35576 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 108 / Monday, June 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

§ 914.16 [Amended]

3. Section 914.16 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraph (ff).

[FR Doc. 00–13972 Filed 6–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

32 CFR Part 3

RIN 0790–AG79

Transactions Other Than Contracts,

Grants, or Cooperative Agreements for

Prototype Projects

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD.

ACTION: Interim rule.

SUMMARY: This interim rule requires

inclusion of a clause as required by law,

providing for Comptroller General

access to records in transactions other

than contracts, grants or cooperative

agreements for prototype projects that

provide for total payments in excess of

$5,000,000. This rule is published in the

Federal Register for public comment

because it directly impacts the public by

prescribing conduct that must be

followed by a party to, or entity that

participates in the performance of, any

such transaction.

DATES: The interim rule will be effective

July 5, 2000. Comments on the interim

rule should be submitted in writing to

the address specified below on or before

August 4, 2000, to be considered in the

formation of the final rule.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties should

submit written comments on the interim

rule to: Office of the Director, Defense

Procurement, Attn: Ms. Teresa Brooks,

PDUSD(A&T)/DP(DSPS), 3060 Defense

Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–3060.

Telefax (703) 693–9616.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Teresa Brooks, (703) 695–4258.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

Section 845 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994,

Pub. L. 103–160, as amended by section

804 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997,

Pub. L. 104–201 and section 241 of the

Strom Thurmond National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999,

Pub. L. 105–261, authorizes the

Secretary of a Military Department, the

Director of Defense Advanced Research

Projects Agency and any other official

designated by the Secretary of Defense,

to enter into transactions other than

contracts, grants or cooperative

agreements for prototype projects that

are directly relevant to weapons or

weapon systems proposed to be

acquired or developed by the

Department of Defense. Such

transactions are commonly referred to as

‘‘other transaction’’ agreements for

prototype projects.

Section 801 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000

establishes a requirement that an ‘‘other

transaction’’ agreement for a prototype

project that provides for payments in a

total amount in excess of $5,000,000

include a clause that provides

Comptroller General access to records.

To the extent that a particular statute

or regulation is limited in its

applicability to the use of a procurement

contract, it would generally not apply to

‘‘other transactions’’ for prototype

projects. The requirement for

Comptroller General access on ‘‘other

transactions’’ for prototype projects that

provide for payments that exceed

$5,000,000 is the first statutory

requirement mandating conditions that

must be included in an ‘‘other

transactions’’ agreement. The content of

this rule may also be included in a

future DoD issuance.

Regulatory Evaluation

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory

Planning and Review’’

It has been determined that this rule

is not a significant rule as defined under

section 3(f)(1) through 3(f)(4) of

Executive Order 12866.

Pub. L. 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory Flexibility

Act’’ (5 U.S.C. 601)

It has been certified that this part is

not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) because it

would not, if promulgated, have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The rule requires only that the

Comptroller General be provided access

to records of certain projects. It does not

require additional record keeping or

other significant expense by project

participants.

Pub. L. 96–511, ‘‘Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995’’ (44 U.S.C. et seq.)

It has been certified that this rule does

not impose any reporting or record

keeping requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 3

Grant programs.

Accordingly, Title 32, Chapter 1 is

amended to add part 3 to read as

follows:

PART 3—TRANSACTIONS OTHER

THAN CONTRACTS, GRANTS, OR

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS FOR

PROTOTYPE PROJECTS

Sec.

3.1 Purpose.

3.2 Applicability.

3.3 Definitions.

3.4 Policy.

Authority: Section 801, Pub. L. 106–65.

§ 3.1 Purpose.

This part implements section 801 of

the National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 2000 (Pub. L. 106–65). It

establishes the requirement for the

inclusion of a clause in transactions

other than contracts, grants or

cooperative agreements for prototype

projects awarded under authority of 10

U.S.C. 2371 that provides Comptroller

General access to records when

payments total an amount in excess of

$5,000,000.

§ 3.2 Applicability.

This part applies to the Secretary of

a Military Department, the Directors of

the Defense Agencies, and any other

official designated by the Secretary of

Defense to enter into transactions other

than contracts, grants or cooperative

agreements for prototype projects that

are directly relevant to weapons or

weapon systems proposed to be

acquired or developed by the

Department of Defense, under authority

of 10 U.S.C. 2371. Such transactions are

commonly referred to as ‘‘other

transaction’’ agreements and are

hereafter referred to as agreements.

§ 3.3 Definitions.

Contracting activity. An element of an

agency designated by the agency head

and delegated broad authority regarding

acquisition functions. It also means

elements designated by the director of a

defense agency that has been delegated

contracting authority through its agency

charter.

Head of the contracting activity. The

official who has overall responsibility

for managing the contracting activity.

§ 3.4 Policy.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph

(b) of this section, a clause must be

included in solicitations and agreements

for prototype projects awarded under

authority of 10 U.S.C. 2371, that provide

for total government payments in excess

of $5,000,000 to allow Comptroller

General access to records that directly

pertain to such agreements.

(b) The clause referenced in paragraph

(a) of this section will not apply with

respect to a party or entity, or

subordinate element of a party or entity,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 108 / Monday, June 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 35577

that has not entered into any other

contract, grant, cooperative agreement

or ‘‘other transaction’’ agreement that

provides for audit access by a

government entity in the year prior to

the date of the agreement.

