Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 29 / Monday, February 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules 7455

when all of the following conditions are 

met: 

(1) The lease was issued with a 

primary lease term of: 

(i) 5 years; or 

(ii) 8 years with a requirement to drill 

within 5 years. 

(2) Before the end of the fifth year of 

the primary term, you or your 

predecessor in interest must have 

acquired and interpreted geophysical 

information that: 

(i) Indicates that all or a portion of a 

potential hydrocarbon-bearing 

formation lies below 25,000 feet TVD 

SS; and 

(ii) Includes full 3-D depth migration 

over the entire lease area. 

(3) Before requesting the suspension, 

you have conducted or are conducting 

additional data processing or 

interpretation of the geophysical 

information with the objective of 

identifying a potential hydrocarbonbearing formation below 25,000 feet 

TVD SS. 

(4) You demonstrate that additional 

time is necessary to: 

(i) Complete current processing or 

interpretation of existing geophysical 

data or information; 

(ii) Acquire, process, or interpret new 

geophysical and/or geological data or 

information that would impact the 

decision to drill the same geologic 

structure or stratigraphic trap, as 

determined by the Regional Supervisor, 

identified in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) 

of this section; or 

(iii) Drill into the potential 

hydrocarbon-bearing formation 

identified as a result of the activities 

conducted in paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3), 

and (c)(4) of this section.

[FR Doc. 05–2747 Filed 2–11–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[R06–OAR–2005–TX–0004; FRL–7872–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; Texas; Revision 

to the Rate of Progress Plan for the 

Houston/Galveston (HGA) Ozone 

Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

approve revisions to the Texas State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Post–1999 

Rate of Progress (ROP) Plan, the 1990 

Base Year Inventory, and the Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEB) 

established by the ROP Plan, for the 

Houston Galveston (HGA) ozone 

nonattainment Area submitted 

November 16, 2004. The intended effect 

of this action is to approve revisions 

submitted by the State of Texas to 

satisfy the reasonable further progress 

requirements for 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as severe 

and demonstrate further progress in 

reducing ozone precursors. We are 

proposing to approve these revisions in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Federal Clean Air Act (the Act).

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 16, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning 

Section (6PD–L), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Comments may also be submitted 

electronically or through hand delivery/

courier by following the detailed 

instructions in the ADDRESSES section of 

the direct final rule located in the rules 

section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Guy 

Donaldson, Air Planning Section (6PDL), Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, telephone 

(214) 665–7242; fax number (214) 665–

7263; e-mail address 

donaldson.guy@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal 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 action rule, 

no further activity is contemplated. 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. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule which is located in the 

rules section of this Federal Register.

Dated: February 2, 2005. 

Richard E. Greene, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6.

[FR Doc. 05–2792 Filed 2–11–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[FRL–7869–3] 

National Oil and Hazardous Substance 

Pollution Contingency Plan; National 

Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the 

Firestone Tire and Rubber Company 

Superfund site from the National 

Priorities List. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region IX announces the 

intent to delete the Firestone Tire and 

Rubber Company Superfund Site (Site) 

from the National Priorities List (NPL) 

and requests public comment on this 

proposed action. The NPL constitutes 

Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which 

is the National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 

(NCP), which EPA promulgated 

pursuant to section 105 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. 

EPA and the State of California, through 

the California Department of Toxic 

Substances Control (DTSC), have 

determined that the remedial action for 

the Site has been successfully executed.

DATES: Comments concerning the 

proposed deletion of this Site from the 

NPL may be submitted on or before 

March 16, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed 

to: Vicki Rosen, Community 

Involvement Coordinator, U.S. EPA 

Region IX (SFD–3), 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901, 

(415) 972–3244 or 1–800–231–3075. 

Information Repositories: Repositories 

have been established to provide 

detailed information concerning this 

decision at the following address: U.S. 

EPA Region IX Superfund Records 

Center, 95 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901, (415) 536–

2000, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 

5 p.m.; John Steinbeck Library, 350 

Lincoln Avenue, Salinas, CA 93901, 

(831) 758–7311.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia Bowlin, Remedial Project 

Manager, U.S. EPA Region IX (SFD–7–

7456 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 29 / Monday, February 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

3), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

CA 94105–3901, (415) 972–3177 or 1–

800–231–3075.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

III. Deletion Procedures 

IV. Basis of Intended Site Deletion

I. Introduction 

The U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region IX announces its 

intent to delete the Firestone Tire and 

Rubber Company Superfund Site (Site) 

in Salinas, Monterey County, California 

from the National Priorities List (NPL) 

and requests public comment on this 

proposed action. The NPL constitutes 

Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which 

is the National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 

(NCP), which EPA promulgated 

pursuant to section 105 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. 

EPA identifies sites which present a 

significant risk to public health, welfare, 

or the environment and maintains the 

NPL as the list of these sites. EPA and 

the State of California, through the 

California Department of Toxic 

Substances Control (DTSC), have 

determined that the remedial action for 

the Site has been successfully executed. 

EPA will accept comments on the 

proposal to delete this Site for thirty 

(30) days after publication of this notice 

in Federal Register. 

Section II of this notice explains the 

criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. 

Section III discusses the procedures 

EPA is using for this action. Section IV 

discusses the Firestone Tire and Rubber 

Company Superfund site and explains 

how the Site meets the deletion criteria. 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

Section 300.425(e)(1) of the NCP 

provides that sites may be deleted from, 

or recategorized on, the NPL where no 

further response is appropriate. In 

making a determination to delete a site 

from the NPL, EPA shall consider, in 

consultation with the state, whether any 

of the following criteria have been met: 

(i) Responsible parties or other 

persons have implemented all 

appropriate response actions required; 

or 

(ii) All appropriate Fund-financed 

responses under CERCLA have been 

implemented, and no further response 

action by responsible parties is 

appropriate; or 

(iii) The Remedial Investigation has 

shown that the site poses no significant 

threat to public health or the 

environment and, therefore, remedial 

measures are not appropriate. 

Even if a site is deleted from the NPL, 

where hazardous substances, pollutants, 

or contaminants remain at the site above 

levels that allow for unlimited use and 

restricted exposure, EPA’s policy is that 

a subsequent review of the site will be 

conducted at least every five years after 

the initiation of the remedial action at 

the site to ensure that the site remains 

protective of public health and the 

environment. If new information 

becomes available which indicates a 

need for further action, EPA may initiate 

additional remedial actions. Whenever 

there is a significant release from a 

deleted site from the NPL, the site may 

be restored to the NPL without 

application of the Hazard Ranking 

System. 

III. Deletion Procedures 

The following procedures were used 

for the intended deletion of this Site: (1) 

All appropriate responses under 

CERCLA have been implemented and 

no further actions by EPA or the 

responsible party are appropriate; (2) 

the State of California has concurred 

with the proposed deletion decision; (3) 

a notice has been published in the local 

newspapers and has been distributed to 

appropriate Federal, State, and local 

officials and other interested parties 

announcing the commencement of a 30-

day public comment period on EPA’s 

Notice of Intent to Delete; and (4) all 

relevant documents have been made 

available in the local site information 

repositories. 

Deletion of the Site from the NPL does 

not itself create, alter, or revoke any 

individual’s rights or obligations. The 

NPL is designed primarily for 

informational purposes and to assist 

Agency management. Section 

300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the 

deletion of a site from the NPL does not 

preclude eligibility for future response 

actions. 

For deletion of this Site, EPA’s 

Regional Office will accept and evaluate 

public comments on EPA’s Notice of 

Intent to Delete before making a final 

decision to delete. If necessary, the 

Agency will prepare a Responsiveness 

Summary to address any significant 

public comments received. 

A deletion occurs when the Regional 

Administrator places a final notice in 

the Federal Register. Generally, the NPL 

will reflect deletions in the final update 

following the Notice. Public notices and 

copies of the Responsiveness Summary 

will be made available to local residents 

by the Regional Office. 

IV. Basis of Intended Site Deletion 

The following site summary provides 

the Agency’s rationale for the proposal 

to delete this Site from the NPL.

Site Background and History 

The Firestone Tire and Rubber 

Company, now Bridgestone/Firestone, 

Inc., owned and operated a tire 

manufacturing facility at 340 El Camino 

Real South between 1963 and 1980. The 

Site is surrounded by agricultural lands 

and is approximately six miles 

southeast of downtown Salinas, 

California. During the facility’s 

operation, Firestone released 

chlorinated solvents and other 

chemicals, particularly volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), to the soil and 

groundwater at the Site. 

In March 1983, Firestone began 

investigations at the facility to comply 

with Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) closure 

requirements. Based on these 

investigations, the California 

Department of Health Services (DHS) 

required Firestone to conduct extensive 

soil and groundwater characterizations 

and subsequent interim remedial 

measures to address soil and 

groundwater contamination. Firestone 

removed approximately 65,000 cubic 

yards of contaminated soil and 9,000 

gallons of hazardous liquids for off-site 

disposal in a Class I landfill. In October 

1985, DHS issued a Remedial Action 

Order (RAO) to Firestone to address the 

groundwater contamination. 

