23414 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 82 /Wednesday, April 29, 1998 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[GA–035–9807a; FRL–6004–9]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans Georgia:

Approval of Revisions for

Transportation Control Measures

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

revisions to the Georgia State

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by

the Department of Natural Resources on

August 29, 1997, requesting the

incorporating several transportation

control measures (TCMs).

In the final rules section of this

Federal Register, the EPA is approving

the State’s State Implementation Plan

(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 this proposed

rule, no further activity is contemplated

in relation to this proposed rule. If EPA

receives adverse comment, the direct

final rule will be withdrawn and all

public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based upon 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 May 29, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Kelly

Sheckler at the Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 4 Air

Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW,

Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Copies of

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. Reference file

GA35–9807. The Region 4 office may

have additional background documents

not available at the other locations.

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. Attn: Kelly Sheckler, 404/562–

9042.

Georgia Department of Natural

Resources, Environmental Protection

Division, Air Protection Division,

4244 International Parkway, suite 136,

Atlanta, Georgia 30354.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kelly Sheckler at 404/562–9042.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information see the direct

final rule which is published in the

rules section of this Federal Register.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: April 6, 1998.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

[FR Doc. 98–11384 Filed 4–28–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Parts 1836 and 1852

Partnering for Construction Contracts

AGENCY: Office of Procurement, Contract

Management Division, National

Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This is a proposed rule

amending the NASA Federal

Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(NFS) to set forth a clause to be used to

promote partnering under construction

contracts when it has been determined

that the benefits to be derived exceed

the costs.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 29, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to Mr.

Joseph Le Cren, NASA Headquarters,

Code HK, Washington, DC 20546.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Joseph Le Cren, Telephone: (202) 358–

0444.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Several NASA field installations have

used clauses promoting the use of

partnering for construction contracts.

Although those clauses have been

similar, it was considered to be

beneficial to have a standard Agencywide clause. The proposed rule would

provide a standard clause which would

establish an Agency policy to endorse

the use of partnering where it is

determined to be cost effective. The use

of partnering only would be used if

voluntarily agreed to by the parties.

The use of partnering clauses in

construction contracts by NASA and

other agencies has been demonstrated to

reduce the average contract cost and

schedule growth, as well as reduce the

amount of contract claims and litigation.

These results have been achieved

because the use of partnering has

promoted a relationship of open

communication and close cooperation

between the contractor and the

Government, creating a mutually

beneficial environment within which to

achieve contract objectives and resolve

issues.

Impact

NASA certifies that this proposed

regulation will not have a significant

economic effect on a substantial number

of small entities under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.).

This rule does not impose any reporting

or record keeping requirements subject

to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1836

and 1852

Government procurement.

Deidre Lee,

Associate Administrator for Procurement.

Accordingly, 48 CFR Parts 1836 and

1852 are proposed to be amended as

follows:

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR

Parts 1836 and 1852 continues to read

as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2743(c)(1).

PART 1836—CONSTRUCTION AND

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS

1836.70 [Added]

2. Subpart 1836.70 is added to read as

follows:

Subpart 1836.70—Partnering

1836.7001 Definition.

Partnering means a relationship of

open communication and close

cooperation that involves both

Government and Contractor personnel

working together for the purpose of

establishing a mutually beneficial,

proactive, cooperative environment

within which to achieve contract

objectives and resolve issues and

implementing actions as required.

1836.7002 General.

(a) The establishment of a partnering

environment usually leads to higher

quality products completed more

quickly at lower overall costs and with

fewer accidents and litigation.