24 hours without the authorization of the
Captain of the Port.
(17) New Orleans General Anchorage. An area 0.8 miles in length
along the right descending bank of the river, 800 feet wide, extending
from mile 90.1 to mile 90.9 above Head of Passes. A 250 foot wide
revetment as measured from the LWRP extends from mile 90.1 to mile 90.3
above Head of Passes within this anchorage.
(18) Quarantine Anchorage. An area 0.7 miles in length along the
right descending bank of the river, 800 feet wide, extending from mile
90.9 to mile 91.6 above Head of Passes.
Caution: A wreck is located within the boundaries of this
anchorage. Mariners are urged to use caution in this anchorage.
Note: a. Vessels carrying cargoes of particular hazard as
defined in 33 CFR 126.10 or cargoes of petroleum products in bulk
may not be anchored in the New Orleans General Anchorage or the
Quarantine Anchorage without permission from the Captain of the
Port.
b. Except when required by the United States Public Health
Service for quarantine inspection, the Quarantine Anchorage may be
used as a general anchorage.
(19) Lower Kenner Bend Anchorage. An area 1.0 miles in length along
the right descending bank of the river, 700 feet wide, extending from
mile 113.3 to mile 114.3 above Head of Passes. A 350 foot wide
revetment as measured from the LWRP extends from mile 113.3 to mile
114.3 above Head of Passes within this anchorage.
(20) Kenner Bend Anchorage. An area 0.9 miles in length along the
right descending bank of the river, 700 feet wide, extending from mile
114.7 to mile 115.6 above Head of Passes.
(21) Ama Anchorage. An area 1.8 miles in length along the left
descending bank of the river, 700 feet wide,
[[Page 56967]]
extending from mile 115.5 to mile 117.3 above Head of Passes. A 300
foot wide revetment as measured from the LWRP extends from mile 115.5
to mile 116.8 above Head of Passes within this anchorage.
Caution: A wreck is located at mile 115.4 left descending bank
above Head of Passes marked by Mississippi River Wreck Lighted Buoy
WR4. Mariners are urged to use caution when anchoring in the lower
end of this anchorage.
(22) Bonnet Carre Anchorage. An area 1.5 miles in length along the
left descending bank of the river, 600 feet wide, extending from mile
127.3 to mile 128.8 above Head of Passes. This area is located adjacent
to the river end of the Bonnet Carre Spillway.
Note: When the Bonnet Carre Spillway is open, no vessel may be
anchored in the Bonnet Carre Anchorage.
(23) La Place Anchorage. An area 0.7 miles in length along the left
descending bank of the river, 600 feet wide, extending from mile 134.7
to mile 135.4 above Head of Passes.
(24) Reserve Anchorage. An area 0.5 miles in length along the right
descending bank of the river, 800 feet wide, extending from mile 137.0
to mile 137.5 above Head of Passes. A 300 foot wide revetment as
measured from the LWRP extends from mile 137.0 to mile 137.3 above Head
of Passes within this anchorage.
(25) Lower Grandview Reach Anchorage. An area 0.7 miles in length
along the left descending bank of the river, 700 feet wide, extending
from mile 146.4 to mile 147.2 above Head of Passes. A 200 foot wide
revetment as measured from the LWRP extends from mile 146.4 to mile
147.2 above Head of Passes within this anchorage.
(26) Upper Grandview Reach Anchorage. An area 1.3 miles in length
along the left descending bank of the river, 700 feet wide, extending
from mile 147.5 to mile 148.8 above Head of Passes. A 200 foot wide
revetment as measured from the LWRP extends from mile 147.5 to mile
148.1 above Head of Passes within this anchorage.
(27) Sunshine Anchorage. An area 2.0 miles in length along the left
descending bank of the river, 800 feet wide, extending from mile 165.0
to mile 167.0 above Head of Passes. A 350 foot wide revetment as
measured from the LWRP extends from mile 166.1 to mile 167.0 above Head
of Passes within this anchorage.
(28) Geismar Anchorage. An area 1.0 miles in length along the right
descending bank of the river, 700 feet wide, extending from mile 184.0
to mile 185.0 above Head of Passes.
(29) White Castle Anchorage. An area 0.7 miles in length along the
right descending bank of the river, 700 feet wide, extending from mile
190.4 to mile 191.1 above Head of Passes. A 400 foot wide revetment as
measured from the LWRP extends from mile 190.4 to mile 191.1 above Head
of Passes within this anchorage.
(30) Baton Rouge General Anchorage. An area 1.5 miles in length
along the right descending bank of the river, 1,400 feet wide,
extending from mile 225.8 to mile 227.3 above Head of Passes.
Caution: Two wrecks are located within the boundaries of this
anchorage. Mariners are urged to use caution in this anchorage.
(31) Lower Baton Rouge Anchorage. An area 0.5 miles in length near
mid-channel between mile 228.5 and mile 229.0 above Head of Passes with
the west limit 1,100 feet off the right descending bank and having the
width of 700 feet at both the upper and lower limits.
(32) Middle Baton Rouge Anchorage. An area 0.2 miles in length near
mid-channel between mile 229.6 and mile 229.8 above Head of Passes with
the west limit 1,100 feet off the right descending bank and having a
width of 700 feet at both the upper and lower limits.
(33) Upper Baton Rouge Anchorage. An area 0.4 miles in length near
mid-channel between mile 230.6 and mile 231.0 above Head of Passes with
the west limit 1,100 feet off the right descending bank and having a
width of 1,075 feet at the upper limit and 1,200 feet at the lower
limit.
(b) Temporary anchorages. (1) Temporary anchorages are non-
permanent anchorages established by the Commander, Eight Coast Guard
District to provide additional anchorage space. Establishment of
temporary anchorages is based on recommendations by the Captain of the
Port.
(2) Each vessel using temporary anchorages shall anchor as
prescribed by the Captain of the Port.
(3) Establishment of each temporary anchorage and any requirement
for the temporary anchorage will be published in the Local Notice to
Mariners.
(4) Each person who has notice of any requirement prescribed for a
temporary anchorage shall comply with that requirement.
(c) The regulations. (1) Anchoring in the Mississippi River below
Baton Rouge, LA., including South and Southwest Passes is prohibited
outside of established anchorages except in cases of emergency. In an
emergency, if it becomes necessary to anchor a vessel outside an
established anchorage, the vessel shall be anchored so that it does not
interfere with or endanger any facility or other vessel. The master of
person in charge of the vessel shall notify the Captain of the Port of
the location of the emergency anchoring by the most expeditious means
and shall move the vessel as soon as the emergency is over.
(2) In an emergency, if it becomes necessary to anchor a vessel in
South Pass or Southwest Pass, the vessel shall be positioned as close
to the left descending bank as possible.
(3) No vessel may be anchored unless it maintains a bridge watch,
guards and answers Channel 16 FM (or the appropriate VTS New Orleans
sector frequency), maintains an accurate position plot and can take
appropriate action ensure the safety of the vessel, structure, and
other vessels.
(4) When anchoring individually, or in fleets, vessels shall be
anchored with sufficient anchors, or secured with sufficient lines, to
ensure their remaining in place and withstanding the actions of winds,
currents and the suction of passing vessels.
(5) No vessel may be anchored over revetted banks of the river or
within any cable or pipeline area. The locations of revetted areas and
cable and pipeline areas may be obtained from the District Engineer,
Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, LA.
(6) The intention to transfer any cargo while in an anchorage shall
be reported to the Captain of the Port, giving particulars as to name
of ships involved, quantity and type of cargo, and expected duration of
the operation the Captain of the Port shall be notified upon completion
of operations. Cargo transfer operations are not permitted in the New
Orleans General or Quarantine Anchorages. Bunkering and similar
operations related to ship's stores are exempt from reporting
requirements.
Note: Activities conducted within a designated anchorage (e.g.
cargo transfer, tank cleaning, stack blowing, etc.) may be
restricted by other Federal, State or local regulations. Owners, or
persons in charge of any vessel should consider all safety and/or
environmental regulations prior to engaging in any activity within
designated anchorages.
(7) Nothing in this section relieves the owner or person in charge
of any vessel from the penalties for obstructing or interfering with
navigational aids or for failing to comply with the navigation laws for
lights, day shapes, or fog signals and any other applicable laws and
regulations.
[[Page 56968]]
Dated: October 24, 1995.
