issue-1996-05-15•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-05-15
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-05-15
issue-1996-05-15Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-05-15Proposed 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. 96-12277 Disclosure and Notice of Change of Rates and Other Service Terms for Pipeline Common Carriage
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 15, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24474-24475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12277]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
49 CFR Part 1305
[STB Ex Parte No. 538]
Disclosure and Notice of Change of Rates and Other Service Terms
for Pipeline Common Carriage
AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The ICC Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA) eliminated the tariff
and tariff filing requirements formerly applicable to pipeline
carriers, but imposed in lieu thereof certain obligations to disclose
common carriage rates and service terms as well as a requirement for
advance notice of increases in such rates or changes in service terms.
ICCTA requires the Board to promulgate regulations to administer these
new obligations by June 29, 1996. The Board proposes to add a new part
1305 to its regulations for that purpose as set forth below.
DATES: Comments are due on June 4, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments (an original and 10 copies) referring to STB
Ex Parte No. 538 to: Surface Transportation Board, Office of the
Secretary, Case Control Branch, 1201 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20423.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beryl Gordon, (202) 927-7513. [TDD for
the hearing impaired: (202) 927-5721.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board's decision discussing this
proposal is available to all persons for a charge by phoning DC NEWS &
DATA, INC., at (202) 289-4357.
The Board certifies that this rule, if adopted, would not have a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed rules should result in easier access to pipeline rate and
service information and to that extent our action should benefit small
entities.
The Board seeks comment on whether there would be effects on small
entities that should be considered. If comments provide information
that there would be significant effects on small entities, the Board
will prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis at the final rule stage.
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the
human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1305
Disclosure requirement, Notice requirement, Pipeline carriers.
Decided: May 8, 1996.
By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Simmons, and
Commissioner Owen.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board proposes to
add a new part 1305 to title 49, Chapter X, of the Code of Federal
Regulations, to read as follows:
PART 1305--DISCLOSURE AND NOTICE OF CHANGE OF RATES AND OTHER
SERVICE TERMS FOR PIPELINE COMMON CARRIAGE
Sec.
1305.1 Scope; definitions.
1305.2 Disclosure requirement for existing rates.
1305.3 Response to request for establishment of a new rate.
1305.4 Notice requirement.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 721(a) and 15701(e).
Sec. 1305.1 Scope; definitions.
(a) The provisions of this part address the requirements imposed on
pipeline carriers by 49 U.S.C. 15701(b) and 15701(c). Such requirements
apply to pipeline carriers only with respect to the transportation of
commodities other than water, gas, or oil.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (c) of this section,
the provisions of this part apply to any transportation or service
provided by a pipeline carrier subject to the jurisdiction of the
Surface Transportation Board under 49 U.S.C. 15301.
(c) The provisions of this part do not apply to any transportation
or service provided by a pipeline carrier to the extent that such
transportation or service is exempted from rate notice and disclosure
requirements pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 15302.
(d) For the purposes of this part, service terms means all
classifications, rules, and practices that affect the rates, charges,
or level of service for pipeline transportation.
Sec. 1305.2 Disclosure requirement for existing rates.
(a) A pipeline carrier must disclose to any person, on request, the
specific rate(s) requested (or the basis for calculating the specific
rate(s)), as well as all charges and service terms that may be
applicable to transportation covered by that rate(s).
(b) The information provided by a pipeline carrier under this
section must be provided immediately. Such information may be provided
either in writing or in electronic form as agreed to by the parties.
Sec. 1305.3 Response to request for establishment of a new rate.
Where a shipper or a prospective shipper requests that the carrier
establish a rate in the absence of an appropriate applicable rate for
particular transportation, the carrier must promptly establish and
provide to the requester, in writing or in electronic form as agreed to
by the parties, an appropriate rate and applicable service terms. The
response should be provided as soon as reasonably possible, but no
later than 10 business days from receipt of the request. If a carrier
determines that additional information is required from the requester
before a rate or term can be established, the carrier must so notify
the requester as soon as possible, but no later than 10 business days
after receipt of the request. Once the additional information is
received, the carrier must set the rate and related service terms, and
relay them to the requester, within 10 business days.
Sec. 1305.4 Notice Requirement.
(a) A pipeline carrier may not increase any rates or charges, or
change any service terms (except for changes that are equivalent to
rate reductions) unless 20 days have expired after written or
[[Page 24475]]
electronic notice has been provided to all persons who, within the
previous 12 months:
(1) Have requested under section 15701(b) the affected rates or
service terms; or
(2) Have made a shipment that was subject to the affected rates or
terms; or
(3) Have made arrangements with the carrier for a future shipment
that would be subject to the affected rates or terms.
(b) The notice required by this section may be in writing or in
electronic form, as agreed to by the parties.
(c) For purposes of this section, a mailed notice is deemed
``provided'' on the date such notice is postmarked.
(d) The notice required by this section must clearly identify the
increase in rates or charges or the change in service terms.
[FR Doc. 96-12277 Filed 5-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12269 Microwave Relocation Rules; Comment Request for Blocks C Through F
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 15, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24469-24473]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12269]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24470]]
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 15, 22, and 24
[WT Docket No. 95-157; RM-8643; FCC 96-196]
Microwave Relocation Rules; Comment Request for Blocks C Through
F
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: By this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, the Commission
seeks further comment on certain aspects of the microwave relocation
rules for C, D, E, and F blocks. Specifically, the Commission seeks
further comment on whether to adjust the negotiation periods by
shortening the voluntary negotiation period and lengthening the
mandatory negotiation period for the D, E, and F blocks, and whether
the negotiation periods for the C block should be subject to the same
adjustment. The Commission also seeks comment on whether microwave
incumbents should be permitted to seek reimbursement from PCS licensees
through participation in the cost-sharing plan. The Commission believes
that the rules proposed herein, will expedite the clearing of the 2 GHz
band in an equitable and efficient manner.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before May 28, 1996 and reply
comments on or before June 7, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Hamra (202) 418-0620, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Further Notice of
Proposed Rule Making, adopted April 24, 1996 and released April 30,
1996. The complete text of this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC Reference Center, Room 230, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,
D.C., and also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,
International Transcription Service, at (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street,
N.W., Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037.
FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING
I. Background
1. In the First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule
Making in ET Docket No. 92-9, 57 FR 49020 (October 29, 1992) the
Commission reallocated the 1850-1990, 2110-2150, and 2160-2200 MHz
bands from private and common carrier fixed microwave services to
emerging technology services. The Commission also established
procedures for 2 GHz microwave incumbents to be relocated to available
frequencies in higher bands or to other media, by encouraging
incumbents to negotiate voluntary relocation agreements with emerging
technology licensees or manufacturers of unlicensed devices when
frequencies used by the incumbent are needed to implement the emerging
technology. The First Report and Order stated that, should negotiations
fail, the emerging technology licensee could request involuntary
relocation of the incumbent, provided that the emerging technology
service provider pays the cost of relocating the incumbent to a
comparable facility.
2. In the Commission's Third Report and Order in ET Docket No. 92-
9, 58 FR 46547 (September 2, 1993) as modified on reconsideration by
the Memorandum Opinion and Order, 59 FR 19642 (April 25, 1994) the
Commission established additional details of the transition plan to
enable emerging technology providers to relocate incumbent facilities.
The relocation process consists of two negotiation periods that must
expire before an emerging technology licensee may request involuntary
relocation. The first is a fixed two-year period for voluntary
negotiations--three years for public safety incumbents, e.g., police,
fire, and emergency medical--commencing with the Commission's
acceptance of applications for emerging technology services, during
which the emerging technology providers and microwave licensees may
negotiate any mutually acceptable relocation agreement. Negotiations
are strictly voluntary. If no agreement is reached, the emerging
technology licensee may initiate a one-year mandatory negotiation
period--or two-year mandatory period if the incumbent is a public
safety licensee--during which the parties are required to negotiate in
good faith.
3. Should the parties fail to reach an agreement during the
mandatory negotiation period, the emerging technology provider may
request involuntary relocation of the existing facility. Involuntary
relocation requires that the emerging technology provider (1) guarantee
payment of all costs of relocating the incumbent to a comparable
facility; (2) complete all activities necessary for placing the new
facilities into operation, including engineering and frequency
coordination; and (3) build and test the new microwave (or alternative)
system. Once comparable facilities are made available to the incumbent
microwave operator, the Commission will amend the 2 GHz license of the
incumbent to secondary status. After relocation, the microwave
incumbent is entitled to a one-year trial period to determine whether
the facilities are indeed comparable, and if they are not, the emerging
technology licensee must remedy the defects or pay to relocate the
incumbent back to its former or an equivalent 2 GHz frequency.
4. Under these procedures, it is possible for a relocation
agreement between a PCS licensee and a microwave incumbent to have
spectrum-clearing benefits for other PCS licensees as well. First, some
microwave spectrum blocks overlap with one or more PCS blocks, because
the spectrum in the 1850-1990 MHz band was assigned differently in the
two services. Second, incumbents' receivers may be susceptible to
adjacent or co-channel interference from PCS licensees in more than one
PCS spectrum block. For example, a microwave link located partially in
Block A, partially in Block D, and adjacent to Block B, may cause
interference to or receive interference from PCS licensees that are
licensed in each of those blocks. Third, because most 2 GHz microwave
licensees operate multi-link systems, PCS licensees may be asked to
relocate links that do not directly encumber their own spectrum or
service area in order to obtain the microwave incumbent's voluntary
consent to relocate. Finally, the Unlicensed PCS Ad Hoc Committee for 2
GHz Microwave Transition and Management Inc. (``UTAM''), the frequency
coordinator for the PCS spectrum designated for unlicensed devices,
expects that some licensed PCS providers will have to relocate links in
the unlicensed band that are paired with links in licensed PCS
spectrum. The Commission has designated UTAM to coordinate relocation
in the 1910-1930 MHz band, which has been reallocated for unlicensed
PCS devices. Once the 1910-1930 MHz band is clear, or there is little
risk of interference to the remaining incumbents, and UTAM has
recovered its relocation costs, UTAM's role will end and it will be
dissolved.
5. Because the Commission is licensing PCS providers at different
times and multiple PCS licensees may benefit from the relocation of a
microwave system or even a single link, the first PCS licensee in the
market potentially bears a disproportionate share of relocation costs.
Subsequent PCS licensees to enter the market may
[[Page 24471]]
therefore obtain a windfall. As a result of this potential ``free
rider'' problem, the first PCS licensee in the market might not
relocate a link or might delay its deployment of PCS if it believes
that another PCS licensee will relocate the link first, thus paying for
some or all of the relocation costs. In addition, unless cost-sharing
is adopted, PCS licensees might not engage in relocation that is cost-
effective if viewed from an industry-wide perspective. For example, a
link that encumbers two PCS blocks might not be moved if the cost is
greater than the benefit to any single licensee, even though the joint
benefit received by two or more licensees exceeds the cost of
relocating the link.
6. In 1994, PCIA proposed a cost-sharing plan to alleviate the free
rider problem, which the Commission found to be attractive in theory
but dismissed as underdeveloped. On May 5, 1995, Pacific Bell
(``PacBell'') filed a Petition for Rulemaking. In its petition, PacBell
proposed a detailed cost-sharing plan in which PCS licensees on all
blocks, licensed and unlicensed, would share in the cost of relocating
microwave stations. On May 16, 1995, the Commission requested comment
on PacBell's proposal. Most parties that commented on PacBell's
Petition for Rulemaking supported the cost-sharing concept, although
the comments reflected some differences regarding the details of the
proposal. On October 12, 1995, the Commission adopted a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making, 60 FR 55529 (November 1, 1995) which sought
comment on a modified version of the plan proposed by PacBell.
7. The Commission also adopted and released with this Further
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, the First Report and Order changing and
clarifying certain aspects of the microwave relocation rules adopted in
the Commission's Emerging Technologies proceeding, ET Docket No. 92-9.
II. Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making
8. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, the Commission
seeks comment on whether to shorten the voluntary negotiation period
and lengthen the mandatory negotiation period for the D, E, and F
blocks. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the negotiation
periods for the C block should be subject to the same adjustment.
Finally, the Commission proposes that microwave incumbents be permitted
to relocate some of their own links and obtain reimbursement rights
pursuant to the cost-sharing plan adopted in the First Report and
Order.
A. Voluntary and Mandatory Negotiation Periods for C, D, E, and F
Blocks
9. The Commission agrees with commenters, however, that changing
the negotiation timetable for PCS blocks other than the A and B blocks
may not raise the same concerns. In the case of the D, E, and F blocks,
bidding has not commenced and there are no ongoing negotiations between
PCS licensees and incumbents. Therefore, the Commission believes it is
appropriate to consider whether the relocation process in these blocks
would benefit from adjusting the negotiation periods. Specifically, the
Commission seeks comment on whether to adjust the negotiation periods
for the D, E, and F blocks by shortening the voluntary negotiation
period by one year and lengthening the mandatory period by one year.
Under this approach, non-public safety incumbents would have a one-year
negotiation period instead of the two-year negotiation period provided
under current rules, and the mandatory negotiation period would be
lengthened from one to two years. Similarly, public safety incumbents
would have a two-year voluntary negotiation period instead of a three-
years period, and a three-year mandatory negotiation period instead of
a two-year period.
10. This approach could potentially accelerate the development of
PCS in the D, E, and F blocks by speeding up the negotiation process
and creating additional incentives for incumbents to enter into early
agreements. At the same time, while incumbents would be required to
commence mandatory negotiations sooner than under the existing rules,
they would have the same total amount of time for negotiations provided
under the existing rules before they become subject to involuntary
relocation. The Commission seeks comment on whether this adjustment
would effectively balance the interests of PCS licensees in bringing
service to the public quickly and the interest of microwave incumbents
in making a smooth transition to relocated facilities.
11. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether to make the
same changes discussed above to the voluntary and mandatory negotiation
periods applicable to C block. The Commission notes that C block is in
a different posture from the D, E, and F blocks because the C block
auction is ongoing and possibly near conclusion, and bidding has been
based on the current rules. At the same time, the voluntary negotiation
period for C block has not yet commenced, so unlike A and B blocks,
there are no ongoing negotiations currently taking place in reliance on
the current rules. The Commission seeks comment on whether shortening
the voluntary period and lengthening the mandatory negotiation period
for C block would facilitate the development of PCS in this band and
what effect it would have on negotiations between C block licensees and
microwave incumbents.
B. Microwave Incumbent Participation in Cost-Sharing Plan
12. The Commission tentatively concludes that microwave incumbents
that relocate themselves should be allowed to obtain reimbursement
rights and collect reimbursement under the cost-sharing plan from
later-entrant PCS licensees that would have interfered with the
relocated link. The Commission agrees with incumbents that allowing
incumbent participation might facilitate system-wide relocations and
could potentially expedite the deployment of PCS. The Commission is
concerned, however, about what the incentive would be for an incumbent
to minimize costs, if the incumbent knows in advance that it may be
able to recover some of its expenses from PCS licensees. The Commission
seeks comment, therefore, on how subsequent PCS licensees could be
protected from being required to pay a larger amount to an incumbent
that relocates itself than to another PCS licensee who has an incentive
to minimize expenses. In addition, the Commission also questions
whether a large number of incumbents would avail themselves of such an
option, given that the Commission's rules require PCS licensees to pay
for the entire cost of providing incumbents with comparable facilities.
Assuming the Commission allows incumbent participation, the Commission
seeks comment on whether, for purposes of the cost-sharing formula, the
Commission should treat incumbents as if they were the initial PCS
relocator.
III. Conclusion
13. The Commission believes that the rules proposed in this Further
Notice of Proposed Rule Making will promote the public policy goals set
forth by Congress. The Commission believes that the proposals for
negotiation and reimbursement will facilitate the rapid relocation of
microwave facilities operating in the 2 GHz band, and will allow PCS
licensees to offer service to the public in an expeditious manner.
[[Page 24472]]
IV. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the expected impact on small entities of the policies and
rules proposed in this Further NPRM (Further Notice). Written public
comments are requested on the IRFA.
Reason for Action: This rulemaking proceeding was initiated to
secure comment on whether the negotiation period for the D, E, and F
block PCS licensees should be adjusted by shortening the voluntary
period by one year (i.e., to one year for non-public safety incumbents
and two years for public safety incumbents) and lengthening the
mandatory negotiation period for these blocks by a corresponding year
(i.e., to two years for non-public safety incumbents and three years
for public safety incumbents); whether the negotiation periods for the
C block should be subject to the same readjustments as the negotiation
periods for the D, E, and F blocks; and whether microwave incumbents
should be permitted to seek reimbursement from PCS licensees through
the cost-sharing plan. This proposal would facilitate negotiations
between the parties and promote the efficient relocation of microwave
licensees by encouraging microwave incumbents to relocate their own
microwave systems, thus bringing PCS services to the public in an
speedy manner.
Objectives: Our objective is to facilitate negotiations between PCS
licensees and microwave incumbents. This proposal would also enable
microwave incumbents who pay to relocate their own links to collect
reimbursement from PCS licensees that benefit from the relocation.
Cost-sharing is necessary to enhance the speed of relocation and
provide an incentive to incumbents to move their own links. This action
would result in faster deployment of PCS and delivery of service to the
public.
Legal Basis: The proposed action is authorized under the
Communications Act, Sections 4(i), 7, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r),
and 332, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 332, as
amended.
Reporting, Record keeping, and Other Compliance Requirements: Under
the proposal contained in the Further NPRM, microwave incumbents who
relocate their own links would be required to document the relocation
costs paid and report them to a central clearinghouse. Later PCS market
entrants would then be required to file a Prior Coordination
Notification with the clearinghouse and, if necessary, reimburse the
incumbent for relocation expenses.
Federal Rules Which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict With These
Rules: None.
Description, Potential Impact, and Number of Small Entities
Involved: This proposal would benefit small PCS licensees by
facilitating negotiations with microwave incumbents and allowing them
to bring their services to market sooner. This proposal would also
benefit small microwave incumbents by enabling them to relocate their
entire system at once and collect reimbursement from PCS licensees who
benefit from the resulting clearance of the spectrum. Such incumbents
would therefore benefit from the reduced time and administrative
inconvenience involved with relocating links at different times. The 2
GHz fixed microwave bands support a number of industries that provide
vital services to the public. We are committed to ensuring that the
incumbents' services are not disrupted and that the economic impact of
this proceeding on the incumbents is minimal. We must further take into
consideration that not all of the incumbent licensees are large
businesses, particularly in the bands above 2 GHz, and that many of the
licensees are local government entities that are not funded through
rate regulation. We believe that this proceeding would further our
policy of encouraging rapid deployment of PCS and system-wide
relocations of microwave incumbents. After evaluating comments filed in
response to the Further NPRM, the Commission will examine further the
impact of all rule changes on small entities and set forth its findings
in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Impact on Small Entities
Consistent with the Stated Objectives: We have reduced burdens wherever
possible. The regulatory burdens we have retained are necessary in
order to ensure that the public receives the benefits of innovative new
services in a prompt and efficient manner. We will continue to examine
alternatives in the future with the objectives of eliminating
unnecessary regulations and minimizing any significant economic impact
on small entities.
IRFA Comments: We request written public comment on the foregoing
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Comments must have a separate
and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA and must
be filed by the comment deadlines set forth in this Further NPRM.
B. Ex Parte Rules--Non-Restricted Proceeding
This is a non-restricted notice and comment rulemaking proceeding.
Ex parte presentations are permitted except during the Sunshine Agenda
period, provided they are disclosed as provided in Commission rules.
C. Comment Period
Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and
1.419 of the Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments
on or before May 28, 1996, and reply comments on or before June 7,
1996. To file formally in this proceeding, you must file an original
and four copies of all comments, reply comments, and supporting
comments. If you want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of
your comments, you must file an original plus nine copies. You should
send comments and reply comments to Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and reply
comments will be available for public inspection during regular
business hours in the Reference Center of the Federal Communications
Commission, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. A
copy of all comments should also be filed with the Commission's copy
contractor, ITS, Inc., 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140, (202) 857-3800.
D. Authority
Authority for issuance of this Further Notice of Proposed Rule
Making is contained in the Communications Act, Sections 4(i), 7,
303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), and 332, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 157, 303(c),
303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 332, as amended.
E. Ordering Clauses
It is ordered that the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, as
required by Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and as set
forth in Section VII(A) is Adopted.
It is further ordered that the Secretary shall send a copy of this
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 22
Radio.
47 CFR Part 24
Personal communications services.
[[Page 24473]]
47 CFR Part 101
Fixed microwave services.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-12269 Filed 5-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12167 Leasing of Sulphur or Oil and Gas in the Outer Continental Shelf
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 15, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24466-24467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12167]
========================================================================
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. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 24466]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
30 CFR Part 256
RIN 1010-AC18
Leasing of Sulphur or Oil and Gas in the Outer Continental Shelf
AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: MMS proposes to modify regulations to allow the authorized
officer to extend the time period within which we must accept or reject
the high bids received on tracts offered for sale. Currently, the
authorized officer must accept or reject high bids on most tracts
within 90 days after the date on which the bids are opened.
DATES: MMS will consider all comments received by June 14, 1996. We
will begin reviewing comments at that time and may not fully consider
comments we receive after June 14, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand-carry comments to the Department of the
Interior; Minerals Management Service; 381 Elden Street; Mail Stop
4700; Herndon, Virginia 22070-4817; Attention: Chief, Engineering and
Standards Branch.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Marshall Rose, Chief, Economic Evaluation Branch, telephone (703)
787-1536.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We limited the comment period to 30 days to
provide us with timely comments in the event that we need to extend the
bid evaluation period for the lease sale held on April 24, 1996.
The time to accept or reject high bids for tracts offered at an
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lease sale is established under the
regulations at 30 CFR 256.47. The authorized officer must accept or
reject the high bids within 90 days after the bid opening, except for
tracts identified by the Secretary of the Interior as subject to:
(1) Another nation's claims of jurisdiction and control which
conflict with the claims of the United States, or,
(2) Defense-related activities that may be incompatible with
mineral exploration and/or development activities.
Any bid not accepted within that period is deemed rejected.
The 90-day period was established in 1982. Since then, we have held
several sales, mainly areawide. The Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water
Royalty Relief Act (Pub. L. 104-58, November 28, 1995) amended the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to define a new bidding system which
provides for royalty suspensions. The deepwater incentive law did not
amend the requirement that we obtain fair market value for tracts that
are leased. Any lease sale held before November 28, 2000, must use the
new bidding system for all tracts located in water depths of 200 meters
or more in the Gulf of Mexico west of 87 degrees, 30 minutes west
longitude. We believe that the increased workload resulting from
compliance with the new statutory requirements and the potential for a
large number of tracts to receive bids may exceed our ability to
complete the bid review process for all tracts bid upon within 90 days
as required by 30 CFR 256.47(e)(2).
We propose to remedy the situation by giving the authorized officer
authority to extend the time period for 30 days or longer when
circumstances warrant. Recent examples include floods and furloughs;
however, other circumstances such as excessive workload may arise which
could warrant a longer time for bid evaluation.
This rule addresses a housekeeping issue and will enable us to
adjust the bid acceptance/rejection time period to meet changing
conditions in the OCS lease market. Continuation of the 90-day review
period would result in the rejection of the high bids which we fail to
evaluate within 90 days. This would result in fewer leases being issued
because of a failure to complete the bid review process within time and
resource constraints. The Government may receive less bonus and rental
monies.
Today, without authority to extend the bid review period, the 1982
90-day rule allows insufficient time and is arbitrarily rigid.
Comments to the 1982 rule objected to the proposal to extend the
bid review process from 60 to 120 days because of economic losses to
the bidders whose high bids were later rejected. (High bidders received
no interest payments on bonus monies returned by the Government.)
Today, regulations provide for the payment of interest on the bonus
monies submitted with the high bids which are ultimately rejected.
Thus, bidders will not suffer economic loss because of an extended time
period to complete the evaluation process.
In Central Gulf of Mexico Sale 157, held April 24, 1996, we
received 1,381 bids on 924 tracts--many in water depths of 200 or more.
It is in the public interest to assure that adequate time is available
to give all high bids a full and appropriate review, to ensure the
receipt of fair market value, and ultimately to increase natural gas
and oil supplies.
Author: This document was prepared by Mary Vavrina, Offshore
Resource Evaluation Division, MMS.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
The proposed rule does not meet the criteria for a significant rule
requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O.
12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior has determined that the proposed
rule will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of
small entities. In general, the entities that engage in offshore
activities are not, by definition, small due to the technical
complexities and financial resources and experience necessary to safely
conduct such activities. The indirect effect of this rulemaking on
small entities that provide support for offshore activities has also
been determined to be small.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposed rule contains no new reporting and information
collection requirements.
Takings Implication Assessment
The DOI certifies that the proposed rule does not represent a
governmental action capable of interference with constitutionally
protected property rights. A Takings Implication Assessment prepared
under E.O. 12630, Government Action and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, is not required.
[[Page 24467]]
E.O. 12988
The DOI has certified to the Office of Management and Budget that
the proposed rule meets the applicable reform standards provided in
Section 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988.
National Environmental Policy Act
The DOI has determined that the proposed rule does not constitute a
major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment; therefore, an environmental impact statement is not
required.
Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995
This rule does not contain any unfunded mandates to State, local,
or tribal governments or the private sector.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 256
Administrative practices and procedures, Continental shelf,
Government contracts, Incorporation by reference, Oil and gas
exploration, Public lands--mineral resources, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
Dated: May 2, 1996.
Sylvia V. Baca,
Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we propose to amend 30
CFR part 256 as follows:
PART 256--LEASING OF SULPHUR OR OIL AND GAS IN THE OUTER
CONTINENTAL SHELF
1. The Authority citation for part 256 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.
2. Section 256.47(e)(2) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 256.47 Award of leases.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) The authorized officer must accept or reject the bid within 90
days. The authorized officer may extend the time period for acceptance
or rejection of a bid for 30 days or longer, if circumstances warrant.
Any bid not accepted within the prescribed time period, including any
extension thereof, shall be deemed rejected.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-12167 Filed 5-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12133 Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of the Rocky Mountain National Park
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 15, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24582-24585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12133]
[[Page 24581]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Part 91, et al.
Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of the Rocky Mountain National
Park; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 24582]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 91, 121, 127, and 135
RIN 2120-AG11
[Docket No. 28577; Notice No. 96-4]
Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of the Rocky Mountain
National Park
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is proposing to establish a Special Federal Aviation
Regulation (SFAR) to preserve the natural quiet of Rocky Mountain
National Park (RMNP) from any potential adverse impact from aircraft-
based sightseeing overflights. This NPRM discusses alternative methods
to achieve this goal, and commenters are invited to address the
alternatives. The primary alternative would impose restrictions on
commercial sightseeing flights operated in the airspace over RMNP.
Other alternatives include restrictions on some flights or types of
operations over RMNP and various forms of operating procedures based on
the particular and specific requirements of the park.
DATE: Comments must be received on or before August 13, 1996.
ADDRESS: Comments on this NPRM should be mailed, in triplicate to:
Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel,
Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-200), Docket No. 28577, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591. Comments may also be sent
electronically to the Rules Docket by using the following Internet
address: [email protected]. Comments must be marked Docket No.
28577. Comments may be examined in the Rules Docket in Room 915G on
weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Neil Saunders, Airspace and Rules Division, ATA-400, Airspace
Management Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: 202-267-8783.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments relating to the environmental, energy, federalism,
or economic impact that may result from adopting the proposals in this
notice are also invited. Comments that provide the factual basis
supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful
in developing reasoned regulatory decisions. Communications should
identify the regulatory docket number and be submitted in triplicate to
the above specified address. All communications and a report
summarizing any substantive public contact with FAA personnel on this
rulemaking will be filed in the docket. The docket is available for
public inspection both before and after the closing date for receiving
comments.
Before taking any final action on this proposal, the Administrator
will consider all comments made on or before the closing date for
comments, and the proposal may be changed in light of the comments
received. The FAA would particularly welcome comments from any operator
that is planning or contemplating air tour operations over RMNP.
The FAA will acknowledge receipt of a comment if the commenter
includes a self-addressed stamped postcard with the comment. The
postcard should be marked ``Comments to Docket No. 28577.'' When the
comment is received by the FAA, the postcard will be dated, time
stamped, and returned to the commenter.
Availability of the NPRM
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1,
800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling 202-
267-9677. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM.
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future FAA
NPRM's should request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes application
procedures.
Background
National parks are unique natural resources that have been provided
special protection by law. The National Park Service (NPS) and the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recognize that excessive noise
from aircraft overflights can interfere with NPS efforts to achieve a
natural park experience for visitors on the ground and to preserve
other park values.
Ensuring access to national parks, while still maintaining the
beauty and experience of the individual park, is one of the goals of
the national park system. To this end, the Departments of the Interior
and Transportation formed an interagency working group (IWG) on
December 22, 1993, to explore ways to limit or reduce the impacts from
overflights on national parks, including RMNP, while still ensuring
access to the parks. The IWG's tasks include reviewing the
environmental and safety concerns resulting from park overflights and
working toward resolution of specific park impacts where they are found
to exist. The FAA's role in the IWG has been to promote aviation and
aviation safety, and to provide for the safe and efficient use of
airspace. At the same time, the FAA recognizes the importance of
preserving, protecting, and enhancing the environment and minimizing
adverse effects of aviation. The Department of Interior's role in the
IWG has been to protect public land resources in national parks,
preserve environmental values of those areas, including wilderness
areas, and provide for public enjoyment of those areas.
The secretaries of the two Departments see the formation of the
working group and the commitment to addressing the effects of park
overflights as the initial stage in a spirit of cooperation between the
two departments to promote an effective balance of missions. This
cooperation is also necessary to integrate the roles of the two
departments: the FAA's authority to control the nation's airspace to
ensure aviation safety and efficiency, and the Department of the
Interior's responsibility for managing the nation's parks, such as
RMNP.
The FAA, with the cooperation of the Department of the Interior
through the IWG, is developing national standards that can be applied
to air traffic over all national parks, not just RMNP. The FAA expects
that any SFAR adopted in this rulemaking may be superseded by any
national standards. This Notice is not a part of the discussion on
national standards; it presents options that will be considered as
means to minimize the adverse effects of overflights on RMNP, and it
seeks comments and suggestions on voluntary and regulatory actions to
deal with the issue of aircraft noise within the Park.
Rocky Mountain National Park
Rocky Mountain National Park receives approximately three million
visitors a year, making it the sixth most visited national park in the
United States, despite its relatively small size (for a major Western
national park) of 265,727 acres. RMNP is located approximately 40 miles
outside the city limits of Denver and approximately 50 miles from the
Denver International
[[Page 24583]]
Airport. The topography of the park is characterized by steep
mountains, narrow valleys, and high elevations (8,000 to 14,250 ft).
Seventy percent of park terrain is above 10,000 feet.
As with other similar mountainous areas, RMNP presents pilots with
a challenging flying environment. It has high winds, often in excess of
100 mph. The park's high altitudes diminish engine output and propeller
efficiency, making it more difficult for an aircraft to perform in high
winds. The rugged terrain limits maneuverability, and rapidly changing
weather can envelop an aircraft. Perhaps in part for these reasons, the
use of the airspace over RMNP has so far not been extensive. Unlike
many other national parks, there are currently no air tour operators
overflying the park or operating in the surrounding airspace. Other
aviation users do operate in the airspace above RMNP. Non-commercial,
general aviation aircraft overfly the park following the routes
established for safe passage through the topography. In addition, due
to the Park's proximity to the Denver International Airport, aircraft
operating to or from the airport overfly RMNP. Arrival and departure
routes above the Park are necessary to ensure the safe and efficient
handling of air traffic into the airport. Traffic into the airport
operates at approximately 19,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL) for
jets and 16,000 feet above MSL for turboprop aircraft.
The Park enjoys an extensive road system within its boundaries,
which provides numerous opportunities for viewing the park's vistas.
Park officials estimate that 54 percent of the park can be seen from
one or more of the 149 miles of roads.
Ninety-two percent of the park is proposed for conclusion in the
National Wilderness Preservation System and is required by law to be
managed as a de facto wilderness until action is taken by Congress.
This means that, among other things, most motorized vehicles must be
contained within specific narrow corridors on the existing roadway
system, and no future development is permitted. The natural quiet
provided by the wilderness environment is valued by park users. In a
survey of RMNP users conducted for the NPS, 93 percent of the
respondents listed tranquillity as an ``extremely'' or ``very''
important value found in the park. And approximately 90 percent stated
that the noise from helicopter tours would affect their enjoyment of
the park. A copy of the study has been placed in the rulemaking docket.
Recently, the Department of Transportation has been requested by
the Governor of Colorado, members of the Colorado Congressional
delegation, and other officials to place a preemptive ban on air tour
operations at RMNP. Even though there are no air tour operations at the
Park currently, some operators apparently have expressed an interest in
starting such tours to officials of Estes Park, Colorado. The
government officials who have requested regulatory action are concerned
that an influx of air tour operations at RMNP would undermine enjoyment
of the Park by visitors on the ground.
The FAA wishes to be responsive to concerns about the effects of
overflights on the national park system. Although, as noted, the FAA is
still developing nationwide standards for overflights of national
parks, a relatively unusual set of circumstances has occurred at RMNP.
Judging from the requests received by the FAA, there is apparently
broad support for limitations on overflights among local leaders, even
in the absence of current overflights. There is also value in being
able to take the initiative now, before any overflights occur. At this
point, there has been no environmental loss from overflights and no
economic loss to any incumbent operator. Accordingly, the Department is
exploring the options and alternatives available. The IWG has examined
both traditional regulatory solutions and alternatives to regulation
during its review of the national overflight issue.
Following a review of the comments submitted in response to this
Notice, the FAA could proceed immediately to implement a final rule
that best balances the competing needs of different users of the park.
Therefore, comment is requested on each alternative listed in the
Proposal Section, as the FAA could adopt none, one, or a combination of
the listed alternatives. Comments are also invited to recommend an
approach different from those discussed here. Any such recommendation
should fully discuss the associated costs and benefits of the
recommended approach.
Environmental Documentation
This notice proposes a number of alternatives for addressing
potential aviation noise issues over Rocky Mountain National Park. The
FAA will select viable alternatives based on comments received and
other pertinent information, identify a proposed alternative for final
rulemaking, and if rulemaking is selected, publish a draft
environmental assessment for comment. The draft assessment will
evaluate all selected alternatives, at minimum assessing the current
condition, the preferred alternative, and the worst case scenario.
Comments on the draft environmental assessment will be evaluated and a
final assessment prepared prior to issuing a final rule.
Regulatory Evaluation
Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First,
Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency shall propose or
adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits
of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the economic
effect of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Office of
Management and Budget directs agencies to assess the effects of
regulatory changes on international trade. In conducting these
analyses, the FAA has determined that this proposed rule is ``a
significant regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order and
the Department of Transportation Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
This rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number
of small entities and would not constitute a barrier to international
trade. Due to the minimal economic impact of this proposed rulemaking,
further economic analysis is not necessary under the Department's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
Some of the proposed alternative rules would not impose any costs
on society. However, Alternative One would prevent air tour operators
form overflying the RMNP for sightseeing purposes for the limited
duration of the SFAR. Currently, there are no sightseeing air tour
operators overflying RMNP, and no operator has taken formal action to
begin such operations. However, some operators may be considering
starting these types of operations over the park in the future.
Alternative One would prevent these possible sightseeing air tour
overflights, for a period to be specified, in order to give the FAA and
the NPS time to study the situation and to develop a plan for
controlling these overflights to minimize or eliminate their effect on
park visitors on the ground.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily burdened
by government regulations. The RFA requires agencies to review rules
that may have a ``significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities.''
There are no operators currently performing sightseeing air tour
operations over RMNP. Therefore, the expected impact of this regulatory
[[Page 24584]]
action is negligible, and the Agency determines that this proposed
amendment would not have a significant impact on a substantial number
of small entities. However, we have asked elsewhere for comment on
whether any person intends to institute commercial sightseeing
operations at RMNP. Any such person is also invited to discuss the
impact of the proposed rule.
International Trade Impact Analysis
This action is not expected to have an adverse impact either on the
trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business abroad or on foreign
firms doing business in the United States. This assessment is based on
the fact that the segment of the aviation industry that may be affected
by this Notice and subsequent rule do not compete with similar
operators abroad. That is, their competitive environment would be
limited to RMNP.
Federalism Implications
This action would not have substantial effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. Indeed, State and local government representatives has
been among the advocates for FAA regulatory action to protect RMNP from
the noise created by overflights. Therefore, in accordance with
Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this action will not have
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment.
International Civil Aviation Organization and Joint Aviation
Regulations
In keeping with United States obligations under the convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization Standards and Recommended
Practices (SARP) to the maximum extent practicable. For this action,
the FAA has reviewed the SARP of Annex 10. The FAA has determined that
the proposals in this Notice, if promulgated, will not present any
differences.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-13), there are no requirements for information collection
associated with the proposed regulation.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the FAA has determined that this
NPRM is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
The FAA certifies that this NPRM will not have a significant economic
impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This NPRM is
considered significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
The Proposal
As previously stated, the FAA wishes to be responsive to concerns
about the effects of overflights on the national park system. For that
reason, the FAA is considering the following alternatives in response
to RMNP and the overflights issue. The FAA may proceed immediately to a
final rule based on this proposal that would implement the best
alternative or alternatives. Therefore, comment is required on each of
these proposals. The FAA may adopt one or a combination of several of
the listed proposals.
The following alternatives are listed in descending order of
restrictiveness. Each alternative lists the specific implementing,
regulatory language followed by an explanation of the alternative and
possible variations on the alternative.
Alternative One: Ban on commercial Aviation Sightseeing Tours
``No person may operate an aircraft within the lateral boundaries
of RMNP if the purpose of that operation is to carry passengers for
hire for the purpose of sightseeing or air tours.''
This alternative would prohibit flights within RMNP by commercial
air tour operators. In the opinion of RMNP officials, air torus are the
kind of operations that pose the greatest potential danger of creating
adverse effects on the Park. The FAA's preliminary view is that air
tour operations generally differ from other operations; e.g., in
frequency and altitude above ground level. In addition, of course, air
tour operations tend to visit points of interest within the park, where
ground-based visitors are also likely to concentrate. General aviation
would continue to operate over the Park under this variation. In
discussions with the FAA, NPS officials have indicated that other forms
of aviation activities within RMNP have not, to date, caused any
serious noise problem. The FAA specifically seeks comment on whether
the nature of air tour operations justify banning them while continuing
to permit other commercial and private operations.
Alternative Two: Limits on Operations
``Any person operating an aircraft below 2,000 ft AGL for the
purpose of carrying passengers for hire for sightseeing or air tours
within the lateral boundaries of RMNP must operate along the following
prescribed routes: [designate routes that follow the existing Park road
system]''
This alternative would require aircraft that fly below 2,000 feet
above ground level (AGL) within the Park to follow the road system. The
purpose of this proposal would be to concentrate the noise of aircraft
in the areas of the Park that are already exposed to a high
concentration of noise from automobiles, buses, etc. On the other hand,
the greatest percentage of ground-based visitors are also on or near
the Park road system.
Variant A: ``No person may operate an aircraft below 2,000 feet AGL
for the purpose of carrying passengers for hire for sightseeing or air
tours while within the lateral boundaries of RMNP.''
Variant B: ``No person may operate an aircraft below 2,000 feet AGL
for the purpose of carrying passengers for hire for sightseeing or air
tours within the lateral boundaries of RMNP before 10:00 a.m. or after
4:00 p.m.''
Variant C: ``No person may operate an aircraft below 2,000 ft AGL
for the purpose of carrying passengers for hire for sightseeing or air
tours within the lateral boundaries of RMNP from June through
September.''
These three variations on Alternative Two are examples of the types
of restrictions that could be utilized to minimize the effect of
overflights on the Park. Comments would be appreciated on these as well
as other types of restrictions that could be possible, including
different operating altitudes and times of day and season. Commenters
are requested to pay particular attention to the following questions:
Would limiting air operations to road corridors
concentrate too much noise in high visitor use areas? Conversely, would
limiting overflights to such areas further the goal of maximizing the
areas within the Park where visitors can enjoy the Park's natural
quiet?
Would limiting operations by time of day or season of the
year be economically feasible for potential tour operators?
Alternative Three: Voluntary Agreement
Voluntary agreements are non-regulatory but, due to their unique
nature, are treated as binding by the
[[Page 24585]]
signatories and are strictly self-policed, with monitoring by the NPS.
Voluntary agreements have proven successful in a number of cases. For
instance, a voluntary agreement between the NPS and the operators of
air tours around the Statute of Liberty established air tour routes
around the Statute and Ellis Island and stand-off distances for the air
tour aircraft. This in turn created a safer environment and a more
enjoyable experience for the visitors to the Statute. A similar
arrangement can be found in the voluntary agreement concerning the Arch
National Park in St. Louis, Missouri. Of course, voluntary agreements
are easier to achieve when there is an identifiable base of air tour
operators with which the NPS can enter into agreement.
This alternative would provide a non-regulatory approach to the
situation at RMNP. Under this alternative, present and potential future
commercial air tour operators (before they start operating) would
voluntarily enter into an agreement that would prohibit or restrict
operations within the boundaries of RMNP. Comments are requested on the
following matters, among others:
Areas that would be covered by a voluntary agreement,
including the nature of the possible restrictions and the identities of
the participants;
How such an agreement would be enforced;
How an agreement could be implemented within the necessary
time frame for action to protect the Park;
Suggestions with respect to penalties for violations;
The circumstances under which an agreement could be
terminated; and
Whether a regulatory system should be imposed now to serve
as a contingency back-up in the event that a voluntary agreement is not
reached or is terminated. Perhaps most of all, the FAA is interested in
comments from potential air tour operators on the circumstances under
which they would be willing to enter into a voluntary agreement to
prohibit or limit operations.
Of course, as with all the listed alternatives, the FAA could
combine a voluntary agreement with any of the other alternatives. For
example, the FAA could choose to seek a voluntary ban on operations
during the summer, combined with route or time-of-day restrictions
during other months. Other combinations could be considered, and the
above examples are intended merely as illustrations.
Issued in Washington on May 9, 1996.
David R. Hinson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-12133 Filed 5-10-96; 3:08 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12124 Head Start Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 15, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24467-24469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12124]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
45 CFR Part 1311
RIN 0970-AB56
Head Start Program
AGENCY: Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF),
Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Administration on Children, Youth and Families is issuing
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to implement a new statutory
provision authorizing the Secretary to create a Head Start Fellows
Program for staff in local Head Start programs or other individuals
working in the field of child development, child care, early childhood
education, health, and family services.
DATES: In order to be considered, comments on this proposed rule must
be received on or before July 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Please address comments to the Associate Commissioner, Head
Start Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, P.O. Box
1182, Washington, D.C. 20013. Beginning 14 days after close of the
comment period, comments will be available for public inspection in
Room 2222, 330 C Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20201, Monday through
Friday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
Comments that concern information collection requirements must be
sent to the Office of Management and Budget at the address listed in
the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this preamble. A copy of these
comments may also be sent to the Department cited above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Gray, Head Start Bureau,
[[Page 24468]]
Administration on Children, Youth and Families, P.O. Box 1182,
Washington, D.C. 20013; (202) 205-8404.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Program Purpose
Public Law 103-252, the Human Services Amendments of 1994, amended
the Head Start Act to authorize the creation of a Head Start Fellows
Program (HSFP), which will support professional development of
individuals working in Head Start or related programs.
The Head Start Bureau is pleased with the opportunity to develop
the HSFP. The Bureau anticipates that the HSFP will provide Head Start
Fellows with a unique opportunity to be exposed to activities, issues,
resources, and new approaches through placements that will include
national and regional Head Start offices, academia, and other public or
private nonprofit entities and organizations concerned with services to
children and families. The Head Start Bureau will benefit from the
valuable perspectives brought by the Fellows currently working in Head
Start and other programs across America to the national policy making
process.
II. Summary of the Proposed Regulation
The authority for this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is
section 1150 of Public Law 103-252, the Human Services Amendments of
1994 (the Act) which added section 648A(d) to the Head Start Act (42
U.S.C. 9843). Section 648A(d) authorizes the Secretary to establish a
program of Head Start Fellowships. Section 648A(d)(6) authorizes the
Secretary to make expenditures not to exceed $1,000,000 for any fiscal
year for stipends and other reasonable expenses for the Fellows
Program. Additional authority is found in section 648A(d)(8), which
mandates that the Secretary promulgate regulations to carry out section
648A(d).
The Act specifies:
To whom Fellowships may be competitively awarded;
Placement locations for Head Start Fellows;
The duration of Head Start Fellowships; and
The status of Head Start Fellows.
III. Section by Section Discussion of the NPRM
The following is a section by section discussion of the provisions
in the rule.
Section 1311.1 Head Start Fellows Program Purpose
This section describes the purpose of the HSFP which is to provide
opportunities to expand the knowledge and experience of local Head
Start program staff and others in the field of child development.
The Head Start Bureau regards the HSFP as part of an overall
strategy to promote staff and career development. Through placements in
national and regional Head Start offices, local Head Start programs,
institutions of higher learning and other offices concerned with child
and family services, Head Start Fellows will gain an understanding of
the policy making process to complement their experience as
practitioners in the field. Another important goal of the Program will
be to bring the valuable perspective and experience of practitioners to
the national policy making process.
Section 1311.2 Definitions
This section defines references to the Act, Associate Commissioner
for the Head Start Bureau and the term Head Start Fellows.
Section 1311.3 Application Process
This section refers to the application process for individuals who
wish to apply for the HSFP. An annual announcement of the availability
and number of Fellowships will be published in the Federal Register and
advertised widely to ensure a broad base of applicants.
Section 1311.4 Qualifications, Selection, and Placement
Paragraph (a) of this section sets forth the requirements in the
Act which specifies that an applicant must be working, on the date of
application, in a local Head Start program or in the field of child
development and family services. For applicants not currently working
in a local Head Start program, the HSFP will look for individuals
working in programs or on projects that share the goals of Head Start
and a common commitment to the support of families and children. The
Head Start Bureau hopes to attract a highly talented and diverse group
of people. The qualifications of the applicants for Head Start
Fellowship positions will be competitively reviewed. The Associate
Commissioner for Head Start will make the final selection of the Head
Start Fellows.
The number of Head Start Fellows each year will largely be a
function of the annual budget, Head Start priorities and the capacity
of the various placement offices. The Act precludes Federal employees
from participating in the HSFP.
Paragraph (b) of this section specifies that the placement
positions for Head Start Fellows may be located in: (1) the national
and regional offices administering Head Start within the Department of
Health and Human Services; (2) local Head Start agencies and programs;
(3) institutions of higher education; (4) public or private entities
and organizations concerned with services to children and families; and
(5) other appropriate settings.
In accordance with section 648A(d)(3)(B) of the Act, paragraph (c)
provides that a Head Start Fellow who is not an employee of a local
Head Start agency or program may only be placed in: (1) the national or
regional offices within the Department of Health and Human Services
that administer Head Start; or (2) local Head Start agencies. The Act
also specifies that Head Start Fellows may not be placed in any agency
whose primary purpose, or one of whose major purposes, is to influence
Federal, State or local legislation. This provision is reflected in
paragraph (d) of this section.
Section 1311.5 Duration of Fellowships and Status of Head Start
Fellows
Paragraph (a) of this section specifies that Head Start Fellowships
will last for a term of one year, and may be renewed for a term of one
additional year. Paragraphs (b) and (c) include the requirement in
Section 648A(d)(7) of the Act which states that, except where otherwise
provided, Head Start Fellows shall not be considered to be employees,
or otherwise in the service or employment, of the Federal Government.
Head Start Fellows shall be considered to be employees of the Federal
Government for the purposes of compensation for injuries under chapter
81 of title 5, United States Code. Head Start Fellows assigned to the
national or regional offices within the Department of Health and Human
Services shall be considered employees in the Executive Branch of the
Federal Government for the purposes of chapter 11 of Title 18, United
States Code, and for the purposes of any administrative standards of
conduct applicable to the employees of the agency to which they are
assigned.
IV. Impact Analysis
Executive Order 12866
This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking implements the statutory
authority to create a HSFP. Congress authorized expenditures allotted
under section 640(a)(2)(D), not to exceed $1 million. This section
allows for expenditures at the Secretary's discretion and is a
[[Page 24469]]
percentage of the annual existing appropriation.
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
The Secretary certifies that this rule will not have a significant
impact on substantial numbers of small entities.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, all
Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval of any reporting or record-keeping
requirement inherent in a proposed or final rule. This NPRM contains an
information collection requirement in section 1311.3 with regard to the
application process for individuals applying for the HSFP. The
respondents are the applicants. The Department needs to require an
application process in order to make determinations about the
applicants' eligibility to participate in the HSFP. The frequency of
responses from applicants (new) will be annual. The Administration for
Children and Families will consider comments by the public on the
proposed requirement for applications in evaluating the accuracy of our
estimate of the burden hours. We estimate that it will take
approximately two hours per applicant to supply the relevant
information. Although we do not know how many individuals will complete
the application process for this new program, we anticipate receiving
approximately 200 applications per year (this figure may increase or
decrease). The total burden estimate at this time is approximately 400
hours. This section will be submitted to OMB for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections of
information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect the
deadline for the public to comment to the Department on the proposed
regulations. Written comments to OMB should be sent directly to the
following address: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction
Project, 725 17th Street, N.W. Washington D.C. 20503, Attn: Ms. Wendy
Taylor.
List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 1311
Head Start Fellows, Head Start.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 93.600,
Project Head Start)
Dated: April 1, 1996.
Mary Jo Bane,
Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
For the reasons set forth in the Preamble, 45 CFR Chapter XIII is
proposed to be amended by adding a new Part 1311 as follows:
PART 1311--HEAD START FELLOWS PROGRAM
Sec.
1311.1 Head Start Fellows Program purpose.
1311.2 Definitions.
1311.3 Application process.
1311.4 Qualifications, selection, and placement.
1311.5 Duration of Fellowships and status of Head Start Fellows.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.
Sec. 1311.1 Head Start Fellows Program purpose.
(a) This Part establishes regulations implementing section 648A(d)
of the Head Start Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq., applicable
to the administration of the Head Start Fellows Program, including
selection, placement, duration and status of the Head Start Fellows.
(b) As provided in section 648A(d) of the Act, the Head Start
Fellows Program is designed to enhance the ability of Head Start
Fellows to make significant contributions to Head Start and to other
child development and family services programs.
Sec. 1311.2 Definitions.
As used in this part:
Act means the Head Start Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.
Associate Commissioner means the Associate Commissioner of the Head
Start Bureau in the Administration on Children, Youth and Families.
Head Start Fellows means individuals who participate in the Head
Start Fellows Program, who may be staff in local Head Start programs or
other individuals working in the field of child development and family
services.
Sec. 1311.3 Application process.
An individual who wishes to obtain a Fellowship must submit an
application to the Associate Commissioner. The Administration for
Children and Families will publish an annual announcement of the
availability and number of Fellowships in the Federal Register. Federal
employees are not eligible to apply.
Sec. 1311.4 Qualifications, selection, and placement.
(a) The Act specifies that an applicant must be working on the date
of application in a local Head Start program or otherwise working in
the field of child development and family services. The qualifications
of the applicants for Head Start Fellowship positions will be
competitively reviewed. The Associate Commissioner will make the final
selection of the Head Start Fellows.
(b) Head Start Fellows may be placed in:
(1) The Head Start national and regional Offices;
(2) Local Head Start agencies and programs;
(3) Institutions of higher education;
(4) Public or private entities and organizations concerned with
services to children and families; and
(5) Other appropriate settings..
(c) A Head Start Fellow who is not an employee of a local Head
Start agency or program may only be placed in the national or regional
offices within the Department of Health and Human Services that
administer Head Start or local Head Start agencies.
(d) Head Start Fellows shall not be placed in any agency whose
primary purpose, or one of whose major purposes is to influence
Federal, State or local legislation.
Sec. 1311.5 Duration of Fellowships and status of Head Start Fellows.
(a) Head Start Fellowships will be for terms of one year, and may
be renewed for a term of one additional year.
(b) For the purposes of compensation for injuries under chapter 81
of title 5, United States Code, Head Start Fellows shall be considered
to be employees, or otherwise in the service or employment, of the
Federal Government.
(c) Head Start Fellows assigned to the national or regional Offices
within the Department of Health and Human Services shall be considered
employees in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government for the
purposes of chapter 11 of Title 18, United States Code, and for the
purposes of any administrative standards of conduct applicable to the
employees of the agency to which they are assigned.
[FR Doc. 96-12124 Filed 5-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12120 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 15, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 24467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12120]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[OH16-3-7264b; FRL-5439-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
proposes to approve a State revision to the Ohio sulfur dioxide State
Implementation Plan (SO2 SIP), submitted on October 16, 1991, and
supplemented on March 17, 1993. This revision revises the SO2
emission limitations applicable to Hamilton County. The SIP revision
was conditionally approved on August 23, 1994 (59 FR 43287), and the
condition has been satisfied.
In the final rules section of this Federal Register, the USEPA is
publishing a full approval of the State's SIP revision request as a
direct final rule without prior proposal, because USEPA views this
action as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the
direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to
these actions, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this
proposed rule.
If USEPA receives timely comments adverse to or critical of the
approval, which have not been addressed by the State or USEPA, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so
at this time.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before
June 14, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed to: J. Elmer Bortzer,
Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Copies of the State submittal and USEPA's analysis of it are
available for inspection at: Air and Radiation Division, Air Programs
Branch, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Onischak, Environmental Engineer,
Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-5954.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, see the direct
final rule published in the rules section of this Federal Register.
Dated: February 14, 1996.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-12120 Filed 5-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12073 Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Limited Access Management of Federal Fisheries Off of Alaska; Addition of the City of Akutan To the List of Communities Eligible to Participate in the Community Development Quota Programs (CDQ)
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 15, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24475-24477]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12073]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 672, 675, and 676
[Docket No. 960501122-6122-01; I.D. 042596A]
RIN 0648-AI46
Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Groundfish Fishery of the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Limited Access Management of
Federal Fisheries Off of Alaska; Addition of the City of Akutan To the
List of Communities Eligible to Participate in the Community
Development Quota Programs (CDQ)
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to add the city of Akutan to the list of western
Alaska communities that are eligible to participate in the CDQ
programs, to remove the authority to use scales to weigh total catch in
the pollock CDQ fishery, and to prohibit processor vessels from filling
fish holding bins above the level of the viewing port. These actions
are necessary to further the objectives of the CDQ programs.
DATES: Comments must be received at the following address by June 13,
1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be sent to Ronald J. Berg, Chief, Fisheries
Management Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK
99802-1668; Attn: Lori Gravel. The Environmental Assessment/Regulatory
Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) may
be obtained from the same address or by calling 907-586-7228.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Ham, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The domestic groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of
the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management
area (BSAI) are managed by NMFS in accordance with the Fishery
Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska and the Fishery
Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Island Area (BSAI FMP). The FMPs were prepared by the Council
and approved by NMFS under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson Act). The FMPs are implemented by regulations
that appear at 50 CFR parts 672, 675, and 676. General regulations that
also govern the groundfish fisheries appear at 50 CFR part 620.
Beginning with the 1995 fishing season, the Pacific halibut and
sablefish fixed gear fisheries have been managed under the Individual
Fishing Quota (IFQ) program. The IFQ program is a regulatory regime
designed to promote the conservation and management of these fisheries
and to further the objectives of the Magnuson Act and the Northern
Pacific Halibut Act. Further information on the implementation of the
IFQ program, and the rationale supporting it, are contained in the
preamble to the final rule implementing the IFQ Program published in
the Federal Register, November 9, 1993 (58 FR 59375), and revised in
subsequent amendments to the program published in the Federal Register.
Information on the halibut and sablefish (H/S) CDQ program, and the
rationale supporting it, are contained in the preamble to the proposed
rule to implement the program that was published in the Federal
Register on December 3, 1992 (57 FR 57130).
The pollock CDQ program originally was developed by the Council and
submitted as part of Amendment 18 to the BSAI FMP. Amendment 18 was
approved in part by NMFS (57 FR 23321, June 3, 1992). Initial Federal
regulations implementing the pollock CDQ program became effective on
November 18, 1992 (57 FR 54936, November 23, 1992), and expired on
December 31, 1995. The Council proposed re-authorizing the pollock CDQ
program for an additional 3 years as part of Amendment 38 to the FMP,
and NMFS approved this amendment on November 28, 1995. Regulations
implementing the pollock CDQ program for 1996, 1997, and 1998, were
published on December 12, 1995 (60 FR 63654), and corrected on January
2, 1996 (61 FR 20).
The pollock and H/S CDQ programs apportion designated percentages
of the annual total allowable catch for pollock, Pacific halibut, and
fixed gear sablefish to a CDQ reserve that may be allocated to eligible
western Alaska communities. The purpose of the CDQ program is to
provide the CDQ communities with a means for starting or supporting
commercial seafood activities that will result in ongoing, regionally
based, commercial seafood or related businesses.
CDQ Eligibility for Akutan
The pollock CDQ regulations and the H/S CDQ regulations
(Sec. 675.27(d)(2) and Sec. 676.24(f)(2), respectively), list four
criteria for determining the eligibility of western Alaska communities
to participate in the CDQ programs. In 1992, NMFS determined that the
city of Akutan met the first three criteria but did not meet the fourth
criterion. The fourth criterion states that: ``the community must not
have previously developed harvesting or processing capability
sufficient to support substantial groundfish fisheries participation in
the BSAI, except if the community can show that benefits from an
approved community development plan (CDP) would be the only way to
realize a return from previous investments.''
Akutan was excluded from CDQ participation because a large
groundfish processing plant--the Trident plant--was located within
Akutan's city limits.
Despite the presence of this processing plant, the city of Akutan
apparently gains little benefit. The Council, at its September 1995,
meeting, recommended to NMFS that Akutan be added to the list of CDQ-
eligible communities. The Council took this action because the Aleutian
Pribilof Island Community Development Association, a CDQ group, put
forward evidence showing that Akutan should not be denied CDQ
eligibility because of the fourth criterion. The evidence showed that
the residents of Akutan have little economic interaction with the
Trident processing plant in Akutan due to the nature of the processing
plant's operations. The processing plant physically is detached from
the city of
[[Page 24476]]
Akutan, and the plant uses its own catcher vessels to supply the plant
with raw fish product. The processing plant was built to support the
large capacity, heavily capitalized fleet. The plant cannot usually
accept deliveries from the community's small skiff fleet because of the
relatively small volume of groundfish produced by that fleet, and
little or no local market exists for the local skiff fleet's fish.
Hence, the city of Akutan does not have access to groundfish processing
facilities that would support substantial groundfish fisheries
participation in the BSAI.
In addition to a lack of groundfish processing capability, the city
of Akutan has not developed harvesting capability. Vessels in the local
skiff fleet are too small and unsafe to participate effectively and no
small boat harbor is available for moorage. Allowing Akutan to
participate in the CDQ programs could provide a basis for the community
to develop the groundfish harvesting fleet and a boat harbor that would
enable the community to make deliveries to the existing Trident
groundfish processing plant or to develop alternative groundfish
processing facilities.
Weighing Total Catch in the Pollock CDQ Fishery
Processor vessels in the pollock CDQ fishery are required to either
provide measured, marked, and certified fish holding bins for
volumetric estimates of catch weight or to provide scales to weigh
total catch. This requirement at Sec. 675.27(h)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) was
published on May 16, 1994 (59 FR 25346), and effective August 15, 1994.
NMFS proposes to terminate the option to use scales to weigh catch
until NMFS issues regulations specifying a procedure to assure that
accurate weights are obtained from the scales.
Under the current regulations, any scale used on a processor vessel
to weigh groundfish harvested in the CDQ fisheries must measure catch
weights to at least 95-percent accuracy. However, evaluation of two
different models of flow scales during the 1995 pollock CDQ fishery and
open access pollock non-roe season indicates that, although these
scales are capable of weighing with a high degree of accuracy,
consistently accurate weighing has not yet been achieved. Observers
performed a series of scale tests by weighing approximately 800
kilograms of fish, first on a motion compensated platform scale (to
establish the ``known weight'' of the fish) and then again on the flow
scale. The accuracy of the scale, as measured by the difference between
these two weights, varied between 0 percent and 97 percent in
individual tests. This level of variability in scale performance would
not be acceptable under the current CDQ regulations or any regulations
anticipated for the BSAI pollock fishery. NMFS believes that requiring
that the scale perform to a certain level of accuracy is not adequate
to assure accurate weights. NMFS intends to implement a scale testing
and certification program that would require a processor vessel to
demonstrate that the scale was weighing accurately before the vessel
would be allowed to process fish. An advance notice of proposed
rulemaking, which outlines NMFS's proposed scale testing and
certification program, was published in the Federal Register on
February 20, 1996 (61 FR 6337). Once the scale testing and
certification program is implemented, the use of scales to weigh total
catch in the pollock CDQ fisheries may be allowed. Until such
regulations are implemented, Sec. 675.27(h)(2)(ii)(B) would be removed.
Prohibiting Vessels From Overfilling Bins
NMFS has become aware that the operators of some processor vessels
in the pollock CDQ fishery have been filling fish holding bins above
the level of the viewing port. When this happens, the NMFS-certified
observer is not able to see the marked increments on the inside of the
bins and to estimate total catch. Therefore, NMFS proposes to amend the
pollock CDQ regulations at Sec. 675.27(h)(2)(ii) to prohibit such
activity.
Classification
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of E.O. 12866.
NMFS prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis as part of
the regulatory impact review. The analysis describes the impact this
proposed rule would have on small entities if it is adopted. The
addition of Akutan to the list of eligible CDQ communities would affect
a substantial number of small entities, that is, the other 5
communities currently participating in the CDQ program. Akutan would be
expected to receive some CDQ support, and support would be reduced for
one or more of the other communities accordingly. While it is possible
that Akutan would receive only a very small allocation and the
resulting reallocations would not have a significant impact, it is more
likely that the reallocations would reduce the gross revenues of the
other 5 communities by more than 5 percent, thus having a significant
economic impact on these entities. It would be speculative to try to
predict specific allocations or impacts. The economic impact on other
communities is not a factor to be considered in determining whether a
particular community is eligible under the CDQ program. Accordingly,
there are no practical alternatives that would be available or that
could be considered to reduce or minimize the economic impact on other
communities if Akutan is added to the list of CDQ communities. Other
aspects of this proposed rule are not expected to have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
There are no reporting and recordkeeping requirements other than
those already discussed in the Paperwork Reduction Act material that
has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for approval.
