25720 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 87 / Monday, May 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

The Solomon Amendment does not focus on the 

content of a school’s recruiting policy, [but instead 

on] the result achieved by the policy and compares 

the ‘access * * * provided’ military recruiters to 

that provided other recruiters. Applying the same 

policy to all recruiters is therefore insufficient to 

comply with the statute if it results in a greater level 

of access for other recruiters than for the military. 

* * * 

Not only does the text of the statute support this 

view, but this interpretation is necessary to give 

effect to the Solomon Amendment’s recent 

revision.’’ 18 10 U.S.C. 983. 

nonmilitary recruiter receiving the most 

favorable access, or access to student 

recruiting information. Implementing 

regulations are codified at 32 Code of Federal 

Regulations, part 216. 

This letter provides you an opportunity to 

clarify your institution’s policy regarding 

military recruiting on the campus of 

[University]. In that regard, I request, within 

the next 30 days, a written policy statement 

of the institution with respect to access to 

campus and students by military recruiting 

personnel. Your response should highlight 

any difference between access for military 

recruiters and access for recruiting by other 

potential employers. 

Based on this information and any 

additional facts you can provide, Department 

of Defense officials will make a 

determination as to your institution’s 

eligibility to receive funds by grant or 

contract. That decision may affect eligibility 

for funding from appropriations of the 

Departments of Defense, Transportation, 

Labor, Health and Human Services, 

Education, and related agencies. Should it be 

determined that [University] as an institution 

of higher education (or any subelement of the 

institution) is in violation of the 

aforementioned statutes and regulations, 

such funding would be stopped, and the 

institution of higher education (including 

any subelements of the institution) would 

remain ineligible to receive such funds until 

and unless the Department of Defense 

determines that the institution has ceased the 

offending policies and practices. 

I regret that this action may have to be 

taken. Successful recruiting requires that 

Department of Defense recruiters have equal 

access to students on the campuses of 

colleges and universities [and studentrecruiting information], and at the same time, 

have effective relationships with the officials 

and student bodies of those institutions. I 

hope it will be possible to identify and 

correct any policies or practices that inhibit 

military recruiting at your school. [My 

representative, (name), is] [I am] available to 

answer any of your questions by telephone at 

[telephone number]. I look forward to your 

reply. 

Sincerely, 

Appendix B of Part 216—ROTC Sample 

Letter of Inquiry 

(Tailor letter to situation presented) 

Dr. Jane Smith 

President 

ABC University 

Anywhere, USA 12345–9876 

Dear Dr. Smith: 

I understand that ABC University has 

[refused a request from a Military Department 

to establish a Senior ROTC unit at your 

institution][refused to continue existing 

ROTC programs at your 

institution][prevented students from 

participation at a Senior ROTC program at 

another institution] by a policy or practice of 

the University. 

Current Federal law 18 denies the use of 

certain Federal funds through grants or 

contracts, to include payment on such 

contracts or grants previously obligated, 

(excluding any Federal funding to an 

institution of higher education, or to an 

individual, to be available solely for student 

financial assistance, related administrative 

costs, or costs associated with attendance) 

from appropriations of the Departments of 

Defense, Transportation, Labor, Health and 

Human Services, Education, and related 

agencies to institutions of higher education 

(including any subelements of such 

institutions) that have a policy or practice of 

prohibiting or preventing the Secretary of 

Defense from maintaining, establishing, or 

efficiently operating a Senior ROTC unit. 

Implementing regulations are codified at 32 

Code of Federal Regulations, part 216. 

This letter provides you an opportunity to 

clarify your institution’s policy regarding 

ROTC access on the campus of ABC 

University. In that regard, I request, within 

the next 30 days, a written statement of the 

institution with respect to [define the 

problem area(s)]. 

Based on this information, Department of 

Defense officials will make a determination 

as to your institution’s eligibility to receive 

the above-referenced funds by grant or 

contract. That decision may affect eligibility 

for funding from appropriations of the 

Departments of Defense, Transportation, 

Labor, Health and Human Services, 

Education, and related agencies. Should it be 

determined that [University] as an institution 

of higher education (or any subelement of the 

institution) is in violation of the 

aforementioned statutes and regulations, 

such funding would be stopped, and the 

institution of higher education (including 

any subelements of the institution) would 

remain ineligible to receive such funds until 

and unless the Department of Defense 

determines that the institution has ceased the 

offending policies and practices. 

I regret that this action may have to be 

taken. Successful officer procurement 

requires that the Department of Defense 

maintain a strong ROTC program. I hope it 

will be possible to [define the correction to 

the aforementioned problem area(s)]. [My 

representative, (name), is] [I am] available to 

answer any of your questions by telephone at 

[telephone number]. I look forward to your 

reply. 

