Pages 39837±40052 Vol. 60 8±4±95 No. 150 federal register August 4,1995 Friday this issue. Atlanta, GA,seeannouncementontheinsidecoverof For informationonbriefingsinWashington,DCand Briefings onHowToUsetheFederalRegister 1 II Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995
SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES
PUBLIC Subscriptions: Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 FEDERAL REGISTER Published daily, Monday through Friday, Assistance with public subscriptions 512–1806 (not published on Saturdays, Sundays, or on official holidays), by Online: the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Telnet swais.access.gpo.gov, login as newuser 2 III Contents Federal Register Vol. 60, No. 150 Friday, August 4, 1995 Agricultural Marketing Service Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or RULES Severely Disabled Raisins produced from grapes grown in California, 39837– NOTICES 39840 Procurement list; additions and deletions, 39944–39947 Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements Agriculture Department NOTICES See Agricultural Marketing Service Cotton, wool, and man-made textiles: See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Brazil, 39941 See Forest Service Costa Rica, 39941 See Natural Resources Conservation Service Dominican Republic, 39942 NOTICES Guatemala, 39942–39943 Agency information collection activities under OMB Poland, 39943 review: Sri Lanka, 39943–39944 Proposed agency information collection activities; comment request, 39926 Defense Department NOTICES Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Agency information collection activities under OMB RULES review, 39947–39949 Plant-related quarantine, domestic: Proposed agency information collection activities; Witchweed, 39835–39837 comment request, 39949 Veterinarian accreditation; official animal health Meetings: documents; issuance, 39840–39842 Science Board task forces, 39949–39950 PROPOSED RULES Senior Executive Service: Exportation and importation of animals and animal Performance Review Board; membership, 39950 products: Drug Enforcement Administration Rinderpest and foot-and-mouth disease; disease status NOTICES change— Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: Uruguay, 39890–39893 Grier, Barnett J.W., Jr., M.D., 39969–39970 Plant-related quarantine, foreign: Fruits and vegetables; importation Employment Standards Administration Phytosanitary certificates, 39888–39889 NOTICES Hass avocado from Mexico Minimum wages for Federal and federally-assisted Public hearings, 39889–39890 construction; general wage determination decisions, NOTICES 39972–39973 Harry S Truman Animal Import Center; importation procedures; application period and lottery, 39927 Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Assassination Records Review Board RULES PROPOSED RULES Acquisition regulations: Privacy Act; implementation, 39905–39907 Federal information processing resources acquisition by NOTICES contracting, 39871–39874 Formal determinations on records release, 39928–39929 NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Mound Plant, OH; glass melter thermal treatment unit, Blind or Severely Disabled, Committee for Purchase From 39950–39953 People Who Are Uranium mill tailings remedial action ground water See Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or project, 39953 Severely Disabled Environmental Protection Agency Children and Families Administration RULES Air programs; fuel and fuel additives: NOTICES Reformulated and conventional gasoline standards; Agency information collection activities under OMB administrative stay, 40006–40008 review, 39961 Air quality implementation plans; approval and Organization, functions, and authority delegations: promulgation; various States: Child Support Enforcement Office, 39961–39962 Missouri, 39851–39855 West Virginia, 39855–39857 Commerce Department Air quality implementation plans; approval and See International Trade Administration promulgation; various States; air quality planning See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration purposes; designation of areas: See Technology Administration West Virginia, 39857–39862 IV Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Contents Clean Air Act: Tampa Electric Co. et al., 39954–39955 State operating permits programs— Environmental statements; availability, etc.: California, 39862–39864 Tuolumne Utilities District, 39955–39956 PROPOSED RULES Air programs; State authority delegations: Federal Labor Relations Authority Iowa, 39907–39910 PROPOSED RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and Meaning of terms as used in Subchapter C; representation promulgation; various States: proceedings, 39878–39888 Missouri, 39910 West Virginia, 39910–39911 Federal Reserve System Air quality implementation plans; approval and NOTICES promulgation; various States; air quality planning Agency information collection activities under OMB purposes; designation of areas: review; correction, 39957 West Virginia, 39911 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 39989 Clean Air Act: Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: Fuel and fuel additives; reformulated and conventional Horne, Bill J., Sr., 39957 gasoline, 40009–40017 Pikeville National Corp. et al., 39957–39958 State operating permits programs— Sun Bancorp, Inc., et al., 39958 Texas, 39911–39912 Superfund program: Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board Radionuclide releases; administrative reporting NOTICES exemptions, 40042–40051 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 39989 NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Federal Trade Commission Agency statements— NOTICES Weekly receipts, 39956 Prohibited trade practices: Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Coca-Cola Co., 39958 Environmental education program, 39994–40004 General Motors Corp., 39958–39959 Mattel, Inc., 39959 Federal Aviation Administration Santa Clara County Motor Car Dealers Association, RULES 39959–39961 Airworthiness directives: AlliedSignal, Inc., 39842–39846 Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES PROPOSED RULES Class B airspace, 40020–40027 Interagency cooperation: Class E airspace, 39893–39895 Joint counterpart Endangered Species Act section 7 NOTICES consultation regulations, 39921–39925 Advisory circulars; availability, etc.: NOTICES Aircraft— Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Aeronautical replacement parts; eligibility, quality, and Incidental take permits— identification, 39985–39986 Western Riverside County, CA; Stephens’ kangaroo rat, Passenger facility charges; applications, etc.: 39964–39965 Huntsville International Airport, AL, 39986 Philadelphia International Airport, PA, 39986–39987 Food and Drug Administration Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation RULES Animal drugs, feeds, and related products: NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 39989–39990 Ivermectin, 39846–39847 New drug applications— Federal Emergency Management Agency Piperazine adipate powder, etc., 39847–39848 RULES Flood elevation determinations: Forest Service Connecticut et al., 39865–39871 NOTICES Florida et al., 39867–39868 Environmental statements; availability, etc.: PROPOSED RULES Native inland fish habitat management, 39927–39928 Flood elevation determinations: Pennsylvania et al., 39912–39919 Health and Human Services Department NOTICES See Children and Families Administration Disaster and emergency areas: See Food and Drug Administration Virginia, 39957 See National Institutes of Health Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Housing and Urban Development Department PROPOSED RULES NOTICES Natural Gas Policy Act: Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Electronic Bulletin Boards Standards— Facilities to assist homeless— Public conference, 39895–39896 Excess and surplus Federal property, 39962–39963 NOTICES Organization, functions, and authority delegations: Electric rate and corporate regulation filings: Director, Procurement and Contracts Office, et al., 39963– National Electric Associates L.P., et al., 39953–39954 39964 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Contents V Interior Department Labor Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Employment Standards Administration See Land Management Bureau See Occupational Safety and Health Administration See National Park Service See Reclamation Bureau Land Management Bureau RULES NOTICES Property management program; internal directives and Alaska Native claims selection: procedures; CFR parts removed, 39864–39865 Tozitna, Ltd., 39965–39966 Closure of public lands: Internal Revenue Service Nevada, 39966 PROPOSED RULES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Income taxes: Greater Wamsutter Area II Natural Gas Project, WY, Charitable contributions; deductibility, substantiation, 39966 and disclosure, 39896–39902 Foreign banks and securities dealers; exceptions to Legal Services Corporation passive income characterization, 39902–39903 Procedure and administration: NOTICES Environmental settlement funds; classification, 39903– Grant and cooperative agreement awards: 39905 Hawaii Legal Aid Society; correction, 39991 International Trade Administration National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES NOTICES Antidumping: Motor vehicle safety standards: Fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon from— Nonconforming vehicles— Norway, 39929 Importation eligibility; determinations, 39987–39988 Industrial belts and components and parts, whether cured Uniform data collection and reporting program; comment or uncured, from— request, 39988 Japan, 39929–39931 Polyvinyl alcohol from— National Institutes of Health Japan, 39931 NOTICES Potassium permanganate from— Meetings: China, 39931 Research Grants Division special emphasis panels, 39962 Sparklers from— China, 39931–39933 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Countervailing duties: RULES Agricultural tillage tools from- Fishery conservation and management: Brazil, 39933 Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands groundfish, 39877 Antifriction bearings (other than tapered roller bearings) Ocean salmon off coasts of Washington, Oregon, and and parts from— California Singapore, 39933–39937 Correction, 39991 Ceramic tile from— Pacific Coast groundfish, 39875–39877 Mexico, 39937–39938 PROPOSED RULES Lead and bismuth carbon steel products from— Interagency cooperation: Germany, 39938–39939 Joint counterpart Endangered Species Act section 7 Sulfanilic acid from— consultation regulations, 39921–39925 India, 39939 NOTICES Wool from— Meetings: Argentina, 39939 North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 39940 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); binational panel reviews: National Park Service Oil country tubular goods from— NOTICES Mexico, 39939–39940 Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Fort Clatsop National Memorial, OR, 39966–39967 International Trade Commission NOTICES Natural Resources Conservation Service Meetings; Sunshine Act, 39990 NOTICES Interstate Commerce Commission Environmental statements; availability, etc.: RULES Upper Blue River Watershed, OK, 39928 Motor carriers: Single State insurance registration, 39874–39875 Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES NOTICES Railroad services abandonment: Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 39968 Texas Utilities Electric Co., 39973–39974 Western Kentucky Railway, L.L.C., 39968–39969 Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: Commonwealth Edison Co., 39974–39975 Justice Department Duquesne Light Co. et al., 39975–39976 See Drug Enforcement Administration Virginia Electric & Power Co., 39976–39978 VI Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Contents Occupational Safety and Health Administration See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES See Research and Special Programs Administration State plans; standards approval, etc.: RULES Iowa, 39970–39971 Deepwater port liability fund: Negligent oil spills; liability limit establishment— Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, 39849–39851 RULES PROPOSED RULES Federal claims collection: Direct final rulemaking procedures; expedited processing of Tax refund offset, 39848 noncontroversial changes, 39919–39921 Public Health Service Treasury Department See Food and Drug Administration See Internal Revenue Service See National Institutes of Health United States Enrichment Corporation Reclamation Bureau NOTICES NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 39989 Environmental statements; availability, etc.: South Bay Water Recycling Program, San Jose, CA; correction, 39967–39968 Separate Parts In This Issue Research and Special Programs Administration RULES Part II Hazardous materials: Environmental Protection Agency, 39994–40004 Intermediate bulk containers, 40030–40039 Transportation of dangerous goods international Part III standards alignment; correction, 39991 Environmental Protection Agency, 40006–40017 Securities and Exchange Commission Part IV NOTICES Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: Administration, 40020–40027 Public utility holding company filings, 39978–39980 Security Equity Life Insurance Co. et al., 39980–39984 Part V Department of Transportation, Research and Special Social Security Administration Programs Administration, 40030–40039 NOTICES Agency information collection activities under OMB Part VI review: Environmental Protection Agency, 40042–40051 Proposed agency information collection activities; comment request, 39985 Reader Aids Technology Administration Additional information, including a list of public laws, NOTICES telephone numbers, and finding aids, appears in the Reader Senior Executive Service: Aids section at the end of this issue. Performance Review Board; membership, 39940–39941 Textile Agreements Implementation Committee See Committee for the Implementation of Textile Electronic Bulletin Board Agreements Free Electronic Bulletin Board service for Public Law numbers, Federal Register finding aids, and a list of Transportation Department documents on public inspection is available on 202–275– See Federal Aviation Administration 1538 or 275–0920. Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Contents VII CFR PARTS AFFECTED IN THIS ISSUE A cumulative list of the parts affected this month can be found in the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue. 5 CFR 172 (2 documents) ...... 39991, 40030 Proposed Rules: 173...... 40030 2421...... 39878 178...... 40030 2422...... 39878 1023...... 39874 7 CFR Proposed Rules: 301...... 39835 5...... 39919 989...... 39837 Proposed Rules: 50 CFR 661...... 39991 319 (2 documents) ...... 39888, 663...... 39875 39889 675...... 39877 9 CFR Proposed Rules: 160...... 39840 402...... 39921 161...... 39840 Proposed Rules: 94...... 39890 14 CFR 39...... 39842 Proposed Rules: 71 (3 documents) ...... 39893, 39894, 40020 18 CFR Proposed Rules: 284...... 39895 21 CFR 510...... 39846 520...... 39846 522...... 39846 524...... 39846 558 (2 documents) ...... 39846, 39847 26 CFR Proposed Rules: 1 (2 documents) ...... 39896, 39902 301...... 39903 29 CFR 2606...... 39848 2609...... 39848 33 CFR 137...... 39849 36 CFR Proposed Rules: 1415...... 39905 40 CFR 52 (3 documents) ...... 39851, 39855, 39857 70...... 39862 80...... 40006 81...... 39857 Proposed Rules: 52 (4 documents) ...... 39907, 39910, 39911 70...... 39911 80...... 40009 81...... 39911 302...... 40042 355...... 40042 41 CFR Ch. 114 ...... 39864 44 CFR 65 (2 documents) ...... 39865, 39867 67...... 39868 Proposed Rules: 67...... 39912 48 CFR 939...... 39871 49 CFR 171...... 40030 39835 Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 60, No. 150 Friday, August 4, 1995 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER Domestic and Emergency Operations, 3. It is deemed necessary to regulate contains regulatory documents having general PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 134, these areas because of their proximity to applicability and legal effect, most of which Riverdale, MD 20737–1236, (301) 734– infestation. are keyed to and codified in the Code of 8372. 4. These areas cannot be separated for Federal Regulations, which is published under quarantine enforcement purposes from 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: infested localities. The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by Background Designation of these areas as regulated areas imposes controls on the movement the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of Witchweed (Striga spp.), a parasitic of regulated articles from these areas new books are listed in the first FEDERAL plant that feeds off the roots of its host, and prevents the spread of witchweed to REGISTER issue of each week. causes degeneration of corn, sorghum, noninfested areas. and other grassy crops. It is found in the Copies of the surveys may be obtained United States only in parts of North DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE by writing to the individual listed under Carolina and South Carolina. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Animal and Plant Health Inspection The witchweed quarantine and Service regulations contained in 7 CFR 301.80 Removal of Areas From List of through 301.80–10 (referred to below as Regulated Areas 7 CFR Part 301 the regulations) quarantine the States of We are also amending § 301.80–2a by North Carolina and South Carolina and [Docket No. 95±048±1] removing areas in Cumberland, Duplin, restrict the interstate movement of Greene, Harnett, Pender, and Wayne Witchweed; Regulated Areas certain witchweed hosts in the Counties, North Carolina, and Berkeley, quarantined States for the purpose of Dillon, and Horry Counties, South AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health preventing the spread of witchweed. Carolina from the list of suppressive Inspection Service, USDA. Regulated areas for witchweed are areas. As a result of this action, there are ACTION: Interim rule and request for designated as either suppressive areas or no longer any regulated areas in Harnett comments. generally infested areas. Restrictions are County, North Carolina, or in Berkeley imposed on the interstate movement of County, South Carolina. SUMMARY: We are amending the list of regulated articles from both types of We are taking this action because we suppressive areas under the witchweed areas in order to prevent the movement have determined that witchweed no quarantine and regulations by adding of witchweed into noninfested areas. longer occurs in these areas; therefore, and removing areas in North Carolina However, the eradication of witchweed there is no longer a basis for listing and South Carolina. These changes is undertaken as an objective only in these areas as suppressive areas for the affect 11 counties in North Carolina and areas designated as suppressive areas. purpose of preventing the spread of 4 counties in South Carolina. These Currently, there are no areas designated witchweed. This action relieves actions are necessary in order to impose as generally infested areas. unnecessary restrictions on the certain restrictions and to relieve interstate movement of regulated unneccessary restrictions on the Designation of Areas as Suppressive interstate movement of regulated Areas articles from these areas. articles to help prevent the spread of We are amending § 301.80–2a of the Emergency Action witchweed. regulations, which lists generally The Administrator of the Animal and DATES: Interim rule effective July 31, infested and suppressive areas, by Plant Health Inspection Service has 1995. Consideration will be given only adding areas in Greene, Pender, Pitt, determined that an emergency exists to comments received on or before Sampson, and Wayne Counties, North that warrants publication of this interim October 3, 1995. Carolina, and areas in Dillon County, rule without prior opportunity for ADDRESSES: Please send an original and South Carolina to the list of suppressive public comment. Immediate action is three copies of your comments to areas. necessary to control the spread of Docket No. 95–048–1, Regulatory The rule portion of this document witchweed to noninfested areas of the Analysis and Development, PPD, lists the suppressive areas for each United States by adding specified areas APHIS, suite 3C03, 4700 River Road county. Nonfarm areas, if any, are listed to the list of suppressive areas in North Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. first; farms are then listed Carolina and South Carolina. Also, Please state that your comments refer to alphabetically. where witchweed no longer occurs, Docket No. 95–048–1. Comments We are taking this action because immediate action is necessary to relieve received may be inspected at USDA, surveys conducted by the United States unnecessary restrictions on the room 1141, South Building, 14th Street Department of Agriculture (USDA) and interstate movement of regulated and Independence Avenue SW., State agencies of North Carolina and articles. Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and South Carolina have established that Because prior notice and other public 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, these areas meet one or more of the procedures with respect to this action except holidays. Persons wishing to following conditions specified in are impracticable and contrary to the inspect comments are requested to call § 301.80–2(a) of the regulations: public interest under these conditions, ahead on (202) 690–2817 to facilitate 1. Witchweed has been found in these we find good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 entry into the comment reading room. areas. to make it effective upon signature. We FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 2. There is reason to believe that will consider comments that are Mario Rodriguez, Operations Officer, witchweed is present in these areas. received within 60 days of publication 39836 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations of this rule in the Federal Register. Executive Order 12372 e. In Pender County, North Carolina, After the comment period closes, we This program/activity is listed in the The Flynn, B.S., farm; The Henry, Mary will publish another document in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance E., farm; The Malloy, Pete, No. 1 farm; Federal Register. It will include a under No. 10.025 and is subject to The Malloy, Pete, No. 2 farm; The discussion of any comments we receive Executive Order 12372, which requires Marshall, Milvin, farm; The Salomon, and any amendments we are making to intergovernmental consultation with Gwendolyn S., farm; The Taylor, Bill, the rule as a result of the comments. State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part farm. f. In Wayne County, North Carolina, Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 3015, subpart V.) The Sasser, Rosa, farm. Flexibility Act Executive Order 12778 3. In § 301.80–2a, the list of This rule has been reviewed under This rule has been reviewed under suppressive areas is amended by Executive Order 12866. For this action, Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice removing the following areas in the Office of Management and Budget Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State Berkeley and Dillon Counties, South has waived its review process required and local laws and regulations that are Carolina. by Executive Order 12866. inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no a. Berkeley County, South Carolina, Witchweed (Striga spp.) is a parasitic retroactive effect; and (3) does not the entire county. plant that feeds off the roots of its host, require administrative proceedings b. In Dillon County, South Carolina, causing degeneration of corn, sorghum, before parties may file suit in court The Church, Emerson, farm; The and other grassy crops. Witchweed is challenging this rule. Elvington, James C., farm; The Fore, found only in the United States, in parts Ernest, farm; The Fore, John, farm; and Paperwork Reduction Act of North Carolina and South Carolina. The Smith, A.C., farm. The witchweed regulations This document contains no 4. In § 301.80–2a, the list of quarantine the States of North Carolina information collection or recordkeeping suppressive areas in Horry County, and South Carolina and restrict the requirements under the Paperwork South Carolina, is amended as follows: interstate movement of certain Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 a. By revising the second witchweed hosts in the quarantined et seq.). undesignated paragraph of the current States for the purpose of preventing the List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301 description of Horry County, South spread of witchweed into noninfested Carolina, to read as set forth below. Agricultural commodities, Plant areas of the United States. We are b. By removing the following areas: diseases and pests, Quarantine, amending the regulations by adding and The Cox, Velma, farm; The Holmes, Reporting and recordkeeping removing regulated areas in North Marie T., farm; The Inman, Rosetta, requirements, Transportation. Carolina and South Carolina. farm; The Royals, Lathan, farm; The Accordingly, 7 CFR part 301 is This interim rule affects the interstate Stevens, Cora G., farm; The Thomas, amended as follows: movement of regulated articles from James D., farm; The Todd, Mack, farm; specified areas in North Carolina and PART 301ÐDOMESTIC QUARANTINE and The Vaugh, Ruth, farm. South Carolina. We have determined NOTICES § 301.80±2a Regulated areas; generally that approximately 280,900 small infested and suppressive areas. entities move regulated articles 1. The authority citation for part 301 interstate from North Carolina and continues to read as follows: * * * * * South Carolina. This rule affects only 51 Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150bb, 150dd, 150ee, SOUTH CAROLINA of these entities, however, by removing 150ff, 161, 162, and 164–167; 7 CFR 2.17, (1) * * * 41 entities from regulation and by 2.51, and 371.2(c). (2) Suppressive areas. adding 10 new entities to the list of § 301.80±2a [Amended] suppressive areas. * * * * * 2. In § 301.80–2a, the list of We have determined that the 41 Horry County. suppressive areas is amended by deregulated entities will each realize an * * * * * removing the following areas in annual savings of $60 to $70 in That area bounded by a line beginning Cumberland, Duplin, Greene, Harnett, regulatory and control costs. We at the junction of U.S. Highway 19, State Pender, and Wayne Counties, North estimate that the rule will cost each of Primary Highway 91, and State Primary Carolina. Highway 90, then east along highway 90 the 10 newly-regulated entities about a. In Cumberland County, North to its junction with State Secondary $60 annually. Carolina, The Elliott, W.H., farm; The Highway 1029, then south along In the instances where this interim Gerald, Rufus, farm; The Jackson, J.T., highway 1029 to its junction with a dirt rule removes specified areas from the farm; The Lockamy, Earl, farm; The road known as the Telephone Road, list of suppressive areas, this rule will McLaurin, Greg, farm; The McMillan, then extending northwest along a line to enable freer movement of goods and Vander, farm; The Melvin, Edith, farm; the beginning of the south branch of services across State lines. Consumers The Pruitt, K.D., farm; The Roberts, will benefit from lower prices and better Christine Dawson, farm; The Smith, Jones Big Swamp, then northerly along access to products from the list of Larry Don, farm; and The Vann, W.E., Jones Big Swamp to its junction with suppressive areas that we removed. farm. State Primary Highway 90, then east Overall, we expect that this rule will b. In Duplin County, North Carolina, along highway 90 to the south branch of enhance the ability of small entities to The Hamilton, John, farm. Mills Swamp. market products interstate. c. In Greene County, North Carolina, * * * * * Under these circumstances, the The Carmon, James E., farm; The 5. In § 301.80–2a, the list of Administrator of the Animal and Plant Edwards, Joe E., farm; The Nethercutt, suppressive areas is amended as Health Inspection Service has Lawrence, farm; and The Wilson, Sudie, follows: determined that this action will not farm. a. By adding, in alphabetical order, have a significant economic impact on d. Harnett County, North Carolina, the areas in Greene, Pender, Pitt, Sampson, a substantial number of small entities. entire county. and Wayne Counties, North Carolina, Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 39837 and Dillon County, South Carolina, as then easterly along this county line to with State Secondary Road 626 and 0.55 set forth below. its junction with the Sampson-Johnston mile southwest of the intersection of b. By revising the entire descriptions County line, then southeast along this State Secondary Road 625 with State of the infested areas for Sampson county line to its intersection with Highway 38. County, North Carolina, and Dillon North Carolina Highway 242, then south * * * * * County, South Carolina, as set forth along this highway to its junction with Done in Washington, DC, this 31st day of below. U.S. Highway 421, then southeast along July 1995. this highway to its intersection with Lonnie J. King, § 301.80±2a Regulated areas; generally U.S. Highway 701, then north along this infested and suppressive areas. Administrator, Animal and Plant Health highway to its junction with North Inspection Service. * * * * * Carolina Highway 403, then east along [FR Doc. 95–19180 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] NORTH CAROLINA this highway to its junction with State BILLING CODE 3410±34±P Secondary Road 1919, then east along (1) * * * this highway to its intersection with (2) Suppressive areas. State Secondary Road 1909, then Agricultural Marketing Service * * * * * southeast along this road to its Greene County. intersection with State Secondary Road 7 CFR Part 989 * * * * * 1004, then southeast along this road to The Lane, Wilbert, farm located on its junction with State Secondary Road [Docket No. FV95±989±3FR] the east side of State Secondary Road 1911, then southeasterly along this road Raisins Produced From Grapes Grown 1419 and 0.3 mile northeast of its to its junction with State Secondary in California; Change of Desirable junction with State Secondary Road Road 1927, then southerly along this Carryout Used in Computing Trade 1418. road to the point of beginning. Demand * * * * * The Hobbs, Ed, farm located 0.7 mile Pender County. south of State Secondary Road 1736 and AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, * * * * * 1 mile south of its intersection with USDA. The Kea, Leo, farm located 0.3 mile State Secondary Road 1731. ACTION: Final rule. east of State Secondary Road 1105 and The Pate, Ray, farm located on the 1.2 miles south of its intersection with west side of State Secondary Road 1738 SUMMARY: This final rule changes the State Secondary Road 1104. and 0.6 mile southeast of its intersection desirable carryout levels which are used with State Secondary Road 1940. in computing the yearly trade demand * * * * * The Strickland, Edgebert, farm located The McCallister, Mary, farm located for California raisins. The trade demand on the north side of State Highway 421 0.2 mile east of State Secondary Road is used to help determine the volume and 1 mile east of its intersection with 1105 and 1.1 miles south of its regulation percentages for each crop State Secondary Road 1703. intersection with State Secondary Road year, if necessary. The desirable Wayne County. The Dunn, Dale, farm 1104. carryout is being reduced from the located on the west side of State current two and one-half months of * * * * * Secondary Road 1009 and 0.6 mile shipments to two and one-fourth The Squires, Nelson, farm located on north of its intersection with State months of shipments during the 1995– the south side of State Secondary Road Secondary Road 1101. 96 crop year and to two months of 1103 and 1.5 miles south, southeast of * * * * * shipments in subsequent crop years. the junction of this road with State The Raisin Administrative Committee Secondary Road 1104. SOUTH CAROLINA (Committee), which is responsible for * * * * * (1) * * * local administration of the Federal Pitt County. (2) Suppressive areas. marketing order, believes that the * * * * * Dillon County. That area bounded by current desirable carryout level has The Garris, Bruce, farm located 0.1 a line beginning at a point where State contributed to excessive supplies of mile south of the intersection of State Secondary Highway 22 intersects the marketable tonnage early in the crop Secondary Road 1916 and State South Carolina-North Carolina state line year. This rule is expected to moderate Highway 118 and 0.2 mile east of the and extending south along said highway the oversupply of California raisins intersection of State Secondary Road 22 to its junction with State Secondary early in the crop year, thus stabilizing 118 with a field road. Highway 45, then southwest along said the market conditions for producers and * * * * * Highway 45 to its intersection with the handlers. Sampson County. That area bounded Little Pee Dee River, then northerly EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 1995. by a line beginning at a point where along said river to its intersection with FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: State Secondary Road 1927 intersects Interstate 95, then southwest along said Mark Hessel, Marketing Specialist, the Sampson-Duplin County line, then I–95 to its intersection with Reedy California Marketing Field Office, Fruit southerly and easterly along this county Creek, then northwest along Reedy and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, line to its junction with the Sampson- Creek to its intersection with the Dillon- 2202 Monterey Street, suite 102B, Pender County line, then southwesterly Marlboro County line, then northeast Fresno, California 93721; telephone: along this county line to its junction along said county line to its junction (209) 487–5901, or fax (209) 487–5906; with the Sampson-Bladen County line, with the South Carolina-North Carolina or Valerie L. Emmer, Marketing then northwesterly along this county state line, then southeast along said Specialist, Marketing Order line to its junction with the Sampson- state line to the point of beginning. Administration Branch, Fruit and Cumberland County line, then * * * * * Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, room northwesterly, north, and northeast The Wise, Wilbur, farm located on the 2523–S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, along this county line to its junction south side of a field road and 0.15 mile DC 20090–6456; telephone: (202) 205– with the Sampson-Harnett County line, southeast of the junction of the road 2829, or fax (202) 720–5698. 39838 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final and approximately 4,500 producers in marketing season. A majority of the rule is issued under Marketing the regulated area. Small agricultural Committee members believe that this Agreement and Order No. 989 (7 CFR service firms have been defined by the causes unstable market conditions Part 989), as amended, regulating the Small Business Administration (13 CFR during the early part of the crop year. handling of raisins produced from 121.601) as those whose annual receipts To moderate the oversupply of grapes grown in California, hereinafter (from all sources) are less than marketable raisin tonnage early in the referred to as the ‘‘order.’’ This order is $5,000,000, and small agricultural season, the Committee recommended effective under the Agricultural producers are defined as those having that the desirable carryout levels be Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as annual receipts of less than $500,000. revised from two and one-half months amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter No more than eight handlers and a of the prior year’s shipments to two and referred to as the ‘‘Act.’’ majority of producers of California one-fourth months of the prior year’s The Department of Agriculture raisins may be classified as small shipments for the 1995–96 crop year (Department) is issuing this rule in entities. Twelve of the 20 handlers and to two months of the prior year’s conformance with Executive Order subject to regulation have annual sales shipments for subsequent crop years. 12866. estimated to be at least $5,000,000, and The change in the desirable carryout This final rule has been reviewed the remaining eight handlers have sales levels reduces the trade demand and the under Executive Order 12778, Civil less than $5,000,000, excluding receipts free tonnage percentage, and makes less Justice Reform. This rule will reduce the from any other sources. free tonnage available to handlers for desirable carryout for the 1995–96 crop This final rule changes section immediate use. However, handlers will year, beginning August 1, 1995, through 989.154 of the administrative rules and still be provided an opportunity to July 31, 1996, and for subsequent crop regulations of the raisin marketing increase their inventories, if necessary, years. This rule will not preempt any order. The Committee recommended by by purchasing raisins from the reserve State or local laws, regulations, or a vote of 31 to 15 at its April 28, 1995, pool under order-mandated 10 plus 10 policies, unless they present an meeting, to adjust the desirable carryout offers during November and other irreconcilable conflict with this rule. level in section 989.154 from the current releases of reserve pool raisins available The Act provides that administrative two and one-half months of shipments under the marketing order. The 10 plus proceedings must be exhausted before to two and one-fourth months of 10 offers are two simultaneous offers of parties may file suit in court. Under shipments during the 1995–96 crop year reserve pool raisins which are made section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any and to two months of shipments in available to handlers each season. For handler subject to an order may file subsequent crop years. The crop year each such offer, a quantity of raisins with the Secretary a petition stating that includes the 12-month period August 1 equal to 10 percent of the prior year’s the order, any provision of the order, or through July 31. shipments is made available for free use. any obligation imposed in connection The desirable carryout level is the Although this final rule tends to tighten with the order is not in accordance with amount of tonnage from the prior crop the supply of raisins early in the season, law and request a modification of the year needed during the first part of the handlers will still have the opportunity order or to be exempted therefrom. A succeeding crop year to meet market to obtain additional supplies to increase handler is afforded the opportunity for needs, before new crop raisins are their carryouts from the 10 plus 10 a hearing on the petition. After the harvested and available for market. offers. hearing the Secretary would rule on the Currently, section 989.154 provides that This rule is intended to stabilize the petition. The Act provides that the the desirable carryout levels shall be early season raisin market. Bringing district court of the United States in any equal to the shipments of free tonnage early season supplies more in line with district in which the handler is an to all outlets for each varietal type market needs is expected to stabilize inhabitant, or has his or her principal during the months of August, market prices. This price stabilization place of business, has jurisdiction in September, and one-half of the total should make raisin buyers less likely to equity to review the Secretary’s ruling shipments for the month of October of postpone their purchases. Thus, on the petition, provided a bill in equity the prior crop year. decreasing the desirable carryout could is filed not later than 20 days after the The desirable carryout figure is used strengthen the market and increase date of the entry of the ruling. in marketing policy calculations to shipments, which would benefit raisin Pursuant to requirements set forth in determine trade demand. The trade producers and handlers. the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the demand is 90 percent of prior year’s One alternative that was discussed by Administrator of the Agricultural shipments, adjusted by the carryin and the Committee prior to recommending Marketing Service (AMS) has desirable carryout. The trade demand is the change was to immediately set the considered the economic impact of this then used to help determine the volume desirable carryout level at two months action on small entities. regulation percentages for each crop of the prior year’s shipments. It was The purpose of the RFA is to fit year, if necessary. determined that this was too rapid an regulatory actions to the scale of Beginning in the 1991–92 crop year adjustment and that first setting the business subject to such actions in order the desirable carryout was reduced from desirable carryout levels at two and one- that small businesses will not be unduly three months of shipments to two and quarter months for the 1995–96 season or disproportionately burdened. one-half months of shipments. It was and two months in subsequent crop Marketing orders issued pursuant to the determined that the use of the three years would be a more prudent Act, and rules issued thereunder, are month desirable carryout level resulted approach. unique in that they are brought about in excessive supplies of marketable Another alternative considered was through group action of essentially tonnage early in the season. setting the desirable carryout at a fixed small entities acting on their own The Committee has used the two and tonnage. However, this alternative does behalf. Thus, both statutes have small one-half month desirable carryout figure not allow the desirable carryout to entity orientation and compatibility. for four crop years and has determined fluctuate with changing market There are approximately 20 handlers that the use of this figure has also conditions from year to year. of California raisins who are subject to contributed to an excessive supply of Those voting in opposition to the regulation under the marketing order free tonnage at the beginning of the recommendation to reduce the desirable Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 39839 carryout level believed that the The proposed rule concerning this oversupply situation occurred in the marketing order should not further action was published in the June 21, 1983–84 crop year partly because the restrict supplies during the early part of 1995, Federal Register (60 FR 32280), amount of raisin-variety grapes the crop year. However, the following with a 15-day comment period ending purchased by wineries decreased 57 table shows that adequate supplies of July 6, 1995. Four comments were percent from 1982 to 1983 resulting in Natural (sun-dried) Seedless raisins received, three in favor and the other in unusually high Natural (sun-dried) have been available early in the crop opposition to the proposed rule. Seedless raisin inventories at the end of year to meet demand. Natural (sun- The three comments in favor of the the 1983–84 crop year. The Natural dried) Seedless raisins represent about proposed rule were submitted by Mr. (sun-dried) Seedless raisin field price 90 percent of all raisins produced in Vaughn Koligian, General Manager of cannot be adjusted to react to such California. The other two varieties the Raisin Bargaining Association (RBA) changes in market conditions because it which had reserve pools for the 1994– and a raisin grower; Mr. Gerald is established early in the crop year 95 crop year, Zante Currant raisins and Chooljian of Del Rey Packing, a raisin (normally on or before October 5). It was Other Seedless raisins, had carryins far handler and grower; and Mr. Ernest A. not until the beginning of the 1984–85 exceeding the annual trade demand. Bedrosian of National Raisin Company crop year that the industry drastically ‘‘Carryin’’ is synonymous with the and EKK Bedrosian Farms, a raisin lowered the field price to $700 per ton. ‘‘carryout’’ of the preceding crop year. handler and grower. The RBA Mr. Kriebel does not provide All figures are in natural condition tons. represents approximately 2,000 raisin sufficient evidence that desirable [In tons] growers. Mr. Koligian further stated that carryout levels are solely responsible for 15 raisin packers, including Mr. the increase in field prices. The Chooljian and Mr. Bedrosian, support lowering of the desirable carryout levels Desirable Aug/ carryin Physical Sept the change in the desirable carryout has its greatest impact on supply during Crop year (Aug, Sept 1 carryin ship- level as set forth in the proposed rule. the early part of the crop year, before the & ¤2 Oct ments shipments) The three comments in favor of new crop is harvested. As stated earlier, implementing the change set forth in the the decrease in the desirable carryout 1994±95 .... 84,671 92,248 64,374 proposed rule reiterate the justification levels from two and one-half months to 1993±94 .... 81,867 93,752 67,784 specified in the proposed rule. two months adjusts the free market 1992±93 .... 82,591 115,440 65,495 The comment in opposition to the supply during the early part of the crop 1991±92 .... 84,541 109,306 65,613 proposed rule was submitted by Mr. year and brings it more in line with Barry F. Kriebel, President of Sun-Maid demand. As for the remaining part of The desirable carryin is set to meet Growers of California (Sun-Maid), an the crop year, handlers are still the demand for the early part of the crop agricultural marketing cooperative provided an opportunity to increase year (August and September) before the comprised of approximately 1,300 their inventories, if necessary, by new crop becomes available. The actual growers. purchasing raisins from the reserve pool physical carryin has far exceeded the Mr. Kriebel claims that the reduction under order-mandated 10 plus 10 offers desirable carryin and has resulted in an of the desirable carryout levels would and other releases of reserve pool raisins oversupply of free tonnage during the create an artificial shortage and drive up available under the marketing order. early part of the crop year. The consumer prices. He presents as The desirable carryout was reduced reduction in desirable carryout evidence, a table showing that the field from three months to two and one-half contributes to correcting the problem by prices for Natural (sun-dried) Seedless months of shipments beginning in the adjusting the free tonnage market raisins increased dramatically from 1991–92 crop year. However, the field supply, which brings it more in line 1984 until the desirable carryout level price has only risen 4 percent from with demand. was changed from 60,000 tons for $1115/ton in the 1990–91 crop year to The desirable carryout levels that are Natural (sun-dried) Seedless raisins to $1160/ton in 1994–95 crop year. In established by this rule apply uniformly three months of shipments (103,090 comparison, the consumer price index to all handlers in the industry, whether tons) beginning in the 1989–90 crop for food products increased 14.4 percent small or large, and there will be no year. Mr. Kriebel contends that this from 1990 to 1994. known additional costs incurred by increase in field prices should not have Mr. Kriebel also implies that the small handlers. The stabilizing effects of occurred from 1984 to 1989 because reduction in the desirable carryout will the revised desirable carryout levels there was a consistent oversupply of result in a greater amount of raisins impact both small and large handlers raisins. being ‘‘aborted’’ through the Raisin positively by helping them maintain For example, Mr. Kriebel points out Diversion Program (RDP). The order and expand markets. that the field price for Natural (sun- allows raisin growers to participate in In the event that the prior year’s dried) Seedless raisins was $1,300 per the RDP by not growing their grape crop shipments are limited because of crop ton during the 1983–84 crop year, even when a surplus of raisins exists in the conditions, a proviso in section 989.154 though only 37.5 percent of the crop market. Mr. Kriebel does not provide allows the committee to select the total was declared ‘‘free.’’ Although this price evidence of a correlation between the shipments during the months of August, was historically high, it was caused for use of the RDP and the desirable September and one-half of the total the most part by factors other than the carryout levels. It may be the case that shipments for October during one of the desirable carryout level for Natural (sun- it is more likely consistent surpluses, three years preceding the prior crop dried) Seedless raisins. In the 1983–84 and thus a need for the RDP, have been year. Consistent with the need to reduce crop year, the industry attempted to caused by the downward trend in sales early season supplies, this rule makes a market the large raisin supply without of raisin-variety grapes, particularly corresponding revision to this proviso, decreasing the field price from the prior Thompson Seedless, to wineries. This is by changing the total shipments from year. The raisin industry managed to because wineries have been receiving a August, September, and one-half of the moderately increase shipments over the greater percentage of their distillation total shipments for October to the total prior year’s shipments, but not in materials from wine-variety grapes or shipments from August and September sufficient quantities to account for the from other sugar sources, such as only. drastic increase in raisin supply. An apples. This may also partially explain 39840 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations why field prices for Natural (sun-dried) § 989.154 Desirable carryout levels. accredited veterinarians and reduce the Seedless raisins have increased less The desirable carryout levels to be costs of health inspection for the during the 1990’s. Since competition used in computing and announcing a livestock industry, without significantly from wineries for raisin-variety grapes crop year’s marketing policy shall be increasing animal disease risk. has decreased, there has been less equal to the total shipments of free EFFECTIVE DATE: September 5, 1995. pressure to increase field prices. tonnage of the prior crop year during the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. The Department does not find months of August and September, for J. A. Heamon, Senior Staff Veterinarian, evidence that this rule will cause more each varietal type, converted to a National Animal Health Programs, VS, raisins to be ‘‘aborted’’ in the RDP or natural condition basis: Provided, That APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 43, that raisin prices will increase the desirable carryout levels to be used Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 734– significantly. Instead, this rule seems to in computing and announcing the 1995– 6954. provide the industry with the means of 96 crop year’s marketing policy shall be mitigating the oversupply of raisins equal to the total 1994 shipments of free SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: early in the crop year, and help stabilize tonnage for the months of August and Background market conditions for producers and September, and one-fourth of the total In accordance with 9 CFR parts 160, handlers. Thus, no change is being shipments for the month of October: 161, and 162 (referred to below as the made in response to the above Provided further, That should the prior regulations), some veterinarians are comment. year’s shipments be limited because of accredited by the Federal Government After thoroughly analyzing the crop conditions, the Committee may to cooperate with the Animal and Plant comments received and other available select the total shipments during the Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in information, the Department has months of August and September during controlling and preventing the spread of concluded that this final rule is an one of the three crop years preceding animal diseases throughout the country appropriate means of solving the the prior crop year. and internationally. Accredited marketing problems discussed herein. Dated: July 31, 1995. veterinarians use their professional Based on available information, the Martha B. Ransom, training in veterinary medicine to Administrator of the AMS has Acting Deputy Director, Fruit and Vegetable perform certain regulatory tasks. determined that this action will not Division. On March 10, 1995, we published in have a significant economic impact on [FR Doc. 95–19323 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] the Federal Register (60 FR 13084– a substantial number of small entities. BILLING CODE 3410±02±P 13086, Docket No. 94–027–1) a proposal After consideration of all available to amend the regulations to allow, under information, it is found that the action, certain conditions, accredited as hereinafter set forth, will tend to Animal and Plant Health Inspection veterinarians to issue official animal effectuate the declared policy of the Act. Service health documents for animals in herds Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also or flocks under regular health found and determined that good cause 9 CFR Parts 160 and 161 maintenance programs for up to 30 days after inspection. For all animals not part exists for not postponing the effective [Docket No. 94±027±2] date of this action until 30 days after of a regular health maintenance publication in the Federal Register Standards for Accredited Veterinarian program, we proposed to allow because: (1) The 1995–96 crop year Duties accredited veterinarians to issue official begins August 1, 1995, and this rule animal health documents for up to 10 should be effective promptly because AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health days following inspection. We further the order requires that the committee Inspection Service, USDA. proposed to require that all official meet on or before August 15 to compute ACTION: Final rule. animal health documents be valid for and announce the trade demand, and only 30 days following the date of the desirable carryout level is a SUMMARY: We are allowing, under inspection, regardless of the date of necessary item in that calculation; and certain conditions, accredited issuance. Finally, we proposed to add (2) growers and handlers are aware of veterinarians to issue official animal definitions of issue and regular health this rule which was discussed and health documents up to 30 days after maintenance program. recommended at a public meeting. inspection for animals in herds or flocks We solicited comments concerning under regular health maintenance our proposal for 60 days ending May 9, List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 989 programs. For all other animals, we will 1995. We received seven comments by Grapes, Marketing agreements, allow accredited veterinarians to issue that date. They were from a swine Raisins, Reporting and recordkeeping official animal health documents up to breeding stock company, two national requirements. 10 days following inspection. Last, we veterinary associations, a pork industry are requiring that all official animal association, a Federal veterinarian, and For the reasons set forth in the health documents be valid for only 30 two State agriculture agencies. Four of preamble, 7 CFR part 989 is amended as days following inspection, regardless of the commenters supported the proposed follows: the date of issuance. We will continue rule, although one of those commenters PART 989ÐRAISINS PRODUCED to require that accredited veterinarians appeared to have some reservations FROM GRAPES GROWN IN issue official animal health documents about one aspect of the proposal. The CALIFORNIA only for animals that they have remaining three commenters expressed inspected. concerns regarding specific aspects of 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR These actions will extend the time the proposed rule. The concerns and part 989 continues to read as follows: period allowed between inspection and reservations of those commenters are the issuance of official animal health Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. discussed below. documents. We believe these actions One commenter supported our 2. Section 989.154 is revised to read will both alleviate the burden placed by proposal to allow an accredited as follows: the current time requirement on veterinarian to issue an official animal Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 39841 health document up to 10 days after his animals would be valid for a long other than the accredited veterinarian. or her inspection of animals in a herd enough period of time to complete the The commenter stated that an or flock not under a regular health movement of those animals. If not, the accredited veterinarian should be maintenance program. The commenter next scheduled visit by the accredited responsible for reviewing all animal acknowledged that the increase from 7 veterinarian serving the facility would health documents for accuracy before to 10 days would provide some likely be only a few days in the future, they are signed and then issued. We do additional time for laboratory results to and a new set of documents could be not believe that the changes will create be received, but stated that even 10 days secured following that visit, thus the loophole envisioned by the may not be sufficient time to receive the allowing adequate time to move the commenter for two reasons: First, the results of some required tests. The shipment of animals. A document proposed definition of issue—‘‘the commenter did not, however, cite issued by an accredited veterinarian for distribution by an accredited recurring difficulties with any specific animals that are not part of a regular veterinarian of an official animal health tests. We recognize that laboratory health maintenance program would document that he or she has signed’’— delays beyond an accredited have to be issued no later than 10 days clearly indicates that an accredited veterinarian’s control can occur, but we following inspection, so that document veterinarian must sign a document are unaware of any widespread would be valid for at least 20 days before it is distributed. Our second problems that consistently delay the following its issuance; in such a case, reason builds on the first, in that issuance of animal health documents. making the document valid for at least proposed § 161.3(b) states that an The regulations in § 161.3(k) already 7 days after issuance would be accredited veterinarian may not issue— provide that an accredited veterinarian unnecessary. i.e., sign and distribute—or allow the may issue an origin health certificate for Another commenter also objected to use of any certificate, form, record, or export use without including test results our proposal to require that all official report until and unless the document from a laboratory if the APHIS animal health documents be valid for has been accurately and fully Veterinarian-in-Charge determines that only 30 days following the date of completed. We believe, therefore, that such an action is necessary to save time inspection, regardless of the date of these provisions ensure that an in order to meet an export schedule and issuance. This commenter’s objection accredited veterinarian is responsible agrees to add the test results to the was threefold: (1) The requirement for the accuracy of all animal health certificate at a later time. If, in the would be a negative influence on documents he or she issues. future, it becomes necessary to address regional approaches to animal Therefore, based on the rationale set persistent delays in laboratory reporting, movements within the United States forth in the proposed rule and in this similar provisions could be proposed for and North America; (2) the requirement document, we are adopting the constitutes a centralization of regulation the issuance of other animal health provisions of the proposal as a final at a time when decentralization should documents. rule. be the goal; and (3) the requirement One commenter disagreed with our interferes with provisions that most, if Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory proposal to require that all official not all, States have set concerning the Flexibility Act animal health documents be valid for length of time a health document This rule has been reviewed under only 30 days following the date of remains valid. The commenter did not, Executive Order 12866. The rule has inspection, regardless of the date of however, provide any explanation or been determined to be not significant for issuance. The commenter felt that this examples to elucidate his objections. We the purposes of Executive Order 12866 restriction would place an unfair have made no changes in this final rule and, therefore, has not been reviewed by limitation on certificates made near the in response to that comment because the the Office of Management and Budget. end of the 30-day inspection period, standards for accredited veterinarians noting that a certificate issued on day 28 contained in the regulations apply only We are amending the regulations to or 29 would only be valid for a day or to an accredited veterinarian’s work allow, under certain conditions, two. The commenter envisioned a with APHIS, even though it is common accredited veterinarians to issue official scenario in which a shipment of animals for federally accredited veterinarians to animal health documents for animals in could be in transit at the time their work on State programs in addition to herds or flocks under regular health certificate expired, thus leaving the their work with APHIS on Federal and maintenance programs for up to 30 days animals without valid documentation. cooperative State/Federal programs. after inspection. For inspection of other The commenter suggested that a Thus, the 30-day post-inspection limit animals, we are allowing up to 10 days certificate should be valid for at least 7 on the validity of a health document between the inspection of animals and days after issuance, provided the would apply to an official certificate or the issuance of official animal health certificate was issued during the 30-day document issued in connection with an documents. inspection period. We believe that the APHIS program activity such as pre- Until the effective date of this final difficulties envisioned by the export inspection, tuberculosis, rule, the regulations in § 161.3(a) require commenter are not likely to occur due brucellosis, or pseudorabies, but not to accredited veterinarians, when issuing to the time frames associated with a State document issued by an or signing a certificate, form, record, or inspections and the issuance of animal accredited veterinarian in connection report regarding any animal, to have health documents. Livestock facilities with a State-level program. inspected the animal within 7 days. participating in a regular health Finally, one commenter was That requirement places an economic maintenance program are usually large concerned that the proposed definition burden on large livestock facilities that operations with an established of issue and removal of the words ‘‘or sell and ship animals continuously. distribution and transportation network sign’’ from the phrase ‘‘issue or sign’’ That is, large livestock facilities are in place, which lends a measure of would have the effect of creating a currently required to have their animals predictability to the facility’s shipping loophole that would allow an accredited inspected frequently, in order for activities. We believe that the operator veterinarian to legally pre-sign a number veterinarians to issue, in a timely of such a facility would ensure that the of blank animal health documents that manner, the health documents required health documents for a shipment of could be filled out later by someone for the frequent sale and shipment of 39842 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations animals. Such frequent visits can be § 160.1 Definitions. unless he or she has personally expensive. * * * * * inspected that animal within 30 days Allowing veterinarians additional Issue. The distribution by an prior to issuance. time to issue official animal health accredited veterinarian of an official (b) An accredited veterinarian shall documents following inspection will animal health document that he or she not issue, or allow to be used, any enable those veterinarians to inspect has signed. certificate, form, record or report, until, animals less frequently. Therefore, this * * * * * and unless, it has been accurately and rule will economically benefit large Regular health maintenance program. fully completed, clearly identifying the livestock facilities. An arrangement between an accredited animals to which it applies, and Under these circumstances, the veterinarian and a livestock producer showing the dates and results of any Administrator of the Animal and Plant whereby the veterinarian inspects every inspection, test, vaccination, or Health Inspection Service has animal on the premises of the producer treatment the accredited veterinarian determined that this action will not at least once every 30 days. has conducted, except as provided in have a significant economic impact on * * * * * paragraph (c) of this section, and the a substantial number of small entities. dates of issuance and expiration of the document. Certificates, forms, records, Executive Order 12372 PART 161ÐREQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS FOR ACCREDITED and reports shall be valid for 30 days This program/activity is listed in the VETERINARIANS AND SUSPENSION following the date of inspection of the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance OR REVOCATION OF SUCH animal identified on the document. The under No. 10.025 and is subject to ACCREDITATION accredited veterinarian shall distribute Executive Order 12372, which requires copies of certificates, forms, records, intergovernmental consultation with 3. The authority citation for part 161 and reports according to instructions State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part continues to read as follows: issued to him or her by the Veterinarian- 3015, subpart V.) Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1828; 21 U.S.C. 105, in-Charge. 111–114, 114a, 114a–1, 115, 116, 120, 121, Executive Order 12778 * * * * * 125, 134b, 134f, 612, and 613; 7 CFR 2.17, Done in Washington, DC, this 27th day of This rule has been reviewed under 2.51, and 371.2(d). July 1995. Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice 4. Section 161.3 is amended as Lonnie J. King, Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State follows: Administrator, Animal and Plant Health and local laws and regulations that are a. By revising paragraphs (a) and (b) Inspection Service. in conflict with this rule; (2) has no to read as set forth below. [FR Doc. 95–19181 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] retroactive effect; and (3) does not b. In paragraph (c), by removing the BILLING CODE 3410±34±P require administrative proceedings phrase ‘‘or sign’’ in the first sentence. before parties may file suit in court c. In paragraph (k), by removing the challenging this rule. phrase ‘‘or sign’’ in the first sentence. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Paperwork Reduction Act § 161.3 Standards for accredited veterinarian duties. Federal Aviation Administration In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 * * * * * 14 CFR Part 39 et seq.), the information collection or (a) An accredited veterinarian shall not issue a certificate, form, record or [Docket No. 94±ANE±10; Amendment 39± recordkeeping requirements included in 9328; AD 95±16±08] this rule have been approved by the report which reflects the results of any inspection, test, vaccination or Office of Management and Budget Airworthiness Directives; AlliedSignal, treatment performed by him or her with (OMB), and there are no new Inc. TPE331 Series Turboprop and respect to any animal, other than those requirements. The assigned OMB TSE331 Series Turboshaft Engines control number is 0579–0032. in regular health maintenance programs, unless he or she has personally AGENCY: Federal Aviation List of Subjects inspected that animal within 10 days Administration, DOT. 9 CFR Part 160 prior to issuance. ACTION: Final rule. (1) Following the first two inspections Veterinarians. of a herd or flock as part of a regular SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), 9 CFR Part 161 health maintenance program, an accredited veterinarian shall not issue a applicable to AlliedSignal, Inc. Reporting and recordkeeping certificate, form, record or report which (formerly Allied-Signal, Inc., Garrett requirements. reflects the results of any inspection, Engine Division, Garrett Turbine Engine Accordingly, 9 CFR parts 160 and 161 test, vaccination or treatment performed Company, and AiResearch are amended as follows: by him or her with respect to any Manufacturing Co. of Arizona) TPE331 animal in that program, unless he or she series turboprop and TSE331 series PART 160ÐDEFINITION OF TERMS has personally inspected that animal turboshaft engines, that requires a within 10 days prior to issuance. record check of engine records to 1. The authority citation for part 160 (2) Following the third and determine if any repair, assembly, continues to read as follows: subsequent inspections of a herd or modification, or installation work was Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1828; 21 U.S.C. 105, flock in a regular health maintenance performed by Fliteline Maintenance, 111–114, 114a, 114a–1, 115, 116, 120, 121, program, an accredited veterinarian formerly located in Wharton, Texas, or 125, 134b, 134f, 612, and 613; 7 CFR 2.17, shall not issue a certificate, form, record Mr. Eugene E. Shanks, or Mr. Carl 2.51, and 371.2(d). or report which reflects the results of Ramirez (collectively referred to as 2. Section 160.1 is amended by any inspection, test, vaccination or ‘‘Fliteline’’). In addition, for engines adding, in alphabetical order, the treatment performed by him or her with determined to have repair, assembly, following definitions: respect to any animal in that program, modification, or installation work Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 39843 performed by Fliteline, this action domestic repair station, formerly located serial number rather than including requires verification of all life limited in Wharton, Texas. Since this accident, every TPE331 engine in the components, inspection of affected the FAA conducted further investigation applicability. The commenters state that components, and verification of of other AlliedSignal, Inc. TPE331 series AD applicability is too broad and compliance with all applicable AD’s. engines repaired or maintained by Mr. unnecessary. The FAA does not concur. This amendment is prompted by the Eugene E. Shanks under the name of The FAA has determined that Fliteline results of a Federal Aviation Fliteline Maintenance. On these performed maintenance on a wide range Administration (FAA) investigation engines, the FAA found that the of engine models and life limited involving engines repaired, assembled, requirements of some applicable AD’s turbine components. In addition, modified, or installed by Fliteline. The had not been performed when the Fliteline did not produce a reliable and actions specified by this AD are engine records indicated that the work comprehensive list of suspect engines intended to prevent uncontained failure had been performed, the records for life and models. Therefore, the applicability of turbine rotors, fire, or loss of aircraft limited turbine components indicated of the AD encompasses a number of control. more useful life than the components engine models and requires a records EFFECTIVE DATE; September 5, 1995. actually had remaining, parts were search to determine which life limited FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: installed that are not approved for components are affected by the AD. Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los aircraft use, and modifications that had One commenter states that Mr. Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, been performed without approved data. Ramirez’s name should be removed FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, In addition, the FAA has determined from the AD because he identified a list 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA that the records maintained by Fliteline of TPE331 series engine on which he 90712; telephone (310) 627–5246, fax Maintenance on the engines it repaired, performed maintenance, including (310) 627–5210. assembled, or modified do not identify serial numbers: P–06045, P–06460C, P– all of the suspect engine models and 20050, P–20288, P–20411, P–34004, P– SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A serial numbers. These conditions, if not 34010, P–34013, P–34015, P–40222, P– proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal corrected, could result in uncontained 40227, P–61041, P–90252C, P–91094C, Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to failure of turbine rotors, fire, or loss of P–92129, P–92159, and P–92190. The include an airworthiness directive (AD) aircraft control. FAA does not concur. The FAA was that is applicable to AlliedSignal, Inc. Interested persons have been afforded unable to verify that the list provided by (formerly Allied-Signal, Inc., Garrett an opportunity to participate in the Mr. Ramirez represented a complete list Engine Division, Garrett Turbine Engine making of this amendment. Due of all the engines maintained by him. Company, and AiResearch consideration has been given to the Therefore the FAA could not justify Manufacturing Co. of Arizona) TPE331 comments received. removing his name from the AD. series turboprop and TSE331 series One commenter concurs with the rule One commenter states that 50% of the turboshaft engines was published in the as proposed. engines maintained by Fliteline were Federal Register on August 5, 1994 (59 Two commenters describe their single engine restricted category aircraft FR 39983). That action proposed to service history of safe operation with that were certified under the require a record check of engine records aircraft and engines maintained by predecessors to the Federal Aviation to determine if any repair, assembly, Fliteline. Therefore the commenters Regulations and implied that these modification, or installation work was conclude that no AD is necessary. The engines should not be affected by the performed by Fliteline Maintenance, FAA does not concur. The FAA’s AD. The FAA does not concur. formerly located in Wharton, Texas, or investigation has revealed a substantial Airworthiness Directives issued under Mr. Eugene E. Shanks, or Mr. Carl number of component and AD part 39 of the Federal Aviation Ramirez (collectively referred to as discrepancies on many engines Regulations apply to all identified ‘‘Fliteline’’). In addition, for engines maintained by Fliteline. These products when an unsafe condition determined to have repair, assembly, discrepancies constitute an unsafe exists and when that condition is likely modification, or installation work condition that exists or is likely to to exist and develop in other products performed by Fliteline, this action develop on engines of the same type of the same type design, regardless of requires verification of all life limited design. This AD corrects that unsafe the certification basis. components, inspection of affected condition. Two commenters state that the components, and verification of One commenter states that an AD is compliance time in paragraph (a) in the compliance with all applicable AD’s. not necessary because every operator NPRM is unreasonably short for airlines The Federal Aviation Administration that has maintenance performed by with many suspect engines or with high (FAA) received a report of an aircraft Fliteline should know exactly the utilization. The FAA concurs in part. accident involving an Ayres S2R–600 configuration and condition of their The FAA’s investigation has shown that aircraft, with a modified AlliedSignal, engine because that operator pays the it is very unlikely that a single owner Inc. (formerly Allied-Signal, Inc., Garrett bills. The commenter believes that an would operate a fleet of engines Engine Division, Garrett Turbine Engine Advisory Circular (AC) might be in maintained by Fliteline. However, the Company, and AiResearch order, not an AD. The FAA does not overall scope of the records review has Manufacturing Co. of Arizona) Model concur. An AC provides guidance and increased. The records review now TPE331–1–151A turboprop engine information for complying with a encompasses aircraft maintenance installed. The FAA has determined that related Federal Aviation Regulation(s). records and purchase receipts along the engine installed on the accident This AD identifies those products in with engine maintenance records. In aircraft was a configuration not which the FAA has found an unsafe addition, the FAA has determined that approved for that aircraft and was condition and prescribes the actions the 20 hour compliance time to improperly modified. The unapproved each operator must take to correct that complete paragraph (a) is not essential configuration and improper unsafe condition. to maintain safety and therefore is not modification on that engine were Three commenters state that the FAA necessary. The AD has, therefore, been performed by Mr. Eugene E. Shanks, the should attempt to identify the engines changed to require accomplishing owner of Fliteline Maintenance, a and life limited components by engine paragraphs (a) and (b) within 400 cycles 39844 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations in service after the effective date of this limited turbine components received in the NPRM should be clarified to state AD. from Fliteline. ‘‘disassembled beyond aft turbine One commenter indicates that records One commenter questions the use of mainshaft nut removal.’’ The FAA of maintenance performed by Fliteline engine manufacturer and repair station concurs and has revised this final rule are no longer available due to Original data to verify the life limited part logs. accordingly. Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) log The commenter suggests that the FAA One commenter states that the FAA book or life limited part log format lacks the authority to require operators offers no comment on the cost of doing changes or due to one-year maintenance to verify the life limited part logs with the initial record check on each engine records retention requirements. The data from the engine manufacturer or referenced by the NPRM’s applicability. commenter states that the records repair stations when those parties are The commenter recommends that the review requirements of paragraph (a) not required to keep that data. The FAA FAA address the time expended and should be limited only to the last 12 does not concur. The data needed to cost of reviewing records. The FAA months. The FAA does not concur. Life accomplish the requirements of concurs and has revised the estimated limited part logs must be kept for the paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of the AD may be number of engines, labor and cost life of the part regardless of the life available from manufacturers or repair involved in the initial record search in limited part log format. In addition, stations. However, paragraph (b)(1)(iii) accordance with paragraph (a) in this other records may be required to be kept provides that if the data is not available AD. for a period longer than 12 months; the component must be removed from One commenter questions the FAA’s therefore, the FAA has determined not service. The FAA has the authority to economic analysis stating that it does to limit the record search to 12 months. require operators to take actions not include the cost of expendable parts. One commenter mentions that ‘‘other necessary to correct the unsafe The FAA concurs. The FAA has re- pertinent data’’ stated in paragraph (a) condition identified in this AD. evaluated the costs to correct improper of the NPRM needs a better definition. One commenter requests that the AD maintenance as required by paragraph The FAA concurs and has clarified this clarify the method for validating life (b) in the compliance section of this AD statement in this final rule by specifying limited part log entries. This commenter and has revised the economic analysis the review of engine life limited part also questions whether documentation section accordingly. logs, engine repair and maintenance was required for compliance. The One commenter suggests that the FAA records, maintenance and purchase commenter suggests that paragraph include the business address for receipts, and aircraft records. (b)(1)(ii) requires a validation entry on Fliteline Maintenance in the AD. The One commenter asks whether a list of each life limited part log to reflect FAA concurs in part. Fliteline persons or facilities, which performed compliance with this AD. The FAA Maintenance is no longer doing maintenance on their engines, may be concurs in part. Each registered owner business as a certified repair station at used for the records review requirement or operator need only make a single its former location. The FAA has, in paragraph (a) of the NPRM. The FAA entry in the maintenance records however, decided to include the former does not concur that a list of persons or indicating compliance with this AD per location of Fliteline in the AD in order facilities constitutes a review of engine Federal Aviation Regulation part 91.417 to avoid confusion with any other repair records as specified in paragraph (a) of (a)(2)(v). However, the FAA facility in the country using that name. this final rule. However, such a list, recommends that documentation The AD has been revised accordingly. with additional assurances, may be validating all Fliteline life limited part Several commenters take issue with adequate. Operators may apply for an log entries be kept in the engine records the NPRM’s discussion section. Since alternative method of compliance using or attached to the life limited part log. those comments did not directly suggest the procedures in paragraph (c) of this Several commenters state that that the FAA needed to make changes final rule. paragraph (b) does not have any to the rule as proposed, the FAA does One commenter states that the words, provisions for relief if another engine not address them. To the extent those ‘‘any repair, assembly, modification, or entry (i.e., beyond nut removal) was comments could be read to suggest a installation,’’ as stated in paragraph (a) accomplished by a different change to the rule, the FAA has of the NPRM, are over inclusive, maintenance organization after addressed those comments in the because not all of Fliteline’s maintenance performed by Fliteline. A preceding paragraphs. maintenance actions are related to the commenter suggests the AD provide a The FAA has changed the compliance corrective actions required by this AD. credit, which will reduce unnecessary time in paragraph (b) of this final rule The FAA concurs in part. The FAA has AD effort, which clearly addresses the from 100 hours time in service to 400 deleted the word ‘‘installation’’ from possibility of an earlier entry and cycles in service after the effective date paragraph (a) of this final rule because validation by an FAA approved of this AD. This change is based on data installation includes engine installation maintenance facility or person after received from the engine manufacturer about which the FAA is not concerned. maintenance by Fliteline. The FAA concerning replacement parts The FAA has determined, however, to concurs. Paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this final availability and a determination that a keep the words ‘‘any engine repair, rule has been revised to allow credit for compliance interval based on engine assembly, and modification,’’ because engine inspections and overhauls cycles is more appropriate for the the discrepancies noted in engines accomplished subsequent to affected components. repaired by Fliteline are related to these maintenance performed by Fliteline. In addition, the FAA has clarified the actions. Paragraph (b)(2) of this final rule has aircraft applicability in this final rule by One commenter states that life limited also been revised to allow credit for adding the words ‘‘models’’ and part logs of spare turbine wheels complete engine overhaul accomplished ‘‘series.’’ Also, since publication of the possibly received from Fliteline should by the engine manufacturer, FAA NPRM, the Los Angeles Aircraft be reviewed. The FAA agrees that certified repair station, or FAA certified Certification Office has moved and the operators must validate all Fliteline life mechanic, other than Fliteline. contact information has been revised limited part log entries for all life One commenter recommends that the accordingly. limited turbine components. This final phrase ‘‘disassembled beyond shaft nut After careful review of the available rule has been revised to also include life removal’’ referenced in paragraph (b)(1) data, including the comments noted Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 39845 above, the FAA has determined that air Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR identify any engine repair, assembly, or safety and the public interest require the part 39) as follows: modification that was performed by, or any adoption of the rule with the changes life limited turbine components received described previously. PART 39ÐAIRWORTHINESS from Fliteline Maintenance, located in The FAA estimates that 7,000 engines DIRECTIVES Wharton, Texas, domestic repair station certificate number GR2R856K; or Mr. Eugene installed on aircraft of U.S. registry will 1. The authority citation for part 39 E. Shanks, mechanic certificate number be affected by the initial records search continues to read as follows: 1914482; or Mr. Carl Ramirez, mechanic described in paragraph (a) of the certificate number 466432551 (collectively compliance section. The FAA has Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40101, 40113, referred to as ‘‘Fliteline’’). estimated that the initial records search 44701. (b) Within 400 CIS after the effective date of this AD, for engines or components will take approximately two hours per § 39.13 [Amended] engine and that the average labor rate is identified in accordance with paragraph (a) 2. Section 39.13 is amended by $60. per work hour. Furthermore, the of this AD, accomplish the following: adding the following new airworthiness FAA estimates that 350 engines (1) If records or other pertinent information directive: indicate that the engine was disassembled installed on aircraft of U.S. registry will beyond aft turbine mainshaft nut removal be affected by paragraph (b) of this AD, 95–16–08 AlliedSignal, Inc.: Amendment 39–9328. Docket 94–ANE–10. from the tie bolt by Fliteline, verify life that it will take approximately 120 work limited turbine components and take Applicability: AlliedSignal, Inc. (formerly hours per engine to accomplish the appropriate action by the following methods: actions required by paragraph (b), and Allied-Signal, Inc., Garrett Engine Division, (i) Remove, disassemble the engine, Garrett Turbine Engine Company, and that the average labor rate is $60 per compare, and match each component’s part AiResearch Manufacturing Co. of Arizona), number (P/N) and serial number (S/N) work hour. It will also take an estimated TPE331–25, –43, –1, –2, –3, –5, –6, –8, –10, three work hours per engine to against that engine’s issued life limited part –11, and –12 series, and -55B and -61A logs. Engine hot section inspection or accomplish an additional records Model turboprop engines; and TSE331–3U overhaul normally requires comparing and review, and the FAA estimates that Model turboshaft engines. These engines are matching of turbine components with the life parts will cost approximately $16,000 installed on but not limited to Mitsubishi limited part logs. An engine hot section per engine. Based on these figures, the MU–2B series (MU–2 series); Construcciones inspection or overhaul, subsequent to FAA estimates that total cost impact of Aeronauticas, S.A. (CASA) C–212 series; maintenance by Fliteline, and performed by the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to Jetstream 3101 and 3201 series; Fairchild the engine manufacturer, an FAA certified SA226 and SA227 series; Prop-Jets, Inc. be $9,023,000. repair station, or an FAA certified mechanic, Model 400; Cessna Model 441; Twin other than Fliteline, constitutes compliance The regulations adopted herein will Commander Aircraft Corp. 680, 690, and 695 not have substantial direct effects on the with paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this AD. series, and Model 681; Rockwell Commander (ii) Validate all Fliteline life limited part States, on the relationship between the or Ayres Corp. S–2R series; Short Brothers log entries by utilizing the component’s national government and the States, or and Harland, Ltd. SC7; Dornier 228 Series; hourly and cyclic life immediately before the on the distribution of power and Beech Aircraft Corp. 18 and 45 series and Fliteline entry, as determined by records of responsibilities among the various Models JRB–6, 3N, 3NM, 3TM, and B100; the engine manufacturer or FAA certified levels of government. Therefore, in Pilatus PC–6 series; DeHavilland DH 104 repair stations other than Fliteline. A life accordance with Executive Order 12612, Dove series; Grumman Model TS–2A; limited part log entry is defined as a removal Grumman American Model G–164C; and or installation record. Photocopied life it is determined that this final rule does Schweitzer Aircraft Corp. Model G–164 not have sufficient federalism limited part logs may be used provided series aircraft. component history can be established. implications to warrant the preparation Note: This AD applies to each engine Note: Engine manufacturer record and of a Federalism Assessment. identified in the preceding applicability For the reasons discussed above, I service information referred to in the AD can provision, regardless of whether it has been be attained by calling AlliedSignal Engines certify that this action (1) is not a modified, altered, or repaired in the area Customer Information Center, telephone ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under subject to the requirements of this AD. For (800) 338–3378 or (602) 231–5287. Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a engines that have been modified, altered, or (iii) If the P/N, S/N, hourly and cyclic lives ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT repaired so that the performance of the or the life limited part log of each life limited Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 requirements of this AD is affected, the turbine component do not match or can not FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) owner/operator must use the authority be validated, remove the component from will not have a significant economic provided in paragraph (c) to request approval service prior to further flight and replace from the FAA. This approval may address impact, positive or negative, on a with a serviceable component. either no action, if the current configuration (2) Verify that any requirements of AD’s substantial number of small entities eliminates the unsafe condition, or different under the criteria of the Regulatory signed off by Fliteline were actually actions necessary to address the unsafe accomplished by visual examination or Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has condition described in this AD. Such a reinspection of the affected components in been prepared for this action and it is request should include an assessment of the accordance with the applicable AD. A contained in the Rules Docket. A copy effect of the changed configuration on the complete engine overhaul or other of it may be obtained from the Rules unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no maintenance necessary to accomplish Docket at the location provided under case does the presence of any modification, applicable AD requirements, subsequent to alteration, or repair remove any engine from the caption ADDRESSES. maintenance by Fliteline, and performed by the applicability of this AD. the engine manufacturer, an FAA certified List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Compliance: Required as indicated, unless repair station, or an FAA certified mechanic, Air Transportation, Aircraft, Aviation accomplished previously. other than Fliteline, constitutes compliance safety, Incorporation by reference, To prevent uncontained failure of turbine with paragraph (b)(2) of this AD. rotors, fire, or loss of aircraft control, (c) An alternative method of compliance or Safety. accomplish the following: adjustment of the compliance time that Adoption of the Amendment (a) Within 400 cycles in service (CIS) after provides an acceptable level of safety may be the effective date of this AD, review engine used if approved by the Manager, Los Accordingly, pursuant to the life limited part logs, engine repair and Angeles Aircraft Certification Office. The authority delegated to me by the maintenance records, maintenance purchase request should be forwarded through an Administrator, the Federal Aviation receipts, and aircraft maintenance records appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Administration amends part 39 of the (collectively referred to as ‘‘records’’) to Inspector, who may add comments and then 39846 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations send it to the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND piperazine adipate powder, Certification Office. HUMAN SERVICES diprenorphine hydrochloride Note: Information concerning the existence (diprenorphine HCl) injection, of approved alternative methods of Food and Drug Administration etorphine HCl injection, certain compliance with this airworthiness directive, nitrofuran dosage form products, and if any, may be obtained from the Los Angeles 21 CFR Parts 510, 520, 522, 524, and separately approved Type A medicated Aircraft Certification Office. 558 articles containing buquinolate or (d) Special flight permits may be issued in Animal Drugs, Feeds, and Related certain other drugs in manufacturing accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 Products; Piperazine Adipate Powder, several Type C medicated feeds for of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Diprenorphine Hydrochloride Injection, chickens. In a notice published in the 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to Etorphine Hydrochloride Injection, and July 21, 1995, issue of the Federal a location where the requirements of this AD Certain Nitrofuran and Buquinolate Register, FDA is withdrawing approval can be accomplished. Products of the NADA’s. (e) This amendment becomes effective on EFFECTIVE DATE: August 14, 1995. September 5, 1995. AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: HHS. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on Mohammad I. Sharar, Center for July 26, 1995. ACTION: Final rule. Veterinary Medicine (HFV–216), Food James C. Jones, SUMMARY: The Food and Drug and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Administration (FDA) is amending the Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301–594– Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. animal drug regulations to remove those 1722. [FR Doc. 95–19230 Filed 8–1–95; 2:30 pm] portions reflecting approval of 16 new SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice BILLING CODE 4910±13±U animal drug applications (NADA’s) held published in the July 21, 1995, issue of by Proctor & Gamble Pharmaceuticals, the Federal Register (60 FR 37651), FDA Inc., Happy Jack, Inc., and Lemmon Co. is withdrawing approval of the The NADA’s provide for the use of following NADA’s: NADA No. Drug name Sponsor name and address 10±158 Furamazone, bismuth subsalicylate bolus ...... Proctor & Gamble Pharmaceuticals, Inc., P.O. Box 191, Nor- wich, NY 13815. 10±358 Nitrofurantoin tablets and boluses ...... Do. 12±291 Nitrofurantoin oral suspension ...... Do. 12±612 Nitrofurazone, nifuroxime, diperodon HCl ear solution ...... Do. 34±716 Buquinolate ...... Do. 35±314 Buquinolate and bacitracin zinc ...... Do. 35±315 Buquinolate, bacitracin zinc, and penicillin ...... Do. 35±317 Buquinolate and penicillin ...... Do. 35±327 Buquinolate, bacitracin methylene disalicylate (bacitracin MD), Do. and penicillin. 35±329 Buquinolate and bacitracin MD ...... Do. 38±657 Buquinolate and chlortetracycline ...... Do. 39±925 Buquinolate and roxarsone combination ...... Do. 39±926 Buquinolate and roxarsone ...... Do. 41±744 Nitrofurantoin sodium injection ...... Do. 95±017 Etorphine HCl injection and diprenorphine HCl injection ...... Lemmon Co., Sellersville, PA 18960. 115±580 Piperazine adipate powder ...... Happy Jack, Snow Hill, NC 28580. The sponsors requested withdrawal of List of Subjects PART 510ÐNEW ANIMAL DRUGS approval of the NADA’s. This final rule 21 CFR Part 510 removes 21 CFR 520.1560, 520.1560a, 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR 520.1560b, 520.1801, 520.1801a, and Administrative practice and part 510 continues to read as follows: procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling, 522.1563; amends 21 CFR 522.723 and Authority: Secs. 201, 301, 501, 502, 503, 522.883 to reflect the withdrawal of Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 512, 701, 721 of the Federal Food, Drug, and approval of these NADA’s; removes and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, reserves 21 CFR 524.1580a and 558.105; 21 CFR Parts 520, 522, and 524 353, 360b, 371, 379e). and amends 21 CFR 558.62, 558.128, Animal drugs. 558.325, 558.460, and 558.530. § 510.600 [Amended] 21 CFR Part 558 In addition, 21 CFR 510.600(c) is 2. Section 510.600 is amended in the Animal drugs, Animal feeds. amended to remove the entries for table in paragraph (c)(1) by removing Proctor & Gamble Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under the entry for ‘‘Proctor & Gamble from the list of approved drug sponsors Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’’ and in the table because it no longer holds any approved authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to in paragraph (c)(2) by removing the NADA’s. the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 entry for ‘‘000149’’. CFR parts 510, 520, 522, 524, and 558 are amended as follows: Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 39847 PART 520ÐORAL DOSAGE FORM PART 558ÐNEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: NEW ANIMAL DRUGS USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS Melanie R. Berson, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV–135), Food and Drug 3. The authority citation for 21 CFR 15. The authority citation for 21 CFR Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., part 520 continues to read as follows: part 558 continues to read as follows: Rockville, MD 20855, 301–594–1643. Authority: Sec. 512 of the Federal Food, Authority: Secs. 512, 701 of the Federal SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Merck Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b). Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. Research Laboratories, Division of 360b, 371). Merck & Co., Inc., P.O. Box 2000, § 520.1560 [Removed] § 558.62 [Amended] Rahway, NJ 07065, is the sponsor of approved NADA 140–974, which 4. Section 520.1560 Nitrofurantoin 16. Section 558.62 Arsanilic acid is oral dosage forms is removed. provides for the use of a Type A amended by removing paragraph medicated article containing 0.6 percent § 520.1560a [Removed] (c)(2)(v) and by redesignating paragraph ivermectin (2.72 grams per pound (g/lb)) (c)(2)(vi) as paragraph (c)(2)(v). 5. Section 520.1560a Nitrofurantoin in manufacturing Type C medicated oral suspension is removed. § 558.105 [Removed] feed containing 1.8 g of ivermectin per ton (t). The feed is indicated for the § 520.1560b [Removed] 17. Section 558.105 Buquinolate is removed and reserved. treatment and control of certain 6. Section 520.1560b Nitrofurantoin gastrointestinal roundworm, lungworm, tablets and boluses is removed. § 558.128 [Amended] kidney worm, lice, and mite infestations 18. Section 558.128 Chlortetracycline of growing swine (up to 220 lb in body § 520.1801 [Removed] is amended by removing and reserving weight) as in § 558.300 (21 CFR 7. Section 520.1801 Piperazine paragraph (c)(5)(iii). 558.300). The feed is administered so as adipate oral dosage forms is removed. to provide 0.1 milligram of ivermectin § 558.325 [Amended] per kilogram (mg/kg) of body weight per § 520.1801a [Removed] 19. Section 558.325 Lincomycin is animal per day. Merck has filed a 8. Section 520.1801a Piperazine amended by removing and reserving supplemental NADA expanding use of adipate powder is removed. paragraph (c)(3)(iv). the ivermectin-containing feed to include breeding swine. To achieve the PART 522ÐIMPLANTATION OR § 558.460 [Amended] 20. Section 558.460 Penicillin is same dosage level (i.e., 0.1 mg of INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW ivermectin per kg of body weight) in the ANIMAL DRUGS amended by removing and reserving paragraph (c)(2)(v). larger animals, the supplemental NADA provides for an ivermectin 9. The authority citation for 21 CFR § 558.530 [Amended] concentration up to 11.8 g/t of Type C part 522 continues to read as follows: 21. Section 558.530 Roxarsone is medicated feed. Authority: Sec. 512 of the Federal Food, amended by removing and reserving The supplemental NADA is approved Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b). paragraph (d)(3)(vii). as of August 4, 1995, and the regulations Dated: July 13, 1995. are amended in § 558.300 to reflect the § 522.723 [Amended] approval. The basis of approval is Stephen F. Sundlof, 10. Section 522.723 Diprenorphine discussed in the freedom of information hydrochloride injection is amended in Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. summary. paragraph (c) by removing the phrase [FR Doc. 95–19091 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] Additionally, approval of the ‘‘Nos. 010042 and 000693’’ and adding BILLING CODE 4160±01±F supplemental NADA increases the in its place the phrase ‘‘No. 010042’’. highest concentration of ivermectin permitted in Type C medicated feed § 522.883 [Amended] 21 CFR Part 558 from 1.8 to 11.8 g/t. The feed can be 11. Section 522.883 Etorphine New Animal Drugs for Use in Animal manufactured from either a Type A hydrochloride injection is amended in Feeds; Ivermectin medicated article or a Type B medicated paragraph (c) by removing the phrase feed. Currently, the Category II table in ‘‘Nos. 010042 and 000693’’ and adding AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, § 558.4 (21 CFR 558.4) specifies that the in its place the phrase ‘‘No. 010042’’. HHS. maximum concentration of ivermectin ACTION: Final rule. permitted in a Type B feed is 182 g/t § 522.1563 [Removed] (i.e., 100 x the 1.8 g/t now approved for 12. Section 522.1563 Nitrofurantoin SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Type C feed). However, because the sodium injection is removed. Administration (FDA) is amending the supplemental NADA increases the animal drug regulations to reflect highest drug concentration permitted in PART 524ÐOPHTHALMIC AND approval of a supplemental new animal the Type C feed to 11.8 g/t, this justifies TOPICAL DOSAGE FORM NEW drug application (NADA) filed by Merck a corresponding increase in the ANIMAL DRUGS Research Laboratories, Division of maximum ivermectin concentration in Merck & Co., Inc. The original NADA the Type B feed to 1,180 g/t (i.e., 100 x 13. The authority citation for 21 CFR provides for the use of a Type A the 11.8 g/t). Accordingly, FDA is also part 524 continues to read as follows: medicated article containing ivermectin amending the Category II table in Authority: Sec. 512 of the Federal Food, in manufacturing Type C medicated § 558.4 to reflect this increase. Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b). feed for production swine. The In accordance with the freedom of supplemental NADA expands use of the information provisions of part 20 (21 § 524.1580a [Removed] feed to breeding swine. The feed is CFR part 20) and § 514.11 (e)(2)(ii) (21 14. Section 524.1580a Nitrofurazone- intended for treatment and control of CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii)), a summary of nifuroxime-diperodon hydrochloride ear certain endo- and ectoparasites. safety and effectiveness data and solution is removed and reserved. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 1995. information submitted to support 39848 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations approval of this application may be seen (1) * * * ensure that debts referred for offset in the Dockets Management Branch (i) Amount. For growing-finishing against amounts otherwise payable as (HFA–305), Food and Drug swine feed 1.8 grams of ivermectin per tax refunds are past-due and legally Administration, rm. 1–23, 12420 ton (to provide 0.1 milligram per enforceable and that the agency has Parklawn Dr., Rockville, MD 20857, kilogram of body weight per day). For made reasonable efforts (pursuant to between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday mature and breeding swine feed 1.8 to regulations) to obtain payment. through Friday. 11.8 grams of ivermectin per ton (to The one comment on the interim final Under section 512(c)(2)(F)(iii) of the provide 0.1 milligram per kilogram of Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act body weight per day). rule expressed concern about its effects on due process of law requirements (21 U.S.C. 360b(c)(2)(F)(iii)), this * * * * * under the Fifth Amendment to the approval for food-producing animals (iii) Limitations. Feed as the only feed United States Constitution. The PBGC qualifies for 3 years of marketing for 7 consecutive days. For use in swine believes that the commenter’s concern is exclusivity beginning August 4, 1995, only. Withdraw 5 days before slaughter. because the supplemental NADA unwarranted. As noted above, the pre- * * * * * contains reports of new clinical or field referral procedures required by IRS investigations (other than Dated: July 26, 1995. regulations, which are included in the bioequivalence or residue studies) Robert C. Livingston, interim final rule, provide due process essential to the approval and conducted Director, Office of New Animal Drug protections. Among other things, before or sponsored by the applicant. The 3 Evaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine. the PBGC refers a debt for tax refund years of marketing exclusivity applies [FR Doc. 95–19281 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] offset, the debtor has at least 60 days to only to the use for which the BILLING CODE 4160±01±F present evidence that all or part of the supplemental NADA is approved. debt is not past-due or not legally The agency has carefully considered enforceable (§ 2609.33(b)(2)). the potential environmental effects of PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY This final rule makes no changes in this action. FDA has concluded that the CORPORATION action will not have a significant impact the rules of agency organization and on the human environment, and that an 29 CFR Parts 2606 and 2609 procedure that wee prescribed by the environmental impact statement is not interim final rule and have been in RIN 1212±AA72 required. The agency’s finding of no effect since January 5, 1995. Therefore, significant impact and the evidence Debt Collection ProceduresÐTax the Administrative Procedure Act does supporting that finding, contained in an Refund Offset not require further notice and public environmental assessment, may be seen procedure or a delayed effective date, in the Dockets Management Branch AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty and the PBGC for good cause finds that (address above) between 9 a.m. and 4 Corporation. both such actions are unnecessary (5 p.m., Monday through Friday. ACTION: Final rule. U.S.C. 553 (b) and (d)). List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 558 SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty E.O. 12866 Animal drugs, Animal feeds. Corporation is adopting, as a final rule The PBGC previously determined that Therefore, under the Federal Food, with change, amendments that it Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under previously issued as an interim final the interim final rule was not a authority delegated to the Commissioner rule. The procedures in this rule enable ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under and redelegated to the Center for the PBGC to refer past-due, legally the criteria set forth in Executive Order Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 558 is enforceable debts to the internal 12866. amended as follows: Revenue Service to be offset against List of Subjects federal tax refunds. PART 558ÐNEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective 29 CFR Part 2606 USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS August 4, 1995. Administrative practice and 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: procedure, Organization and functions part 558 continues to read as follows: Catherine B. Klion, Attorney, Office of (Government agencies), Pension the General Counsel, Pension Benefit insurance, Pensions. Authority: Secs. 512, 701 of the Federal Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( 21 U.S.C. 29 CFR Part 2609 360b, 371). NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026, 202– 326–4024 (202–326–4179 for TTY and TDD). Administrative practice and § 558.4 [Amended] procedure, Claims. 2. Section 558.4 Medicated feed SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On applications is amended in paragraph December 6, 1994 (59 FR 62571), the Accordingly, the interim final rule (d) in the ‘‘Category II’’ table in the entry Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation amending 29 CFR parts 2606 and 2609 for ‘‘Ivermectin’’ under the third column published an interim final rule that that was published at 59 FR 62571 on by removing ‘‘182 g/ton (0.02%)’’ and amended its administrative review and December 6, 1994, is adopted as a final adding in its place ‘‘1,180 g/ton debt collection regulations (29 CFR rule without change. parts 2606 and 2609). As amended, the (0.13%)’’. Issued in Washington, DC this 31st day of PBGC’s regulations include the 3. Section 558.300 is amended by July, 1995. procedures required for participation in revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (iii) to Martin Slate, read as follows: the federal tax refund offset program authorized by 31 U.S.C. 3720A. Section Executive Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty § 558.300 Ivermectin. 3720A, and Internal Revenue Service Corporation. * * * * * regulations thereunder (26 CFR [FR Doc. 95–19175 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] (c) * * * 301.6402–6), include requirements to BILLING CODE 7708±01±M Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 39849 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Statutory Basis and Purpose pointed out the results of the The purpose of this regulatory action ‘‘Deepwater Ports Study’’ (which Office of the Secretary is to establish an appropriate limit of determined that delivery of oil via deepwater ports represented a lower 33 CFR Part 137 liability for deepwater ports in accordance with section 1004 of OPA 90 environmental risk than delivery by tankers, lightering, or offshore mooring (Public Law 101–380). [Docket 50112] station) and the Coast Guard’s risk Section 1004 originally set the limit of analysis of LOOP (which determined liability for deepwater ports at $350 RIN 2105±AC01 the maximum credible pipeline spill to million. However, it also allows the be 5,194 barrels), and argued that the limit to be adjusted to a lower amount Limit of Liability for Deepwater Ports limit of liability should reflect the lower as appropriate (but not less than $50 risks and smaller credible spill sizes of AGENCY: Office of Secretary, Department million), subject to a study of the deepwater ports. of Transportation. relative operational and environmental One comment supported an ACTION: Final rule. risks of transporting oil to the United unspecified limit between $58 million States by deepwater ports compared to and $150 million. Another comment SUMMARY: This rule establishes a $62 other ports. alternatively suggested that it would be million limit of liability for the The relative risk study, entitled the more equitable for the deepwater port Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP) ‘‘Deepwater Ports Study,’’ has been limit of liability to be the same as for deepwater port. This limit applies only completed and forwarded to Congress. other offshore facilities: $75 million to those oil spills where LOOP would be The study concluded that deepwater plus cleanup costs, with a requirement entitled to limit its liability in ports represent a lower operational and for demonstrated financial accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of environmental risk for delivering crude responsibility of $150 million. 1990. This action does not alter LOOP’s oil to the United States than the three The Department has determined that unlimited liability for spills caused by other common modes of crude oil it is appropriate national policy that a gross negligence, willful misconduct, or delivery (direct vessel deliveries, deepwater port should be liable for the violation of certain Federal regulations. lightering, and offshore mooring cost of its maximum credible spill LOOP is the only U.S. deepwater port in stations). Copies of the Deepwater Port (assuming no gross negligence or other operation at this time; specific liability Study may be ordered from NTIS acts that would disqualify it from limits for other, future deepwater ports (publication number PB94–124054). limiting its liability). Further, since will be established through separate At present, the only deepwater port in Congress has directed that the liability rulemakings as appropriate. operation in the United States is LOOP. limit should be based on the study of EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 1995. However, other deepwater ports may be the risk of deepwater ports relative to ADDRESSES: Unless otherwise indicated, built in the future. Because there may be the risk of other means of transporting documents referenced in this preamble significant engineering and oil by vessel, it is inappropriate to base are available for inspection or copying environmental differences between a deepwater port limit of liability on in Docket 50112, Office of Documentary different deepwater ports, the that for other offshore facilities. Services (C–55), U.S. Department of Department has determined that it is The NPRM discussed a worst-case Transportation, room PL 401 (Plaza necessary to review any deepwater port unit spill cost of $11,088 per barrel for level), 400 Seventh St., SW., individually before setting its limit of crude oil, which was based upon Washington, DC. 20590–0001. Certain liability within the statutory limits of national historical spill costs up to studies referenced in this notice may be $50 million and $350 million. Limits for 1992. Although it is appropriate to ordered from the National Technical other deepwater ports may be different revise the unit cost to a more-current Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, from LOOP’s limit. amount, at this time no new historical VA 22161; phone orders (703) 487–4650 Therefore, in accordance with its cost data is available and the (Visa, Mastercard and American Express authority under section 1004(d)(2)(C) of Department has decided to use the accepted). OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2704), and for Consumer Price Index (CPI) as a basis reasons explained in the NPRM and this for revision. The national average CPI FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. preamble, the Department is Robert I. Stein, Office of Environment, for 1992 was 140.3 and the most current establishing a $62 million limit of Energy and Safety, at (202) 366–4846, or CPI (March 1995) is 151.4, an increase liability for the LOOP deepwater port. Mr. Paul B. Larsen, Office of the of 7.9 percent. Therefore, the new unit Assistant General Counsel for Discussion of Comments and Changes spill cost is $11,965 per barrel. Applying this to LOOP’s maximum Environmental, Civil Rights, and Twelve responses were received General Law, at (202) 366–9161. credible spill of 5,194 barrels yields which commented on several issues in $62,146,210. Accordingly, the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the NPRM. These comments, and the Department is setting the limit of Department’s deliberations, are Regulatory History liability for LOOP at $62 million. discussed below. The CPI does not specifically track oil On February 8, 1995, the Department 1. Limit of Liability spill costs in its analysis. However, of Transportation published a notice of Section 1004 (d)(4) of OPA 90 requires proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Ten comments addressed the limit of adjustment of the liability limit Limit of Liability for Deepwater Ports. liability issue, seven of which supported reflecting significant increases in the The Department received 12 letters a $58 million limit and one which CPI. commenting on this proposal. No public supported a $50 million limit. These hearings were requested or held. A comments stated that the present $350 2. Periodic Review of Limits of Liability request for an extension of the comment million limit of liability is inequitable to The NPRM requested comments on period was received, but decided deepwater ports, particularly when whether the Department should reassess against (this is further discussed in compared to the limits of liability limits of liability at fixed time intervals. paragraph (5) below). allowed for tank vessels. The comments Two comments addressed this issue. 39850 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations One comment suggested 3-year intervals rulemaking. This is because this final determinative factor in setting the (in order to be consistent with other rule only directly affects the LOOP liability limits in this rule. periodic review requirements in OPA deepwater port; other deepwater ports 8. Unlimited Liability Provisions of OPA 90) and the other comment suggested 10 will be separately and individually 90 years. DOT will issue a separate CPI evaluated for their own limit of liability adjustment regulation as required by when appropriate. The $62 million limit of liability law. 6. Basis for Regulatory Action herein applies only to spills at LOOP that are not caused by gross negligence, 3. Universal Versus Port-by-Port Limit of One comment disagreed that the Liability willful misconduct, or violation of findings of the ‘‘Deepwater Ports Study’’ certain Federal regulations in form a sufficient basis for this regulatory One comment called for a single accordance with section 1004 of OPA 90 action (to reduce the limit of liability for (universal) limit of liability for all (33 U.S.C. 2704). The unlimited liability deepwater ports) because the Study did deepwater ports instead of the NPRM’s provisions of OPA 90 are not affected by not include relative risks of other proposed port-by-port limit for each this rulemaking. individual deepwater port. The onshore and offshore facilities. The comment argued that, by virtue of the comment stated that many onshore Regulatory Analyses and Notice facilities pose less risks than deepwater Federal licensing process, all deepwater DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures ports would be designed and operated at ports and, therefore, adjusting limits of the same level of safety. Therefore, it is liability for deepwater ports should not This final rule is considered to be a not necessary to establish individual be undertaken without also adjusting significant rulemaking under DOT limits. limits of liability for onshore and Regulatory Policies and Procedures, 44 The Department disagrees that there is offshore facilities. FR 11040, because of substantial no basis for setting individual limits of The ‘‘Deepwater Ports Study’’ did not industry interest. liability for different deepwater ports. include relative risk analyses of onshore This is because, although all deepwater and offshore facilities because these are Executive Order 12866 ports will be designed and operated to not alternative modes for the transportation of oil by vessel to the This final rule has been analyzed in the same high safety standards, the accordance with the principles and worst-case spill can still differ United States. The Department has determined that the Study’s findings are criteria contained in Executive Order substantially from port to port. LOOP’s 12866, and it has been determined that maximum credible pipeline spill of a sufficient basis for this action. Further, although OPA 90 does give the it is not an economically significant 5,194 barrels is directly governed by its rulemaking. distance offshore (18 miles), its design Department discretion to also adjust flow rate (100,000 barrels per hour), and limits of liability for transportation- Executive Order 12612 the size of its pipeline (48 inches). Even related onshore facilities, such action This final rule has been analyzed in when designed and operated to the would be a separate rulemaking. accordance with the principles and same safety standards, these parameters 7. Joint Liability Scenarios criteria contained in Executive Order may be significantly different for The NPRM discussed several 12612, and it has been determined that another deepwater port, resulting in a scenarios in which LOOP might be it does not have sufficient federalism different maximum credible spill. The same commenter also discussed liable (solely or jointly) for a tanker implications to warrant the preparation some economic issues; these are spill. LOOP’s comment on this issue of a Federalism Assessment. took exception to these scenarios, addressed in the ‘‘Assessment’’ section Regulatory Flexibility Act of this preamble. stating that OPA 90 does not provide for joint liability: the source of the spill is The Department must consider 4. Consistency Determination considered the responsible party except whether this regulation will have a The state of Louisiana requested where a third party was solely significant impact on a substantial submittal of a Consistency responsible for the spill. LOOP stated number of small entities. that in cases where responsibility for a Determination with respect to its The NPRM stated that the proposed spill may be shared, liability under such Coastal Zone Management Plan in action only directly affected a single a spill would not be created by OPA 90 accordance with 15 CFR part 930 company, Louisiana Offshore Oil Port and therefore such scenarios are outside subpart C. Such determinations are (LOOP), Inc., which owns and operates the scope of this rulemaking. required whenever any action by a the only deepwater port in the United Although OPA 90 does not recognize Federal agency affects land or water States at present. The NPRM also stated joint responsible parties other than uses with a state’s coastal zone. that neither LOOP specifically, nor between the owner, operator, or demise The Department has determined that deepwater ports in general, qualify as charterer of a vessel, it does recognize a Consistency Determination is not small business concerns. The NPRM (in section 1002(d)(2)(A)) that third necessary because this action is specifically requested comments from parties might cause an incident, and administrative in nature and does not small companies affected by the makes them liable up to their limit as if affect either land or water usage. proposed action; however, no comments they were the responsible party. In were received. 5. Extension of Comment Period addition, liability under OPA 90 is One commenter has recently acquired defined to be the standard of liability Therefore, the Department concludes an interest in a planned deepwater port which obtains under 33 U.S.C. 1321. As that this action does not affect any small project off the coast of Texas and noted in the conference report, this has business entities. requested an extension of the comment been construed as joint and several Paperwork Reduction Act period to respond to the NPRM. liability. The Department has The Department has determined that determined that the existence of This final rule contains no collection extending the comment period for this potential liability for a tanker spill, of information requirements under the reason would not materially benefit the under limited circumstances, was not a Paperwork Reduction Act. Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 39851 Assessment ventures through the creation of List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 137 unnecessary regulatory burdens.’’ The regulatory evaluation in the Claims; Harbors; Insurance; Oil NPRM stated that the proposed action Petroport, Inc., was also concerned pollution. might have an economic effect on LOOP that a new deepwater port would have For the reasons discussed in the (depending upon what final limit of to operate under OPA 90’s default $350 preamble, the Department amends 33 liability was established), but that no million limit of liability until CFR part 137 as follows: completion of a rulemaking to establish effect was anticipated on the general SUBCHAPTER MÐMARINE POLLUTION private sector, consumers, or Federal, a lower, more-appropriate limit. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND state or local governments. Only two Petroport, Inc., was further concerned COMPENSATION comments were received that addressed that the port-by-port approach would the economic effects of this action. impede development of other deepwater PART 137ÐDEEPWATER PORT ports, thereby creating a noncompetitive LIABILITY FUND The first comment was from LOOP, monopoly for LOOP. Inc., which stated: ‘‘OPA’s liability limit 1. The authority citation for 33 CFR plays an important part in LOOP’s The Department disagrees that the part 137 is revised to read as follows: insurance costs. When the OPA limit is port-by-port approach for setting individual limits of liability would Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1509(a), 1512(a), reduced, it will most probably result in 1517(j)(1)), 2704; 49 CFR 1.46. a lowering of the total insurance discourage or delay the overall 2. Subpart G is added as follows: premiums paid by LOOP. These development of a deepwater port. The reduced costs will enable LOOP to be deepwater port licensing process (found Subpart GÐLimits of Liability more competitive and could be reflected in 33 CFR Part 148) already requires, Sec. in lower rates for service, thus among other things, submittal of an 137.601 Purpose. benefiting oil importers and, ultimately, environmental analysis which, in turn, 137.603 Limits of Liability. American consumers of oil products must evaluate spill sizes and the such as gasoline.’’ possibility of pollution incidents Subpart GÐLimits of Liability resulting from personnel and equipment The Department recognizes that This subpart sets forth the limits of failures, natural calamities and LOOP’s business activity is to receive liability for U.S. deepwater ports in casualties, etc. The environmental crude oil cargoes from offshore VLCC accordance with section 1004 of the Oil analysis submittal will allow the and ULCC tankers and transfer those Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2704). Department timely development of an cargoes ashore (via seafloor pipeline), an appropriate limit of liability § 137.603 Limits of Liability. activity in which it competes with local concurrently with the overall processing lightering companies that provide a (a) The limits of liability for U.S. of the license application. Therefore, similar transfer service using small deepwater ports will be established by this action will not delay development tankers (typically 80,000 deadweight the Secretary of Transportation on a of any new deepwater port project nor tons or smaller). LOOP’s original limit port-by-port basis, after review of the does it impose any new or undue of liability under the Deepwater Ports maximum credible spill and associated regulatory burden on an applicant. Act was $50 million; in 1980 the costs for which the port would be liable. liability limit was established at $150 The Department also disagrees that The limit for a deepwater port will not million. OPA 90’s default limit of any delays in development of a be less than $50 million or more than $350 million. liability of $350 million raised LOOP’s deepwater port foster a noncompetitive (1) The limit of liability for the LOOP insurance costs. This rulemaking monopoly for LOOP. Even though LOOP deepwater port licensed and operated establishes $62 million as the is the sole deepwater port in the United States, it does not benefit from a by Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, Inc., is appropriate limit of liability for LOOP. $62,000,000. It is noted that the limit of liability of monopolistic position in the market: LOOP’s primary competition comes (2) [Reserved] typical lightering vessels (against which (b) [Reserved] LOOP competes) is less than $40 from lightering companies, not from the million. presence (or absence) of other Dated: July 31, 1995. Federico Pen˜ a, The second comment was from deepwater ports. Other deepwater ports Secretary of Transportation. Petroport, Inc., which is planning to will be in a similar competitive develop a deepwater port 35 miles situation with local lightering [FR Doc. 95–19212 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] offshore of Freeport, Texas. Petroport’s companies. BILLING CODE 4910±62±P comment discussed the economic effect The Department concludes that, of establishing limits of liability for although this action may improve deepwater ports on a port-by-port basis LOOP’s competitiveness as an ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION rather than a single, universal limit for individual company, the overall AGENCY all deepwater ports. This comment competitiveness of oil transfer business 40 CFR Part 52 stated: ‘‘Petroport is concerned that if activity will not be significantly the Department establishes a limit only affected. Therefore, the anticipated [MO±18±1±6024A; FRL±5263±9] for LOOP at this time and requires impact of this rulemaking does not separate rulemakings for future warrant a full Regulatory Analysis or Approval and Promulgation of deepwater ports, then its own Evaluation. Implementation Plans; State of Missouri deepwater port, and other such National Environmental Policy Act facilities, would be placed at a severe AGENCY: Environmental Protection competitive disadvantage. The The Department has determined that Agency (EPA). Department inadvertently would create this rulemaking is administrative in ACTION: Direct final rule. uncertainty in the market, could nature and therefore is categorically possibly discourage, and certainly excludable from further environmental SUMMARY: This document takes final would delay, other deepwater port assessment. action to approve the State 39852 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by designation for the area surrounding the 6.120 were adopted by the MACC, after the state of Missouri for the purpose of Doe Run-Buick facility under the proper notice and public hearing, on bringing about the attainment of the authority of sections 107(d)(1) and (5) of April 28, 1994, and became effective on National Ambient Air Quality Standard the Clean Air Act (CAA). Upon August 28, 1994. (NAAQS) for lead. The SIP was promulgation of the nonattainment The state submitted supplemental submitted by the state to satisfy certain designation, a state must prepare a material to EPA on June 30, 1994. This Federal requirements for an approvable revision to the SIP in accordance with subsequent submittal still lacked the nonattainment area lead SIP for the Doe the requirements of section 172 of the plot plan showing the location of the Run primary and secondary lead smelter CAA, showing how the area will be fencing installed around the Buick near Bixby, Missouri (Doe Run-Buick). brought into attainment. As a result of facility, which was one deficiency DATES: This action will be effective EPA’s promulgation of the previously noted by EPA. It was also October 3, 1995 unless by September 5, nonattainment designation, a full Part D noted that the Consent Order contained 1995 adverse or critical comments are SIP revision for Doe Run-Buick became an error in the wording of Contingency received. due on July 6, 1993. Measure number 2. The correct wording ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents On July 2, 1993, the state of Missouri had been included in a February 23, relevant to this action are available for submitted an SIP revision addressing 1994, letter from EPA, forwarding our public inspection during normal the applicable Part D requirements of comments on the draft Consent Order, business hours at the: Environmental the CAA relating to lead for the Doe during the state’s public comment Protection Agency, Air Branch, 726 Run-Buick smelter. The submission period. The inclusion of the needed Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas provided control measures to be language was agreed upon at a meeting 66101; and EPA Air & Radiation Docket implemented if the primary smelting between MDNR staff and EPA on March and Information Center, 401 M Street, facility resumed operations. The SIP 22, 1994. However, due to clerical error, SW., Washington, DC 20460. also provided some restrictions on the the language in the March 31, 1994, use of the primary blast furnace and the Consent Order was incorrect. A new FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa refinery facilities used in conjunction Consent Order, which included the V. Haugen at (913) 551–7877. with the secondary smelting operations. correct language, was signed by the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The July 1993 SIP revision was adopted MACC on September 29, 1994, and I. Background by the Missouri Air Conservation submitted to EPA on November 23, Commission (MACC), after proper 1994, along with the missing plot plan. The Doe Run Company acquired the notice and public hearing, on June 29, EPA deemed the SIP revision complete primary lead facility near Bixby, 1993. on December 15, 1994. The finding of Missouri (Doe Run-Buick), on November In a letter dated September 30, 1993, completeness stopped the section 179 16, 1986. Doe Run produced primary EPA informed the state that the sanctions clock initiated by EPA’s lead throughout 1987 and part of 1988. proposed Special Provisions January 4, 1994, finding of Violations of the NAAQS for lead were amendment to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10– incompleteness. recorded in the first two calendar 6.120 was not approvable. The proposed The July 2, 1993, SIP, as revised and quarters of 1988. In the later part of amendment would allow the sinter adopted in March 1994, and the revised 1988, Doe Run ceased operating the Doe plant to be operated in conjunction with September 29, 1994, Consent Order, Run-Buick facility as a primary smelter. the secondary smelting operation. As satisfy the Part D requirements of the Subsequent to 1988, various parts of the the modeling analysis of the current CAA. The revised plan also contains a facility were operated intermittently to mode of operations did not include control strategy to be implemented if the support production at Doe Run’s emissions from the primary smelter’s primary smelting facility resumes Herculaneum, Missouri, primary sinter machine, there was no operation. Dispersion modeling smelter. Though air quality monitors demonstration of attainment for the demonstrates that these control indicated that ambient concentrations proposed operating scenario. measures would result in attainment of exceeded 1.5 µg/m3 for some 24-hour On October 7, 1993, EPA notified the the NAAQS for lead. As the area is periods, the quarterly lead standard was state that the SIP revision lacked several currently attaining the lead NAAQS, the not violated during this intermittent elements necessary to meet EPA’s attainment date is the effective date of operating scenario. Doe Run continues completeness criteria, and that it the SIP—March 31, 1994. The to utilize various pieces of equipment contained several elements which were amendments to Missouri rule 10 CSR associated with the primary operation in not approvable. In an effort to resolve 10–6.120 contain emission limits for conjunction with the company’s these problems, a meeting was held on stack sources and fugitive sources for colocated secondary lead smelting October 18 and 19, 1993, among both the current mode of operation (the operation which began production in representatives from EPA, MDNR, and secondary smelter), and emission limits 1991. Although the most recent the Doe Run Company. In a November effective upon resumption of the violations of the lead NAAQS occurred 15, 1993, letter, MDNR committed to smelter’s primary production of lead. during the first two calendar quarters of make the needed corrections to the SIP 1988, there were no enforceable and amend 10 CSR 10–6.120, and II. Criteria for Approval limitations which precluded the facility submit them to EPA by April 1994. In This SIP revision was reviewed using from operating in a fashion that had December 1993, EPA determined that the criteria established by the CAA. The previously contributed to violations of sufficient progress was not being made requirements for all SIPs are contained the standard. in rectifying the deficiencies in the in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. Subpart On November 5, 1990, the EPA issued Buick SIP. A finding of incompleteness 1 of Part D of Title I of the CAA, and a call for a revision to the Missouri SIP was sent to the Governor of Missouri on in particular section 172(c), specifies the in response to the 1988 violations of the January 4, 1994. provisions necessitated by designation NAAQS for lead in the vicinity of Doe The required changes to the SIP were of an area as nonattainment for any of Run-Buick. The SIP revision was due by adopted by the MACC at a public the NAAQS. Further guidance and December 31, 1991. On November 6, hearing held on March 31, 1994. Final criteria are set forth in Subpart 5 of Part 1991, EPA promulgated a nonattainment changes to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10– D, the ‘‘General Preamble for the Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 39853 Implementation of Title I of the Clean current inventory of actual emissions the SIP. EPA believes this meets the Air Act Amendments of 1990’’ (57 FR from all sources of relevant pollutants in requirements for RFP for lead SIPs, as 13498), and in the ‘‘Addendum to the the nonattainment area. discussed in the ‘‘Addendum to the General Preamble for the The 1992 emissions inventory is the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean baseline EI for this SIP revision. This Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990’’ (58 FR inventory was quantified through stack Air Act Amendments of 1990’’ (58 FR 67748). testing, worker exposure data, 67748). evaluation of equipment and III. Review of State Submittal procedures, EPA emission estimation F. New Source Review (NSR) A. Control Strategy methods, and engineering judgement. Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.020 The attainment scenario EIs were identifies the current specific The 1992 emissions inventory (EI) is derived from the baseline inventory. descriptions of the lead nonattainment the baseline EI for this SIP revision. The The state submittal provides a areas in Missouri. These areas include SIP includes a list of control measures, historical summary of the air quality the city of Herculaneum in Jefferson which are to be installed and from the third calendar quarter of 1982 County, and the Dent, Liberty, and implemented before the Buick primary through the fourth calendar quarter of Arcadia townships in Iron County. 10 smelter is operated to process lead 1992. Since the second calendar quarter CSR 10–6.020 is utilized in conjunction concentrate and produce primary lead. of 1988, at which time the primary with 10 CSR 10–6.060 which requires a As an additional control measure, smelting operation ceased, there have permit for construction of, or major Missouri amended rule 10 CSR 10– been no exceedances of the quarterly modification to, an installation with 6.120 to include emission and lead standard at any of the monitoring potential to annually emit 100 tons or throughput limits for the secondary locations. more of a nonattainment pollutant, or a smelting operation. Air dispersion permit for a modification with potential modeling was used to determine that D. Reasonably Available Control to annually emit 100 tons or more of a the controls were sufficient to attain the Measures (RACM) (Including nonattainment pollutant. Because these lead NAAQS. Reasonably Available Control provisions include requirements for all Appendix F of the SIP contains the Technology (RACT)) nonattainment areas and are not limited June 24, 1993, Consent Order which sets The submittal must contain to lead, EPA is acting on the provisions forth the administrative requirements provisions to ensure that RACM in a separate rulemaking. for the implementation of the control (including RACT) are implemented (see G. Contingency Measures measures. Appendix G contains section 172(c)(1) of the CAA). See 57 FR amended Missouri rule 10 CSR 10– 13549 and 58 FR 67748 for EPA’s As provided in section 172(c)(9) of the 6.120, which establishes enforceable interpretation of RACM and RACT CAA, all nonattainment area SIPs that emission and throughput limits for both requirement. demonstrate attainment must include the primary smelting operation and the A 1991 six-volume study conducted contingency measures. Contingency secondary smelting operation. by Fluor Daniel, Inc. represents an measures should consist of other available measures that are not part of B. Attainment Demonstration RACT survey of the Buick facility. The report contains a study of various the area’s control strategy. These Section 192(a) of the CAA requires process technology, and a review of the measures must take effect without that SIPs must provide for attainment of existing facilities and operating further action by the state or EPA, upon the lead NAAQS as expeditiously as practices. The controls at the Buick a determination that the area has failed practicable, but not later than five years smelter were found to be RACT for all to meet RFP or attain the lead NAAQS from the date of an area’s nonattainment stack and process fugitive emission by the applicable attainment date. designation. The lead nonattainment sources. The contingency measures included designation for the area surrounding the An RACM survey was conducted in in the July 2, 1993, SIP submittal were Doe Run-Buick facility was effective on accord with 57 FR 18072, EPA’s determined to be inadequate to address January 6, 1992; therefore, the latest guidance with respect to the selection of possible air quality violations at the attainment date permissible by statute fugitive dust control measures. Three of Buick facility for both the primary and would be January 6, 1997. As the area the five suggested measures were found secondary smelting operations. EPA is currently attaining the lead NAAQS, to be applicable to the Buick facility. notified the state, in an October 7, 1993, the attainment date is the effective date The SIP adequately documents the letter, that the SIP revision did not of the SIP, March 31, 1994. This meets reasons for which each measure was contain contingency measures which the statutory requirement. selected or rejected. Each selected adequately addressed the requirements The Industrial Source Complex Long- measure is included in the Buick Work of section 172(c)(9). EPA requested that Term Model (ISCLT2) was used to Practice Manual and, in accord with the contingency measures be developed demonstrate attainment and June 24, 1993, Consent Order found in which would address sources that maintenance of the lead NAAQS for the Appendix F of the SIP, will be modeling indicates contribute to two operating scenarios. The procedures implemented upon the resumption of maximum predicted concentrations. recommended in EPA’s Guideline on lead concentrate processing and primary MDNR and Doe Run agreed to the Air Quality Models (Revised), EPA 450/ lead production. required changes at meetings held 2–78–027R, July 1986, and Supplement October 18 and 19, 1993. The changes A to the Guideline on Air Quality E. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) to the SIP were adopted by the MACC, Models (Revised), EPA 450/2–78–027R, The SIP must provide for RFP [see after proper notice and public hearing, July 1987, were followed. section 172(c)(2) of the Act]. The control on March 31, 1994. measures for the Buick smelter are to be The contingency measures in the SIP C. EI and Air Quality Data in place and operational before the will be invoked if, beginning with the Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires smelter resumes the primary production calendar quarter following the that nonattainment plan provisions of lead as set forth in the July 24, 1993, attainment date, an exceedance of the include a comprehensive, accurate, Consent Order found in Appendix F of lead NAAQS is recorded. MDNR will 39854 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations notify Doe Run-Buick of the exceedance, requirements of section 110 and Part D Unfunded Mandates and implementation of all of the of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR Part 51. Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of contingency measures will begin within The EPA is publishing this action the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 60 days from Doe Run’s receipt of that without prior proposal because the 1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), notification. Agency views this as a noncontroversial signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA amendment and anticipates no adverse H. Enforceability must undertake various actions in comments. However, in a separate association with proposed or final rules All measures and other elements in document in the Federal Register that include a Federal mandate that may the SIP must be enforceable by the state publication, the EPA is proposing to result in estimated costs of $100 million and EPA (see sections 172(c)(6), approve the SIP revision should adverse or more to the private sector, or to state, 110(a)(2)(A), and 57 FR 13556). The or critical comments be filed. local, or tribal governments in the state submittal includes a Consent Order If the EPA receives such comments, aggregate. entered into by the state and the this action will be withdrawn before the Through submission of this SIP, the Company which contains all of the effective date by publishing a state and any affected local governments control and contingency measures, with subsequent notice that will withdraw have elected to adopt the program enforceable dates for implementation. the final action. All public comments provided for under section 110 of the The submittal also includes an received will then be addressed in a CAA. These rules may bind state and amendment to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10– subsequent final rule based on this local governments to perform certain 6.120 which establishes emission limits action serving as a proposed rule. The actions and also require the private for all stack emissions and production EPA will not institute a second sector to perform certain duties. To the limits from the lead production comment period on this action. Any extent that the rules being finalized for processes for each operating scenario. parties interested in commenting on this approval by this action will impose new Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.120 contains action should do so at this time. requirements, sources are already provisions which are applicable to other Nothing in this action should be subject to these regulations under state lead smelters in the state. EPA proposes construed as permitting or allowing or law. Accordingly, no additional costs to approval of this rule only as it relates to establishing a precedent for any future state or local governments, or to the Doe Run-Buick. Any EPA actions on request for revision to any SIP. Each private sector, result from this final this rule with regard to other lead request for revision to the SIP shall be action. EPA has also determined that smelters will occur through separate considered separately in light of specific this final action does not include a Federal Register rulemakings. technical, economic, and environmental mandate that may result in estimated A Buick Work Practice Manual is also factors, and in relation to relevant costs of $100 million or more to state or included with the SIP revision. The statutory and regulatory requirements. local governments in the aggregate or to Work Practice Manual serves as an Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the private sector. enforcement document for the state and 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, EPA. These work practices are designed a regulatory flexibility analysis petitions for judicial review of this to limit the fugitive emissions at the assessing the impact of any proposed or action must be filed in the United States facility, and are enforced through final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. Court of Appeals for the appropriate recordkeeping requirements. §§ 603 and 604). Alternatively, EPA may circuit by October 3, 1995. Filing a Noncompliance with the established certify that the rule will not have a petition for reconsideration by the work practices is a violation of Missouri significant impact on a substantial Administrator of this final rule does not rule 10 CSR 10–6.120. EPA approves the number of small entities. Small entities affect the finality of this rule for the Work Practice Manual with the include small businesses, small not-for- purposes of judicial review, nor does it understanding that any change to the profit enterprises, and government extend the time within which a petition Work Practice Manual requires a entities with jurisdiction over for judicial review may be filed, and revision to the Missouri SIP. populations of less than 50,000. shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not IV. Implications of This Action SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, Part D of the CAA do not be challenged later in proceedings to This SIP revision will significantly create any new requirements, but enforce its requirements. (See section impact the current SIP. The modeling simply approve requirements that the 307(b)(2).) performed in support of the SIP revision state is already imposing. Therefore, List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 indicates that the emissions control because the Federal SIP approval does strategy will result in attainment of the not impose any new requirements, EPA Environmental protection, Air NAAQS for lead upon resumption of certifies that it does not have a pollution control, Incorporation by primary lead production. The modeling significant impact on any small entities reference, Intergovernmental relations, also indicates that, while operating as a affected. Moreover, due to the nature of Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping secondary smelter, no additional the Federal-state relationship under the requirements. controls are required to ensure that CAA, preparation of a regulatory Dated: July 11, 1995. emissions remain below the NAAQS for flexibility analysis would constitute Dennis Grams, P.E., lead. In addition, Missouri rule 10 CSR Federal inquiry into the economic Regional Administrator. 10–6.120 has been amended such that reasonableness of state action. The CAA Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code emission limits for all stack sources and forbids EPA to base its actions of Federal Regulations is amended as production limits for lead production concerning SIPs on such grounds follows: processes have been established for each (Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 operating scenario. U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. PART 52Ð[AMENDED] EPA ACTION: By this action EPA approves 7410(a)(2)). Missouri’s July 2, 1993; June 30, 1994; The Office of Management and Budget 1. The authority citation for part 52 and November 23, 1994, submittals. has exempted these actions from review continues to read as follows: This SIP revision meets the under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 39855 Subpart AAÐMissouri statement program for stationary sources Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. which emit volatile organic compounds EPA published a ‘‘General Preamble’’ 2. Section 52.1320 is amended by (VOCs) and/or nitrogen oxides (NOX) at describing EPA’s preliminary views on adding paragraph (c)(89) to read as or above specified actual emission how it intends to review SIP’s and SIP follows: threshold levels. This program applies revisions submitted under Title I of the § 52.1320 Identification of plan. to certain stationary sources within the CAA, including those State submittals West Virginia counties of Putnam, for ozone transport areas within the * * * * * Kanawha, Cabell, Wayne, Wood, and (c) * * * States (see 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) Greenbrier. The intended effect of this (89) In submittals dated July 2, 1993; (’’SIP: General Preamble for the action is to approve a regulation for June 30, 1994; and November 23, 1994, Implementation of Title I of the Clean annual reporting of actual emissions by the Missouri Department of Natural Air Act Amendments of 1990’’), 57 FR sources that emit VOC and/or NOX, Resources (MDNR) submitted a State 18070 (April 28, 1992) (’’Appendices to within the counties listed above, in Implementation Plan (SIP) to satisfy the General Preamble’’), and 57 FR accordance with the 1990 Clean Air Act Federal requirements for an approvable 55620 (November 25, 1992) (’’SIP: NOX (CAA). This action is being taken under nonattainment area lead SIP for the Doe Supplement to the General Preamble’’)). section 110 of the CAA. Run primary and secondary smelter EPA also issued a draft guidance near Bixby, Missouri (Doe Run-Buick). DATES: This action will become effective document describing the requirements Although Missouri rule 10 CSR 10– September 18, 1995 unless notice is for the emission statement programs 6.120 contains requirements which received on or before September 5, 1995 discussed in this action, entitled apply statewide to primary lead that adverse or critical comments will ‘‘Guidance on the Implementation of an smelting operations, EPA takes action be submitted. If the effective date is Emission Statement Program’’ (July, on this rule insofar as it pertains to the delayed, timely notice will be published 1992). The Agency is also conducting a Doe Run-Buick facility. Plan revisions to in the Federal Register. rulemaking process to modify title 40, address the other lead smelters in the ADDRESSES: Comments must be mailed part 51 of the CFR to reflect the state are under development. to Marcia L. Spink, Associate Director requirements of the emission statement (i) Incorporation by reference. (3AT00), Air Programs, U.S. program. (A) Revised regulation 10 CSR 10– Environmental Protection Agency, Section 182 of the Act sets out a 6.120 (section (2)(C), section (4)) Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, graduated control program for ozone entitled Restriction of Emissions of Lead Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19107. nonattainment areas. Section 182(a) sets from Primary Smelter-Refinery Copies of the documents relevant to this out requirements applicable in marginal Installations, effective August 28, 1994. action are available for public ozone nonattainment areas, which are (B) Consent Order, entered into inspection during normal business also made applicable by section 182 (b), between the Doe Run Company and hours at the following location: (c), (d), and (e) to all other ozone MDNR, dated July 2, 1993. Environmental Protection Agency, nonattainment areas. Among the (C) Consent Order amendment, signed Region III, Air, Radiation, and Toxics requirements in section 182(a) is a by the Doe Run Company on August 30, Division, 841 Chestnut Building, program for stationary sources to 1994, and by MDNR on November 23, Philadelphia, PA 19107; and the West prepare and submit to the State each 1994. Virginia Office of Air Quality, 1558 year emission statements certifying their (ii) Additional material. Washington Street, East, Charleston, actual emissions of VOCs and NOX. This (A) The Doe Run-Buick Work Practice West Virginia, 25311. section of the Act provides that the Manual submitted on July 2, 1993. EPA FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: States are to submit a revision to their approves the Work Practice manual Marcia L. Spink, U.S. Environmental SIPs by November 15, 1992 establishing with the understanding that any Protection Agency, Region III, 841 this emission statement program. subsequent changes to the Work Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, If a source emits either VOC or NOX Practice Manual will be submitted as Pennsylvania 19107, (215) 597–4713. at or above the designated minimum SIP revisions. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August reporting level, the other pollutant (B) Revisions to the Doe Run-Buick 10, 1993, the West Virginia Office of Air should be included in the emission Work Practice Manual submitted on Quality (WVOAQ) submitted a SIP statement, even if it is emitted at levels June 30, 1994. revision to EPA. This revision would below the specified cutoffs. [FR Doc. 95–19215 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] add West Virginia Regulation Title 45, States may waive, with EPA approval, BILLING CODE 6560±50±P Series 29, ‘‘Rule Requiring the the requirement for an emission Submission of Emission Statements for statement for classes or categories of Volatile Organic Compounds and sources with less than 25 tons per year 40 CFR Part 52 Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions,’’ of actual plant-wide NOX or VOC consisting of Subsections: 1. General; 2. [WVA10±1±5918a; FRL±5265±7] emissions in nonattainment areas if the Definitions; 3. Applicability; 4. class or category is included in the base Approval and Promulgation of Air Compliance Schedule; 5. Emission year and periodic inventories and Quality Implementation Plans; West Statement Requirements; 6. emissions are calculated using VirginiaÐEmission Statement Program Enforceability; and 7. Severability, emissions factors established by EPA effective July 7, 1993 in the State of (such as those found in EPA publication AGENCY: Environmental Protection West Virginia to the West Virginia SIP. AP–42) or other methods acceptable to Agency (EPA). I. Background EPA. ACTION: Direct final rule. At minimum, the emission statement The air quality planning and SIP data should include: SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State requirements for ozone nonattainment Implementation Plan (SIP) revision and transport areas are set out in —Certification of data accuracy; submitted by the State of West Virginia. subparts I and II of Part D of Title I of —Source identification information; This revision consists of an emission the Clean Air Act, as amended by the —Operating schedule; 39856 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations —Emissions information (to include of emissions from all stationary sources comments received will then be annual and typical ozone season day of VOCs and NOX. The state may, with addressed in a subsequent final rule emissions); EPA’s approval, waive the Emission based on this action serving as a —Control equipment information; and Statements requirements for classes or proposed rule. EPA will not institute a —Process data. categories for stationary sources with second comment period on this action. EPA developed emission statements facility-wide actual emissions of less Any parties interested in commenting data elements to be consistent with than 25 tpy of VOC or NOX, if the class on this action should do so at this time. other source and State reporting or category is included in the Base Year If no such comments are received, the requirements. This consistency is ozone and Periodic ozone inventories public is advised that this action will be essential to assist States with quality are calculated using EPA approved effective on September 18, 1995. assurance for emission estimates and to emission factors or other methods Nothing in this action should be facilitate consolidation of all EPA acceptable to EPA. Subsection 45–29–5. construed as permitting or allowing or reporting requirements. Emission Statement Requirements, establishing a precedent for any future requires that a certifying official for each request for revision of any SIP. Each II. EPA’s Evaluation of West Virginia’s facility provide West Virginia with a request for revision to the SIP shall be Submittal statement reporting emissions by May considered separately in light of specific A. Procedural Background 13, in 1993, and by April 15 of every technical, economic, and environmental year thereafter for the emissions factors and in relation to relevant In accordance with the requirements discharged during the previous calendar statutory and regulatory requirements. of 40 CFR § 51.102, a public hearing year. This subsection of the regulation Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, concerning West Virginia’s SIP revision also delineates specific requirements for 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare was held on June 23, 1993, in the content of these annual emission a regulatory flexibility analysis Charleston, West Virginia to solicit statements. assessing the impact of any proposed or public comment on the implementation final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 plan for the State. Following the public C. Enforceability and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify hearing, the plan was adopted by the The State of West Virginia has that the rule will not have a significant State and signed by the Governor’s provisions in its SIP which ensure that impact on a substantial number of small designee on July 7, 1993 and submitted the emission statement requirements of entities. Small entities include small to EPA on August 10, 1993 as a revision West Virginia Regulation Title 45, Series businesses, small not-for-profit to the SIP. 29, ‘‘Rule Requiring the Submission of enterprises, and government entities B. Components of West Virginia’s Emission Statements for Volatile with jurisdiction over populations of Emission Statement Program Organic Compounds and Oxides of less than 50,000. Redesignation of an Nitrogen Emissions,’’ are adequately area to attainment under section There are several key and specific enforced. 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act does not impose components of an acceptable emission EPA has determined that the any new requirements on small entities. statement program. Specifically, West submittal made by the State of West Redesignation is an action that affects Virginia must submit a revision to its Virginia satisfies the relevant the status of a geographical area and SIP which consists of an emission requirements of the CAA and EPA’s does not impose any regulatory statement program which meets the guidance document, ‘‘Guidance on the requirements on sources. The minimum requirements for reporting by Implementation of an Emission Administrator certifies that the approval the sources and the State. For the Statement Program’’ (July 1992). of the redesignation request will not emission statement program to be affect a substantial number of small III. Final Action approvable, West Virginia’s SIP revision entities. SIP approvals under section must include, at a minimum, definitions EPA is approving a revision to the 110 and subchapter I, part D of the clean and provisions for applicability, West Virginia SIP to include Regulation Air Act do not create any new compliance, and specific source Title 45, Series 29, ‘‘Rule Requiring the requirements but simply approve reporting requirements and reporting Submission of Emission Statements for requirements that the State is already forms. Volatile Organic Compounds and imposing. Therefore, because the Subsection 45–29–2. Definitions, Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions.’’ This Federal SIP Approval does not impose includes, among others, definitions for revision was submitted to EPA by the any new requirements, the the following terms: Actual emissions; State of West Virginia on August 10, Administrator certifies that it does not Annual fuel process rate; Control 1993. have a significant impact on any small efficiency; Control equipment EPA is approving this SIP revision entities affected. Moreover, due to the identification code; Emission factor; without prior proposal because the nature of the Federal-State relationship Emission statement; Estimated emission Agency views this as a noncontroversial under the Act, preparation of a method code; Estimated emission units; amendment and anticipates no adverse flexibility analysis would constitute Facility; Measured emission methods comments. However, in a separate Federal inquiry into the economic code; Measured emission units; Owner document in this Federal Register reasonableness of state action. The or operator; Oxides of nitrogen; Ozone publication, EPA is proposing to Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its season; Percentage seasonal throughput; approve the SIP revision should adverse actions concerning SIP’s on such Person; Point; Potential to emit; Typical or critical comments be filed. This grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, ozone season day; and Volatile organic action will become effective September 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. compounds. 18, 1995 unless, within 30 days of 7410 (a) (2). Subsections 45–29–1. General; 45–29– publication, adverse or critical Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of 3. Applicability; 45–29–6. comments are received. If EPA receives the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of Enforceability; and 45–29–7. such comments, this action will be 1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), Severability require that a person who withdrawn before the effective date by signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA owns or operates any installation, publishing a subsequent notice that will must undertake various actions in source, or premises to report the levels withdraw the final action. All public association with proposed or final rules Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 39857 that include a Federal mandate that may Subpart XXÐWest Virginia Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions result in estimated costs of $100 million submitted by the State of West Virginia. or more to the private sector, or to State, 2. Section 52.2520 is amended by The first SIP revision is the 1990 base local, or tribal governments in the adding paragraphs (c)(34) to read as year ozone inventory for Greenbrier aggregate. follows: County. The second SIP revision Through submission of this state § 52.2520 Identification of plan. establishes and requires a maintenance plan for the Greenbrier County area implementation plan or plan revision, * * * * * the State and any affected local or tribal (c) * * * including contingency measures which governments have elected to adopt the (34) Revisions to the West Virginia provide for continued attainment of the program provided for under section State Implementation Plan submitted by ozone National Ambient Air Quality 175A of the Clean Air Act. These rules the Secretary, West Virginia Department Standard (NAAQS). The intended effect may bind State, local and tribal of Commerce, Labor, and Environmental of this action is to approve the 1990 governments to perform certain actions Resources, Office of Air Quality, on base year ozone inventory, a and also require the private sector to August 10, 1993. redesignation request and the perform certain duties. The rules being (i) Incorporation by reference. maintenance plan for Greenbrier approved by this action will impose no (A) Letter dated August 10, 1993 from County. On December 22, 1992 the West new requirements; such sources are the Secretary, West Virginia Department Virginia Department of Commerce, already subject to these regulations of Commerce, Labor, and Environmental Labor & Environmental Resources under State law. Accordingly, no Resources, Office of Air Quality submitted an ozone inventory for 1990. additional costs to State, local, or tribal submitting 45 Code of State Regulations On September 9, 1994, the West governments, or to the private sector, (CSR) Series 29 ‘‘Rule Requiring the Virginia Division of Environmental result from this action. EPA has also Submission of Emission Statements for Protection (WVDEP) submitted a request determined that this final action does Volatile Organic Compounds and to redesignate Greenbrier County from not include a mandate that may result Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions’’ as a nonattainment to attainment. On in estimated costs of $100 million or revision to the West Virginia State September 9, 1994, the WVDEP also more to State, local, or tribal Implementation Plan. The effective date submitted a maintenance plan for governments in the aggregate or to the of this rule, 45CSR29 is July 7, 1993. Greenbrier County as a revision to the private sector. (B) West Virginia Regulation Title 45, West Virginia State Implementation The OMB has exempted this Series 29, ‘‘Rule Requiring the Plan. This action is being taken under regulatory action from E.O. 12866 Submission of Emission Statements for sections 107 and 110 of the Clean Air review. Volatile Organic Compounds and Act (the Act). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions,’’ DATES: This action will become effective Air Act, petitions for judicial review of consisting of Subsections: 1. General; 2. September 18, 1995 unless notice is this action must be filed in the United Definitions; 3. Applicability; 4. received on or before September 5, 1995 States Court of Appeals for the Compliance Schedule; 5. Emission that adverse or critical comments will appropriate circuit by October 3, 1995. Statement Requirements; 6. be submitted. If the effective date is Filing a petition for reconsideration by Enforceability; and 7. Severability, delayed, timely notice will be published the Administrator of this final rule does effective July 7, 1993. in the Federal Register. not affect the finality of this rule for the (ii) Additional Material. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to purposes of judicial review nor does it (A) Remainder of August 10, 1993 Marcia L. Spink, Associate Director, Air extend the time within which a petition State submittal pertaining to 45 CSR Programs, Mailcode 3AT00, U.S. for judicial review may be filed, and Series 29, ‘‘Rule Requiring the Environmental Protection Agency, shall not postpone the effectiveness of Submission of Emission Statements for Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, such rule or action. This action Volatile Organic Compounds and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19107. approving West Virginia’s Emission Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions.’’ Copies of the documents relevant to this Statement Program may not be (B) [Reserved] action are available for public challenged later in proceedings to [FR Doc. 95–19272 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] inspection during normal business enforce its requirements. (See section BILLING CODE 6560±50±P hours at the Air, Radiation, and Toxics 307(b)(2).) Division, U.S. Environmental Protection List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Environmental protection, Air [WV27±1±7013a, WV27±2±7014a; FRL± 19107; the Air and Radiation Docket pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 5265±9] and Information Center, U.S. Incorporation by Reference, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 Intergovernmental relations, Volatile Approval and Promulgation of Air M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460; organic compounds, Oxides of nitrogen, Quality Implementation Plans; and the West Virginia Division of Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping Designation of Areas for Air Quality Environmental Protection, Office of Air requirements. Planning Purposes; Redesignation of Quality, 1558 Washington Street, East, Dated: July 14, 1995. the Greenbrier County WV Ozone Charleston, West Virginia, 25311. Stanley L. Laskowski, Nonattainment Area to Attainment and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. Approval of the Area's Maintenance Christopher Cripps, (215) 597–0545. Plan and Emissions Inventory 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Environmental Protection I. Background PART 52Ð[AMENDED] Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. On November 15, 1990 the Clean Air 1. The authority citation for part 52 Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted. continues to read as follows: SUMMARY: EPA is approving a Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399, Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. redesignation request and two State codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 39858 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations Under section 107(d)(1) of the Act, in 110(a)(2) and Part D of the 1977 Act. are applicable. EPA approved West conjunction with the Governor of West The Clean Air Act Amendments of Virginia’s PSD program on April 11, Virginia, EPA was required to designate 1990, however, modified section 1986 (51 FR 12517) which, under the Greenbrier County as nonattainment 110(a)(2) and, under Part D, revised approved SIP, applies in all designated because the area violated the ozone section 172 and added new attainment areas. standard in 1987–1989. requirements for all nonattainment Air quality data, recorded in the 2.B.2. Subpart 1 of Part D—Section 176 areas. Therefore, for purposes of Conformity Plan Provisions Greenbrier County area, met the ozone redesignation, EPA has reviewed the SIP NAAQS from 1989–1991 and has and determined that it contains all Section 176(c) of the Act requires subsequently continued to indicate measures that were due under the Act States to revise their SIPs to establish attainment and maintenance through prior to September 9, 1994, the date the criteria and procedures to ensure that 1994. West Virginia submitted a ozone State of West Virginia submitted its Federal actions, before they are taken, maintenance SIP and redesignation redesignation request satisfying the conform to the air quality planning request on September 9, 1994. completeness criteria of 40 CFR Part 51 goals in the applicable State SIP. The Appendix V. requirement to determine conformity II. Review of West Virginia’s Submittal applies to transportation plans, Following is a brief description of 2.A. Section 110 Requirements programs and projects developed, how the State of West Virginia’s Although section 110 of the 1977 Act funded or approved under Title 23 September 9, 1994 submittal fulfills the was amended in 1990, the Greenbrier U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act five requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) County, West Virginia SIP meets the (‘‘transportation conformity’’), as well as of the Act. Because the maintenance requirements of section 110 (a)(2) of the to all other Federal actions (‘‘general plan is a critical element of the amended Act. A number of the conformity’’). Section 176 further redesignation request, EPA will discuss requirements did not change in provides that the conformity revisions its evaluation of the maintenance plan substance and, therefore, EPA believes to be submitted by States must be under its analysis of the redesignation that the preamendment SIP met these consistent with Federal conformity request. Because the base year emissions requirements. As to those requirements regulations that the Act required EPA to inventory is an integral element of the that were amended many duplicate promulgate. Congress provided for the maintenance plan, EPA will discuss its other requirements of the Act (see 57 FR State revisions to be submitted one year evaluation under its analysis of the 27936 and 23939, June 23, 1992). EPA after the date for promulgation of final maintenance plan. A Technical Support has analyzed the SIP and determined EPA conformity regulations. When that Document (TSD) has also been prepared that it is consistent with the date passed without such promulgation, by EPA on these rulemaking actions. requirements of amended section EPA’s General Preamble for the The TSD is available for public 110(a)(2) of the Act. The SIP contains Implementation of Title I informed inspection at the EPA Regional office enforceable emission limitations states that the conformity regulations listed in the ADDRESSES section of this adequate to produce attainment, would establish submittal dates (see 57 notice. requires monitoring, compiling, and FR 13498, 13557 (April 16, 1992)). The EPA promulgated final transportation 1. Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS analyzing ambient air quality data. It provides for adequate funding, staff, and conformity regulations on November 24, The submittal contains an analysis of 1993 (58 FR 62188) and general associated resources necessary to ozone air quality data which is relevant conformity regulations on November 30, implement SIP requirements, and to the maintenance plan and to the 1993 (58 FR 63214). These conformity requires stationary source emissions redesignation request for the Greenbrier rules require that States adopt both monitoring and reporting. County ozone nonattainment area. transportation and general conformity Ambient ozone monitoring data for 1989 2.B. Part D Requirements provisions in the SIP for areas through 1994 show attainment of the 2.B.1. Subpart 1 of Part D—Section designated nonattainment or subject to ozone NAAQS in Greenbrier County, 172(c) Plan Provisions a maintenance plan approved under West Virginia. See 40 CFR 50.9 and section 175A of the Act. Pursuant to appendix H. The State of West Under section 172(b), the section § 51.396 of the transportation Virginia’s request for redesignation 172(c) requirements are applicable no conformity rule and § 51.851 of the included documentation that the entire later than three years after an area has general conformity rule, the State of area has complete quality assured data been designated as nonattainment under West Virginia is required to submit a showing attainment of the standard over the Act. For Greenbrier County which SIP revision containing transportation the most recent consecutive three was first designated nonattainment on conformity criteria and procedures calendar year period. Therefore the area January 6, 1993, these section 172(c) consistent with those established in the has met the first statutory criterion of requirements would have become due Federal rule November 25, 1994. attainment of the ozone NAAQS. West January 6, 1995. Therefore, these section Similarly, West Virginia is required to Virginia has also met the second 172(c) requirements were not applicable submit a SIP revision containing general statutory criterion by committing to to ozone nonattainment areas on or conformity criteria and procedures continue monitoring the air quality in before September 9, 1994—the date the consistent with those established in the this area in accordance with the Act’s State of West Virginia submitted a Federal rule by December 1, 1994. requirements as prescribed in 40 CFR complete redesignation request and Because the deadlines for these part 58. maintenance plan for Greenbrier submittals had not yet come due before County. The Greenbrier County area September 9, 1994, they are not 2. Meeting Applicable Requirements of currently has a fully approved New applicable requirements under section Section 110 and Part D Source Review (NSR) program. Upon 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and, thus, do not affect As previously stated, EPA fully redesignation of this area to attainment, approval of this redesignation request. approved the State of West Virginia SIP the prevention of significant West Virginia has adopted for Greenbrier County, West Virginia as deterioration provisions (PSD) transportation and general conformity meeting the requirements of section contained in part C of title I of the Act regulations and submitted these Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 39859 complete regulations as revisions to the rules and the emission reductions continued attainment of the applicable West Virginia SIP on November 13, achieved as a result of those rules are NAAQS for at least ten years after the 1994. The West Virginia conformity SIP enforceable. area is redesignated. Eight years after revisions are the subject of separate Several other enforceable control the redesignation, the state must submit rulemaking actions. measures have come into place since the a revised maintenance plan which Greenbrier County, West Virginia area 2.B.3. Subpart 2 of Part D—Section 182 demonstrates attainment for the ten violated the ozone NAAQS. Reductions Provisions for Ozone Nonattainment years following the initial ten-year in ozone precursor emissions occurred Areas period. To provide for the possibility of due to the mandatory lowering of fuel future NAAQS violations, the The Greenbrier County nonattainment volatility and automobile fleet turnover maintenance plan must contain area is classified as marginal and is due to the Federal Motor Vehicle contingency measures, with a schedule subject to the requirements of section Control Program. The Reid Vapor for implementation, adequate to assure 182(a) of the Act. As of September 9, Pressure (RVP) of gasoline decreased prompt correction of any air quality 1994, the State was required to meet the during the years 1990 to 1992 from 9.5 problems. emission inventory requirement of pounds per square inch (psi) to 9.0 psi. section 182(a)(1) and the emissions Reductions due to these programs were 5.A. Emissions Inventory—Base Year statement program requirement of determined using the mobile emission Inventory section 182(a)(3)(b). inventory model MOBILE 5.0a and On December 22, 1992, the State of Section 182(a)(1) required an relevant vehicle miles traveled (VMT) emissions inventory as specified by West Virginia submitted comprehensive data. As a result of these permanent and inventories of VOC, CO and NOX section 172(c)(3) of actual emissions of enforceable reductions, VOC emissions carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic emissions from area, stationary, and decreased by 0.24 tons/day (1988–1990) mobile sources for 1990. This inventory compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides and by 0.48 tons/day (1988–1993) in (NOX) from all sources by November 15, was used as the basis for calculations to Greenbrier County. Emissions of NOX demonstrate maintenance. West Virginia 1992. On December 22, 1992, West were reduced by 0.10 tons/day and 0.19 Virginia submitted an emissions projected their 1990 inventory to 1993 tons/day during the same periods inventory for 1990 (the ‘‘base year in order to have a base year inventory respectively in this area. The State of inventory’’) which EPA determined to corresponding to 1993 which was West Virginia’s maintenance plan be complete on April 16, 1993. Section selected as the attainment base year. requires the continuation of the federal 182(a)(3)(B) required a SIP revision by The 1993 VOC, NOX, and CO inventory RVP program. The State demonstrated November 15, 1992 to require stationary is considered representative of that point source VOC emissions were sources of VOC and NOX emissions to attainment conditions because no not artificially low due to local report the actual emissions of these violations occurred in 1993, and it economic downturn during the period pollutants annually. On November 12, reflects the typical inventory for the in which Greenbrier County air quality 1992, West Virginia submitted 45CSR29 most recent, as of September 1994, came into attainment. Reductions due to ‘‘Rule Requiring the Submission of three-year period demonstrating Emission Statements for Volatile decreases in production levels or from attainment of the ozone NAAQS Organic Compound Emissions And other unenforceable scenarios such as standard in Greenbrier County. voluntary reductions were not included Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions’’. EPA is West Virginia’s submittal contains the approving the base year inventory as in the determination of the emission reductions. detailed inventory data and summaries part of this rulemaking action. EPA is by source category. West Virginia’s approving West Virginia Regulation EPA finds that the combination of measures contained in the SIP and submittal also contains information Title 45, Series 29, ‘‘Rule Requiring the related to how it comported with EPA’s Submission of Emission Statements for federal measures have resulted in permanent and enforceable reductions guidance, which model and emission Volatile Organic Compound Emissions factors were used (note MOBILE 5.0a and Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions’’ in a in ozone precursors that have allowed Greenbrier County to attain the NAAQS, was used), how VMT data was separate rulemaking action also being generated, what RVP was considered in published in today’s Federal Register. and therefore, that the redesignation criterion of section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) has the base year, and other technical 3. Fully Approved SIP Under Section been met. information verifying the validity of the 110(k) of the Act Greenbrier County West Virginia 5. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan emission inventory. A summary of the EPA has determined that the State of Under Section 175A base year and projected maintenance West Virginia has a fully approved SIP year inventories are shown in the under section 110(k), which also meets EPA is approving the West Virginia following tables in section 5.B. the applicable requirements of section maintenance plan for the Huntington, 110 and Part D as discussed above. West Virginia area because EPA finds 5.B. Demonstration of Maintenance- Therefore, the redesignation that West Virginia’s submittal meets the Projected Inventories requirement of section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) requirements of section 175A of the Act. has been met. The Greenbrier County, West Virginia Below, totals for VOC and NOX area will have a fully approved emissions were projected from the 1990 4. Improvement in Air Quality Due to maintenance plan in accordance with base year out to 2005. These projected Permanent and Enforceable Measures section 175A of the Act. Section 175A inventories were prepared in Under the 1977 Act, EPA approved of the Act sets forth the elements of a accordance with EPA guidance. Refer to the State of West Virginia SIP control maintenance plan for areas seeking EPA’s TSD for more in-depth details strategy for the Greenbrier County, West redesignation from nonattainment to regarding the projected inventory for the Virginia area. EPA determined that the attainment. The plan must demonstrate nonattainment areas. 39860 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations GREENBRIER COUNTYÐVOC PROJECTION INVENTORY SUMMARY (TONS PER DAY) 1990 base 1993 attain year base 1996 proj. 1999 proj. 2002 proj. 2005 Point ...... 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Area ...... 3.41 3.48 3.59 3.71 3.84 3.99 Mobile ...... 3.83 3.36 3.26 3.22 3.21 3.29 Total ...... 7.28 6.88 6.90 6.98 7.10 7.33 GREENBRIER COUNTYÐNOX PROJECTION INVENTORY SUMMARY (TONS PER DAY) 1990 base 1993 attain year base 1996 proj. 1999 proj. 2002 proj. 2005 proj. Point ...... 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17 Area ...... 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 Mobile ...... 5.00 4.82 4.71 4.62 4.57 4.68 Total ...... 5.73 5.56 5.46 5.37 5.33 5.44 As indicated in the previous tables, a VOC inventory to be modeled are too County, or in the event that periodic decrease in NOX emissions is projected small. emission inventory updates or major permitting activity reveals that in the Greenbrier County nonattainment 5.C. Verification of Continued excessive or unanticipated growth in area throughout the maintenance Attainment period. A slight increase in VOC ozone precursor emissions has occurred emissions is projected for the Greenbrier Continued attainment of the ozone or will occur, West Virginia will County nonattainment area. However, NAAQS in Greenbrier County depends, accordingly select and adopt additional this projected emissions increase of 0.45 in part, on the State of West Virginia’s measures including one or more of the tons/day from 1993 to 2005 (of 0.05 efforts toward tracking indicators of following to assure continued tons/day from 1990 to 2005) is not continued attainment during the attainment: maintenance period. The State of West expected to affect maintenance of the 1. Application of VOC/NOX Virginia will track the status and ozone NAAQS in this rural area. These reasonably available control technology effectiveness of the maintenance plan by projections do not consider the effect of (RACT) requirements or similar periodically updating the emissions emission limitations on stationary future federal measures that are under a inventory every three years. West sources, court-ordered promulgation deadline. Virginia has committed to perform this 2. A revision to new source permitting Such measures include, but are not tracking on a triennial basis in order to requirements requiring more stringent limited to, those for heavy duty diesel enable the State of West Virginia to emissions control technology and/or engines (see 59 FR 31306, June 17, implement the contingency measures of emission offsets. 1994), small spark-ignition gasoline its maintenance plan as expeditiously as One or more of these regulatory engines (see 59 FR 25399, May 16, 1994) possible. revisions would be selected and a draft and marine engines (see 59 FR 55930, The State of West Virginia update will regulation(s) developed by the West November 9, 1994). These measures are indicate new source growth, as Virginia Division of Environmental expected to keep the Greenbrier County indicated by annual emission Protection (WVDEP) for adoption as an VOC emissions under the 1990 base statements. The State of West Virginia emergency rule(s) within three (3) year level. will continue to monitor ambient ozone months after verification of a monitored There were no measured exceedances levels by operating its ambient ozone air ozone standard violation. WVDEP’s of the ozone NAAQS in 1990. As quality monitoring network in adopted emergency rule(s) for the discussed earlier, Greenbrier County has accordance with 40 CFR part 58. selected control measure(s) will be continued to monitor attainment of the 5.D. Contingency Plan implemented within six (6) months after ozone NAAQS through 1994. EPA adoption and will be filed as legislative The level of VOC and NOX emissions believes that these emissions projections rule(s) for permanent authorization by in Greenbrier County will largely demonstrate that the nonattainment area the legislature as required under West determine its ability to stay in Virginia law. will continue to maintain the ozone compliance with the ozone NAAQS. NAAQS. Despite the State of West Virginia’s best 5.E. Subsequent Maintenance Plan EPA does not believe that efforts to demonstrate continued Revisions photochemical modelling would be compliance with the NAAQS, In accordance with section 175A(b) of useful in the case of Greenbrier County Greenbrier County may exceed or the Act, the State of West Virginia has for assessing the effects of the projected violate the NAAQS. Therefore, West agreed to submit a revised maintenance VOC emissions increase. The natural, Virginia has provided contingency SIP eight years after the area is biogenic emissions in the Greenbrier measures with a schedule for redesignated to attainment. Such County VOC inventory exceed 86 tons implementation in the event of future revised SIP will provide for per day in 1990 and are projected to ozone air quality problems. In the event maintenance for an additional ten years. remain the same throughout the that exceedances of the ozone NAAQS EPA has determined that the maintenance period. The increases in are measured such that nonattainment is maintenance plan adopted by the State the total (biogenic plus anthropogenic) indicated at the monitor in Greenbrier of West Virginia and submitted to EPA Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 39861 on September 9, 1994 meets the impact on a substantial number of small governments in the aggregate or to the requirements of section 175A of the Act. entities. Small entities include small private sector. Therefore, EPA is approving the businesses, small not-for-profit The OMB has exempted this maintenance plan. enterprises, and government entities regulatory action from the requirements EPA is approving this SIP revision with jurisdiction over populations of of section 6 of Executive Order 12866. without prior proposal because the less than 50,000. Redesignation of an Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Agency views this as a noncontroversial area to attainment under section Air Act, petitions for judicial review of amendment and anticipates no adverse 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act does not impose this action to approve West Virginia’s comments. However, in a separate any new requirements on small entities. redesignation request, base year ozone document in this Federal Register Redesignation is an action that affects inventory, and maintenance plan for the publication, EPA is proposing to the status of a geographical area and Greenbrier County ozone nonattainment approve the SIP revision should adverse does not impose any regulatory area must be filed in the United States or critical comments be filed. This requirements on sources. The Court of Appeals for the appropriate action will be effective September 18, Administrator certifies that the approval circuit by October 3, 1995. Filing a 1995 unless by September 5, 1995, of the redesignation request will not petition for reconsideration by the adverse comments are received. affect a substantial number of small Administrator of this final rule does not If EPA receives such comments, this entities. SIP approvals under section affect the finality of this rule for the action will be withdrawn before the 110 and subchapter I, part D of the clean purposes of judicial review nor does it effective date by publishing a Air Act do not create any new extend the time within which a petition subsequent notice that will withdraw requirements but simply approve for judicial review may be filed, and the final action. All public comments requirements that the State is already shall not postpone the effectiveness of received will then be addressed in a imposing. Therefore, because the such rule or action. This action may not subsequent final rule based on this Federal SIP Approval does not impose be challenged later in proceedings to action serving as a proposed rule. EPA any new requirements, the enforce its requirements. (See section will not institute a second comment Administrator certifies that it does not 307(b)(2).) period on this action. Any parties have a significant impact on any small interested in commenting on this action entities affected. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 should do so at this time. If no such Moreover, due to the nature of the Environmental protection, Air comments are received, the public is Federal-State relationship under the pollution control, Hydrocarbons, advised that this action will be effective Act, preparation of a flexibility analysis Incorporation by reference, on September 18, 1995. would constitute Federal inquiry into Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen the economic reasonableness of state Final Action dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA recordkeeping requirement. EPA is approving the ozone to base its actions concerning SIP’s on maintenance plan for Greenbrier County such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. Dated: July 14, 1995. in West Virginia submitted on EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 Stanley L. Laskowski, September 9, 1994 because it meets the U.S.C. 7410 (a) (2). Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. requirements of section 175A. EPA is Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of approving the 1990 base year ozone the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of inventory for Greenbrier County. In 1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), Federal Regulations is amended as addition, the Agency is redesignating signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA follows: the Greenbrier County area to ozone must undertake various actions in PART 52Ð[AMENDED] attainment because the Agency has association with proposed or final rules determined that the provisions of that include a Federal mandate that may 1. The authority citation for part 52 section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act for result in estimated costs of $100 million continues to read as follows: redesignation have been met. or more to the private sector, or to State, Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. The Greenbrier County nonattainment local, or tribal governments in the area is subject to the Act’s requirements aggregate. Subpart XXÐWest Virginia for marginal ozone nonattainment areas Through submission of this state until and unless it is redesignated to implementation plan or plan revision, 2. Section 52.2520 is amended by attainment. the State and any affected local or tribal adding paragraph (c)(36) to read as Nothing in this action should be governments have elected to adopt the follows: construed as permitting or allowing or program provided for under section § 52.2520 Identification of plan. establishing a precedent for any future 175A of the Clean Air Act. These rules request for revision to any state may bind State, local and tribal * * * * * implementation plan. Each request for governments to perform certain actions (c) * * * revision to the state implementation and also require the private sector to (36) The ten year ozone maintenance plan shall be considered separately in perform certain duties. The rules being plan including emission projections and light of specific technical, economic, approved by this action will impose no contingency measures for Greenbrier and environmental factors and in new requirements; such sources are County, West Virginia effective on relation to relevant statutory and already subject to these regulations September 1, 1994 and submitted by the regulatory requirements. under State law. Accordingly, no West Virginia Division of Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, additional costs to State, local, or tribal Environmental Protection: 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare governments, or to the private sector, (i) Incorporation by reference. a regulatory flexibility analysis result from this action. EPA has also (A) Letter of September 9, 1994 from assessing the impact of any proposed or determined that this final action does the West Virginia Division of final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 not include a mandate that may result Environmental Quality transmitting the and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify in estimated costs of $100 million or ozone maintenance plan for Greenbrier that the rule will not have a significant more to State, local, or tribal County. 39862 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations (B) The ten year ozone maintenance § 52.2531 1990 base year emission PART 81Ð[AMENDED] plan including emission projections and inventory. contingency measures for Greenbrier EPA approves as a revision to the 3. The authority citation for part 81 County, West Virginia effective on West Virginia State Implementation continues to read as follows: September 1, 1994. Plan the 1990 base year emission inventories for the Greenbrier county Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671. (ii) Additional Material. ozone nonattainment area submitted by Subpart CÐSection 107 Attainment (A) Remainder of September 9, 1994 the Secretary, West Virginia Department Status Designations State submittal pertaining to the of Commerce, Labor & Environmental maintenance plan referenced in Resources on December 22, 1992. These 4. In § 81.349 the ozone table is submittals consist of the 1990 base year paragraph (c)(36)(i) of this section. amended by revising the entry for point, area, non-road mobile, biogenic (B) [Reserved] Greenbrier County to read as follows: and on-road mobile source emission 3. Section 52.2531 is added to read as inventories in Greenbrier County for the § 81.349 West Virginia. follows: following pollutants: Volatile organic * * * * * compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), and oxides of nitrogen (NOX). WEST VIRGINIA.ÐOZONE Designation Classification Designated area Date 1 Type Date Type ******* Greenbrier Area: Greenbrier County ...... September 18, 1995 ...... Unclassifiable/Attainment ...... ******* 1 This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted. [FR Doc. 95–19274 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] following location: U.S. Environmental On June 6, 1995, EPA proposed BILLING CODE 6560±50±P Protection Agency, Region IX, Air & interim approval of the operating Toxics Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, permits program for the Sacramento San Francisco, CA 94105. Metropolitan Air Quality Management 40 CFR Part 70 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed District. See 60 FR 29809. The Federal [AD±FRL±5270±3] Pike (telephone 415/744–1248), Mail Register document also proposed Code A–5–2, U.S. Environmental approval of the District’s interim Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of Protection Agency, Region IX, Air & mechanism for implementing section the Operating Permits Program for the Toxics Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, 112(g) and program for delegation of Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality San Francisco, CA 94105. section 112 standards as promulgated. Management District EPA did not receive any comments on SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the proposal. In this notice, EPA is AGENCY: Environmental Protection I. Background and Purpose promulgating interim approval of the Agency (EPA). District’s operating permits program and ACTION: Final rule. Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act approving the section 112(g) and section Amendments (sections 501–507 of the 112(l) mechanisms. SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating Clean Air Act (Act)), and implementing interim approval of the title V operating regulations at 40 Code of Federal II. Final Action and Implications permits program submitted by the Regulations (CFR) part 70, require that A. Title V Operating Permits Program Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality states develop and submit operating Management District (District) for the permits programs to EPA by November The EPA is promulgating interim purpose of complying with federal 15, 1993, and that EPA act to approve approval of Sacramento’s title V requirements that mandate that states or disapprove each program within 1 operating permits program as submitted develop, and submit to EPA, programs year after receiving the submittal. The on August 1, 1994. The District’s for issuing operating permits to all EPA’s program review occurs pursuant program substantially, but not fully, major stationary sources and to certain to section 502 of the Act and the part meets the requirements of part 70 and other sources. In addition, today’s 70 regulations, which together outline meets the interim approval action grants final approval to the criteria for approval or disapproval. requirements under 40 CFR 70.4. The District’s mechanism for receiving Where a program substantially, but not program revisions necessary for full delegation of section 112 standards as fully, meets the requirements of part 70, approval are unchanged from the promulgated. EPA may grant the program interim proposal. See 60 FR 29809 (June 6, EFFECTIVE DATE: September 5, 1995. approval for a period of up to 2 years. 1995). ADDRESSES: Copies of the District’s If EPA has not fully approved a program The scope of this approval of the submittals and other supporting by 2 years after the November 15, 1993 District’s part 70 program applies to all information used in developing the final date, or by the end of an interim part 70 sources (as defined in the approvals are available for inspection program, it must establish and approved program) within Sacramento during normal business hours at the implement a federal program. County except any sources of air Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 39863 pollution over which an Indian tribe has apply after the expiration of the 18- unchanged from the federal standards as jurisdiction. See, e.g., 59 FR 55813, month period until the Administrator promulgated. This program for 55815–18 (Nov. 9, 1994). The term determines that the District has come delegations applies to both existing and ‘‘Indian tribe’’ is defined under the Act into compliance. In all cases, if, six future standards but is limited to as ‘‘any Indian tribe, band, nation, or months after EPA applies the first sources covered by the part 70 program. other organized group or community, sanction, the District has not submitted III. Administrative Requirements including any Alaska Native village, a revised program that EPA has which is federally recognized as eligible determined corrects the deficiencies, a A. Docket for the special programs and services second sanction is required. Copies of the Sacramento’s submittal provided by the United States to Indians In addition, discretionary sanctions and other information relied upon for because of their status as Indians.’’ See may be applied where warranted any the final interim approval, including the section 302(r) of the Act; see also 59 FR time after the expiration of an interim public comment letter received by EPA, 43956, 43962 (Aug. 25, 1994); 58 FR approval period if Sacramento has not are contained in the docket at the EPA 54364 (Oct. 21, 1993). submitted a timely and complete Regional Office. The docket is an This interim approval, which may not corrective program or EPA has organized and complete file of all the be renewed, extends until September 4, disapproved its submitted corrective information submitted to, or otherwise 1997. During this interim approval program. Moreover, if EPA has not considered by, EPA in the development period, the District is protected from granted full approval to the District of this final interim approval. The sanctions, and EPA is not obligated to program by the expiration of this docket is available for public inspection promulgate, administer and enforce a interim approval and that expiration at the location listed under the federal operating permits program in the occurs after November 15, 1995, EPA ADDRESSES section of this document. District. Permits issued under a program must promulgate, administer and with interim approval have full standing enforce a federal permits program for B. Executive Order 12866 with respect to part 70, and the 1-year the District upon interim approval The Office of Management and Budget time period for submittal of permit expiration. has exempted this action from review applications by subject sources begins B. County Preconstruction Permit under Executive Order 12866 review. upon the effective date of this interim Program Implementing Section 112(g) approval, as does the 3-year time period C. Regulatory Flexibility Act for processing the initial permit EPA is approving the use of The EPA’s action under section 502 of applications. Sacramento’s preconstruction review the Act does not create any new If Sacramento fails to submit a program found in the District’s requirements, but simply addresses complete corrective program for full preconstruction permitting program operating permit programs submitted to approval by March 4, 1997, EPA will (rule 202) and the District’s New Source satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR part start an 18-month clock for mandatory Review Guidelines for Toxics 70. Because these actions do not impose sanctions. If the District then fails to (Appendix B–6 of the submittal) as a any new requirements, they do not have submit a corrective program that EPA mechanism to implement section 112(g) a significant impact on a substantial finds complete before the expiration of during the transition period between number of small entities. that 18-month period, EPA will be promulgation of EPA’s section 112(g) required to apply one of the sanctions rule and the District’s adoption of rules D. Unfunded Mandates in section 179(b) of the Act, which will specifically designed to implement Under Section 202 of the Unfunded remain in effect until EPA determines section 112(g). This approval is limited Mandates Reform Act of 1995 that the District has corrected the to the implementation of the 112(g) rule (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed deficiency by submitting a complete and is effective only during any into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must corrective program. Moreover, if the transition time between the effective prepare a budgetary impact statement to Administrator finds a lack of good faith date of the 112(g) rule and the adoption accompany any proposed or final rule on the part of the District, both of specific rules by the District to that includes a federal mandate that sanctions under section 179(b) will implement 112(g). The final 112(g) rule may result in estimated costs to state, apply after the expiration of the 18- will determine the deadline for local, or tribal governments in the month period until the Administrator Sacramento to adopt a 112(g) rule. aggregate; or to the private sector, of determines that the District has come $100 million or more. Under Section C. Program for Delegation of Section 112 into compliance. In any case, if, six 205, EPA must select the most cost- Standards as Promulgated months after application of the first effective and least burdensome sanction, the District still has not Requirements for part 70 program alternative that achieves the objectives submitted a corrective program that EPA approval, specified in 40 CFR section of the rule and is consistent with has found complete, a second sanction 70.4(b), encompass section 112(l)(5) statutory requirements. Section 203 will be required. requirements for approval of a program requires EPA to establish a plan for If EPA disapproves Sacramento’s for delegation of section 112 standards informing and advising any small complete corrective program, EPA will as promulgated by EPA as they apply to governments that may be significantly be required to apply one of the section part 70 sources. Section 112(l)(5) or uniquely impacted by the rule. 179(b) sanctions on the date 18 months requires that the District’s program EPA has determined that the approval after the effective date of the contain adequate authorities, adequate action promulgated today does not disapproval, unless prior to that date the resources for implementation, and an include a federal mandate that may District has submitted a revised program expeditious compliance schedule, result in estimated costs of $100 million and EPA has determined that it which are also requirements under part or more to either state, local, or tribal corrected the deficiencies that prompted 70. Therefore, EPA is also promulgating governments in the aggregate, or to the the disapproval. Moreover, if the approval under section 112(l)(5) and 40 private sector. This federal action Administrator finds a lack of good faith CFR section 63.91 of the District’s approves pre-existing requirements on the part of the District, both program for receiving delegation of under state or local law, and imposes no sanctions under section 179(b) shall section 112 standards that are new federal requirements. Accordingly, 39864 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations no additional costs to state, local, or EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective Manufactured homes, Relocation tribal governments, or to the private September 5, 1995. assistance, Reporting and recordkeeping sector, result from this action. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: requirements. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70 Robert E. Lomax, Office of Acquisition For the reasons set forth in the and Property Management, ms 5512– preamble, and under this authority of 5 Environmental protection, MIB, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S.C. 301, 41 CFR Chapter 114 is Administrative practice and procedure, Washington, DC 20240, Phone: (202) removed as set forth below. Air pollution control, Hazardous 208–3337. substances, Intergovernmental relations, Dated: July 25, 1995. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These Operating permits, Reporting and Bonnie R. Cohen, property management regulations recordkeeping requirements. Assistant Secretary—Policy, Management govern the internal actions of the and Budget. Dated: July 21, 1995. Department of the Interior and its John Wise, bureaus. Inasmuch as the content of Part 114–1 [Removed] Acting Regional Administrator. these regulations is set forth in greater 1. Part 114–1 is removed. detail in the Department of the Interior’s Part 70, title 40 of the Code of Federal Part 114–3 [Removed] Regulations is amended as follows: internal Property Management Directives (IPMD), the Department has 2. Part 114–3 is removed. PART 70Ð[AMENDED] determined that it is no longer necessary Part 114–19 [Removed] to maintain these regulations in 41 CFR 1. The authority citation for part 70 Chapter 114. 3. Part 114–19 is removed. continues to read as follows: This rule was not subject to Office of Part 114–25 [Removed] Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. Management and Budget review under 4. Part 114–25 is removed. 2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended E.O. 12866. Because these procedures by adding paragraph (w) to the entry for govern only internal management Part 114–26 [Removed] California as follows: actions of the DOI, this document will not have a significant economic effect 5. Part 114–26 is removed. Appendix A to Part 70ÐApproval on a substantial number of small entities Part 114–27 [Removed] Status of State and Local Operating under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 6. Part 114–27 is removed. Permits Programs U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The DOI has further determined that Part 114–28 [Removed] * * * * * these regulations will not significantly 7. Part 114–28 is removed. (w) the Sacramento Metropolitan Air affect the environment. Quality Management District: (complete Part 114–30 [Removed] submittal received on August 1, 1994); An environmental impact statement is interim approval effective on September 5, not required under the National 8. Part 114–30 is removed. 1995; interim approval expires September 4, Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 1997. Because the Department, by removing Part 114–38 [Removed] * * * * * these regulations, is simply relying on 9. Part 114–38 is removed. [FR Doc. 95–19001 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] more comprehensive internal directives which are already in place, the Part 114–40 [Removed] BILLING CODE 6560±50±P Department for good cause, within the 10. Part 114–40 is removed. meaning of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), finds that Part 114–41 [Removed] notice and public comment on the rule DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR are not required. Finally, the DOI has 11. Part 114–41 is removed. determined that the rule has no Part 114–42 [Removed] 41 CFR Chapter 114 federalism implications affecting the relationship between the national 12. Part 114–42 is removed. RIN 1090±AA53 government and the states as outlined in Part 114–43 [Removed] Executive Order 12612. Internal Directives and Procedures 13. Part 114–43 is removed. Governing Property Management This rule does not contain Program information collection requirements Part 114–44 [Removed] which require approval by the office of 14. Part 114–44 is removed. AGENCY: Department of the Interior, Management and Budget under 44 Office of the Secretary. U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Part 114–45 [Removed] ACTION: Final rule. The primary author of this document 15. Part 114–45 is removed. is Robert E. Lomax, Chief, Division of SUMMARY: The Department of the Property Management, Office of Part 114–46 [Removed] Interior has amended the internal Acquisition and Property Management, 16. Part 114–46 is removed. directives and procedures governing its U.S. Department of the Interior. property management program. The Part 114–47 [Removed] List of Subjects in 41 CFR Chapter 114 Department of the Interior is now 17. Part 114–47 is removed. deleting text from the Code of Federal (Parts 114–1—114–60) Regulations. This text, which does not Administrative practice and Part 114–50 [Removed] affect the public, is being deleted procedure, Federal buildings and 18. Part 114–50 is removed. because it duplicates the test in other facilities, Government property internal directives. The intended effect management, Handicapped, Housing, Subpart 114–51.1 Appendix I is to eliminate duplicate regulations and Metals, Motor vehicles, Surplus [Removed] thereby simplify the regulatory Government property, Transportation, 19. Subpart 114–51.1 Appendix is structure. Grant programs, Loan programs, removed. Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 39865 Part 114–60 [Removed] The modified base flood elevations Environmental Consideration. No 20. Part 114–60 is removed. are not listed for each community in environmental impact assessment has this notice. However, this rule includes been prepared. [FR Doc. 95–19081 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] the address of the Chief Executive Regulatory Flexibility Act. The BILLING CODE 4310±RF±M Officer of the community where the Associate Director, Mitigation modified base flood elevation Directorate, certifies that this rule is determinations are available for exempt from the requirements of the FEDERAL EMERGENCY inspection. Regulatory Flexibility Act because MANAGEMENT AGENCY The modifications are made pursuant modified base flood elevations are to section 206 of the Flood Disaster 44 CFR Part 65 required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, Changes in Flood Elevation and are in accordance with the National and are required to maintain community Determinations Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. eligibility in the National Flood 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65. Insurance Program. No regulatory AGENCY: Federal Emergency For rating purposes, the currently flexibility analysis has been prepared. Management Agency, FEMA. effective community number is shown ACTION: Final rule. and must be used for all new policies Regulatory Classification. This final and renewals. rule is not a significant regulatory action SUMMARY: Modified base (1% annual The modified base flood elevations under the criteria of section 3(f) of chance) flood elevations are finalized are the basis for the floodplain Executive Order 12866 of September 30, for the communities listed below. These management measures that the 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, modified elevations will be used to community is required to either adopt 58 FR 51735. calculate flood insurance premium rates or to show evidence of being already in Executive Order 12612, Federalism. for new buildings and their contents. effect in order to qualify or to remain This rule involves no policies that have EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective dates for qualified for participation in the federalism implications under Executive these modified base flood elevations are National Flood Insurance Program. Order 12612, Federalism, dated October indicated on the following table and These modified elevations, together 26, 1987. revise the Flood Insurance Rate Map(s) with the floodplain management criteria Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice (FIRMs) in effect for each listed required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the community prior to this date. Reform. This rule meets the applicable minimum that are required. They standards of section 2(b)(2) of Executive ADDRESSES: The modified base flood should not be construed to mean that Order 12778. elevations for each community are the community must change any available for inspection at the office of existing ordinances that are more List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65 the Chief Executive Officer of each stringent in their floodplain community. The respective addresses management requirements. The Flood insurance, Floodplains, are listed in the following table. community may at any time enact Reporting and recordkeeping FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: stricter requirements of its own, or requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part Michael K. Buckley, P.E., Chief, Hazard pursuant to policies established by other 65 is amended as follows: Identification Branch, Mitigation Federal, state or regional entities. PART 65Ð[AMENDED] Directorate, 500 C Street SW., These modified elevations are used to Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2756. meet the floodplain management 1. The authority citation for part 65 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: requirements of the NFIP and are also The continues to read as follows: Federal Emergency Management Agency used to calculate the appropriate flood makes the final determinations listed insurance premium rates for new Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; below of modified base flood elevations buildings built after these elevations are Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, for each community listed. These made final, and for the contents in these 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, modified elevations have been buildings. 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. published in newspapers of local The changes in base flood elevations § 65.4 [Amended] circulation and ninety (90) days have are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4. elapsed since that publication. The National Environmental Policy Act. 2. The tables published under the Associate Director has resolved any This rule is categorically excluded from authority of § 65.4 are amended as appeals resulting from this notification. the requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, follows: Dates and name of news- State and county Location paper where notice was Chief executive officer of Effective date of Community published community modification No. Connecticut: Hartford Town of Berlin ...... February 6, 1995, Feb- The Honorable Robert J. January 30, 090022 D County (FEMA Dock- ruary 13, 1995, The Peters, Mayor of the 1995. et No. 7129). Herald. Town of Berlin, 240 Kensington Road, Ber- lin, Connecticut 06037. Connecticut: New Town of Madison ...... January 4, 1995, January Mr. Thomas Rylander, December 22, 090079 C Haven County (FEMA 11, 1995, Shoreline First Selectman for the 1994. Docket No. 7127). Times. Town of Madison, Eight Campus Drive, Madi- son, Connecticut 06443. 39866 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations Dates and name of news- State and county Location paper where notice was Chief executive officer of Effective date of Community published community modification No. Florida: Orange County Unicorporated Areas ...... January 18, 1995, January Ms. Jean Bennett, Orange January 11, 120179 F (FEMA Docket No. 25, 1995, Orlando Sen- County Administrator, 1995. 7127). tinel. P.O. Box 1393, Or- lando, Florida 32802± 1393. Georgia: Cobb County Unicorporated Areas ...... January 17, 1995, Decem- Mr. William J. Byrne, November 29, 130052 (FEMA Docket No. ber 6, 1994, December Chairman of the Board 1994. 7127). 13, 1994, Marietta Daily of Commissioners, 100 Journal. Cherokee Street, Suite 300, Marietta, Georgia 30090±9680. Georgia: Gwinnett Unincorporated Areas ...... January 10, 1995, January Mr. Wayne Hill, Chairman April 17, 1995 ... 130322 County (FEMA Dock- 17, 1995, Gwinnett Post of the Gwinnett County et No. 7127). Tribune. Board of Supervisors, 75 Langley Drive, Lawrenceville, Georgia 30245. Illinois: Unincorporated Cook County ...... September 2, 1994, Sep- Mr. Richard J. Phelan, August 26, 1994 170054 B Areas (FEMA Docket tember 9, 1994, The President of the Cook No. 7127). Chicago Tribune. County Board of Com- missioners, 118 North Clark Street, Suite 537, Chicago, Illinois 60602. Indiana: Vigo County Unicorporated Areas ...... December 30, 1994, Janu- Mr. John A. Scott, Presi- April 5, 1995 ..... 180263 (FEMA Docket No. ary 6, 1995, Tribune- dent of the Vigo County 7127). Star. Board of Commis- sioners, Vigo County Security Annex, 201 Cherry Street, Terre Haute, Indiana 47807. North Carolina: Gaston City of Gastonia ...... January 17, 1995 January The Honorable James B. January 10, 370100 D County (FEMA Dock- 24, 1995 The Gaston Garland, Mayor of the 1995. et No. 7127). Gazette. City of Gastonia, P.O. Box 1748, Gastonia, North Carolina 28053± 1748. North Carolina: Pitt City of Greenville ...... November 23, 1994, No- The Honorable Nancy M. March 1, 1995 .. 370191 B County (FEMA Coun- vember 30, 1994, Daily Jenkins, Mayor of the ty No. 7123). Reflector. City of Greenville, P.O. Box 7207, Greenville, North Carolina 27835± 7207. Ohio: Miami County Unicorporated Areas ...... November 23, 1994, No- Mr. Richard Adams, Presi- May 16, 1995 .... 390398 B (FEMA Docket No. vember 30, 1994, Troy dent of the Miami Coun- 7123). Daily News. ty Commissioners, 201 West Main Street, Troy, Ohio 45373. Ohio: Franklin and City of Westerville ...... January 18, 1995, January Mr. David Lindimore, Man- April 25, 1995 ... 390179 F Delaware Counties 25, 1995, Westerville ager of the City of (FEMA Docket No. News and Public Opin- Westerville, 21 South 7127). ion. State Street, Westerville, Ohio 43081. Pennsylvania: Berks Borough of Wyomissing ... December 19, 1994, De- Mr. David Y. Bausher, December 12, 421375 A County (FEMA Dock- cember 26, 1994, Manager of the Borough 1994. et No. 7127). Times-Eagle. of Wyomissing, 22 Reading Boulevard, Wyomissing, Pennsylva- nia 19610±2083. South Carolina: Lexing- Unicorporated Areas ...... December 14, 1994, De- Mr. Bruce Rucker, Chair- December 7, 450129 ton County (FEMA cember 21, 1994, The man of the Lexington 1994. Docket No. 7127). State. County Council, 212 South Lake Drive, Lex- ington, South Carolina 29072. Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 39867 Dates and name of news- State and county Location paper where notice was Chief executive officer of Effective date of Community published community modification No. Tennessee: Shelby Unicorporated Areas ...... January 27, 1995, Feb- Mr. James Kelly, Shelby January 20, 470214 E County (FEMA Dock- ruary 3, 1995, Daily County Chief Adminis- 1995. et No. 7129). News. trative officer, 160 North Main Street, Suite 850, Memphis, Tennessee 38103. Wisconsin: La Crosse City of La Crosse ...... June 8, 1994, June 15, The Honorable Patrick June 2, 1994 ..... 555562 B County (FEMA Dock- 1994, La Crosse Trib- Zielke, Mayor of the City et No. 7104). une. of La Crosse, 400 La Crosse Street, La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. Directorate, 500 C Street, SW., environmental impact assessment has 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance’’) Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2756. been prepared. Dated: July 28, 1995. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Regulatory Flexibility Act Richard T. Moore, modified base flood elevations are not Associate Director for Mitigation. listed for each community in this The Associate Director, Mitigation [FR Doc. 95–19217 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] interim rule. However, the address of Directorate, certifies that this rule is BILLING CODE 6718±03±P the Chief Executive Officer of the exempt from the requirements of the community where the modified base Regulatory Flexibility Act because flood elevation determinations are modified base flood elevations are 44 CFR Part 65 available for inspection is provided. required by the Flood Disaster Any request for reconsideration must [Docket No. FEMA±7141] Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, be based upon knowledge of changed conditions, or upon new scientific or and are required to maintain community Changes in Flood Elevation eligibility in the National Flood Determinations technical data. The modifications are made pursuant Insurance Program. No regulatory AGENCY: Federal Emergency to section 201 of the Flood Disaster flexibility analysis has been prepared. Management Agency, FEMA. Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, Regulatory Classification ACTION: Interim rule. and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. This interim rule is not a significant SUMMARY: This interim rule lists 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65. regulatory action under the criteria of communities where modification of the For rating purposes, the currently section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of base (1% annual chance) flood effective community number is shown September 30, 1993, Regulatory elevations is appropriate because of new and must be used for all new policies Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. scientific or technical data. New flood and renewals. insurance premium rates will be The modified base flood elevations Executive Order 12612, Federalism calculated from the modified base flood are the basis for the floodplain elevations for new buildings and their management measures that the This rule involves no policies that contents. community is required to either adopt have federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, DATES: These modified base flood or to show evidence of being already in dated October 26, 1987. elevations are currently in effect on the effect in order to qualify or to remain dates listed in the table and revise the qualified for participation in the Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Flood Insurance Rate Map(s) (FIRMs) in National Flood Insurance Program. Reform effect prior to this determination for These modified elevations, together each listed community. with the floodplain management criteria This rule meets the applicable From the date of the second required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the standards of section 2(b)(2) of Executive publication of these changes in a minimum that are required. They Order 12778. should not be construed to mean that newspaper of local circulation, any List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65 person has ninety (90) days in which to the community must change any existing ordinances that are more request through the community that the Flood insurance, Floodplains, Associate Director reconsider the stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The Reporting and recordkeeping changes. The modified elevations may requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part be changed during the 90-day period. community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or 65 is amended as follows: ADDRESSES: The modified base flood pursuant to policies established by other PART 65Ð[AMENDED] elevations for each community are Federal, state or regional entities. available for inspection at the office of The changes in base flood elevations 1. The authority citation for part 65 the Chief Executive Officer of each are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4. community. The respective addresses continues to read as follows: are listed in the following table. National Environmental Policy Act Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: This rule is categorically excluded Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, Michael K. Buckley, P.E., Chief, Hazard from the requirements of 44 CFR Part 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, Identification Branch, Mitigation 10, Environmental Consideration. No 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. 39868 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations § 65.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 65.4 are amended as follows: Dates and name of State and county Location newspaper where no- Chief executive officer of community Effective date of Community tice was published modification No. Florida: Orange ...... Unincorporated June 23, 1995, June Mr. Ajit Lalchandani, P.E., Acting Di- May 22, 1995 ..... 120179 D Areas of Orange 30, 1995, The Or- rector, 4200 South John Young County. lando Sentinel. Parkway, Orlando, Florida 32839± 9205. Illinois: Lake and Village of Deerfield . April 20, 1995, April 27, The Honorable Bernard Forrest, 850 April 13, 1995 ..... 170361 Cook. 1995, Deerfield Re- Waukegan Road, Deerfield, Illinois view. 60015. North Carolina: Unincorporated March 28, 1995, April Mr. Robert V. Owens, Chairman of March 20, 1995 .. 375348 D Dare. Areas of Dare 4, 1995, The Coast- the Dare County Board of Commis- County. land Times. sioners, P.O. Box 1000, Manteo, North Carolina 27954. North Carolina: Unincorporated June 6, 1995, June 13, Mr. Robert V. Owens, Chairman of May 30, 1995 ..... 375348 D Dare. Areas. 1995, The Coastland the Dare County Board of Commis- Times. sioners, P.O. Box 1000, Manteo, North Carolina 27954. Pennsylvania: Berks Township of South May 31, 1995, June 7, Mr. J. Philip Preston, Chairman of the May 24, 1995 ..... 421107 B Heidelberg. 1995 , Reading Township of South Heidelberg Times-Eagle. Board of Supervisors, 68A North Galen Hall Road, Wernersville, Pennsylvania 19656. Tennessee: Sevier . City of Sevierville ... May 25, 1995, June 1, The Honorable Bryan Atchley, Mayor May 18, 1995 ..... 475444 1995, The Mountain of the City of Sevierville, P.O. Box Press. 5500, Sevierville, Tennessee 37864±5500. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. are available for inspection as indicated The Agency has developed criteria for 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) on the table below. floodplain management in floodprone Dated: July 28, 1995. ADDRESSES: The final base flood areas in accordance with 44 CFR part Richard T. Moore, elevations for each community are 60. Associate Director for Mitigation. available for inspection at the office of Interested lessees and owners of real [FR Doc. 95–19218 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] the Chief Executive Officer of each property are encouraged to review the BILLING CODE 6718±03±P community. The respective addresses proof Flood Insurance Study and Flood are listed in the table below. Insurance Rate Map available at the address cited below for each FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 44 CFR Part 67 community. Michael K. Buckley, P.E., Chief, Hazard The base flood elevations and Identification Branch, Mitigation Final Flood Elevation Determinations modified base flood elevations are made Directorate, 500 C Street, SW., final in the communities listed below. AGENCY: Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2756. Federal Emergency Elevations at selected locations in each Management Agency (FEMA). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The community are shown. ACTION: Final rule. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA or Agency) makes final National Environmental Policy Act SUMMARY: Base (1% annual chance) determinations listed below of base This rule is categorically excluded flood elevations and modified base flood elevations and modified base from the requirements of 44 CFR Part flood elevations are made final for the flood elevations for each community 10, Environmental Consideration. No communities listed below. The base listed. The proposed base flood environmental impact assessment has flood elevations and modified base elevations and proposed modified base been prepared. flood elevations are the basis for the flood elevations were published in floodplain management measures that newspapers of local circulation and an Regulatory Flexibility Act each community is required either to opportunity for the community or The Associate Director, Mitigation adopt or to show evidence of being individuals to appeal the proposed Directorate, certifies that this rule is already in effect in order to qualify or determinations to or through the exempt from the requirements of the remain qualified for participation in the community was provided for a period of Regulatory Flexibility Act because final National Flood Insurance Program ninety (90) days. The proposed base or modified base flood elevations are (NFIP). flood elevations and proposed modified required by the Flood Disaster EFFECTIVE DATES: The date of issuance of base flood elevations were also Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) published in the Federal Register. and are required to establish and showing base flood elevations and This final rule is issued in accordance maintain community eligibility in the modified base flood elevations for each with section 110 of the Flood Disaster National Flood Insurance Program. No community. This date may be obtained Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, regulatory flexibility analysis has been by contacting the office where the maps and 44 CFR part 67. prepared. Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 39869 Regulatory Classification #Depth in #Depth in feet above feet above This final rule is not a significant ground. ground. regulatory action under the criteria of Source of flooding and location * Elevation Source of flooding and location * Elevation section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of in feet in feet September 30, 1993, Regulatory (NGVD) (NGVD) Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. Approximately 300 feet up- Maps available for inspection Executive Order 12612, Federalism stream of confluence of at the Midland City Planning Ford Brook and Great Plain Department, City Hall, 333 This rule involves no policies that Brook ...... *30 West Ellsworth, Midland, have federalism implications under Approximately 300 feet up- Michigan. Executive Order 12612, Federalism, stream of the confluence of dated October 26, 1987. Goldmine Brook ...... *71 NEW JERSEY Maps available for inspection Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice at the Office of Planning and Cape May Point (Borough) Reform Zoning, 310 Norwich-New (FEMA Docket No. 7130) This rule meets the applicable London Turnpike, Atlantic Ocean: standards of section 2(b)(2) of Executive Uncasville, Connecticut. Approximately 100 feet south- Order 12778. west of the intersection of Illinois Harvard and Coral Avenues *12 Administrative practice and Approximately 300 feet south- procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting Elmhurst (City), DuPage west of the intersection of Har- and recordkeeping requirements. County (FEMA Docket No. vard and Coral Avenues ...... *15 Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is 7130) At the intersection of Pearl Av- enue and Cape Avenue ...... *10 amended as follows: Unnamed Ponding Area: Maps available for inspection PART 67Ð[AMENDED] Located north of Van Buren Street, south of Madison at the Cape May Point Mu- nicipal Building, Cape May 1. The authority citation for part 67 Street, east of Hillside Ave- nue, and west of Bryan Ave- Point, New Jersey. continues to read as follows: nue ...... *662 ÐÐÐ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Located north of Butterfield Delran (Township), Bur- Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, Road, south of Harrison lington County (FEMA 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, Street, east of Spring Ave- Docket No. 7128) 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. nue, and west of Saylor Av- enue ...... *661 Swedes Run: § 67.11 [Amended] Approximately 0.82 mile up- Maps available for inspection stream of Broad Street ...... *12 2. The tables published under the at the Public Works Depart- Approximately 850 feet up- authority of § 67.11 are amended as ment, Elmhurst City Hall, stream of Bridgeboro Road . *34 follows: 209 North York Street, Elm- hurst, Illinois. Maps available for Inspection at the Township Clerk Office, #Depth in 1050 Chester Avenue, Delran, feet above MICHIGAN ground. New Jersey. Source of flooding and location * Elevation in feet Midland (City), Bay and Mid- NEW YORK (NGVD) land Counties (FEMA Dock- et No. 7128) Connecticut Schroon (Town), Essex Chippewa River: County (FEMA Docket No. At corporate limits (approxi- 7128) East Lyme (Town), New Lon- mately 2.58 miles upstream Schroon Lake: Entire shoreline don County (FEMA Docket of the confluence with within community ...... *812 No. 7128) Tittabawasee River) ...... *617 Paradox Lake: Entire shoreline Latimer Brook: Approximately 1 mile up- within community ...... *824 Approximately .3 mile down- stream of corporate limits Schroon River: stream of Rock Fill Dam ..... *79 (approximately 3.53 miles Approximately 1,100 feet up- upstream of the confluence At confluence with Schroon stream of Chapman Drive ... *98 with Tittabawasee River) ..... 617 Lake ...... *812 At the upstream side of U.S. Inman Drain: Maps available for inspection Route 9 ...... *833 at the Office of Zoning En- At Dublin Road ...... *616 Paradox Creek: forcement, Town Hall, 108 Approximately 1,375 feet up- At confluence with Schroon Pennsylvania Avenue, stream of Dublin Road ...... *617 River ...... *823 Niantic, Connecticut. Sturgeon Creek: At downstream side of ÐÐÐ Approximately .4 mile up- Fraternaland Road ...... *846 Montville (Town), New Lon- stream of Cemetary En- trance Road ...... *616 Maps available for inspection don County (FEMA Docket at the Town Hall, South Approximately .5 mile up- No. 7128) Street, Schroon Lake, New stream of Cemetary En- Latimer Brook: York. trance Road ...... *616 Approximately 380 feet up- Tittabawassee River: ÐÐÐ stream of Beckwith Road .... *99 Wilmington (Town), Essex Approximately 280 feet down- At Dublin Road ...... *617 County (FEMA Docket No. stream of Silver Falls Road . *150 Approximately 1.2 miles up- 7128) Trading Cove Brook: stream of Dublin Road ...... *617 West Branch Ausable River: 39870 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations #Depth in #Depth in #Depth in feet above feet above feet above ground. ground. ground. Source of flooding and location * Elevation Source of flooding and location * Elevation Source of flooding and location * Elevation in feet in feet in feet (NGVD) (NGVD) (NGVD) Approximately 270 feet down- ÐÐÐ ÐÐÐ stream of downstream cor- Meigs County (Unincor- Brownsville (Township), Fay- porate limit ...... *805 porated Areas) (FEMA ette County (FEMA Docket At State Route 86 (upstream Docket No. 7124) No. 7128) crossing) ...... *1,075 Ohio River: Monongahela River: Maps available for inspection Approximately 5.0 river miles Approximately 1,500 feet at the Community Center, downstream of U.S. Route downstream of CONRAIL Springfield Road, Wilmington, 33 ...... *574 bridge ...... *773 New York. Approximately 4.5 river miles Approximately 0.43 mile up- upstream of Belleville Dam . *603 stream of CONRAIL bridge . *774 OHIO Maps available for inspection Dunlap Creek: at the Commissioners Office, Approximately 750 feet down- Florida (Village), Henry County Courthouse, Second Street, stream of CONRAIL bridge . *774 (FEMA Docket No. 7130) Pomeroy, Ohio. Approximately 1,870 feet Maumee River: downstream of CONRAIL Approximately 0.57 mile down- PENNSYLVANIA bridge ...... *775 stream of the Henry Street Redstone Creek: bridge ...... *663 Allenport (Borough), Wash- At the confluence with Approximately 1,700 feet up- ington County (FEMA Monongahela River ...... *773 stream of the Henry Street Docket No. 7128) Approximately 0.83 mile up- bridge ...... *665 Monongahela River: stream of CONRAIL bridge . *773 Maps available for inspection Approximately 0.4 mile down- Maps available for inspection at the Village of Florida Clerk's stream of Tributary 1 ...... *766 at the Tax Collector's Office, Office, East High Street, Approximately 2.3 miles up- Union Street, Brownsville, Route 2, Napoleon, Ohio. stream of confluence of Pennsylvania. Hooder Run ...... *768 ÐÐÐ ÐÐÐ Maps available for inspection Carroll (Township), Washing- Henry County (Unincor- at the Borough Building, Main ton County (FEMA Docket porated Areas) (FEMA Street, Allenport, Pennsylva- No. 7128) Docket No. 7130) nia. Maumee River: ÐÐÐ Monongahela River: Approximately 1.9 miles down- Belle Vernon (Borough), Fay- At downstream corporate lim- stream of the confluence of ette County (FEMA Docket its ...... *756 Big Creek ...... *650 No. 7128) Approximately 525 feet up- Approximately 2 miles up- stream of upstream cor- stream of County Road 2 Monongahela River: porate limits ...... *761 (Henry Street) ...... *667 Approximately 40 feet up- Pigeon Creek: stream of bridge (I±70) (at Maps available for inspection Approximately 0.9 mile down- downstream corporate limit) *764 stream of State Route 481 .. *756 at the Henry County Planning Approximately 0.88 mile up- At State Route 481 ...... *756 Office, 104 East Washington stream of bridge (I±70) (at Street, Hahn Center, Suite upstream corporate limit) .... *765 Maps available for inspection 301, Napoleon, Ohio. at the Township Hall, 130 Maps available for inspection Baird Street, Carroll, Penn- ÐÐÐ at the Borough Hall, 61 Samp- sylvania. Laurelville (Village), Hocking son Street, Belle Vernon, County (FEMA Docket No. Pennsylvania. ÐÐÐ 7124) ÐÐÐ Centerville (Borough), Wash- ington County (FEMA Laurel Run: Brownsville (Borough), Fay- Docket No. 7128) Approximately 960 feet down- ette County (FEMA Docket stream of downstream cor- No. 7128) Monongahela River: porate limits at the con- Monongahela River: Approximately 1.70 miles fluence with Salt Creek ...... *742 Approximately 0.38 mile down- downstream of confluence Approximately 50 feet up- stream of U.S. Route 40 of Two Mile Run ...... *775 stream of upstream cor- bridge ...... *774 Approximately 1.57 miles up- porate limits ...... *745 Approximately 1.09 miles up- stream of Maxwell Locks Salt Creek: stream of Brownsville bridge *775 and Dam ...... *781 Approximately 0.5 mile down- Dunlap Creek: Maps available for inspection stream of the confluence of At confluence with at the Borough Building, Route Laurel Run ...... *736 Monongahela River ...... *775 40, National Pike West, At the confluence of Laurel Approximately 0.85 mile up- Centerville, Pennsylvania. Run ...... *742 stream of Brownsville Ave- ÐÐÐ nue bridge ...... *775 Maps available for inspection Eulalia (Township), Potter Maps available for inspection at the Office of the Mayor, County (FEMA Docket No. at the Borough Hall, 2nd and Laurelville, Ohio. 7128) High Street, Brownsville, Pennsylvania. Allegheny River: Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 39871 #Depth in #Depth in ACTION: Final rule. feet above feet above SUMMARY: The Department of Energy Source of flooding and location ground. Source of flooding and location ground. * Elevation * Elevation (DOE) today issues a final rule to amend in feet in feet the Department of Energy Acquisition (NGVD) (NGVD) Regulation (DEAR) to add regulations Approximately 700 feet down- TENNESSEE regarding the acquisition of Federal stream of the Township of Information Processing Resources by Eulalia's downstream cor- Lauderdale County (Unincor- contracting. This rule implements porate limits ...... *1579 porated Areas) (FEMA pertinent parts of the Federal Approximately 0.4 mile up- Docket No. 7128) Information Resources Management stream of the Township of Cane Creek: Regulation (FIRMR) to prescribe internal Eulalia's upstream corporate At eastern corporate limits DOE policies relevant to the acquisition limits ...... *1632 with Town of Ripley ...... *333 of Federal Information Processing (FIP) Maps available for inspection At Illinois Central Gulf Railroad *335 resources. The rule is necessary to with the Ms. June Bunnell, Maps available for inspection establish policy regarding contracting Township Secretary, RD 3, at the Lauderdale County Ex- authority for heads of contracting Coudersport, Pennsylvania. ecutive's Office, County Court- activities and the responsibilities of the ÐÐÐ house, 100 Court Square, Rip- contracting officer to comply with the Marion Center (Borough), In- ley, Tennessee. delegated procurement authority diana County (FEMA Dock- provided by the General Services et No. 7120) WISCONSIN Administration. Further, the rule sets Unnamed Tributary to Pine Run: forth the Department’s policy Clintonville (City), Waupaca Approximately 1,300 feet County (FEMA Docket No. concerning contractor acquisition of FIP downstream of South Manor 7128) resources. Street (State Route 403) ..... *1,257 EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule will be Honey Creek: Approximately 1,240 feet up- effective September 5, 1995. stream of State Route 1025 *1,324 Just upstream of South Main Tributary to Unnamed Tributary Street ...... *812 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: to Pine Run: Just downstream of West 1st P. Devers Weaver, Office of Policy (HR– At the confluence with Street ...... *820 51), Office of Procurement and Unnamed Tributary to Pine Pigeon River: Assistance Management, U.S. Run ...... *1,271 Approximately 50 feet up- Department of Energy, 1000 stream of Klemp Road ...... *794 Approximately 0.6 mile up- Independence Avenue SW., Just upstream of Hemlock stream of confluence with Street ...... *808 Washington, D.C. 20585, telephone 202– Unnamed Tributary to Pine 586–8250. Run ...... *1,317 Maps available for inspection at the City Hall, 50 Tenth SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Maps available for inspection Street, Clintonville, Wisconsin. I. Background. at the Marion Center Milling A. Discussion ÐÐÐ Company, 101 South Manor, B. Section-by-Section Analysis Marion Center, Pennsylvania. Ephraim (Village), Door II. Public Comments. ÐÐÐ County (FEMA Docket No. III. Procedural Requirements. 7128) A. Regulatory Review Newell (Borough), Fayette B. Review Under Executive Order 12778 County (FEMA Docket No. Lake Michigan (Green Bay): En- C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 7128) tire shoreline within the com- munity ...... *585 Act Monongahela River: Maps available for inspection D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction At downstream corporate lim- at the Village of Ephraim Ad- Act its ...... *769 ministration Office, 10005 Nor- E. Review Under Executive Order 12612 At upstream corporate limits ... *771 way Road, Ephraim, Wiscon- F. National Environmental Policy Act Maps available for inspection sin. I. Background at the Newell Borough Build- ing, Second Street, Fayette (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. A. Discussion City, Pennsylvania. 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) The FIRMR, codified at 41 CFR Part ÐÐÐ Dated: July 28, 1995. 201, is the primary Governmentwide Stroud (Township), Monroe Richard T. Moore, regulation for the acquisition, County (FEMA Docket No. Associate Director for Mitigation. management, and use of FIP resources. 7128) [FR Doc. 95–19219 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] The FIRMR is prepared, issued and McMichaels Creek: BILLING CODE 6718±03±P maintained by the Administrator of the At downstream corporate lim- General Services Administration (GSA) its ...... *425 under the authority of the Federal At upstream corporate limits ... *458 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Property and Administrative Services Maps available for inspection Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. with Mr. W. J. Gtretkowski, 48 CFR Part 939 486). Subpart 201.39 of the FIRMR Chairman of the Township of prescribes the contracting policies and RIN 1991±AA81 Stroud, Monroe County, 1211 procedures to be followed by Federal North 5th Street, Stroudsburg, Acquisition Regulation; Acquisition of agencies in acquiring FIP resources. The Pennsylvania. Federal Information Processing policies and procedures set out in Resources by Contracting FIRMR 201–39 are unique to the acquisition of FIP resources, and are to AGENCY: Department of Energy. 39872 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations be used in conjunction with the general sections in the proposed rule have been information from the marketplace. This Federal contracting policies and deleted and which were retained. section is not included in the final rule. procedures of the Federal Acquisition In the notice of proposed rulemaking, B. Section-by-Section Analysis Regulation (FAR). Subpart 939.10 established the Part 39 of the FAR requires agencies The regulations at 48 CFR Part 9 are responsibilities of the procurement to follow the policies and procedures amended to add a new Part 939, request initiator and the contracting contained in the FAR when acquiring Acquisition of Federal Information officer regarding specifications for FIP resources, except in those areas Processing Resources by Contracting. security and privacy requirements where the FIRMR prescribes special This new part consists of 54 subparts. (Section 939.1001–70) and Federal policies, procedures, provisions, or Section 939.001 is added to prescribe standards (Section 939.1002–70) clauses (see FAR 39.001). In addition, the scope of Part 939. However, applicable to an acquisition for FIP FAR 39.002(b) includes FIRMR 201–39 language in the original notice of resources. Section 939.1003–70 as an appendix to the FAR as an aid to proposed rulemaking permitting addressed the requirements of Executive contracting officials when acquisitions contracting activities to establish local Order 12845, ‘‘Purchase of Energy are conducted under GSA’s exclusive procedures that may be needed to Efficient Computers by Federal procurement authority. further implement the requirements of Agencies.’’ The only coverage retained Section 201–3.301 of the FIRMR Part 939 is deleted. from the notice of proposed rulemaking permits agencies to issue regulations to Subpart 939.1 addresses general is the language of Section 939.1003–70 implement or supplement the FIRMR in matters concerning the FIRMR system. authorizing the Head of the Contracting their agency acquisition regulations, Section 939.101–3 of the notice of Activity to exempt requirements from where such regulations pertain solely to proposed rulemaking, which provided the requirements of the Executive Order. the acquisition of FIP resources by that the procurement request initiator Section 939.1701–470 of Subpart contracting. These amendments amend make the initial assessment of FIRMR 939.17, as set out in the notice of the DEAR to add a new Part 939, applicability to a particular acquisition, proposed rulemaking, provided Acquisition of Federal Information is removed from this final rule. guidance governing the period of Section 939.101–5 explains the Processing Resources by Contracting performance of contracts for FIP numbering system of Part 939. and implement pertinent parts of the services or support services. This Section 939.102, which explained the FIRMR to prescribe internal DOE section is removed in the final rule. existing relationship of the FAR, the policies and procedures relevant to the Section 939.4470 of Subpart 939.44 DEAR, and the FIRMR, is not included acquisition of FIP resources. The prescribes the policies governing in this final rule. contractor acquisitions of FIP resources. amendments now promulgated in this Section 939.104–1 provides policy on A new paragraph (c) has been added to final rule were previously published in the processing of deviations to the clarify situations where a management the Federal Register in a notice of FIRMR within DOE. Language in the and operating contractor may acquire proposed rulemaking on December 2, notice of proposed rulemaking that FIP resources for use by another 1993 (58 FR 63556). addressed the nature of the information contractor of DOE. Many of the proposed amendments to be included in a deviation request is contained in the notice of proposed not included in this final rule. II. Public Comments rulemaking concerned process or Section 939.106–3 addresses the DOE invited interested persons to procedural matters relating to the contracting authority of individual acquisition of FIP resources. Since the participate in this rulemaking by Heads of the Contracting Activity and submitting data, views or arguments publication of that notice of proposed the responsibilities of the contracting rulemaking, efforts began throughout with respect to the DEAR amendments officer. set forth in the notice of proposed the Administration to simplify The procedures for processing agency rulemaking. The public comment period regulations and streamline the procurement requests originally set out closed on January 31, 1994, a period of acquisition process. Accordingly, in the notice of proposed rulemaking in 60 days. During that public comment consistent with the intent of the Section 939.106–70 is not included in period, no comments were received by National Performance Review and the this final rule. DOE. Department of Energy’s own contract Subpart 939.2 provided definitions for reform initiative, the content of the words and terms used in Part 939. This III. Procedural Requirements proposed rule was reviewed subsequent section is being deleted from the final A. Regulatory Review to its publication on December 2, 1993 rule. to determine whether the rule contained Section 939.501–70 of the notice of Today’s regulatory action has been unnecessary or process-oriented proposed rulemaking is not being determined not to be a ‘‘significant requirements not suited for regulatory included in the final rule. That section regulatory action’’ under Executive coverage. As a result of that review, it permitted the contracting officer to issue Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and was determined that certain sections of a synopsis for a solicitation in advance Review,’’ (58 FR 51735, October 4, the proposed rule addressed matters of of receipt of procurement authority from 1993). Accordingly, today’s action was a purely procedural or process nature, GSA. not subject to review, under that and could appropriately be removed Section 939.602–270 of Subpart 939.6 Executive Order, by the Office of from the regulatory coverage without establishes review and approval Information and Regulatory Affairs of any degradation to the effectiveness of requirements for solicitations and the Office of Management and Budget the Department’s FIP resources contracts for, or using, outdated FIP (OMB). management and acquisition. The equipment. Department intends to include, where Section 939.670 permitted the B. Review Under Executive Order 12778 appropriate, this information in internal issuance of draft Statements of Work/ Section 2 of Executive Order 12778 guidance documents. Following is a specifications or draft solicitations, instructs each agency to adhere to section-by-section summary of the final prior to actual receipt of procurement certain requirements in promulgating rule which also indicates which authority to permit DOE to obtain new regulations and reviewing existing Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 39873 regulations. These requirements, set policy action. This rule will not affect Subparts 939.11 through 939.43 forth in sections 2(a) and 2(b), include states. [Reserved] eliminating drafting errors and needless F. National Environmental Policy Act Subpart 939.44 Subcontracting policies ambiguity, drafting the regulations to and procedures minimize litigation, providing clear and Pursuant to the Council on 939.4470 Contractor acquisitions of FIP certain legal standards for affected Environmental Quality Regulations (40 resources. conduct, and promoting simplification CFR 1500–1508), the Department has and burden reduction. Agencies are also Subparts 939.45 through 939.53 established guidelines for its [Reserved] instructed to make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: compliance with the provisions of the Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7254; 40 U.S.C. specifies clearly any preemptive effect, National Environmental Policy Act 486(c). effect on existing Federal law or (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq). Subpart 939.0 Scope of Part regulation, and retroactive effect; Pursuant to Subpart D of 10 CFR Part describes any administrative 1021, National Environmental Policy 939.001 Scope. Act Implementing Procedures, the proceedings to be available prior to This part sets forth the policies that judicial review and any provisions for Department of Energy has determined apply to the contracting for Federal the exhaustion of such administrative that this rule is categorically excluded Information Processing (FIP) resources proceedings; and defines key terms. from the need to prepare an by the Department of Energy (DOE). DOE certifies that today’s final rule environmental impact statement or meets the requirements of sections 2(a) environmental assessment. This rule Subpart 939.1 Federal Information and 2(b) of Executive Order 12778. delegates contracting authority under Resources Management Regulation C. Review Under the Regulatory categorical exclusion A6 of Subpart D. (FIRMR) System Flexibility Act List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 939 939.101±5 Arrangement of part. This final rule was reviewed under For consistency with the FIRMR and Government Procurement. the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, the FAR, part 939 is arranged in 54 Pub. L. 96–354, which requires Issued in Washington, D.C. on July 26, subparts. Within each subpart, sections preparation of a regulatory flexibility 1995. and subsections are numbered to analysis for any rule which is likely to Richard H. Hopf, correspond to like divisions of the have a significant economic impact on Deputy Assistant Secretary for Procurement FIRMR where the intent of the part 939 a substantial number of small entities. and Assistance Management. sections and subsections is to This rule will have no impact on implement the FIRMR. Where the interest rates, tax policies or liabilities, For the reasons set forth in the specific section or subsection is the cost of goods or services, or other preamble, 48 CFR Chapter 9 is amended intended to supplement the FIRMR, or direct economic factors. It will also not as set forth below: where specific FIRMR coverage does not have any indirect economic 1. A new Part 939, Acquisition of exist, the section or subsection number consequences, such as changed is assigned a number of 70 or above. construction rates. DOE certifies that Federal Information Processing this rule will not have a significant Resources by Contracting, consisting of 939.104±1 Deviations from the FIRMR. economic impact on a substantial Subparts 939.0 through 939.53, is added (a) Only the General Services number of small entities and, therefore, to read as follows: Administration (GSA) can authorize no regulatory flexibility analysis has class deviations and individual been prepared. PART 939ÐACQUISITION OF deviations from the FIRMR. Within FEDERAL INFORMATION DOE, contracting officers shall submit D. Review Under the Paperwork PROCESSING RESOURCES BY requests for deviations from the FIRMR Reduction Act CONTRACTING to the Headquarters Office of Clearance No new information collection or Subpart 939.0ÐScope of Part and Support for approval and recordkeeping requirements are subsequent processing with GSA. imposed by this rule. Accordingly, no Sec. (b) Approval Requirements. The Head OMB clearance is required under the 939.001 Scope. of the Contracting Activity (HCA), after Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 Subpart 939.1 Federal Information coordination with local counsel, shall U.S.C. 3501, et seq.). Resources Management Regulation concur in requests for deviations prior E. Review Under Executive Order 12612 (FIRMR) System to submission to the Office of Clearance 939.101–5 Arrangement of part. and Support. The Procurement Executive Order 12612, entitled Executive shall approve all requests for ‘‘Federalism,’’ 52 FR 41685 (October 30, 939.104–1 Deviations from the FIRMR. 939.106–3 Contracting authority and deviations prior to submission of the 1987), requires that regulations, rules, request to GSA. legislation, and any other policy actions responsibilities. be reviewed for any substantial direct Subparts 939.2 through 939.54 [Reserved] 939.106±3 Contracting authority and effects on states, on the relationship responsibilities. Subpart 939.6 Competition Requirements between the Federal government and (a) In instances where a specific the states, or in the distribution of 939.602–270 Outdated FIP equipment. acquisition delegation of procurement power and responsibilities among Subparts 939.7 through 939.9 [Reserved] authority is not required under (FIRMR) various levels of government. If there 41 CFR 201–20.305–3, Specific are sufficient substantial direct effects, Subpart 939.10 Specifications, Standards, Acquisition Delegations, each HCA may then the Executive Order requires and Other Purchase Descriptions acquire FIP resources up to 50 percent preparation of a federalism assessment 939.1003–70 Purchase of Energy Efficient of the regulatory delegation thresholds to be used in all decisions involved in Computers (Energy Star) prescribed in (FIRMR) 41 CFR 201– promulgating and implementing a 20.305–1, Regulatory Delegations, 39874 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations unless different thresholds have been peripheral equipment, issued after ACTION: Final rule; suspension of established either in the HCA’s October 21, 1993, are required to effectiveness. delegation of contracting authority, or in include a requirement that equipment a specific agency delegation from GSA meet the ‘‘Energy Star’’ standard, unless SUMMARY: The Commission is under (FIRMR) 41 CFR201–20.305–2, an exemption has been provided by the suspending the effectiveness of its Specific Agency Delegations of Head of the Contracting Activity as recent revisions to the receipt Procurement Authority (DPA); or, in authorized under section 1(a) of provisions of its Single State Insurance internal DOE guidance documents. Executive Order 12845. Registration regulations. The (b) The contracting officer is Commission is acting in response to a Subparts 939.11 through 939.43 petition by state interests. The responsible for ensuring compliance [Reserved] with all terms, conditions, and suspension will maintain the status quo limitations imposed on DOE under a Subpart 939.44 Subcontracting Policies while interested parties consider specific acquisition Delegation of and Procedures alternatives to the existing registration system. Procurement Authority (DPA). 939.4470 Contractor acquisitions of FIP (c) The contracting officer shall not resources. EFFECTIVE DATES: Effective August 4, award a contract, or a modification to an (a) Management and operating (M&O) 1995, § 1023.5, as revised at 60 FR existing contract, when the value of the contracts. Except as provided in 30011, June 7, 1995, is suspended from FIP resources portion of the award, paragraph (c) of this section, M&O August 4, 1995, until January 1, 1997. including the value of any options, Section 1023.5 is reinstated effective exceeds DOE’s delegated FIP contractors and their subcontractors shall not be used to acquire FIP August 4, 1995, through December 31, procurement authority redelegated to 1996. the HCA by the DSO. Where the resources unrelated to the mission of the M&O contract either for sole use by DOE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: anticipated award value of the FIP Kenneth H. Schwartz, (202) 927–5299 or resources portion of the contract, or employees or employees of other DOE contractors, or for use by other Federal Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 927–5660. modification to the contract, exceeds [TDD for the hearing impaired: (202) DOE’s delegated procurement authority, agencies or their contractors. (b) Other than M&O contracts. Where 927–5721.] DOE shall obtain a revised delegation from GSA prior to award. Where the it has been determined that a contractor SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a anticipated award value of the FIP (other than an M&O contractor or its decision in Single State Insurance resources portion of the contract, or subcontractor) will acquire FIP Registration, 9 I.C.C.2d 610 (1993), modification to the contract, exceeds the resources either for sole use by DOE notice published at 58 FR 28932 on May HCA’s redelegated procurement employees or for the furnishing of the 18, 1993, the Commission adopted final authority for that acquisition, the FIP resources as government-furnished regulations that replaced a multi-state contracting officer shall have the property under another contract, DOE motor vehicle and operating authority redelegation revised, in accordance with will obtain any needed procurement registration system with a simplified, internal DOE guidance documents, prior authority from GSA prior to having the single-state, insurance-based registration to award. contractor acquire the FIP resources. system. The Commission acted pursuant (c) Consolidated contractor to Congressional revisions to 49 U.S.C. Subpart 939.2 through 939.5 [Reserved] acquisitions. When common FIP 11506—Registration of Motor Carriers resource requirements in support of by a State. On judicial review, in Nat’l Subpart 939.6 Competition DOE programs have been identified and Ass’n of Regulatory Util. Comm’rs v. Requirements it is anticipated that the consolidation of ICC, 41 F.3d 721 (D.C. Cir. 1994), the 939.602±270 Outdated FIP equipment. such requirements will promote cost or court found that the Commission had Solicitations and contracts for, or other efficiencies, the Designated Senior improperly balanced conflicting policy using, outdated FIP equipment shall be Official for Information Management goals in adopting regulations giving submitted to the Office of Clearance and may authorize an M&O contractor to motor carriers the authority to copy the Support for review and approval. The acquire FIP resources for use by the registration receipts required by law to Office of Information Management shall following: be kept in each motor vehicle. The court review these documents and make the (1) One or more other contractor(s) remanded the matter to the Commission decision whether to allow the performing on-site at the same DOE- for further consideration. acquisition or use of outdated FIP owned or -leased facility as the M&O Upon consideration of the court’s equipment. contractor, or opinion and the comments filed by (2) Other M&O contractors. interested parties, the Commission Subparts 939.7 through 939.9 [Reserved] Subparts 939.45 through 939.53 adopted final rules revising the receipt Subpart 939.10 Specifications, [Reserved] provisions of the regulations in a Standards, and Other Purchase [FR Doc. 95–19010 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] decision served June 6, 1995, and notice Descriptions BILLING CODE 6450±01±P published at 60 FR 30011 on June 7, 1995. Under the revised rules at 49 CFR 939.1003±70 Purchase of Energy Efficient 1023.5, states will issue official copies Computers (Energy Star). INTERSTATE COMMERCE of registration receipts, and motor Executive Order 12845, ‘‘Purchase of COMMISSION carriers will be required to maintain an Energy Efficient Computers by Federal official copy in each reported motor Agencies,’’ requires agencies to acquire 49 CFR Part 1023 vehicle. Motor carrier copying of microcomputers, including personal receipts will be prohibited. The new computers, monitors, and printers, that [Ex Parte No. MC±100 (Sub±No. 6)] rules took effect July 7, 1995, in order meet the ‘‘Energy Star’’ requirements Single State Insurance Registration to cover filings relating to the 1996 established by the Environmental registration year. Protection Agency for energy efficiency. AGENCY: Interstate Commerce By a petition filed July 11, 1995, the Solicitations for microcomputers and Commission. National Conference of State Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 39875 Transportation Specialists (NCSTS) has § 1023.5 Registration receipts. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE requested that the Commission (a) On compliance by a motor carrier postpone the effectiveness of its revised National Oceanic and Atmospheric with the annual or supplemental rules for one year. The American Administration registration requirements of § 1023.4, Trucking Associations and the American Insurance Association have the registration State must issue the 50 CFR Part 663 carrier a receipt reflecting that the filed letters supporting the petition. [Docket No. 941265±4365; I.D. 072595B] NCSTS indicates that it is working with carrier has filed the required proof of the motor carrier and insurance insurance and paid fees in accordance Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; industries and the U.S. Department of with the requirements of that section. Canary Rockfish and Lingcod Trip Transportation to create a new (1) The receipt must contain only Limits insurance program. information identifying the carrier and In order to maintain the status quo AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries specifying the States for which fees Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and while interested parties consider were paid. Supplemental receipts need alternatives to the existing registration Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), contain only information relating to Commerce. system, the Commission is granting the their underlying supplemental request. However, as the revised rules ACTION: Inseason adjustment; request for registrations. went into effect before the NCSTS filed comments. its petition, the Commission is (b) Receipts issued pursuant to a filing suspending, rather than postponing, the made during the annual registration SUMMARY: NMFS announces inseason effectiveness of the revised rules and period specified in § 1023.4(b)(2) must adjustments to the trip limits for canary reinstating the rules that previously be issued within 30 days. All other rockfish and establishes a small trip were in effect. receipts must be issued by the 30th day limit for trawl-caught lingcod smaller than 22 inches (56 cm) total length. Regulatory Flexibility Certification following the date of filing of a fully acceptable supplemental registration These actions are intended to enable the Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we application. All receipts shall expire at 1995 harvest guideline for canary rockfish to be achieved, and to provide conclude that our action in this midnight on the 31st day of December proceeding will not have a significant a reasonable tolerance for small lingcod. of the registration year for which they economic impact on a substantial were issued. DATES: Effective August 1, 1995, until number of small entities. No new the effective date of the 1996 annual regulatory requirements are imposed, (c) A carrier is permitted to operate its specifications and management directly or indirectly, on such entities. motor vehicles only in those measures for the Pacific coast We are continuing the effectiveness of participating States with respect to groundfish fishery, which will be rules that have been in place for 2 years which it has paid appropriate fees. published in the Federal Register. and suspending the effectiveness of (d) A motor carrier may make copies Comments will be accepted until recently revised rules found not likely of receipts to the extent necessary to August 15, 1995. to have a significant economic impact. comply with the provisions of ADDRESSES: Comments on these actions Thus, the economic impact on small paragraph (e) of this section. However, should be sent to Mr. William Stelle, Jr., entities, if any, is not likely to be it may not alter a receipt or a copy of Director, Northwest Region, National significant within the meaning of the Marine Fisheries Service, 7600 Sand Regulatory Flexibility Act. a receipt. (e) A motor carrier must maintain in Point Way NE., BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115–0070; or Ms. Hilda Environmental and Energy each of its motor vehicles a copy(ies) of Considerations Diaz-Soltero, Director, Southwest its receipt(s), indicating that it has filed We conclude that this action will not Region, National Marine Fisheries the required proof of insurance and paid Service, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite significantly affect either the quality of the required fees. the human environment or the 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802–4213. conservation of energy resources. (f) The driver of a motor vehicle must Information relevant to these actions has present a copy(ies) of a receipt(s) for been compiled in aggregate form and is List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1023 inspection by any authorized available for public review during Insurance, Motor carriers, Surety government personnel on reasonable business hours at the office of the bonds. demand. Director, Northwest Region, NMFS Accordingly, 49 CFR chapter X is (g) No registration State shall require (Regional Director). amended as set forth below. decals, stamps, cab cards, or any other FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: means of registering or identifying William L. Robinson 206–526–6140; or PART 1023ÐSTANDARDS FOR specific vehicles operated by a motor Rodney R. McInnis 310–980–4040. REGISTRATION WITH STATES carrier. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These actions are authorized by the Pacific 1. The authority citation for part 1023 Decided: July 31, 1995. continues to read as follows: Coast Groundfish Fishery Management By the Commission, Chairman Morgan, Plan, which governs the harvest of Authority: 49 U.S.C. 10321 and 11506; 5 Vice Chairman Owen, and Commissioners U.S.C. 553. groundfish in the U.S. exclusive Simmons and McDonald. economic zone off the coasts of 2. Section 1023.5, which was revised Vernon A. Williams, Washington, Oregon, and California. at 60 FR 30011 on June 7, 1995, is Secretary. On January 9, 1995, the 1995 Annual suspended from August 4, 1995, until [FR Doc. 95–19225 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] Specifications and Management January 1, 1997. BILLING CODE 7035±01±P Measures for Pacific Coast Groundfish 3. Section 1023.5 is reinstated from Fishery were published in the Federal August 4, 1995, until December 31, Register (60 FR 2331–2344). The 1996, to read as follows: management measures were amended 39876 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations on May 5, 1995 (60 FR 22303), and July than 22 inches (56 cm) be allowed in trawl-caught lingcod smaller than 22 19, 1995 (60 FR 37022). At its June 1995 each landing. This level is too small to inches (56 cm) total length may be taken meeting in Clackamas, OR, the Pacific encourage targeting on small juvenile and retained, possessed, or landed per Fishery Management Council (Council) fish, will provide for landing fish that vessel per fishing trip. Length considered the best available scientific otherwise would be discarded but measurement is explained at paragraph information, comments from its probably would not survive, and will IV.A.(6). advisory committees, and public provide a reasonable level of tolerance 3. Paragraphs IV.G.(1)(b)(i) and (ii) on testimony before recommending to the size limit restriction. (This trip lingcod weight conversion are revised as adjustments to the management limit does not apply to hook-and-line follows: measures for the groundfish fishery. caught lingcod, which are more likely to (i) Headed and gutted. The product Canary Rockfish. Canary rockfish is survive. Even at this low level, allowing recovery rate (PRR) for headed and one of more than 50 species in the retention of small lingcod with hook- gutted lingcod is 1.5. Therefore, the Sebastes complex of rockfish. Based and-line gear could encourage target cumulative trip limit for headed and upon the best available information fishing on them.) gutted lingcod is 13,333.3 lb (6,048 kg) through May 31, 1995, NMFS projected processed weight per vessel per month, the total annual catch of canary rockfish NMFS Actions which corresponds to 20,000 lb (9,072 to be only 435 mt in 1995, about half the NMFS announces the following kg) round weight. Within this 850–mt harvest guideline for the changes to the 1995 fishery cumulative trip limit, no more than 67 Vancouver and Columbia subareas. The specifications and management lb (30 kg) of trawl-caught lingcod that is rate of landings would need to almost measures for the limited entry fishery headed and gutted, and smaller than 18 double to enable the harvest guideline published at 60 FR 2331–2344, January inches (46 cm) (measured according to to be reached by the end of the year. The 9, 1995, as modified. All other paragraph G.(1)(a)), may be taken and Council heard testimony that canary provisions remain in effect. retained, possessed, or landed per vessel rockfish were hard to catch in some 1. In paragraphs IV.C.(2)(a)(i), (ii), and per fishing trip. (The State of areas, and that, therefore, the trip limit (iii) the measures dealing with canary Washington currently uses a PRR of should not be increased in case there is rockfish are revised as follows: 1.5.) a conservation problem. Other fishers (i) North of Cape Lookout. The (ii) Gutted, with the head on. The PRR reported that the current trip limit was cumulative trip limit for the Sebastes for lingcod that has only been too small, and the surplus catch was complex taken and retained north of eviscerated is 1.1. Therefore, the being discarded. The Council had no Cape Lookout is 35,000 lb (15,876 kg) cumulative trip limit for gutted lingcod new information to conclude that the per vessel per month. Within this is 18,182 lb (8,246 kg) processed weight harvest guideline for this species was cumulative trip limit for the Sebastes per vessel per month, which inappropriate. Noting that canary complex, no more than 18,000 lb (8,165 corresponds to 20,000 lb (9,072 kg) rockfish can have a patchy distribution kg) may be yellowtail rockfish taken and round weight. Within this cumulative and may be available to some gear types retained north of Cape Lookout, and no trip limit, no more than 91 lb (41 kg) of in some areas but not in others, the more than 9,000 lb (4,082 kg) may be trawl-caught lingcod smaller than 22 Council recommended increasing the canary rockfish. inches (56 cm) (measured according to monthly cumulative trip limit for canary (ii) Cape Lookout to Cape Mendocino. paragraph IV.A.(6)) that is gutted (with rockfish from 6,000 lb (2,722 kg) to The cumulative trip limit for the the head on) may be taken and retained, 9,000 lb (4,082 kg), so that the harvest Sebastes complex taken and retained possessed, or landed per vessel per guideline may be reached in 1995. (A between Cape Lookout and Cape fishing trip. cumulative monthly trip limit is the Mendocino is 50,000 lb (22,680 kg) per Classification maximum amount that may be taken vessel per month. Within this and retained, possessed, or landed per cumulative trip limit for the Sebastes The determination to take these vessel in a calendar month, without a complex, no more than 40,000 lb actions is based on the most recent data limit on the number of landings or (18,144 kg) may be yellowtail rockfish available. The aggregate data upon trips.) If landings fall short of the taken and retained between Cape which the determinations are based are increased trip limit, further analysis will Lookout and Cape Mendocino, and no available for public inspection at the be conducted to determine if this is more than 9,000 lb (4,082 kg) may be office of the Regional Director, related to markets, fishing gear, or canary rockfish. Northwest Region, (see ADDRESSES) resource availability. NMFS concurs (iii) South of Cape Mendocino. The during business hours. At its August with the Council’s recommendation to cumulative trip limit for the Sebastes and October 1994 meetings, the Council provide for full achievement of the complex taken and retained south of reviewed the analysis for, and harvest guideline, and to minimize trip Cape Mendocino is 100,000 lb (45,359 subsequently recommended, limit induced discards. No change is kg) per vessel per month. Within this designating trip and size limits made to the cumulative monthly trip cumulative trip limit for the Sebastes ‘‘routine’’ for canary rockfish, lingcod, limit for the Sebastes complex. complex, no more than 30,000 lb and several other species and species Lingcod. A 22–inch (56 cm) total (13,608 kg) may be bocaccio taken and groups. However the rulemaking length minimum size limit for lingcod retained south of Cape Mendocino, and procedures designating these actions was implemented coastwide for the first no more than 9,000 lb (4,082 kg) may be routine have not been completed. (A time in 1995 (60 FR 2343, January 9, canary rockfish. routine designation means that a 1995). At its June 1995 meeting, the 2. Paragraph IV.G.(1) on the lingcod particular management measure such as Council heard testimony from trawl limited entry fishery is revised as trip and size limits may be changed fishers that it was unreasonable to be follows: inseason after a single Council meeting.) found in violation if only a few fish in (1) Limited entry fishery. The In its discussions, the Council the catch were smaller than 22 inches. cumulative trip limit for lingcod is anticipated the potential need for rapid The Council agreed and recommended 20,000 lb (9,072 kg) per vessel per adjustments to trip and size limits that a small trip limit of 100 pounds (45 month. Within this cumulative trip during the season to keep landings kg) of trawl-caught sablefish smaller limit, no more than 100 lb (45 kg) of within the species’ harvest guideline, to Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 39877 minimize disruption of traditional 50 CFR Part 675 regulations implementing the FMP at 50 fishing and marketing patterns, and to CFR parts 620 and 675. protect juvenile fish. The public had the [Docket No. 950206041±5041±01; I.D. The 1995 bycatch allowance of Pacific opportunity to comment at those 073195B] halibut for the BSAI trawl rock sole/ meetings. There was an opportunity for flathead sole/‘‘other flatfish’’ fishery additional public comment and review Groundfish of the Bering Sea and category, which is defined at of supporting documents (catch Aleutian Islands Area; Rock Sole/ § 675.21(b)(1)(iii)(B)(2), was established projections) at the June 1995 Council Flathead Sole/``Other Flatfish'' Fishery meeting, during which these issues were as 690 metric tons by the final 1995 discussed further. Therefore, these AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries harvest specifications of groundfish (60 actions may be taken under the Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and FR 8479, February 14, 1995). abbreviated rulemaking procedures at Atmospheric Administration, The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS, section III.B.(3) of the appendix to 50 Commerce. has determined, in accordance with CFR part 663. ACTION: Closure. § 675.21(c)(1)(iii), that the 1995 bycatch The increase to the canary rockfish allowance of Pacific halibut apportioned SUMMARY: NMFS is closing the directed cumulative trip limit and the 100–lb trip to the trawl rock sole/flathead sole/ fishery for species in the rock sole/ limit for small lingcod both relax ‘‘other flatfish’’ fishery in the BSAI has flathead sole/‘‘other flatfish’’ fishery restrictions that currently are in effect, been caught. Therefore, NMFS is and both were contemplated at three category by vessels using trawl gear in prohibiting directed fishing for species Council meetings during which the the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands public had opportunity to comment. management area (BSAI). This action is in the rock sole/flathead sole/‘‘other Public comments were considered, and necessary to prevent exceeding the 1995 flatfish’’ fishery category by vessels are the basis for establishing the trip bycatch allowance of Pacific halibut using trawl gear in the BSAI. limit for small lingcod. NMFS therefore apportioned to the trawl rock sole/ Directed fishing standards for finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. flathead sole/‘‘other flatfish’’ fishery applicable gear types may be found in 553(b)(B) to waive the requirements for category in the BSAI. the regulations at § 675.20(h). publication of a general notice of EFFECTIVE DATE: 12 noon, Alaska local Classification proposed rulemaking. For the same time (A.l.t.), August 1, 1995, until 12 reasons, according to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), midnight, A.l.t., December 31, 1995. This action is taken under § 675.21 these actions are not subject to the 30- FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: and is exempt from review under E.O. day delayed effectiveness requirement Andrew N. Smoker, 907–586-7228. 12866. of the Administrative Procedure Act. This action is exempt from review SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. under E.O. 12866. groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone is managed by NMFS Dated: July 31, 1995. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. according to the Fishery Management Richard W. Surdi, Dated: July 28, 1995. Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Donald J. Leedy, Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area Conservation and Management, National Acting Director, Office of Fisheries (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Marine Fisheries Service. Conservation and Management, National Fishery Management Council under [FR Doc. 95–19172 Filed 7–31–95; 4:34 pm] Marine Fisheries Service. authority of the Magnuson Fishery BILLING CODE 3510±22±F [FR Doc. 95–19165 Filed 7–31–95; 3:07 pm] Conservation and Management Act. BILLING CODE 3510±22±F Fishing by U.S. vessels is governed by 39878 Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 60, No. 150 Friday, August 4, 1995 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER Persons interested in attending this single petition avoids the procedural contains notices to the public of the proposed meeting on this proposed rulemaking issues that arise when a petitioner issuance of rules and regulations. The should call or write the point of contact ‘‘checks the wrong box’’ and files the purpose of these notices is to give interested listed in the preceding section to wrong petition. A single petition also persons an opportunity to participate in the confirm attendance. provides a more flexible approach to rule making prior to the adoption of the final Sectional analyses of the proposed rules. complicated representation matters. amendments to Part 2421—Meaning of Many of the current rights and Terms As Used in This Subchapter and obligations that flow to parties while a FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS the proposed revisions of Part 2422— representation petition is being AUTHORITY Representation Proceedings are as processed are dependent upon the type follows: of petition that has been filed. The 5 CFR Parts 2421 and 2422 Part 2421 proposed regulations contain a substantive rule in section 2422.34 to Meaning of Terms as Used in This Section 2421.11—The definition of guide the parties’ conduct while the Subchapter; Representation ‘‘party’’ is clarified to incorporate the new petition is processed. Proceedings statutory definition of the term ‘‘person’’ (an individual, labor organization, Section 2422.2—This section provides AGENCY: Federal Labor Relations activity or agency). that, with one exception, the new Authority. Section 2421.18—The term petition may be filed by any individual, ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking ‘‘petitioner’’ is not defined in the labor organization, activity or agency, or with request for comments. current regulations. This section now combination of these. The one defines ‘‘petitioner.’’ exception, consistent with section SUMMARY: The Federal Labor Relations Section 2421.19—The term 7111(b) of the Statute, is that a petition Authority proposes to revise its ‘‘eligibility period’’ is not defined in the requesting an election to either elect or regulations regarding the meaning of current regulations. This section now decertify a labor organization and certain terms used in Subchapter C (Part defines ‘‘eligibility period’’ in requiring a showing of interest may be 2421) and representation proceedings connection with elections. filed only by an individual or a labor (Part 2422). These proposed revisions Section 2421.20—The term ‘‘election organization. A petition may be filed as will streamline the regulations and agreement’’ is not defined in the current to matters relating to majority status (if make the rules more flexible in regulations. This section now defines the activity or agency has a good faith addressing the representational ‘‘election agreement.’’ doubt, based on objective concerns of agencies, labor Section 2421.21—A new term, considerations, that a current organizations, and individuals. ‘‘affected by issues raised,’’ used recognized or certified labor DATES: Comments must be received on throughout the proposed regulations, is organization represents a majority of the or before September 18, 1995. defined in this section. The term has employees in an existing unit) or other ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver written been added to ensure that all matters relating to representation (e.g., comments to the Office of Case Control, appropriate entities are afforded the questions concerning whether a current Federal Labor Relations Authority, 607 opportunity to participate in a unit continues to be appropriate because 14th Street NW., Washington, DC. proceeding. of a substantial change in the character 20424–0001. Copies of all written Section 2421.22—The term and scope of the unit). Current pre-filing comments will be available for ‘‘determinative challenged ballots’’ is requirements applicable to UC petitions inspection and photocopying between 8 not defined in the current regulations. are eliminated. This section now defines a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Section 2422.3—The new petition is ‘‘determinative challenged ballots.’’ Friday, in Suite 415 at the above described in this section. This section address. Part 2422 also contains, in separate subsections, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Section 2422.1—In a significant requirements for: compliance with James H. Adams, Office of Case Control, proposed change, this section section 7111(e) of the Statute; (202) 482–6540. consolidates in one petition the seven submission of a showing of interest to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The separate petitions (RO, DR, RA, CU, AC, support a request for an election; and Federal Labor Relations Authority UC, DA) provided for in Part 2422 of the certification for a dues allotment. established a Task Force to study and current regulations. This single petition The parties will be required to name evaluate Part 2422 of its regulations— permits resolution of all issues that may in the petition the activity(ies), the regulations concerning be raised concerning the representation agency(ies), labor organizations and representation proceedings. To this end, of employees by labor organizations bargaining units affected by issues the Task Force conducted focus groups covered by the Statute and obtains the raised in the petition, as well as to state to solicit and consider customers’ views same type of results provided for by clearly and concisely the issues raised prior to proposing these revisions. An using the current petitions. All of the in the petition and the results the additional focus group meeting has been current petitions are incorporated into petitioner seeks. This section facilitates scheduled for August 29, 1995 at the this section. participation by all labor organizations, FLRA’s Headquarters, 607 14th St. Combining the current seven petitions agencies and activities that have an N.W., Washington, D.C. 20424, 2nd into a single petition simplifies the interest in the issues raised in the Floor Agenda Room, at 10:00 a.m. current multiple filing requirements. A petition. Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 39879 Section 2422.4—This section Regional Director decisions holding that concerning a contract as a bar to a consolidates service requirements and a showing of interest is adequate are petition seeking an election. applies to all documents unless the final and binding. Section 2422.13—This is a new regulations specifically provide Section 2422.10—This section section highlighting the importance of otherwise. The section includes 2 clarifies that Regional Director decisions discussions among the parties to narrow options concerning the service of holding that a showing of interest is and resolve issues raised in a supporting documentation. Under valid are final and binding decisions. representation matter and the role of Option 1, supporting documentation, Time limits for filing challenges to the personnel in the Regional Offices in with the exception of showings of validity of a showing of interest are no assisting parties in these discussions, interest, would be served on all affected longer tied to the 10-day posting period. both before and after the filing of a parties. Under Option 2, supporting Rather, challenges are timely if filed: (1) petition. Subsection (a) encourages all documentation, with the exception of prior to the close of a hearing; or (2) if parties to meet prior to the filing of a showings of interest, challenges to no hearing is held, prior to the approval petition to discuss and narrow the showings of interest, other challenges, of an election agreement or issuance of issues. If requested by all parties, and objections, would be served. a Decision and Order. Regional Office personnel also will Section 2422.5—This section Section 2422.11—Time limits for participate in these meetings. identifies the method for filing the new filing challenges to the status of a labor Subsection (b) allows a Regional petition, including where to file, the organization are no longer tied to the 10- Director to require all affected parties to number of copies to file, and the date of day posting period. Rather, status meet to attempt to narrow and resolve filing. The petitioner would have to file challenges are timely if filed: (1) prior issues after a petition has been filed. an original and 2 copies of the petition, to the close of a hearing; or (2) if no Section 2422.14—This section states rather than the current original and 4 hearing is held, prior to the approval of the consequences of a withdrawal or copies. an election agreement or issuance of a dismissal of a petition seeking an Section 2422.6—This is a new section Decision and Order. The section also election less than 60 days before the that ensures service of the petition on clearly states the current requirement expiration of a contract covering the all entities that may have an interest in that the only basis on which such a employees affected or anytime after the a proceeding. It provides that a Regional status challenge may be made is alleged expiration of the agreement. The section Director will notify interested parties non-compliance with 5 U.S.C. now applies to all contracts, not just identified in a petition and any other 7103(a)(4). those having a term of 3 years or less. interested parties known to the Regional Section 2422.12—This section lists This section makes no substantive Director. This section does not alter the the timeliness requirements for filing a changes in the current regulations petitioner’s service requirements petition seeking an election. There are concerning consequences of withdrawal contained in section 2422.4. no substantive changes in the election or dismissal of a petition seeking an Section 2422.7—Under this section, bar in subsection (a), the certification election less than 60 days before the as under current regulation, a Regional bar in subsection (b) or the bar rules in expiration of a collective bargaining Director will direct an activity or agency subsections (d) through (f). A new agreement (subsection (a)); or such to post a notice for 10 days advising subsection (c) has been added to track consequences when a petition seeking affected employees and interested case law concerning the filing of a an election is withdrawn by the parties about a petition. However, as petition during the time for agency head petitioner less than 3 days prior to a discussed in more detail in connection review under 5 U.S.C. 7114(c). See hearing, or after a Regional Director has with section 2422.8, the posting of the Kansas Army National Guard, Topeka, approved an election agreement or notice no longer will establish the time Kansas, 47 FLRA 937 (1993); Fort Bragg directed an election (subsection (b)). period for filing intervention requests, Association of Teachers and U.S. However, in a departure from current challenges to the showing of interest, or Department of the Army, Fort Bragg regulation, a new subsection (c) bars an other challenges to the proceeding. Schools, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, 44 incumbent from seeking an election in Section 2422.8—This section would FLRA 852 (1992); U.S. Department of a unit for which it has disclaimed significantly change the current Defense, Defense Contract Audit interest within the previous 6 months. requirements for requesting intervention Agency, Central Region and American Section 2422.15—This section and filing cross-petitions. Timeliness for Federation of Government Employees, requires all parties to furnish filing requests for intervention and Local 3529, 37 FLRA 1218 (1990). Also, information concerning issues raised in cross-petitions is no longer subject to a new subsection (h) has been added to a petition and to cooperate fully in an the 10-day posting period. Rather, the track case law concerning the investigation, subject to dismissal of a requests and filings are timely if filed requirements that a contract must meet petition or a request to intervene. either: (1) prior to the close of a hearing; to serve as a bar. See U.S. Department Section 2422.16—This section or (2) if no hearing is held, prior to the of the Interior, Redwood National Park, discusses election agreements and approval of an election agreement or Crescent City, California, 48 FLRA 666 elections directed by a Regional issuance of a Decision and Order. The (1993); U.S. Department of Health and Director. The section does not change section expands the criteria to qualify as Human Services, Social Security the existing requirement that parties an intervenor to allow all parties who Administration, 44 FLRA 230 (1992); will be provided an opportunity for a are affected by issues raised in the Florida (Air) National Guard, St. hearing on other than procedural petition to participate in a proceeding. Augustine, Florida, 43 FLRA 1475 matters before a Regional Director Similarly, activities and agencies may (1992); U.S. Department of Housing and directs an election. qualify as intervenors if they employ Urban Development, Newark Office, However, the section reflects a any employees affected by issues raised Newark, New Jersey, 37 FLRA 1122 significant change: after a hearing, if in a petition. (1990); Department of the Army, U.S. there are no questions regarding unit Section 2422.9—This section defines Army Concord District Recruiting appropriateness, a Regional Director the ‘‘adequacy of a showing of interest.’’ Command, Concord, New Hampshire, may issue a Direction of Election This term is not defined in the current 14 FLRA 73 (1984). These changes place without issuing a Decision and Order. regulations. The section clarifies that in one section all requirements Thus, elections may be conducted 39880 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules without delay when the parties agree challenged ballots and objections to an section also clarifies that a revocation of on, and a Regional Director approves, an election, and runoff and inconclusive a certification has no impact on any appropriate unit even though the parties elections. These sections make no rights and obligations that may exist are unable to agree on such matters as substantive changes in current practices under the Statute. the eligibility of employees that do not in these areas, except in one instance: Section 2422.33—This section affect the appropriateness of the unit. subsection (a) of section 2422.26 clarifies that relief which was or could Any party would be permitted to file provides that objections to an election have been obtained in a representation challenges to the eligibility of any must be filed and received by a Regional proceeding may not be obtained in an person voting in the election and/or file Director within 5 days after the tally of unfair labor practice proceeding. objections to the election. ballots has been furnished to the parties. Section 2422.34—This new Section 2422.17—This section, Current regulations measure the substantive rule sets out the obligations pertaining to a notice of hearing, timeliness of objections from the date of and rights of parties during the provides that parties must participate in service of the objections, which pendency of a representation petition. a prehearing conference scheduled by encompasses the date mailed. This Subsection (a) provides that during the Hearing Officer and must be change allows certifications following the pendency of any representation prepared to discuss, narrow and resolve elections to be issued more petition, parties must maintain existing the issues raised by the petition set forth expeditiously. recognitions and adhere to the terms in the notice of hearing. This section, in Section 2422.30—This section and conditions of existing collective conjunction with section 2422.13, clarifies in subsection (b), consistent bargaining agreements. These aspects of emphasizes the resolution of issues at with section 2422.16(c), that a Regional the section reflect existing case law the earliest stage possible during a Director will issue a notice of hearing requirements. E.g., U.S. Department of proceeding. when there is either a material issue of the Navy, Naval Air Engineering Center, Sections 2422.18–2422.20—These fact or reasonable cause to believe a Lakehurst, New Jersey, 3 FLRA 568 three sections set forth hearing question exists regarding unit (1980); Department of Energy, 2 FLRA procedures and rights of the parties at appropriateness. The section also 838 (1980). Subsection (a) also provides a hearing. clarifies in subsection (e) what that, during such pendency, parties Section 2422.21—This section offers constitutes ‘‘the record’’ in a must fulfill all other representational two options. Option 1 follows current representation proceeding. The section and bargaining responsibilities. In part, regulations. Option 2 would authorize a makes no substantive changes in the this aspect of subsection (a) reflects Hearing Officer to make current practices in these areas. The existing requirements. See, e.g., recommendations on the record on any section states that a Regional Director Department of the Interior, Bureau of issue. Other options exist, including will resolve matters in dispute and issue Reclamation, Yuma Projects Office, limiting the type of recommendations a Decision and Order when appropriate Yuma Arizona, 4 FLRC 486, 497 (1976) that may be made to certain matters, but does not list all potential actions a (during pendency of a representation such as credibility and eligibility issues. Regional Director may take. petition, if an agency ‘‘must make Following receipt of comments, Section 2422.31—Subsection (c) changes in otherwise negotiable consideration will be given to whether, includes two options for when the personnel policies and practices and if current regulations are changed, the Authority will grant an application for matters affecting working conditions, authority of Hearing Officers to make review of a Regional Director’s decision. then the agency must notify the recommendations should be more Option 1 retains the current grounds for incumbent union or unions of those limited than that proposed in Option 2. review with minor editorial changes. proposed changes and, upon request, Section 2422.22—This section Option 2 specifies that, in addition to negotiate on those matters * * *’’). addresses objections to the conduct of satisfying one or more of those grounds, However, subsection (a) would alter the hearing. a party seeking review must assert and existing law by permitting changes after Section 2422.23—This section establish that the Authority’s decision representational and collective clarifies and simplifies the procedure by will have a substantial impact on labor- bargaining responsibilities under the which elections are conducted or management relations law unless the Statute are satisfied. Additionally, supervised by a Regional Director. This Authority determines, in its discretion, subsection (a) departs from existing law section continues current practices with that extraordinary circumstances exist insofar as it would require parties to, two exceptions: subsection (e) provides to grant review. Following receipt of among other things, bargain over and that when the parties agree, the Regional comments, the Authority will adopt one execute a term agreement during the Director may allow an intervenor to of the options or a combination thereof. pendency of certain petitions. E.g., remove its name from the ballot even if Section 2422.32—This is a new Immigration and Naturalization Service, the request to withdraw is received after section that states when certifications 16 FLRA 80, 87 (1984) (agency did not the approval of an election agreement or and revocations may be issued. The violate the Statute by refusing to bargain the direction of an election; subsection section allows a Regional Director to over changes in negotiated promotion (f) adds that if an incumbent withdraws issue, as appropriate, revocations of plan during pendency of a question from a ballot to decertify the incumbent, recognitions or certifications, when an concerning representation because such any intervenor will be given time, as exclusive representative no longer bargaining ‘‘would necessarily have led established by a Regional Director, to represents an appropriate unit, such as to changes in conditions of employment proffer a thirty percent (30%) showing when a disclaimer is filed by an ** * which the [r]espondent was of interest in the unit. Subsection (g) incumbent or when there has been a required to maintain to the maximum describes whether an election will be substantial change in the character and extent possible’’). Subsection (b) permits held when the petitioner requests scope of a unit. The issuance of parties to take actions consistent with withdrawal. revocations will enable parties and the their position regarding the unit status Sections 2422.24–2422.29—These six Authority to better track the history of of individual employees, subject to sections discuss challenged ballots, the a bargaining unit and provide a challenge and review. For example, an tally of ballots, objections to the definitive declaration of the agency may refuse to process, under a election, the processing of determinative representational status of the unit. The negotiated grievance procedure, a Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 39881 grievance filed by an employee who it to vote in a representation election 2422.31 Application for review of a claims is outside a recognized under Part 2422 of this Subchapter. Regional Director Decision and Order. bargaining unit. This refusal to process 2422.32 Certifications and Revocations. is subject to challenge by the exclusive § 2421.20 Election agreement. 2422.33 Relief obtainable under Part 2423. Election agreement means an 2422.34 Rights and obligations during the representative of the relevant unit. pendency of representation proceedings. Subsection (b) is consistent with agreement under Part 2422 of this Authority: 5 U.S.C. 7134. existing case law requirements, which Subchapter signed by all the parties, recognize that, in situations such as and approved by the Regional Director, § 2422.1 Purposes of a petition. concerning the details and procedures these, a party acts at its peril in taking A petition may be filed for the of a representation election in an actions based on its position regarding following purposes: appropriate unit. an employee’s unit status. (a) Elections or Eligibility for dues List of Subjects in 5 CFR Parts 2421 and § 2421.21 Affected by issues raised. allotment. To request: 2422 The phrase affected by issues raised, (1) (i) An election to determine if employees in an appropriate unit wish Administrative practice and as used in Part 2422, should be construed broadly to include parties and to be represented for the purpose of procedure, Government employees, collective bargaining by an exclusive Labor-management relations. other labor organizations, agencies or activities, or bargaining units that have representative, and/or For the reasons set forth in the a connection to questions presented in (ii) A determination of eligibility for preamble, the Federal Labor Relations a proceeding. dues allotment in an appropriate unit Authority proposes to amend Part 2421 without an exclusive representative; or and revise Part 2422 of its regulations as § 2421.22 Determinative challenged (2) an election to determine if follows: ballots. employees in a unit no longer wish to Determinative challenged ballots are be represented for the purpose of PART 2421ÐMEANING OF TERMS AS challenges that are unresolved prior to collective bargaining by an exclusive USED IN THIS SUBCHAPTER the tally and sufficient in number after representative. Petitions under this 1. The authority citation for Part 2421 the tally to affect the results of the subsection must be accompanied by an continues to read as follows: election. appropriate showing of interest. 4. Part 2422 is revised to read as (b) Clarification or Amendment. To Authority: 5 U.S.C. 7134. follows: clarify, and/or amend: 2. Section 2421.11 is revised to read (1) A recognition or certification then as follows: PART 2422ÐREPRESENTATION in effect; and/or PROCEEDINGS (2) Any other matter relating to § 2421.11 Party. representation. Sec. Party means: 2422.1 Purposes of a petition. (c) Consolidation. To consolidate two (a) Any labor organization, employing 2422.2 Who may file a petition. or more units, with or without an agency or activity or individual 2422.3 Contents of a petition. election, in an agency and for which a (1) Filing a charge, petition, or 2422.4 Service requirements. labor organization is the exclusive request; 2422.5 Filing petitions. representative. (2) Named as 2422.6 Notification of filing. (i) A charged party in a charge, 2422.7 Posting notice of filing of a petition. § 2422.2 Who may file a petition. (ii) A respondent in a complaint, or 2422.8 Intervention and cross petitions. A representation petition may be filed (iii) An employing agency or activity 2422.9 Adequacy of showing of interest. by: an individual; a labor organization; 2422.10 Validity of showing of interest. two or more labor organizations acting or an incumbent labor organization in a 2422.11 Challenge to the status of a labor petition; organization. as a joint-petitioner; an individual (3) Whose intervention in a 2422.12 Timeliness of petitions seeking an acting on behalf of any employee(s); an proceeding has been permitted or election. activity or an agency; or a combination directed by the Authority; or 2422.13 Resolution of issues raised by a of the above, Provided, that petitions (4) Who participated as a party petition. requiring by a showing of interest may (i) In a matter that was decided by an 2422.14 Effect of withdrawal/dismissal. be filed only by an individual or a labor agency head under 5 U.S.C. 7117, or 2422.15 Duty to furnish information. organization. (ii) In a matter where the award of an 2422.16 Election agreements or directed elections. § 2422.3 Contents of a petition. arbitrator was issued; and 2422.17 Notice of Hearing. (b) The General Counsel, or the (a) What to file. A petition must be 2422.18 Hearing Procedures. filed on a form prescribed by the General Counsel’s designated 2422.19 Motions. representative, in appropriate 2422.20 Rights of parties at a hearing. Authority and contain the following proceedings. 2422.21 Duties and powers of the Hearing information: 3. Sections 2421.18 through 2421.22 Officer. (1) The name and mailing address for are added to read as follows: 2422.22 Objections to the conduct of the each activity or agency affected by hearing. issues raised in the petition, including § 2421.18 Petitioner. 2422.23 Election procedures. street number, city, state and zip code. Petitioner means the party filing a 2422.24 Challenged ballots. (2) The name, mailing address and petition under Part 2422 of this 2422.25 Tally of ballots. work telephone number of the contact 2422.26 Objections to the election. Subchapter. person for each activity or agency 2422.27 Determinative challenged ballots affected by issues raised in the petition. § 2421.19 Eligibility period. and objections. 2422.28 Runoff elections. (3) The name and mailing address for Eligibility period means the payroll 2422.29 Inconclusive elections. each labor organization affected by period during which an employee must 2422.30 Regional Director investigations, issues raised in the petition, including be in an employment status with an notices of hearings, actions and street number, city, state and zip code. activity or agency in order to be eligible Decisions and Orders. If a labor organization is affiliated with 39882 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules a national organization, the local (3) Include an alphabetical list of the by issues raised by the petition, or any designation and the national affiliation names constituting the showing of other interested party known to the should both be included. If a labor interest. Regional Director, that a petition has organization is an exclusive (d) Petition seeking dues allotment. been filed with the Regional Director. representative of any of the employees When there is no exclusive (b) Contents of the notification. The affected by issues raised in the petition, representative, a petition seeking notification will inform the labor the date of the recognition or certification for dues allotment shall be organization, agency or activity of: certification and the date any collective accompanied by a showing of (1) The name of the petitioner; bargaining agreement covering the unit membership in the petitioner of not less (2) The description of the unit or will expire or when the most recent than ten percent (10%) of the employees employees affected by issues raised in agreement did expire should be in the unit claimed to be appropriate. the petition; and, included, if known. An alphabetical list of names (3) A statement that all affected (4) The name, mailing address and constituting the showing of membership parties should advise the Regional work telephone number of the contact must be submitted. Director in writing of their interest in the issues raised in the petition. person for each labor organization § 2422.4 Service requirements. affected by issues raised in the petition. § 2422.7 Posting notice of filing of a (5) The name and mailing address for Option 1 petition. the petitioner, including street number, Unless otherwise specifically (a) Posting notice of petition. When city, state and zip code. If a labor provided, every petition, motion, brief, appropriate, the Regional Director, after organization petitioner is affiliated with request, challenge, written objection, or the filing of a representation petition, a national organization, the local application for review shall be served will direct the agency or activity to post designation and the national affiliation on all parties affected by issues raised copies of a notice to all employees in should both be included. in the filing. The service shall include places where notices are normally (6) A description of the unit(s) all documentation in support thereof, posted for the employees affected by affected by issues raised in the petition. with the exception of a showing of issues raised in the petition and/or in a The description should generally interest. The filer must submit a written manner by which notices are normally indicate the geographic locations and statement of service to the Regional distributed. the classifications of the employees Director. (b) Contents of notice. The notice included (or sought to be included) in, shall advise affected employees and and excluded (or sought to be excluded) Option 2 interested parties about the petition. from, the unit. Unless otherwise specifically (c) Duration of notice. The notice (7) The approximate number of provided, every petition, motion, brief, should be conspicuously posted for a employees in the unit(s) affected by request, challenge, written objection, or period of ten (10) days and not be issues raised in the petition. application for review shall be served altered, defaced, or covered by other (8) A clear and concise statement of on all parties affected by issues raised material. in the filing. The service shall include the issues raised by the petition and the § 2422.8 Intervention and cross-petitions. results the petitioner seeks. all documentation in support thereof, (a) Cross-petitions. A cross-petition is (9) A declaration by the person with the exception of a showing of interest, challenges to a showing of a petition seeking an election in a unit signing the petition, under the penalties which includes any employees in a unit of the Criminal Code (18 U.S.C. 1001), interest, and documentation supporting challenges and objections. The filer covered by a pending representation that the contents of the petition are true petition. Cross-petitions must be filed in and correct to the best of the person’s must submit a written statement of service to the Regional Director. accordance with this subpart. knowledge and belief. (b) Intervention requests and cross- (10) The signature, title, mailing § 2422.5 Filing petitions. petitions. A request to intervene and a address and telephone number of the (a) Where to file. Petitions must be cross-petition, accompanied by any person filing the petition. filed with the Regional Director for the necessary showing of interest, must be (b) Compliance with 5 U.S.C. 7111(e). region in which the unit or employee(s) submitted in writing and/or filed and A labor organization/petitioner affected by issues raised in the petition submitted to the Regional Director prior complies with 5 U.S.C. 7111(e) by are located. If the unit(s) or employees to a hearing, or to the Hearing Officer submitting to the agency or activity and are located in two or more regions of the after the hearing opens but before it to the Department of Labor a roster of Authority, the petitions must be filed closes. If no hearing is held, a request its officers and representatives, a copy with the Regional Director for the region to intervene and a cross-petition must of its constitution and bylaws, and a in which the headquarters of the agency be filed prior to action being taken statement of its objectives. By signing or activity is located. pursuant to § 2422.30. the petition form, the labor (b) Number of copies. An original and (c) Labor organization intervention organization/petitioner certifies that it two (2) copies of the petition and the requests. Except for incumbent has submitted these documents to the accompanying material must be filed intervenors, a labor organization seeking activity or agency and to the Department with the Regional Director. to intervene shall submit a statement of Labor. (c) Date of filing. A petition is filed that it has complied with 5 U.S.C. (c) Showing of interest supporting a when it is received by the appropriate 7111(e) and one of the following: representation petition. When filing a Regional Director. (1) A showing of interest of ten petition requiring a showing of interest, percent (10%) or more of the employees the petitioner must: § 2422.6 Notification of filing. in the unit covered by a petition seeking (1) So indicate on the petition form; (a) Notification to interested parties. an election, with an alphabetical list of (2) Submit with the petition a After a petition is filed, the Regional the names of the employees constituting showing of interest of not less than Director will notify any labor the showing of interest; or thirty percent (30%) of the employees in organization, agency or activity the (2) A current or recently expired the unit involved in the petition; and parties have indicated as being affected collective bargaining agreement Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 39883 covering any of the employees in the of interest must be supported with years or less from the date it became unit affected by issues raised in the evidence. effective, a petition seeking an election petition; or (e) Regional Director investigation and will be considered timely if filed not (3) Evidence that it is or was, prior to Decision and Order. The Regional more than one hundred and five (105) a reorganization, the recognized or Director will conduct such investigation and not less than sixty (60) days prior certified exclusive representative of any as deemed appropriate. The Regional to the expiration of the agreement. of the employees affected by issues Director’s determination that a showing (e) Contract bar where the contract is raised in the petition. of interest is valid is final and binding for three (3) years or more. Where a (d) Incumbent intervention. An and is not subject to collateral attack or collective bargaining agreement has incumbent exclusive representative, appeal to the Authority. If the Regional been signed and dated covering the without regard to the requirements of Director finds that the showing of claimed unit and has a term of three (3) paragraph (c) of this section, will be interest is not valid, the Regional years or more from the date it became considered an intervenor in any Director will issue a Decision and Order effective, a petition seeking an election representation proceeding raising issues dismissing the petition or denying the will be considered timely if filed not that affect employees the incumbent request to intervene. more than one hundred and five (105) represents, unless it serves the Regional days and not less than sixty (60) days Director with a written disclaimer of § 2422.11 Challenge to the status of a labor organization. prior to the expiration of the initial any representation interest in the three (3) year period, and any time after claimed unit. (a) Basis of challenge to labor the expiration of the initial three (3) (e) Agency or activity intervention. An organization status. The only basis on year period. which a challenge to the status of a agency or activity seeking to intervene (f) Unusual circumstances. A petition labor organization may be made is in any representation proceeding must seeking an election or a determination compliance with 5 U.S.C. 7103(a)(4). submit evidence that one or more relating to representation matters may employees of the agency or activity may (b) Format and time for filing a challenge. Any party filing a challenge be filed at any time when unusual be affected by issues raised in the circumstances exist that substantially petition. to the status of a labor organization involved in the processing of a petition affect the unit or majority § 2422.9 Adequacy of showing of interest. must do so in writing to the Regional representation. (a) Adequacy. Adequacy of a showing Director prior to a hearing, or to the (g) Premature extension. Where a of interest refers to the percentage of Hearing Officer after the hearing opens collective bargaining agreement with a employees in the unit involved as but before it closes. If no hearing is held, term of three (3) years or less has been required by §§ 2422.3 (c) and (d) and challenges must be filed prior to action extended and signed more than sixty 2422.8(c)(1). being taken pursuant to § 2422.30. (60) days before its expiration date, the (b) Regional Director investigation extension will not serve as a basis for and Decision and Order. The Regional § 2422.12 Timeliness of petitions seeking dismissal of a petition seeking an an election. Director will conduct such investigation election filed in accordance with this as deemed appropriate. A Regional (a) Election bar. Where there is no section. Director’s determination that the certified exclusive representative, a (h) Contract requirements. Collective showing of interest is adequate is final petition seeking an election will not be bargaining agreements, including and binding and not subject to collateral considered timely if filed within twelve agreements that go into effect under 5 attack at a representation hearing or on (12) months of a valid election involving U.S.C. 7114(c) and those that appeal to the Authority. If the Regional the same unit or a subdivision of the automatically renew without further Director determines that a showing of same unit. action by the parties, do not constitute interest is inadequate, the Regional (b) Certification bar. Where there is a a bar to a petition seeking an election Director will issue a Decision and Order certified exclusive representative of under this section unless a clear and dismissing the petition, or denying a employees, a petition seeking an unambiguous effective date, renewal request for intervention. election will not be considered timely if date where applicable, duration, and filed within twelve (12) months after the termination date are ascertainable from § 2422.10 Validity of showing of interest. certification of the exclusive the agreement and relevant (a) Validity. Validity questions are representative of the employees in an accompanying documentation. raised by challenges to a showing of appropriate unit. If a collective interest on grounds other than bargaining agreement is signed and § 2422.13 Resolution of issues raised by a petition. adequacy. dated covering the claimed unit, (b) Validity challenge. The Regional paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this (a) Meetings prior to filing a Director or any party may challenge the section apply. representation petition. All parties validity of a showing of interest. (c) Bar during 5 U.S.C. 7114(c) agency affected by the representation issues (c) When and where validity head review. A petition seeking an that may be raised in a petition are challenges may be filed. Party election will not be considered timely if encouraged to meet prior to the filing of challenges to the validity of a showing filed during the period of agency head the petition to discuss their interests of interest must be in writing and review under 5 U.S.C. 7114(c). This bar and narrow and resolve the issues. If submitted to the Regional Director prior expires upon either the passage of thirty requested by all parties a representative to a hearing, or to the Hearing Officer (30) days absent agency head action, or of the appropriate Regional Office will after the hearing opens but before it upon the date of any timely agency head participate in these meetings. closes. If no hearing is held, challenges action. (b) Meetings to narrow and resolve the to the validity of a showing of interest (d) Contract bar where the contract is issues after the petition is filed. After a must be filed prior to action being taken for three (3) years or less. Where a petition is filed, the Regional Director pursuant to § 2422.30. collective bargaining agreement has may require all affected parties to meet (d) Contents of validity challenges. been signed and dated covering the to narrow and resolve the issues raised Challenges to the validity of a showing claimed unit and has a term of three (3) in the petition. 39884 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules § 2422.14 Effect of withdrawal/dismissal. issues raised in the petition with a § 2422.18 Hearing procedures. (a) Withdrawal/dismissal less than current alphabetized list of employees (a) Purpose of a hearing. sixty (60) days before contract and job classifications included in and/ Representation hearings are considered expiration. When a petition seeking an or excluded from the existing or claimed investigatory and not adversarial. The election that has been timely filed is unit affected by issues raised in the purpose of the hearing is to develop a withdrawn by the petitioner or petition. full and complete record of relevant and dismissed by the Regional Director less (c) Cooperation. The failure to submit material facts. than sixty (60) days prior to the supporting information or to cooperate (b) Conduct of hearing. Hearings will expiration of an existing agreement fully in the investigation of the petition be open to the public unless otherwise between the incumbent exclusive or request to intervene may result in ordered by the Hearing Officer. There is representative and the activity or any dismissal. no burden of proof, with the exception time after the expiration of the of proceedings on objections to elections § 2422.16 Election agreements or directed as provided for in § 2422.27(b). Formal agreement, another petition seeking an elections. election will not be considered timely if rules of evidence do not apply. filed within a ninety (90) day period (a) Election agreements. Parties are (c) Hearing officer. Hearings will be from either: encouraged to enter into election conducted by a Hearing Officer (1) The date the withdrawal is agreements. appointed by the Regional Director. approved; or (b) Regional Director directed Another Hearing Officer may be (2) The date the petition is dismissed election. If the parties are unable to substituted for the presiding Hearing by the Regional Director when no agree on procedural matters, Officer at any time. application for review is filed with the specifically, the eligibility period, dates, (d) Transcript. An official reporter Authority; or hours, or locations of the election, the will make the official transcript of the (3) The date the Authority rules on an Regional Director will decide election hearing. Copies of the official transcript application for review. Other pending procedures and issue a Direction of an may be examined in the appropriate petitions that have been timely filed Election, without prejudice to the rights Regional Office during normal working under this Part will continue to be of a party to file objections to the hours. Requests by parties to purchase processed. procedural conduct of the election. copies of the official transcript should (b) Withdrawal less than three (3) (c) Opportunity for a hearing. Before be made to the official hearing reporter. days prior to a hearing or after approval directing an election, the Regional of an election agreement. A petitioner Director shall provide affected parties § 2422.19 Motions. who submits a withdrawal request for a an opportunity for a hearing on other (a) Purpose of a motion. Subsequent petition seeking an election that is than procedural matters and, thereafter to the issuance of a Notice of Hearing in received by the Regional Director will may: a representation proceeding, a party be barred from filing another petition (1) Issue a Decision and Order; or seeking a ruling, an order, or relief must seeking an election for the same unit or (2) If there are no questions regarding do so by filing or raising a motion any subdivision of the unit for six (6) the unit appropriateness, issue a stating the order or relief sought and the months from the date of the approval of Direction of Election without a Decision grounds therefor. Challenges and other the withdrawal by the Regional Director and Order. filings referenced in other sections of if such request is filed: (d) Challenges or objections to a this subpart may, in the discretion of the (1) Within three (3) days before a directed election. A Direction of Regional Director or Hearing Officer, be hearing is scheduled to be held; or Election issued under this section will treated as a motion. (2) After the approval by the Regional be issued without prejudice to the right (b) Prehearing motions. Prehearing Director of an election agreement or of a party to file a challenge to the motions must be filed in writing with direction of an election by the Regional eligibility of any person participating in the Regional Director. Any response Director under § 2422.16. the election and/or objections to the must be filed with the Regional Director (c) Withdrawal of incumbent prior to election. within five (5) days after service of the an election. When an election is not motion. The Regional Director may rule § 2422.17 Notice of hearing. held because the incumbent disclaims on the motion or refer the motion to the any representation interest in a unit, a (a) Purpose of notice of a hearing. The Hearing Officer. petition by the incumbent seeking an Regional Director may issue a notice of (c) Motions made at the hearing. (1) election involving the same unit or a hearing involving any issues raised in During the hearing, motions will be subdivision of the same unit will not be the petition. made to the Hearing Officer and may be considered timely if filed within six (6) (b) Contents. The notice of hearing oral on the record, unless otherwise months of cancellation of the election. will be served on all interested parties required in this subpart to be in writing. and will advise affected employees and Responses may be oral on the record or § 2422.15 Duty to furnish information. interested parties about the hearing. in writing, but, absent permission of the (a) Relevant information. After a (c) Prehearing conference. The Hearing Officer, must be provided petition is filed, all parties must, upon Hearing Officer will schedule a before the hearing closes. When request of the Regional Director, furnish prehearing conference, either by appropriate, the Hearing Officer will the Regional Director and serve all meeting or teleconference. All parties rule on motions made at the hearing or parties affected by issues raised in the must participate in a prehearing referred to the Hearing Officer by the petition with information concerning conference and be prepared to fully Regional Director. parties, issues, and agreements raised in discuss, narrow and resolve the issues (2) When a motion to intervene or affected by the petition. set forth in the notice of hearing. pursuant to § 2422.8 is made at the (b) Inclusions and exclusions. After a (d) No appeal of hearing hearing, the Hearing Officer will either petition seeking an election is filed, the determination. A Regional Director’s grant the motion, deny the motion, or Regional Director may direct the agency determination to issue a notice of conditionally allow participation in the or activity to furnish the Regional hearing is not appealable to the hearing pending the Regional Director’s Director and all parties affected by Authority. ruling on the motion. Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 39885 (d) Posthearing motions. Motions any action necessary to schedule, any representation interest in the unit. made after the hearing closes must be conduct, continue, control, and regulate When there is an intervenor, an election filed in writing with the Regional the hearing, including ruling on motions will be held if the intervening labor Director. Any response to a posthearing when appropriate. organization proffers a thirty percent motion must be filed with the Regional (30%) showing of interest within the Director within five (5) days after § 2422.22 Objections to the conduct of the time period established by the Regional hearing. service of the motion. Director. (a) Objections. Objections are oral or (g) Petitioner withdraws from ballot in § 2422.20 Rights of parties at a hearing. written complaints concerning the an election. When there is no (a) Rights. A party at a hearing will conduct of a hearing. intervening labor organization, an have the right: (b) Exceptions to rulings. There are election will not be held if the petitioner (1) To appear in person or by a automatic exceptions to all adverse provides the Regional Director with a representative; rulings. written request to withdraw the (2) To examine and cross-examine § 2422.23 Election procedures. petition. When there is an intervenor, an witnesses; and election will be held if the intervening (3) To introduce into the record (a) Regional Director conducts or labor organization proffers a thirty relevant evidence. supervises election. The election will percent (30%) showing of interest (b) Documentary evidence and either be conducted or supervised by within the time period established by stipulations. Parties must submit two (2) the Regional Director. the Regional Director. copies of documentary evidence to the (b) Notice of election. Prior to the (h) Observers. All parties are entitled Hearing Officer and a copy to all other election a notice of election, prepared to representation at the polling parties. Stipulations of fact between the by the Regional Director, will be posted location(s) by observers of their own parties may be introduced into by the activity in places where notices selection subject to the Regional evidence. to employees are customarily posted Director’s approval. (c) Oral argument. Parties will be and/or in a manner by which notices are (1) Parties desiring to name observers entitled to a reasonable period prior to normally distributed. The notice of must file in writing with the Regional the close of the hearing for oral election will contain the details and Director a request for specifically named argument. Presentation of a closing oral procedures of the election, including the observers at least fifteen (15) days prior argument does not preclude a party appropriate unit, the eligibility period, to an election. The Regional Director from filing a brief under paragraph (d) the date(s), hour(s) and location(s) of the may grant an extension of time for filing of this section. election, a sample ballot, and the effect a request for specifically named (d) Briefs. A party will be afforded an of the vote. observers for good cause where a party opportunity to file a brief with the (c) Sample ballot. The reproduction of requests such an extension or on the Regional Director. any document purporting to be a copy Regional Director’s own motion. The (1) An original and two (2) copies of of the official ballot that suggests either request must name and identify the a brief must be filed with the Regional directly or indirectly to employees that observers requested. Director within thirty (30) days from the the Authority endorses a particular (2) An agency or activity may not use close of the hearing. choice in the election may constitute as its observer: (2) A written request for an extension grounds for setting aside an election if (i) Supervisory or managerial of time to file a brief must be filed with objections are filed under § 2422.26. personnel; and received by the Regional Director (d) Secret ballot. All elections will be (ii) Employees eligible to vote in the no later than five (5) days before the by secret ballot. election; date the brief is due. (e) Intervenor withdrawal from ballot. (iii) Employees who have any official (3) No reply brief may be filed When two or more labor organizations connection with any of the labor without permission of the Regional are included as choices in an election, organizations involved; or Director. an intervening labor organization may, (iv) Non-employees of the Federal prior to the approval of an election government. § 2422.21 Duties and powers of the (3) A labor organization may not use Hearing Officer. agreement or before the direction of an election procedures, file a written as its observer: Option 1 request with the Regional Director to (i) Supervisory or managerial remove its name from the ballot. If the personnel; (a) Duty of the Hearing Officer. The (ii) Non-employees of the Federal request is not received prior to the Hearing Officer will receive evidence government; or and inquire fully into the relevant and approval of an election agreement or (iii) Employees on leave without pay material facts concerning the matters before the direction of an election, status who are working for the labor that are the subject of the hearing. unless the parties and the Regional organization involved. Director agree otherwise, the Option 2 (4) Objections to a request for specific intervening labor organization will observers must be filed with the (a) Duty of the Hearing Officer. The remain on the ballot. The Regional Regional Director stating the reasons in Hearing Officer will receive evidence, Director’s decision on the request is support within five (5) days after service inquire fully into the relevant and final and not subject to the filing of an of the request. material facts concerning the matters application for review to the Authority. (5) The Regional Director’s ruling on that are the subject of the hearing, and (f) Incumbent withdrawal from ballot requests for and objections to observers may make recommendations on the in an election to decertify an incumbent is final and binding and is not subject record to the Regional Director. representative. When there is no to the filing of an application for review (b) Powers of the Hearing Officer. intervening labor organization, an with the Authority. During the period a case is assigned to election to decertify an incumbent a Hearing Officer by the Regional exclusive representative will not be held § 2422.24 Challenged ballots. Director and prior to the close of the if the incumbent provides the Regional (a) Filing challenges. A party or the hearing, the Hearing Officer may take Director with a written disclaimer of Regional Director may, for good cause, 39886 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules challenge the eligibility of any person to and an unfair labor practice hearing. organizations and results in the votes participate in the election prior to the When appropriate, and in accordance being equally divided; or employee voting. with § 2422.33, objections and/or (4) When the Regional Director (b) Challenged ballot procedure. An determinative challenged ballots may be determines that there have been individual whose eligibility to vote is in consolidated with an unfair labor significant procedural irregularities. dispute will be given the opportunity to practice hearing. Such consolidated (b) Eligibility to vote in a rerun vote a challenged ballot. If the parties hearings will be conducted by an election. A current payroll period will and the Region are unable to resolve the Administrative Law Judge. Exceptions be used to determine eligibility to vote challenged ballot(s) prior to the tally of and related submissions must be filed in a rerun election. ballots, the unresolved challenged with the Authority and the Authority (c) Ballot. If the Regional Director ballots will be impounded and will issue a decision in accordance with determines that the election is preserved until a determination can be Part 2423 of this chapter, except for the inconclusive, the election will be rerun made, if necessary, by the Regional following: with all the choices that appeared on Director. (1) Sections 2423.18 and 2423.19(j) of the original ballot. this Subchapter concerning the burden (d) Number of reruns. There will be § 2422.25 Tally of ballots. of proof and settlement conferences are only one rerun of an inconclusive (a) Tallying the ballots. When the not applicable; election. If the rerun results in another election is concluded, the Regional (2) The Administrative Law Judge inconclusive election, the tally of ballots Director will tally the ballots. may not recommend remedial action to will indicate a majority of valid ballots (b) Service of the tally. When the tally be taken or notices to be posted as has not been cast for any choice and a is completed, the Regional Director will provided by § 2423.26(a) of this certification of results will be issued. If serve the tally of ballots to the parties Subchapter; and, necessary, a runoff may be held when in accordance with the election (3) References to ‘‘charge’’ and an original election is rerun. ‘‘complaint’’ in § 2423.26(b) of this agreement or direction of election. § 2422.30 Regional Director (c) Valid ballots cast. Representation chapter will be omitted. investigations, notices of hearings, actions, will be determined by the majority of (d) Regional Director Action. After and Decisions and Orders. investigation, the Regional Director will the valid ballots cast. (a) Regional Director investigation. take appropriate action consistent with The Regional Director will make such § 2422.26 Objections to the election. § 2422.30. investigation of the petition and any (a) Filing objections to the election. § 2422.28 Runoff elections. other matter as the Regional Director Objections to the procedural conduct of (a) When a runoff may be held. A deems necessary. the election or to conduct that may have (b) Regional Director notice of improperly affected the results of the runoff election is required in an election involving at least three (3) choices, one hearing. The Regional Director will election must be submitted to the issue a notice of hearing to inquire into Regional Director. Objections must be of which is ‘‘no union’’ or ‘‘neither,’’ when no choice receives a majority of any matter about which a material issue filed and received by the Regional of fact exists, and any time there is Director within five (5) days after the the valid ballots cast. However, a runoff may not be held until the Regional reasonable cause to believe a question tally of ballots has been furnished. Any Director has ruled on objections to the exists regarding unit appropriateness. objections must be timely regardless of election and determinative challenged (c) Regional Director action and whether the challenged ballots are ballots. Decision and Order. After investigation sufficient in number to affect the results (b) Eligibility. Employees who were and/or hearing, when a hearing has been of the election. The objections must be eligible to vote in the original election ordered, the Regional Director will supported by clear and concise reasons. and who are also eligible on the date of resolve the matter in dispute and, when An original and two (2) copies of the the runoff election may vote in the appropriate, issue a Decision and Order. objections must be received by the runoff election. (d) Appeal of Regional Director Regional Director. (c) Ballot. The ballot in the runoff Decision and Order. A party may file (b) Supporting evidence. The election will provide for a selection with the Authority an application for objecting party must file with the between the two choices receiving the review of a Regional Director Decision Regional Director evidence, including largest and second largest number of and Order. signed statements, documents and other votes in the election. (e) Contents of the Record. When no materials supporting the objections hearing has been conducted all material within ten (10) days after the objections § 2422.29 Inconclusive elections. submitted to and considered by the are filed. (a) What is an inconclusive election. Regional Director during the An inconclusive election is one where investigation becomes a part of the § 2422.27 Determinative challenged ballots challenged ballots are not sufficient to and objections. record. When a hearing has been affect the outcome of the election and conducted, the transcript and all (a) Investigation. The Regional one of the following occurs: material entered into evidence, Director will investigate objections and/ (1) The ballot provides for at least including any posthearing briefs, or determinative challenged ballots that three (3) choices, one of which is ‘‘no become a part of the record. are sufficient in number to affect the union’’ or ‘‘neither’’ and the votes are results of the election. equally divided; or § 2422.31 Application for review of a (b) Burden of proof. A party filing (2) The ballot provides for at least Regional Director Decision and Order. objections to the election bears the three (3) choices, the choice receiving (a) Filing an application for review. A burden of proof by a preponderance of the highest number of votes does not party must file an application for review the evidence concerning those receive a majority, and at least two other with the Authority within sixty (60) objections. However, no party bears the choices receive the next highest and days of the Regional Director’s Decision burden of proof on challenged ballots. same number of votes; or and Order. The sixty (60) day time limit (c) Consolidated hearing on objections (3) When a runoff ballot provides for provided for in 5 U.S.C. 7105(f) may not and/or determinative challenged ballots a choice between two labor be extended or waived. Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 39887 (b) Contents. An application for (3) Substantial impact on labor- § 2422.32 Certifications and revocations. review must be sufficient to enable the management relations law. In addition (a) Certifications. The Regional Authority to rule on the application to the requirements set forth in Director will issue an appropriate without recourse to the record. An subsection (d), a filing party must assert certification when: application must specify the matters and establish that the Authority’s (1) After an election, runoff, or rerun, and rulings to which exception(s) is decision will have a substantial impact (i) No objections are filed or taken, include a summary of evidence on labor-management relations law. challenged ballots are not relating to any issue raised in the Such impact may be found, but is not determinative, or application, and make specific reference limited to, situations where: (ii) Objections and determinative to page citations in the transcript if a (i) The Regional Director’s Decision is challenged ballots are decided and hearing was held. An application may likely to have a substantial impact in resolved; or not raise any issue or rely on any facts cases other than the one(s) directly (2) The Regional Director issues a not timely presented to the Hearing involved in the decision; or Decision and Order requiring a Officer or Regional Director. (ii) Review would resolve a question certification and the Decision and Order Option 1 of particular importance to the Federal becomes the action of the Authority sector labor-management relations under § 2422.31(h) or the Authority (c) Review. The Authority may grant program. otherwise directs the issuance of a an application for review only where it (4) Discretionary determination of certification. appears that compelling reasons exist Authority to review. Notwithstanding (c) Revocations. Without prejudice to therefor. Accordingly, an application for paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this any rights and obligations which may review may be granted only upon one or section, an application for review may exist under the Statute, the Regional more of the following grounds: be granted when, in the Authority’s Director will revoke a recognition or (1) The decision raises an issue for discretion, extraordinary circumstances certification, as appropriate, and which there is an absence of precedent exist for reviewing the Regional provide a written statement of reasons or the decision is based upon a clear Director’s Decision and Order. when: error in application of law or policy; (1) An incumbent exclusive (2) The decision is based on law or (d) Opposition. A party may file with representative files, during a policy which clearly warrants the Authority an opposition to an representation proceeding, a disclaimer reconsideration; application for review within ten (10) (3) The conduct of a hearing or a days after the party is served with the of any representational interest in the procedural ruling has resulted in application. A copy must be served on unit; or prejudicial error; the Regional Director and all other (2) Due to a substantial change in the (4) The Regional Director’s decision parties and a statement of service must character and scope of the unit, the unit regarding a substantial factual issue was be filed with the Authority. is no longer appropriate and an election clearly erroneous and prejudicially (e) Regional Director Decision and is not warranted. affected the rights of a party; Order becomes the Authority’s action. A § 2422.33 Relief obtainable under Part Decision and Order of a Regional 2423. Option 2 Director becomes the action of the Remedial relief that was or could have (c) Review. (1) Assertions required for Authority when: been obtained as a result of a motion, review. The Authority will grant an (1) No application for review is filed objection, or challenge filed or raised application for review when a party with the Authority within sixty (60) under this subpart, may not be the basis filing has specifically asserted and days after the date of the Regional for similar relief if filed or raised as an established that: Director’s Decision and Order; or unfair labor practice under Part 2423 of (i) Review of the decision is (2) A timely application for review is this Chapter, Provided, that related warranted on one or more of the filed with the Authority and the matters may be consolidated for hearing grounds set forth in paragraph (c)(2) of Authority does not undertake to grant as noted in § 2422.27(c) of this subpart. this section and, review of the Regional Director’s (ii) The Authority’s decision will have Decision and Order within sixty (60) § 2422.34 Rights and obligations during a substantial impact on labor- days of the filing of the application; or the pendency of representation management relations law, as set forth (3) The Authority denies an proceedings. in paragraph (c)(3) of this section. application for review of the Regional (2) Grounds warranting review. A (a) Existing recognitions, agreements, Director’s Decision and Order. filing party must assert and establish and obligations under the Statute. (f) Authority grant of review and stay. that review of a Regional Director’s During the pendency of any The Authority may rule on the issue(s) decision is warranted on one or more of representation proceeding, parties are the following grounds: in an application for review in its order obligated to maintain existing (i) The decision raises an issue for granting the application for review. recognitions, adhere to the terms and which there is an absence of precedence Neither filing nor granting an conditions of existing collective or the decision is based upon a clear application for review does not stay any bargaining agreements, and fulfill all error in application of law or policy; action ordered by the Regional Director other representational and bargaining (ii) The decision is based on law or unless specifically ordered by the responsibilities under the Statute. policy which clearly warrants Authority. (b) Unit status of individual reconsideration; (g) Briefs if review is granted. If the employees. Notwithstanding paragraph (iii) The conduct of a hearing or a Authority does not rule on the issue(s) (a) of this section and except as procedural ruling has resulted in in the application for review in its order otherwise prohibited by law, a party prejudicial error; granting review, the Authority may, in may take action based on its position (iv) The Regional Director’s decision its discretion, afford the parties an regarding the bargaining unit status of regarding a substantial factual issue was opportunity to file briefs. The briefs will individual employees, Provided, that its clearly erroneous and prejudicially be limited to the issue(s) referenced in actions may be challenged, reviewed, affected the rights of a party; the Authority’s order granting review. and remedied where appropriate. 39888 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules Dated: August 1, 1995. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: brought into the United States by Solly Thomas, Background individual travelers. Executive Director, Federal Labor Relations Historically, we have not required a Authority. The Plant Quarantine Act (7 U.S.C. phytosanitary certificate for imports of [FR Doc. 95–19214 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] 151 et seq.) and the Federal Plant Pest fresh produce because, given the Act (7 U.S.C. 150aa et seq.) authorize BILLING CODE 6267±01±P volume of produce entering the United the Animal and Plant Health Inspection States, we felt that we could provide Service (APHIS) to prohibit or restrict adequate protection for U.S. agriculture the importation into the United States of DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE by having well-trained United States any plants, roots, bulbs, seeds, or other Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection plant products, including fruits and personnel inspect all imported produce. Service vegetables, to prevent the introduction Port of entry inspection by our officers of plant pests into the United States. was, and continues to be, an important 7 CFR Part 319 ‘‘Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables’’ (7 safeguard to which all imported CFR 319.56 et seq.) contains restrictions [Docket No. 95±046±1] produce is subject. on the importation into the United Today, from the standpoint of Importation of Fruits and Vegetables; States of fruits, vegetables, and plants or quarantine control, the picture of Phytosanitary Certificates portions of plants used as packing produce importations is changing material in connection with shipments dramatically. The number of foreign AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health of fruits and vegetables. travelers continues to increase. The Inspection Service, USDA. A phytosanitary certificate is a amount of produce they bring with them ACTION: Advance notice of proposed document issued by a plant protection likewise continues to increase, and the rulemaking. official of a national government that is pest risk inherent in such importations issued to facilitate the international may well have increased. Commercial SUMMARY: The Animal and Plant Health movement of a plant or plant product importations also continue to increase Inspection Service (APHIS) is soliciting article. A phytosanitary certificate in quantity and variety of product. public comment on a change we are certifies that the article has been At the same time, foreign Ministries of considering making to the fruits and thoroughly inspected, is believed to be Agriculture are increasingly able to vegetables import regulations. We are free from injurious plant diseases, provide phytosanitary export inspection considering requiring a phytosanitary injurious insect pests, and other plant and certification. We believe that the certificate to accompany all shipments pests, and is otherwise believed to be availability and overall quality of these of imported produce, both commercial eligible for importation into the country activities has improved, partly as a shipments and produce brought into the of destination pursuant to the current result of our International Services United States by individual travelers. phytosanitary laws and regulations of programs abroad. We believe this change would that country. A phytosanitary certificate Imported produce presents a substantially increase our ability to may also contain additional declarations relatively high risk of introducing exotic exclude dangerous plant pests regarding the area of origin, conditions plant pests. Produce brought by associated with produce from the of growth, or treatment of the article, travelers is particularly dangerous United States, but it would also require when such information is relevant to the because: substantial changes in the practices of eligibility of the article for importation. • The origin of the produce is often travelers and importers who bring The form and use of phytosanitary difficult to determine. produce into the United States. certificates is governed by the • The produce is often grown in DATES: International Plant Protection dooryards with little or no pest control. Consideration will be given only • to comments received on or before Convention. Travelers bring noncommercial October 3, 1995. Phytosanitary certificates are in wide varieties with unknown susceptibility to use in international trade. APHIS issues pests and diseases. ADDRESSES: Please send an original and thousands of phytosanitary certificates • The fruits are often ripe or overripe three copies of your comments to each year to facilitate export of United and therefore particularly susceptible to Docket No. 95–046–1, Regulatory States agricultural products to countries infestations. Analysis and Development, PPD, that require phytosanitary certificates to • Historically, decisions to allow APHIS, Suite 3C03, 4700 River Road accompany such products. We also importation of produce were based on Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. require many agricultural products an evaluation of the pest risk associated Please state that your comments refer to imported into the United States to be with commercial production, not Docket No. 95–046–1. Comments accompanied by phytosanitary backyard production. received may be inspected at USDA, certificates. In addition to the above, we now face room 1141, South Building, 14th Street For example, phytosanitary increasing restrictions on the number of and Independence Avenue SW., certificates are required for restricted personnel we can devote to inspecting Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and articles under 7 CFR 319.37 et seq., produce imports. It appears that these 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, ‘‘Subpart—Nursery Stock, Plants, Roots, restrictions will be of long duration if except holidays. Persons wishing to Bulbs, Seeds, and Other Plant not permanent. We are finding it inspect comments are requested to call Products,’’ and under 7 CFR 319.75 et increasingly difficult to provide the ahead on (202) 690–2817 to facilitate seq., ‘‘Subpart—Khapra Beetle.’’ level of quarantine security we feel is entry into the comment reading room. needed. To a significant extent, a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Phytosanitary Certificate Requirement phytosanitary certificate requirement is Jane Levy or Mr. Frank E. Cooper, for All Imported Produce an effective augmentation to inspection. Senior Operations Officers, Port We are considering requiring a The phytosanitary certificate Operations, PPQ, APHIS, Suite 4A03, phytosanitary certificate to accompany requirement would provide a significant 4700 River Road Unit 139, Riverdale, all shipments of imported produce, both measure of protection against the MD 20737–1236; (301) 734–8645. commercial shipments and produce introduction of exotic plant pests. This Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 39889 requirement would represent a produce across the Mexican border as SUMMARY: We are advising the public significant change from current practice. groceries for local consumption in the that the Animal and Plant Health Therefore, if we make this change we United States. Along the border, these Inspection Service is hosting five public would conduct an intensive public groceries are known as ‘‘mandado’’. hearings on the proposed rule on the relations campaign to alert importers If a phytosanitary certificate importation of fresh Hass avocado fruit and travelers to the new requirement requirement is imposed, all fruit and grown in Michoacan, Mexico, that we and encourage compliance. Compliance vegetable mandado would be subject to published in the Federal Register on with this new phytosanitary certificate it. However, the current systems for July 3, 1995. requirement should significantly reduce issuing phytosanitary certificates in DATES: The public hearings will be held the infestation levels in both Mexico do not make it feasible for in Washington, DC, on August 17 and commercial and non-commercial customers in retail stores and fruit and 18, 1995; in Flushing, NY, on August importations. vegetable stands to obtain certificates so 22, 1995; in Homestead, FL, on August As we see it, these are the positive that they could legally bring their 23, 1995; in Chicago, IL, on August 28, effects of a phytosanitary certificate purchases into the United States. 1995; and in Escondido, CA, on August requirement: Therefore, unless the system for issuing 30 and 31, 1995. Each public hearing • The quantity of produce brought by certificates in Mexico changes will begin at 9 a.m. and is scheduled to travelers would be curtailed, resulting significantly, imposition of a end at 5 p.m. in far fewer infested lots of produce phytosanitary certificate requirement ADDRESSES: The public hearings will be being imported from dooryard gardens would mean that persons would be held at the following locations: and infested countries, thereby reducing unable to practically and legally import 1. Washington, DC: Jefferson the risk of pest introduction. mandado into the United States. Based Auditorium, U.S. Department of • Commercial and noncommercial on our many years’ experience in Agriculture, South Building, 14th importations would have the added examining mandado on the Mexican Street and Independence Avenue safeguard of a foreign issued border, we believe that admissible fruits SW., Washington, DC. phytosanitary certificate, which would and vegetables in mandado do not 2. Flushing, NY: Best Western Midway certify that the produce was inspected present a significant pest risk. We also Hotel, 108–25 Horace Harding, and found to comply with our recognize that the phytosanitary requirements. The phytosanitary Flushing, NY. certificate requirement could result in 3. Homestead, FL: Redland Country certificate could also be the focal point inconvenience and increased costs for Club, 24451 SW. 177th (Crone) of APHIS’s feedback to countries that thousands of persons who daily bring Avenue, Homestead, FL. inadvertently certify prohibited or Mexican fruits and vegetables across the 4. Chicago, IL: Holiday Inn—O’Hare infested produce. border for consumption in the United International, 5440 North River • The requirement would be legally States. Road, Chicago, IL. sound, based on the Agency’s statutory A somewhat similar situation might 5. Escondido, CA: California Center for authority, and be in accord with the apply with regard to the Canadian the Arts, 340 North Escondido International Plant Protection border, although there is less traffic of Boulevard, Escondido, CA. Convention. this sort from Canada. We welcome FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. The negative effects for which we suggestions on how to accommodate Victor Harabin, Head, Permit Unit, Port must plan are: movements for local consumption from • Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Despite a public relations Canada and Mexico without sacrificing Road Unit 136, Riverdale, MD 20737– campaign, there would be numerous quarantine effectiveness. We also 1236, (301) 734–8645, or FAX (301) complaints from travelers about seized welcome comments on any other issue 734–5786. produce, especially during the first year related to a possible proposal to require of enforcement. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Five • phytosanitary certificates to accompany APHIS would have to prepare for all produce imported into the United public hearings will be held on the increased smuggling because the States. notice of proposed rulemaking on the phytosanitary certificate requirement importation of fresh Hass avocado fruit would essentially prohibit produce Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150dd, 150ee, 150ff, grown in Michoacan, Mexico, published 151–167, 450, 2803, and 2809; 21 U.S.C. 136 by the Animal and Plant Health brought by travelers. and 136a; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(c). • All countries shipping produce to Inspection Service (APHIS) in the Done in Washington, DC, this 27th day of the United States would have to provide July 1995. Federal Register on July 3, 1995 (60 FR phytosanitary certificates for all 34831–34842, Docket No. 94–116–3). Lonnie J. King, shipments. These countries might have The first public hearing will be difficulties dealing with the increased Administrator, Animal and Plant Health dedicated exclusively to the scientific Inspection Service. workload, and effects might include basis for that proposed rule. This first increases in the number of errors and [FR Doc. 95–19184 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] hearing will be open to the public, but improperly issued phytosanitary BILLING CODE 3410±34±P participation will be limited to experts certificates. Importers might assume that in the fields of pest risk assessment and improperly issued phytosanitary 7 CFR Part 319 pest risk mitigation measures. Four certificates authorize them to import additional hearings will be held to prohibited produce. [Docket No. 94±116±4] provide a full opportunity to all • APHIS would have to prepare interested parties to address every guidelines for enforcement of the new Importation of Fresh Hass Avocado aspect of the proposed rule. requirements. Fruit Grown in Michoacan, Mexico; The phytosanitary certificate Public Hearings The First Public Hearing— requirement would have a strong effect Presentations by Experts in Risk AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Assessment on movements into the United States Inspection Service, USDA. from Canada and Mexico. In particular, The first public hearing, on the ACTION: Notice of public hearings. local residents bring a large quantity of scientific basis for this proposed rule, is 39890 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules scheduled to be held in Washington, public on all aspects of the proposed provide two copies to the presiding DC, on August 17 and 18, 1995. This rule, including the APHIS pest risk officer at the hearing. A transcript will hearing will focus exclusively on the assessment documents and the be made of each public hearing and the APHIS pest risk assessment documents conclusions contained therein. transcript will be placed in the upon which the proposed rule is based, rulemaking record and will be available General Information Applicable to All and will provide an opportunity for Five Public Hearings for public inspection. experts in relevant disciplines to The purpose of these public hearings present their views on those documents The APHIS pest risk assessment documents upon which the proposed is to give all interested parties an and the scientific issues raised by them. opportunity to present data, views, and The APHIS pest risk assessment rule is based are available. Parties information to the Department documents upon which the proposed interested in receiving copies may concerning this proposed rule. rule is based identify the plant pest risks obtain them by contacting APHIS’ Questions about the content of the associated with the importation of Hass Legislative and Public Affairs Staff at proposal may be part of a commenter’s avocados grown in approved orchards (301) 734–3256 or by writing to oral presentation. However, neither the in approved municipalities in Legislative and Public Affairs, 4700 presiding officer nor any other Michoacan, Mexico, discuss the River Road Unit 51, Riverdale, representative of the Department will mitigation measures identified as Maryland 20737–1232. Copies of the reasonable and necessary to prevent the risk assessment documents will be respond to the comments at the hearing, introduction of plant pests into the available at each of the scheduled except to clarify or explain the proposed United States, and contain a public hearings. rule and the documents upon which the quantitative risk analysis examining the Persons who wish to speak at the proposal is based. likelihood of plant pest introduction hearings will be asked to provide their Done in Washington, DC, this 31st day of into the United States if Hass avocados names and their affiliations. Those who July 1995. are allowed to be imported under the wish to form a panel to present their Lonnie J. King, conditions described in the proposed views will be asked to provide the name Administrator, Animal and Plant Health rule. of each member of the panel and the Inspection Service. Participation in the Washington, DC, organizations the panel members [FR Doc. 95–19183 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] hearing will be limited to those who represent. Parties wishing to make oral BILLING CODE 3410±34±P register and who identify themselves as presentations may register in advance having expertise in the areas of pest risk by calling the Regulatory Analysis and assessment and mitigation measures. Development voice mail at (301) 734– 9 CFR Part 94 Experts wishing to participate will be 4346 and leaving a message stating their name, telephone number, organization, asked to furnish for the record their [Docket No. 95±050±1] educational background and their and location of the hearing at which expertise and qualifications relevant to they wish to speak. If a party is Uruguay; Change in Disease Status pest risk assessment and mitigation registering for a panel, the party will measures. Such experts include also be asked to provide the name of AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health scientists, technical experts, and each member of the panel and the Inspection Service, USDA. academicians expert in entomology, organization each panel member ACTION: plant health, plant pathology, risk represents. Proposed rule. assessment, and risk mitigation. Federal, The hearings will begin at 9 a.m. and State, and local officials, growers, and are scheduled to end at 5 p.m. each day. SUMMARY: We are proposing to declare handlers who have experience with risk The Washington, DC, and Escondido, Uruguay free of rinderpest and foot-and- assessment, plant protection, CA, hearings may conclude at any time mouth disease. As part of this proposed quarantine, or risk mitigation measures on the second day if all persons who action, we would add Uruguay to the will also be welcome to participate in have registered to participate have been list of countries that, although declared this first public hearing. heard. Similarly, the other three free of rinderpest and foot-and-mouth Presenters are welcome to register as hearings may conclude earlier than 5 disease, are subject to restrictions on a panel if they believe a panel of experts p.m. if all persons who have registered meat and other animal products offered from several fields would foster a more have been heard. The presiding officer for importation into the United States. complete discussion and evaluation of may extend the time of any hearing or Declaring Uruguay free of rinderpest issues related to the pest risk assessment limit the time for each presentation so and foot-and-mouth disease appears to underlying this proposal. that everyone is accommodated and all be appropriate because the last outbreak interested persons appearing on the of foot-and-mouth disease in Uruguay Additional Public Hearings scheduled dates have an opportunity to occurred in 1989, there have been no Four additional hearings will be held participate. vaccinations for foot-and-mouth disease during the period between August 22, Registration for each hearing may be in Uruguay since June 1994, and 1995, and August 31, 1995, to address accomplished in advance in accordance rinderpest has never existed in Uruguay. all aspects of this proposed rule. These with the above-described instructions, This proposed rule would remove the four public hearings are scheduled to be or by registering with the presiding prohibition on the importation into the held in Flushing, NY, on August 22, officer between 8:30 a.m. and 9 a.m. on United States, from Uruguay, of 1995; Homestead, FL, on August 23, any hearing day. ruminants and fresh, chilled, and frozen 1995; Chicago, IL, on August 28, 1995; A representative of APHIS will meat of ruminants, although those and Escondido, CA, on August 30 and preside at each public hearing. Written importations would be subject to certain 31, 1995. statements are encouraged, but not restrictions. This proposed rule would Any interested party may appear and required. Any written statement also relieve certain prohibitions and be heard in person, or through an submitted will be made part of the restrictions on the importation, from attorney or other representative. We are record of the public hearing. Anyone Uruguay, of milk and milk products of interested in obtaining the views of the who reads a written statement should ruminants. Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 39891 DATES: Consideration will be given only The Animal and Plant Health than would be acceptable for to comments received on or before Inspection Service (APHIS) reviewed importation into the United States. October 3, 1995. the documentation submitted by the Uruguay supplements its national ADDRESSES: Please send an original and government of Uruguay in support of its meat supply by importing fresh, chilled three copies of your comments to request, and a team of APHIS officials and frozen meat of ruminants and swine Docket No. 95–050–1, Regulatory traveled to Uruguay in 1994 to conduct from countries designated in § 94.1(a)(1) Analysis and Development, PPD, an on-site evaluation of the country’s as countries in which rinderpest or FMD APHIS, suite 3C03, 4700 River Road animal health program with regard to exists. In addition, Uruguay has common land borders with Brazil and Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. the rinderpest and FMD situation in Argentina, which are both designated in Please state that your comments refer to Uruguay. The evaluation consisted of a § 94.1(a)(1) as countries in which Docket No. 95–050–1. Comments review of Uruguay’s veterinary services, rinderpest or FMD exists. As a result, received may be inspected at USDA, diagnostic procedures, vaccination although Uruguay appears to qualify for room 1141, South Building, 14th Street practices, and administration of laws designation as a country free of and Independence Avenue SW., and regulations intended to prevent the rinderpest and FMD, there is the Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and introduction of rinderpest and FMD into potential that meat or other animal 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, Uruguay through the importation of products produced in Uruguay may be except holidays. Persons wishing to animals, meat, or animal products. The commingled with the fresh, chilled, or inspect comments are requested to call APHIS officials conducting the on-site evaluation concluded that Uruguay is frozen meat of animals from a country ahead on (202) 690–2817 to facilitate in which rinderpest or FMD exists. This entry into the comment reading room. free of rinderpest and FMD. (Details concerning the on-site evaluation are potential for commingling constitutes an FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. available, upon written request, from undue risk of introducing rinderpest or John Blackwell, Senior Staff the person listed under FOR FURTHER FMD into the United States. Microbiologist, Import-Export Products, INFORMATION CONTACT.) Therefore, we are proposing that meat National Center for Import and Export, and other animal products of ruminants Based on the information discussed VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 40, or swine, as well as the ship stores, above, we are proposing to amend Riverdale, MD 20737–1231, (301) 734– airplane meals, or baggage containing § 94.1(a)(2) by adding Uruguay to the 5875. such meat or other animal products, list of countries declared to be free of originating in Uruguay be subject to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: both rinderpest and FMD. This restrictions specified in § 94.11 of the proposed action would remove the Background regulations and to the applicable prohibition on the importation, from requirements contained in the The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 Uruguay, of ruminants and fresh, regulations of the USDA’s Food Safety (referred to below as the regulations) chilled, and frozen meat of ruminants, and Inspection Service at 9 CFR chapter govern the importation into the United and would relieve restrictions on the III. Section 94.11 generally requires that States of specified animals and animal importation, from Uruguay, of milk and the meat and other animal products of products in order to prevent the milk products of ruminants. However, ruminants or swine be: (1) Prepared in introduction into the United States of because Uruguay has not been declared an inspected establishment that is various animal diseases, including free of hog cholera, the importation into eligible to have its products imported rinderpest and foot-and-mouth disease the United States, from Uruguay, of pork into the United States under the Federal (FMD). Rinderpest and FMD are and pork products would continue to be Meat Inspection Act; and (2) dangerous and destructive restricted under § 94.9 of the accompanied by an additional communicable diseases of ruminants regulations, and the importation of certification from a full-time salaried and swine. swine from Uruguay would continue to veterinary official of the national Section 94.1(a)(1) of the regulations be restricted under § 94.10. Also, for the government of the exporting country provides that rinderpest or FMD exists reasons discussed below, we would stating, among other things, that the in all countries of the world except make the importation of meat and other meat or other animal product has not those listed in § 94.1(a)(2), which have animal products of ruminants or swine been commingled with or exposed to been declared to be free of both from Uruguay subject to the restrictions meat or other animal products diseases. We will consider declaring a in § 94.11. originating in, imported from, or country free of rinderpest and FMD if, We are proposing to amend § 94.11(a) transported through a country infected among other things, there have been no by adding Uruguay to the list of with rinderpest or FMD. reported cases of the diseases in that countries that have been declared free of country for at least the previous 1-year rinderpest and FMD but from which the Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory period and if no vaccinations for importation of meat and other animal Flexibility Act rinderpest or FMD have been products is restricted. The countries This proposed rule has been reviewed administered to ruminants or swine in listed in § 94.11(a) are subject to these under Executive order 12866. For this that country for at least the previous 1- restrictions because they: (1) action, the Office of Management and year period. Supplement their national meat supply Budget has waived its review process The last outbreak of FMD in Uruguay by importing fresh, chilled, or frozen required by Executive Order 12866. occurred in 1989. There have been no meat of ruminants or swine from This proposed rule, if adopted, would vaccinations for FMD in Uruguay since countries that are designated in § 94.1(a) amend the regulations in part 94 by June 1994. Rinderpest has never existed as infected with rinderpest or FMD; (2) adding Uruguay to the list of countries in Uruguay. Based on these have a common land border with a declared to be free of rinderpest and considerations, the government of country designated as infected with FMD. This action would remove the Uruguay has requested that the United rinderpest or FMD; or (3) import prohibition on the importation into the States Department of Agriculture ruminants or swine from countries United States, from Uruguay, of (USDA) declare Uruguay free of designated as infected with rinderpest ruminants and fresh, chilled, and frozen rinderpest and FMD. or FMD under conditions less restrictive meat of ruminants, although those 39892 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules imports would be subject to certain cattle. For the most part, beef exports Under these circumstances, the restrictions. from Uruguay would affect the market Administrator of the Animal and Plant The proposed revision would also for non table-cut beef in the United Health Inspection Service has relieve restrictions on the importation, States. determined that this action would not from Uruguay, of milk and milk Beef and dairy farms and feedlot have a significant economic impact on products of ruminants. This action operators would experience the greatest a substantial number of small entities. would not relieve certain restrictions on impact as a result of the proposed rule. the importation of live swine and fresh, According to Small Business Executive Order 12778 chilled, and frozen meat of swine from Administration (SBA) criteria, beef and This proposed rule has been reviewed Uruguay because Uruguay is still dairy farms with annual sales of less under Executive Order 12778, Civil considered to be affected with hog than $0.5 million are considered small. Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is cholera. In 1992, 801,940 operations with beef The primary effects of the proposed cows were considered small. These adopted: (1) All State and local laws and change in the regulations would be to small farms averaged sales of $20,976 in regulations that are inconsistent with bovine meat and prepared products. 1992, as opposed to average sales of $1.3 this rule will be preempted; (2) no Swine and swine products are excluded million on large farms. retroactive effect will be given to this because of restrictions due to hog Recent USDA data indicated that rule; and (3) administrative proceedings cholera, and the United States has not 152,500 dairy farms were considered will not be required before parties may imported any mutton, lamb, or goat small. In addition to the sale of dairy file suit in court challenging this rule. meat from Uruguay in the last 2 years. products, the sale of culled dairy cattle Paperwork Reduction Act This situation is not expected to change and young stock not retained for as a result of the proposed rule. milking or breeding contributed to dairy This proposed rule is not expected to This proposed rule contains no farm income. In the worst case scenario, affect United States imports of information collection or recordkeeping the proposed rule would produce a drop miscellaneous animal products from requirements under the Paperwork in net farm income of $15 on small beef Uruguay, including embryos, semen, Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 farms and $83 on small dairy farms breeding animals, and other products. et seq.). The increase in beef imports resulting when imports were assumed to consist List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 94 from the proposed regulation change is of beef from grass-fed cattle. With regards to the sale of dairy expected to have a minimal negative Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, products, the Department does not impact on producers, while benefitting Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry consumers. anticipate a major increase in exports of milk and milk products from Uruguay and poultry products, Reporting and Uruguayan beef production is made recordkeeping requirements. up mostly of grass-fed product. These into the United States as a result of this animals take longer to reach slaughter proposed rule. Only about 10 percent of Accordingly, 9 CFR part 94 would be weights and are lighter at slaughter than Uruguay’s cow herd is made up of dairy amended as follows: grain-fed cattle. As a result, although cows, and it is expected that the Uruguayan cattle inventories (10.4 increase in beef cattle returns will not PART 94ÐRINDERPEST, FOOT-AND- million at the end of 1994) are about 10 significantly alter this situation. In MOUTH DISEASE, FOWL PEST (FOWL percent of United States cattle addition, all dairy products imported PLAGUE), VELOGENIC inventories (103.3 million on January 1, into the United States are restricted by VISCEROTROPIC NEWCASTLE 1995), Uruguayan beef production runs quotas except for casein, caseinate, and DISEASE, AFRICAN SWINE FEVER, at only 2 to 4 percent of United States other casein derivatives (hereafter HOG CHOLERA, AND BOVINE production. Uruguay currently exports referred to as casein), which are dry SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY: one third of its beef production. milk products. The United States does PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED However, Uruguay is not expected to not produce casein, but does import IMPORTATIONS exceed the 20,000 metric ton (MT) tariff- more than half of the casein produced free quota limit for exports of beef into in the world. Uruguay has not exported 1. The authority citation for part 94 the United States established under the casein to the United States in recent would continue to read as follows: years. Declaring Uruguay free of FMD is General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Authority: 7 U.S.C. 147a, 150ee, 161, 162, expected to have a minimal effect on the (GATT). and 450; 19 U.S.C. 1306; 21 U.S.C. 111, 114a, amount of casein imported into the Twenty-two percent of United States 134a, 134b, 134c, 134f, 136, and 136a; 31 United States. beef consumption goes into ‘‘non table- U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 4331, 4332; 7 CFR cut’’ applications, such as fast-food According to the SBA, feedlots with 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(d). hamburgers and other prepared meats; sales of less than $1.5 million are 78 percent of United States beef considered small. Recent USDA data § 94.1 [Amended] consumption goes into consumer indicate that 30 percent of feedlots in applications, such as steak and filet the United States are considered small. 2. In § 94.1, paragraph (a)(2) would be mignon, that require beef produced from In the worst case scenario, the proposed amended by removing ‘‘and Trust grain-fed cattle. (Beef produced in the rule would produce a loss of $30 per Territory of the Pacific Islands.’’ and United States comes predominantly year in gross sales for a small feedlot. adding ‘‘Trust Territory of the Pacific from grain-fed cattle and is used for The impact of the proposed rule on Islands, and Uruguay.’’ in its place. higher-quality table-cuts.) Most of the cattle dealers/haulers and cattle § 94.11 [Amended] beef exported from Uruguay is produced slaughterers/primary processors would from grass-fed cattle and is suitable for be minimal because the reduction in the 5. In § 94.11, paragraph (a), the first lower-quality, non table-cut number of cattle marketed and the sentence would be amended by applications. However, select cuts of number of truck hauls required to move removing ‘‘and Switzerland,’’ and beef from grass-fed cattle may be of the them would be very small in relation to adding ‘‘Switzerland, and Uruguay,’’ in same quality as cuts from grain-fed the current numbers. its place. Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 39893 Done in Washington, DC, this 31st day of or arguments as they may desire. segregation of aircraft using instrument July, 1995. Comments that provide the factual basis approach procedures in instrument Lonnie J. King, supporting the views and suggestions conditions from other aircraft operating Administrator, Animal and Plant Health presented are particularly helpful in in visual weather conditions. The area Inspection Service. developing reasoned regularly decisions would be depicted on appropriate [FR Doc. 95–19182 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] on the proposal. Comments are aeronautical charts thereby enabling BILLING CODE 3410±34±P specifically invited on the overall pilots to circumnavigate the area or regulatory, aeronautical, economic, otherwise comply with IFR procedures. environmental, and energy-related Class E airspace designations for DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION aspects of the proposal. airspace areas extending upward from Communications should identify the 700 feet or more above the surface of the Federal Aviation Administration airspace docket number and be earth are published in paragraph 6005 of submitted in triplicate to the address FAA Order 7400.9B dated July 18, 1994, 14 CFR Part 71 listed above. Commenters wishing the and effective September 16, 1994, which [Airspace Docket No. 95±AGL±8] FAA to acknowledge receipt of their is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR comments on this notice must submit 71.1. The Class E airspace designation Revision of Class E Airspace; Rice with those comments a self-addressed, listed in this document would be Lake, WI stamped postcard on which the published subsequently in the Order. following statement is made: The FAA has determined that this AGENCY: Federal Aviation ‘‘Comments to Airspace Docket No. 95– Administration (FAA), DOT. proposed regulation only involves an AGL–8.’’ The postcard will be date/time established body of technical ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. stamped and returned to the regulations for which frequent and commenter. All communications SUMMARY: This notice proposes to revise routine amendments are necessary to received on or before the specified keep them operationally current. Class E airspace to accommodate a closing date for comments will be Therefore, this proposed regulation—(1) Nondirectional Radio Bacon (NDB) for considered before taking action on the is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ runway 19 approach at Rice Lake proposed rule. The proposal contained under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not Municipal Airport, Rice Lake, WI. in this notice may be changed in light a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Controlled airspace extending upward of comments received. All comments Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 from 700 to 1200 feet above ground submitted will be available for FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) level (AGL) is needed for aircraft examination in the Rules Docket, FAA, does not warrant preparation of a executing the approach. The intended Great Lakes Region, Office of the Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated effect of this proposal is to provide Assistant Chief Counsel, 2300 East impact is so minimal. Since this is a segregation of aircraft using instrument Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois, approach procedures in instrument both before and after the closing date for routine matter that will only affect air conditions from other aircraft operating comments. A report summarizing each traffic procedures and air navigation, it in visual weather conditions. substantive public contact with FAA is certified that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact DATES: Comments must be received on personnel concerned with this or before September 11, 1995. rulemaking will be filed in the docket. on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory ADDRESSES: Send comments on the Availability of NPRM’s Flexibility Act. proposal in triplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Any person may obtain a copy of the List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Assistant Chief Counsel, AGL–7, Rules Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Docket No. 95–AGL–8, 2300 East Devon by submitting a request to the Federal Navigation (air). Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018. Aviation Administration, Office of The official docket may be examined Public Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry The Proposed Amendment in the Office of the Assistant Chief Center, APA–230, 800 Independence Counsel, Federal Aviation Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or Accordingly, pursuant to the Administration, 2300 East Devon by calling (202) 267–3484. authority delegated to me, the Federal Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois. An Communications must identify the Aviation Administration proposes to informal docket may also be examined notice number of this NPRM. Persons amend part 71 of the Federal Aviation during normal business hours at the Air interested in being placed on a mailing Regulations (14 CFR part 71) as follows: list for future NPRM’s should also Traffic Division, System Management PART 71Ð[AMENDED] Branch, Federal Aviation request a copy of Advisory Circular No. Administration, 2300 East Devon 11–2A, which describes the application procedure. 1. The authority citation for part 71 Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois. continues to read as follows: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Proposal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, Jeffrey L. Griffith, Air Traffic Division, The FAA is considering an 40102, E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR 1959– System Management Branch, AGL–530, amendment to part 71 of the Federal 1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69. Federal Aviation Administration, 2300 Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois revise Class E airspace to accommodate § 71.1 [Amended] 60018, telephone (708) 294–7568. a Nondirectional Radio Beacon (NDB) 2. The incorporation by reference in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: for runway 19 approach at Rice Lake 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation Municipal Airport, Rice Lake, WI. Administration Order 7400.9B, Airspace Comments Invited Controlled airspace extending from 700 Designations and Reporting Points, Interested parties are invited to to 1200 feet AGL is needed for aircraft dated July 18, 1994, and effective participate in this proposed rulemaking executing the approach. The intended September 16, 1994, is amended as by submitting such written data, views, affect of this action is to provide follows: 39894 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules Paragraph 6005 The Class E Airspace Area Traffic Division, System Management list for future NPRM’s should also Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Branch, Federal Aviation request a copy of Advisory Circular No. Above the Surface of the Earth Administration, 2300 East Devon 11–2A, which describes the application * * * * * Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois. procedure. AGL WI E5 Rice Lake, WI [Revised] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Proposal Rice Lake Municipal Airport, WI Jeffrey L. Griffith, Air Traffic Division, (Lat. 45°28′46′′ N, long. 91°43′14′′ W) System Management Branch, AGL–530, The FAA is considering an Rice Lake NDB Federal Aviation Administration, 2300 amendment to part 71 of the Federal (Lat. 45°28′46′′ N, long. 91°43′14′′ W) East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to That airspace extending upward from 700 60018, telephone (708) 294–7568. establish Class E5 airspace to feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile accommodate a Very High Frequency SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: radius of the Rice Lake Municipal Airport, Omnidirectional Range (VOR) and excluding that airspace within the Comments Invited Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) Cumberland, WI, and Chetek, WI, Class E for runway 32 approach at Shell Lake airspace area, and within 3.2 miles either Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking Municipal Airport, Shell Lake, WI. side of the Rice Lake NDB 033 radial Controlled airspace extending from 700 extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 7 miles by submitting such written data, views, northeast of the NDB. or arguments as they may desire. to 1200 feet AGL is needed for aircraft executing the approach. The intended * * * * * Comments that provide the factual basis Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois, on July 25, supporting the views and suggestions affect of this action is to provide 1995. presented are particularly helpful in segregation of aircraft using instrument Maureen Woods, developing reasoned regulatory approach procedures in instrument conditions from other aircraft operating Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division. decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall in visual weather conditions. The area [FR Doc. 95–19187 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] would be depicted on appropriate BILLING CODE 4910±13±M regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aeronautical charts thereby enabling aspects of the proposal. pilots to circumnavigate the area or 14 CFR Part 71 Communications should identify the otherwise comply with IFR procedures. airspace docket number and be Class E airspace designations for [Airspace Docket No. 95±AGL±11] submitted in triplicate to the address airspace areas extending upward from listed above. Commenters wishing the 700 feet or more above the surface of the Establishment of Class E Airspace; earth are published in paragraph 6005 of Shell Lake, WI FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit FAA Order 7400.9B dated July 18, 1994, AGENCY: Federal Aviation with those comments a self-addressed, and effective September 16, 1994, which Administration (FAA), DOT. stamped postcard on which the is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. following statement is made: 71.1. The Class E airspace designation ‘‘Comments to Airspace Docket No. 95– listed in this document would be SUMMARY: This notice proposes to AGL–11.’’ The postcard will be date/ published subsequently in the Order. establish Class E5 airspace to time stamped and returned to the The FAA has determined that this accommodate a Very High Frequency commenter. All communications proposed regulation only involves an Omnidirectional Range (VOR) and received on or before the specified established body of technical Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) closing date for comments will be regulations for which frequent and for runway 32 approach at Shell Lake considered before taking action on the routine amendments are necessary to Municipal Airport, Shell Lake, WI. proposed rule. The proposal contained keep them operationally current. Controlled airspace extending upward in this notice may be changed in light Therefore, this proposed regulation—(1) from 700 to 1200 feet above ground of comments received. All comments is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ level (AGL) is needed for aircraft submitted will be available for under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not executing the approach. The intended examination in the Rules Docket, FAA, a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT effect of this proposal is to provide Great Lakes Region, Office of the Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 segregation of aircraft using instrument Assistant Chief Counsel, 2300 Eat Devon FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) approach procedures in instrument Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois, both does not warrant preparation of a conditions from other aircraft operating before and after the closing date for Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated in visual weather conditions. comments. A report summarizing each impact is so minimal. Since this is a DATES: Comments must be received on substantive public contact with FAA routine matter that will only affect air or before September 11, 1995. personnel concerned with this traffic procedures and air navigation, it ADDRESSES: Send Comments on the rulemaking will be filed in the docket. is certified that this proposed rule will proposal in triplicate to: Federal not have a significant economic impact Aviation Administration, Office of the Availability of NPRM’s on a substantial number of small entities Assistant Chief Counsel, AGL–7, Rules Any person may obtain a copy of the under the criteria of the Regulatory Docket No. 95–AGL–11, 2300 East Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Flexibility Act. by submitting a request to the Federal Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 60018. Aviation Administration, Office of The official docket may be examined Public Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry Airspace, Incorporation by reference, in the Office of the Assistant Chief Center, APA–230, 800 Independence Navigation (air). Counsel, Federal Aviation Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or The Proposed Amendment Administration, 2300 East Devon by calling (202) 267–3484. Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois. An Communications must identify the Accordingly, pursuant to the informal docket may also be examined notice number of this NPRM. Persons authority delegated to me, the Federal during normal business hours at the Air interested in being placed on a mailing Aviation Administration proposes to Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 39895 amend part 71 of the Federal Aviation information through files conforming to Boards (EBBs).1 The Commission Regulations (14 CFR part 71) as follows: standards for Electronic Data subsequently instituted a process to Interchange. The Commission is now develop standardized procedures for PART 71Ð[AMENDED] convening a public conference to capacity release information. The 1. The authority citation for part 71 consider the current state, and future standards were developed by Working continues to read as follows: development, of electronic Groups consisting of representatives communication in the natural gas from all facets of the natural gas Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, industry. industry and other interested parties 40102; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– such as third-party bulletin board 1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69. DATES: Public conference: September 21, 1995; requests to participate: September operators and computer and software § 71.1 [Amended] 1, 1995. firms. In Order No. 563, the Commission 2. The incorporation by reference in ADDRESSES: Federal Energy Regulatory adopted the recommendation of the 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, Working Groups to require downloads Administration Order 7400.9B, Airspace NE., Washington, DC 20426. of capacity release information through Designations and Reporting Points, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: files conforming to standards for 2 dated July 18, 1994, and effective Michael Goldenberg, Office of the Electronic Data Interchange (EDI). The Working Group 3 has continued to September 16, 1994, is amended as General Counsel, Federal Energy further refine the capacity release follows: Regulatory Commission, 825 North download files. The Working Group also Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC Paragraph 6005 The Class E Airspace Areas has begun to develop electronic 20426, (202) 208–2294. Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More communication standards in other Above the Surface of the Earth SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In areas. The Working Group’s nine * * * * * addition to publishing the full text of highest priority data requirements, in this document in the Federal Register, AGL WI E5 Shell Lake, WI [New] order of priority, are nominations, the Commission also provides all allocated gas flows, imbalances, gas Shell Lake Municipal Airport, WI interested persons an opportunity to ° ′ ′′ ° ′ ′′ flow at metered points, transportation (Lat. 45 43 53 N, Long. 91 55 14 W) inspect or copy the contents of this invoices, pre-determined allocation That airspace extending upward from 700 document during normal business hours methodologies, gas payment remittance feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile in Room 3104, 941 North Capitol Street statements and gas sales invoices, and radius of the Shell Lake Municipal airport NE., Washington DC 20426. and within 2.7 miles either side of the 143- The Commission Issuance Posting uploads of capacity release prearranged degree bearing from the airport extending System (CIPS), an electronic bulletin deals. Members of the natural gas from the 6.3-mile radius to 7.4 miles industry also have formed a Gas southeast of the airport. board service, provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Industry Standards Board (GISB), whose * * * * * Commission. CIPS is available at no purpose is to develop standards for Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois, on July 25, electronic information exchange. The 1995. charge to the user and may be accessed using a personal computer with a Working Group has transferred ongoing Maureen Woods, modem by dialing (202) 208–1397. To maintenance of the capacity release EDI Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division. access CIPS, set your communications data sets to GISB. [FR Doc. 95–19186 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] software to use 19200, 14400, 12000, Members of the Commission intend to BILLING CODE 4910±13±M 9600, 7200, 4800, 2400, or 1200 bps, full participate in the public conference. duplex, no parity, 8 data bits, and 1 stop The Commission is interested in hearing bit. The full text of this document will industry views about: the current state DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY be available on CIPS in ASCII and of EBB operation and the capacity WordPerfect 5.1 format. The complete release downloads, including any third- Federal Energy Regulatory text on diskette in WordPerfect format party services being provided to Commission may also be purchased from the supplement the pipeline EBBs; whether Commission’s copy contractor, La Dorn standards should be developed for EBBs 18 CFR Part 284 Systems Corporation, also located in (as opposed to file downloads and [Docket No. RM93±4±000] Room 3104, 941 North Capitol Street, uploads); the progress being made in NE., Washington DC 20426. standardizing non-capacity release Standards for Electronic Bulletin information, including the time-table for Boards Required Under Part 284 of the Notice of Public Conference completion of standards; whether Commission's Regulations July 28, 1995. Take notice that a public conference 1 Pipeline Service Obligations and Revisions to Issued July 28, 1995. in this proceeding will be held on Regulations Governing Self-Implementing AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Transportation; and Regulation of Natural Gas September 21, 1995, in the Commission Pipelines After Partial Wellhead Decontrol, Order Commission. Meeting Room, 825 North Capitol Street No. 636, 57 FR 13267 (Apr. 16, 1992), III FERC ACTION: Proposed rule; Notice of public NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Stats. & Regs. Preambles ¶ 30,939 (Apr. 8, 1992), conference. appeal re-docketed sub nom., United Distribution conference is to consider the current Companies, et al. v. FERC, No. 92–1485 (D.C. Cir. state, and future development, of SUMMARY: The Commission has required Feb. 8, 1995). interstate natural gas pipelines to electronic communication in the natural 2 Standards For Electronic Bulletin Boards Required Under Part 284 of the Commission’s provide certain information about gas industry. In Order No. 636, the Commission Regulations, Order No. 563, 59 FR 516 (Jan. 5, capacity, including information about required interstate natural gas pipelines 1994), III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles ¶ 30,988 released capacity, on Electronic Bulletin (Dec. 23, 1993), order on reh’g, Order No. 563–A, to provide certain information about Boards. In the final rule in this 59 FR 23624 (May 6, 1994), III FERC Stats. & Regs. capacity, including information about Preambles ¶ 30,994 (May 2, 1994), reh’g denied, proceeding, the Commission adopted released capacity, on Electronic Bulletin Order No. 563–B, 68 FERC ¶ 61,002 (1994). the recommendation of Working Groups 3 The five initial Working Groups eventually to require downloads of capacity release consolidated into one. 39896 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules additional standardization is necessary DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY of information should be sent to the to facilitate more robust capacity Office of Management and Budget, Attn: trading; whether the Working Group Internal Revenue Service Desk Officer for the Department of the priorities are acceptable; and how the Treasury, Office of Information and 26 CFR Part 1 Commission should be involved in this Regulatory Affairs, Washington, D.C. process. The Commission also is [IA±44±94] 20503, with copies to the Internal Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports interested in receiving comment on RIN 1545±AS94 GISB’s current and future role in Clearance Officer, PC:FP, Washington, developing standards and on the Deductibility, Substantiation, and DC 20224. structure of the relationship between Disclosure of Certain Charitable The collections of information are in §§ 1.170A–13(f)(1), (f)(10), (f)(14), and GISB and the Commission. Contributions 1.6115–1. This information is required AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), by the IRS to determine the Any person who wishes to make a Treasury. deductibility of certain charitable formal presentation to the Commission ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking contributions. The likely respondents should submit a request to the Secretary and notice of public hearing. are individuals or households, business of the Commission no later than or other for-profit institutions, nonprofit SUMMARY: This document contains September 1, 1995. Each request should institutions, and small businesses or proposed regulations that provide include the time anticipated for the organizations. guidance regarding the allowance of presentation and any special equipment Estimated total annual recordkeeping certain charitable contribution burden: 100,000 hours. requirements. Every effort will be made deductions, the substantiation to accommodate requests to make Estimated average annual burden per requirements for charitable recordkeeper: .10 hour. presentations, but, depending on the contributions of $250 or more, and the number of requests received, the Estimated number of recordkeepers: disclosure requirements for quid pro 1,000,000. Commission may have to limit quo contributions in excess of $75. The Estimated total annual reporting participation. To provide a more proposed regulations will affect burden: 1,875,000 hours. productive conference, the Commission organizations described in section Estimated average burden per encourages interested parties to 170(c) and individuals and entities that respondent: 2.5 hours. coordinate their efforts and choose one make payments to those organizations. Estimated number of respondents: spokesperson to make a statement on DATES: Written comments must be 750,000. behalf of the group. After reviewing the received by November 2, 1995. Requests Estimated frequency of responses: On presentation requests, a subsequent to appear and outlines of oral comments occasion. notice of the conference presentation to be presented at the public hearing Background schedule will be issued. scheduled for November 1, 1995, must be received by October 11, 1995. This document contains proposed amendments to the Income Tax ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: If sufficient interest is shown, the Regulations (26 CFR part 1) that provide Commission will attempt to arrange for CC:DOM:CORP:T:R(IA–44–94), Room 5228, Internal Revenue Service, POB guidance under sections 170(a), broadcast of the conference in the 170(f)(8), and 6115 of the Internal Washington, DC metropolitan area or 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044. In the alternative, Revenue Code of 1986. nationally. Those interested in the local Sections 170(f)(8) and 6115 were submissions may be hand delivered or national television broadcast should added to the Code by sections 13172 between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. call The Capitol Connection at (703) and 13173 of the Omnibus Budget to: CC:DOM:CORP:T:R(IA–44–94), 993–3100 no later than September 7, Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue 103–66, 107 Stat. 455, 1993–3 C.B. 43. 1995. Requests from viewers outside of Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, Temporary regulations (TD 8544) and a Washington, DC, should be directed to N.W., Washington, D.C. The Public notice of proposed rulemaking by cross- Julia Morelli or Shirley Al-Jarani. Hearing scheduled for November 1, reference to temporary regulations 1995 at 10:00 a.m., will be held in the under section 170(f)(8) were published IRS Auditorium, 7th floor, 1111 All questions concerning the format of in the Federal Register for May 27, 1994 Constitution Avenue, N.W., the conference should be directed to: (52 FR 27458, 27515). The temporary Washington, D.C. Michael Goldenberg, Office of the and proposed regulations primarily General Counsel, Federal Energy FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: address contributions made by payroll Regulatory Commission, Room 4120–B, Concerning the regulations, Jefferson K. deduction and a donor’s receipt of 825 North Capitol Street NE., Fox, 202–622–4930; concerning goods or services with insubstantial Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208–2294. submissions and the hearing, Christina value. A public hearing was held on Vasquez, 202–622–6803. These are not November 10, 1994. On March 22, 1995, toll-free numbers. By direction of the Commission. the Service released Notice 95–15, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: which was published in 1995–15 I.R.B., dated April 10, 1995. Notice 95–15 Paperwork Reduction Act Linwood A. Watson, Jr., provides transitional relief (for 1994) The collections of information from the substantiation requirement. Acting Secretary. contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking have been submitted to the Explanation of Statutory Provisions Office of Management and Budget for Section 170(a) allows a deduction for [FR Doc. 95–19122 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] review in accordance with the certain charitable contributions to or for Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. the use of an organization described in BILLING CODE 6717±01±P 3504(h)). Comments on the collections section 170(c). Under section 170(f)(8), Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 39897 taxpayers who claim a deduction for a any money or the value of any property the Treasury Department have charitable contribution of $250 or more contributed by the donor over the value considered the extent of the difficulty of are responsible for obtaining from the of the goods or services provided to the valuation and have concluded that it is donee organization, and maintaining in donor by the organization, and (2) a appropriate to provide limited relief their records, substantiation of that good faith estimate of the value of the with respect to certain types of contribution. See H.R. Conf. Rep. 2264, goods or services provided by the customary membership benefits while 103d Cong., 1st Sess. 565 (1993). organization. Section 6115(b) defines a preserving the IRS’s ability to Specifically, section 170(f)(8) provides quid pro quo contribution as a payment administer the law fairly and that no charitable contribution made partly as a contribution and partly consistently. Accordingly, the proposed deduction will be allowed under section in consideration for goods or services regulations provide that both the donee 170(a) for a contribution of $250 or more provided by the organization. organization and the donor may unless the taxpayer substantiates the Explanation of Regulatory Provisions disregard certain membership benefits contribution with a contemporaneous when they are provided in return for a written acknowledgment from the donee Deductibility of a Payment in Exchange payment to the organization. organization. for Consideration Section 170(f)(8)(B) provides that an Section 1.170A–13T(a) already allows acknowledgment meets the In United States v. American Bar donors and donee organizations to requirements of that section if it Endowment, 477 U.S. 105 (1986), the disregard goods or services that are includes the following information: (1) Supreme Court set forth a two-part test treated as having insubstantial value the amount of cash paid and a for determining whether a payment that under existing IRS guidelines. See Rev. description (but not necessarily the is partly in consideration for goods or Proc. 90–12, 1990–1 C.B. 471, and Rev. value) of any property other than cash services is deductible under section Proc. 92–49, 1992–1 C.B. 987. The transferred to a donee organization; (2) 170(a). First, a payment to an guidelines cover low cost articles (items whether or not the donee organization organization described in section 170(c) costing $6.60 or less for 1995), provided any goods or services in is deductible only if, and to the extent newsletters that are not commercial consideration for the cash or property; that, the payment exceeds the fair quality publications, and benefits worth and (3) a description and good faith market value of the benefits received. 2% or less of a payment, up to a estimate of the value of any goods or Second, the excess payment must be maximum of $66 for 1995. The services provided by the donee made with the intent to make a substance of this section has been organization in consideration for the charitable contribution. See also Rev. incorporated into section 1.170A– cash or property. A written Rul. 67–246, 1967–2 C.B. 104. 13(f)(8)(i). The proposed regulations adopt this acknowledgment is contemporaneous, Under the proposed regulations, other two-part test for determining whether a within the meaning of section benefits may be disregarded only if they payment is deductible under section 170(f)(8)(C), if it is obtained on or before are given as part of an annual 170(a). Specifically, the regulations the earlier of: (1) the date the taxpayer membership offered in return for a provide that, in order for a charitable files its original return for the taxable payment of $75 or less and fall into one contribution deduction to be allowed, a year in which the contribution was of two categories. The first category is taxpayer must intend to make a made, or (2) the due date (including admission to events that are open only payment in an amount that exceeds the extensions) for filing the taxpayer’s to members and for which the donee fair market value of the goods or original return for that year. organization reasonably projects that the services received in return, and must Section 170(f)(8) does not prescribe a cost per person (excluding allocable actually make a payment in an amount format for the written acknowledgment. overhead) for each event will be less that exceeds that fair market value. Any document that contains the than or equal to the standard for low required information, including but not Certain Goods or Services Disregarded cost articles under section 513(h)(2)(C) limited to a letter, postcard, computer- ($6.60 for 1995). An example is a generated form, or tax form, is an Under current law, a taxpayer who modest reception where light acceptable means of providing a receives membership benefits in return refreshments are served to members of taxpayer with a written for a payment to an organization a donee organization before an event. acknowledgment. For example, a private described in section 170(c) may not The second category is rights or foundation may use a copy of its Form claim a charitable contribution privileges that members can exercise 990–PF, Return of Private Foundation, deduction for more than the amount by frequently during the membership as a written acknowledgment for a which the payment exceeds the fair period. An example is free admission to taxpayer’s charitable contribution of market value of the membership a museum. $250 or more if it contains the necessary benefits. United States v. American Bar information. Any documents that are Endowment, 477 U.S. 105 (1986). See The items described in the previous used as a written acknowledgment of a also Rev. Rul. 68–432, 1968–2 C.B. 104; two paragraphs may be disregarded for taxpayer’s charitable contribution must Rev. Rul. 67–246, 1967–2 C.B. 104. purposes of determining whether the be contemporaneous within the Accordingly, taxpayers and donee taxpayer has made a charitable meaning of section 170(f)(8)(C). organizations must determine the fair contribution, the amount of any Section 6115 generally requires an market value of any membership charitable contribution that has been organization described in section 170(c) benefits the donee organization provides made, and whether any goods or that receives a ‘‘quid pro quo to its donors. services have been provided that must contribution’’ in excess of $75 to It is often difficult to value be substantiated under section 170(f)(8) provide a written disclosure statement membership benefits, especially rights or disclosed under section 6115. Thus, to the donor. The written disclosure or privileges that are not limited as to the effect of these provisions is broader statement must contain the following use, such as free or discounted than that of the temporary regulations, information: (1) a statement that the admission or parking, and gift shop which provided less comprehensive deductibility of the donor’s contribution discounts. In the course of preparing relief and then only for items of is limited to the excess of the amount of these proposed regulations, the IRS and insubstantial value. 39898 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules Goods or Services Provided to Donor’s purposes of section 170(a) if the The IRS and the Treasury Department Employees estimate is in a contemporaneous believe that for these reasons it is The proposed regulations also contain written acknowledgment (as required by appropriate to exempt from the relief where donee organizations section 170(f)(8)) or a written disclosure requirements of section 170(f)(8) provide goods or services to the statement (as required by section 6115). transfers of property to charitable lead Thus, a taxpayer that makes a payment trusts, charitable remainder annuity employees of their donors. Goods or to an organization described in section trusts, or charitable remainder unitrusts services that may be disregarded for the 170(c) and receives an item in return while not exempting transfers to pooled purposes specified above when generally may rely on the organization’s income funds. provided directly to a donor may also be estimate of the value of the item in disregarded for the same purposes when Substantiation of Out-of-Pocket calculating its charitable contribution provided to a donor’s employees. Expenses deduction if the estimate is included in Any other goods or services provided a contemporaneous written Section 1.170A–1(g) provides that an to the donor’s employees must be taken acknowledgment or a written disclosure unreimbursed expenditure made into account for purposes of calculating statement. incident to the rendition of services to any charitable contribution the donor However, a taxpayer may not treat an a donee organization may be a claims as a deduction. If a estimate as the fair market value of the deductible charitable contribution. contemporaneous written goods or services if the taxpayer knows, Some taxpayers may make individual acknowledgment of the donor’s or has reason to know, that such unreimbursed expenditures of $250 or contribution is required under section treatment is unreasonable. For example, more (such as for a plane ticket) that 170(f)(8), it must include a description if the taxpayer is a dealer in the type of will require substantiation under of these goods or services. However, the goods or services it receives from an section 170(f)(8). The IRS and the proposed regulations provide that the organization described in section 170(c), Treasury Department recognize that a contemporaneous written or if the goods or services are readily donee organization typically has no acknowledgment may omit the valued, it is unreasonable for the knowledge of the amount of out-of- otherwise required good faith estimate taxpayer to treat the donee pocket expenditures incurred by a of the value of these goods or services; organization’s estimate as the fair taxpayer, and therefore, would have similarly, the proposed regulations market value of the goods or services if difficulty providing taxpayers with provide that a written disclosure that estimate is in error and the taxpayer substantiation of unreimbursed statement required by section 6115 for knows, or has reason to know, the fair expenditures. a payment made in exchange for these market value of the goods or services. To address this concern, the proposed goods or services may include a An estimate of the value of goods or regulations provide that where a description of them in lieu of the services in a contemporaneous written taxpayer has individual unreimbursed otherwise required good faith estimate acknowledgment or written disclosure expenditures made incident to the of their value. statement is not in error if the estimate rendition of services and of an amount requiring substantiation, the Good Faith Estimate is within the typical range of retail prices for the goods or services. For expenditures may be substantiated by For purposes of sections 170 and example, if an organization provides a the donor’s normal records (see 6115, the proposed regulations define a book in exchange for a $100 payment, § 1.170A–13(a)) and an abbreviated good faith estimate of the value of goods and the book is sold at retail prices written acknowledgment provided by or services provided by an organization ranging from $18 to $25, the taxpayer the donee organization. This written described in section 170(c) as an may rely on any estimate of the acknowledgment from the donee estimate of the fair market value of those organization that is within the $18 to organization must contain a description goods or services. The fair market value $25 range. of the services provided by the donor, of goods or services may differ from the date the services were provided, their cost to the donee organization. The Substantiation of Contributions to a whether or not the donee organization organization may use any reasonable Split Interest Trust provided any goods or services in return methodology that it applies in good Section 170(f)(8)(E) provides the and, if the donee organization provided faith in making the good faith estimate. Secretary with authority to issue any goods or services, a description and However, a taxpayer is not required to regulations that relieve taxpayers, in good faith estimate of the fair market determine how the donee organization appropriate cases, from some or all of value of those goods or services. This made the estimate. the requirements of section 170(f)(8). written acknowledgment must be The proposed regulations further The grantor of a charitable lead trust, obtained by the taxpayer on or before provide that a donee organization may a charitable remainder annuity trust, or the earlier of the date the taxpayer files make a good faith estimate of the value a charitable remainder unitrust is not its original return for the taxable year in of goods or services that are not required to designate a specific which the contribution was made, or the available in a commercial transaction by organization as the charitable due date (including extensions) for reference to the fair market value of beneficiary at the time the grantor filing the taxpayer’s original return for similar or comparable goods or services. transfers property to the trust. As a that year. Goods or services may be similar or result, there is often no designated comparable even though they do not donee organization available to provide Contributions Made by a Partnership or have the unique qualities of the goods a contemporaneous written an S Corporation or services that are being valued. acknowledgment to a taxpayer. In The proposed regulations provide that addition, even if a specific beneficiary is if a partnership or an S corporation Reliance on Donee Estimates designated, the designation is often makes a charitable contribution of $250 The proposed regulations provide that revocable. In contrast, a pooled income or more, the partnership or S a taxpayer generally may treat an fund is created and maintained by one corporation will be treated as the estimate of the value of goods or charitable organization to which the taxpayer for purposes of section services as the fair market value for remainder interest is contributed. 170(f)(8). Therefore, the partnership or S Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 39899 corporation is required to obtain a A public hearing has been scheduled (h) Payment in exchange for contemporaneous written for November 1, 1995, at 10:00 a.m. in consideration—(1) Burden on taxpayer acknowledgment for each charitable the IRS Auditorium, 7th floor, 1111 to show that all or part of payment is contribution of $250 or more that it Constitution Avenue, N.W., a charitable contribution or gift. No part reports on its income tax return Washington, D.C. Because of access of a payment that a taxpayer makes to (regardless of whether any partner’s or restrictions, visitors will not be or for the use of an organization shareholder’s distributive share of the admitted beyond the Internal Revenue described in section 170(c) that is in contribution is less than $250). Because Building lobby more than 15 minutes consideration for goods or services (as the partnership or S corporation must before the hearing is scheduled to begin. defined in § 1.170A–13(f)(5)) is a satisfy the requirements of section The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) contribution or gift within the meaning 170(f)(8) in order to list charitable apply to the hearing. of section 170(c) unless the taxpayer— contributions of $250 or more on the Persons who wish to present oral (i) Intends to make a payment in an schedules provided to its partners or comments at the hearing must submit amount that exceeds the fair market shareholders, the partners and written comments by November 2, 1995 value of the goods or services; and shareholders are not required to obtain and submit an outline (a signed original (ii) Makes a payment in an amount any additional contemporaneous and eight copies) of the topics to be that exceeds the fair market value of the written acknowledgments before taking discussed and the time to be devoted to goods or services. a deduction for their allocable shares of each topic by October 11, 1995. (2) Limitation on amount deductible— the partnership’s or S corporation’s A period of 10 minutes will be (i) In general. The charitable charitable contribution. allotted to each person for making contribution deduction under section comments. 170(a) for a payment a taxpayer makes Contributions Made by Payroll An agenda showing the scheduling of partly in consideration for goods or Deduction the speakers will be prepared after the services may not exceed the excess of— These proposed regulations reserve deadline for receiving outlines has (A) The amount of any cash paid and two paragraphs so that the balance of passed. Copies of the agenda will be the fair market value of any property the temporary and proposed regulations available free of charge at the hearing. (other than cash) transferred by the taxpayer to an organization described in published in the Federal Register for Drafting Information May 27, 1994, may be incorporated into section 170(c); over The principal author of these (B) The fair market value of the goods § 1.170A–13(f) upon finalization. regulations is Rosemary DeLeone, Office or services the organization provides in Proposed Effective Date of the Assistant Chief Counsel (Income return. Tax and Accounting), Internal Revenue (ii) Special rules. For special limits on These regulations are proposed to be Service. However, other personnel from the deduction for charitable effective on the date they are published the IRS and the Treasury Department contributions of ordinary income and in the Federal Register as final participated in their development. capital gain property, see section 170(e) regulations. Taxpayers may, however, and §§ 1.170A–4 and 1.170A–4A. rely on the proposed regulations for List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 (3) Certain goods or services contributions made on or after January Income taxes, Reporting and disregarded. For purposes of section 1, 1994. recordkeeping requirements. 170(a) and paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this section, goods or services Special Analyses Proposed Amendments to the described in § 1.170A–13(f)(8)(i) or Regulations It has been determined that this notice § 1.170A- 13(f)(9)(i) are disregarded. of proposed rulemaking is not a Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is (4) Donee estimates of the value of significant regulatory action as defined proposed to be amended as follows: goods or services may be treated as fair in EO 12866. Therefore, a regulatory market value—(i) In general. For assessment is not required. It has also PART 1ÐINCOME TAXES purposes of section 170(a), a taxpayer been determined that section 553(b) of Paragraph 1. The authority citation may rely on either a contemporaneous the Administrative Procedure Act (5 for part 1 is amended by adding a new written acknowledgment provided U.S.C. chapter 5) and the Regulatory entry for section 1.170A–1 and revising under section 170(f)(8) and § 1.170A– Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) do the entry for section 1.170A–13 to read 13(f) or a written disclosure statement not apply to these regulations and, as follows: provided under section 6115 for the fair therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility market value of any goods or services Analysis is not required. Pursuant to Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805. Section 1.170A– provided to the taxpayer by the donee section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue 1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 170(a). Section 1.170A–13 also issued under 26 U.S.C. organization. Code, this notice of proposed 170(f)(8). * * * (ii) Exception. A taxpayer may not rulemaking will be submitted to the treat an estimate of the value of goods Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Par. 2. Section 1.170A–1 is amended or services as their fair market value if Business Administration for comment as follows: the taxpayer knows, or has reason to on its impact on small businesses. 1. Paragraph (h) is redesignated as know, that such treatment is paragraph (j). unreasonable. For example, if the Comments and Public Hearing 2. Paragraph (i) is redesignated as taxpayer knows, or has reason to know, paragraph (k) and is revised. Before the proposed regulations are 3. Paragraph (h) is added. that there is an error in an estimate adopted as final regulations, 4. Paragraph (i) is added and reserved. provided by an organization described consideration will be given to any The additions and revisions read as in section 170(c) pertaining to goods or written comments (a signed original and follows: services that have a readily eight copies) that are submitted timely ascertainable value, it is unreasonable to the IRS. All comments will be § 1.170A±1 Charitable, etc., contributions for the taxpayer to treat the estimate as available for public inspection and and gifts; allowance of deduction. the fair market value of the goods or copying. * * * * * services. Similarly, if the taxpayer is a 39900 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules dealer in the type of goods or services typical retail prices for the book, the estimate described in section 170(f)(8)), a provided in consideration for its contained in the written disclosure statement description and good faith estimate of payment and knows, or has reason to is not in error. Although Taxpayer knows the value of those goods or services; and know, that the estimate is in error, it is that the book is sold for as much as $25, (iv) If the donee organization provides Taxpayer may treat the estimate of $20 as the any intangible religious benefits, a unreasonable for the taxpayer to treat fair market value of the book in determining the estimate as the fair market value of the amount of his charitable contribution statement to that effect. the goods or services. deduction. (3) Contemporaneous. A written (5) Examples. The following examples acknowledgment is contemporaneous if illustrate the rules of this paragraph (h). (i) [Reserved] it is obtained by the taxpayer on or * * * * * Example 1. Certain goods or services before the earlier of— disregarded. Taxpayer makes a $50 payment (k) Effective date. In general this (i) The date the taxpayer files its to Charity B, an organization described in section applies to contributions made in original return for the taxable year in section 170(c), in exchange for a family taxable years beginning after December which the contribution was made; or membership. The family membership entitles 31, 1969. Paragraph (j)(11) of this (ii) The due date (including Taxpayer and members of Taxpayer’s family section, however, applies only to out-of- extensions) for filing the taxpayer’s to certain benefits. These benefits include pocket expenditures made in taxable original return for that year. free admission to weekly poetry readings, years beginning after December 31, (4) Donee organization. For purposes discounts on merchandise sold by B in its gift 1976. In addition, paragraph (h) of this of this paragraph (f), a donee shop or by mail order, and invitations to organization is an organization special events for members only, such as section applies only to payments made lectures or informal receptions. When B first on or after the date these regulations are described in section 170(c). offers its membership package for the year, B published in the Federal Register as (5) Goods or services. Goods or reasonably projects that each special event final regulations. However, taxpayers services means cash, property, services, for members will have a cost to B, excluding may rely on the rules of paragraph (h) benefits, and privileges. any allocable overhead, of $5 or less per of this section for payments made on or (6) In consideration for. A donee person. Because the family membership after January 1, 1994. organization provides goods or services benefits are disregarded pursuant to Par. 3. Section 1.170A–13 is amended in consideration for a taxpayer’s § 1.170A–13(f)(8)(i), Taxpayer may treat the as follows: payment if, at the time the taxpayer $50 payment as a contribution or gift within makes the payment to the donee the meaning of section 170(c), regardless of 1. Paragraph (e) is added and Taxpayer’s intent and whether or not the reserved. organization, the taxpayer receives or payment exceeds the fair market value of the 2. Paragraph (f) is added. expects to receive goods or services in goods or services. Furthermore, any The additions read as follows: exchange for that payment. Goods or charitable contribution deduction available services a donee organization provides to Taxpayer may be calculated without § 1.170A±13 Recordkeeping and return in consideration for a payment by a regard to the membership benefits. requirements for deductions for charitable taxpayer include goods or services Example 2. Treatment of good faith contributions. provided in a year other than the year estimate at auction as the fair market value. * * * * * in which the taxpayer makes the Taxpayer attends an auction held by Charity (e) [Reserved] C, an organization described in section payment to the donee organization. (f) Substantiation of charitable (7) Good faith estimate. For purposes 170(c). Prior to the auction, C publishes a contributions of $250 or more—(1) In catalog that meets the requirements for a of this section, good faith estimate written disclosure statement under section general. No deduction is allowed under means the donee organization’s estimate 6115(a) (including C’s good faith estimate of section 170(a) for all or part of any of the fair market value of any goods or the value of items that will be available for contribution of $250 or more unless the services, without regard to the manner bidding). A representative of C gives a copy taxpayer substantiates the contribution in which the organization in fact made of the catalog to each individual (including with a contemporaneous written that estimate. See § 1.170A–1(h)(4) for Taxpayer) who attends the auction. Taxpayer acknowledgment from a donee rules regarding when a taxpayer may notes that in the catalog C’s estimate of the organization. Section 170(f)(8) does not treat a donee organization’s estimate of value of a vase is $100. Taxpayer has no apply to a payment of $250 or more if reason to doubt the accuracy of this estimate. the value of goods or services as the fair Taxpayer successfully bids and pays $500 for the amount contributed (as determined market value. the vase. Because Taxpayer knew, prior to under § 1.170A–1(h)) is less than $250. (8) Certain goods or services making her payment, that the estimate in the (2) Written acknowledgment. Except disregarded—(i) In general. For catalog was less than the amount of her as otherwise provided in paragraphs purposes of section 170(f)(8), the payment, Taxpayer satisfies the requirement (f)(8) and (f)(9) of this section, a written following goods or services are of paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this section. Because acknowledgment from a donee disregarded— Taxpayer makes a payment in an amount that organization must provide the following (A) Goods or services that have exceeds that estimate, Taxpayer satisfies the information— requirements of paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this insubstantial value under the guidelines section. Taxpayer may treat C’s estimate of (i) The amount of any cash the provided in Revenue Procedures 90–12, the value of the vase as its fair market value taxpayer paid and a description (but not 1990–1 C.B. 471, 92–49, 1992–1 C.B. in determining the amount of her charitable necessarily the value) of any property 987, and any successor documents. (See contribution deduction. other than cash the taxpayer transferred § 601.601(d)(2)(ii) of the Statement of Example 3. Good faith estimate not in to the donee organization; Procedural Rules, 26 CFR part 601.); and error. Taxpayer makes a $200 payment to (ii) A statement of whether or not the (B) Annual membership benefits Charity D, an organization described in donee organization provides any goods offered to a taxpayer for a payment of section 170(c). In return for Taxpayer’s or services in consideration, in whole or $75 or less per year that consist of— payment, D gives Taxpayer a book that in part, for any of the cash or other (1) Any rights or privileges, other than Taxpayer could buy at retail prices typically ranging from $18 to $25. D provides property transferred to the donee those described in section 170(l), that Taxpayer with a good faith estimate, in a organization; the taxpayer can exercise frequently written disclosure statement under section (iii) If the donee organization provides during the membership period. 