R.C. North,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 95-27868 Filed 11-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27866 Safety Zone: Sunken Vessel M/V EMPIRE KNIGHT, Boon Island, ME
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 218 (Monday, November 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56968-56970]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27866]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD01-95-141]
RIN 2115-AA97
Safety Zone: Sunken Vessel M/V EMPIRE KNIGHT, Boon Island, ME
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent safety zone
encompassing those waters of the Atlantic Ocean within 1,000 yards of
the approximate position 43 deg.06'19'' N, 70 deg.27'09'' W (datum NAD
83) and from the water's surface to the seabed floor. This rulemaking
is being undertaken to ensure that the stern portion of the sunken
vessel M/V EMPIRE KNIGHT, and its cargo of mercury, is not disturbed by
dredging, diving, salvage, anchoring, fishing, or other activity. This
proposed rule is necessary to protect the environment, and the
commercial fishery, and the general public from any adverse effects of
contamination from mercury which could result from the disturbance of
the stern section of the wreck.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Chief, Response & Planning
Department, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office, P.O. Box 108,
Portland, ME 04112-0108. Comments may also be hand delivered to the
Response & Planning Office at 312 Fore Street, Portland, Maine between
7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.
The telephone number is (207) 780-3251, extension 153.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Al Echols, Response &
Planning Department, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office, Portland,
Maine at (207) 780-3251, extension 153.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments.
Persons submitting comments should include their name and address,
identify this rulemaking (CGD01-95-141) and the specific section of
this proposal to which each comment applies, and give a reason for each
comment. The Coast Guard requests that all comments and attachments be
submitted in an 8\1/2\'' x 11'' unbound format suitable for copying
and electronic filing. If that is not practical, a second copy of any
bound material is requested. Persons wanting acknowledgment of receipt
of comments should enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope.
The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the
comment period. It may change this proposal in view of the comments.
The Coast Guard plans no public hearing. Persons may request a
public hearing by writing to the Project Manager at the address under
ADDRESSES. If it determines that the opportunity for oral presentations
will aid this rulemaking, the Coast Guard will hold a public hearing at
a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
Drafting Information. The principal persons involved in drafting
this document are Lieutenant Al Echols, Project Manager, Marine
Safety Office Portland, Maine, and Lieutenant Commander Sam Watkins,
Project counsel, First Coast Guard District Legal Office, Boston,
MA.
Background and Purpose
In February of 1944, the M/V EMPIRE KNIGHT, a 428 foot British
freight ship ran aground on Boon Island Ledge, Maine, and later broke
into two sections. The stern section, which includes the ship's cargo
holds, sank in approximately 260 feet of water, one and one half miles
from Boon Island Ledge. In August of 1990, the Coast Guard Captain of
the Port, Portland, Maine (COTP) became aware of the existence of a
``Proposed'' Plan of Stowage for the wreck of the M/V EMPIRE KNIGHT
which indicated that 221 flasks containing mercury may have been loaded
into cargo hold number 5. The COTP issued a Captain of the Port Order
to a company then conducting salvage operations, requiring them to
refrain from further salvage activity until the situation could be more
thoroughly assessed.
Over the next year, the COTP convened an Incident Specific Regional
Response Team (RRT) consisting of representatives from the Maine
Department of Environmental Protection, the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services, the Maine Department of Marine Resources, the
New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard to gather information about
the M/V EMPIRE KNIGHT and its cargo, and to identify the possible
courses of action.
During the summer of 1992, the Maine Department of Marine Resources
collected samples of bottom sediment around the stern portion of the
EMPIRE KNIGHT to determine if mercury was present and, if so, to what
extent. Laboratory analyses of the samples revealed levels of mercury
consistent with the background levels with some exceptions, rendering
them inconclusive on whether mercury had been on board the M/V EMPIRE
KNIGHT at the time of its sinking.
In the spring of 1993, the COTP, in consultation with the RRT,
determined that the possible presence of mercury on board the M/V
EMPIRE KNIGHT constituted an imminent and substantial threat to the
environment. The RRT agreed that an on site assessment of the stern
section of the M/V EMPIRE KNIGHT was necessary to determine the
presence of the mercury, and to assess whether it would be necessary,
feasible, and safe to remove it if on board.
In August, 1993, the COTP, as the Federal On Scene Coordinator,
initiated a $6.8 million emergency site assessment and removal
operation. The presence of mercury on board was quickly confirmed. All
221 manifested mercury flasks were located in cargo hold number 5 and
were recovered, but were found in badly deteriorated condition and were
nearly empty. Loose mercury was discovered throughout cargo hold number
5, and approximately 1,230 pounds were recovered. Nearly 2,200 pounds
of mercury-contaminated debris and cargo residue were also recovered.
Extensive sampling and analysis was conducted throughout the
operation. Samples included bottom sediments in the vicinity of the
stern section of the wreck and various species of fish and shellfish
from the area around the vessel. From within cargo hold number 5,
samples of the sediment, scrapings off the cargo, and fish and
shellfish were taken.
In October, 1993, the operation was suspended due to deteriorating
weather conditions. At that time, an estimated 16,000 pounds of mercury
remained unaccounted for and is believed to be spread throughout the
cargo residue of cargo hold number 5.
In February, 1994, the RRT was reconvened by the COTP to consider
the results of the sample analyses and to determine the best course of
action. The sample analysis results showed that concentrations of
mercury were elevated inside cargo hold number 5, but
[[Page 56969]]
dropped off quickly to background levels in the bottom sediments
outside the hold. No contamination of fish or shellfish was identified
with the exception of those specimens collected from within cargo hold
number 5. The key issue then became the long term fate of mercury in a
marine environment. The RRT decided to submit the sample results to
NOAA and an independent scientist with a request for an analysis of the
available data and scientific literature and to develop a forecast of
the long term behavior of the mercury on site.
In August, 1994, a commercial salvage company that had remained
prohibited from conducting salvage operations by the Captain of the
Port Order, submitted to the COTP a request to lift the order. The
company also submitted a proposal to conduct salvage operations on the
wreck of the M/V EMPIRE KNIGHT.
In September, 1994, the RRT was again reconvened to consider the
reports submitted by NOAA and the independent scientist.
While the reports differed in details, they concurred in concluding
that the site was currently stable and that the mercury did not pose a
substantial threat to the environment. Both reports were written,
however, under the presumption that the wreck of the M/V EMPIRE KNIGHT
would remain essentially undisturbed with the exception of its gradual
decomposition from natural forces. Both reports further agreed that the
probability of a catastrophic release of mercury to the environment as
a result of activity on or near the M/V EMPIRE KNIGHT was low. The RRT
reached the conclusion that the wreck of the M/V EMPIRE KNIGHT did not
meet the condition of ``imminent and substantial'' threat under CERCLA
and that additional emergency response operations would not be
conducted. The RRT further agreed to develop a plan for long-term
monitoring of the site with the intent of detecting any changing
conditions.
In August, 1995, the RRT reconvened to discuss the issue of
allowing any type of activity on or near the wreck of the M/V EMPIRE
KNIGHT. Consensus was reached that all information currently before the
RRT indicated that the predictable risk of activity on the wreck
resulting in mercury contamination of the environment was low. It was
further agreed that, although the risk of a release was low, the
foreseeable consequences of that release could be devastating to the
local environment, the public health, and the economy of the region's
fisheries. The unanimous recommendation of the RRT was to prohibit any
activity on or near the stern section of the wreck of the M/V EMPIRE
KNIGHT. This safety zone is being proposed as a result of that meeting.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
This Safety Zone is proposed to protect the environment, the local
economy, and the public health and welfare from the possible adverse
consequences associated with the voluminous mercury cargo that remains
on board the M/V EMPIRE KNIGHT. The United States Coast Guard, in
consultation with the Incident Specific Regional Response Team, has
determined that, although the current level of threat from the mercury
cargo is low, any disturbance of the wreck site, whether intentional or
unintentional, poses an unacceptable risk to the environment and to
human health. The safety zone will prohibit all vessels and persons
from anchoring, diving, dredging, dumping, fishing, trawling, laying
cable, or conducting salvage operations within 1000 yards of the stern
portion of the wreck of the M/V EMPIRE KNIGHT from the water's surface
to the seabed floor except as authorized by the Captain of the Port,
Portland, Maine.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposal is not a significant regulatory action under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. It
has been exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget
under that order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies
and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040;
February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this
proposal to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under
paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is
unnecessary. This conclusion is based on the fact that the proposal has
no significant effect on shipping, and its impact on fishing is minimal
as it removes a small portion (less than one square mile) of the
available fishing grounds from active fishing.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider whether this proposal will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. ``Small
entities'' include independently owned and operated small businesses
that are not dominant in their field and that otherwise qualify as
``small business concerns'' under section 3 of the Small Business Act
(15 U.S.C. 632). For reasons set forth in the above Regulatory
Evaluation, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposal, if adopted, will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Collection of Information
This proposal contains no collection of information requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposal in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has
determined that this proposal does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this
proposal and concluded that, under section 2.B.2.(e) of the Coast
Guard's procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act (Commandant Instruction M16474.1B), this action is categorically
excluded from further environmental documentation. A Categorical
Exclusion Determination will be made available in the docket.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR Part 165 as follows:
PART 165--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 165 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g),
6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.
2. Section 165.141 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 165.141 Safety Zone; Sunken vessel M/V EMPIRE KNIGHT, Boon
Island, ME.
(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
the Atlantic Ocean within 1,000 yards of the stern section of the
sunken vessel EMPIRE KNIGHT, in approximate position 43 deg.06'19'' N,
70 deg.27'09'' W, and extending from the water's surface to the seabed
floor. (Datum: NAD 83)
(b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations
governing safety zones contained in Sec. 165.23, all vessels
[[Page 56970]]
and persons are prohibited from anchoring, diving, dredging, dumping,
fishing, trawling, laying cable, or conducting salvage operations in
this zone except as authorized by the Captain of the Port, Portland,
Maine. Innocent transit through the area within the safety zone is not
affected by this section and does not require the authorization of the
Captain of the Port.
Dated: September 15, 1995.
Burton S. Russell,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Portland, Maine.
[FR Doc. 95-27866 Filed 11-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27799 Beverages: Bottled Water
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 218 (Monday, November 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57132-57133]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27799]
[[Page 57131]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Health and Human Services
_______________________________________________________________________
Food and Drug Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
21 CFR Part 165
Beverages; Bottled Water; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 218 / Monday, November 13, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 57132]]
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. 95N-0203]
Beverages: Bottled Water
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to amend
its regulations to exempt mineral water from the allowable level for
aluminum in FDA's quality standard for bottled water. The agency is
also proposing to update the testing methods referenced in the quality
standard for bottled water. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register, the agency is publishing a final rule to establish a standard
of identity for bottled water. This proposal addresses two related
issues that fell outside the scope of that rulemaking. FDA tentatively
concludes that the proposed actions will promote honesty and fair
dealing in the interest of consumers.
DATES: Written comments by January 29, 1996. The agency intends to make
any final rule based upon this proposal effective 60 days following the
date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to the Dockets Management Branch
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, rm. 1-23, 12420 Parklawn Dr.,
Rockville, MD 20857.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shellee A. Davis, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-306), Food and Drug Administration,
200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-205-4681.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
-On January 5, 1993 (58 FR 393), FDA published a proposal in the
Federal Register to establish a standard of identity in Sec.
165.110(a) (21 CFR 165.110(a)) for bottled water. At the same time, the
agency proposed to recodify the standard of quality for bottled water,
which is currently found in Sec. 103.35 (21 CFR 103.35), to Sec.
165.110(b), (c), and (d). In addition, FDA proposed to define
``artesian water,'' ``ground water,'' ``mineral water,'' ``purified
water,'' ``spring water,'' and ``well water.''
-Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is issuing a
final rule that implements those proposed actions. However, two related
issues, which fell outside the scope of that rulemaking, are discussed
in this document along with the comments that the agency received on
those matters.
A. Exemption for Aluminum
In the January 5, 1993, proposal (58 FR 393 at 396), FDA proposed
to include mineral water in the standard for bottled water and, thus,
to subject mineral water to the requirements of the quality standard
for bottled water. Some allowable levels in the quality standard are
based on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) secondary maximum
contaminant levels (SMCL's) that are established for aesthetic reasons
and not for consumer safety. Mineral water with a high mineral content
may not meet these allowable levels. Therefore, the agency tentatively
concluded that certain aesthetically based allowable levels should not
apply to mineral waters (58 FR 393 at 400). Elsewhere in this issue of
the Federal Register, FDA is exempting mineral water from the allowable
levels for color, odor, total dissolved solids, chloride, iron,
manganese, sulfate, and zinc.
FDA stated in the January 5, 1993, proposal that if it established
an allowable level for aluminum, it would propose to exempt mineral
water from that standard because the standard is intended to control
aesthetic properties of the water, and not its effect on the body (58
FR 393 at 401). EPA established an SMCL of 0.2 milligram per liter (mg/
L) for aluminum because of increased turbidity of the water and to
prevent post-treatment precipitation in public water distribution
systems ((56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991). On December 1, 1994 (59 FR
61529), FDA established an allowable level of 0.2 mg/L for aluminum in
bottled water in Sec. 103.35(d)(3)(iv) (recodified as Sec.
165.110(b)(4)(iii)(D) elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register).
In response to the January 5, 1993, proposal, FDA received one
comment that expressed concern about the proposed allowable level for
aluminum in bottled water and with exempting aluminum in mineral water
from the quality standard, because there are some data that suggest
that there may be a link between aluminum and Alzheimer's Disease and
other adverse health effects. It recommended that FDA maintain an
allowable level of 0.2 mg/L for aluminum in all bottled water.
The agency disagrees with the comment. EPA established a SMCL for
aluminum to control aesthetic properties of the water (turbidity) and
not its effect on the body. Aluminum has been found to be neurotoxic
when injected into the brains of animals and in renal patients dosed
inappropriately with aluminum salts. However, the current evidence
suggests that aluminum neither causes Alzheimer's disease nor
contributes to the expression of Alzheimer's disease (Ref. 1).
Therefore, the agency tentatively concludes that it is appropriate
to exempt mineral water from the allowable level of 0.2 mg/L for
aluminum in Sec. 165.110(b)(4)(iii)(D) because it is an aesthetically-
based (turbidity) allowable level. Accordingly, the agency is proposing
to add a footnote to the list of allowable levels in Sec.
165.110(b)(4)(iii)(D) to provide that when water is labeled as
``mineral water,'' it will be exempt from the allowable level for
aluminum. FDA is not proposing to include bottled waters that are not
conspicuously identified with the term ``mineral'' in this exemption
because consumers will not generally expect to encounter aesthetic
effects typical of high mineral content waters in these bottled waters
products. In addition, the agency is not proposing to exempt mineral
water from the allowable level for turbidity because high turbidity may
interfere with disinfection and microbiological determinations. This
exemption parallels the exemptions in Sec. 165.110(b)(3) and
(b)(4)(i)(A) that FDA is establishing in a final rule published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register that exempts mineral
water from certain other aesthetically based allowable levels.
B. Updating References
In the proposal to establish a standard of identity for bottled
water (58 FR 393, January 5, 1993), the agency proposed to update the
methods referenced in Sec. 165.110(b)(2) and (b)(3) for testing water
for the listed contaminants to the ``Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater,'' 17th edition (1989). Several
comments received in response to that proposal stated that
Sec. 165.110(b)(2) and (b)(3) should be updated and should reference
``Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,'' 18th
edition (1992). However, because the agency failed to state in the
proposal that it intended to update the references to the latest
edition, the comments' requested change did not fall within the scope
of that rulemaking, and a separate rulemaking was necessary to effect
that change.
Title 1, part 51 of the Code of Federal Regulations (1 CFR part 51)
requires the filing and updating of material that has
[[Page 57133]]
been incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. The
purpose of the requirement is to ensure the public availability and
accuracy of material that has been incorporated from other sources.
In the Federal Register of October 6, 1993 (58 FR 52042), FDA
proposed to update the reference in Sec. 165.110(b)(2) to the 18th
edition. The agency expects to adopt that modification in a final rule
that will be published in the near future. However, to ensure the
accuracy of methods for testing bottled water, that are referenced in
Sec. 165.110(b)(3), FDA is proposing to update them to reference
``Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,'' 18th
edition (1992). If subsequent editions of the methods referenced are
published before the completion of this rulemaking, the agency intends
to update the references in Sec. 165.110(b)(2) and (b)(3) to reflect
the most recent edition.
II. Environmental Impact
-The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.24(b)(1) that this
action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
III. Analysis of Impacts
FDA has examined the impact of this proposed rule under Executive
Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354).
Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess the costs and benefits
of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary,
to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). According to Executive
Order 12866, a regulatory action is ``economically significant'' if it
meets any one of a number of specified conditions, including having an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or adversely affecting in
a material way a sector of the economy, competition, or jobs. A
regulation is considered ``significant'' under Executive Order 12866 if
it raises novel legal or policy issues. The Regulatory Flexibility Act
requires agencies to minimize the economic impact of their regulations
on small entities. FDA finds that this proposed rule is neither an
economically significant nor significant regulatory action as defined
by Executive Order 12866. In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, the agency certifies that the proposed rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Updating the references is not expected to significantly affect the
content of those references or the cost of complying with regulations
citing those references. FDA requests comments on any costs generated
by updating the references as proposed.
Exempting mineral water from the allowable level for aluminum in
bottled water does not represent a change from the current situation.
There is currently no limitation on the amount of aluminum in mineral
water. Similarly, there is no limitation on the amount of aluminum in
mineral water under this proposal (other than a level that is injurious
to health). The current situation is the baseline in comparison with
which costs and benefits of proposed actions are measured. Therefore,
there are neither costs nor benefits associated with exempting mineral
water from the allowable level for aluminum in bottled water.
IV. Reference
The following reference has been placed on display in the Dockets
Management Branch (address above) and may be seen by interested persons
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
1. Humphreys, S., Contaminants, Standards, and Monitoring Branch
(HFS-308F), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug
Administration, memo to Shellee Davis, May 26, 1995.
V. Comments
Interested persons may, on or before January 29, 1996, submit to
the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments
regarding this proposal. Two copies of any comments are to be
submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to
be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading
of this document. Received comments may be seen in the office above
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 165
Beverages, Bottled water, Food grades and standards.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, it is
proposed that 21 CFR part 165 be amended as follows:
PART 165--BEVERAGES
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 165 continues to read as
follows:
-Authority: Secs. 201, 401, 403, 403A, 409, 410, 701, 721 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 343, 343A,
348, 349, 371, 379e).
2. Section 165.110 is amended by revising the introductory text of
paragraph (b)(3) and by revising paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(D) to read as
follows:
Sec. 165.110 Bottled water.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Physical quality. Bottled water shall, when a composite of
analytical units of equal volume from a sample is examined by the
method described in applicable sections of ``Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater,'' 18th ed. (1992), which is
incorporated by reference (the availability of this incorporation by
reference is given in paragraph (b)(2) of this section), meet the
following standards of physical quality:
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) * * *
(D) The allowable levels for certain chemicals for which EPA has
established secondary maximum contaminant levels in its drinking water
regulations are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentration in
Contaminant milligrams per
liter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aluminum.............................................. 0.21
Silver................................................ 0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mineral water is exempt from the allowable level. The exemption is
an aesthetically based allowable level and does not relate to a health
concern.
* * * * *
Dated: November 3, 1995.
William K. Hubbard,
Acting Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 95-27799 Filed 11-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27742 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Contingent Fee Representation
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 218 (Monday, November 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57140-57141]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27742]
[[Page 57139]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Department of Defense
General Services Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
48 CFR Part 1 et al.
Federal Acquisition Regulation: Contingent Fee Representation; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 218 / Monday, November 13, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 57140]]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Parts 1, 3, 4, 13, 31, 52, and 53
[FAR Case 93-009]
Federal Acquisition Regulation; Contingent Fee Representation
AGENCIES: 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 are proposing revising the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to delete the provision requiring an
offeror to provide a contingent fee representation and agreement and to
submit a statement of contingent or other fees. Also, the proposed rule
rescinds the information collection requirement under Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Clearance Number 9000-0003, Contingent Fee
Representation. This regulatory action was not subject to Office of
Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated
September 30, 1993.
DATES: Comments should be submitted on or before January 12, 1996, to
be considered in the formulation of a final rule.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties should submit written comments to:
General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VRS), 18th & F
Streets, NW., Room 4037, Washington, DC 20405.
Please cite FAR case 93-009 in all correspondence related to this
case.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Ralph DeStefano at (202) 501-1758 in reference to this FAR case.
For general information, contact the FAR Secretariat, Room 4037, GS
Building, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 501-4755. Please cite FAR case
93-009.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
FAR 3.404(b) requires the contracting officer to insert the
provision at 52.203-4, Contingent Fee Representation and Agreement, in
all solicitations, with five exceptions. The provision requires
offerors to provide a contingent fee representation as requested by the
contracting officer. When the representation is answered affirmatively,
the offeror must also provide a complete Standard Form (SF) 119,
Statement of Contingent or Other Fees or a signed statement indicating
the SF 119 was previously submitted to the same contracting office. The
proposed rule revises FAR 3.404 to remove the solicitation provision
and removes the accompanying subparts 3.406, 3.407, and 3.408 which
deal with the SF 119. FAR 3.409 and 3.410 have been renumbered.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule is not expected to 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. There is a slight
beneficial impact on small entities since offerors will no longer be
required to provide contingent fee representations and agreements or to
submit statements of contingent or other fees. The contingent fee
underlining policy still remains in place. An Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis has, therefore, not been performed. Comments from
small entities concerning the affected FAR subpart will be considered
in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610 of the Act. Such comments must be
submitted separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (FAR case 93-
009), in correspondence.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13) does not apply because
the proposed changes to the FAR do not impose recordkeeping or
information collection requirements, or collections of information from
offerors, contractors, or members of the public which 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 1, 3, 4, 13, 31, 52, and 53
Government procurement.
Dated: November 3, 1995.
C. Allen Olson,
Director, Office of Federal Acquisition Policy.
Therefore, it is proposed that 48 CFR Parts 1, 3, 4, 13, 31, 52,
and 53 be amended as set forth below:
PART 1--FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Parts 1, 3, 4, 13, 31, 52, and
53 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42
U.S.C. 2473(c).
1.106 [Amended]
2. Section 1.106 is amended in the list of ``FAR Segments'' and
``OMB Control Numbers'' following the introductory text by removing
``52.203-4'' and ``9000-0003'', and ``SF 119'' and ``9000-0003''.
PART 3--IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST
3. Section 3.404 is revised to read as follows:
3.404 Contract clause.
The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.203-5,
Covenant Against Contingent Fees, in all solicitations and contracts
exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold in part 13 other than
those for commercial items (see parts 2 and 12).
3.405 through 3.408-2 [Removed]
4. Sections 3.405 through 3.408-2 are removed.
3.409 and 3.410 [Redesignated as 3.405 and 3.406]
5. 3.409 and 3.410 are redesignated as 3.405 and 3.406.
6. The newly designated 3.406 is amended by revising the first
sentence to read as follows:
3.406 Records.
For enforcement purposes, agencies shall preserve any specific
evidence of one or more violations of 3.405(a), together or with all
other pertinent data, including a record of actions taken. * * *
PART 4--ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
7. Section 4.803 is amended by revising (a)(11) to read as follows:
4.803 Contents of contract files.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(11) Contractor's certifications and representations.
* * * * *
PART 13--SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES
13.111 [Amended]
8. Section 13.111 is amended by removing paragraph (c) and
redesignating paragraphs (d) through (j) as (c) through (i).
PART 31--CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES
31.205-38 [Amended]
9. Section 31.205-38 is amended at the end of paragraph (f) by
removing the parenthetical ``(see 3.408-2)''.
[[Page 57141]]
PART 52--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
52.203-4 [Reserved]
10. Section 52.203-4 is removed and reserved.
52.203-5 [Amended]
11. Section 53.203-5 is amended in the introductory paragraph by
removing ``3.404(c)'' and inserting ``3.404''.
PART 53--FORMS
53.203 [Amended]
12. Section 53.203 is amended by removing paragraph (a) and the
designation of paragraph (b).
53.301-119 [Removed]
13. Section 53.301-119 is removed.
[FR Doc. 95-27742 Filed 11-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27724 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Multiyear Contracting and Other Miscellaneous Provisions
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 218 (Monday, November 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56972-56975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27724]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
48 CFR Parts 216, 217, 233, 237, 247, 250, and 252
[DFARS Case 95-D703]
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Multiyear
Contracting and Other Miscellaneous Provisions
agency: Department of Defense (DoD).
action: Proposed rule with request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
summary: The Director of Defense Procurement is proposing to amend the
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to clarify
guidance on multiyear contracting; implement sections of the Federal
Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 pertaining to payment of claims
and Civil Reserve Air Fleet Contractors; and conform the DFARS to
recent revisions to the FAR pertaining to determinations and findings
and personal services contracts.
dates: Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to
the address shown below on or before January 12, 1996 to be considered
in the formulation of the final rule.
addresses: Interested parties should submit written comments to:
Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, PDUSD(A&T)DP(DAR), IMD 3D139,
3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telefax number (703)
602-0350. Please cite DFARS Case 95-D703 in all correspondence related
to this issue.
for further information contact: Ms. Melissa Rider, at (703) 602-0131.
