12256 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 44 / Friday, March 6, 2015 / Notices 

1According to EZR, RH purchased the Line from 

Conewago Industrial Track, Inc. (Conewago) in 

September 2014. RH and Conewago, both are 

noncarriers. 

2Once EZR enters into the agreement, it should 

submit the agreement into the record in this 

proceeding in order to provide sufficient 

information and documentation for the Board to 

determine whether the owner-lessor can exert 

undue control over the lessee-carrier’s operations. 

See Anthony Macrie—Continuance in Control 

Exemption—N.J. Seashire Lines, Inc., FD 35296, 

slip op at 3 (STB served Aug. 31, 2010); N. Shore 

R.R.-Acquis & Operation Exemption—PPL 

Susquehanna, LLC, FD 35377, slip op. at 3 (STB 

served Apr. 26, 2011). 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Maritime Administration 

[Docket No. MARAD 2015–0022] 

Use of Foreign-Flag Anchor Handling 

Vessels in the Beaufort Sea or Chukchi 

Sea Adjacent to Alaska 

AGENCY: Maritime Administration, 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of 

Transportation, as represented by the 

Maritime Administration, is authorized 

to make determinations permitting the 

use of foreign-flag anchor handling 

vessels in certain cases (and for a 

limited period of time) if no U.S.-flag 

vessels are found to be suitable and 

reasonably available. 

A request for such a determination 

regarding anchor handling vessels with 

a minimum ice class A3 has been 

received by the Maritime 

Administration. If the Maritime 

Administration determines that U.S.- 

flag vessels are not suitable and 

reasonably available for the proposed 

service, a determination will be granted 

allowing for the conditional use of these 

vessels, within a set time frame. Those 

interested in providing the names of 

suitable and available vessels for the 

proposed service should refer to the 

docket number, and identify the U.S.- 

flag vessels available. 

DATES: Submit U.S.-flag anchor 

handling ice class A3 or above vessel 

nominations on or before April 6, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: U.S.-flag vessel nominations 

should refer to docket number MARAD 

2015–0022. Written nominations may be 

submitted by hand or by mail to the 

Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30 West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. You may 

also send documents electronically via 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov. To do so, search 

‘‘MARAD 2015–0022’’ and follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

All submissions will become part of 

this docket and will be available for 

inspection and copying at the above 

address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

E.T., Monday through Friday, except 

federal holidays. An electronic version 

of this document, and all documents 

entered into this docket, is available on 

the World Wide Web at http://

www.regulations.gov., key search 

‘‘MARAD 2015–0022.’’ All comments 

and documents received will be posted 

without change to the docket, including 

any personal or business information 

provided. For additional information on 

the availability of submitted material, 

see the section entitled Privacy Act. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You 

may contact Michael Hokana, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Maritime 

Administration, MAR–730 Room W21– 

304, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202– 

366–0760. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Maritime Administration has received a 

request from a company seeking 

permission to charter a foreign-flag iceclassed A3 anchor handling vessel 

adjacent to the coast of Alaska. The 

foreign-flag anchor handling vessel 

(TOR VIKING II 9199622) would operate 

in the Beaufort Sea or Chukchi Sea 

adjacent to Alaska, under certain 

conditions, and for a limited period of 

time. Section 306 of Public Law 111– 

281 allows the use of foreign-flag vessels 

in this regard if the Maritime 

Administration determines that U.S.- 

flag vessels are not suitable or 

reasonably available. 

The Maritime Administration is 

posting this notice in the Federal 

Register providing the public notice 30 

days in advance of our intention to 

provide a determination allowing for the 

use of a foreign-flag vessel in this 

regard, if suitable and available U.S.-flag 

vessels are not otherwise identified. Our 

determination will be for a period of one 

calendar year from July 2015. Foreignflag anchor handling vessels may not be 

employed for the setting, relocation or 

recovery of anchors or other mooring 

equipment of a mobile offshore drilling 

unit after December 31, 2017. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments and 

supporting documentation received into 

any of our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review the DOT 

Privacy Act system of records notice for 

the Federal Docket Management System 

(FDMS) in the Federal Register 

published on January 17, 2008, (73 FR 

3316) at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/

2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf. 

