Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 1995 / Proposed Rules 19559

§ 180.337 Oxytetracycline; tolerances for

residues.

Tolerances are established for

residues of the pesticide oxytetracycline

in or on the following raw agricultural

commodities:

Commodity Parts per million

Peaches 0.35

Pears 0.35

4. Section 180.1068 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 180.1068 C12-C18 fatty acid potassium

salts; exemption from the requirement of a

tolerance.

C12-C18 fatty acids [saturated and

unsaturated] potassium salts are

exempted from the requirement of a

tolerance for residues in or on all raw

agricultural commodities when used in

accordance with good agricultural

practice.

[FR Doc. 95–9534 Filed 4–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Maritime Administration

46 CFR Part 382

[Docket No. R–158]

RIN AB19

Determination of Fair and Reasonable

Rates for the Carriage of Bulk and

Packaged Preference Cargoes on U.S.-

flag Commercial Vessels

AGENCY: Maritime Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Advance Notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Maritime Administration

is soliciting comments from interested

persons concerning the need for and

content of a revised methodology for the

determination of fair and reasonable

rates. Fair and reasonable rate

determinations are provided to U.S.

government shippers of preference

cargo, thereby creating ceiling rates

which limit government costs and the

revenue U.S.-flag operators receive for

ocean cargo transportation.

DATES: Comments must be received

before June 19, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to

the Secretary, Maritime Administration,

room 7210, 400 7th St. SW., Washington

DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael P. Ferris, Director Office of

Costs and Rates, Maritime

Administration, Washington, DC 20590,

Telephone (202) 366–2324.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

901(b) of the Merchant Marine Act,

1936, as amended, 46 App. U.S.C.

§ 1241(b), cited as the Cargo Preference

Act of 1954, requires that, with respect

to certain cargoes which are described

as ‘‘government-impelled,’’ such as food

donation programs administered by the

State Department or the Department of

Agriculture, the cognizant government

agency or agencies must take

appropriate steps to assure that at least

50 percent of the gross tonnage of such

cargoes transported on ocean vessels

will 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 vessels’’ (emphasis added).

Section 901b of the Food Security Act

of 1985 increased the 50 percent

carriage requirement to 75 percent for

agricultural commodities or products

shipped under certain food donation

programs. In 1989, MARAD issued

regulations (46 CFR Part 382, hereafter

the Rule) that initially became effective

on January 1, 1990. The Rule contains

regulations that govern the calculation

of fair and reasonable rates (also

referred to as guideline rates) for the

carriage of bulk and packaged

preference cargoes on U.S.-flag

commercial vessels.

In an effort to encourage the

development of a modern and efficient

U.S.-flag bulk fleet and to help lower

government-wide cargo preference

program costs, the Maritime

Administration is considering changes

in its methodology for the determination

of fair and reasonable rates. The Rule

prescribes a methodology for

determining fair and reasonable rates

based on individual vessel costs. As a

result, during periods of strong demand

for bulk shipping, certain high cost

vessels have been able to fix cargoes at

rates that significantly exceed those of

more efficient vessels. This poses a

question of equity between the operators

of these two groups of vessels and raises

the possibility that under an alternative

methodology government program costs

could be reduced. Additionally, a

possible result of the existing Rule is

that modern, efficient low cost vessels

are discouraged from entering the trade.

The lower ceiling rates imposed on the

most cost efficient vessels by the current

methodology may not allow sufficient

profit opportunities to justify the risk of

a high capital cost investment.

MARAD is considering whether to

conduct a rulemaking with respect to

the present methodology for

determining fair and reasonable rates

and is seeking information from the

public as to an appropriate methodology

to encourage efficient vessels to enter

the trade resulting in lower program

costs. MARAD has identified three

alternative methodologies which it

might consider as part of a rulemaking.

In addition, the option exists of keeping

the present methodology. The

methodologies are:

Individual Cost (Existing)

The existing Rule is based on a

methodology which utilizes an owner’s

actual costs for owning and operating

the specific vessel used in the

transportation of the preference cargo.

Those costs are prorated over the cargo

preference voyage and added to the

voyage and cargo related costs. An

allowance for overhead and profit is

also included in the guideline rate.

Foreign Market Differential

Under this methodology, MARAD

would calculate the added costs

associated with owning and operating a

vessel under the U.S.-flag resulting from

U.S. laws and regulations and the U.S.

standard of living. This procedure

would identify a modern and efficient

target vessel or vessels available

worldwide and estimate its cost under

foreign ownership and under U.S.

ownership, if operated in the most

efficient manner practical. The resulting

cost differential would be prorated over

specific voyages, as cargoes are

tendered, and added to the foreign bids

for such voyages to determine the fair

and reasonable rate for U.S.-flag

operators.

Cost Averaging

A methodology utilizing vessel cost

averaging would be constructed in

much the same manner as the current

Rule, except that some level of average

vessel costs would replace individual

vessel costs in the calculation of the fair

and reasonable rate. There are three

basic cost areas which would be the

most likely candidates for averaging:

vessel operating costs, vessel capital

costs, and fuel. Any one or a

combination of any of the three cost

areas could be included in a cost

averaging methodology.

Market Based

Under a market based methodology,

an operator’s bid would be considered

fair and reasonable if it were submitted

in a competitive environment. A

competitive environment would be

established by a required number of

qualified bids made by independent and
19560 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 1995 / Proposed Rules

nonaffiliated U.S.-flag vessel operators.

A market based methodology would

actually be a combination of

methodologies because a cost based

determination would be made in

instances where an insufficient number

of independent bids were received. The

cost based rate could be determined as

prescribed in the existing Rule or by use

of some other methodology like those

described above. A review of the

legislative history of the Cargo

Preference Act of 1954, § 901(b) of the

Act, would indicate that a market based

methodology may require legislation to

be implemented. Commenters may wish

to address the legislative aspect of the

market based methodology.

In order to administer cargo

preference programs in a cost efficient

manner, while developing a modern and

efficient fleet, it may be necessary to

change the existing methodology for

determining fair and reasonable rates for

U.S.-flag commercial vessels. Therefore,

any comments on proposals to change

the methodology in the regulations at 46

CFR Part 382 should specifically

address any existing problems with the

present methodology, specific

suggestions for alternative

methodologies, and a rationale for

acceptance of any proposed

methodologies. Comments will aid

MARAD’s evaluation of the Rule and

the development of appropriate

alternatives. MARAD is requesting that

any person, corporation, or other entity

having any interest in, or desiring to

offer views and comments on, MARAD’s

fair and reasonable rate methodology,

submit them in writing. After reviewing

the comments, MARAD will decide

whether to propose a change in the

methodology employed for the

determination of fair and reasonable

rates, as well as what revisions to

propose.

The public is advised that the purpose

of this ANPRM is to solicit information

and views from commenters that

MARAD can use in evaluating its

methodology of determining fair and

reasonable rates for the carriage of bulk

and packaged preference cargoes on

U.S.-flag bulk vessels and in deciding

whether to proceed with a rulemaking

to amend 46 CFR Part 382. MARAD has

separate regulations at 46 CFR Part 383

(the liner Rule) dealing with the carriage

of less-than-shipload lots of bulk

preference cargoes on vessels in a liner

service. Common carrier liner services

are substantially different from bulk

services in their cost structure and

service requirements. However, the

information, ideas or views provided by

commenters may have some impact on

any liner rulemaking and the public is

invited to comment on such impact.

Rulemaking Analysis and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory

Planning and Review)

This advance notice of proposed

rulemaking has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12866 and Department

of Transportation Regulatory Policies

and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February

26, 1979). If a rule is actually

promulgated, it would not be

considered an economically significant

regulatory action under Section 3(f) of

E.O. 12866, since it has been

determined that it would not result in

an annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more or adversely affect in a

material way the economy, productivity,

competition, jobs, the environment,

public health or safety, or State, local,

or tribal governments or communities.

While any rule that might be

promulgated would not involve any

change in important Departmental

policies, it would be considered

significant because it addresses a matter

of considerable importance to the

maritime industry and would be

expected to generate significant public

interest. A preliminary regulatory

evaluation will be prepared based on

the comments to this advance notice of

proposed rulemaking.

Federalism

The Maritime Administration has

analyzed this advance notice of

proposed rulemaking in accordance

with the principles and criteria

contained in Executive Order 12612 and

has determined that any rule that might

be subsequently promulgated would not

have sufficient federalism implications

to warrant the preparation of Federalism

Assessment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Maritime Administration certifies

that any rule that might be promulgated

subsequent to this advance notice of

proposed rulemaking would not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Environmental Assessment

Any rule that might be subsequently

promulgated would not significantly

affect the environment. Accordingly, an

Environmental Impact Statement would

not be required under the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Any rule that might be promulgated

would not significantly change the

current requirement for the collection of

information. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has reviewed the

current Rule under the Paperwork

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. S3501 et seq.),

and has approved it under OMB

Approval Number 2133–0514.

By order of the Maritime Administrator.

Dated: April 13, 1995.

Joel C. Richard,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–9681 Filed 4–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 95–43, RM–8580]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Grand

Junction, CO

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document requests

comments on a petition for rule making

filed on behalf of Grand Valley Public

Radio Company, Inc. (petitioner),

permittee of Station KAFM(FM),

Channel 201A, Grand Junction,

Colorado, seeking the allotment of

Channel 264C1 to Grand Junction,

Colorado, as that community’s fifth

local FM transmission service.

Coordinates used for this proposal are

39–04–06 and 108–33–00.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before June 5, 1995, and reply

comments on or before June 20, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20554. In addition to

filing comments with the FCC,

interested parties should serve the

petitioner’s counsel, as follows: Harry F.

Cole, Esq., Bechtel & Cole, Chartered,

1901 L St., NW, Washington, D.C.

20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

95–43, adopted April 3, 1995, and

released April 14, 1995. The full text of

this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC’s

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M

Street, NW, Washington, D.C. The

complete text of this decision may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractors, International

Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857–