(c) The head of the contracting

activity (HCA) that is carrying out the

agreement may waive the applicability

of the Comptroller General access

requirement if the HCA determines it

would not be in the public interest to

apply the requirement to the agreement.

The waiver will be effective with

respect to the agreement only if the HCA

transmits a notification of the waiver to

the Committees on Armed Services of

the Senate and the House of

Representatives, the Comptroller

General, and the Director, Defense

Procurement before entering into the

agreement. The notification must

include the rationale for the

determination.

(d) The HCA must notify the Director,

Defense Procurement of situations

where there is evidence that the

Comptroller General Access

requirement caused companies to refuse

to participate or otherwise restricted the

Department’s access to companies that

typically do not do business with the

Department.

(e) In no case will the requirement to

examine records under the clause

referenced in paragraph (a) of this

section apply to an agreement where

more than three years have passed after

final payment is made by the

government under such an agreement.

(f) The clause referenced in paragraph

(a) of this section must provide for the

following:

(1) The Comptroller General of the

General of the United States, in the

discretion of the Comptroller General,

shall have access to and the right to

examine records of any party to the

agreement or any entity that participates

in the performance of this agreement

that directly pertain to, and involve

transactions relating to, the agreement.

(2) Excepted from the Comptroller

General Access requirement is any party

to this agreement or any entity that

participates in the performance of the

agreement, or any subordinate element

of such party or entity, that has not

entered into any other contract, grant,

cooperative agreement, or ‘‘other

transaction’’ agreement that provides for

audit access by a government entity in

the year prior to the date of the

agreement.

(3) This clause shall not be construed

to require any party or entity, or any

subordinate element of such party or

entity, that participates in the

performance of the agreement, to create

or maintain any record that is not

otherwise maintained in the ordinary

course of business or pursuant to a

provision of law.

(4) The Comptroller General shall

have access to the records described in

this clause until three years after the

date the final payment is made by the

United States under this agreement.

(5) The recipient of the agreement

shall flow down this provision to any

entity that participates in the

performance of the agreement.

Dated: May 24, 2000.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 00–13521 Filed 6–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001–10–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[OH 103–1b; FRL–6701–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Ohio

Designation of Areas for Air Quality

Planning Purposes; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving sulfur

dioxide redesignation requests

submitted by the State of Ohio on March

20, 2000, for Coshocton, Gallia, and

Lorain Counties. This request was first

submitted on October 26, 1995. Ohio

subsequently provided supplemental

material to EPA in a letter dated

September 14, 1999. On March 20, 2000,

Ohio submitted final requests to

redesignate Coshocton, Gallia, and

Lorain Counties to attainment of the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO2).

EPA is also approving the

maintenance plans for Coshocton,

Gallia, and Lorain Counties. The plans

are intended to ensure maintenance of

the NAAQS for at least 10 years, and

were submitted with the redesignation

requests.

In conjunction with these actions,

EPA is approving state-adopted

emission limits for the following

facilities: in Coshocton County:

Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric—

Conesville Plant; in Gallia County: Ohio

Valley Electric Company—Kyger Creek

Plant and Ohio Power—Gavin Plant;

and in Lorain County: CEI—Avon Lake

Plant, Ohio Edison—Edgewater Plant,

U.S. Steel—Lorain Plant, and B.F.

Goodrich Company—Lorain County

Plant.

EPA is also approving other minor

revisions in the state’s rules for these

three Counties.

On November 23, 1999, EPA received

one comment on the proposal to

redesignate Coshocton, Gallia, and

Lorain Counties. American Electric

Power (AEP) encouraged EPA to take

final action to approve the

redesignation.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 5,

2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Phuong Nguyen at (312) 886–6701.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document wherever

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, or ‘‘our’’ is used we mean

EPA.

This supplemental information

section is organized as follows:

I. General Information

1. What action is EPA taking today?

2. Why is EPA taking this action?

3. What is the background for this action?

II. How Does the Proposed Submittal

Compare to the Final Submittal?

III. Public Comments and EPA Response

What comments did EPA receive?

IV. Background on Ohio Submittal

1. What information did Ohio submit, and

what were its requests?

2. What guidance documents did EPA use

in this rulemaking to evaluate Ohio’s

request?

V. State Implementation Plan (SIP)

1. How do state-adopted emission limits

compare to the FIP limits?

2. What are the sources and emission limits

that will be affected by EPA’s action?

VI. Maintenance Plan

1. How does the maintenance plan apply

in Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain

Counties?

2. What are the maintenance plan

reduction requirements?

VII. Redesignation Evaluation

1. What five criteria did EPA use to review

the redesignation requests?

2. Are these five criteria satisfied for

Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties?

VIII. Final Rulemaking Action

IX. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Executive Order 13045

C. Executive Order 13084

D. Executive Order 13132

E. Regulatory Flexibility

F. Unfunded Mandates

G. Submission To Congress and The

Comptroller General

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

I. General Information

1. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

In this action, EPA is approving SO2

redesignation requests submitted by the

State of Ohio for Coshocton, Gallia, and