Sincerely, 

Dated: May 1, 2007. 

L.M. Bynum, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, DoD. 

[FR Doc. E7–8662 Filed 5–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[CGD09–07–007] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone, Chicago Harbor, Navy 

Pier East, Chicago, IL 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing 

to establish a Safety Zone in Chicago 

Harbor. This zone is intended to restrict 

vessels from portions of Chicago Harbor 

during fireworks displays that pose a 

hazard to public safety. This zone is 

necessary to protect the public from the 

hazards associated with fireworks 

displays. 

DATES: Comments and related materials 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

June 6, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to Commander 

Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, 2420 

South Lincoln Memorial Drive, 

Milwaukee, WI 53207. The Sector Lake 

Michigan Prevention Department 

maintains the public docket for this 

rulemaking. Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents indicated in this preamble as 

being available in the docket, will 

become part of this docket and will be 

available for inspection or copying 

between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have further questions on this rule, 

contact CWO Brad Hinken, Prevention 

Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake 

Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at (414) 747–

7154. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Comments 

We encourage you to submit 

comments and related materials. If you 

submit a comment, please include your 

name and address, identify the docket 

number for this rulemaking [CGD09–07–

007], indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and give the reason for each 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 87 / Monday, May 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 25721 

comment. You may submit your 

comments and material by mail (see 

ADDRESSES). If you submit them by mail 

or delivery, submit them in an unbound 

format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, 

suitable for copying and electronic 

filing. If you submit them by mail and 

would like to know that they reached 

the facility, please enclose a stamped, 

self-addressed postcard or envelope. We 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period, 

which may result in a modification to 

the rule. 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for a public meeting (see ADDRESSES) 

explaining why one would be 

beneficial. If we determine that one 

would aid this rulemaking, we will hold 

one at a time and place announced by 

a later notice in the Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

This safety zone is necessary to 

protect vessels and people from the 

hazards associated with fireworks 

displays. Such hazards include the 

explosive danger of fireworks and debris 

falling into the water that may cause 

death or serious bodily harm. 

Discussion of Rule 

The proposed safety zone is necessary 

to ensure the safety of vessels and 

people during fireworks displays in 

Chicago Harbor. The proposed safety 

zone encompasses the waters of Lake 

Michigan within Chicago Harbor 

between the east end of near Navy Pier 

and the Chicago Harbor breakwater. 

The Coast Guard Patrol Commander 

will be on-scene while the safety zone 

is enacted and inform the public that 

the safety zone is being enforced. The 

Captain of the Port will cause notice of 

enforcement of the safety zone 

established by this section to be made 

by all appropriate means to the affected 

segments of the public including 

publication in the Federal Register as 

practicable, in accordance with 33 CFR 

165.7(a). Such means of notification 

may also include, but are not limited to 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local 

Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the 

Port will issue a Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners notifying the public when 

enforcement of the safety zone 

established by this section is suspended. 

The proposed safety zone replaces 33 

CFR 165.918 Safety Zones; Annual 

fireworks events in the Captain of the 

Port Chicago Zone, paragraph (a)(13) 

and (14). The safety zone will 

encompass the waters of Lake Michigan 

within Chicago Harbor between the east 

end of Navy Pier and the Chicago 

Harbor breakwater beginning at 

41°53′37′′ N, 087°35′26′′ W; then south 

to 41°53′24′′ N, 087°35′26′′ W; then east 

to 41°53′24′′ N, 087°35′55′′ W; then 

north to 41°53′37′′ N, 087°35′55′′ W; 

then back to the point of origin. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, and 

does not require an assessment of 

potential costs and benefits under 

section 6(a)(3) of that Order. It has not 

been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget under that 

Order. It is not ‘‘significant’’ under the 

regulatory policies and procedures of 

the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS). 

We expect the economic impact of 

this rule to be so minimal that a full 

Regulatory Evaluation under the 

regulatory policies and procedures of 

DHS is unnecessary. The Coast Guard’s 

use of this safety zone will be periodic 

in nature and will likely not exceed 10, 

one-hour events per year. This safety 

zone will only be enforced during the 

time the safety zone is actually in use. 

Furthermore, this safety zone has been 

designed to allow vessels to transit 

unrestricted to portions of the harbor 

not affected by the zone. The Coast 

Guard expects insignificant adverse 

impact to mariners from the activation 

of this zone. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

We suspect that there may be small 

entities affected by this rule but are 

unable to provide more definitive 

information as to the number of small 

entities that may be affected. The risk, 

outlined above, is severe and requires 

that immediate action be taken. The 

Coast Guard will evaluate whether a 

substantial number of small entities are 

affected as more information becomes 

available. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this rule will have a significant 

economic impact on it, please submit a 

comment to the Docket Management 

Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. 

In your comment, explain why you 

think it qualifies, how, and to what 

degree this rule would economically 

affect it. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we offered to assist small entities in 

understanding the rule so that they can 

better evaluate its effects on them and 

participate in the rulemaking process. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on actions of Federal employees who 

enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). 

Collection of Information 

This proposed rule calls for no new 

collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this rule will not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this proposed rule elsewhere 

in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule will not effect a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
25722 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 87 / Monday, May 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and does not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that may disproportionately affect 

children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty 

rights of Native American Tribes. 

Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed 

to working with Tribal Governments to 

implement local policies and to mitigate 

tribal concerns. We have determined 

that this proposed safety zone and 

fishing rights protection need not be 

incompatible. We have also determined 

that this Proposed Rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it does not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have 

questions concerning the provisions of 

this Proposed Rule or options for 

compliance are encourage to contact the 

point of contact listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guides the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that there are no factors in this case that 

would limit the use of a categorical 

exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the 

Instruction. Therefore we believe this 

rule should be categorically excluded, 

under figure 2–1, paragraph 34 (g) from 

further environmental documentation. 

This proposed rule establishes a safety 

zone and as such is covered by this 

paragraph. 

A preliminary ‘‘Environmental 

Analysis Check List’’ and a preliminary 

‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’

are available in the docket where 

indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments 

on this section will be considered before 

we make the final decision on whether 

the rule should be categorically 

excluded from further environmental 

review. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. Add § 165.933 to read as follows: 

§ 165.933 Safety Zone, Chicago Harbor, 

Navy Pier East, Chicago IL. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: The waters of Lake 

Michigan within Chicago Harbor 

between the east end of Navy Pier and 

the Chicago Harbor breakwater 

beginning at 41°53′37′′ N, 087°35′26′′ W; 

then south to 41°53′24′′ N, 087°35′26′′ 

W; then east to 41°53′24′′ N, 087°35′55′′ 

W; then north to 41°53′37′′ N, 

087°35′55′′ W; then back to the point of 

origin. 

(b) Definitions. The following 

definitions apply to this section: (1) 

Designated representative means any 

Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or 

petty officer designated by the Captain 

of the Port Lake Michigan to monitor 

this safety zone, permit entry into this 

zone, give legally enforceable orders to 

persons or vessels within this zones and 

take other actions authorized by the 

Captain of the Port. 

(2) Public vessel means vessels 

owned, chartered, or operated by the 

United States, or by a State or political 

subdivision thereof. 

(c) Regulations. (1) The general 

regulations in 33 CFR 165.23 apply. 

(2) All persons and vessels must 

comply with the instructions of the 

Coast Guard Captain of the Port or a 

designated representative. Upon being 

hailed by the U.S. Coast Guard by siren, 

radio, flashing light or other means, the 

operator of a vessel shall proceed as 

directed. 

(4) All vessels must obtain permission 

from the Captain of the Port or a 

designated representative to enter, move 

within or exit the safety zone 

established in this section when this 

safety zone is enforced. Vessels and 

persons granted permission to enter the 

safety zone shall obey all lawful orders 

or directions of the Captain of the Port 

or a designated representative. While 

within a safety zone, all vessels shall 

operate at the minimum speed 

necessary to maintain a safe course. 

(d) Notice of Enforcement or 

Suspension of Enforcement. The safety 

zone established by this section will be 

enforced only upon notice of the 

Captain of the Port. The Captain of the 

Port will cause notice of enforcement of 

the safety zone established by this 

section to be made by all appropriate 

means to the affected segments of the 

public including publication in the 

Federal Register as practicable, in 

accordance with 33 CFR 165.7 (a). Such 

means of notification may also include, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 87 / Monday, May 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 25723 

but are not limited to Broadcast Notice 

to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. 

The Captain of the Port will issue a 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying 

the public when enforcement of the 

safety zone established by this section is 

suspended. 

(e) Exemption. Public vessels as 

defined in paragraph (b) of this section 

are exempt from the requirements in 

this section. 

(f) Wavier. For any vessel, the Captain 

of the Port Lake Michigan or a 

designated representative may waive 

any of the requirements of this section, 

upon finding that operational 

conditions or other circumstances are 

such that application of this section is 

unnecessary or impractical for the 

purposes of safety or environmental 

safety. 

Dated: March 12, 2007. 

Bruce C. Jones, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Lake Michigan. 

[FR Doc. E7–8605 Filed 5–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

41 CFR Parts 101–42, 101–45, and 102–

40 

[FPMR Case 2003–101–1; Docket 2007–001; 

Sequence 2] 

[FMR Case 2003–102–4] 

RIN 3090–AH21 

Federal Management Regulation; 

FPMR Case 2003–101–1; FMR Case 

2003–102–4, Disposition of Personal 

Property with Special Handling 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide 

Policy, General Services Administration 

(GSA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The General Services 

Administration is proposing to amend 

the Federal Property Management 

Regulations (FPMR) by revising 

coverage on the hazardous and certain 

categories of personal property and 

moving it into the Federal Management 

Regulation (FMR) addressing all types of 

property requiring special handling. A 

cross-reference is added to the FPMR to 

direct readers to the coverage in the 

FMR. The FMR coverage is written in 

plain language to provide agencies with 

updated regulatory material that is easy 

to read and understand. 

DATES: Interested parties should submit 

comments in writing on or before June 

6, 2007 to be considered in the 

formulation of a final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by FPMR case 2003–101–1 by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Search for any 

document by first selecting the proper 

document types and selecting ‘‘General 

Services Administration’’ as the agency 

of choice. At the ‘‘Keyword’’ prompt, 

type in the FMR case number (for 

example, FPMR case 2003–101–1) and 

click on the ‘‘Submit’’ button. Please 

include any personal and/or business 

information inside the document. You 

may also search for any document by 

clicking on the ‘‘Advanced search/ 

document search’’ tab at the top of the 

screen, selecting from the agency field 

‘‘General Services Administration’’, and 

typing the FMR case number in the 

keyword field. Select the ‘‘Submit’’

button. 

• Fax: 202–501–4067. 

• Mail: General Services 

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat 

(VIR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, 

ATTN: Laurieann Duarte, Washington, 

DC 20405. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite FPMR case 2003–101–1 in 

all correspondence related to this case. 

All comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Regulatory Secretariat, Room 4035, GS 

Building, Washington, DC 20405, at 

(202) 501–4755 for information 

pertaining to status or publication 

schedules. For clarification of content, 

contact Robert Holcombe, Director, 

Asset Management (MTA), at (202) 

501–3828. Please cite FPMR Case 

2003–101–1. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

This proposed rule updates, 

streamlines, and clarifies FPMR part 

101–42 and moves the part into the 

FMR as part 102–40. This proposed rule 

also removes §§ 101–45.001, 101–

45.002, and 101–45.004. The subject 

matter of these sections is addressed in 

section 102–40.190 (disposal of items 

requiring demilitarization); section 102–

40.50 (handling of property reported to 

GSA so as to preserve civilian utility as 

far as possible); section 102–40.220 

(disposal of gold as a precious metal); 

and section 102–40.135 (disposal of 

ATVs). 

In addition, this proposed rule 

removes section 101–45.003 regarding 

vehicle reconditioning. That section 

provides guidance that the Federal fleet 

community considers standard business 

practices, and is more prescriptive of 

specific tasks than is intended by this 

Governmentwide policy regulation. 

The proposed rule is written in a 

plain language question and answer 

format. This style uses an active voice, 

shorter sentences, and pronouns. A 

question and its answer combine to 

establish a rule. The employee and the 

agency must follow the language 

contained in both the question and its 

answer. 

Proposed FMR part 102–40 includes 

the following specific changes from 

FPMR part 101–42: 

1. Proposed section 102–40.30 

includes the following terms and 

definitions not found in section 101–

42.001: 

Ammunition 

Commerce Control List Item (CCLI) 

Demilitarization 

Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) 

Medical devices 

Precious metal 

2. Proposed section 102–40.95 revises 

FPMR section 101–42.401, Sales 

responsibilities for hazardous material, 

by allowing agencies to sell property 

with special handling requirements. 

3. Proposed section 102–40.150 has 

special requirements for handling 

asbestos products. 

4. Proposed section 102–40.140 

introduces the topic of disposal of 

ammunition which does not appear in 

part 101–42. The disposition of 

ammunition and ammunition 

components are combined in this part 

102–40. A new policy contained in part 

102–40 allows the sale of ammunition 

and ammunition components to 

activities licensed to perform 

manufacturing/ demanufacturing/ 

remanufacturing, or licensed to recover 

basic material content of the 

ammunition or ammunition 

components. Expended ammunition 

cartridge cases may be transferred or 

donated when the recipient certifies that 

the cartridge case will be reloaded and 

used only for law enforcement 

purposes. 

5. Proposed section 102–40.195 has 

special requirements for handling 

Commerce Control List items. 

6. Proposed part 102–40 incorporates 

topics that appeared in 41 CFR part 

101–45; specifically, the provisions 

appearing at section 101–45.001, 

‘‘Demilitarization and 

decontamination’’; section 101–45.002, 

‘‘Gold’’; and section 101–45.004, ‘‘All 

terrain vehicles.’’ The subject matter of 

these sections is addressed in section 

102–40.190 (disposal of items requiring 

demilitarization); section 102–40.50 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS