July 19, 2005 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

The Coast Guard previously announced the stand-up of Sectors Detroit, Sector Sault Ste. Marie, Sector Buffalo, and Sector Lake Michigan under this docket. This notice informs the public that the process is nearing completion for all Sectors in the Ninth Coast Guard District. All boundaries of areas of responsibility will shift on July 29, 2005, the date of stand-up of the last Sector, Sector Lake Michigan. The Commander of each Sector has the authority, responsibility and missions of its corresponding Group, Captain of the Port (COTP) and Marine Safety Offices. The Coast Guard has established a continuity of operations whereby all previous practices and procedures will remain in effect until superseded by an authorized Coast Guard official or document.

This rule amends our regulations concerning platforms and structures to include coverage of floating offshore oil and gas production platforms. The rule also incorporates into MMS regulations a body of industry standards pertaining to floating production systems (FPSs). Limited changes are also made to regulations concerning oil and gas production safety systems; and pipelines and pipeline rights-of- way. These changes are needed because of the rapid increase in deepwater exploration and development, and industry's increasing reliance on floating facilities for those activities. Incorporating the industry standards into MMS regulations will save the public the costs of developing separate, and possibly duplicative, government standards, and will streamline our procedures for reviewing and approving new offshore floating platforms.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is again proposing to amend its mineral resources regulations to increase many fees and to impose new fees to cover BLM's costs of processing certain documents relating to its minerals programs. This would include costs for actions such as environmental studies, monitoring activities, and other processing-related costs. The BLM would establish some fixed fees and some fees on a case-by-case basis. The proposed fee changes are based on statutory authorities, which authorize BLM to charge for its processing costs, and on policy guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of the Interior (DOI) requiring BLM to charge these fees. The fee changes also respond to recommendations issued in audit reports by the DOI's Office of Inspector General (OIG).

Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Secretariat has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning advance payments. A request for public comments was published in the Federal Register at 70 FR 28516 on May 18, 2005. No comments were received. Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Secretariat has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning limitation of costs/ funds. A request for public comments was published in the Federal Register at 70 FR 28516 on May 18, 2005. No comments were received. Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.