Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1998 / Notices 259

IV. Civil Penalties

A. The USCG reports violations of OCSLA

statutes or regulations which may result in

civil penalty action to MMS by using the

Compliance Review Form, MMS–129. The

USCG will investigate and document OCSLA

based violation cases according to the

procedures in 33 CFR 140.40 with the

following clarification:

1. The cognizant Officer in Charge, Marine

Inspection (OCMI) provides the violator

written notice of the violation and establishes

a reasonable time for the violator to correct

the violation. However, a violation that

constitutes a threat of serious, irreparable, or

immediate harm does not need a time for

correction before the OCMI proceeds with a

civil penalty recommendation. For violations

which do not constitute a threat of serious,

irreparable, or immediate harm, the OCMI

may consult the MMS RD to establish

reasonable corrective times, particularly on

matters in which MMS has expertise or

knowledge of industry practice.

2. If the appropriate time to file an appeal

has past, and the violator has not filed an

appeal with the appropriate USCG official,

pursuant to 43 USC 1248(a), the OCMI

provides the MMS Regional Civil Penalty

Coordinator with the following information:

I. The case file, which consists of a

summary of the investigation and a USCG

determination of the regulations violated.

ii. A description of the seriousness of

violation and any incidents actually

associated with the violation.

iii. If requested, additional information

concerning the merits of a civil penalty

action. All physical evidence remains with

the USCG, but available to MMS upon

request.

3. If the violator files an appeal, the USCG

will forward the case to MMS after the USCG

Hearing Officer issues a final decision on the

appeal.

4. Upon receipt of the violation report, the

MMS Regional Civil Penalty Coordinator will

appoint a Reviewing Officer (RO) who will

process the report in accordance with the

MMS OCS Criminal/Civil Penalties Program

Guidebook.

5. Notification of the MMS RO’s decision

regarding the civil penalty assessment,

collection, compromise, or dismissal shall be

provided to the OCMI originating the

violation report.

V. Pollution responsibilities

A. Certificates of Financial Responsibility

(COFR)

1. The MMS issues Certificates of Financial

Responsibility (COFR) for all facilities

seaward of the coast line. The MMS COFR

ensures that lessees possess adequate oil spill

financial responsibility for the clean up and

damages from oil discharges resulting from

oil exploration and production facilities and

the associated pipelines.

2. The USCG issues COFR for vessels and

floating OCS facilities which store oil. This

COFR is in addition to the MMS COFR and

addresses the operators financial

responsibility for the clean up and damages

from oil discharges resulting from non-well

related sources and produced oil store on

board the floating OCS facility.

B. Oil Spill Preparedness and Response

Planning

1. The MMS, for all facilities seaward of

the coast line, requires that responsible

parties maintain approved Oil Spill Response

Plan (OSRP) consistent with the area

contingency plan (ACP); ensures that

response personnel receive training; and that

response equipment is inspected. The MMS

may require unannounced oil spill response

drills. The MMS RS will notify the Federal

On Scene Coordinator (FOSC) of drills to

coordinate participation, and avoid conflict

or duplication.

2. The USCG Captain of the Port serves as

the pre-designated FOSC in accordance with

the national Contingency Plan. The cognizant

FOCS will also jointly approve OSRPs for

floating OCS facilities which store oil.

Participation in MMS drills will be at the

discretion of the FOSC. The FOSC will

advise the MMS RS of spill response drills

and activities occurring offshore.

C. Spill Response

1. All spills are required to be reported to

the NRC. The NRC provides notification to

the appropriate agencies and state offices.

Additionally, offshore facility owners or

operators are required to report spills over

one barrel to the MMS RS.

2. The FOSC will direct and monitor

federal, state, and private actions, consult

with affected trustees, and determine

removal completion. The MMS RS will direct

measures to abate sources of pollution from

an offshore facility.

VI. Exchanging Services and Personnel

To the extent its own operations and

resources permit, each Agency will provide

the other Agency with assistance, technical

advice, and support, including

transportation, if requested. Exchange of

services and personnel is non-reimbursable

(except for pollution removal funding

authorizations for incident specific fund

access). The assistance may extend to areas

beyond the OCS where one Agency’s

expertise will benefit the other Agency in

applying and enforcing its safety regulations.