Authority: Section 306, Pub. L. 111–281 

(Oct. 15, 2010). 

By Order of the Maritime Administrator. 

Dated: March 3, 2015. 

Thomas M. Hudson, Jr., 

Assistant Secretary, Maritime Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05226 Filed 3–5–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[Docket No. FD 35902] 

Elizabethtown Industrial Railroad 

LLC—Operation Exemption—Rail 

Holdings, Inc. 

Elizabethtown Industrial Railroad 

LLC (EZR), a noncarrier, has filed a 

verified notice of exemption under 49 

CFR 1150.31 to operate a 1.0-mile line 

of railroad, known as the Conewago 

Industrial Track, between the 

connection with the Norfolk Southern 

Railway Company’s (NS) main line at 

milepost 1.0 in Conewago, and milepost 

0.0 in West Donegal Township, in 

Lancaster County Pa., (the Line), 

pursuant to an operating agreement with 

Rail Holdings, Inc. (RH), the owner of 

the Line.1

This transaction is related to a 

concurrently filed verified notice of 

exemption in Eric Bickleman & Robert 

Lowe—Continuance in Control 

Exemption—Elizabethtown Industrial 

Railroad, Docket No. FD 35903, in 

which Eric Bickleman and Robert Lowe 

seek Board approval to continue in 

control of Elizabethtown Industrial 

Railroad LLC under 49 CFR 

1180.2(d)(2), upon EZR’s becoming a 

Class III rail carrier. 

EZR states that it will provide 

common carrier freight service over the 

Line pursuant to an operating agreement 

it is negotiating with RH.2 EZR states 

that the operating agreement between 

EZR and RH does not contain any 

provision or agreement which would 

limit future interchange of traffic with 

any third-party connecting carrier. EZR 

also states that it intends to interchange 

traffic with NS at Conewago. 

EZR certifies that its projected annual 

revenues as a result of this transaction 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 44 / Friday, March 6, 2015 / Notices 12257 

1While the 2013 opinion was specific to section 

112, which only applies to highway projects, it also 

is relevant in interpreting and implementing FTA’s 

statutory mandate under 49 U.S.C. 5325(a) that 

broadly requires full and open competition in the 

award of contracts utilizing financial assistance 

from the FTA. 

will not result in the creation a Class I 

or Class II rail carrier and will not 

exceed $5 million. 

The transaction may be consummated 

on or after March 20, 2015, the effective 

date of the exemption (30 days after the 

verified notice of exemption was filed). 

If the verified notice contains false or 

misleading information, the exemption 

is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the 

exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) 

may be filed at any time. The filing of 

a petition to revoke will not 

automatically stay the effectiveness of 

the exemption. Petitions for stay must 

be filed no later than March 13, 2015 (at 

least seven days before the exemption 

becomes effective). 

An original and 10 copies of all 

pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 

35902, must be filed with Surface 

Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20423–0001. In 

addition, one copy of each pleading 

must be served on John K. Fiorilla, 

Capehart & Scatchard, P.A., 8000 

Midlantic Drive, Suite 300S, Mount 

Laurel, NJ 08054. 

Board decisions and notices are 

available on our Web site at 

www.stb.dot.gov. 

Decided: March 3, 2015. 

By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, 

Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Brendetta S. Jones, 

Clearance Clerk. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05212 Filed 3–5–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

Contracting Initiative 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The DOT is announcing an 

initiative to permit, on an experimental 

basis, Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) and Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) recipients and 

subrecipients to utilize various 

contracting requirements that generally 

have been disallowed due to concerns 

about adverse impacts on competition. 

This initiative will be carried out as a 

pilot program for a period of 1 year 

(unless extended) under the FHWA and 

FTA’s existing authorities. The purpose 

of this pilot program is to determine 

whether the use of such requirements 

‘‘unduly limit competition,’’ as 

provided in an August 23, 2013, opinion 

from the Department of Justice’s Office 

of Legal Counsel (OLC). Should DOT 

find that such restrictions do not unduly 

limit competition, DOT may provide 

further guidance regarding their use. 

