28376 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Proposed Rules

d. When the hearing officer

determines that a person has failed to

obey an order to testify or to produce

evidence, and such failure is in knowing

and willful disregard of the order, the

hearing officer shall so certify.

e. The party or the hearing officer

seeking to compel testimony or the

production of evidence may, upon the

certification provide for in paragraph

D.3.d. of this section, file an appropriate

action in a court of competent

jurisdiction to compel compliance with

the hearing officer’s order.

4. Hearing Officer’s Findings of Fact and

Decision

a. The hearing officer shall make

written findings of fact and shall issue

a decision setting forth the questions

presented, the resolution of those

questions, and the rationale for the

resolution. The hearing officer shall file

the findings of fact and decision with

the Director, DOHA, with a copy to the

parties.

b. The Director, DOHA, shall forward

to the Director, DoDDS, or to the

Military Department concerned, and to

the NAP or the ICC, as appropriate,

copies with all personally identifiable

information deleted, of the hearing

officer’s findings of fact and decision or,

in cases that are administratively

appealed, of the final decision of the

DOHA Appeal Board.

c. The hearing officer shall have the

authority to impose financial

responsibility for early intervention

services, educational placements,

evaluations, and related services under

his or her findings of fact and decision.

d. The findings of fact and decision of

the hearing officer shall become final

unless a notice of appeal is filed under

section F.1. of this Appendix. The

DoDDS or the Military Department

concerned shall implement a decision

as soon as practicable after it becomes

final.

E. Determination Without Hearing

1. At the request of a parent of an

infant, toddler, or child aged 3 to 21,

inclusive, when early intervention or

special educational (including related)

services are at issue, the requirement for

a hearing may be waived, and the case

may be submitted to the hearing officer

on written documents filed by the

parties. The hearing officer shall make

findings of fact and issue a decision

within the period fixed by paragraph

D.1.n., of this Appendix.

2. The DoDDS or the Military

Department concerned may oppose a

request to waive that hearing. In that

event, the hearing officer shall rule on

that request.

3. Documents submitted to the

hearing officer in a case determined

without a hearing shall comply with

paragraph D.1.g. of this appendix. A

party submitting such documents shall

provide copies to all other parties.

F. Appeal

1. A party may appeal the hearing

officer’s findings of fact and decision by

filing a written notice of appeal with the

Director, DOHA, within 5 calendar days

of receipt of the findings of fact and

decision. The notice of appeal must

contain the appellant’s certification that

a copy of the notice of appeal has been

provided to all other parties. Filing is

complete upon mailing.

2. Within 10 calendar days of the

filing the notice of appeal, the appellant

shall submit a written statement of

issues and arguments to the Director,

DOHA, with a copy to the other parties.

The other parties shall submit a reply or

replies to the Director, DOHA, within 15

calendar days of receiving the

statement, and shall deliver a copy of

each reply to the appellant. Submission

is complete upon mailing.

3. The Director, DOHA, shall refer the

matter on appeal to the DOHA Appeal

Board. It shall determine the matter,

including the making of interlocutory

rulings, within 60 calendar days of

receiving timely submitted replies

under section F.2. of this Appendix. The

DOHA Appeal Board may require oral

argument at a time and place reasonably

convenient to the parties.

4. The determination of the DOHA

Appeal Board shall be a final

administrative decision and shall be in

written form. It shall address the issues

presented and set forth a rationale for

the decision reached. A determination

denying the appeal of a parent in whole

or in part shall state that the parent has

the right under 20 U.S.C. 921 et seq. and

20 U.S.C., 1400 et seq. to bring a civil

action on the matters in dispute in a

district court of the United States

without regard to the amount in

controversy.

5. No provision of this part or other

DoD guidance may be construed as

conferring a further right of

administrative review. A party must

exhaust all administrative remedies

afforded by this Appendix before

seeking judicial review of a

determination made under this

Appendix.

G. Publication and Indexing of Final

Decisions

The Director, DOHA, shall ensure that

final decisions in cases arising under

this Enclosure are published and

indexed to protect the privacy rights of

the parents who are parties in those

cases and the children of such parents,

in accordance with 32 CFR part 310.

Dated: May 24, 1995.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 96–13177 Filed 5–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Ch. I

46 CFR Ch. I

[CGD 95–022]

Presidential Regulation Review

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is

announcing an initial policy

determination on regulatory reform

initiatives. The Coast Guard is also

reopening the comment period for

public comment on the Coast Guard’s

regulatory process and its response to

the President’s Regulatory Reinvention

Initiative.

DATES: Written comments must be

received not later than December 8,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be

mailed to the Executive Secretary,

Marine Safety Council (G–LRA), U.S.

Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20593–0001, or may be

delivered to room 3406 at the same

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

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. Comments will become part of

this docket ad will be available for

inspection or copying at room 3406,

Coast Guard Headquarters, between 8

a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Bruce P. Novak, Regulations

Coordinator, Oil Pollution Act (OPA 90)

Staff, U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second

Street SW., Washington, DC 20593–

0001, telephone (202) 267–6819. This

telephone is equipped to record

messages on a 24-hour basis.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March

10, 1995 (60 FR 16423) the Coast Guard

announced it would be holding a public

meeting in Washington, DC on April 20,

1995, to take comments on the

President’s recently announced

Regulatory Reinvention Initiative and

the Coast Guard’s regulatory

development process. The deadline for
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Proposed Rules 28377

written comments was May 1, 1995. On

April 5, 1995 the Coast Guard published

a second notice in the Federal Register

(60 FR 17287) announcing a series of

regional public meetings to be held on

the same topics. The deadline for

written comments in this notice was

June 5, 1995.

At the April 20, 1995 public meeting

and in written comments to the docket,

several commentors requested an

extension of the May 1, 1995 comment

period. The issues discussed in the

notice and at the public meeting are

important and require careful thought

and evaluation. Since the regulatory

reform initiative is an ongoing process,

a longer comment period can be

accommodated. In addition to receiving

comments on the regulatory policy

announced in this notice, comments on

the issues raised in the two prior notices

may be submitted. To provide

maximum value on this notice,

comments should be received by

December 8, 1995. However, late

comments will be accepted and

evaluated to the extent practicable.

In response to the Federal Register

notice and public meetings, the Coast

Guard has received and is still receiving

comments suggesting specific

regulations for review and identifying

reasons why those regulations should be

either amended or eliminated. The

Coast Guard will fully evaluate each

suggestion and may initiate appropriate

rulemaking projects at a later date.

However, the Coast Guard has already

made a preliminary determination to

proceed immediately with at least two

regulatory reinvention initiatives. The

first is to purge the Code of Federal

Regulations of obsolete and out-of-date

regulations. A Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing a wide

range of recissions was published in the

Federal Register of May 9, 1995 (60 FR

24748). This first set of obsolete and

out-of-date regulations has minimal

impact on the public and no controversy

or objection is expected. Additional

obsolete and out-of-date regulations will

be proposed for elimination or revision

in later rulemaking documents.

Second, the Coast Guard has

established a goal of eliminating any

Coast Guard induced differential

between requirements that apply to U.S.

vessels in international trade and those

that apply to similar vessels in

international trade that fly the flag of

responsible foreign nations. The Coast

Guard will carefully evaluate every

existing and newly proposed regulation.

To the maximum extent possible,

requirements that create an unwarranted

differential between U.S. and

responsible international standards will

be eliminated. There are several new

rulemaking projects under development

that reflect this new Coast Guard policy.

The U.S. maritime industry

conducted several studies, some of

which indicated that industry

competitiveness has been adversely

impacted by the cost differential

between building a vessel to U.S.

standards and building it to some

foreign standards. The industry reported

that differential was from 0% to 15% of

the total construction cost. However, all

of these industry studies were

conducted prior to implementation of

the 1981 and 1983 amendments to the

1974 Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)

Convention. The Convention and its

amendments have greatly reduced the

gap between U.S. and international

standards.

The U.S. has sometimes unilaterally

adopted more stringent standards than

the international regulations

promulgated by the International

Maritime Organization (IMO), a

specialized agency of the United

Nations. A Maritime Administration

sponsored study conducted in 1979

reported that the portion of the total

construction cost differential directly

attributable to discretionary

requirements imposed by the Coast

Guard was less than one-half of one

percent. However, even a one-half of

one percent differential in construction

costs should be avoided if it does not

result in needed additional safety or

environmental protection.

In the past, international standards

were in large part inadequate or

nonexistent which required the United

States to adopt high quality standards of

its own. This situation has changed in

recent years. Great strides have been

taken by the responsible members of the

international community to adopt

standards that provide levels of safety

and environmental protection that are

generally equivalent to U.S. standards.

The IMO has adopted a wide range of

safety and environmental protection

requirements that parallel many of the

standards that apply to U.S. vessels.

However, the IMO requirements are in

some cases general in nature and need

amplifying national regulations. In

addition, IMO requirements do not

constitute a complete ship construction

standard. They must be used together

with classification society standards and

flag state requirements. Responsible

foreign flag states and classification

societies now have standards that are

equivalent to U.S. standards. Because

these responsible flag states and

classification societies now assure high

levels of protection, it is no longer

desirable for the United States to apply

different requirements to U.D. vessels.

Accordingly, in cooperation with the

American Bureau of Shipping, the Coast

Guard has identified various U.S.

regulations that differ from the best

international standards. The Coast

Guard is now carefully evaluating each

of those regulations to determine if it

makes necessary additional safety or

environmental protection contributions.

Those regulations that do not provide

necessary added levels of protection

will be proposed for elimination.

Because of the global nature of

maritime commerce, it is seldom

effective for an individual nation to

require substantially different standards

for its vessels engaged in international

trade. Ships of every nationality call at

ports all over the world. Substandard

performers pose a risk to their host

nations everywhere. For this reason,

IMO recently formed the Flag State

Implementation Subcommittee (FSI) to

develop strong international standards

for nations that flag vessels (flag states)

and for nations that host vessels (port

states). By working closely with the FSI

the Coast Guard will assure both a high

and a level playing field for U.S. flag

vessels in international trade.

The Coast Guard invites comment on

this initial regulatory policy.

Dated: May 22, 1995.

J.C. Card,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office

of Marine Safety, Security and Environmental

Protection.

[FR Doc. 95–13269 Filed 5–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[MN–36–1–6752b; FRL–5020–2]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans and Designation

of Area for Air Quality Planning

Purposes: Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The USEPA proposes to

approve the request for redesignation to

attainment for particulate matter (PM) in

Olmsted County and sulfur dioxide

(SO2) in the Air Quality Control Region

(AQCR) 131 Twin Cities and Pine Bend

areas (excluding the St. Paul Park area).

In addition, USEPA proposes to approve

a State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision to the administrative order for

PM for Rochester Public Utilities,