Please cite DFARS Case 95-D703.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-355
(the Act), provides authorities that streamline the acquisition process
and minimize burdensome government-unique requirements. This proposed
rule implements the following sections of the Act:
Section 2301, Certification of Contract Claims--This section of the
Act repeals 10 U.S.C. 2410e and revises 10 U.S.C. 2410. The new
statutory language aligns DoD claims certification requirements with
those for civilian agencies (as implemented in the FAR at 33.207),
thereby eliminating the need for DFARS Subpart 233.70 and the
associated clause at DFARS 252.233-7000, both of which are deleted by
this proposed rule. The rule also amends DFARS 233.205 and 250.102 to
add references to 10 U.S.C. 2410(b), which places restrictions on
legislative payment of claims.
Section 3031, Definitions; Section 3032, Consolidation of
Provisions Relating to Contractual Commitment of Aircraft; and Section
3033, Use of Military Installations by Contractors--These sections of
the Act expand upon existing coverage in United States Code governing
the use of Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) Contractors, principally upon
the relationship between the DoD and CRAF contractors. The proposed
rule adds a new DFARS subpart at 247.70 to address the Act's definition
of a CRAF contractor, the obligations of a CRAF contractor to the
Government, and how the CRAF program impacts the Government's choice of
air transportation sources.
This proposed rule also reorganizes and clarifies DFARS guidance
pertaining to multiyear contracting in Subpart 217.1. The revised
coverage
[[Page 56973]]
contains DoD-unique statutory multiyear contracting requirements
applicable to services, supplies, weapon systems, and economic order
quantity procurements.
In addition, the proposed rule amends the DFARS as follows to
conform to recent revisions to the FAR: (1) The rule deletes DFARS
coverage at 216.301-3 which addresses a determination and findings
requirement for the use of the cost-reimbursement contracts that was
eliminated from the FAR by Item IV of Federal Acquisition Circular 90-
30 (60 FR 37772, July 21, 1995); (2) The rule amends DFARS coverage on
personal services contracts at 237.104 to remove the reference to ``GS-
18,'' Although ``GS-18'' pay rates now correlate to ``SES 6'' under
current Federal grade structures, recent changes to 5 CFR 304.105(a) do
not allow increased payments to certain professional categories. The
proposed change to DFARS 237.104 is related to the FAR revisions
pertaining to expert services published as Item II of Federal
Acquisition Circular 90-31 (60 FR 42648, August 16, 1995), as DFARS
237.104 establishes a ``cap'' on the rates that can be paid such
experts.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The proposed rule is not expected to 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 rule
primarily reorganizes existing DFARS coverage on multiyear contracting
for clarity; adds a new subpart which only applies to the acquisition
of air transportation; and makes minor revisions to conform the DFARS
to statutory or regulatory requirements. An initial regulatory
flexibility analysis, therefore, has not been performed. Comments from
small entities concerning the affected DFARS subparts will be
considered in accordance with Section 610 of the Act. Such comments
must be submitted separately and cite DFARS Case 95-D703 in
correspondence.
C. The Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed
rule does not impose recordkeeping or information collection
requirements which 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 216, 217, 233, 237, 247, 250, and
252
Government procurement.
Michele P. Peterson,
Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council.
Therefore, it is proposed that 48 CFR Parts 216, 217, 233, 237,
247, 250, and 252 be amended as follows:
PART 216--TYPES OF CONTRACTS
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Parts 216, 217, 233, 237, 247,
250, and 252 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.
216.301 and 216.301-3 [Removed]
2. Sections 216.301 and 216.301-3 are removed.
PART 217--SPECIAL CONTRACTING METHODS
3. Subpart 217.1 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart 217.1--Multiyear Contracting
Sec.
217.101 Definitions.
217.170-1 All multiyear contracts.
217.170-2 Multiyear contracts used to purchase services.
217.170-3 Multiyear contracts used to purchase supplies.
217.170-4 Multiyear contracts for weapon systems.
217.170-5 Multiyear contracts that employ economic order quantity
procurement.
217.101 Definitions.
Advance procurement, as used in this subpart, means an exception to
the full funding policy which allows acquisition of long leadtime items
(advance long lead acquisition) or economic order quantities (EOQ) of
items (advance EOQ acquisition) in a fiscal year in advance of that in
which the related end item is to be acquired. Advance procurements may
include materials, parts, and components as well as costs associated
with the further processing of those materials, parts, and components.
217.170-1 All multiyear contracts.
(a) The Secretary of Defense may instruct the head of the agency
proposing a multiyear contract to include in that contract negotiated
priced options for varying the quantities of end items procured (10
U.S.C. 2306b(j)).
(b) Before a multiyear contract is awarded, the cost of that
contract shall be compared against the cost of an annual procurement
approach, using a present value analysis. The multiyear contract shall
not be awarded unless the analysis shows it results in the lower cost
(Section 9021, Public Law 101-165, and similar sections in subsequent
Defense appropriations acts).
(c) The head of the agency shall provide written notice to the
Committees on Appropriations and National Security in the House of
Representatives and in the Senate at least 10 days before termination
of any multiyear contract authorized by Congress (Section 9021, Public
Law 101-165, and similar sections in subsequent Defense appropriations
acts.)
217.170-2 Multiyear contracts used to purchase services.
(a) Limitations.
(i) 10 U.S.C. 2306(g).
(A) DoD may enter into multiyear acquisitions for the following
services (and items of supply relating to such services), even though
funds are limited by statute to obligation only during the fiscal year
for which they were appropriated:
(1) Operation, maintenance, and support of facilities and
installations;
(2) Maintenance or modification of aircraft, ships, vehicles, and
other highly complex military equipment;
(3) Specialized training requiring high quality instructor skills
(e.g., training for pilots and other aircrew members or foreign
language training); and
(4) Base services (e.g., ground maintenance, in-plane refueling,
bus transportation, and refuse collection and disposal).
(B) This authority may be used as long as the contract--
(1) Does not extend beyond five years;
(2) Complies with FAR 17.101 through 17.105; and
(3) Performance years do not extend beyond the end of any fiscal
year.
(ii) 10 U.S.C. 2829.
(A) DoD may enter into multiyear contracts for supplies and
services required for management, maintenance, and operation of
military family housing and may pay the costs of such contracts for
each year out of annual appropriations for that year.
(B) This authority may be used as long as the contract--
(1) Does not extend beyond four years;
(2) Complies with FAR 17.101 through 17.105; and
(3) Performance years do not extend beyond the end of any fiscal
year.
(iii) Award of a multiyear contract for services requires a written
determination by the head of the agency (10 U.S.C. 2306(g)(1)) that--
(A) There will be a continuing need for the services and incidental
supplies;
(B) Furnishing the services and incidental supplies will require--
[[Page 56974]]
(1) A substantial initial investment in plant or equipment; or
(2) The incurrence of substantial contingent liabilities for the
assembly, training or transportation of a specialized work force; and
(C) Using a multiyear contract will be in the best interest of the
United States by encouraging effective competition and promoting
economical business operations (e.g., economic-lot purchases and more
efficient production rates).
217.170-3 Multiyear contracts used to purchase supplies.
(a) Applicability. This subsection applies to all multiyear
contracts for supplies, including weapon systems. For policies that
apply only to multiyear contracts for weapon systems, see 217.107-4.
(b) A multiyear contract for supplies may be used if, in addition
to the conditions listed in FAR 17.105-1 (b)(1) through (5), the use of
such contract will promote the national security of the United States.
(c) The head of the agency shall provide written notice to the
Committees on Appropriations and National Security in the House of
Representatives and in the Senate at least 30 days before the
contracting officer awards--
(1) A multiyear contract containing a cancellation ceiling in
excess of $100 million (10 U.S.C. 2306b(g)); or
(2) A multiyear contract including an unfunded contingent liability
in excess of $20 million (section 9021, Public Law 101-165, and similar
sections in subsequent Defense appropriations acts).
(d) Agencies shall establish reporting procedures to meet the
requirements of paragraph (c) of this subsection. Submit copies of the
notifications to the Director of Defense Procurement, Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology) (OUSD(A&T)/DP),
and to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
(Program/Budget) (OASD(C)(P/B)).
217.170-4 Multiyear contracts for weapon systems.
(a) As authorized by 10 U.S.C. 2306b(a), and subject to the
conditions in paragraph (b) of this subsection, the head of the agency
may enter into a multiyear contract for--
(1) A weapon system, associated items and services, and logistics
support for that weapon system; and
(2) Advance procurement of components, parts, and materials
necessary to manufacture a weapon system, including advance procurement
to achieve economic lot purchases or more efficient production rates.
See 217.170-5 regarding economic order quantity procurement.
(b) The following conditions must be satisfied before a multiyear
contract may be awarded under the authority described in paragraph (a)
of this subsection:
(1) The Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the current
five-year defense program fully funds the support costs associated with
the multiyear program (10 U.S.C. 2306b(i)(1)(A));
(2) The proposed multiyear contract provides for production at not
less than minimum economic rates, given the existing tooling and
facilities (10 U.S.C. 2306b(i)(1)(B));
(3) If the value of the multiyear contract exceeds $500,000,000,
the applicable DoD appropriations act specifically provides that a
multiyear contract may be used to procure the particular system or
system component (Section 9021, Public Law 101-165, and similar
sections in subsequent Defense appropriations acts); and
(4) All other requirements of law are met and there are no other
statutory restrictions on the use of a multiyear contract for the
specific system or component, or statute provides for award of
multiyear contracts (Section 9021, Public Law 101-165, and similar
sections in subsequent Defense appropriations acts). One such
restriction may be achieving specified cost savings. If the agency
finds, after negotiations with the contractor(s) that the specified
savings cannot be achieved, the head of the agency shall assess the
savings that, nevertheless, could be achieved by using a multiyear
contract. If the savings are substantial, the head of the agency may
request relief from the law's specific savings requirement. The request
shall--
(i) Quantify the savings that can be achieved;
(ii) Explain any other benefits to the Government of using the
multiyear contract;
(iii) Include details about the negotiated contract terms and
conditions; and
(iv) Be submitted to OUSD(A&T)/DP for transmission to Congress via
the Secretary of Defense and the President (10 U.S.C. 2306b(i)(2)).
217.170-5 Multiyear contracts that employ economic order quantity
procurement.
The head of the agency shall provide written notice to the
Committees on Appropriations and National Security in the House of
Representatives and in the Senate at least 30 days before awarding--
(a) A multiyear contract providing for economic order quantity
purchases in excess of $20 million in any year; or
(b) A contract for advance procurement leading to a multiyear
contract that employs economic order quantity procurement in excess of
$20 million in any year (Section 9021, Public Law 101-165 and similar
sections in subsequent Defense appropriations acts).
PART 233--PROTESTS, DISPUTES, AND APPEALS
4. Section 233.205 is added to read as follows:
233.205 Relationship of the Act to Public Law 805-804.
Limitation on payment. For payment of either a claim under the
Contract Disputes Act of 1978 or equitable adjustment or other
particular relief under Public Law 85-804, see 10 U.S.C. 2410(b).
Subpart 233.70--[Removed]
5. Subpart 233.70 is removed.
PART 237--SERVICE CONTRACTING
6. Section 237.104 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(i) to read
as follows:
237.104 Personal services contracts.
* * * * *
(f)(i) Payment to each expert or consultant for personal services
under 5 U.S.C. 3109 shall not exceed the highest rate fixed by the
Classification Act Schedules for grade GS-15 (see 5 CFR 304.105(a)).
* * * * *
PART 247--TRANSPORTATION
7. Subpart 247.70 is added to read as follows:
Subpart 247.70--Air Transportation by Civil Reserve Air Fleet
Contractors
Sec.
247.7000 Scope of subpart.
247.7001 Definitions.
247.7002 Applicability.
247.7003 Air transportation of DoD passengers and cargo.
247.7004 Civil Reserve Air Fleet.
247.7000 Scope of subpart.
This subpart implements the National Security Decision Directive
Number 280, National Airlift Policy, dated June 24, 1987, DoD Policy
Memorandum on Transportation and Traffic Management, dated June 16,
1994, and 10 U.S.C. 9513, Use of Military Installations by Civil
Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) Contractors. The national defense airlift
objective is to ensure that military and civil airlift
[[Page 56975]]
resources will be able to meet defense mobilization and deployment
requirements in support of U.S. defense and foreign policy commitments.
In support of this objective, DoD requirements shall be satisfied by
the procurement of airlift from commercial air carriers participating
in the CRAF program.
247.7001 Definitions.
As used in this subpart--
CRAF contractor means a U.S. civilian air carrier holding a
certificate under Title 49 United States Code, Section 41102, which
participates in the CRAF program. This definition complies with the
requirements of the International Air Transportation Fair Competitive
Practices Act of 1974 (49 U.S.C. 40118, Fly American Act), as
implemented in FAR subpart 47.4.
CRAF participation means acceptance of the aircraft offered by the
contractor into the CRAF program prescribed by the Commander-in-Chief,
U.S. Transportation Command, and contractor satisfaction of the other
requirements of that program.
CRAF Program means a cooperative plan developed by DoD with the
U.S. civilian air carrier industry to augment DoD organic airlift
capability during national emergencies and defense-oriented situations.
247.7002 Applicability.
This subpart applies to all contracting methods used to acquire air
transportation for DoD passengers or property. The contract methods
affected include agreements (freight forwarding agreements), bills of
lading, transportation requests, tenders, and other transportation
forms as well as more traditional contract methods such as contracts
and purchase orders.
247.7003 Air transportation of DoD passengers and cargo.
(a) CRAF contractors shall be used to transport DoD passengers and
cargo by air unless the contracting officer determines--
(1) Available CRAF contractor airlift is not suitable and
responsive to the requirement;
(2) Law, regulation, or international agreement precludes the use
of a CRAF contractor; or
(3) The cost of transportation by a CRAF contractor is
unreasonable.
(b) If the total transportation charge exceeds $500,000, the
contracting officer shall obtain the concurrence of U.S. Transportation
Command (USTRANSCOM/TCJA) and furnish a copy of the determination
described in paragraph (a) of this section to USTRANSCOM/TCJA before
using a non-CRAF carrier.
(c) Each contract or agreement shall provide for immediate
termination in the event a contractor fails to maintain CRAF
membership.
247.7004 Civil Reserve Air Fleet.
Contractor's requests for membership in the CRAF program are
processed by the Assistant for Civil Air, Air Mobility Command (AMC),
Scott AFB IL 62225-5001. Participation requires the offer and
commitment of contractor owned or controlled aircraft, suitable and
responsive to military requirements, to the CRAF program and the
execution of a CRAF contract. The Assistant for Civil Air, AMC,
maintains a current list of CRAF contractors and may be contacted
regarding contractor eligibility and membership.
PART 250--EXTRAORDINARY CONTRACTUAL ACTIONS
8. Section 250.102 is added to read as follows:
250.102 Policy.
Limitation on payment. Prior to payment of either an equitable
adjustment or other particular relief under Public Law 85-804, see 10
U.S.C. 2410(b).
PART 252--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
252.233-7000 [Removed]
9. Section 252.233-7000 is removed.
[FR Doc. 95-27724 Filed 11-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27723 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Ground and Flight Risk
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 218 (Monday, November 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56975-56976]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27723]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
48 CFR Part 252
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Ground and
Flight Risk
AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Director of Defense Procurement is proposing to amend the
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to clarify
who approves flight crew members, increase the amount of the
contractor's financial responsibility for loss or damage to the
aircraft from $1,000 to $25,000, and make other minor changes in the
clauses entitled ``Ground and Flight Risk'' and ``Aircraft Flight
Risks.''
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to
the address shown below on or before January 12, 1996, to be considered
in the formulation of the final rule.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties should submit written comments to:
Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, Attn: Ms. Amy Williams, PDUSD
(A&T) DP (DAR), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, D.C.
20301-3062. Telefax number (703) 602-0350. Please cite DFARS Case 95-
D028 in all correspondence related to this issue.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Williams, (703) 602-0131.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
This proposed rule amends the clauses at DFARS 252.228-7001, Ground
and Flight Risk, and 252.228-7002, Aircraft Flight Risks, based on the
recommendations of a Tri-Service Process Review Team, which conducted
an intensive 4-month study of contractor flight operations. The most
substantive issues relate to approval of the flight crew members and
the amount of the contractor's financial responsibility for loss or
damage to the aircraft. Procedures for authorizing contractor's flight
crew members and flight are clearly delegated to the Government Flight
Representative in the combined, tri-service regulation entitled
``Contractor's Flight and Ground Operations.'' With regard to the
contractor's financial responsibility for loss or damage to the
aircraft, the proposed rule increases the amount from $1,000 to
$25,000, because $1,000 does not adequately compensate the Government
for the processing costs required to recover the $1,000, and $1,000
does not operate as an economic incentive for the contractor to adhere
to prudent care of property.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The proposed rule is not expected to 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 there are
only a limited number of defense aviation contractors to which these
DFARS clauses apply, and few of those contractors are small businesses.
An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has, therefore, not been
performed. Comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS
subpart will be considered in accordance with Section 610 of the Act.
Such comments must be submitted separately and cite DFARS Case 95-D028
in correspondence.
[[Page 56976]]
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposed rule does not impose any reporting or recordkeeping
requirements which require OMB approval under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 252
Government procurement.
Michele P. Peterson,
Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council.
Therefore, it is proposed that 48 CFR Part 252 be amended as
follows:
PART 252--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Part 252 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.
2. Section 252.228-7001 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(2),
(e), (i) introductory text, (i)(1), (i)(2) introductory text, and (k)
to read as follows:
252.228-7001 Ground and flight risk.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Is sustained during flight if the flight crew members have not
been approved in writing as delineated in the combined, tri-service
regulation entitled ``Contractor's Flight and Ground Operations'' (Air
Force Regulation 55-22, Army Regulation 95-20, NAVAIR Instruction
3710.1C; and Defense Logistics Agency Manual 8210.1);
* * * * *
(e) With the exception of damage, loss, or destruction in flight,
the Contractor assumes the risk and shall be responsible for the first
$25,000 of loss or damage to the aircraft in the open or during
operation resulting from each separate event, except for reasonable
wear and tear and to the extent the loss or damage is caused by
negligence of Government personnel. If the Government elects to require
that the aircraft be replaced or restored by the Contractor to its
condition immediately prior to the damage, the equitable adjustment in
the price authorized by paragraph (i) of this clause shall not include
the dollar amount of the risk assumed by the Contractor. In the event
the Government does not elect repair or replacement, the Contractor
agrees to credit the contract price or pay the Government $25,000 (or
the amount of the loss, if less) as directed by the Contracting
Officer.
* * * * *
(i) If prior to delivery and acceptance by the Government, the
aircraft is damaged, lost, or destroyed and the Government assumed the
risk, the Government shall either--
(1) Require that the aircraft be replaced or restored by the
Contractor to the condition immediately prior to the damage, in which
event the Contracting Officer will make an equitable adjustment in the
contract price and the time for contract performance; or
(2) Terminate this contract with respect to the aircraft. If this
contract is terminated with respect to the aircraft, the Contractor
shall be paid the contract price for the aircraft (or if applicable,
any work to be performed on the aircraft) less any amount the
Contracting Officer determines--
* * * * *
(k) The Contractor agrees to be bound by the operating procedures
contained in the combined, tri-service regulation entitled
``Contractor's Flight and Ground Operations'' in effect on the date of
contract award.
3. Section 252.228-7002 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)
introductory text and (e) to read as follows:
252.228-7002 Aircraft flight risks.
* * * * *
(c) Unless the flight crew members previously have been approved in
writing as delineated in the combined, tri-service regulation entitled
``Contractor's Flight and Ground Operations'' (Air Force Regulation 55-
22, Army Regulation 95-20, NAVAIR Instruction 3710.1C; and Defense
Logistics Agency Manual 8210.1), the Contractor shall not be--
* * * * *
(e) The Contractor agrees to be bound by the operating procedures
contained in the combined, tri-service regulation entitled
``Contractor's Flight and Ground Operations'' in effect on date of
contract award.
[FR Doc. 95-27723 Filed 11-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27502 Emergency Relief Program
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 218 (Monday, November 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56962-56964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27502]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 668
[FHWA Docket No. 95-25]
RIN 2125-AD60
Emergency Relief Program
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FHWA proposes to amend its regulation on the emergency
relief (ER) program in order to incorporate changes made by the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). The
time period in which the Federal share payable for certain eligible
emergency repairs is 100 percent would be extended from 90 days to 180
days; the limit for total obligations for ER projects in any fiscal
year in the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth
of Northern Mariana Islands would be increased from $5 million to $20
million; and the term ``Federal-aid highway systems'' would be replaced
with the term ``Federal-aid highways'' to conform with terminology now
used to describe highways eligible for Federal-aid ER assistance. In
addition, various statements clarifying eligible uses of ER funding
would be incorporated into the regulation.
DATES: Written comments are due on or before January 12, 1996. Comments
received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: All written, signed comments should refer to the docket
number that appears at the top of this document and should be submitted
to Room 4232, HCC-10, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590.
All comments and suggestions received will be available for examination
at the above address between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of
receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mohan P. Pillay, Office of
Engineering, 202-366-4655, or Wilbert Baccus, Office of the Chief
Counsel, 202-366-0780, FHWA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C.
20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The current FHWA regulations implementing the emergency relief
program are found primarily in 23 CFR part 668. Subpart A of part 668
sets forth the procedures for the administration of ER funds for the
repair or reconstruction of Federal-aid highways. The FHWA intends to
amend these regulations in the following manner and for the reasons
indicated below.
In subpart A, the terms ``Federal-aid system'' and ``Federal-aid
highway system'' would be replaced with the term ``Federal-aid
highways.'' The revision is in accordance with The Dire Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 102-302, 106 Stat. 248) which
amended 23 U.S.C. 125(b) by replacing the term ``Federal-aid highway
systems including the Interstate System'' with the term ``Federal-aid
highways.''
In section 668.101, the second sentence would be amended by
replacing ``Federal roads not on the Federal-aid system'' with ``roads
on Federal lands.'' This modification reflects the change in
terminology used to describe highways eligible for Federal assistance
and clarifies the cross reference to emergency relief funding for roads
on Federal lands which is contained in subpart B of part 668.
Section 668.105(e) would be amended by adding the phrase ``or by a
toll authority for repair of the highway facility'' after the words
``political subdivision'' in the last sentence. This amendment would
require that an ER project receive a credit for that portion of
insurance proceeds recovered by a toll authority that are attributable
to the cost of capital improvements.
In section 668.107, the last sentence in paragraph (a) would be
amended to extend to 180 days the current 90-day time period following
a natural disaster or catastrophic failure in which the Federal share
payable for certain eligible emergency repair costs may amount to 100
percent. This amendment would be made to conform section 668.107(a) to
23 U.S.C 120(e) (as amended by section 1022 of the ISTEA).
In section 668.107, the second sentence of paragraph (b) would be
amended to raise to $20 million the current $5 million limit on the
total amount of obligations for emergency relief projects in any fiscal
year in the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands. This amendment would parallel an
amendment made to 23 U.S.C. 125(b)(2) by section 1022(b) of the ISTEA.
Section 668.109 would be amended to expand and clarify the eligible
uses for ER funds based on recent experiences in administering the ER
program. ER funds would be eligible to participate in:
1. Repair of traffic damage to roadway surfaces, including those on
designated detours, attributable to emergency relief work.
2. Repair of damage to the surface of Federal-aid highways caused
by traffic making necessary repairs to other transportation facilities
(for example, trucks hauling materials to repair a damaged railroad
facility).
3. Raising of roadway grades temporarily to maintain essential
traffic service during flooding.
4. Raising grades of critical Federal-aid highways faced with long-
term loss of use due to an unprecedented rising in basin water level.
5. Repair of toll facilities when the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 129
are met.
Section 668.109 (c)(1) would be amended to clarify the extent to
which certain activities listed under heavy maintenance are eligible
for ER participation. The amendment would amend the policy that slope
damage that does not extend into the travelled way is not eligible for
ER participation. It is FHWA's current policy to consider repair of
significant slip-outs of cut or fill slopes, even if the slip-outs do
not extend into the travelled way, as an activity potentially eligible
for ER funding.
Section 668.109 (c)(2) would be amended to cross-reference the
newly added Section 668.109(b)(7) which discusses the extent to which
ER funding can participate in the repair of damage to roadway surfaces
caused by traffic.
Section 668.109 (c)(6) would be amended to cross-reference the
newly added section 668.109(b)(9) which discusses the extent to which
ER funding can participate in raising grades of Federal-aid highways
due to an unprecedented rise in basin water levels.