VII. Other Cooperative Functions

A. Both agencies will exchange data and

study results, participate in research and

development projects and exchange early

drafts of rulemaking notices to avoid

duplicative or conflicting requirements.

B. Both Agencies will review current

standards, regulations, and directives and

will propose revisions to them necessary in

keeping with the provision of this MOU.

C. Both Agencies will review reporting and

data collection requirements imposed on

operators of OCS facilities and, where

feasible, eliminate or minimize duplicate

reporting and data collection requirements.

VIII. Implementing this MOU

A. Each Agency will review its internal

procedures, and where appropriate, will

revise them to accommodate the provisions

of this MOU. Each Agency will also designate

in writing one senior official who will be

responsible for coordinating and

implementing the provisions of this MOU.

B. Each agency will designate regional

officials to be responsible for coordinating

and implementing the provisions of this

MOU in their respective regions.

C. The USCG—MMS MOU concerning

regulation of activities and facilities in the

OSC, dated August 29, 1990, is canceled on

the effective date of this agreement.

D. The MOU between the Department of

the Interior and the Department of

Transportation regarding responsibilities

under the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan,

dated August 16, 1971, is canceled on the

effective date of this agreement.

E. If new technology (or new uses of

current technology) require a change to this

MOU, the MMS regional office and

appropriate USCG district will work together

to solve the situation. The MMS regional

office and the USCG district will notify their

respective headquarters office of the change.

If the MMS regional office and the USCG

district office can’t solve the situation, it will

be elevated to MMS and USCG headquarters.

The new policy will become part of a revised

MOU the next time the MOU is revised.

IX. Savings Provision

Nothing in this MOU alters, amends, or

affects in any way the statutory authority of

MMS or the USCG.

X. Effective Date

This MOS is effective upon signature. Both

parties may amend it by mutual agreement

and either agency may terminate it with a 30-

day written notice.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this

lllllllllllllllllllll

Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, Department

of Transportation.

lllllllllllllllllllll

Director, Minerals Management Service,

Department of the Interior.

[FR Doc. 98–9 Filed 1–2–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of the Assistant Attorney

General for Civil Rights; Certification

of the State of Maine Accessibility

Regulations Under the Americans with

Disabilities Act

AGENCY: Department of Justice.

ACTION: Notice of certification.

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice has

certified that the Maine Human Rights
260 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1998 / Notices

Act, 5 MRSA § 4553 et seq., as

implemented by the Maine Accessibility

Regulations, meets or exceeds the new

construction and alterations

requirements of title III of the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

DATE: January 5, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Inquiries may be addressed

to: John L. Wodatch, Chief, Disability

Rights Section, Civil Rights Division,

U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box

66738, Washington, DC 20035–6738.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John L. Wodatch, Chief, Disability

Rights Section, Civil Rights Division,

U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box

66738, Washington, DC 20035–6738.

Telephone number (800) 514–0301

(Voice) or (800) 514–0383 (TDD).

Copies of this notice are available in

formats accessible to individuals with

vision impairments and may be

obtained by calling (800) 514–0301

(Voice) or (800) 514–0383 (TDD).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The ADA authorizes the Department

of Justice, upon application by a State

or local government, to certify that a

State or local law that establishes

accessibility requirements meets or

exceeds the minimum requirements of

title III of the ADA for new construction

and alterations. 42 U.S.C.

12188(b)(1)(A)(ii); 28 CFR 36.601 et seq.

Certification constitutes rebuttable

evidence, in any ADA enforcement

action, that a building constructed or

altered in accordance with the certified

code complies with the new

construction and alterations

requirements of title III of the ADA.

By letter dated July 21, 1995, the

Maine Human Rights Commission

requested that the Department of Justice

(Department) certify that the Maine

Human Rights Act, 5 MRSA section

4553 et seq., as implemented by the

Maine Accessibility Regulations

(together, the Maine law), meets or

exceeds the new construction and

alterations requirements of title III of the

ADA.

