issue-1995-11-17•Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-11-17
Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-11-17
issue-1995-11-17Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-11-17Proposed 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. 95-28461 Meeting With Manufacturers of Vehicles Built in Two or More Stages
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 222 (Friday, November 17, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57693-57695]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28461]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57694]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 567 and 568
[Docket No. 91-62, Notice 2]
RIN 2127-AE27
Meeting With Manufacturers of Vehicles Built in Two or More
Stages
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces a public meeting at which NHTSA will
seek information from final stage and intermediate manufacturers of
vehicles built in two or more stages, manufacturers of incomplete
vehicles, and the public on certification of vehicles that are
manufactured in stages. NHTSA is requesting suggestions for actions
with respect to NHTSA's regulations and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards that govern the certification of such vehicles. This notice
also invites written comments on the same subject.
The meeting will be held on December 12, 1995 at 9:00 a.m. The
agency is interested in obtaining the views of its customers both
orally and in writing. An agenda for the meeting will be made based on
the number of persons wishing to make oral presentations and will be
available on the day of the meeting. Those wishing to make oral
presentations at the meeting should contact Charles Hott, at the
address or telephone number listed below, by November 24, 1995.
DATES: The meeting will be held on December 12, 1995 at 9:00 a.m.
Written comments. Written comments are due by January 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Public meeting. The public meeting will be held at the
following location: Holiday Inn, Fair-Oaks Mall, 11787 Lee Jackson
Memorial Highway, Fairfax, VA 22033, Tel: (703) 352-2525, Fax: (703)
352-4471.
Written comments. All written comments should be mailed to the
Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room
5109, 400 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Please refer to the
docket number when submitting written comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hott, Office of Vehicle Safety
Standards, NPS-15, NHTSA, 400 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590
(telephone 202-366-0247).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Reform
Calling for a new approach to the way Government regulate the
private sector, President Clinton asked Executive Branch agencies to
improve the regulatory process. Specifically, the President requested
that agencies: (1) Cut obsolete regulations; (2) reward agency and
regulator performance by rewarding results, not red tape; (3) create
grassroots partnerships by meeting with those affected by regulations
and other interested parties; and (4) use consensual rulemaking, such
as regulatory negotiation, more frequently.
This is the first of NHTSA's announced meetings to create
grassroots partnerships with regulated industries that do not deal with
NHTSA on a daily basis. By meeting with these groups, NHTSA believes
that it can build a better understanding of their needs and concerns.
Other groups that the agency will have meetings with are school bus
manufacturers, heavy truck manufacturers, child seat manufacturers,
lamp/reflector manufacturers, and small volume manufacturers.
NHTSA recognizes that manufacturers who build vehicles in more than
one stage are faced with somewhat different problems than manufacturers
who build vehicles in a single stage, especially when it comes to
certifying vehicles to meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSS). Therefore, the agency has decided to hold a public meeting to
listen to the views of these groups and others with respect to
improving the vehicle certification process.
The agency is interested in obtaining the views of incomplete,
intermediate and final stage manufacturers on how the agency can
improve its regulations that govern the manufacture of vehicles in more
than one stage. Suggestions should be accompanied by a statement of the
rationale for the proposed action and of the expected consequences of
that action. Recommendations should address at least the following
considerations:
administrative/compliance burdens
cost effectiveness
costs of the existing regulation and the proposed changes to consumers
costs of testing or certification to regulated parties
effects on safety
effects on small business
enforceability of the standard
whether the regulation reflects a ``common sense'' approach to solving
the problem
Written statements should be as specific as possible and provide
the best available supporting information. Statements also should
specify whether any change recommended in the regulatory process would
require a legislative change in NHTSA's authority.
Certification of Vehicles Manufactured in More Than One Stage
In National Truck and Equipment Association v. NHTSA, 919 F.2d 1148
(6th Cir. 1990), the 6th Circuit remanded a portion of a final rule
that extended the requirements of FMVSS No. 204 to trucks and
multipurpose passenger vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings of up
to 10,000 pounds. A majority of the court concluded that the final rule
was not practicable for final stage manufacturers that cannot ``pass
through'' the certification of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. The
court cited passages in the preamble in which NHTSA stated that most
final stage manufacturers did not have the capability to perform
dynamic testing or in-house engineering analysis, as well as the fact
that ``pass through'' certification is not available unless the
incomplete vehicle is a chassis cab.
In response to the court decision, on December 3, 1991, NHTSA
published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 56 FR 61392, to amend
the certification requirements that apply to incomplete vehicles. In
the NPRM, the agency proposed to extend the certification labeling
requirements that currently apply only to manufacturers of chassis-cabs
to all incomplete vehicle manufacturers, and to permit all final stage
manufacturers to ``pass through'' the certification of the incomplete
vehicle.
Incomplete vehicles are vehicles that include at least a frame and
chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and
braking system, but need further manufacturing to become completed
vehicles. Currently, incomplete vehicle manufacturers are required to
provide a document with every incomplete vehicle that establishes
guidelines for completing the vehicle. For chassis-cabs (incomplete
vehicles with completed occupant compartments), incomplete vehicle
manufacturers are currently required both to provide a guidance
document and to affix a certification label to each chassis cab. If the
intermediate and final stage manufacturers complete the chassis-cab in
accordance with the guidelines provided in the guidance document, the
final stage manufacturer is allowed to ``pass through'' the
certification of the
[[Page 57695]]
chassis-cab manufacturer, rather than itself certifying equipment or
components manufactured by another manufacturer. Currently,
manufacturers of incomplete vehicles that are not chassis cabs because
they lack completed occupant compartments (e.g., ``stripped chassis''
or ``bare chassis'') are not required to certify the conformity of
their vehicles to NHTSA safety standards. However, like the chassis-cab
manufacturers, they are required to provide a guidance document with
every vehicle that establishes guidelines for completing the vehicle.
If the intermediate and/or final stage manufacturer follows the
guidelines, the completed vehicle will conform to the applicable
FMVSSs. The final stage manufacturer is required to place on the
completed vehicle a certification label stating that the vehicle meets
all applicable FMVSSs.
The NPRM proposing the amendments to the regulations governing
certification of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages engendered
considerable controversy and virtually no support. In the comments,
there was a clear division in positions among the various segments of
the multistage vehicle industry. The three major domestic manufacturers
generally opposed the rule, although General Motors did propose some
changes to the text and a delay of the effective date. The final stage
manufacturers of commercial vehicles, represented by the National Truck
Equipment Association (NTEA), favored the portion of the rule which
provided for certification of incomplete vehicles other than chassis
cabs, but stated that the proposed rule did not resolve the
difficulties faced by numerous final stage manufacturers that depart
from the guidelines set by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. The
Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) responded that the
proposed rule did not resolve the most serious problems faced by the
final stage manufacturers which must certify compliance with standards
that include dynamic testing.
The agency performed a limited study of the multistage vehicle
manufacturing industry. The study was completed in August 1994 and has
been placed in the docket. (Docket Number 91-62) The study concluded
that final stage manufacturers lack timely information and guidance on
how to comply when new standards or amendments are promulgated; that
they rely primarily on customer needs and preferences in selecting
incomplete vehicles, with particular emphasis on cost; and that they
depend heavily on timely guidance and information from incomplete
vehicle manufacturers and trade associations.
The study also concluded that most final stage manufacturers, with
the exception of some very large van converters, must rely on outside
engineering services if they are to conduct dynamic testing of
completed vehicles. All rely heavily on their suppliers for
certification and warranty. The contractor noted the consensus among
final stage manufacturers who are van converters with respect to the
difficulties they faced in conducting dynamic testing for compliance
with FMVSS No. 208 during the 1992 model year launch, when that portion
of the Standard first took effect for light trucks, vans and sport
utility vehicles. They cited problems in obtaining critical dimensional
data on each vehicle make and model from the incomplete vehicle
manufacturers sufficiently in advance to be able to create the
necessary equipment to perform testing prior to the effective date of
the rule, and stated that this forced production delays and lost sales.
They contend that it is unrealistic for final stage manufacturers to be
held to the same effective dates as those imposed on single stage
manufacturers.
The agency believes that multistage vehicle certification is an
area in which negotiated rulemaking may be beneficial. Negotiated
rulemaking is a process in which representatives of all interests are
assembled to discuss the issue and all potential solutions, reach
consensus, and prepare a proposed rule for consideration by the agency.
After public comment on any proposal issued by the agency, the group
reconvenes to review the comments and make recommendations for a final
rule. This inclusive process is intended to make the rule more
acceptable to all affected interests and prevent the petitions for
reconsideration (and litigation) that often follow the issuance of a
final rule. The agency is interested in the commenters' views on the
feasibility of negotiated rulemaking on the subject matter of this
notice.
Procedural Matters
The agency intends to conduct the meeting informally so as to allow
for maximum participation by all who attend. Interested persons may ask
questions or provide comments during any period after a party has
completed its presentation on a time allowed basis as determined by the
presiding official. If time permits, persons who have not requested
time to speak, but would like to make a statement, will be afforded an
opportunity to do so.
Those speaking at the public meeting should limit their
presentations to 20 minutes. If the presentation will include slides,
motion pictures, or other visual aids, please indicate so that the
proper equipment may be made available. Presenters should bring at
least one copy of their presentation to the meeting so that NHTSA can
readily include the material in the public record.
A schedule of participants making oral presentations will be
available at the designated meeting room. NHTSA will place a copy of
any written statement in the docket for this notice. A verbatim
transcript of the meeting will be prepared and also placed in the NHTSA
docket as soon as possible after the meeting.
Participation in the meeting is not a prerequisite for the
submission of written comments. NHTSA invites written comments from all
interested parties. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be
submitted.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, Room 5219, at the street address given above,
and copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation (49 CFR Part 512.)
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above will be considered. Comments will be
available for inspection in the docket.
After the closing date, NHTSA will continue to file relevant
information in the docket as it becomes available. It is therefore
recommended that interested persons continue to examine the docket for
new material.
Issued: November 14, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-28461 Filed 11-14-95; 10:54 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-28433 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Past Performance
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 222 (Friday, November 17, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57691-57693]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28433]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
48 CFR Parts 213, 214, 215, and 242
[DFARS Case 95-D715]
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Past
Performance
AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is proposing to amend the Defense
Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to reflect the
requirements of Section 1091 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining
Act of 1994 and the requirements of OFPP Policy Letter 92-5, Past
Performance Information.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to
the DFARS Secretariat at the address shown below on or before January
16, 1996 to be considered in the formulation of the final rule.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties should submit written comments to:
Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, Attn: IMD 3D139, PDUSD (A&T),
3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Please cite DFARS
Case 95-D715 in all correspondence related to this issue.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Melissa D. Rider, at (703) 602-
0131. Please cite DFARS case 95-D715.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-355
(FASA), provides authorities that streamline the acquisition process
and minimize burdensome government-unique requirements. Major changes
in the acquisition process as a result of FASA implementation include
changes in the areas of Commercial Item Acquisition, Simplified
Acquisition Procedures, the Truth in Negotiations Act, and introduction
of the Federal Acquisition Computer Network (FACNET).
At the request of the Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement
Policy, the DoD Past Performance Coordinating Council (PPCC) was tasked
by the FASA DFARS Implementation Manager to develop DFARS coverage for
implementing Section 1091 of FASA. There were no associated FAR changes
that were published as a FASA-related rule, as the final FAR rule
published in the Federal Register on March 31, 1995 (60 FR 16718)
already complied with FASA requirements.
The following changes to DFARs were developed by the PPCC to
implement OFPP Policy Letter 92-5, Past Performance Information, and
Section 1091 of FASA:
[[Page 57692]]
1. DFARS Part 213 coverage has been added to provide guidance for
actions using simplified acquisition procedures.
2. DFARS Part 214 coverage allows contracting officers to quantify
past performance information (PPI) as a price-related factor.
3. DFARS Past 215 coverage accelerates the FAR phase-in schedule,
taking two years to get to the $100,000 threshold; assures appropriate
weighting of PPI; encourages (rather than mandates) use under $100,000;
and requires validation of PPI before it is used.
4. DFARS 242.1502 provides requirements for preparing evaluations
of performance on individual contracts; accelerates the preparation of
the evaluation beyond the use requirements in 214 and 215; provides
instructions for interim evaluations--this is the agency direction
required by the FAR; and provides a list of required information for
performing evaluations. Use of a standardized list will help the
exchange of PPI among the DoD components. The list is based on the form
in the OFPP Interim Guide to Best Practices for Past Performance, and
has been tailored to meet the needs of DoD Components. This is not a
standard form, but in the future may be an evaluation tool that can be
readily accessible via electronic commerce/electronic data interchange
(EC/EDI).