The groundwater aquifer system in 

the area is comprised of three 

interconnected aquifers that are 

designated shallow, intermediate, and 

deep aquifers. Directly downgradient of 

the Site, groundwater in the 

intermediate and deep aquifers is used 

primarily for agricultural supply along 

with potential private domestic supply. 

Further downgradient, the City of 

Salinas relies on groundwater in the 

deep aquifer for municipal water 

supply. 

Pursuant to the RAO, Firestone 

constructed a groundwater extraction 

and treatment system to control 

migration of the groundwater 

contamination from the Site. The system 

included 15 onsite shallow aquifer 

extraction wells and an air stripper/

carbon adsorption treatment plant. The 

system was expanded in 1987 by 

installing five offsite shallow aquifer 

extraction wells and modifying the 

treatment plant to accommodate the 

additional flow. 

Response Actions 

EPA listed the Site on the NPL on July 

22, 1987. DHS (now DTSC) served as

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 29 / Monday, February 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules 7457

lead agency and provided oversight of 

Superfund activities at the Site. The 

final Remedial Investigation (RI), 

completed in December 1988, consisted 

of a comprehensive study of residual 

groundwater contamination in aquifers 

beneath and adjacent to the Site and a 

groundwater risk assessment. The RI 

found that the shallow aquifer 

groundwater extraction and treatment 

system was successfully removing the 

contamination in the shallow aquifer; 

however, the RI also found that some 

contamination, exceeding health-based 

levels, had migrated to the intermediate 

aquifer and to a small area of the deeper 

aquifer. 

Firestone completed the final 

Feasibility Study/Remedial Action Plan 

(FS/RAP) in August 1989. On 

September 6, 1989, DHS approved the 

RAP selecting the final Site remedy. On 

September 13, 1989, EPA issued a 

Record of Decision (ROD) Declaration 

that formally concurred with the 

remedy selected by DHS. The final 

remedy provided for remediation of 

groundwater onsite and offsite 

extending to a distance of over two 

miles from the Site and included the 

following major components: 

• Continued pumping of groundwater 

from the shallow aquifer; 

• Installing five new wells and 

pumping groundwater from the 

intermediate aquifer; 

• Treatment of extracted groundwater 

by air stripping and carbon adsorption; 

• Discharge of treated water to the 

Salinas River; 

• Regular groundwater monitoring to 

ensure that the size of the contaminant 

plume is declining and to allow for 

adjustments to the extraction and 

treatment system; 

• Crop testing to ensure no uptake of 

contaminants by plants; and 

• A monitoring and contingency plan 

for currently uncontaminated water in 

the deep aquifer which could become 

contaminated. 

In October 1989, Firestone installed 

the five intermediate aquifer extraction 

wells and connected the new wells to 

the existing groundwater treatment 

plant. After DHS provided EPA with 

final certification of the implementation 

of the remedy, EPA issued the Interim 

Closeout Report in December 1991. 

After achieving cleanup levels in all 

extraction wells, Firestone stopped 

pumping and conducted an aquifer 

stability test in November 1992. Based 

on the results of the aquifer stability 

test, DTSC allowed the groundwater 

extraction and treatment system to 

remain shut down with continued 

groundwater monitoring until July 1995. 

Post-remediation monitoring of deep 

and intermediate aquifer wells showed 

no exceedances of the groundwater 

cleanup levels; however, monitoring of 

the shallow aquifer wells showed 

increases in contaminant concentrations 

to above cleanup levels in two wells 

located near the former Firestone 

facility. The two shallow aquifer wells 

were screened in the upper zone of the 

shallow aquifer. The upper zone of the 

shallow aquifer is unsaturated for 

extended periods of time because it is 

above the normal groundwater table.

Since the residual contamination 

above the normal groundwater table was 

mainly a water quality issue, DTSC 

deferred the decision of case closure to 

the California Regional Water Quality 

Control Board (RWQCB). In 1998, 

Firestone conducted confirmation 

sampling that indicated that the residual 

contamination in the upper zone of the 

shallow aquifer had not impacted the 

intermediate and deep aquifers and that 

the contaminant concentrations in the 

two monitoring wells were decreasing. 

Based on these sampling results, 

RWQCB concluded that the residual 

contamination in the upper zone of the 

shallow aquifer would attenuate to 

below cleanup levels and would not 

impact the downgradient groundwater 

and deeper aquifers. With RWQCB’s 

approval, Firestone dismantled the 

groundwater extraction and treatment 

system and properly abandoned all 

monitoring and extraction wells. On 

July 26, 2000, RWQCB closed the case 

and recommended that DTSC 

implement final case closure. 

The groundwater cleanup levels in 

the RAP/ROD were set at Maximum 

Contaminant Levels (MCLs) based on 

the designated beneficial use of the 

aquifers in the area for drinking water. 

In June 2002, Firestone submitted a 

hydrogeologic evaluation of the upper 

zone of the shallow aquifer where the 

two monitoring wells were screened. 

The evaluation concluded that the 

upper zone of the shallow aquifer is not 

suitable as a potential drinking water 

source because the zone is suspended 

over a silty clay aquitard and is often 

unsaturated for extended periods. In a 

March 5, 2003, letter, RWQCB 

concurred with Firestone’s evaluation 

and concluded that the upper zone of 

the shallow aquifer appears to have no 

beneficial use based on the lack of 

groundwater. Therefore, MCLs do not 

apply to the upper zone of the shallow 

aquifer since this zone is not suitable as 

a drinking water source. Based on 

RWQCB’s determination and the 

achievement of the cleanup levels in all 

other areas and zones, EPA concluded 

and DTSC concurred that the Site can be 

deleted from the NPL list. 

Cleanup Standards 

The cleanup of the Site complies with 

the ‘‘clean closure’’ requirements, 

consistent with the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 

as amended, 40 CFR section 264.111. 

All contaminated soils were removed to 

unrestricted land use standards in 1983. 

The groundwater extraction and 

treatment system was operated from 

1986 until 1992 when monitoring 

results indicated that the cleanup levels 

were achieved. Post-remediation 

monitoring confirms that there are no 

hazardous substances remaining at the 

Site above health-based levels. 

Five-Year Review 

EPA has conducted two five-year 

reviews for the Site as a matter of 

policy. EPA completed the first five-year 

review for the Site on November 16, 

1994. EPA completed the second fiveyear review for the Site on September 

28, 2001. In the second five-year review, 

EPA concluded that the residual 

contamination in the upper zone of the 

shallow aquifer did not constitute a 

significant risk to human health or the 

environment but that the Site had not 

met the cleanup standards of the RAP/

ROD because the RWQCB considered 

the shallow groundwater as an unlikely 

but potential drinking water source. 

Later the RWQCB determined that the 

upper zone of the shallow aquifer was 

not a potential drinking water source. 

Based on the RWQCB’s determination 

that the affected shallow zone has no 

beneficial use and the achievement of 

the cleanup levels in all other areas and 

zones, further five-year reviews are no 

longer required for the Site. 

Community Involvement 

Public participation activities have 

been satisfied as required in CERCLA 

section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and 

CERCLA section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. 

The deletion docket contains the 

documents on which EPA relied for the 

NPL deletion recommendation and is 

available to the public in the 

information repositories. 

Applicable Deletion Criteria/State 

Concurrence 

EPA has determined that all 

appropriate responses under CERCLA 

have been completed and that no further 

response actions under CERCLA are 

necessary. In a letter dated July 3, 2003, 

the State of California through DTSC 

concurred with EPA that all appropriate 

responses under CERCLA have been 

completed. Therefore, EPA is proposing 

deletion of this Site from the NPL.

7458 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 29 / Monday, February 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

waste, Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply.

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 

1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

Dated: January 26, 2005. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 05–2179 Filed 2–11–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Maritime Administration 

46 CFR Part 381 

[Docket No. MARAD–99–5038] 

RIN 2133–AB37 

Regulations To Be Followed by All 

Departments and Agencies Having 

Responsibility To Provide a Preference 

for U.S.-Flag Vessels in the Shipment 

of Cargoes on Ocean Vessels

AGENCY: Maritime Administration, 

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Withdrawal of advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Maritime Administration 

(MARAD, we, our) is withdrawing an 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

(ANPRM) published in the Federal 

Register on January 28, 1999, which 

requested comments on proposed 

amendments to MARAD’s cargo 

preference regulations. Based on 

comments received and on continuing 

discussions with other Federal agencies, 

there are several issues on which 

MARAD and other Federal agencies 

have yet to reach agreement. MARAD is 

involved in a negotiation process with 

other agencies in order to resolve these 

issues. Once discussions and 

negotiations with other agencies are 

complete, MARAD will initiate a new 

rulemaking action.

DATES: The ANPRM is withdrawn 

February 14, 2005.

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http://

dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL–

401 on the plaza level of the Nassif 

Building, 400 Seventh St., SW., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues you may call Thomas 

W. Harrelson, Director, Office of Cargo 

Preference at (202) 366–5515. For legal 

issues you may call Murray Bloom, 

Chief, Division of Maritime Programs of 

the Office of the Chief Counsel at (202) 

366–5320. You may send mail to both 

of these officials at Maritime 

Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., 

Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Cargo Preference Act of 1954, 

Pub. L. 83–664, 68 Stat. 832 (1954), 

amended the Merchant Marine Act, 

1936, by adding Section 901(b), codified 

at 46 App. U.S.C. 1241(b) (‘54 Act). The 

‘54 Act applies: ‘‘[w]henever the United 

States shall procure, contract for, or 

otherwise obtain for its own account, or 

shall furnish to or for the account of any 

foreign nation without provision for 

reimbursement, any equipment, 

materials, or commodities, within or 

without the United States, or shall 

advance funds or credits or guarantee 

the convertibility of foreign currencies 

in connection with the furnishing of 

such equipment, materials, or 

commodities. * * *’’

Government agencies are required to 

take such steps as may be necessary and 

practicable to assure that at least 50 

percent of the gross tonnage of certain 

government-sponsored cargoes—

‘‘* * * (computed separately for dry 

bulk carriers, dry cargo liners, and 

tankers), which may be transported on 

ocean vessels shall be transported on 

privately-owned United States-flag 

commercial vessels, to the extent such 

vessels are available at fair and 

reasonable rates for United States-flag 

commercial vessels, in such manner as 

will insure a fair and reasonable 

participation of United States-flag 

commercial vessels in such cargoes by 

geographic areas.* * *’’

The Food Security Act of 1985, Pub. 

L. 99–198, exempted certain agricultural 

export enhancement programs from 

cargo preference, but increased the U.S.-

flag share of humanitarian food aid 

programs from 50 to 75 percent. 

MARAD’s oversight role in 

administration of cargo preference is 

founded on section 27 of the Merchant 

Marine Act of 1970, Pub. L. 91–469, 

which added the following subsection 

to section 901(b) of the Merchant 

Marine Act, 1936: 

‘‘Every department or agency having 

responsibility under this subsection 

shall administer its programs with 

respect to this subsection under 

regulations issued by the Secretary of 

Transportation. The Secretary of 

Transportation shall review such 

administration and shall annually report 

to the Congress with respect thereto.’’ 46 

App. U.S.C. 1241(b). 

The Secretary of Transportation has 

delegated the authority under this 

provision to the Maritime 

Administrator. (49 CFR 1.66(e)). 

MARAD’s regulations governing 

administration of cargo preference are 

located at 46 CFR part 381. Parts 381.4, 

381.5 and 381.7 of 46 CFR implement 

the substantive requirements of U.S.-flag 

carriage authorized by the ‘54 Act. The 

Secretary of Transportation does not 

intend to allow any diminution of 

adherence to these regulatory 

requirements. Guidance as to the 

priority of a completely U.S.-flag service 

over a mixed U.S./foreign-flag service is 

contained in a policy letter issued on 

June 16, 1986. 

II. Summary of the ANPRM 

On January 28, 1999, MARAD 

published an ANPRM (64 FR 4382) 

requesting comments on several 

proposed changes to the regulations 

governing the ‘54 Act. MARAD received 

15 comments on the ANPRM. 

Respondents included U.S. shipper 

agencies, vessel operators, unions, 

industry associations, a freight 

forwarder, and a non-vessel operating 

common carrier. A discussion of the 

comments follows. 

III. Discussion of Comments 

The ANPRM requested comments on 

six specific questions and on one 

general question inviting suggestions for 

other potential amendments to the cargo 

preference regulations. The questions 

included: (1) Whether MARAD should 

clarify 46 CFR sections 381.4 and 381.5 

to best insure that the legislatively 

required percentage of cargo is actually 

shipped on U.S.-flag vessels; (2) 

whether the Vessel Priority Rule should 

be changed; (3) whether MARAD should 

change the basis for compliance 

measurement; (4) whether MARAD 

should formally define ‘‘liner vessel,’’

‘‘transshipment,’’ or ‘‘relay’’; (5) 

whether MARAD should require the use 

of commercial terms for cargo 

preference transactions; (6) whether 

MARAD should require the use of 

commercial practices in the 

transportation of preference cargos; and 

(7) whether MARAD should implement 

other amendments to its regulations. 

In response to question one, all 

commenters agreed that clarifications 

and revisions to sections 381.4 and 

381.5 would be beneficial. Thus,