DATES: This pilot program is effective 

March 6, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information: Mr. Michael 

Harkins, Deputy Assistant General 

Counsel for General Law, Office, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, 202–366–0590 (telephone), 

Michael.Harkins@dot.gov (email). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access 

An electronic copy of this document 

may also be downloaded from the Office 

of the Federal Register’s home page at 

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register 

and the Government Publishing Office’s 

Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov. 

Background 

Interpretation of Competition Mandate 

Traditionally, DOT has prohibited its 

recipients and subrecipients from using 

certain contracting provisions that do 

not directly relate to the bidder’s 

performance of work in a competent and 

responsible manner. An example of 

such provisions includes local and other 

geographic-based labor hiring 

preferences. The DOT’s position was 

reinforced by a 1986 opinion of the 

OLC, which concluded that 23 U.S.C. 

112 (‘‘section 112’’) obligated the 

Secretary of Transportation to withhold 

Federal funding from highway 

construction contracts that were subject 

to a New York City law imposing 

disadvantages on a class of responsible 

bidders, where the city failed to 

demonstrate that its departure from 

competitive bidding requirements was 

justified by considerations of costeffectiveness. See Compatibility of New 

York City Local Law 19 with Federal 

Highway Act Competitive Bidding 

Requirements, 10 Op. O.L.C. 101 (1986). 

However, in August 2013, at DOT’s 

request, the OLC provided DOT with a 

memorandum opinion, clarifying its 

1986 opinion on section 112. See 

Competitive Bidding Requirements 

Under the Federal-Aid Highway 

Program, 23 U.S.C. 112, (Aug. 23, 2013) 

(‘‘2013 opinion’’). The 2013 opinion is 

available at http://www.justice.gov/olc/

opinions. The 2013 opinion clarifies 

that section 112 does not compel the 

DOT’s position with respect to 

contracting requirements that do not 

directly relate to the bidder’s 

performance of work, but rather 

provides the Secretary with discretion 

to permit other types of state or local 

requirements as long as they do not 

‘‘unduly limit competition.’’ 1

The 2013 opinion explains that 

competition would not be unduly 

limited by ‘‘[a] state or local 

requirement that has only an incidental 

effect on the pool of potential bidders or 

that imposes reasonable requirements 

related to the performance of the 

necessary work. . . .’’ 2013 opinion at 

2. In contrast, ‘‘a requirement that has 

more than an incidental effect on the 

pool of potential bidders and does not 

relate to the work’s performance would 

unduly limit competition unless it 

promotes the efficient and effective use 

of federal funds.’’ Id. at 2–3. In assessing 

whether a requirement does promote the 

efficient and effective use of federal 

funds, the agency ‘‘may take into 

account whether the requirement 

promotes such efficiency in connection 

with the letting of a particular contract 

and also whether it more generally 

furthers the efficient and effective use of 

federal funds in the long run or protects 

the integrity of the competitive bidding 

process itself.’’ Id. at 3. So long as a state 

or local requirement serves these 

purposes, ‘‘the Administrator may 

reasonably determine, consistent with 

section 112, that the requirement does 

not unduly limit competition, even if it 

may have the effect of reducing the 

number of eligible bidders for a 

particular contract.’’ Id. 

Thus, DOT retains discretion under 

the statute to evaluate whether a 

particular State or local law or policy 

that has more than an incidental effect 

on the pool of potential bidders is 

nonetheless compatible with section 

112(b)(1)’s competitive bidding 

requirement. The process used to 

evaluate whether state and local 

requirements satisfy section 112 also is 

a matter of agency discretion. Id. at 17– 

18 (‘‘It is for FHWA and DOT to 

determine the regulatory approach the 

agency should take in exercising this 

discretion and in evaluating whether 

certain state and local requirements are 

consistent with [section 112’s] statutory 

mandates. . . .’’). 

Experimental Authority 

In 1988, a Transportation Research 

Board (TRB) task force, comprised of 

representatives from all segments of the 

highway industry, was formed to 

evaluate Innovative Contracting 

Practices. This TRB task force requested 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES