Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 1997 / Proposed Rules 44247

to a location where the requirements of this

AD can be accomplished.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 13,

1997.

Larry M. Kelly,

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–22045 Filed 8–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 111

[Docket No. 95N–0304]

RIN 0901–AA59

Dietary Supplements Containing

Ephedrine Alkaloids; Notification of

Intent to Reopen Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is announcing

that it will reopen the comment period

for the proposed rule on dietary

supplements containing ephedrine

alkaloids that appeared in the Federal

Register of June 4, 1997 (62 FR 30678).

The agency intends to take this action

because FDA has identified a number of

inadvertent omissions in the

administrative record. After the agency

rectifies these omissions, it will

announce in the Federal Register the

reopening of the comment period for 75

days.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Margaret C. Binzer, Center for Food

Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS–

456), Food and Drug Administration,

200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204,

202–401–9859, FAX 202–260–8957, or

E-mail M.Binzer@Bangate.fda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register of June 4, 1997, FDA

published a proposed rule regarding the

formulation and labeling of dietary

supplements containing ephedrine

alkaloids. FDA proposed this rule in

response to reports of serious illnesses

and injuries, including multiple deaths,

associated with the use of dietary

supplement products that contain

ephedrine alkaloids and the agency’s

investigations and analyses of these

reports of illnesses and injuries.

Interested persons were given until

August 18, 1997, to comment on the

proposal.

It has come to FDA’s attention that

there are omissions in the

administrative record. The agency has

identified a number of missing pages in

some documents that were placed in the

administrative record and other minor

problems. FDA will rectify these

omissions and problems and make the

corrected administrative record

available with ample time for interested

persons to review the record and

prepare comments. Thus, the agency

will correct the administrative record

and will provide a new 75-day period

for comment.

Dated: August 15, 1997.

William K. Hubbard,

Associate Commissioner for Policy

Coordination, FDA.

[FR Doc. 97–22127 Filed 8–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[SC 30–1–9645b: FRL–5876–9]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plan, South Carolina:

Listing of Exempt Volatile Organic

Compounds

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: On May 6, 1996, the South

Carolina Department of Health and

Environmental Control submitted

revisions to the South Carolina State

Implementation Plan (SIP) involving the

addition of Supplement C to the air

quality modeling guidelines located in

61–62.5 Standard 7, Prevention of

Significant Deterioration. In the final

rules section of this Federal Register,

the EPA is approving the SIP revision as

a direct final rule without prior proposal

because the EPA views this as a

noncontroversial revision amendment

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 that direct final rule, no

further activity is contemplated in

relation to this proposed rule. If EPA

receives adverse comments, 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. The EPA

will not institute a second comment

period on this document. Any parties

interested in commenting on this

document should do so at this time.

DATES: To be considered, comments

must be received by September 19,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Mr.

Randy Terry at the EPA Region 4 Office

listed below.

Copies of the documents relative to

this action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations. The

interested persons wanting to examine

these documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least 24 hours before the visiting day.

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102),

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington DC 20460.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61

Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303.

South Carolina Department of Health

and Environmental Control, 600 Bull

Street, Columbia, South Carolina

29201–1708.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Randy Terry, Regulatory Planning

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,

Pesticides, and Toxics Management

Division, Region 4 Environmental

Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street,

Atlanta, Georgia 30303. The telephone

number is 404/562–9032.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information see the direct

final rule which is published in the

rules section of this Federal Register.

Dated: May 22, 1997.

R. F. McGhee,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–21918 Filed 8–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

48 CFR Parts 213, 214, 215, and 242

[DEARS Case 95–D715]

Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement; Past

Performance

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense

(DoD) has decided to withdraw a

proposed rule published at 60 FR 57691,

November 17, 1995. The rule proposed

amendments to the Defense Federal

Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(DFARS) to implement Section 1091 of

the Federal Acquisition Streamlining
44248 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103–355) and Office

of Federal Procurement Policy Letter

92–5, Past Performance Information.

Subsequent to publication of the

proposed rule, numerous policy issues

relating to the collection and

appropriate use of past performance

information were identified. The DoD

Past Performance Integrated Process

Action Team (IPT) is currently

determining the appropriate resolution

to these issues. Therefore, DFARS Case

95–D715 is closed and the proposed

rule is withdrawn. A new DFARS case

will be opened after the DoD Past

Performance IPT develops its

recommendations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Defense Acquisition Regulations

Council, Attn: Ms. Melissa Rider,

PDUSD (A&T) DP (DAR), IMD 3D139,

3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC

20301–3062. Telephone (703) 602–0131;

telefax (703) 602–0350.

Michele P. Peterson,

Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition

Regulations Council.

[FR Doc. 97–21889 Filed 8–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

48 CFR Part 231

[DFARS Case 96–D303]

Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement; Cost

Reimbursement Rules for Indirect

Costs—Private Sector

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Proposed rule with request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Director of Defense

Procurement is proposing to amend the

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation

Supplement (DFARS) to provide

additional guidance on defense

capability preservation agreements.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule

should be submitted in writing to the

address shown below on or before

October 20, 1997, to be considered in

the formulation of the final rule.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties should

submit written comments to: Defense

Acquisition Regulations Council, Attn:

Ms. Sandra G. Haberlin, PDUSD (A&T)

DP (DAR), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense

Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–3062.

Telefax number (703) 602–0350. Please

cite DFARS Case 96–D303 in all

correspondence related to this issue.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Sandra G. Haberlin, (703) 602–0131.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

Section 808 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996

(Public Law 104–106) permits DoD to

enter into a defense capability

preservation agreement with a defense

contractor where it would facilitate the

achievement of the policy objectives set

forth in 10 U.S.C. 2501(b). Such an

agreement would permit the contractor

to claim certain indirect costs,

attributable to its private sector work, on

its defense contracts. To implement

Section 808, an interim rule was

published in the Federal Register on

May 13, 1996 (61 FR 21973), that added

DFARS subsection 231.205–71, Defense

capability preservation agreements.

This proposed rule revises subsection

231.205–71 to add additional guidance

for evaluating requests for defense

capability preservation agreements, and

to add cost reimbursement rules to

apply if DoD enters into such an

agreement with a contractor.

Specifically, this rule differs from the

interim rule by (1) redesignating

paragraph (b) as paragraph (e); (2)

adding paragraphs (b) Definition, (c)

Purpose and guidelines, and (d) Costreimbursement rules; and (3) making

editorial changes. Due to the differences

between the two rules, a proposed rule

is being promulgated to obtain further

public comment prior to finalizing the

rule.

Public comments on the interim rule

were received from three sources. All

comments were considered in the

development of this proposed rule.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

This proposed rule is not expected to

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities

within the meaning of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.,

because most contracts awarded to

small entities use simplified acquisition

procedures or are awarded on a

competitive, fixed-price basis, and do

not require application of the cost

principle contained in this rule. An

initial regulatory flexibility analysis has,

therefore, not been performed.

Comments are invited from small

businesses and other interested parties.

Comments from small entities

concerning the affected DFARS subpart

also will be considered in accordance

with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments

should be submitted separately and

should cite DFARS Case 96–D303 in

correspondence.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44

U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) applies because the

proposed rule contains information

collection requirements. The Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) has

approved an information collection

concerning defense capability

preservation agreements through July

31, 1999, under OMB Control Number

0704–0387, based on the requirements

in the interim rule. However, the actual

number of respondents requesting

defense capability preservation

agreements since publication of the

interim rule on May 13, 1996, is lower

than previously estimated. Accordingly,

the estimate of the annual number of

respondents is decreased from 50 to 10,

and the estimated annual information

collection burden is decreased from

4000 to 800 hours.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 231

Government procurement.

Michele P. Peterson,

Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition

Regulations Council.

Therefore, it is proposed that 48 CFR

Part 231 be amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR

Part 231 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR

Chapter 1.

PART 231—CONTRACT COST

PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES

2. Section 231.205–71 is revised to

read as follows:

231.205–71 Defense capability

preservation agreements.

(a) Scope and authority. Where it

would facilitate the achievement of the

policy objectives set forth in 10 U.S.C.

2501(b), DoD may enter into a defense

capability preservation agreement with

a contractor. As authorized by Section

808 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996

(Public Law 104–106), such an

agreement would permit the contractor

to claim certain indirect costs

attributable to its private sector work as

allowable costs on its defense contracts.

(b) Definition. ‘‘Incremental indirect

cost,’’ as used in this subsection, means

an additional indirect cost that results

from performing private sector work

described in a defense capability

preservation agreement.

(c) Purpose and guidelines. The

purpose of a defense capability

preservation agreement is to broaden

and strengthen the industrial base by

providing an incentive for a company to

obtain new private sector work, thereby

reducing DoD’s cost of doing business.