5. DFARS 242.1503(a) states the contracting officer specifies who
provides performance evaluations (as a default, Defense Contract
Management Command (DCMC) ACOs will fill out the form unless the
contracting officer specifies otherwise); requires the evaluator to
validate PPI with the contractor; addresses non-response by contractors
who were asked for validation; and defines contract completion as the
time all contract close-out actions are complete.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The proposed DFARS changes may have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et. seq., because the
requirements for use of past performance information in contract award
decisions may preclude award to otherwise successful offerors. The
extent of this impact is not known, although it is believed that the
regulatory flexibility analysis performed for FAR Case 93-2, Past
Performance Information (60 FR 16718, March 31, 1995), has already
addressed the effects on small businesses. However, an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been performed for this proposed
DFARS rule. Comments are invited from small businesses and other
interested parties. Comments from small entities concerning the
affected DFARS subparts will also be considered in accordance with
Section 610 of the Act. Such comments must be submitted separately and
cite DFARS Case 95-D715 in correspondence.
C. The Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposed rule does not contain any information collection
requirements which require the approval of Office of Management and
Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 213, 214, 215, and 242
Government procurement.
Michele P. Peterson,
Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council.
Therefore, it is proposed that 48 CFR parts 213, 214, 215, and 242
be amended as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 213, 214, 215, and 242
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.
PART 213--SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES
2. The heading of Part 213 is revised to read as set forth above.
3. Section 213.106-1 is added to read as follows:
213.106-1 Soliciting competition, evaluation of quotes, and award.
(b)(1) Use of past performance information is not mandatory for
solicitations less than $100,000; however, it is encouraged.
PART 214--SEALED BIDDING
4. Section 214.201-8 is added to read as follows:
214.201-8 Price related factors.
(a) An offeror's record of past performance may be used as an
indication of foreseeable costs and delays and may be evaluated where
these costs can be reduced to a price-related evaluation factor. For
example, where a poor performance record requires a preaward survey or
where a record of delivering nonconforming parts would require source
inspection, and a preaward survey or source inspection would not
otherwise be required, an evaluation factor covering those additional
costs may be applied. The method by which these price-related factors
will be determined and applied shall be included in the solicitation.
PART 215--CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION
5. Section 215.605 is amended by redesignating paragraph (b) as
paragraph (b)(2) and by adding paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to read as follows:
215.605 Evaluation factors.
(b)(1)(ii) Notwithstanding FAR 15.605(b)(ii), past performance
shall be evaluated in all competitively negotiated acquisitions in
excess of $1 million issued on or after July 1, 1995, in excess of
$500,000 issued on or after July 1, 1996, and in excess of $100,000
issued on or after July 1, 1997. When past performance is evaluated, it
should be a significant evaluation factor or significant subfactor.
Although the use of past performance is not mandatory for solicitations
less than $100,000, it is encouraged. Past performance information from
contractor performance evaluations shall not be used in source
selections until the requirements of 242.1503(b) have been met.
* * * * *
PART 242--CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
6. Subpart 242.15 is added to read as follows:
Subpart 242.15--Contractor Performance Information
Sec.
242.1502 Policy.
242.1503 Procedures.
242.1502 Policy.
(a) Notwithstanding FAR 42.1502, contractor performance evaluations
shall be prepared for all contracts in excess of $1 million effective
July 1, 1995, and $100,000 effective July 1, 1996. For contracts
exceeding 18 months, interim evaluations should be prepared annually.
(S-70) Agencies shall prepare an evaluation of contractor
performance including the following information:
(1) Whether the report is a final or interim report;
(2) What period the report covers;
(3) The contractor's name, address, and telephone number;
(4) The contract number, value, award date, and completion date;
(5) The type of contract;
(6) A description of the requirement;
(7) An evaluation of the contractor's performance in the following
areas, including a rating and supporting rationale:
(i) Quality of Product or Service;
[[Page 57693]]
(ii) Cost Control;
(iii) Timeliness of Performance;
(iv) Customer Satisfaction (Contracting/Business Relations);
(v) Customer Satisfaction (End User/Business Relations); and
(vi) Rater's Overall Assessment.
(8) An evaluation of key contractor personnel for services and R&D
contracts;
(9) The evaluator's name, address, telephone number and dated
signature;
(10) Whether the contractor provided comments, rebuttals or
additional information. If such information was provided, it shall be
attached to the Government evaluation;
(11) A resolution of contractor comments; and
(12) The final review authority's name, address, phone number, and
dated signature.
