Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 97 / Friday, May 17, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24895

conducted at the site to date have been

protective of public health, welfare, and

the environment. This deletion does not

preclude future action under Superfund.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Liza

Montalvo, Remedial Project Manager,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4, North Superfund Remedial

Branch, 345 Courtland Street NE.,

Atlanta, GA 30365, (404) 347–7791,

extension 2030.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to

be deleted from the NPL is: A.L. Taylor

Superfund Site, Brooks, Kentucky.

A Notice of Intent to Delete for this

site was published in July, 1988. A

Revised Notice of Intent to Delete was

published on March 8, 1996 (FRL–

5436–8). The closing date for comments

on the Revised Notice of Intent to Delete

was April 17, 1996. EPA received no

comments.

EPA identifies sites that appear to

present a significant risk to public

health, welfare, or the environment and

it maintains the NPL as the list of those

sites. Any site deleted from the NPL

remains eligible for Fund-financed

remedial actions in the unlikely event

that conditions at the site warrant such

action in the future. Section

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

Fund-financed actions may be taken at

sites deleted from the NPL. Deletion of

a site from the NPL does not affect

responsible party liability or impede

agency efforts to recover costs

associated with response efforts.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous

waste, Hazardous substances,

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,

Reporting and recorkeeping

requirements, Superfund, Water

pollution control, Water supply.

Dated: May 6, 1996.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator, USEPA

Region 4.

For reasons set out in the preamble,

40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

PART 300—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 300

continues to read as follows:

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.

Appendix B to Part 300—[Amended]

2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300

is amended by removing the site A.L.

Taylor, Brooks, Kentucky.

[FR Doc. 96–12485 Filed 5–16–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Maritime Administration

46 CFR Part 381

[Docket No. R–165]

RIN 2133–AB25

Cargo Preference—U.S.-Flag Vessels;

Available U.S.-Flag Commercial

Vessels

AGENCY: Maritime Administration,

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment to the cargo

preference regulations of the Maritime

Administration (MARAD) provides that

during the five year period beginning

with the 1996 Great Lakes shipping

season when the St. Lawrence Seaway

is in use, MARAD will consider the

legal requirement for the carriage of

bulk agricultural commodity preference

cargoes on privately-owned ‘‘available’’

U.S.-flag commercial vessels to have

been satisfied where the cargo is

initially loaded at a Great Lakes port on

one or more U.S.-flag or foreign-flag

vessels, transferred to a U.S.-flag

commercial vessel at a Canadian

transshipment point outside the St.

Lawrence Seaway, and carried on that

U.S.-flag vessel to a foreign destination.

This provision will allow U.S. Great

Lakes ports to compete for certain bulk

agricultural commodity preference

cargoes under agricultural assistance

programs administered by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) and

the U.S. Agency for International

Development (USAID). This rule will

extend that policy for an additional five

years, after which the Agency would

assess the merits of making the rule

permanent. MARAD issued

substantially identical rules in 1994 and

1995 related to the Great Lakes Shipping

season for each of those years,

respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 17, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

E. Graykowski, Deputy Maritime

Administrator for Inland Waterways and

Great Lakes, Maritime Administration,

Washington, DC, Telephone (202)366–

1718.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: United

States law at sections 901(b) and 901b,

Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended

(the ‘‘Act’’), 46 App. U.S.C. 1241(b) and

1241f, requires that at least 75 percent

of certain agricultural product cargoes

‘‘impelled’’ by Federal programs

(preference cargoes), and transported by

sea, be carried on privately-owned

United States-flag commercial vessels,

to the extent that 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 geographical areas.’’ The

Secretary of Transportation wishes to

administer that program so that all ports

and port ranges, including U.S. Great

Lakes ports, may participate in the

carriage of preference cargoes under five

programs administered by the United

States Department of Agriculture

(USDA) and United States Agency for

International Development (USAID),

pursuant to Titles I, II and III of the

Agricultural Trade Development and

Assistance Act of 1954, as amended;

P.L. 480 (7 U.S.C. 1701–1727); the

Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended (7

U.S.C. 2791(c)); and the Food for

Progress Act of 1985, as amended (7

U.S.C. 1736).

Prior Rulemakings

On August 18, 1994, MARAD

published a final rule on this subject in

the Federal Register (59 FR 40261). That

rule stated that it was intended to allow

U.S. Great Lakes ports to participate

with ports in other U.S. port ranges in

the carriage of bulk agricultural

commodity preference cargoes. It stated

that dramatic changes in shipping

conditions have occurred since 1990,

including the disappearance of any allU.S.-flag commercial ocean-going bulk

cargo service to foreign countries from

U.S. Great Lakes ports. The static

configuration of the St. Lawrence

Seaway system and the evolving greater

size of commercial vessels contributed

to the disappearance of any all-U.S.-flag

service.