The Department analyzed the Maine

law, and made a preliminary

determination that it meets or exceeds

the new construction and alterations

requirements of title III of the ADA. By

letter, dated September 23, 1997, the

Department notified the Maine Human

Rights Commission of its preliminary

determination of equivalency.

On October 2, 1997, the Department

published notices in the Federal

Register announcing its preliminary

determination of equivalency and

requesting public comments thereon.

The period for submission of written

comments ended on December 1, 1997.

In addition, the Department held public

hearings in Augusta, Maine on October

17, 1997, and in Washington, DC on

December 2, 1997.

Three individuals submitted

comments. Commenters were disabilityrights advocates and an architect. The

Department has analyzed all of the

submitted comments and has consulted

with the U.S. Architectural and

Transportation Barriers Compliance

Board.

Two of the comments supported

certification of the Maine law. One

comment, while not opposing

certification of the Maine law, inquired

whether the Maine law’s coverage of

churches (if the building or facility is

open to the public for any reason) is

different from the ADA. Because

coverage of churches is neither required

nor prohibited by the ADA, such

coverage does not preclude certification.

Based on these comments, the

Department has determined that the

Maine law is equivalent to the new

construction and alterations

requirements of title III of the ADA.

Therefore, the Department has informed

the submitting official of its decision to

certify the Maine law.

Effect of Certification

The certification determination is

limited to the version of the Maine law

that has been submitted to the

Department. The certification will not

apply to amendments or interpretations

that have not been submitted and

reviewed by the Department.

Certification will not apply to

buildings constructed by or for State or

local government entities, which are

subject to title II of the ADA. Nor does

certification apply to accessibility

requirements that are addressed by the

Maine law that are not addressed by the

ADA Standards for Accessible Design.

Finally, certification does not apply to

variances or waivers granted under the

Maine law. Therefore, if a builder

receives a variance, waiver,

modification, or other exemption from

the requirements of the Maine law for

any element of construction or

alterations, the certification

determination will not constitute

evidence of ADA compliance with

respect to that element.

Dated: December 12, 1997.

Isabelle Katz Pinzler,

Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil

Rights.

[FR Doc. 98–149 Filed 1–2–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 97–27]

Hemp Products Research Company;

Denial of Applications

On June 17, 1997, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued two

Orders to Show Cause to Hemp

Products Research Company

(Respondent), of Bellevue, Nebraska,

notifying it of an opportunity to show

cause as to why DEA should not deny

its applications for DEA Certificates of

Registration as a manufacturer of

marijuana under 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and

as a researcher in the cultivation of

marijuana under 21 U.S.C. 823(f), for

reason that its registration would be

inconsistent with the public interest.

Respondent requested a hearing on the

issues raised by the Orders to Show

Cause and the matter was docketed

before Administrative Law Judge Gail A.

Randall.

On August 26, 1997, the Government

filed a Motion for Summary Disposition

seeking a recommendation from the

Administrative Law Judge that the

applications be denied without

convening a hearing. Thereafter, on

September 17, 1997, Respondent

submitted a prehearing statement which

included its response to the

Government’s motion. On October 8,

1997, Judge Randall issued her Opinion

and Recommended Ruling, concluding

that summary disposition is appropriate

in this matter, and therefore granting the

Government’s motion and

recommending that Respondent’s

applications for registration be denied.

Neither party filed exceptions to her

opinion, and on November 21, 1997,

Judge Randall transmitted the record of

these proceedings to the Acting Deputy

Administrator.

The Acting Deputy Administrator has

considered the record in its entirety,

and pursuant to 21 CFR 1316.67, hereby

issues his final order based upon

findings of fact and conclusions of law

as hereinafter set forth. The Acting

Deputy Administrator adopts, in full,

the Opinion and Recommended Ruling

of the Administrative Law Judge. his

adoption is in no manner diminished by

any recitation of facts, issues and

conclusions herein, or of any failure to

mention a matter of fact or law.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

finds that Respondent has two pending

applications for registration with DEA.

Respondent submitted an application

dated March 14, 1995, for registration