There are no Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict
with this proposed rule.
There are no significant alternatives to the proposed action that
would accomplish the stated objectives.
A copy of the EA/RIR/IRFA analysis is available from NMFS (see
ADDRESSES).
List of Subjects
50 CFR Parts 672 and 675
Fisheries; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
50 CFR Part 676
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 8, 1996.
Gary Matlock,
Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
For reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR Parts 672, 675, and 676
are proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 672--GROUNDFISH OF THE GULF OF ALASKA
1. The authority citation for part 672 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. Table 7 to 50 CFR part 672, is amended by removing the statement
in brackets that follows the table heading and by revising the heading
of the Table and the entries under ``Aleutian Region'' to read as
follows:
Table 7 to Part 672--Communities Determined To Be Eligible To Apply for
Community Development Quotas (Other Communities That Do Not Appear on
This Table May Also Be Eligible)
Aleutian Region:
1. Atka
2. Akutan
[[Page 24477]]
3. False Pass
4. Nelson Lagoon
5. Nikolski
6. St. George
7. St. Paul
* * * * *
PART 675--GROUNDFISH OF THE BERING SEA AND ALEUTIAN ISLANDS AREA
3. The authority citation for part 675 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
4. In Sec. 675.27, the last sentence of paragraph (d)(2)(iv) and
paragraph (h)(2)(ii) introductory text are revised, paragraph
(h)(2)(ii)(A) heading and paragraph (h)(2)(ii)(B) are removed, and
paragraphs (h)(2)(ii)(A)(1) through (h)(2)(ii)(A)(5) are redesignated
as paragraphs (h)(2)(ii)(A) through (h)(2)(ii)(E), respectively, and
paragraph (h)(2)(ii)(F) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 675.27 Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program.
(applicable through December 31, 1998)
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) * * * The community of Unalaska is excluded under this
provision.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Each processor vessel participating in the CDQ fishery for
pollock must estimate the total weight of its groundfish catch by the
volumetric procedures specified in this paragraph.
* * * * *
(F) Fish must not be loaded into a bin used for volumetric
measurements above the level of the viewing port in the bin.
PART 676--LIMITED ACCESS MANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL FISHERIES IN AND OFF
OF ALASKA
5. The authority citation for part 676 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq. and 1801 et seq.
6. In Sec. 676.24, the last sentence of paragraph (f)(2)(iv) is
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 676.24 Western Alaska community Development Quota Program.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) * * * The community of Unalaska is excluded under this
provision;
* * * * *
7. Table 1 to Sec. 676.24, is amended by revising the heading of
the Table and the entries under ``Aleutian Region'' to read as follows:
Table 1 to Sec. 676.24--Communities Determined To Be Eligible To Apply
for Community Development Quotas (Other Communities That Do Not Appear
on This Table May Also Be Eligible)
Aleutian Region:
1. Atka
2. Akutan
3. False Pass
4. Nelson Lagoon
5. Nikolski
6. St. George
7. St. Paul
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-12073 Filed 5-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-W
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12025 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Use and Charges Clause Class Deviation
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 15, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24473-24474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12025]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
48 CFR Part 52
Federal Acquisition Regulation; Use and Charges Clause Class
Deviation
AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Notice of proposed class deviation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Defense (DoD) is proposing a class deviation
from the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) that simplifies the
method of determining rental charges for government property. The
proposed class deviation will allow defense contractors to propose
rental charges for the commercial use of government property and real
property while revisions to the FAR are being drafted.
DATES: Comments on the proposed class deviation should be submitted in
writing to the address shown below on or before June 14, 1996 to be
considered in the formulation of the final class deviation.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties should submit written comments to: Ms.
Angelena Moy, MPI, Room 3E144, Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3000. FAX
(703) 695-7596.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Angelena Moy, telephone (703) 695-1098.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
A notice of proposed class deviation was published in the Federal
Register on September 6, 1995 (60 FR 46259). DoD proposed to deviate
from the clause at FAR 52.245-9 to expedite implementation of
simplified government property rental procedures. After evaluating the
public comments, DoD made substantive revisions to the proposed class
deviation.
Therefore, DoD now proposes to deviate from the clause at FAR
52.245-9 as follows:
Part 52--Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses
52.245-9 Use and Charges
This deviation authorizes DoD to use the following clauses in lieu
of the clause at 52.245-9. The clause requires contractors, for real
property and associated fixtures, to obtain certified property
appraisals that compute a monthly, daily, or hourly rental rate for
comparable commercial property. Rental charges would be determined by
multiplying the rental time by an appraisal rental rate expressed as a
rate per hour. For other government property, rental charges are based
upon the property's acquisition cost and the actual rental time. The
clause permits contractors to request that the Government consider
alternate rental charge methods for either real or other property if
the contractor considers a time-based rental to be unreasonable or
impracticable.
USE AND CHARGES (APR 1984) (DEVIATION)
(a) Definitions. As used in this clause--
Acquisition cost means the acquisition cost recorded in the
Contractor's property control system or, in the absence of such
record, the value attributed by the Government to a government
property item for purposes of determining a reasonable rental
charge.
Government property means property owned or leased by the
Government.
Real property means land and rights in land, ground
improvements, utility distribution systems, and buildings and other
structures. It does not include foundations and other work necessary
for installing special tooling, special test equipment, or
equipment.
Rental period means the calendar period during which government
property is made available for commercial purposes.
Rental time means the number of hours, to the nearest whole
hour, rented property is actually used for commercial purposes. It
includes time to set up the property for such purposes, perform
required maintenance, and restore the property to its condition
prior to rental.
(b) General. (1) Rental requests must be submitted to the
administrative Contracting Officer, identify the property for which
rental is requested, propose a rental period, and calculate an
estimated rental charge by using the Contractor's best estimate of
rental time in the formulae described in paragraph (c) of this
clause.
(2) The Contractor shall not use government property for
commercial purposes until a rental charge for real property, or
estimated rental charge for other property, is agreed upon. Rented
property shall be used only on a non-interference basis.
(c) Rental charge. (1) Real property and associated fixtures.
(i) The Contractor shall obtain, at its expense, a property
appraisal from an independent licensed, accredited, or certified
appraiser that computes a monthly, daily, or hourly rental rate for
comparable commercial property. The appraisal may be used to compute
rentals under this clause throughout its effective period or, if an
effective period is not stated in the appraisal, for one year
following the date the appraisal was performed. The Contractor shall
submit the appraisal to the administrative Contracting Officer at
least 30 days prior to the date the property is needed for
commercial use. Except as provided in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this
clause, the administrative Contracting Officer shall use the
appraisal rental rate to determine a reasonable rental charge.
(ii) Rental charges shall be determined by multiplying the
rental time by the appraisal rental rate expressed as a rate per
hour. Monthly or daily appraisal rental rates shall be divided by
720 or 24, respectively, to determine an hourly rental rate.
(iii) When the administrative Contracting Officer has reason to
believe the appraisal rental rate is not reasonable, he or she shall
promptly notify the Contractor and provide his or her rationale. The
parties may agree on an alternate means for computing a reasonable
rental charge.
(2) Other government property. The Contractor may elect to
calculate the final rental charge using the appraisal method
described in paragraph (c)(1) of this clause subject to the
constraints therein or the following formula in which rental time
shall be expressed in increments of not less than one hour with
portions of hours rounded to the next higher hour--
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MY96.032
(3) Alternate methodology. The Contractor may request
consideration of an alternate basis for computing the rental charge
if it considers a time-based rental unreasonable or impractical.
(d) Rental payments. (1) Rent is due at the time and place
specified by the Contracting Officer. If a time is not specified,
the rental is due 60 days following completion of the rental period.
The Contractor shall calculate the rental due, and furnish records
or other supporting data in sufficient detail to permit the
administrative Contracting Officer to verify the rental time and
computation. Payment shall be made by check payable to the Treasurer
of the United States and sent to the payment office specified in
this contract or by electronic funds transfer to that office.
(2) Interest will be charged if payment is not made by the
specified payment date or,
[[Page 24474]]
in the absence of a specified date, the sixty-first day following
completion of the rental period. Interest will accrue at the
``Renegotiation Board Interest Rate'' (published in the Federal
Register semiannually on or about January 1st and July 1st) for the
period in which the rent is due.
(3) The Government's acceptance of any rental payment under this
clause, in whole or in part, shall not be construed as a waiver or
relinquishment of any rights it may have against the Contractor
stemming from the Contractor's unauthorized use of government
property or any other failure to perform this contract according to
its terms.
(e) Use revocation. At any time during the rental period, the
Government may revoke commercial use authorization and require the
Contractor, at the Contractor's expense, to return the property to
the Government, restore the property to its pre-rental condition, or
both.
(f) Unauthorized use. The unauthorized use of government
property can subject a person to fines, imprisonment, or both, under
18 U.S.C. 641.
(End of clause)
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 52
Government procurement.
Michele P. Peterson,
Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council.
[FR Doc. 96-12025 Filed 5-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.