No bulk grain preference cargo has

moved on U.S.-flag vessels out of the

Great Lakes since 1989, with the

exception of one trial shipment in 1993.

Under the Food Security Act of 1985,

Public Law 99–198, codified at 46 app.

U.S.C. 1241f(c)(2), a certain minimum

amount of Government-impelled cargo

was required to be allocated to Great

Lakes ports during the Great Lakes

shipping seasons of 1986, 1987, 1988

and 1989. That ‘‘set-aside’’ expired in

1989, and was not renewed by the

Congress. The disappearance of
24896 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 97 / Friday, May 17, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Government-impelled agricultural cargo

flowing from the Great Lakes coincided

with the expiration of the Great Lakes

‘‘set-aside.’’

At the time of the opening of the 1994

Great Lakes shipping season on April 5,

1994, the Great Lakes did not have any

all-U.S.-flag ocean freight capability for

carriage of bulk preference cargo. The

absence of any all-U.S.-flag ocean freight

capability on the Great Lakes continues

to this day. In contrast, the total export

nationwide by non-liner vessels of

USDA and USAID agricultural

assistance program cargoes subject to

cargo preference in the 1994–1995 cargo

preference year (the latest program year

for which figures are available)

amounted to 6.2 million metric tons, of

which 4.9 million (78 percent) was

transported on U.S.-flag vessels.

As predicted by numerous

commenters, the timing of the 1994 final

rule, published on August 18, 1994, did

not allow for a true trial period since it

actually extended for less than one-half

of the 1994 Great Lakes Shipping

season. Because of the long lead time

required for arranging shipments of bulk

agriculture commodity preference

cargoes, there apparently was no real

opportunity for U.S.-flag vessel

operators to make the necessary

arrangements and bid on preference

cargoes. Accordingly, MARAD proposed

to extend this policy to the 1995 Great

Lakes shipping season and issued a final

rule that was published in the Federal

Register on May 9, 1995 (60 FR 24560).

Great Lakes participation in cargo

preference shipments under the five

programs administered by the USDA

and USAID could be significantly

improved if foreign-flag feeder vessels

were authorized to transport bulk grain

commodities from Great Lakes ports to

Canadian transshipment points for

export on oceangoing U.S.-flag bulk

carriers to the final destination port.

MARAD issued its 1994 and 1995 final

rules to authorize the use of foreign-flag

feeder vessels for the transportation of

bulk agricultural commodities cargoes

from the Great Lakes ports to Canadian

transshipment ports outside the St.

Lawrence Seaway during the 1994 and

1995 Great Lakes shipping seasons,

respectively. Outside the St. Lawrence

Seaway, the cargo will be transferred to

a U.S.-flag vessel for delivery to its

foreign destination.

Subsequently, USDA indicated that

section 406(b)(4) of P.L. 480 regulating

the payment of freight by USDA for

shipments under Title II, Section 416(b)

and the Food For Progress Act of 1985,

negatively impacted on suppliers that

bid on Great Lakes cargoes to be

transhipped to Canadian shipping

points. USDA indicated that these

provisions prevent them from paying for

freight on commodities shipped from a

Canadian port. The P.L. 480 Title I

program is not affected by this

provision. As a consequence, the Great

Lakes region has been, in effect,

prohibited from utilizing the rule and

participating during the past two years

in the shipment of bulk cargo under

Title II of P.L. 480, Section 416 of the

Agricultural Act of 1949 and the Food

for Progress Act of 1985 programs.

USDA proposed an amendment to

Section 406 in the 1996 Farm Bill which

would allow USDA to pay the cost of

the foreign-flag Great Lakes transit leg

and for the transshipment from

Canadian ports.

MARAD proposed in a new NPRM to

extend its policy stated in the 1994 and

1995 rules for an additional five years,

after which it would reassess the merits

of making the rule permanent,

consistent with the USDA legislative

proposal (61 FR 9670; March 11, 1996).

The amendment proposed by the USDA

is included in the Federal Agriculture

Improvement and Reform Act of 1966,

Pub. L. 104–127, 110 Stat. 888. It

amends Section 406(b)(4) of the

Agricultural Trade, Development and

Assistance Act of 1954, 7 U.S.C. 1736,

to accomplish USDA’s proposal, above.