Section 668.109(c)(7) would be amended to redefine the term
``scheduled.'' As currently defined, the term refers to an approved
Federal-aid program, which is a program incorporating various projects
submitted by a State to the FHWA for approval in accordance with the
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 105; however, 23 U.S.C. 105 has been
superseded by the new requirements of 23 U.S.C. 135 and, as a
[[Page 56963]]
result, State now is required to develop a Statewide transportation
improvement program which is to be submitted to the FHWA for approval.
The existing definition of ``scheduled'' also refers to the current or
next fiscal year's Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation
Program or to a determination if contract plans are prepared. To update
and simplify the definition of ``scheduled,'' the proposed definition
would refer only to the approved Statewide transportation improvement
program.
A new paragraph (c)(10) would be added to Section 668.109 to make
clear that the loss of toll revenue is not eligible for reimbursement.
Section 668.113(a) would be amended to remove the outdated
reference to the program requirements of 23 CFR part 630. The
requirements for a program of ER projects are adequately described in
section 668.113 and therefore cross-reference to 23 CFR part 630 is no
longer needed.
Section 668.113(b)(1) would be amended to reflect the current
policy on project review, oversight, and administration as applicable
to ER projects. In those cases where a regular Federal-aid project (in
a State) similar to the ER project would be handled under the
certification acceptance procedures found in 23 U.S.C. 117 or the
project oversight exceptions found in 23 U.S.C. 106, the ER project can
be handled under these alternate procedures subject to the following
two conditions: (1) Any betterment to be incorporated into the project
and for which ER funding is requested must receive prior FHWA approval,
and (2) the FHWA reserves the right to conduct final inspections on ER
projects as deemed appropriate.
A few minor editorial changes in sections 668.109(b)(3) and
668.11(b)(2) would be made for clarity.
Rulemaking Analysis and Notices
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available
for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received
after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable, but the FHWA may issue a final
rule at any time after the close of the comment period. In addition to
the late comments, the FHWA will also continue to file relevant
information in the docket as it becomes available after the comment
closing date, and interested persons should continue to examine the
docket for new material.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined that this action is not a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or
significant within the meaning of Department of Transportation
regulatory policies and procedures. It is anticipated that the economic
impact of this rulemaking will be minimal. These proposed changes will
not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. In
addition, these changes will not interfere with any action taken or
planned by another agency and will not materially alter the budgetary
impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. This
rulemaking merely amends current regulations implementing the emergency
relief program to incorporate changes made to this program by Congress
in the ISTEA. It is not anticipated that these proposed changes would
affect the total Federal funding available under the ER program.
Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this rule on small
entities. Based on the evaluation, the FHWA hereby certifies that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. These amendments would only clarify and
simplify procedures used for providing emergency relief assistance to
States in accordance with the existing laws, regulations and guidance.
The ER funds received by the States would not be significantly affected
by these proposed amendments. States are not included in the definition
of ``small entity'' set forth in 5 U.S.C. 601. Therefore, this action
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive order 12612, and it has been determined
that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. These proposed
amendments would not preempt any State law or State regulation, and no
additional costs or burdens would be imposed on the States thereby. In
addition, this rule would not affect the States' ability to discharge
traditional State governmental functions.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205,
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not contain a collection of information
requirement for the purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44
U.S.C. 3501-3500.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has
determined that this action would not have any effect on the quality of
the environment.
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda
in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the
heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action
with the Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 668
Disaster assistance, Grant programs-transportation, Highways and
roads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Issued on: October 23, 1995.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA proposes to amend title
23, code of Federal Regulations, part 668 as set forth below.
PART 668--EMERGENCY RELIEF PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for part 668 is added to read as set
forth below and the authority citations for subparts A and B are
removed:
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101, 120(e), 125 and 315; 49 CFR 1.48(b).
[[Page 56964]]
Subpart A--Procedures for Federal-Aid Highways
Sec. 668.101 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 668.101, the second sentence is amended by removing the
words ``Federal roads not on the Federal-aid system'' and adding in
their stead the words ``roads on Federal lands''.
Sec. 668.103 [Amended]
3. Section 668.103 is amended by removing the paragraph
designations (a) through (i) from the definitions; in the definition
for ``Applicant'' by removing the words ``Federal-aid highway system''
and adding in their place the words ``Federal-aid highways''.
Sec. 668.105 [Amended]
4. In Sec. 668.105, the last sentence of paragraph (e) is amended
by adding the words ``or by a toll authority for repair of the highway
facility'' after the words ``political subdivision''.
Sec. 668.107 [Amended]
5. Section 668.107, is amended in paragraph (a) by removing the
words ``within 90 days'' and adding in their place the words ``within
180 days'' and in paragraph (b) by removing the figure ``$5 million''
and adding in its place the figure ``$20 million''.
6. Section 668.109, is amended in paragraph (b)(3) by revising the
misspelled word ``Actural'' to read ``Actual''; in paragraph (b)(5) by
removing the word ``and'' after the semicolon; by removing the period
at the end of paragraph (b)(6) and adding a semicolon in its place; by
adding paragraphs (b)(7), (b)(8), (b)(9), and (b)(10); by republishing
the introductory text of paragraph (c); by revising paragraphs (c)(1),
(c)(2), (c)(6), and (c)(7); by removing the period at the end of
paragraph (c)(8) and adding ``; and'' in its place; and by adding
paragraph (c)(9) to read as follows:
Sec. 668.109 Eligibility.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(7) Repair of traffic damage to roadway surfaces, including those
on designated detours, caused by the movement of traffic during or
following the incident period attributable to emergency relief work;
and repair of damage to surface of Federal-aid highways caused by
traffic making necessary repairs to Federal-aid highways as well as
traffic making repairs to other transportation facilities, i.e.,
railroads, airports, ports, etc.;
(8) Temporary work to maintain essential traffic, such as, raising
a roadway grade during a period of flooding by placing fill and
temporary surface material;
(9) Raising the grades of critical Federal-aid highways faced with
long-term loss of use due to basin flooding as defined by an
unprecedented rise in basin water level both in magnitude and time
frame; and
(10) Repair of toll facilities when the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 129
are met. If a toll facility does not have an executed toll agreement
with the FHWA at the time of the disaster, a toll agreement may be
executed after the disaster to qualify for that disaster.
(c) ER funds may not participate in:
(1) Heavy maintenance such as repair of minor damages consisting
primarily of eroded shoulders, filled ditches and culverts, pavement
settlement, mud and debris deposits, slope sloughing, slides, and slip-
outs in cut or fill slopes. In order to simplify the inspection and
estimating process, heavy maintenance may be defined using dollar
guidelines developed by the States and Divisions with Regional
concurrence;
(2) Repair of surface damage caused by traffic whether or not the
damage was aggravated by saturated subgrade or inundation, except for
traffic damage repair as noted in paragraph (b)(7) of this section;
* * * * *
(6) Repair or reconstruction of facilities affected by long-term,
pre-existing conditions or predictable developing situations, such as,
gradual, longterm rises in water levels in basins or slow moving
slides;
(7) Permanent repair or replacement of deficient bridges scheduled
for replacement with other funds. A project is considered scheduled if
the construction phase is included in the FHWA approved Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP);
* * * * *
(9) Reimbursing loss of toll revenue.
* * * * *
Sec. 668.111 [Amended]
7. In Sec. 668.111, paragraph (b)(2) is amended by removing the
words ``receipt of''.
8. In Sec. 668.113, paragraph (a) is amended by revising the first
and second sentences, and paragraph (b)(1) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 668.113 Program and project procedures.
(a) Immediately after approval of an application, the FHWA Division
Administrator will notify the applicant to proceed with preparation of
a program which defines the work needed to restore or replace the
damaged facilities. It should be submitted to the FHWA Division
Administrator within 3 months of receipt of this notification. * * *
(b) Project procedures. (1) Projects for permanent repairs shall be
processed in accordance with regular Federal-aid procedures, except in
those cases where a regular Federal-aid project (in a State) similar to
the ER project would be handled under the certification acceptance
procedures found in 23 U.S.C. 117 or the project oversight exceptions
found in 23 U.S.C. 106, the ER project can be handled under these
alternate procedures subject to the following two conditions:
(i) Any betterment to be incorporated into the project and for
which ER funding is requested must receive prior FHWA approval; and
(ii) The FHWA reserves the right to conduct final inspections on ER
projects as deemed appropriate.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-27502 Filed 11-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.