(S-71) Evaluations completed in accordance with paragraph (S-70) of
this section shall consider the following areas:
(1) Quality of product or service. This includes the following
aspects of performance:
(i) Compliance with contract requirements;
(ii) Accuracy of reports;
(iii) Appropriateness of contractor personnel assigned to the
contract; and
(iv) Technical excellence of delivered supplies or services.
(2) Cost Control. This includes the following aspects of
performance:
(i) Current, accurate, and complete billings;
(ii) The relationship of negotiated cost to actuals;
(iii) Cost containment initiatives; and
(iv) The number and cause of change orders issued.
(3) Timeliness of Performance. This includes the following aspects
of performance:
(i) Whether the contractor met interim milestones;
(ii) Contractor's responsiveness to technical direction;
(iii) Contractor's responsiveness to contract change orders and
administrative requirements;
(iv) Whether the contract was completed on time, including wrap-up
and contract administration; and
(v) Whether liquidated damages were assessed.
(4) Business Relations/Customer Satisfaction. This includes the
following aspects of performance:
(i) Whether the contractor effectively managed the contract effort;
(ii) How responsive the contractor was to contract requirements;
(iii) How promptly the contractor notified the Government of
problems;
(iv) Whether the contractor was reasonable and cooperative;
(v) How flexible the contractor was;
(vi) Was the contractor proactive;
(vii) How effective were contractor-recommended solutions; and
(viii) Did the contractor effectively implement socio-economic
programs, including compliance with requirements of the clause at FAR
52.219-8, Utilization of Small, Small Disadvantaged and Women-Owned
Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9, Small, Small Disadvantaged and
Women-Owned Small Business Subcontracting Plan.
(S-72) The following adjectival ratings shall be used when rating
each area described in paragraph (S-71):
(1) Unsatisfactory.
(i) Quality of Product or Service.
Nonconformances are compromising the achievement of contract
requirements, despite the use of Agency resources.
(ii) Cost Control. Cost issues are compromising performance of
contract requirements.
(iii) Timeliness of Performance. Delays are compromising the
achievement of contract requirements, despite the use of Agency
resources.
(iv) Business Relations Customer Satisfaction. Response to
inquiries, technical service, and administrative issues is not
effective and responsive.
(2) Poor.
(i) Quality of Product or Service. Nonconformances require major
Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.
(ii) Cost Control. Cost issues require major Agency resources to
ensure achievement of contract requirements.
(iii) Timeliness of Performance. Delays require major Agency
resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.
(iv) Business Relations Customer Satisfaction. Response to
inquiries, technical service, and administrative issues is marginally
effective and responsive.
(3) Fair.
(i) Quality of Product or Service. Nonconformances require minor
Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.
(ii) Cost Control. Cost issues require minor Agency resources to
ensure achievement of contract requirements.
(iii) Timeliness of Performance. Delays require minor Agency
resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.
(iv) Business Relations Customer Satisfaction. Response to
inquiries, technical service, and administrative issues is somewhat
effective and responsive.
(4) Good.
(i) Quality of Product or Service. Nonconformances do not impact
achievement of contract requirements.
(ii) Cost Control. Cost issues do not impact achievement of
contract requirements.
(iii) Timeliness of Performance. Delays do not impact achievement
of contract requirements.
(iv) Business Relations Customer Satisfaction. Response to
inquiries, technical service, and administrative issues is usually
effective and responsive.
(5) Excellent.
(i) Quality of Product or Service. There are no quality problems.
(ii) Cost Control. There are no cost issues.
(iii) Timeliness of Performance. There are no delays.
(iv) Business Relations Customer Satisfaction. Response to
inquiries, technical service, and administrative issues is effective
and responsive.
(6) Plus. The contractor has demonstrated an exceptional
performance level in any of the four categories described in paragraph
(S-71). It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare
circumstances when contractor performance clearly exceeds the
performance levels described as ``excellent.''
242.1503 Procedures.
(a) The contracting officer will determine who provides input on
the contractor performance evaluations. Where the contract has been
delegated for administration, the cognizant ACO shall complete
performance evaluations unless otherwise advised by the PCO.
(b) (S-70) The agency preparing the performance evaluation shall be
responsible for validating the past performance information.
(S-71) If the contractor does not respond within the period
specified, the data may be assumed to be accurate and may be used in
source selections.
(e) The date of completion of contract performance is the date of
contract closeout.
[FR Doc. 95-28433 Filed 11-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-28432 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Specifications and Standards
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 222 (Friday, November 17, 1995)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 57691] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 95-28432] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 48 CFR Parts 210, 215, and 252 [DFARS Case 94-D003] Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Specifications and Standards AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Department of Defense (DoD) has decided to withdraw a proposed rule published on December 23, 1994 (59 FR 66287). The rule proposed DFARS revisions to reflect DoD's commitment to minimizing the use of military and Federal specifications and standards and maximizing the use of performance specifications and non-Government standards. The DoD has determined that changes to DoD Instruction 5000.2 would result in more effective implementation of those commitments. Therefore, the proposed DFARS rule is withdrawn. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, Attn: Ms. Melissa D. Rider, PDUSD(A&T)DP(DAR), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062, (703) 602-0131. Michele P. Peterson, Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council. [FR Doc. 95-28432 Filed 11-16-95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-28388 Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle Engines: Voluntary Standards for Light-Duty Vehicles
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 222 (Friday, November 17, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 57691]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28388]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 222 / Friday, November 17, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 57691]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 51, 85 and 86
[AMS-FRL-5333-3]
RIN 2060-AF75
Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New Motor
Vehicle Engines: Voluntary Standards for Light-Duty Vehicles
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of public comment
period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action extends the comment period for the notice of
proposed rulemaking relating to the establishment of a National Low
Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program published October 10, 1995 (60 FR
52734). EPA is extending the public comment period to December 1, 1995.
DATES: Written comments on the proposed rule must be received no later
than December 1, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this document are contained in Public
Docket A-95-27. The docket is located at the above address in Room M-
1500, Waterside Mall, and may be inspected weekdays between 8:30 a.m.
and 5:30 p.m. A reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for copying docket
materials.
Comments on this document should be sent to Public Docket A-95-26,
at: Air Docket Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460 (Telephone 202-260-7548; FAX 202-260-
4000).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Shields, Office of Mobile
Sources, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Telephone (202) 260-7757. FAX (202) 260-6011.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) October 10, 1995 regarding the NLEV program. The
public comment period was originally scheduled to end on November 9,
1995. A public hearing on the proposal was held on November 1, 1995 and
the comment period is extended to December 1, 1995.
Dated: November 8, 1995.
Richard D. Wilson,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 95-28388 Filed 11-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-28360 Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Notice of Availability of Amendment 5
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 222 (Friday, November 17, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57695-57696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28360]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57696]]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 655
[I.D. 110995B]
Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Notice of
Availability of Amendment 5
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this notice that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 5 to the Fishery
Management Plan for Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries
(FMP) for Secretarial review and is requesting comments from the
public. The amendment would revise the management program for Atlantic
mackerel, squid, and butterfish. Copies of the amendment may be
obtained from the Council (see ADDRESSES).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 8, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Dr. Andrew Rosenberg, Regional Director,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office, 1
Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-3799. Mark the outside of the
envelope ``Comments on Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Plan.''
Copies of Amendment 5, the environmental impact statement, and the
regulatory impact review are available from David R. Keifer, Executive
Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115 Federal
Building, 300 S. New Street, Dover, DE 19904-6790.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myles Raizin, Fishery Policy Analyst,
508-281-9104.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) (Magnuson Act) requires that
each fishery management council submit any fishery management plan or
plan amendment it prepares to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) for
review and approval, disapproval, or partial disapproval. The Magnuson
Act also requires that the Secretary, upon receiving the plan or
amendment, immediately make a preliminary evaluation of whether the
amendment is sufficient to warrant continued review, and publish a
notice that the plan or amendment is available for public review and
comment. The Secretary will consider the public comments in determining
whether to approve the amendment.
Amendment 5 would eliminate joint ventures and directed foreign
fishing for Illex and Loligo squid (squids) and butterfish; establish a
moratorium on new entrants to the directed fisheries for the squids and
butterfish; establish new permit requirements; establish a quota-
setting process that includes recommendations made by a Technical
Monitoring Committee; establish minimum mesh requirements for the
Loligo fishery with exemptions for the sea herring fishery and the
summer Illex fishery occurring outside the 50-fathom curve; require
mandatory reporting for permitted vessels and dealers; revise certain
biological reference points for Atlantic mackerel and Loligo squid; and
specify conditions under which annual seasonal quotas may be
established for the Loligo fishery.
The receipt date for this amendment was November 8, 1995. Proposed
regulations to implement this amendment are scheduled to be published
within 15 days of the receipt date.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: November 13, 1995.
Richard H. Schaefer,
Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 95-28360 Filed 11-13-95; 4:39 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.