Comments on 1996 NPRM

MARAD received 12 comments on

this NPRM from 11 commenters

representing business, trade

associations, State and local port

authorities, and State Transportation

Departments. All commenters were in

favor of the policy stated in the NPRM,

without reservation. One commenter

supporting the proposal to establish a

five-year trial period stated, ‘‘Similar

rulemakings in the 1994 and 1995 years

provided too limited of a window of

opportunity to truly test this concept.’’

That commenter referred to the current

common practice in the private sector of

exporting bulk agricultural commodities

from Great Lakes ports in foreign-flag

feeder vessels to transshipment points

east of the St. Lawrence Seaway,

concluding that ‘‘transshipping

Government agricultural exports should,

on occasion, be cost effective.’’

Another commenter stated that

taxpayers, food aid recipient countries

and vessel owners will benefit from this

competition. From the perspective of

U.S. maritime labor, one commenter

stated, ‘‘International cargoes are the

lifeblood of Great Lakes longshoremen

and return of P.L. 480 cargoes to the

Great Lakes will generate thousands of

manhours for dockworkers in virtually

every Great Lakes port.’’ Another

commenter was hopeful that the trend

of increased international trade ‘‘to the

Lakes via the Seaway in the past three

navigation seasons will continue

because of this rulemaking.’’

One commenter, while

acknowledging that the proposed rule

offers some possible relief for Great

Lakes-originated cargo, requested

MARAD to issue a rule which allows

shipment of bulk agricultural

commodities from Great Lakes ports for

the entire voyage from origin to

destination on foreign-flag vessels

where U.S.-flag vessels are not available

for such voyages from Great Lakes ports.

Unless U.S.-flag vessels are unavailable

from any port range in the United

States, MARAD lacks the authority to

issue such a rule under the cargo

preference laws of the United States.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory

Planning and Review)

This rulemaking is not considered to

be an economically significant

regulatory action under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866. Also, it is not a

major rule under Pub. L. 104–121, 5

U.S.C. 804, or a significant rule under

the Department’s Regulatory Policies

and Procedures. Accordingly, it has not

been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget.

MARAD projects that this rule will

allow the annual movement of up to

300,000 metric tons of agricultural

commodities from Great Lakes ports,

with a reduction in the shipping cost to

sponsoring Federal agencies of up to $2

per metric ton ($600,000). MARAD will

evaluate the results of this rulemaking

over a five-year trial period before

determining whether to issue a rule to

make this provision permanent.

Since the 1996 Great Lakes shipping

season opened on March 29, 1996, a

delay in the effective date of this rule for

30 days would be conterproductive to

the accomplishment of the purpose of

this rule to allow U.S. Great Lakes ports

to compete effectively for agricultural

commodity preference cargo shipments.

Accordingly, pursuant to section 553(d)

of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5

U.S.C. 553(d), MARAD finds that good

cause exists for the rule to become

effective on publication.

Federalism

The Maritime Administration has

analyzed this rulemaking in accordance

with the principles and criteria

contained in Executive Order 12612,

and it has been determined that these

regulations do not have sufficient
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 97 / Friday, May 17, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24897

1 Pub. L. 104–104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).

2 As defined in section 273(d)(8)(E), ‘‘[t]he term

‘accredited standards development organization’

means any entity composed of industry members

which have been accredited by an institution vested

with the responsibility for standards accreditation

by the industry.’’ 47 U.S.C. 273(d)(8)(E). Thus, for

example, Bell Communications Research, Inc.

(Bellcore) would not be an accredited standards

development organization and is subject to the

section 273 procedures. H.R. Cong. Rep. No. 230,

104th Cong., 2d Sess. 39 (1996).

3 As defined in section 273(d)(8)(C), ‘‘[t]he term

‘industry-wide’ means activities funded by or

performed on behalf of local exchange carriers for

use in providing wireline telephone exchange

service whose combined total of deployed access

lines in the United States constitutes at least 30

percent of all access lines deployed by

telecommunications carriers in the United States as

of the date of the enactment of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996.’’ 47 U.S.C.

273(d)(8)(C).

4 As defined in section 273(d)(8)(B), ‘‘[t]he term

‘generic requirement’ means a description of

acceptable product attributes for use by local

exchange carriers in establishing product

specification for the purchase of

telecommunications equipment, customer premises

equipment, and software integral thereto.’’ 47

U.S.C. 273(d)(8)(B).

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Maritime Administration certifies

that this rulemaking will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Environmental Assessment

The Maritime Administration has

considered the environmental impact of

this rulemaking and has concluded that

an environmental impact statement is

not required under the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rulemaking contains no reporting

requirement that is subject to OMB

approval under 5 CFR Part 1320,

pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.)

List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 381

Freight, Maritime carriers.

Accordingly, MARAD hereby amends

46 CFR Part 381 as follows:

PART 381—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 381

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 46 App. U.S.C. 1101, 1114(b),

1122(d) and 1241; 49 CFR 1.66.

2. Section 381.9 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 381.9 Available U.S.-flag service.

For purposes of shipping bulk

agricultural commodities under

programs administered by sponsoring

Federal agencies from U.S. Great Lakes

ports during the 1996–2000 Great Lakes

shipping seasons, if direct all-U.S.-flag

service, at fair and reasonable rates, is

not available at U.S. Great Lakes ports,

a joint service involving a foreign-flag

vessel(s) carrying cargo no farther than

a Canadian port(s) or other point(s) on

the Gulf of St. Lawrence, with

transshipment via a U.S.-flag privatelyowned commercial vessel to the

ultimate foreign destination, will be

deemed to comply with the requirement

of ‘‘available’’ commercial U.S.-flag

service under the Cargo Preference Act

of 1954. Shipper agencies considering

bids resulting in the lowest landed cost

of transportation based on U.S.-flag rates

and service shall include within the

comparison of U.S.-flag rates and

service, for shipments originating in

U.S. Great Lakes ports, through rates (if

offered) to a Canadian port or other

point on the Gulf of St. Lawrence and

a U.S.-flag leg for the remainder of the

voyage. The ‘‘fair and reasonable’’ rate

for this mixed service will be

determined by considering the U.S.-flag

component under the existing

regulations at 46 CFR Part 382 or 383,

as appropriate, and incorporating the

cost for the foreign-flag component into

the U.S.-flag ‘‘fair and reasonable’’ rate

in the same way as the cost of foreignflag vessels used to lighten U.S.-flag

vessels in the recipient country’s

territorial waters. Alternatively, the

supplier of the commodity may offer the

Cargo FOB Canadian transshipment

point, and MARAD will determine fair

and reasonable rates accordingly.

Dated: May 10, 1996.

By Order of the Maritime Administrator.

Joel Richard,

Secretary, Maritime Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–12188 Filed 5–16–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[GC Docket No. 96–42; FCC 96–205]

Implementation of Section 273(d)(5) of

the Communications Act of 1934, as

Amended by the Telecommunications

Act of 1996; Dispute Resolution

Regarding Equipment Standards

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In order to implement a new

statutory provision of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996, the

Commission adopts rules establishing a

default dispute resolution process to be

used when technical disputes arise

between a non-accredited standards

development organization (NASDO) and

any party who funds the activities of the

NASDO. Under the new rules, disputes

will be resolved by a recommendation

of a three-person expert panel, selected

by both the disputing party and the

NASDO, with the recommendation

subject to disapproval by a vote of threefourths of the other funding parties. As

intended by Congress, this procedure

ensures that disputes can be resolved in

an open, non-discriminatory, and

unbiased fashion within 30 days, and it

will be used only when all of the parties

are unable to agree on a process for

resolving their disputes. In addition,

persons who willfully refer frivolous

disputes will be subject to forfeiture

pursuant to section 503(b) of the

Communications Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 17, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sharon B. Kelley, Office of General

Counsel, (202) 418–1720.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Adopted: May 7, 1996.

Released: May 7, 1996.

I. Introduction

1. The Telecommunications Act of

1996,1 amended the Communications

Act by creating new sections 273 (d)(4)

and (d)(5), which set forth procedures to

be followed by non-accredited standards

development organizations (NASDOs),2

such as Bellcore, when these

organizations promulgate industrywide 3 standards and generic

requirements 4 for telecommunications

equipment. Typically, as in the case of

Bellcore, carriers fund these voluntary

standard setting activities in order to

assist the carriers in developing

standards to guide their subsequent

purchases of telecommunications

equipment.

2. In this Report and Order, the

Commission adopts rules to implement

new section 273(d)(5), which requires

the Commission to prescribe a default

dispute resolution process when

technical disputes arise between the

NASDO and any parties who fund the

standards setting activities of the

NASDO. In accordance with the statute,

this ‘‘default’’ procedure would be used

only when all funding parties are unable

to reach agreement as to a means for

resolving technical disputes. As

described below, we have decided that

disputes governed by section 273(d)(5)

should be resolved in accordance with

the recommendation of a three-person