6115(a), of $20 for the value of the book. any goods or services other than Examples of such rights and privileges Because the estimate is within the range of intangible religious benefits (as include, but are not limited to, free or Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 39901 discounted admission to the benefit. G’s membership benefit of free unreimbursed expenditures incident to organization’s facilities or events, free or admission is not described in paragraph the rendition of services, within the discounted parking, preferred access to (f)(8)(i)(B) of this section because it is not a meaning of § 1.170A–1(g), is treated as privilege that can be exercised frequently goods or services, and discounts on the (due to the limited number of performances having obtained a contemporaneous purchase of goods or services; and offered by G). Therefore, to meet the written acknowledgment of those (2) Admission to events during the requirements of section 170(f)(8), a expenditures if the taxpayer— membership period that are open only contemporaneous written acknowledgment (i) Has adequate records under to members of the donee organization of H’s $350 payment must include a paragraph (a) of this section to and for which the donee organization description of the free admission benefit and substantiate the amount of the reasonably projects that the cost per a good faith estimate of its value. expenditures; and person (excluding any allocable (9) Goods or services provided to (ii) Obtains by the date prescribed in overhead) for each such event is within employees of donors—(i) Certain goods paragraph (f)(3) of this section a the limits established for ‘‘low cost or services disregarded. For purposes of statement prepared by the donee articles’’ under section 513(h)(2). The section 170(f)(8), goods or services organization containing— projected cost to the donee organization provided by a donee organization to a (A) A description of the services is determined at the time the taxpayer’s employees in return for a provided by the taxpayer; organization first offers its membership payment to the organization may be (B) The date the services were package for the year (using section 3.07 disregarded to the extent that the goods provided; of Revenue Procedure 90–12, or any or services provided to each employee (C) A statement of whether or not the successor documents, to determine the are the same as those described in donee organization provides any goods cost if items or services are donated). paragraph (f)(8)(i) of this section. or services in consideration, in whole or (ii) Examples. The following (ii) No good faith estimate required in part, for the unreimbursed examples illustrate the rules of this for other goods or services. If a taxpayer expenditures; and paragraph (f)(8). makes a contribution of $250 or more to (D) The information required by paragraphs (f)(2)(iii) and (iv) of this Example 1. Membership benefits a donee organization and, in return, the donee organization offers the taxpayer’s section. disregarded. Performing Arts Center E is an (11) Contributions made by payroll organization described in section 170(c). In employees goods or services other than deduction. [Reserved] return for a payment of $75, E offers a those described in paragraph (f)(9)(i) of package of basic membership benefits that (12) Distributing organizations as this section, the contemporaneous donees. [Reserved] includes the right to purchase tickets to written acknowledgment of the performances one week before they go on (13) Transfers to certain trusts. sale to the general public, free parking in E’s taxpayer’s contribution is not required Section 170(f)(8) does not apply to a garage during evening and weekend to include a good faith estimate of the transfer of property to a trust described performances, and a 10% discount on value of such goods or services but must in section 170(f)(2)(B), a charitable merchandise sold in E’s gift shop. In return include a description of those goods or remainder annuity trust (as defined in for a payment of $150, E offers a package of services. section 664(d)(1)), or a charitable preferred membership benefits that includes (iii) Example. The following example all of the benefits in the $75 package as well remainder unitrust (as defined in illustrates the rules of this paragraph section 664(d)(2)). Section 170(f)(8) does as a poster that is sold in E’s gift shop for (f)(9). $20. The basic membership and the preferred apply, however, to a transfer to a pooled membership are each valid for twelve Example. Museum J is an organization income fund (as defined in section months, and there are approximately 50 described in section 170(c). For a payment of 642(c)(5)). performances of various productions at E $40, J offers a package of basic membership (14) Substantiation of charitable during a twelve month period. E’s gift shop benefits that includes free admission and a contributions made by a partnership or 10% discount on merchandise sold in J’s gift is open for several hours each week and at an S corporation. If a partnership or an performance times. F, a patron of the arts, is shop. J’s other membership categories are for supporters who contribute $100 or more. S corporation makes a charitable solicited by E to make a contribution. E offers contribution of $250 or more, the F the preferred membership benefits in Corporation K makes a payment of $50,000 return for a payment of $150 or more. F to J and in return, J offers K’s employees free partnership or S corporation will be makes a payment of $300 to E. F can satisfy admission, a tee-shirt with J’s logo that costs treated as the taxpayer for purposes of the substantiation requirement of section J $4.50, and a gift shop discount of 25%. The section 170(f)(8). Therefore, the 170(f)(8) by obtaining a contemporaneous free admission for K’s employees is the same partnership or S corporation must written acknowledgment from E that as the benefit made available to holders of substantiate the contribution with a includes a description of the poster and a the $40 membership and is otherwise described in paragraph (f)(8)(i)(B) of this contemporaneous written good faith estimate of its fair market value acknowledgment from the donee ($20) and disregards the remaining section. The tee-shirt given to each of K’s employees is described in paragraph organization before reporting the membership benefits. contribution on its income tax return for Example 2. Rights or privileges that cannot (f)(8)(i)(A) of this section. Therefore, a contemporaneous written acknowledgment be exercised frequently. Community Theater the year in which the contribution was of K’s payment is not required to include a Group G is an organization described in made and must maintain the description or good faith estimate of the section 170(c). Every summer, G performs contemporaneous written value of the free admission or the tee-shirts. four different plays. Each play is performed acknowledgment in its records. A However, because the gift shop discount two times. In return for a membership fee of offered to K’s employees is different than that partner of a partnership or a shareholder $60, G offers its members free admission to offered to those who purchase the $40 of an S corporation is not required to any of its performances. Non-members may membership, the discount is not described in obtain any additional substantiation for purchase tickets on a performance by paragraph (f)(8)(i) of this section. Therefore, his or her share of the partnership’s or performance basis for $15 a ticket. H, an the contemporaneous written S corporation’s charitable contribution. individual who is a sponsor of the theater, is acknowledgment of K’s payment is required solicited by G to make a contribution. G tells (15) Substantiation of matched to include a description of the 25% discount payments—(i) In general. For purposes H that the membership benefit will be offered to K’s employees. provided in return for any payment of $60 or of section 170, if a taxpayer’s payment more. H chooses to make a payment of $350 (10) Substantiation of out-of-pocket to a donee organization is matched, in to G and receives in return the membership expenses. A taxpayer that incurs whole or in part, by another payor, and 39902 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules the taxpayer receives goods or services generally available in a commercial (b) Certain goods or services in consideration for its payment and transaction may be determined by disregarded. For purposes of section some or all of the matching payment, reference to the fair market value of 6115, an organization described in those goods or services will be treated similar or comparable goods or services. section 170(c) may disregard goods or as provided in consideration for the Goods or services may be similar or services described in § 1.170A– taxpayer’s payment and not in comparable even though they do not 13(f)(8)(i). consideration for the matching payment. have the unique qualities of the goods (c) Goods or services provided to (ii) Example. The following example or services that are being valued. employees of donors— illustrates the rules of this paragraph (3) Examples. The following examples (1) Certain goods or services (f)(15). illustrate the rules of this paragraph (a). disregarded. For purposes of section Example. Taxpayer makes a $400 payment 6115, goods or services provided by an Example 1. Facility not available on a organization described in section 170(c) to Charity L, a donee organization. Pursuant commercial basis. Museum M, an to a matching payment plan, Taxpayer’s organization described in section 170(c), is to a taxpayer’s employees in return for employer matches Taxpayer’s $400 payment located in Community N. In return for a a payment to the organization may be with an additional payment of $400. In payment of $50,000 or more, M allows a disregarded to the extent that the goods consideration for the combined payments of donor to hold a private event in a room or services provided to each employee $800, L gives Taxpayer an item that it located in M. No other private events are are the same as those described in estimates has a fair market value of $100. L permitted to be held in M. In Community N, § 1.170A–13(f)(8)(i). does not give the employer any goods or there are four hotels, O, P, Q, and R, that (2) Description permitted in lieu of services in consideration for its contribution. have ballrooms with the same capacity as the The contemporaneous written good faith estimate for other goods or room in M. Of these hotels, only O and P services. If a taxpayer makes a quid pro acknowledgment provided to the employer have ballrooms that offer amenities and must include a statement that no goods or atmosphere that are similar to the amenities quo contribution in excess of $75 to an services were provided in consideration for and atmosphere of the room in M (although organization described in section 170(c) the employer’s $400 payment. The O and P lack the unique collection of art that and, in return, the organization offers contemporaneous written acknowledgment is displayed in the room of M). Because the the taxpayer’s employees goods or provided to Taxpayer must include the capacity, amenities, and atmosphere of services other than those described in amount of Taxpayer’s payment, a description ballrooms in O and P are comparable to the paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the of the item received by Taxpayer, and a capacity, amenities, and atmosphere of the organization’s written disclosure statement that L’s good faith estimate of the room in M, a good faith estimate of the value of the item received by Taxpayer is statement required by section 6115 may benefits received from M may be determined include a description of the goods or $100. by reference to the cost of renting either the services in lieu of a good faith estimate (16) Effective date. This paragraph (f) ballroom in O or the ballroom in P. The cost of renting the ballroom in O is $2500 and, of the value of the goods or services, applies to contributions made on or provided that the statement otherwise after the date that these regulations are therefore, a good faith estimate of the fair market value of the right to host a private satisfies the requirements of section published in the Federal Register as event in the room at M is $2500. In this 6115. final regulations. However, taxpayers example, the ballrooms in O and P are (d) Effective date. This section applies may rely on the rules of this paragraph considered similar and comparable facilities to contributions made on or after the (f) for contributions made on or after to the room in M for valuation purposes, date that these regulations are published January 1, 1994. notwithstanding the fact that the room in M in the Federal Register as final Par. 4. Section 1.6115–1 is added displays a unique collection of art. regulations. However, taxpayers may under the undesignated centerheading Example 2. Services available on a commercial basis. Charity S is an rely on the rules of this section for ‘‘Miscellaneous Provisions’’ to read as contributions made on or after January follows: organization described in section 170(c). S offers to provide a one-hour tennis lesson 1, 1994. § 1.6115±1 Disclosure requirements for with Tennis Professional T in return for the Margaret Milner Richardson, quid pro quo contributions. first payment of $500 or more that it receives. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. T provides one-hour tennis lessons on a [FR Doc. 95–19063 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] (a) Good faith estimate defined—(1) In commercial basis for $100. Taxpayer pays general. A good faith estimate of the $500 to S and in return receives the tennis BILLING CODE 4830±01±U value of goods or services provided by lesson with T. A good faith estimate of the an organization described in section fair market value of the lesson provided in 170(c) in consideration for a taxpayer’s exchange for Taxpayer’s payment is $100. 26 CFR Part 1 payment to that organization is an Example 3. Celebrity presence. Charity U is [IL±65±93] estimate of the fair market value, within an organization described in section 170(c). the meaning of § 1.170A–1(c)(2), of the In return for the first payment of $1000 or RIN 1545±AS46 goods or services. The organization may more that it receives, U will provide a dinner for two followed by an evening tour of Exceptions to Passive Income use any reasonable methodology in Museum V conducted by Artist W, whose Characterization for Certain Foreign making a good faith estimate, provided most recent works are on display at V. W Banks and Securities Dealers; Hearing it applies the methodology in good faith. does not provide tours of V on a commercial If the organization fails to apply the basis. Typically, tours of V are free to the AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), methodology in good faith, the public. Taxpayer pays $1000 to U and in Treasury. return receives a dinner valued at $100 and organization will be treated as not ACTION: Change of date for public an evening tour of V conducted by W. having met the requirements of section hearing on proposed regulations. 6115. See section 6714 for the penalties Because tours of V are typically free to the public, a good faith estimate of the value of that apply for failure to meet the SUMMARY: This document changes the the evening tour conducted by W is $0. In requirements of section 6115. this example, the fact that Taxpayer’s tour of date of the public hearing on proposed (2) Good faith estimate for goods or V is conducted by W rather than V’s regular regulations concerning the application services that are not commercially tour guides does not render the tours of the exceptions to passive income available. A good faith estimate of the dissimilar or incomparable for valuation contained in section 1296(b) for foreign value of goods or services that are not purposes. banks, securities dealers and brokers. Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 39903 DATES: The public hearing is changed to classification of certain organizations as for-profit institutions, including small Monday, September 11, 1995, beginning trusts for federal tax purposes. The businesses. at 10:00 a.m. proposed regulations would provide Estimated total annual reporting ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be guidance to taxpayers on the proper burden: 2,000 hours. held in the Internal Revenue Service classification of trusts formed to collect The estimated annual burden per Auditorium, Seventh floor, 7400 and disburse amounts for environmental respondent: 4 hours. Corridor, Internal Revenue Building, remediation of an existing waste site to Estimated number of respondents: 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., discharge taxpayers’ liability or 500. Washington, DC. Submit requests to potential liability under applicable Estimated annual frequency of speak and outlines of oral comments to environmental laws. responses: 1. the CC:DOM:CORP:T:R [IL–65–93], DATES: Written comments must be Introduction room 5228, Internal Revenue Service, received by October 5, 1995. Requests to This document proposes to add P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, speak (with outlines of oral comments) § 301.7701–4(e) to the Procedure and Washington, DC 20044. at a public hearing scheduled for Administration Regulations (26 CFR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: October 26, 1995, at 10 a.m. must be Part 301) relating to the classification of Christina Vasquez of the Regulations submitted by October 5, 1995. certain environmental remediation Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: trusts as trusts for federal tax purposes. (Corporate), (202) 622–6803 (not a toll- CC:DOM:CORP:T:R (PS–54–94), room Background free number). 5228, Internal Revenue Service, POB SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, Unincorporated organizations may be of proposed rulemaking and notice of DC 20044. In the alternative, classified as associations (which are public hearing appearing in the Federal submissions may be hand delivered taxable as corporations), partnerships, Register on Friday, April 28, 1995 (60 between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. or trusts for federal tax purposes. The FR 20922), announced that the Service to: CC:DOM:CORP:T:R (PS–54–94), criteria for determining when an would hold a public hearing on Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue organization will be classified as a trust proposed regulations concerning the Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, are set forth in § 301.7701–4. The application of the exceptions to passive NW., Washington, DC. The public proposed amendment to § 301.7701–4 income contained in section 1296(b) for hearing has been scheduled to be held provides that an environmental foreign banks, securities dealers and in the Auditorium, Internal Revenue remediation trust will be classified as a brokers on Thursday, August 31, 1995, Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, trust for federal tax purposes. beginning at 10:00 a.m. in the IRS NW., Washington, DC. A trust is an environmental remediation trust if (1) the primary Auditorium. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The date of the public hearing has purpose of the trust is collecting and Concerning the regulations, James A. changed. The hearing is scheduled for disbursing amounts for environmental Quinn, (202) 622–3060; concerning Monday, September 11, 1995, beginning remediation of an existing waste site to submissions and the hearing, Michael at 10:00 a.m. The requests to speak and resolve, satisfy, mitigate, address, or Slaughter, (202) 622–7190 (not toll-free outlines of oral comments must be prevent the liability or potential liability numbers). received by Thursday, August 10, 1995. of persons imposed by federal, state, or Because of controlled access SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: local environmental laws; (2) all contributors to the trust have potential restrictions, attenders are not admitted Paperwork Reduction Act beyond the lobby of the Internal liability or a reasonable expectation of Revenue Building until 9:45 a.m. The collection of information liability under federal, state, or local The Service will prepare an agenda contained in this notice of proposed environmental laws for environmental showing the scheduling of the speakers rulemaking has been submitted to the remediation of the waste site; and (3) after the outlines are received from the Office of Management and Budget for the trust is not a qualified settlement persons testifying and make copies review in accordance with the fund within the meaning of § 1.468B– available free of charge at the hearing. Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 1(a). Environmental remediation trusts Cynthia E. Grigsby, 3504(h)). Comments on the collection of include trusts formed pursuant to an Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief information should be sent to the Office order of a governmental authority, as Counsel (Corporate). of Management and Budget, Attention: well as trusts formed by taxpayers to [FR Doc. 95–19297 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] Desk Officer for the Department of the avoid future liability or potential BILLING CODE 4830±01±P Treasury, Office of Information and liability under federal, state, or local Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC environmental laws. An environmental 20503, with copies to the Internal remediation trust is classified as a trust, 26 CFR Part 301 Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports even though it may differ from the Clearance Officer, PC:FP, Washington, traditional trust in which trustees take [PS±54±94] DC 20224. title to property for the purpose of RIN 1545±AT02 The collection of information is protecting or conserving it for the required by § 301.7701–4(e)(2). This beneficiaries under the ordinary rules Environmental Settlement FundsÐ information is required by the IRS to applied in chancery or probate courts, Classification ensure the proper reporting of items of because the purpose of an AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), income and expense of an environmental remediation trust is to Treasury. environmental remediation trust in pay the costs of environmental ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking which a portion of the trust is treated as remediation of an existing waste site as and notice of public hearing. owned by a grantor. This information a result of liability or potential liability will be used to ensure compliance with under federal, state, or local SUMMARY: This document contains the proposed regulation. The likely environmental laws, not to carry on a proposed regulations relating to the respondents are businesses and other for-profit business. 39904 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules The proposed regulations provide that Comments and Public Hearing Internal Revenue Code. For purposes of each contributor to the trust will be Before these proposed regulations are this paragraph (e), an organization is an treated as the owner of the portion of adopted as final regulations, environmental remediation trust if the the trust contributed by that person, consideration will be given to any organization is organized under state and, therefore, the trust is treated as a written comments (a signed original and law as a trust; the primary purpose of grantor trust under subpart E of eight (8) copies) that are submitted the trust is collecting and disbursing subchapter J. The proposed regulations timely to the IRS. All comments will be amounts for environmental remediation also require the trustee to provide available for public inspection and of an existing waste site to resolve, information to the participants that will copying. satisfy, mitigate, address, or prevent the enable them to properly report their A public hearing has been scheduled liability or potential liability of persons share of income, deductions, and for October 26, 1995, at 10:00 a.m. in the imposed by federal, state, or local credits, including information to IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue environmental laws; all contributors to properly determine whether a payment Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, the trust have potential liability or a satisfies the economic performance NW., Washington DC. Because of access reasonable expectation of liability under rules of section 461(h). restrictions, visitors will not be federal, state, or local environmental The proposed regulations provide admitted beyond the Internal Revenue laws for environmental remediation of certain rules relating to participants Building lobby more than 15 minutes the waste site; and the trust is not a (cash-out grantors) that contribute a before the hearing starts. qualified settlement fund within the fixed amount to the trust and are The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) meaning of § 1.468B–1(a) of this relieved from making further apply to the hearing. chapter. An environmental remediation contributions to the trust, even though Persons that wish to present oral trust is classified as a trust because its the participant still is liable or comments at the hearing must submit primary purpose is environmental potentially liable under applicable written comments by October 5, 1995, remediation of a waste site and not the environmental laws. Under the and submit an outline of the topics to carrying on of a profit-making business proposed regulations, all amounts be discussed and the time to be devoted which normally would be conducted contributed to an environmental to each topic (signed original and eight through business organizations remediation trust by a cash-out grantor (8) copies) by October 5, 1995. classified as corporations or are considered amounts contributed for A period of 10 minutes will be partnerships. However, if the remedial remediation. In addition, the trust allotted to each person for making purpose is altered or becomes so agreement may direct the trustee to comments. obscured by business or investment expend amounts contributed by a cash- An agenda showing the scheduling of activities that the declared remedial out grantor (and the earnings thereon) the speakers will be prepared after the purpose is no longer controlling, the before expending amounts contributed deadline for receiving outlines has organization will no longer be classified by other grantors (and the earnings passed. Copies of the agenda will be as a trust. For purposes of this thereon). The proposed regulations also available free of charge at the hearing. paragraph (e), environmental provide that a cash-out grantor will Drafting Information. The principal author remediation includes the costs of cease to be treated as an owner of a of these regulations is James A. Quinn of the assessing environmental conditions, portion of the trust when the grantor’s Office of Assistant Chief Counsel remediating environmental portion is treated as fully expended. (Passthroughs and Special Industries). contamination, monitoring remedial However, other personnel from the IRS and activities and the release of substances, Effective Date Treasury Department participated in their preventing future releases of substances, The regulations are proposed to apply development. and collecting amounts from persons to trusts that meet the requirements of List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 301 liable or potentially liable for the costs paragraph (e)(1) of the regulations that of these activities. For purposes of this Employment taxes, Estate taxes, paragraph (e), persons have potential are formed on or after the date of Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, publication of these proposed liability or a reasonable expectation of Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping liability under federal, state, or local regulations as final regulations in the requirements. Federal Register. environmental laws for environmental Proposed Amendments to the remediation of the waste site if there is Special Analyses Regulations authority under a federal, state, or local law that requires such persons to satisfy It has been determined that this notice Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is all or a portion of the costs of the of proposed rulemaking is not a proposed to be amended as follows: significant regulatory action as defined environmental remediation. in EO 12866. Therefore, a regulatory PART 301ÐPROCEDURE AND (2) Each contributor (grantor) to the assessment is not required. It also has ADMINISTRATION trust will be treated as the owner of the been determined that section 553(b) of portion of the trust contributed by that the Administrative Procedures Act (5 Paragraph 1. The authority citation grantor. See section 677 and § 1.677(a)– U.S.C. chapter 5) and the Regulatory for part 301 continues to read in part as 1(d) of this chapter for rules regarding Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) do follows: the treatment of a grantor as the owner not apply to these regulations, and, Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * of a portion of a trust applied in therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Par. 2. Section 301.7701–4(e) is added discharge of the grantor’s legal Analysis is not required. Pursuant to to read as follows: obligation. Items of income, deduction, section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue and credit attributable to any portion of Code, this notice of proposed § 301.7701±4 Trusts. an environmental remediation trust rulemaking will be submitted to the * * * * * treated as owned by the grantor should Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small (e) Environmental remediation trusts. not be reported by the trust on Form Business Administration for comment (1) An environmental remediation trust 1041, but should be shown on a separate on its impact on small business. is considered a trust for purposes of the statement to be attached to that form. Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 39905 See § 1.671–4(a) of this chapter. The and Y’s portions. On November 30, 1996, the ADDRESSES: Comments on these trustee must also furnish to each grantor trustee pays $2,000,000 for remediation work proposed regulations should be mailed, a statement that shows all items of performed from June 1, 1996, through faxed, or delivered to T. Jeremy Gunn, income, deduction, and credit of the September 30, 1996. As of November 30, Acting General Counsel, Assassination 1996, the trust had $75,000 of interest Records Review Board, 600 E Street trust for the taxable year attributable to income, which is allocated in equal shares of the portion of the trust treated as owned $25,000 to X, Y, and Z’s portions of the trust. NW., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20530, by the grantor. The statement must (d) Pursuant to the agreement between X, FAX (202) 724–0457 (Attention: Privacy provide the grantor with the information Y, and Z, Z made no further contributions to Act NPRM). All comments will be necessary to take the items into account the trust. Pursuant to the trust agreement, the placed in the Board’s public files and in computing the grantor’s taxable trustee expended Z’s portion of the trust will be available for inspection between income, including information before expending X’s and Y’s portion. 10 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Mondays through necessary to properly take into account Therefore, Z’s share of the remediation Fridays (except legal holidays), in the items under the economic performance payment made in 1996 is $1,025,000 Board’s Public Reading Room at the ($1,000,000 contribution by Z plus $25,000 of same address. rules of section 461(h) and the income allocated to Z’s portion of the trust). regulations thereunder. See § 1.461–4 of Z must take the $1,025,000 payment into FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: this chapter for rules relating to account under the appropriate federal tax T. Jeremy Gunn, Acting General economic performance. accounting rules. In addition, X’s share of the Counsel, Assassination Records Review (3) All amounts contributed to an remediation payment made in 1996 is Board, 600 E Street NW., 2nd Floor, environmental remediation trust by a $487,500, and Y’s share of the remediation Washington, DC 20530. grantor (cash-out grantor) who, pursuant payment made in 1996 is $487,500. X and Y SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section(f) to an agreement with the other grantors, must take their respective shares of the of the Privacy Act of 1974, U.S.C. payment into account under the appropriate contributes a fixed amount to the trust 552a(f), requires each Federal agency to and is relieved of any further obligation federal tax accounting rules. (e) The trustee made no further promulgate rules that set forth to make contributions to the trust, but remediation payments in 1996, and X and Y procedures by which individuals can remains liable or potentially liable made no further contributions in 1996. From examine and request correction of under the applicable environmental December 1, 1996, to December 31, 1996, the agency records containing personal laws, will be considered amounts trust had $5,000 of interest income, which is information. The Review Board, contributed for remediation. An allocated $2,500 to X’s portion and $2,500 to established by the President John F. environmental remediation trust Y’s portion. Accordingly, for 1996, X and Y Kennedy Assassination Records agreement may direct the trustee to each had income of $27,500 from the trust. Collection Act of 1992, is therefore expend amounts contributed by a cash- (5) This paragraph (e) is applicable to obligated to publish such regulations. out grantor (and the earnings thereon) trusts meeting the requirements of Because Privacy Act regulations are before expending amounts contributed paragraph (e)(1) of this section that are intended for use by the general public, by other grantors (and the earnings formed on or after the date of the Review Board has tried to keep its thereon). A cash-out grantor will cease publication of these proposed proposed rule simple and to be treated as an owner of a portion regulations as final regulations in the straightforward. Some aspects of the of the trust when the grantor’s portion Federal Register. Privacy Act dealing solely with the is fully expended by the trust. Margaret Milner Richardson, Review Board’s internal procedures and (4) The provisions of this paragraph Commissioner of Internal Revenue. safeguards may be dealt with by (e) may be illustrated by the following [FR Doc. 95–19286 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] directive to the Review Board’s staff example: rather than by rule. BILLING CODE 4830±01±U Example. (a) X, Y, and Z are calendar year Paperwork Reduction Act Statement corporations that are liable for the remediation of an existing waste site under The proposed rule is not subject to the applicable federal environmental laws. On ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW provisions of the Paperwork Reduction June 1, 1996, pursuant to an agreement with BOARD Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) the governing federal agency, X, Y, and Z because it does not contain any create an environmental remediation trust 36 CFR Part 1415 information collection requirements within the meaning of paragraph (e)(1) to within the meaning of 44 U.S.C. collect funds contributed to the trust by X, Rules Implementing the Privacy Act Y, and Z and to carry out the remediation of 3502(4). the waste site to the satisfaction of the federal AGENCY: Assassination Records Review Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification agency. X, Y, and Z are jointly and severally Board. liable under the federal environmental laws As required by the Regulatory ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. for the remediation of the waste site, and the (NPRM). federal agency will not release X, Y, or Z 601–12, the Review Board certifies that from liability until the waste site is SUMMARY: Each Federal agency is this rule, if adopted, will not have a remediated to the satisfaction of the agency. required by the Privacy Act of 1974 to significant economic impact on a (b) The estimated cost of the remediation substantial number of small entities and is $20,000,000. X, Y, and Z agree that, if Z promulgate rules that set forth procedures by which individuals can that, therefore, a regulatory flexibility contributes $1,000,000 to the trust, Z will not analysis need not be prepared, 5 U.S.C. be required to make any additional examine and request correction of contributions to the trust, and X and Y will agency records containing personal 605(b). complete the remediation of the waste site information. In this notice the Review List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 1415 and make additional contributions if Board proposes a rule to satisfy that Privacy Act. necessary. requirement. (c) On June 1, 1996, X, Y, and Z each The Proposed Regulations contribute $1,000,000 to the trust. The trust DATES: To be considered, comments agreement directs the trustee to spend Z’s must be mailed, delivered in person or Accordingly, the Review Board contributions to the trust and the income faxed to the address listed below by 5 proposes to amend chapter XIV in title allocable to Z’s portion before spending X’s p.m. on September 5, 1995. 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations by 39906 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules adding a new part 1415 to read as and publishes all systems of records General Counsel will determine: follows: maintained by Federal agencies, Whether the records identified by the including the Review Board. requester exist, and whether they are PART 1415ÐRULES IMPLEMENTING (b) Requests regarding record systems. subject to any exemption under THE PRIVACY ACT Any person who wishes to know § 1415.55 below. If the records exist and whether a system of records contains a Sec. are not subject to exemption, the 1415.5 Scope. record pertaining to him or her may file General Counsel will call the requester 1415.10 Definitions. a request in person or in writing. and arrange an appointment at a 1415.15 Systems of records notification. Written requests should be directed to mutually agreeable time when the 1415.20 Requests by persons for access to the General Counsel, Assassination records can be examined. The requester their own records. Records Review Board, 600 E Street, may be accompanied by one person of 1415.25 Processing of requests. NW., Washington, DC 20530. Telephone his or her own choosing, and should 1415.30 Appeals from access denials. requests should be made by calling the state during this call whether or not a 1415.35 Requests for correction of records. Review Board at (202) 724–0088, and second individual will be present at the 1415.40 Appeals from correction denials. asking to speak to the General Counsel. 1415.45 Disclosure of records to third appointment. At the appointment, the requester will be asked to present parties. § 1415.20 Requests by person for access 1415.50 Fees. to their own records. identification as stated in 1415.55 Exemptions. § 1415.20(a)(2). (a) Requests in writing. A person may Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a; 44 U.S.C. 2107. (c) Excluded information. If a request request access to his or her own records is received for information compiled in § 1415.5 Scope. in writing by addressing a letter to the reasonable anticipation of litigation, the This part contains the Review Board’s General Counsel, Assassination Records General Counsel will inform the regulations implementing the Privacy Review Board, 600 E Street, NW., 2nd requester that this information is not Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a. Floor, Washington, DC 20530. The subject to release under the Privacy Act request should contain the following (see 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(5)). § 1415.10 Definitions. information: In addition to the definitions (1) Full name, address, and telephone § 1415.30 Appeals from access denials. provided in the Privacy Act, the number of requester; When access to records has been following terms are defined as follows: (2) Proof of identification, which denied by the General Counsel, the Assassination records for the purpose should be a copy of one of the requester may file an appeal in writing. of this regulation means records created following: Valid driver’s license, valid This appeal should be directed to the by Government offices, entities, and passport, or other current identification Executive Director, Assassination individuals that relate to the which contains both an address and Records Review Board, 600 E Street, assassination of President John F. picture of the requester; NW., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20530. Kennedy as defined in 36 CFR part 1400 (3) The system of records in which the The appeal letter must: Specify those that may, from time to time, come into desired information is contained; and denied records which are still sought, the temporary custody of the Review (4) At the requester’s option, and state why the denial by the General Board but that are not the legal property authorization for expenses (see Counsel is erroneous. The Executive of the Review Board. § 1415.50 below). Director or his representative will Executive Director means the (b) Requests in person. Any person respond to such appeals within twenty principal staff official appointed by the may examine his or her own record on business days after the appeal letter is Review Board pursuant to 44 U.S.C. the Review Board’s premises. To do so, received in the Review Board’s offices. 2107.8(a). the person should call the Review The appeal determination will explain General Counsel means the Review Board’s offices at (202) 724–0088 and the basis for continuing to deny access Board’s principal legal officer, or an ask to speak to the General Counsel. to any requested records. attorney serving as Acting General This call should be made at least two Counsel. weeks prior to the time the requester § 1415.35 Requests for correction of JFK Act means the President John F. would like to see the records. During records. Kennedy Records Collection Act of this call, the requester should be (a) Correction requests. Any person is 1992. prepared to provide the same entitled to request correction of a record Review Board means the information as that listed in paragraph pertaining to him or her. This request Assassination Records Review Board (a) of this section except for proof of must be made in writing and should be created pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 2107.7. identification. addressed to the General Counsel, System of records means a group of Assassination Records Review Board, records that is within the possession § 1415.25 Processing of requests. 600 E Street, NW., 2nd Floor, and control of the Review Board and (a) Requests in writing. The General Washington, DC 20530. The letter from which information is retrieved by Counsel will acknowledge receipt of the should clearly identify the corrections the name of the individual or by some request within five working days of its desired. An edited copy will usually be identifying number, symbol, or other receipt in the Review Board’s offices. acceptable for this purpose. identifying particular assigned to the The acknowledgment will advise the (b) Initial response. Receipt of a individual. The system of records does requester if any additional information correction request will be acknowledged not include assassination records as is needed to process the request. Within by the General Counsel in writing five defined above. fifteen working days of receipt of the working days of receipt of the request. request, the General Counsel will The General Counsel will endeavor to § 1415.15 Systems of records notification. provide the requester an explanation as provide a letter to the requester within (a) Public notice. The Review Board to why additional time, if any, is needed thirty working days stating whether or will publish in the Federal Register its for response. not the request for correction has been system of records. The Office of the (b) Requests in person. Following the granted or denied. If the General Federal Register biannually compiles initial call from the requester, the Counsel decides to deny any portion of Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 39907 the correction request, the reasons for foreign policy, and that are in fact FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the denial will be provided to the properly classified pursuant to such Christopher D. Hess at (913) 551–7213. requester. Executive Order; SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On (b) Review Board records related December 8, 1994, the Director of the § 1415.40 Appeals from correction denials. solely to the internal personnel rules Iowa Department of Natural Resources (a) When amendment of records has and practices of the Review Board; (IDNR) submitted a request to revise the been denied by the General Counsel, the (c) Review Board records specifically Iowa State Implementation Plan (SIP). requester may file an appeal in writing. exempted from disclosure by statute The EPA sent a letter of completeness to This appeal should be directed to the (other than 5 U.S.C. 552), provided that the state on December 22, 1994. Executive Director, Assassination such statute: Records Review Board, 600 E Street, (1) Requires that the matters be I. Purpose of the Revision NW., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20530. withheld from the public in such a The state has created new regulations The appeal letter must specify the manner as to leave no discretion on the in Iowa Administrative Code 567– record subject to the appeal, and state issue, or 22.200–208 to create a voluntary why the denial of amendment by the (2) Establishes particular criteria for operating permit program. This program General Counsel is erroneous. The withholding or refers to particular types has been specifically designed to Executive Director or his representative of matters to be withheld; provide an alternative to Title V will respond to such appeals within (d) Inter-agency or intra-agency operating permits for eligible sources thirty working days (subject to memoranda or letters which would not throughout the state. extension by the Executive Director for be available by law to a party other than In accordance with 40 CFR part 70, air good cause) after the appeal letter has an agency in litigation with the Review pollution sources defined as ‘‘major’’ or been received in the Review Board’s Board otherwise subject to the part 70 offices. Dated: July 31, 1995. regulations are required to obtain and (b) The appeal determination, if David G. Marwell, adhere to the conditions of a Title V adverse to the requester in any respect, Executive Director, Assassination Records permit. These Title V permits contain will: Review Board. numerous requirements as well as a fee (1) Explain the basis for denying [FR Doc. 95–19173 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] on all emissions up to 4,000 tons per amendment of the specified records; BILLING CODE 6820±TD±M year (TPY). (2) Inform the requester that he or she In Federal terminology, sources with may file a concise statement setting potential and actual emissions under forth reasons for disagreeing with the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION the thresholds of major (e.g., less than Executive Director’s determination; and AGENCY 100 tons per year of a regulated air (3) Inform the requester of his or her pollutant) are considered minor sources. right to pursue a judicial remedy under 40 CFR Part 52 Sources which limit and restrict their 5 U.S.C. 552a(g)(1)(A). potential and actual emissions to levels [IA±17±1±6983; FRL±5273±2] § 1415.45 Disclosure of records to third below the major level are referred to as parties. Approval and Promulgation of ‘‘synthetic minors,’’ because these sources would not be minor sources Records subject to the Privacy Act Implementation Plans and Delegation without accepting certain limitations to that are requested by a person other of 112(l) Authority; State of Iowa thus be eligible as minor sources. than the individual to whom they AGENCY: Environmental Protection This voluntary operating permit pertain will not be made available Agency (EPA). program proposed by the state of Iowa except in the following circumstances: is designed to enable sources to become (a) Release is required under the ACTION: Proposed rule. minor and thus avoid the administrative Freedom of Information Act in SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve requirements and associated fees of a accordance with the Review Board’s the State Implementation Plan (SIP) Title V permit. FOLA regulations, 36 CFR part 1410; revision submitted by the state of Iowa The term ‘‘voluntary’’ is used to (b) Prior consent for disclosure is for the purpose of establishing a describe this program because sources obtained in writing from the individual voluntary operating permit program. which do not want to limit their to whom the records pertain; or This program provides sources an operations may continue to operate at or (c) Release is authorized by 5 U.S.C. alternative to the Clean Air Act (CAA) 552a(b) (1) or (3) through (11). above ‘‘major’’ levels. However, this will Title V program. require a Title V permit. For those § 1415.50 Fees. This action also proposes to establish sources which voluntarily restrict their a mechanism for creating Federally A fee will not be charged for search operations, this program provides an enforceable limitations under section or review of requested records, or for alternative that is administratively and 112(l). This authorizes Iowa to issue correction of records. When a request is financially beneficial to sources, and Federally enforceable operating permits made for copies of records, a copying promotes maintenance of air quality that address both criteria pollutants fee will be charged at the same rate standards by reducing emissions of air (regulated under section 110 of the established for FOLA requests. See 36 pollution throughout the state. CAA) and hazardous air pollutants CFR 1410.35 However, the first 100 (HAP) (regulated under section 112). II. Criteria for Approval pages will be free of charge. DATES: Comments on this proposed rule The terms and conditions of the § 1415.55 Exemptions. must be received in writing by state’s voluntary operating permit The following records are exempt September 5, 1995. program may be considered Federally from disclosure under this regulation: ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to enforceable if the state’s submittal meets (a) Review Board records specifically Christopher D. Hess, Environmental the criteria outlined in the Federal authorized under criteria established by Protection Agency, Air Branch, 726 Register notice dated June 28, 1989 (54 an Executive Order to be kept secret in Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas FR 27275). The state’s request for the interest of national defense or 66101. approval pursuant to section 112(l) must 39908 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules also fulfill these criteria. The cited D. The limitations, controls, and for creating Federally enforceable notice describes five criteria. requirements in the permits are limitations on potential to emit. A. The program is submitted to and permanent, quantifiable, and otherwise Moreover, the state must also meet the approved by EPA into the SIP. enforceable as practical matter. The requirements of section 112(l). In a letter The state correctly submitted this state rules provide that the limitations, dated March 1, 1995, from Larry Wilson, revision to the EPA and subsequently controls, and requirements in a Director, IDNR, to Dennis Grams, received a letter of completeness. Also, voluntary operating permit shall be Administrator, EPA Region VII, these the EPA is proposing approval of this permanent, quantifiable, and otherwise requirements have been addressed and revision into the SIP. enforceable. While the rule does not met as described in the following B. The SIP imposes a legal obligation presently conform to the Federal paragraphs. that operating permit holders adhere to requirements as set forth in section V, A. Adequate Authority. Section the terms and limitations of such the state has indicated that it will 112(l)(5)(A) of the Act requires adequate permits, including revisions, and amend this provision. authority within the program to ensure provide that permits that do not E. The permits are issued subject to compliance with each applicable conform to the operating permit public participation which includes the standard, regulation, or requirement program requirements and the timely notice of proposal and issuance established by the Administrator by all requirements of EPA’s underlying of these permits. This also includes sources in the state. The state’s letter of regulations will be deemed not providing to EPA a copy of each draft March 1, 1995, cites the state’s authority Federally enforceable. and final permit intended to be that fulfills this requirement. B. Adequate Resources. Section The state’s rules do require terms and Federally enforceable. This process 112(l)(5)(B) further requires that conditions to operate; emission must also provide for an opportunity for adequate resources must be available to limitations and standards that ensure comment on the permit applications implement the program. The state compliance; a certified statement that prior to issuance of the final permit. submitted a resource demonstration on each emissions unit is in compliance; In rule 22.205(1)b, the state outlines November 15, 1993, for the Title V and monitoring, recordkeeping, and adequate procedures for public program that also addressed the reporting requirements that ensure participation. These procedures set forth voluntary permit program. EPA has compliance with the terms and requirements for public notice, determined that the state, in that conditions of the permit. including notifying both the public and submittal, has demonstrated that Moreover, pursuant to section 22.206, the Administrator before issuing or adequate resources are available to each permit must contain a statement renewing a permit. The state will use implement the voluntary permit that the permittee shall comply with all newspapers with a general circulation, program. It should be noted, however, conditions of the permit, and that as well as a state publication to provide that this determination is for the failure to comply with the permit is this notice. The rule requires at least 30 voluntary permit program only. It does grounds for enforcement action. This days will be provided for public not affect EPA’s proposed interim action may include termination or comment. approval of the Title V program, or the revocation and immediate requirement In a letter to the EPA dated February EPA’s finding as to the adequacy of the to obtain a Title V permit. 16, 1995, the state has further clarified resources available for implementation The director shall specifically that it commits to provide EPA with of that program. designate as not Federally enforceable timely notice of proposed and final C. Implementation Schedule. Section any terms and conditions of the permit permits within 60 days of an action by 112(l)(5)(C) requires that the state that are not required under the Act or the IDNR. submit an expeditious schedule for under any of its applicable III. Delegation of 112(l) Authority implementing the program and ensuring requirements. compliance by the affected sources. The C. The permit program requires that In a letter to the EPA dated April 25, state submitted a schedule for all emissions limitations, controls, and 1995, the state of Iowa has also implementing section 112 requirements other requirements will be at least as requested approval of the voluntary on November 15, 1993, that satisfies this stringent as any other applicable operating permit program under section requirement. limitations and requirements contained 112(l) of the Act. This enables any D. Ability to Take Enforcement in the SIP or enforceable under the SIP. limitation on potential-to-emit of HAP Action. The state’s Title V submittal of Furthermore, the permit program may to be enforceable by EPA. In other November 15, 1993, includes an opinion not issue permits that waive, or make words, by incorporating the voluntary by the Iowa Attorney General that the less stringent, any limitations or operating permit program into the SIP state has the legal authority to take civil requirements contained in or issued and approving the 112(l) program while and enforcement action against any pursuant to the SIP, or that are requiring that permittees comply with source regulated under section 112 of otherwise Federally enforceable. such permits, any violation of such a the Act. The state rules specifically provide in permit will be enforceable under the Act Based on the fulfillment of the above section 22.206(2)(c) that all emissions and will be subject to EPA enforcement. criteria, the EPA is therefore proposing limitations, all controls, and all other The criteria for establishing Federally approval of the voluntary operating requirements included in a voluntary enforceable limitations for criteria permit program for the control of air permit shall be at least as stringent as pollutants pursuant to section 110 of the toxics that allow sources to limit their any other applicable limitation or Act, are the same criteria the EPA uses potential-to-emit of HAPs. requirement in the SIP or enforceable in approving state operating permit under the SIP. Furthermore, the state programs to establish Federally IV. Additional Program Description rules provide in section 22.206(2)(d) enforceable limitations for HAPs In section II of this notice, the state’s that the director shall not issue a permit pursuant to section 112 of the Act. As rules were only discussed insofar as that waives any limitation or outlined in section II of this notice, the they generally met the criteria outlined requirement under the SIP or that is state has satisfied the criteria contained in the cited Federal Register notice. In otherwise Federally enforceable. in the June 1989 Federal Register notice this section, various provisions of the Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 39909 rules are discussed in order to provide not in compliance with any applicable considered in determining the potential- a fuller description of the state’s requirement; an applicant submits false to-emit unless the source belongs to a regulations that comprise the voluntary information; or an applicant is unable to source category listed in IAC 567–22. operating permit program. certify compliance with applicable Fugitives must be counted for purposes A. Eligibility. In order to qualify for a requirements. of 112(l). voluntary permit, a source must If a voluntary permit is denied, the C. The EPA has requested that successfully demonstrate that: source shall apply for a Title V 22.201(2)a be revised to read that 1. Potential and actual emissions will operating permit and shall be subject to sources required to obtain a Title V be less than 100 tons per year of enforcement action for operating permit under 22.101(1)e (source regulated pollutants per 12-month without a Title V permit. This fulfills categories) are not eligible for a rolling period; part 70 requirements which require all voluntary operating permit. This 2. Potential and actual emissions of major sources subject to Title V to revision is necessary because the EPA is each HAP will be less than 10 tons per receive a corresponding permit. If an requiring some non-major section 112 12-month rolling period; otherwise major source in Iowa does not sources to obtain a Title V permit with 3. Potential and actual emissions of have a valid voluntary permit, it is no deferral provisions. all HAPs will be less than 25 tons per subject to Title V. D. The EPA has advised the state that 12-month rolling period. G. If a source’s application for and the provisions of 22.206(2)(c) must be In other matters concerning eligibility, receipt of a construction permit renders revised to provide that permit subrule 22.201(2) lists exceptions for the source ineligible for a voluntary limitations, controls, and requirements sources seeking a voluntary operating permit (e.g., increased emissions above must be enforceable as a practical permit. Although a source may meet the the eligibility threshold), the source matter. criteria cited in a-c above, any affected must then apply for a Title V permit. source subject to Title IV, those required Once again, the source is subject to VI. EPA Action to obtain a Title V permit as a source enforcement action for operating The EPA is soliciting public category pursuant to 70.3, or a solid without a Title V permit. comments on this notice and on issues The terms and conditions of an issued waste incinerator unit is not eligible for relevant to EPA’s proposed action. construction permit shall be a voluntary permit. Comments will be considered before incorporated into a voluntary permit at Additionally, sources subject to a taking final action. Interested parties the time of renewal for the voluntary New Source Performance Standard, may participate in the Federal permit, assuming that the construction National Emissions Standards for rulemaking procedure by submitting permit did not render the source Hazardous Air Pollutants, or section 112 written comments to the address above. of the Act are only eligible for a ineligible as discussed in the paragraph The reader may also request the voluntary permit until April 20, 1999. above. Sources are required to provide Technical Support Document (TSD) Once the deferment period for these copies of all construction permits issued which examines this revision in more sources has expired, these sources will during the term of the voluntary extensive detail. The TSD may be be required to obtain a Title V permit. operating permit. requested in accordance with the B. No source may operate without a V. Approvability Issues information provided in the properly issued Title V or voluntary ‘‘Addresses’’ section. operating permit. EPA’s analysis of the state’s rules has C. Although the rules state that revealed four deficiencies which must As addressed in section II of this sources must apply by March 1, 1995, be corrected before EPA can give final notice, the EPA has determined that this the state provided public notice and approval to this SIP revision. The state proposed revision meets the five criteria exercised a subsequent rulemaking to has agreed to these amendments and has of the June 28, 1989, Federal Register rescind this date. The state now intends developed revised rules that are notice for Federal enforceability. to establish a new date once this SIP expected to be adopted by June 1995. In order for the EPA to take final revision approving the voluntary permit These amendments are as follows. action on this SIP revision, the state program becomes effective. A. The EPA has previously informed must submit revised rules addressing D. Standard application information the state of the need to revise the the approvability issues outlined in is required of all sources seeking a definition of ‘‘12-month rolling period’’ section V of this notice. voluntary permit. The rule specifies that in 22.201(1). As currently written, the Nothing in this action should be the information must be sufficient to term in this rule is ambiguous and may construed as permitting or allowing or evaluate the source and its predicted not be enforceable as a practical matter. establishing a precedent for any future and actual emissions. The state has therefore drafted a revised request for revision to any SIP. Each The permit must also contain rule that provides the following request for revision to the SIP shall be identifying information about the owner definition: ‘‘* * * a period of 12 considered separately in light of specific and a description of source processes consecutive months determined on a technical, economic, and environmental and products by two digit Standard rolling basis with a new 12-month factors and in relation to relevant Industrial Classification Code. Required period beginning on the first day of each statutory and regulatory requirements. information includes listing equipment, calendar month.’’ Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, monitoring devices, limitations on B. The second item concerns 5. U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare source operations, and the calculations 22.201(1)a–d. As currently written, the a regulatory flexibility analysis used by the source in providing this rule is not consistent with the assessing the impact of any proposed or information. requirements for Prevention of final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 E. Sources with a voluntary operating Significant Deterioration or for and 604). Alternatively, EPA may certify permit shall be exempt from Title V construction permitting. In response to that the rule will not have a significant operating permit fees. EPA comments, the state has developed impact on a substantial number of small F. A voluntary operating permit may an amendment that declares fugitive entities. Small entities include small be denied if the director determines any emissions of each regulated air pollutant businesses, small not-for-profit of the following conditions: a source is from a stationary source shall not be enterprises, and government entities 39910 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules with jurisdiction over populations of and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur Dated: July 11, 1995. less than 50,000. oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dennis Grams, P.E., SIP approvals under section 110 and Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. Regional Administrator. subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not Dated: June 29, 1995. [FR Doc. 95–19216 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] create any new requirements, but BILLING CODE 6560±50±P simply approve requirements that the Dennis Grams, state is already imposing. Therefore, Regional Administrator. because the Federal SIP approval does [FR Doc. 95–19000 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] 40 CFR Part 52 not impose any new requirements, EPA BILLING CODE 6560±50±P certifies that it does not have a [WV10±1±5918b; FRL±5265±8] significant impact on any small entities Approval and Promulgation of Air affected. 40 CFR Part 52 Quality Implementation Plans; State of Moreover, due to the nature of the [MO±18±1±6024b; FRL±5264±1] Federal-state relationship under the West VirginiaÐEmission Statement Program CAA, preparation of a regulatory Approval and Promulgation of flexibility analysis would constitute Implementation Plans; State of AGENCY: Environmental Protection Federal inquiry into the economic Missouri Agency (EPA). reasonableness of state action. The CAA ACTION: Proposed rule. forbids EPA to base its actions AGENCY: Environmental Protection concerning SIPs on such grounds Agency (EPA). SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the (Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 ACTION: Proposed rule. State Implementation Plan (SIP) U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. revision submitted by the State of West SUMMARY: 7410(a)(2)). The EPA proposes to approve Virginia. This revision consists of an the State Implementation Plan (SIP) Unfunded Mandates emission statement program for revision submitted by the state of stationary sources which emit volatile Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of Missouri for the purpose of bringing organic compounds (VOCs) and/or about the attainment of the National the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of nitrogen oxides (NOX) specified actual 1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), Ambient Air Quality Standard for lead. emission threshold levels. This program signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA The SIP was submitted by the state to applies to stationary sources within the must undertake various actions in satisfy certain Federal requirements for counties of Putnam, Kanawha, Cabell, association with proposed or final rules an approvable nonattainment area lead Wayne, Wood, and Greenbrier. The SIP that include a Federal mandate that may SIP for the Doe Run primary and revision was submitted by the State to result in estimated costs of $100 million secondary lead smelter near Bixby, satisfy the Clean Air Act’s requirements or more to the private sector, or to state, Missouri. In the final rules section of the for an emission statement program as local, or tribal governments in the Federal Register, the EPA is approving part of the ozone SIP for the State of aggregate. the state’s SIP revision as a direct final West Virginia. In the Final Rules section Through submission of this SIP or rule without prior proposal because the of this Federal Register, EPA is plan revision, the state and any affected Agency views this as a noncontroversial approving the State’s SIP revision as a local or tribal governments have elected revision amendment and anticipates no direct final rule without prior proposal to adopt the program provided for under adverse comments. A detailed rationale because the Agency views this as a sections 110 and 112 of the CAA. These for the approval is set forth in the direct noncontroversial SIP revision and rules may bind state, local, and tribal final rule. If no adverse comments are anticipates no adverse comments. A governments to perform certain actions received in response to this proposed detailed rationale for the approval is set and also require the private sector to rule, no further activity is contemplated forth in the direct final rule. If no perform certain duties. To the extent in relation to this rule. If the EPA adverse comments are received in that the rules being proposed for receives adverse comments, the direct response to this proposed rule, no approval by this action will impose no final rule will be withdrawn and all further activity is contemplated in new requirements, such sources are public comments received will be relation to this rule. If EPA receives already subject to these regulations addressed in a subsequent final rule adverse comments, the direct final rule under state law. Accordingly, no based on this proposed rule. The EPA will be withdrawn and all public additional costs to state, local, or tribal will not institute a second comment comments received will be addressed in governments, or to the private sector, period on this document. Any parties a subsequent final rule based on this result from this action. EPA has also interested in commenting on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a determined that this proposed action document should do so at this time. second comment period on this action. does not include a mandate that may DATES: Comments on this proposed rule Any parties interested in commenting result in estimated costs of $100 million must be received in writing by on this action should do so at this time. or more to state, local, or tribal September 5, 1995. DATES: Comments must be received in governments in the aggregate or to the ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to writing by September 5, 1995. private sector. Lisa V. Haugen, Environmental The Office of Management and Budget ADDRESSES: Written comments on this Protection Agency, Air Branch, 726 action should be addressed to Marcia L. has exempted these actions from review Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas under Executive Order 12866. Spink, Associate Director, Air Programs 66101. (3AT00), U.S. Environmental Protection List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Environmental protection, Air V. Haugen at (913) 551–7877. Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania pollution control, Carbon monoxide, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the 19107. Copies of the documents relevant Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental information provided in the direct final to this action are available for public relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, rule which is located in the rules inspection during normal business Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting section of the Federal Register. hours at the Air, Radiation, and Toxics Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 39911 Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 Radiation, and Toxics Division, U.S. Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Environmental Protection Agency, [WV27±1±7013b, WV27±2±7014b; FRL± Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 5266±1] 19107; and the West Virginia Office of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19107; and Air Quality, 1558 Washington Street, Approval and Promulgation of Air the West Virginia Division of East, Charleston, West Virginia, 25311. Quality Implementation Plans; Environmental Protection, Office of Air Designation of Areas for Air Quality Quality, 1558 Washington Street, East, Charleston, West Virginia, 25311. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Planning Purposes; Redesignation of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcia L. Spink, U.S. Environmental the Greenbrier County, West Virginia Christopher Cripps, (215) 597–0545. Protection Agency, Region III, 841 Ozone Nonattainment Area to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Attainment and Approval of the Area's Maintenance Plan and Emissions information provided in the Direct Final Pennsylvania 19107, (215) 597–3164. Inventory action of the same title which is located in the Rules and Regulations section of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August AGENCY: Environmental Protection this Federal Register. 10, 1993, the West Virginia Office of Air Agency (EPA). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Quality (WVOAQ) submitted a SIP ACTION: Proposed rule. revision to EPA. This SIP revision Environmental protection, Air would add West Virginia Regulation SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Title 45, Series 29,’’Rule Requiring the State Implementation Plan (SIP) Incorporation by reference, Submission of Emission Statements for revisions submitted by the State of West Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen Virginia for the purpose of establishing Volatile Organic Compounds and dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and a 1990 base year ozone inventory and a Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions,’’ recordkeeping requirements. maintenance plan for the Greenbrier Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. consisting of Subsections: 1. General; 2. County ozone nonattainment area. EPA Dated: July 14, 1995. Definitions; 3. Applicability; 4. is also proposing to approve the request Compliance Schedule; 5. Emission submitted by the State of West Virginia Stanley L. Laskowski, Statement Requirements; 6. to redesignate the Greenbrier County Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. Enforceability; and 7. Severability, area to attainment of the National [FR Doc. 95–19275 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] effective July 7, 1993 in the State of Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) BILLING CODE 6560±50±P West Virginia. In accordance with the for ozone. In the Final Rules section of requirements of 40 CFR 51.102, a public this Federal Register, EPA is approving hearing concerning West Virginia’s SIP the State’s SIP revision and 40 CFR Part 70 revision was held on June 23, 1993, in redesignation request as a direct final [TX±001; FRN±5270±9] Charleston, West Virginia. rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial Clean Air Act Interim Approval of See the information provided in the SIP revision and anticipates no adverse Operating Permits Program; Texas Direct Final action of the same title comments. A detailed rationale for the Natural Resource Conservation which is located in the Rules and approval is set forth in the Technical Commission Extension of Comment Regulations Section of this Federal Support Document (TSD) that has been Period prepared by EPA on these rulemaking Register. AGENCY: Environmental Protection actions. The TSD is available for public Agency (EPA). inspection at the EPA Regional office The OMB has exempted this ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of the listed in the ADDRESSES section of this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 comment period. review. notice. If no adverse comments are received in response to this proposed SUMMARY: EPA is extending the rule, no further activity is contemplated comment period for a proposed rule List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 in relation to this rule. If EPA receives published June 7, 1995 (60 FR 30037). adverse comments, the direct final rule On June 7, 1995, EPA proposed interim Environmental protection, Air will be withdrawn and all public approval of the operating permits pollution control, Hydrocarbons, comments received will be addressed in program submitted by the State of Incorporation by reference, a subsequent final rule based on this Texas. EPA received a letter from the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen Texas Title V Planning Committee as second comment period on this action. dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and well as a verbal request from Texas Any parties interested in commenting recordkeeping requirements. Natural Resource Conservation on this action should do so at this time. Commission requesting a 90 day DATES: Comments must be received in extension of the public comment period. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. writing by September 5, 1995. Therefore, EPA is extending the comment period until October 5, 1995. Dated: July 14, 1995. ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Marcia L. DATES: Comments must be received in Stanley L. Laskowski, Spink, Associate Director, Air Programs, writing on or before October 5, 1995. Mailcode 3AT00, U.S. Environmental ADDRESSES: Written comments on this Acting Regional Administrator Region III. Protection Agency, Region III, 841 action should be addressed to Ms. Jole Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, C. Luehrs, Chief, New Source Review [FR Doc. 95–19273 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] Pennsylvania, 19107. Copies of the Section, at the EPA, Region 6, Air documents relevant to this action are Programs Branch (6T–AN), 1445 Ross BILLING CODE 6560±50±P available for public inspection during Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202– normal business hours at the Air, 2733. 39912 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: with the floodplain management criteria PART 67Ð[AMENDED] David F. Garcia, New Source Review required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the Section, Environmental Protection minimum that are required. They 1. The authority citation for part 67 Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, should not be construed to mean that continues to read as follows: Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, the community must change any Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; telephone (214) 665–7217. existing ordinances that are more Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. stringent in their floodplain 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, Dated: July 26, 1995. management requirements. The 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. Russell Rhoades, community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or § 67.4 [Amended] Acting Regional Administrator (6A). pursuant to policies established by other 2. The tables published under the [FR Doc. 95–19193 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] Federal, state or regional entities. These BILLING CODE 6560±50±P authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be proposed elevations are used to meet amended as follows: the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also #Depth in FEDERAL EMERGENCY used to calculate the appropriate flood feet above MANAGEMENT AGENCY ground. insurance premium rates for new Source of flooding and location *Elevation in feet 44 CFR Part 67 buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these (NGVD) [Docket No. FEMA±7140] buildings. PENNSYLVANIA National Environmental Policy Act Proposed Flood Elevation Hatfield (borough), Montgomery Determinations This proposed rule is categorically County AGENCY: Federal Emergency excluded from the requirements of 44 West Branch Neshaminy Creek: Approximately 300 feet downstream Management Agency, FEMA. CFR Part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental of Lakewood Avenue ...... *300 ACTION: Proposed rule. Approximately 150 feet upstream of impact assessment has been prepared. Lakewood Avenue ...... *301 SUMMARY: Technical information or Regulatory Flexibility Act Maps available for inspection at the comments are requested on the Borough Hall, 401 South Main Street, proposed base (1% annual chance) flood The Associate Director, Mitigation Hatfield, Pennsylvania. elevations and proposed base flood Directorate, certifies that this proposed Send comments to Mr. Mark A. elevation modifications for the rule is exempt from the requirements of Curfman, Manager of the Borough of communities listed below. The base the Regulatory Flexibility Act because Hatfield, 401 South Main Street, Hat- proposed or modified base flood field, Pennsylvania 19440±0190. flood elevations are the basis for the ÐÐÐ floodplain management measures that elevations are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 Jenkintown (borough), Montgomery the community is required either to County U.S.C. 4104, and are required to adopt or to show evidence of being Tacony Creek: already in effect in order to qualify or establish and maintain community Approximately 200 feet upstream of remain qualified for participation in the eligibility in the National Flood Greenwood Avenue ...... *206 National Flood Insurance Program Insurance Program. As a result, a At the confluence of Baeder Run ...... *220 (NFIP). regulatory flexibility analysis has not Baeder Run: been prepared. At the confluence with Tacony Creek *220 DATES: The comment period is ninety Approximately 586 feet upstream of (90) days following the second Regulatory Classification confluence with Tacony Creek ...... *220 publication of this proposed rule in a This proposed rule is not a significant Maps available for inspection at the newspaper of local circulation in each Jenkintown Borough Offices, 700 community. regulatory action under the criteria of Summit Avenue, Jenkintown, Penn- section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of sylvania. ADDRESSES: The proposed base flood September 30, 1993, Regulatory Send comments to Mr. Thomas Oliver, elevations for each community are Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. President of the Jenkintown Borough available for inspection at the office of Council, P.O. Box 2176, Jenkintown, the Chief Executive Officer of each Executive Order 12612, Federalism Pennsylvania 19046. community. The respective addresses This proposed rule involves no ÐÐÐ are listed in the following table. policies that have federalism Lower Salford (township), Montgomery County FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: implications under Executive Order Michael K. Buckley, P.E., Chief, Hazard Skippack Creek: 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, At Quarry Bridge Road ...... *176 Identification Branch, Mitigation 1987. Near Wampole Road approximately Directorate, 500 C Street, SW., 950 feet upstream of State High- Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2756. Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice way 63 ...... *199 Reform SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Skippack Creek Tributary No. 2: Approximately 150 feet downstream Federal Emergency Management Agency This proposed rule meets the of Wampole Road ...... *211 (FEMA or Agency) proposes to make applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of Approximately 525 feet upstream of determinations of base flood elevations Executive Order 12778. Wampole Road ...... *212 and modified base flood elevations for List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Maps available for inspection at the each community listed below, in Township Office, 474 Main Street, accordance with section 110 of the Administrative practice and Harleysville, Pennsylvania. Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting Send comments to Mr. Richard Pres- and recordkeeping requirements. cott, Chairman of the Lower Salford 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). Township Board of Commissioners, These proposed base flood and Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is 474 Main Street, Harleysville, Penn- modified base flood elevations, together proposed to be amended as follows: sylvania 19438. Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 39913 #Depth in #Depth in #Depth in feet above feet above feet above ground. ground. ground. Source of flooding and location *Elevation Source of flooding and location *Elevation Source of flooding and location *Elevation in feet in feet in feet (NGVD) (NGVD) (NGVD) ÐÐÐ Maps available for inspection at the ÐÐÐ Pennsburg (borough), Montgomery Springfield Township Municipal Build- Whitpain (township), Montgomery County ing, 1510 Paper Mill Road, County Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania. Macoby Creek: Wissahickon Creek: Send comments to Mr. Donald E. Approximately 0.2 mile downstream At a point approximately 320 feet up- Berger, Springfield Township Man- of Otts Road ...... *331 stream of Swedesford Road ...... *273 Approximately 325 feet downstream ager, 1510 Paper Mill Road, At a point approximately 1,200 feet of Otts Road ...... *334 Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania 19038. upstream of Swedesford Road ...... *274 Maps available for inspection at the ÐÐÐ Maps available for inspection at the Pennsburg Borough Building, 76 Upper Dublin (township), Whitpain Township Administration West 6th Street, Pennsburg, Penn- Montgomery County sylvania. Building, 960 Wentz Road, Blue Bell, Tannery Run (Backwater Area): Pennsylvania. Send comments to Mr. Larry Raeder, Approximately 150 feet east of inter- President of the Pennsburg Borough section of Butler Avenue and West Send comments to Mr. Leigh P. Council, 76 West 6th Street, Maple Avenue ...... *198 Narducci, Whitpain Township Chair- Pennsburg, Pennsylvania 18073. man, P.O. Box 800, Blue Bell, Penn- Maps available for inspection at the sylvania 19422. ÐÐÐ Municipal Building, 801 Loch Alsh Av- Springfield (township), Montgomery enue, Fort Washington, Pennsylva- County nia. § 67.4 [Amended] Oreland Run: Send comments to Mr. Richard R. At confluence with Wissahickon Rulon, President of the Upper Dublin 3. The tables published under the Creek ...... *149 Township Board of Commissioners, authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be Approximately 650 feet upstream of 801 Loch Alsh Avenue, Fort Wash- amended as follows: confluence with Wissahickon Creek *150 ington, Pennsylvania 19034. #Depth in feet above ground. * Elevation in feet State City/town/county Source of flooding Location (NGVD) Existing Modified Maryland ...... Prince George's County Bald Hill Branch ...... Approximately 1,300 feet None *164 (unincorporated areas). upstream of Brae Brook Drive. Approximately 475 feet up- *92 *93 stream of confluence with Western Branch. Maps available for inspection at the Department of Environmental Resources, Information and Permits Management Section, Inglewood III Office Building, 9400 Peppercorn Place, Sixth Floor, Landover, Maryland. Send comments to Ms. Malinda Y. Steward, Prince George's County Government, Department of Environmental Resources, Information and Permits Management Section, Inglewood III Office Building, 9400 Peppercorn Place, Sixth Floor, Landover, Maryland 20785. Minnesota ...... Alvarado (city) Marshall Snake River ...... At downstream corporate *810 *811 County. limits (State Route 1). At upstream corporate limits *812 *813 (approximately 0.6 mile upstream of State Route 1). Maps available for inspection at the Alvarado City Hall, Marshall Street, Alvarado, Minnesota. Send comments to The Honorable Lloyd Wilke, Mayor of the City of Alvarado, Box 759, Alvarado, Minnesota 56710. Pennsylvania ...... Abington (township) Mont- Sandy Run ...... At confluence with Sandy *232 *236 gomery County. Run. Tributary No. 1 ...... Approximately 850 feet up- *237 *238 stream of Johnston Ave- nue. 3 Tacony Creek ...... Approximately 350 feet up- None *206 stream of Greenwood Av- enue. Approximately 1,200 feet *211 *210 upstream of Greenwood Avenue. Pennypack Creek ...... A point approximately 1,700 *99 *100 feet downstream of Moredon Road. A point approximately 1,300 *99 *100 feet downstream of Moredon Road. 39914 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules #Depth in feet above ground. * Elevation in feet State City/town/county Source of flooding Location (NGVD) Existing Modified Maps available for inspection at the Township Engineer's Office, 1176 Old York Road, Abington, Pennsylvania. Send comments to Mr. Richard Fluge, President of the Abington Township Board of Commissioners, 1176 Old York Road, Abington, Penn- sylvania 19001. Pennsylvania ...... Bridgeport (borough) Mont- Schuylkill River ...... Approximately 1.0 mile *75 *72 gomery County. downstream of Dekalb Street (U.S. Route 202 North). Approximately 50 feet up- *78 *76 stream of Norristown Dam. Maps available for inspection at the Borough Hall, 4th and Mill Street, Bridgeport, Pennsylvania. Send comments to The Honorable Thomas Novitski, Mayor of the Borough of Bridgeport, P.O. Box 148, Bridgeport, Pennsylvania 19405. Pennsylvania ...... Cheltenham (township) Tacony Creek ...... At East Cheltenham Ave- *80 *79 Montgomery County. nue. Maps available for inspection at the Cheltenham Township Administrative Building, 8230 Old York Road, Elkins Park, Pennsylvania. Send comments to Mr. Harvey Portner, President of the Cheltenham Township Board of Commissioners, 8230 Old York Road, Elkins Park, Pennsylvania 19027. Pennsylvania ...... Conewago (township) Plum Creek ...... Approximately 1 mile up- none *519 Adams County. stream of confluence with South Branch Conewago Creek. At county boundary ...... None *560 Slagle Run ...... Approximately 150 feet up- None *522 stream of downstream corporate limits. At county boundary ...... None *539 Maps available for inspection at the Conewago Township Building, 350 Third Street, Hanover, Pennsylvania. Send comments to Mr. Edwin Calvert, Township Manager of Conewago, 350 Third Street, Hanover, Pennsylvania 17331. Pennsylvania ...... Franklin (township) Chester Middle Branch, White Approximately 0.4 mile None *301 County. Clay Creek. downstream of Avondale- New London Road. Approximately 1,300 feet None *306 downstream of Avondale- New London Road. Maps available for inspection at the Franklin Township Building, Appleton Road, Kemblesville, Pennsylvania. Send comments to Mr. Karl Mehn, Zoning Officer, Township of Franklin, P.O. Box 118, Kemblesville, Pennsylvania 19347. Pennsylvania ...... Hatfield (township) Mont- West Branch, At upstream side of Lexing- *285 *284 gomery County. Neshaminy Creek. ton Road. Approximately 110 feet up- *285 *284 stream of Lexington Road. *Maps available for inspection at the Township Building, 1950 School Road, Hatfield, Pennsylvania. Send comments to Ms. Jean Vandegrift, President of the Hatfield Township Board of Commissioners, 1950 School Road, Hatfield, Penn- sylvania 19440. Pennsylvania ...... Limerick (township) Mont- Schuylkill River ...... Approximately 2.0 mile *118 113 gomery County. downstream of Vincent Dam. Approximately 1.6 mile up- *129 *125 stream of Legislative Route 462 (Main Street). Maps available for inspection at the Code Enforcement Office, 646 West Ridge Pike, Limerick, Pennsylvania. Send comments to Mr. Mark John, Code Enforcement and Zoning Officer for the Township of Limerick, 646 West Ridge Pike, Limerick, Pennsylvania 19468. Pennsylvania ...... London Grove (township) Middle Branch, White Approximately 1,300 feet None *306 Chester County. Clay Creek. downstream of Avondale- New London Road. Approximately 0.7 mile up- None *487 stream of Hilton Road. Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 39915 #Depth in feet above ground. * Elevation in feet State City/town/county Source of flooding Location (NGVD) Existing Modified Maps available for inspection at the London Grove Township Building, 3 London Way, Avondale, Pennsylvania. Send comments to Mr. Lewis C. Ross, Chairman of the London Grove Township Board of Supervisors, 3 London Way, Avondale, Pennsylva- nia 19311. Pennsylvania ...... Lower Merion (township) Mill Creek ...... At confluence with the *56 *53 Montgomery County. Schuylkill River. Approximately 375 feet up- *56 *55 stream of confluence with the Schuylkill River. At the county boundary *38 *37 (just downstream of U.S. Route 1). Approximately 3.7 miles up- *65 *63 stream of confluence of Mill Creek. Maps available for inspection at the Lower Merion Building Department, 75 E. Lancaster Avenue, Ardmore, Pennsylvania. Send comments to Mr. David C. Latshaw, Township Manager, 75 E. Lancaster Avenue, Ardmore, Pennsylvania 19003. Pennsylvania ...... Lower Moreland (township) Pennypack Creek ...... Approximately 0.4 mile *117 *118 Montgomery County. downstream of con- fluence of Huntingdon Valley Creek. Maps available for inspection at the Lower Moreland Municipal Building, 640 Red Lion Road, Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania. Send comments to Mr. Bernard Kanefsky, President of the Lower Moreland Township Board of Commissioners, 640 Red Lion Road, Hunting- don Valley, Pennsylvania 19006. Pennsylvania ...... Lower Pottsgrove (town- Sanatoga Creek ...... At confluence with the *132 *127 ship) Montgomery Coun- Schuylkill River. ty. Approximately 150 feet up- *132 *131 stream of Green Lane Road. Sprogels Run ...... At confluence with the *145 *130 Schuylkill River. At upstream side of *134 *133 Sanatoga Station Road. Schuylkill River ...... Approximately 0.7 mile *130 *125 downstream of Sanatoga Road. Approximately 800 feet up- *140 *137 stream of U.S. Route 422. Maps available for inspection at the Lower Pottsgrove Municipal Building, 2199 Buchert Road, Pottstown, Pennsylvania. Send comments to Mr. Gerald G. Richards, President of the Lower Pottsgrove Township Board of Commissioners, 2199 Buchert Road, Potts- town, Pennsylvania 19464. Pennsylvania ...... Lower Providence (town- Schuylkill River ...... Approximately 1,100 feet *85 *83 ship) Montgomery Coun- upstream of U.S. Route ty. 422. At confluence of Perkiomen *97 *94 Creek. Perkiomen Creek ...... At confluence with Schuyl- *97 *94 kill River. Approximately 400 feet up- *97 *96 stream of the confluence with the Schuylkill River. Maps available for inspection at the Lower Providence Township Building, 100 Park Lane Drive, Eagleville, Pennsylvania. Send comments to Mr. Richard Brown, Chairman of the Lower Providence Township Board of Supervisors, 100 Park Lane Drive, Eagleville, Pennsylvania 19403. Pennsylvania ...... New Hanover (township) Minister Creek ...... Approximately 0.62 mile up- *271 *270 Montgomery County. stream of the confluence of Minister Creek Tribu- tary. 39916 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules #Depth in feet above ground. * Elevation in feet State City/town/county Source of flooding Location (NGVD) Existing Modified Approximately 0.74 mile up- *273 *271 stream of the confluence of Minister Creek Tribu- tary. Swamp Creek ...... Approximately 900 feet up- None *235 stream of Colonial Road. Approximately 1,450 feet None *236 upstream of Colonial Road. Maps available for inspection at the New Hanover Township Municipal Building, 2943 North Charlotte Street, Gilbertsville, Pennsylvania. Send comments to Ms. Anita B. Turner, New Hanover Township Manager, 2943 North Charlotte Street, Gilbertsville, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania ...... Norristown (borough) Mont- Stony Creek ...... At confluence with the *79 *76 gomery County. Schuylkill River. Approximately 380 feet up- *79 *78 stream of Factory Bridge. Schuylkill River ...... Approximately 0.7 mile *75 *72 downstream of con- fluence of Sawmill Run. Approximately 0.5 mile up- *80 *78 stream of Hawes Avenue. Maps available for inspection at the Borough Hall, 235 East Airy Street, Norristown, Pennsylvania. Send comments to The Honorable Jack Salamone, Mayor of the Borough of Norristown, 235 East Airy Street, Norristown, Pennsylvania 19401±5048. Pennsylvania ...... Penn (township) Chester Middle Branch White Approximately 100 feet up- None *422 County. Clay Creek. stream of Tice Road. Approximately 1,200 feet None *428 upstream of Tice Road. Maps available for inspection at the Penn Township Building, 150 Sunnyside Road, West Grove, Pennsylvania. Send comments to Mr. Vincent J. Santucci, Chairman of the Penn Township Board of Supervisors, 475 W. Baltimore Pike, West Grove, Pennsylvania 19390. Pennsylvania ...... Plymouth (township) Mont- Schuylkill River ...... Approximately 0.2 mile *70 *67 gomery County. downstream of Interstate Route 476 (Mid County Expressway). Approximately 1,000 feet *74 *72 upstream of I±276 Penn- sylvania Turnpike. Maps available for inspection at the Office of Public Works, 700 Belvior Road, Norristown, Pennsylvania. Send comments to Mr. Timothy A. Boyd, P.E., Director of Public Works for the Township of Plymouth, 700 Belvior Road, Norristown, Penn- sylvania 19401. Pennsylvania ...... Pottstown (borough) Mont- Manatawny Creek ...... At confluence with the *145 *142 gomery County. Schuylkill River. Approximately 400 feet up- *145 *144 stream of confluence with the Schuylkill River. Sprogels Run ...... Approximately 0.24 mile up- None *137 stream of U.S. Route 422. Approximately 0.32 mile up- None *144 stream of East High Street. Schuylkill River ...... Approximately 0.4 mile *140 *137 downstream of South Kiem Street. Approximately 100 feet up- *148 *145 stream of U.S. Route 422. Maps available for inspection at the Code Enforcement Office, Borough Hall, 241 King Street, Pottstown, Pennsylvania. Send comments to Mr. Robert Jones, Pottstown Borough Manager, Borough Hall, 241 King Street, Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464. Pennsylvania ...... Royersford (borough) Mont- Schuylkill River ...... Approximately 0.6 mile *113 *109 gomery County. downstream of State Route 683 (Main Street). Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 39917 #Depth in feet above ground. * Elevation in feet State City/town/county Source of flooding Location (NGVD) Existing Modified Approximately 0.6 mile up- *118 *113 stream of State Route 683. Maps available for inspection at the Royersford Borough Hall, 300 Main Street, Royersford, Pennsylvania. Send comments to The Honorable Ronald Nettles, Mayor of the Borough of Royersford, 300 Main Street, P.O. Box 188, Royersford, Penn- sylvania 19468. Pennsylvania ...... Salford (township) Mont- East Branch, Approximately 100 feet up- *221 220 gomery County. Perkiomen Creek. stream of Moyer Road. Approximately 1,400 feet *223 *222 upstream of Moyer Road. Maps available for inspection at the Zoning Office, 139 Ridge Road, Tylersport, Pennsylvania. Send comments to Mr. Donald R. Lodge, Jr., Chairman of the Salford Township Board of Supervisors, P.O. Box 54, Tylersport, Pennsylvania 18971. Pennsylvania ...... Upper Frederick (township) Swamp Creek ...... Approximately 685 feet up- None *200 Montgomery County. stream of Neiffer Road. Approximately 1,425 feet None *204 upstream of Neiffer Road. Maps available for inspection at the Township Building, 3205 Big Road, Obelisk, Pennsylvania. Send comments to Mr. Gerald McMahon, Chairman of the Upper Frederick Township Board of Commissioners, 3205 Big Road, Obelisk, Pennsylvania 19492. Pennsylvania ...... Upper Merion (township) Schuylkill River ...... Approximately 0.2 mile up- *71 *68 Montgomery County. stream of Interstate Route 476 (Mid County Expressway). At confluence of Valley *93 *88 Creek. Valley Creek ...... Approximately 0.4 mile None *96 downstream of the county boundary. At county boundary ...... None *104 Trout Creek ...... At the confluence with the *83 *81 Schuylkill River. Approximately 450 feet up- *83 *81 stream of the confluence with the Schuylkill River. Approximately 300 feet up- None *107 stream Old State Route 363. Approximately 750 feet up- None *108 stream Old State Route 363. Maps available for inspection at the Department of Public Works, 175 West Valley Forge Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Send comments to Mr. Edward J. Wilkes, Jr., Chairman of the Upper Merion Township Board of Supervisors, 175 West Valley Forge Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406. Pennsylvania ...... Upper Providence (town- Schuylkill River ...... At confluence of Perkiomen *97 *94 ship) Montgomery Coun- Creek. ty. Approximately 0.8 mile up- *113 *109 stream of confluence of Mingo Creek. Mingo Creek ...... Approximately 100 feet None *149 downstream of Old Mill Road. Approximately 100 feet up- None *150 stream of Old Mill Road. Perkiomen Creek ...... At the confluence with the *97 *94 Schuylkill River. Approximately 400 feet up- *97 *96 stream of the confluence with the Schuylkill River. 39918 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules #Depth in feet above ground. * Elevation in feet State City/town/county Source of flooding Location (NGVD) Existing Modified Maps available for inspection at the Upper Providence Township Administration Office, 1286 Black Rock Road, Box 406, Oaks, Pennsylvania. Send comments to Mr. George W. Waterman III, Upper Providence Township Manager, 1286 Black Rock Road, Box 406, Oaks, Pennsylva- nia 19456. Pennsylvania ...... West Grove (borough) Middle Branch White Approximately 150 feet None *372 Chester County. Clay Creek. downstream of Valley Road. Approximately 50 feet up- None *373 stream of Valley Road. Maps available for inspection at the West Grove Borough Building, 117 Rose Hill Avenue, West Grove, Pennsylvania. Send comments to Mr. Charles I. Sensenig, West Grove Borough Council President, 245 West Evergreen Street, West Grove, Pennsylvania 19390. Pennsylvania ...... West Norriton (township) Schuylkill River ...... Approximately 0.2 mile *78 *76 Montgomery County. downstream of U.S. Route 202 (South). Approximately 0.2 mile up- *85 *83 stream of U.S. Route 422. Maps available for inspection at the Township Building, 1630 West Marshall Street, Jeffersonville, Pennsylvania. Send comments to Mr. Joseph Estock, Engineer for the Township of West Norriton, 355 South Henderson Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylva- nia 19406. Pennsylvania ...... West Pottsgrove (township) Schuylkill River ...... Approximately 100 feet up- *148 *145 Montgomery County. stream of U.S. Route 422. Approximately 1.5 miles up- *151 *148 stream of U.S. Route 422 (at the county boundary). Maps available for inspection at the Municipal Office, 980 Grosstown Road, Stowe, Pennsylvania. Send comments to Mr. Joseph E. Karpinski, President of the West Pottsgrove Township Board of Commissioners, 823 Monroe Avenue, Stowe, Pennsylvania 19464±6124. Pennsylvania ...... Whitemarsh (township) Schuylkill River ...... At the county boundary ...... *57 *54 Montgomery County. Approximately 0.9 mile up- *64 *62 stream of confluence of Andorra Creek. Oreland Run ...... At confluence with None *149 Wissahickon Creek. Approximately 1,700 feet None *154 upstream of the con- fluence with Wissahickon Creek. Maps available for inspection at the Whitemarsh Township Administrative Building, 4021 Joshua Road, Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania. Send comments to Mr. Lawrence J. Gregan, Whitemarsh Township Manager, 4021 Joshua Road, Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania 19444. West Virginia ...... Bath (town) Morgan County Warm Spring Run ...... Approximately 250 feet up- *604 *605 stream of William Street. At the upstream side of *621 *622 Coughlan Lane. Davis Road Run ...... At confluence with Warm *606 *607 Spring Run. Yellow Spring Run ...... Approximately 50 feet up- *619 *620 stream of confluence with Warm Spring Run. Approximately 145 feet up- *620 *621 stream of confluence with Warm Spring Run. Maps available for inspection at the Bath Town Hall, 504 North Washington Street, Berkeley Springs, West Virginia. Send comments to The Honorable Thomas Jackson, Mayor of the Town of Bath, 504 North Washington Street, Berkeley Springs, West Vir- ginia 25411. West Virginia ...... Morgan County (unincor- Warm Spring Run ...... Approximately 125 feet None *575 porated areas). downstream of con- fluence of Unnamed Trib- utary. Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 39919 #Depth in feet above ground. * Elevation in feet State City/town/county Source of flooding Location (NGVD) Existing Modified Approximately 0.3 mile up- None *681 stream of County Route 522/1. Potomac River ...... At the confluence of Cherry None *407 Run (downstream county boundary). At upstream county bound- None *539 ary. Maps available for inspection at the Morgan County Courthouse, Berkeley Springs, West Virginia. Send comments to Mr. Glen R. Stotler, Chairman of the Morgan County Commission, P.O. Box 28, Berkeley Springs, West Virginia 25411. West Virginia ...... Paw Paw (town) Morgan Potomac River ...... At the Town of Paw Paw None *532 County. corporate limits. Approximately 1.16 miles None *537 upstream of State Route 51. Maps available for inspection at the Paw Paw Town Hall, Paw Paw, West Virginia. Send comments to The Honorable Helena G. Moser, Mayor of the Town of Paw Paw, P.O. Box 35, Paw Paw, West Virginia 25434. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. routine or otherwise noncontroversial needless double review of 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) rules by reducing the time necessary to noncontroversial rules. The use of direct Dated: July 28, 1995. develop, review, clear, and publish final rulemaking can eliminate an Richard T. Moore, separate proposed and final rules where unnecessary second round of internal Associate Director for Mitigation. OST receives no public comment. review and clearance, as well as public [FR Doc. 95–19220 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] DATES: Comments are requested by review, that presently exists for all BILLING CODE 6718±03±P October 3, 1995. Late-filed comments proposed rules when the agency will be considered only to the extent receives no adverse comment. The practicable. Environmental Protection Agency has DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal been using this process for a number of should be sent, preferably in triplicate, years with great success, and other Office of the Secretary to Docket Clerk, Docket No. OST–95– Departments, such as Agriculture, have 360, Department of Transportation, 400 recently adopted this procedure. In 49 CFR Part 5 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. order to streamline the regulatory process and to fulfill Departmental [Docket No. OST±95±360; Notice 95±9] Comments will be available for inspection at this address from 9 a.m. to missions, the Office of the Secretary RIN 2105±AC11 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. proposes to use the direct final Commenters who wish the receipt of rulemaking procedure to promulgate Use of Direct Final Rule Making their comments to be acknowledged specified categories of rules that are not AGENCY: Department of Transportation; should include a stamped, self- expected to be controversial and that are Office of the Secretary. addressed postcard with their unlikely to result in adverse comments. comments. The Docket Clerk will date- ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking stamp the postcard and mail it back to The Direct Final Rule Process SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary the commenter. The judgment that a particular (OST) is proposing to implement a new FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil rulemaking is noncontroversial and rulemaking procedure that would Eisner, Assistant General Counsel for unlikely to result in adverse comment expedite the processing of Regulation and Enforcement, Office of will be based upon the Office of the noncontroversial changes to its the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Secretary’s experience with similar regulations. Rules that the Secretary Transportation, 400 7th Street SW., rules that were proposed and did not judges to be noncontroversial and Room 10424, Washington, DC 20590. receive adverse public comment in the unlikely to result in adverse public (202) 366–9307. past. By ‘‘adverse’’ comment, we are comment would be published as ‘‘direct SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: referring to comments that are critical of final’’ rules. Such direct final rules the rule, that suggest that the rule would advise the public that no adverse Background should not be adopted, or that suggest comment is anticipated, and that, unless The National Performance Review, a a change should be made in the rule. A written adverse comment or written recent presidential initiative to comment submitted in support of the notice of intent to submit adverse reorganize and streamline the federal rule would not be considered adverse. comment is received within the government, and the Administrative In addition, a comment suggesting that specified time, the rule will become Conference of the United States the policy or requirements of the rule effective a specified number of days identified several methods to improve should or should not also be extended after the date it is published in the the efficiency of agency rulemaking to other Departmental programs outside Federal Register. This new procedure procedures. One was the use of ‘‘direct the scope of the rule would not be should expedite the promulgation of final’’ rulemaking in order to reduce considered adverse. The Environmental 39920 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules Protection Agency has used this process quarterly) or eliminating a type of data (d) For rules for which the Secretary in over two hundred cases, with great that no longer needs to be collected by determines that notice is unnecessary success. The U.S. Department of the Office of the Secretary, (5) make because no adverse public comment is Agriculture has also recently adopted changes to the rules implementing the anticipated, the direct final rulemaking this process and used it in Privacy Act, and (6) adopt technical procedure described in § 5.35 of this approximately a dozen rulemakings. standards set by outside organizations, subpart will be followed. When using the direct final such as those developed by the 3. A new § 5.35, Procedure for direct rulemaking procedure, the Office of the Architectural Barriers and Compliance final rulemaking, would be added to Secretary will publish the rule in the Board for determining compliance with read, as follows: final rule section of the Federal the Americans with Disabilities Act. We Register. The document will advise the § 5.35 Procedures for direct final request comments on whether there are rulemaking. public that no adverse comment is any other areas for which direct final anticipated, and that unless written rulemaking may be beneficial. As stated (a) Rules that the Secretary judges to adverse comment or written notice of earlier, the direct final rulemaking be noncontroversial and unlikely to intent to submit adverse comment is procedure will only be used in result in adverse public comment will received within the specified time, the circumstances where previous be published in the final rule section of rule will become effective a specified rulemakings indicate that adverse the Federal Register as direct final number of days after the date it is comment is unlikely. Even if a rules. These include noncontroversial published. The Administrative rulemaking fits into one of the above rules that: Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) categories, if adverse comment is (1) Affect internal procedures of the specifically provides that notice and anticipated, we would not use the direct Office of the Secretary, such as filing public comment are not required if the final rule process. The additional time requirements and rules governing agency finds good cause that notice and and effort necessary to withdraw the inspection and copying of documents, (2) Are nonsubstantive clarifications public procedures are unnecessary or rule and issue a Notice of Proposed or corrections to existing rules, contrary to the public interest. If the Rulemaking if there is adverse comment agency is mistaken and someone wishes (3) Update existing forms, will serve as an incentive for the Office (4) Make minor changes in the to file adverse comments, this procedure of the Secretary to act conservatively in will ensure that the public is given substantive rules regarding statistics and evaluating whether to use the procedure reporting requirements, such as a notice of the Secretary’s intent to adopt for a particular rule. the rule if no adverse comment is change in the reporting sequence (for received, and an opportunity to Regulatory Analyses and Notices example, from monthly to quarterly) or participate in the rulemaking by eliminating a type of data that no longer The Department has determined that needs to be collected by the Office of the submitting comments. this action is not a significant regulatory If no written adverse comment or Secretary, action under Executive Order 12866 or written notice of intent to submit (5) Make changes to the rules under the Department’s Regulatory adverse comment is received in implementing the Privacy Act, and Policies and Procedures. There are no response to the rule, the Office of the (6) Adopt technical standards set by Secretary would then publish a notice costs associated with this rule. There outside organizations, such as those in the Federal Register indicating that will be some cost savings in Federal developed by the Architectural Barriers no adverse comment was received and Register publication costs and and Compliance Board for determining confirming that the rule will become efficiencies for the public and OST compliance with the Americans with effective a specified number of days personnel in eliminating duplicative Disabilities Act. after the date that the direct final rule reviews. The Department certifies that (b) The Federal Register document was published. However, if the Office of this rule, if adopted, would not have a will state that any adverse comment or the Secretary does receive any written significant economic impact on a notice of intent to submit adverse adverse comment or written notice of substantial number of small entities. comment must be received in writing by intent to submit adverse comment, then The Department does not believe that the Office of the Secretary within the a notice withdrawing the direct final there would be sufficient federalism specified time after the date of rule would be published in the final implications to warrant the preparation publication, and that if no written rule section of the Federal Register and of a federalism assessment. adverse comment or written notice of a notice of proposed rulemaking would List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 5 intent to submit adverse comment is be issued in the proposed rule section. received, the rule will become effective The proposed rule would provide for a Administrative practice and a specified number of days after the date new comment period. procedure. For the reasons set forth in of publication. Rules for which the Office of the the preamble, the Office of the Secretary (c) If no written adverse comment or Secretary believes that the direct final proposes to amend 49 CFR Part 5 as written notice of intent to submit rulemaking procedure may be follows: adverse comment is received by the appropriate are noncontroversial rules Office of the Secretary within the that (1) affect internal procedures of the PART 5Ð[AMENDED] specified time of publication in the Office of the Secretary, such as filing 1. The authority citation for Part 5 Federal Register, the Office of the requirements and rules governing continues to read as follows: Secretary will publish a notice in the inspection and copying of documents, Federal Register indicating that no (2) are nonsubstantive clarifications or Authority: Sec. 9, 80 Stat. 944 (49 U.S.C. adverse comment was received and corrections to existing rules, (3) update 1657). confirming that the rule will become existing forms (4) make minor changes 2. Section 5.21 would be amended by effective on the date that was indicated in the substantive rules regarding adding paragraph (d), as follows: in the direct final rule. statistics and reporting requirements, (d) If the Office of the Secretary such as a change in the reporting § 5.21 General. receives any written adverse comment sequence (for example, from monthly to * * * * * or written notice of intent to submit Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 39921 adverse comment within the specified meet the specific needs of BLM and FS agreement. In this agreement, the time period, a notice withdrawing the programs. agencies choose how they will conduct direct final rule will be published in the DATES: Comments on this proposal must program-level and project-level final rule section of the Federal Register be received by October 3, 1995, in order consultation. That is, they decide and a notice of proposed rulemaking to be considered in the final decision on whether project-level (which the will be issued in the proposed rule this proposal. procedures call non-site-specific) section of the Federal Register. ADDRESSES: Comments and materials consultation and when project-level (e) An ‘‘adverse’’ comment for the concerning this proposal should be sent (which these procedures call site- purpose of this subpart means any to the Chief, Division of Endangered specific consultation) consultation will comment that is critical of the rule, that Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, occur. The agreement sets a schedule for suggests that the rule should not be 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, DC the chosen manner of consultation and adopted, or suggests a change that 20240. Comments and materials all subsequent actions related to should be made in the rule. A comment received will be available for public ongoing activities. suggesting that the policy or inspection, by appointment, during The objective of non-site specific requirements of the rule should or normal business hours in Room 452, consultation is to identify standards and should not also be extended to other 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA guidelines or parameters that then can Departmental programs outside the 22203. be applied to site-specific consultations. Where the parameters are identified as scope of the rule is not adverse. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: E. LaVerne Smith, Chief, Division of adequate to avoid adverse effects to the Issued in Washington, DC on this 19th day listed species in the non-site-specific of July, 1995. Endangered Species, at the above consultation by the appropriate Service, Federico Pen˜ a, address (703/358–2171; facsimile 703/ 358–1735) or Robert C. Ziobro, the parameters are then used to facilitate Secretary. site-specific consultation. For those [FR Doc. 95–19108 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] Endangered Species Division, NMFS, 1335 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, actions that are in conformance with BILLING CODE 4910±62±U MD 20910 (301/713–1401 facsimile 301/ adequate parameters, consultations is 713–0376). concluded when FS and BLM notify the appropriate Service of the conforming SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: action and provide the Service with the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Background basis for that decision. Where no Fish and Wildlife Service adequate parameters have been These proposed joint counterpart identified in a non-site-specific DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation, the action agencies are consultations procedures govern ESA required to conduct consultation/ National Oceanic and Atmospheric section 7(a) consultation for FS and conference pursuant to sections 402.10 Administration BLM. The procedures differ from the and/or 402.14 for any project-level existing procedures in part 402 subparts decisions. National Marine Fisheries Service A and B in that they encourage ESA The procedures address the measures consultation well before project-level 50 CFR Part 402 the agencies are to take with respect to decisions are made and provide a ongoing actions when consultation framework for consultation on program- RIN 1018±AD32 becomes mandatory under section level or ecosystem-level decisions, as 402.14. The procedures require the Joint Counterpart Endangered Species opposed to project-level decisions. This identification of all ongoing actions that Act Section 7 Consultation early consultation at the program-level may affect the listed species and an Regulations facilitates future consultation at the initial determination of which actions project-level and these procedures represent an imminent threat to the AGENCIES: Fish and Wildlife Service, describe how that streamlining is listed species. The action agencies are Interior; and National Marine Fisheries accomplished. In addition, while the required to take all possible steps to halt Service, National Oceanic and regulations at part 402 subparts A and or modify these imminent threat Atmospheric Administration, B are silent as to whether ongoing actions. The action agencies are Commerce. actions can continue during required then to identify all actions that ACTION: Proposed rule. consultations, these regulations are likely to adversely affect the species expressly address that issue and specify in question and to review whether to SUMMARY: With the concurrence of the the measures the agencies will take take steps to halt or modify those U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest regarding ongoing actions once ESA actions as well. All other ongoing Service (FS) and the Department of the consultation at the project-level actions that are not halted under these Interior, Bureau of Land Management becomes mandatory. procedures may go forward during (BLM), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Under these procedures, FS and BLM consultation. Provisions for counterpart Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic and the appropriate consulting Service section 7 consultation procedures are and Atmospheric Administration, (either FWS or NMFS) are required to set forth in section 402.04. Such National Marine Fisheries Service enter into a consultation agreement, regulations supersede consultation (NMFS) propose to promulgate unless they have already done so for regulations at 50 CFR 402, subpart B. counterpart section 7 consultation that species or decision, when (1) a new As part of their land management regulations (50 CFR 402) under the species is proposed for listing or is planning processes, the FS prepares Endangered Species Act of 1973 to listed; (2) critical habitat is proposed for Land and Resource Management Plans establish an alternate consultation designation or is designated; (3) a and the BLM prepares Resource process. These regulations supplement revision or amendment of a land Management Plans. Plans identify the more general consultation planning document is formally general land-use purposes or regulations in Part 402 to provide for a announced; or (4) FS, BLM or one of the allocations; future conditions that are more effective and efficient process to Services requests a consultation desired on specific lands; goals and 39922 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules objectives for resource conditions on encourage conferencing before an action framework for this discretionary non- specific lands; and standards, is likely to jeopardize a proposed site-specific consultation. guidelines, or other mechanisms that species or result in adverse modification Section 402.24 addresses consultation govern activities conducted on lands of proposed critical habitat. Thus, the as it relates to site-specific actions, managed by these agencies in the future. use of the terms ‘‘consultation’’ and where consultation is mandatory as Plans provide the general framework ‘‘conferencing’’ in these regulations is defined by the regulations in section under which those site specific not always equivalent to their use in the 402.14. Section 402.24(a) specifies how activities are developed over a period of regulations at part 402 subparts A and mandatory site-specific consultation several years. B. shall be conducted where relevant Because Plans do not normally Sections 402.22 and 402.23 of these parameters have been identified and prescribe specific land management counterpart regulations facilitate and deemed sufficient pursuant to a relevant activities, there is a significant level of promote early consultation before it is non-site-specific consultation and an uncertainty associated with the mandatory under the ESA, as action is in conformance with those environmental consequences of Plans. determined in the regulations at section parameters. Where adequate parameters This uncertainty is a particular problem 402.14, and establish a framework have not been developed or an action is when the BLM or FS try to fulfill their within which non-site-specific not in conformance with those obligation to consult with the FWS and/ consultation may be conducted. Non- parameters, section 402.24(a) provides or NMFS and assure that their activities site-specific actions, as defined by these that consultation shall proceed as are not likely to jeopardize the regulations, shall have no direct effect described in the part 402 subparts A and continued existence of threatened or on listed species or critical habitat. B regulations. endangered species since site-specific Thus, the decision whether to engage in Once consultation becomes mandatory at the project level, certain details are not often known when non-site-specific consultation is ongoing actions may need to be consultations are initiated. Because discretionary, that is, not required under suspended until the conclusion of Plans are operational for a period the statute as interpreted by the part 402 consultation to insure the integrity of covering several years, new species may subpart A and B regulations. Since non- the consultation process. Sections be added to the list of threatened and site-specific actions themselves have no 402.24(b), (c), and (d) provide a process endangered species, or significant new direct effect on the species, the written for reviewing, and determining whether information may become available and statement concluding non-site-specific to halt, ongoing site-specific actions for re-evaluation of the effects of Plans on consultation cannot provide definitive listed, proposed, or Category 1 species, which parameters have not been findings of effect and ‘‘jeopardy’’ as to and proposed or listed critical habitat developed, once ESA consultation at the the subject of consultation as can be may be required. project level becomes mandatory. Since ESA section 7(a)(2) requires that provided in site-specific consultation. site-specific consultation at the non-site- ‘‘each Federal agency shall, in Even though non-site-specific specific level is discretionary, not consultation with and with the consultation is discretionary and cannot mandatory, no similar provision assistance of the Secretary [of the provide the definitive ‘‘jeopardy/no- governing review of ongoing actions is Interior or Commerce] insure that any jeopardy’’ determination that results required during non-site-specific action authorized, funded, or carried out from site-specific consultation, Federal consultation. by such agency * * * is not likely to agencies may elect to engage in non-site- Sections 402.24 (c) and (d) also jeopardize the continued existence of specific consultation or conferencing provide that other actions associated any endangered species or threatened even when neither consultation nor with actions that may cause imminent species or result in the destruction or conferencing are mandatory, as threats to or are likely to adversely affect adverse modification of [critical] habitat determined by sections 402.10 and listed species or its critical habitat may of such species.’’ 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2). 402.14, to facilitate more efficient need to be suspended as well during ESA section 7(a)(4) requires that ‘‘[e]ach compliance with their ESA duty. Such consultation. ESA consultation on Federal agency shall confer * * * on non-site-specific consultation may imminent threat and likely to adversely any agency action which is likely to provide an efficient anticipatory step to, affect actions (unlike ESA consultation jeopardize the continued existence of or may be an integral part of, mandatory on actions that are not likely to any species proposed to be listed * ** ESA consultation compliance. It can adversely affect listed species) have a or result in the destruction or adverse provide an efficient means of reviewing reasonable potential to result in the modification of [proposed] critical potential impacts to listed species on a identification of reasonable and prudent habitat’’ for that species. 16 U.S.C. broad scale and lead to the alternatives to the action in 1536(a)(4). The manner or timing of identification of parameters that address consultation. In such circumstances, consultation and conferencing is not the needs of species throughout all or a section 7(d) of the ESA also prohibits prescribed by statute. portion of their range or within the the action agency from undertaking any The ESA consultation regulations at geographic scope of the non-site specific irreversible and irretrievable section 402.14 provide that ESA consultation. These parameters may commitments of resources associated consultation is required for any Federal then be applied in site-specific with such actions that would foreclose action that may affect a listed species or consultations and conferences, thereby the formulation or implementation of critical habitat. These counterpart streamlining the process of complying reasonable and prudent alternative. regulations encourage consultation with the ESA consultation requirements before there is an action that may affect for site-specific actions that may affect Required Determinations a species. Section 402.10 of the listed species or critical habitat or This rule was reviewed under regulations provides that conferencing jeopardize proposed species or Executive Order 12866. The Fish and is required for any action that is likely adversely modify or destroy proposed Wildlife Service certifies that the to jeopardize the continued existence of critical habitat. Section 402.22 of these proposed revisions to 50 CFR 402 will any proposed species or result in the counterpart regulations provides for a not have a significant economic effect adverse modification of proposed consultation agreement to facilitate this on a substantial number of small entities critical habitat. These regulations process and section 402.23 provides a under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 39923 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Significant adverse Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. have been identified in a relevant non- economic impacts are not expected as a 2. Revise § 402.04 to read as follows: site-specific consultation. Sections result of the proposed rule because: (1) 402.24(b), (c), and (d) provide a process the rule is intended to reduce or § 402.04 Counterpart regulations. for reviewing ongoing site-specific eliminate altogether the consultation The consultation procedures set forth actions when consultation becomes requirements on numerous Federal in this part may be superseded for a mandatory and no sufficient parameters actions under the ESA with respect to particular Federal agency by joint have been identified. listed and proposed species; and (2) the counterpart regulations issued by, the rule amends 50 CFR 402, resulting in Fish and Wildlife Service, and the § 402.21 Definitions. consultation efficiencies that will National Marine Fisheries Service with Many of the terms used in the effectively reduce potential economic the written concurrence of the action regulations in this subpart are defined burdens associated with consultation agency published with that counterpart in section 402.02. In addition, the terms requirements. Also, no direct costs, regulation. Such counterpart regulations defined in this section are applicable to enforcement costs, information shall be published in the Federal this subpart. collection, or recordkeeping Register in proposed form and shall be (a) Action agency means either the FS requirements are required by this subject to public comment for at least 60 or the BLM. proposed rule beyond those already days before final rules are published. (b) Consultation means all oral and required by existing 50 CFR 402 Counterpart regulations appear in written communications between the regulations, nor does the proposed rule subpart C of this part. Action Agency and the Service designed contain any recordkeeping requirements 3. Add a new subpart C—Counterpart to facilitate that Action Agency’s as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Regulations and sections 402.20 to compliance with the ESA. Consultation Act of 1980. Further, this rule does not 402.29 to read as follows: includes, but is not limited to, early, require a Federalism assessment under § 402.20 Scope. informal and formal consultation under Executive Order 12612 because it would The counterpart regulations in this the regulations in subpart B of this part, have no significant Federalism effects as subpart supplement and, where as well as early non-site-specific described in the order. Finally, the applicable, set forth an alternative to the consultation as provided for in Service has determined that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) §§ 402.22 and 402.23; proposed regulation does not require the consultation regulations found in (1) Site-specific consultation means preparation of a Takings Implication subparts A and B of this part for the any consultation the subject of which is Assessment under the requirements of Forest Service (FS), Department of a particular site-specific action or group Executive Order 12630, ‘‘Government Agriculture and the Bureau of Land of site-specific actions that may affect Actions and Interference with Management (BLM), Department of the listed species or critical habitat; and Constitutionally Protected Property Interior. (2) Non-site-specific consultation Rights.’’ These counterpart regulations (a) Sections 402.22 and 402.23 of the means any consultation undertaken the pertain solely to consultation counterpart regulations in this subpart subject of which is something other than coordination procedures and the address consultation agreements and a particular site-specific action or group procedures have no impact on personal non-site-specific consultations, of site-specific actions. property rights. respectively. Both facilitate ESA (c) Is likely to adversely affect means Author consideration and coordination sooner the appropriate conclusion if an adverse than is required by subpart A and B of effect to listed species or critical habitat The primary authors of this proposal this part. Section 402.22 establishes a may occur as a direct or indirect result are Jay Slack, Department of the Interior, process by which FS and BLM, in of the proposed action or its interrelated Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of coordination with the Fish and Wildlife or interdependent actions. In the event Endangered Species, Arlington, Virginia Service (FWS) and/or the National the overall effect of the proposed action 22203 (703/358–2106); Jim Hoff, Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is beneficial to the listed species or Department of the Interior, Bureau of determine whether and in what manner critical habitat, but also likely to cause Land Management, Washington, D.C. to engage in non-site-specific some adverse effects, then the proposed 20240 (202/452–5045); Harv Forsgren, consultations related to their land action ‘‘is likely to adversely affect’’ the Department of Agriculture, Forest management planning efforts pursuant listed species or critical habitat. An ‘‘is Service, Washington, D.C. 20090 (202/ to, inter alia, the Endangered Species likely to adversely affect’’ determination 205–0830); Bob Ziobro, Department of Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq., the National requires formal consultation. commerce, National Oceanic and Forest Management Act of 1976, 16 (d) Is not likely to adversely affect Atmospheric Administration, National U.S.C. 1604 and 36 CFR 219, the Federal means the appropriate conclusion when Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Land and Policy Management Act of effects on the species or critical habitat Maryland 20910 (301/713–1401). 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1701–1784 and the are expected to be beneficial, List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 402 Oregon and California Lands Act, 43 discountable, or insignificant. Beneficial U.S.C 1181a. Section 402.23 provides a effects have contemporaneous positive Endangered and threatened species. framework for non-site-specific ESA effects without any adverse effects to the Proposed Regulation Promulgation consultation which may result in the species or habitat. Insignificant effects identification of protective parameters relate to the size of the impact (and Accordingly, the FWS and NMFS for listed species and critical habitat. should not reach the scale where take hereby propose to amend part 402, title (b) Section 402.24 addresses site- occurs, as defined in 16 U.S.C. 1532(19) 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, specific consultations and conferences. and 50 CFR 17.3). Discountable effects as set forth below: Section 403.24(a) provides an are those extremely unlikely to occur. PART 402Ð[AMENDED] alternative to subparts A and B of this Based on best judgment, a person would part governing how ongoing and not be able to meaningfully measure, 1. The authority citation for part 402 proposed site-specific actions shall be detect, or evaluate insignificant effects continues to read as follows: conducted where sufficient parameters or expect discountable effects to occur. 39924 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules (e) Site-specific action means any FS completed within 45 days of the events the consultation/conference agreement, or BLM action or group of actions (as listed in paragraph (a) of this section. agreement shall promptly be reached defined in § 402.02) that has physical, (1) The consultation/conference jointly by the heads of the applicable biological, or chemical effects on the agreement shall: agencies, or their designees. environment; (i) Identify the land management (4) The time frames for development (1) Any other FS and BLM action is planning documents relevant to the of, and the terms of, the consultation/ a non-site-specific action; present or anticipated need for ESA conference agreement may be modified (2) ongoing site-specific action means consultation/conference; or deviated from upon mutual written a site-specific action that is being (ii) Where a land management agreement of the Action Agency and the executed or one for which a project planning document incorporates Service. level decision has been made or that authorization for a relevant site-specific otherwise has been authorized by the activity, identify the portions of the § 402.23 Non-site-specific consultation/ conference. Action Agency but has not yet been document that embody land completed at the time consultation is management planning decisions and (a) Action agency responsibilities. If initiated (e.g., actions that were those that embody the site-specific the agencies elect to conduct non-site- authorized, funded, or initiated prior to decisions that must be the subject of specific consultation/conference, the the relevant triggering event and in site-specific consultation under subparts Action Agency shall submit to the which there is discretionary Federal A and B of this part, as supplemented Service, by the date set forth in the involvement or control); and by § 402.24; consultation/conference agreement, or (iii) Determine whether and in what the date as modified by mutual (3) Proposed site-specific action manner non-site-specific consultation means a site-specific action that has not agreement, the following information will be undertaken, including a list of and documents: yet been finally authorized by the the species that will be considered and Action Agency. (1) A copy of all documents, unless a description of the geographic area that the document is already in the § 402.22 Consultation/conference is to be encompassed by the possession of the Service, deemed by agreement. consultation, and set forth a preliminary the Action Agency to be relevant to the (a) Commencement of discussions. (1) schedule for and description of each non-site-specific consultation/ Unless the event was contemplated and major step required for each selected conference, including but not limited to, addressed in a prior consultation/ level of consultation; scientific documents and data, reports, conference agreement in accordance (iv) Provide a description of how ESA draft environmental impact statements with this section, the Action Agency requirements for applicant or assessments, forest plans, and and Service shall discuss and determine participation, if any, will be fulfilled; resource management plans, or (v) Establish any necessary and the most efficient method for fulfilling strategies, including initiatives designed appropriate timeframes for completing the purposes of the ESA consistent with to address the needs of the species any review of ongoing site-specific the regulations in this subpart , as soon identified in the consultation/ actions under § 402.24, and as practicable after any of the following (vi) If practicable within the period conference agreement, which shall be events: set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, the best scientific and commercial data (i) Publication of a proposed rule to incorporate parameters that will be used available at the time of submission of list a species or to designate critical in making a determination for listed the information required in this habitat; species of ‘‘not likely to adversely paragraph; (ii) Listing of a species or designation affect’’ or ‘‘imminent threat,’’ or for (2) A written statement of how any of critical habitat; developing any appropriate standards non-site-specific level decisions (iii) Formal proposal of a new, or for proposed or other species, in future interact, if at all, with decisions at the amendment or revision of an existing, site-specific consultation and site-specific level and with the species BLM or FS land management planning conferences under the regulations in identified in the consultation/ decision, including but not limited to this subpart related to the same species conference agreement and proposed or the proposal of a land and resource and same geographic areas covered by designated critical habitat of concern; management plan, resource the consultation/conference agreement. (3) Identification of any parameters management plan, or a protective (2) The consultation agreement may such that site-specific actions consistent initiative, but not including reflect consideration of a number of with those parameters are not likely to instructional memoranda, policies, factors, including the types, impacts, adversely affect listed species and/or are directives or revisions to agency and numbers of ongoing actions; the not likely to jeopardize the continued manuals; or biology, ecology, distribution, and existence of proposed species or (iv) When, at any time, an Action abundance of the relevant Category 1 adversely modify or destroy critical Agency or the Service requests such candidate, proposed or listed species habitat. discussions. and proposed or designated critical (b) Service responsibilities. Within (2) Where any of these events affects habitat; human resource consideration; 135 days of receiving the information more than one administrative unit of the the timing of the consultation; National required under paragraph (a) of this Action Agency or the Service, these Environmental Policy Act, 43 U.S.C. section, the Service shall: discussions shall be conducted jointly 4321–4370(d), requirements for the (1) Issue a written statement detailing by, or on behalf of, all such units. Action Agency; data collection whether the parameters identified (b) Consultation/conference requirements; and existing and pursuant to paragraph (a)(3) of this agreement. Unless a different time frame forthcoming protective strategies for the section provide appropriate parameters is mutually agreed to by the Action listed species. such that site-specific actions consistent Agency and the Service, the results of (3) If the representatives of the Action with those parameters are not likely to these discussions shall be embodied in Agency and the Service in the adversely affect listed species or critical a document (hereinafter ‘‘consultation/ discussions required in paragraph (a) of habitat and/or are not likely to conference agreement’’), to be this section cannot agree on the terms of jeopardize and continued existence of Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 39925 proposed species or adversely modify or actions are ones that were authorized, those activities that are likely to destroy proposed critical habitat; or funded, or initiated prior to the relevant adversely affect listed species or critical (2) If either there is no existing or triggering event and in which there is habitat. For any action so identified by proposed decision document, or the discretionary Federal involvement or the Action Agency, or for which the parameters identified in paragraph (a)(3) control. Actions identified on the Service provides a written objection to of this section are determined to be written list may continue under the its continuance and the rationale inadequate, provide a description of regulations in this subpart during therefore, the Action Agency will, as parameters sufficient under paragraph consultation without interruption soon as practicable and consistent with (a)(3) of this section, to the extent unless suspended pursuant to its legal authorities and obligations, possible and to the degree permitted by paragraphs (c) or (d) of this section. The initiate the appropriate administrative the information provided by the Action Action Agency should provide notice to process to review whether the action, Agency. affected parties consistent with and any associated irretrievable or appropriate agency procedures. irreversible commitments of resources § 402.24 Site-specific consultation/ (c) Imminent threats. Pursuant to the that would foreclose the formulation or conference; ongoing site-specific actions timeframes establishment in the during consultation. implementation of reasonable and relevant consultation/conference (a) Site-specific consultation/ prudent alternatives under section 7(d) agreement, the Action Agency and the of the ESA, needs to be modified, conference. For site-specific actions that Service shall review the actions conform with parameters identified as altered, or, if necessary, terminated. The identified pursuant to paragraph (b) of Action Agency also shall initiate formal sufficient under § 402.23, the Action this section. For any action that both the Agency will provide, 30 days prior to consultation/conference under Service and Action Agency agree may §§ 402.10 and/or 402.14. the decision document for proposed present an imminent threat to a listed actions, or pursuant to the time frames species or its critical habitat, the Action § 402.25 Timeframes. established in a consultation/conference Agency will, as soon as practicable and All timeframes set forth in §§ 402.23 agreement for ongoing actions, a written consistent with its legal authorities and and 402.24 of this subpart may be notification to the Service of the Action obligations, initiate the appropriate modified by mutual agreement. Agency determination and rationale that administrative process to review the action is in conformance with whether the action needs to be § 402.26 Applicability. relevant parameters. This notification modified, altered, or, if necessary, ends consultation under section 7(a)(2) terminated. The Action Agency also The regulations in this subpart are of the ESA. Completion of consultation shall initiate formal consultation/ applicable to the FS and BLM only fulfills the Action Agency’s conference under §§ 402.10 and 402.14 where an event identified in § 402.22(a) responsibility to comply with section as appropriate. When it is consistent occurs after [the effective date of the 7(d) of the ESA. If the Service disagrees with its legal authorities and final rule]. with the Action Agency’s obligations, the Action Agency should §§ 402.27±402.29 [Reserved] determination, it may request suspend any such action and any reinitiation of informal or formal associated irretrievable or irreversible Dated: July 7, 1995. consultation as appropriate, under this commitments of resources that would George Frampton, part and provide a rationale for its foreclose the formulation or Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and request. Any ongoing or proposed site- implementation of reasonable and Parks. specific action that is not in prudent alternatives under section 7(d) Dated: June 30, 1995. conformance with parameters identified of the ESA, until it is determined that James R. Lyons, under § 402.23 is subject to the the action is not likely to jeopardize the Undersecretary, Natural Resources consultation requirements under continued existence of a listed species Environment. subparts A and B of this part, as or result in the adverse modification or Dated: July 3, 1995. supplemented by this section. destruction of its critical habitat. Rolland A. Schmitten, (b) Identification of ongoing activities. (d) Likely to adversely affect actions. Pursuant to the timeframes established Pursuant to the timeframes established Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. in the relevant consultation/conference in the relevant consultation/conference agreement, the Action Agency will agreement, the Action Agency shall Dated: July 6, 1995. provide the Service with a written list review the actions identified pursuant Bob Armstrong, of all ongoing site-specific actions to paragraph (b) of this section, except Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals relevant to the triggering event that may for those already identified as imminent Management. affect a listed species or its critical threats under paragraph (c) of this [FR Doc. 95–18919 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] habitat. Such ongoing site-specific section, and identify for the Service BILLING CODE 4310±55±M 39926 Notices Federal Register Vol. 60, No. 150 Friday, August 4, 1995 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER Extension Business or other for-profit; Federal contains documents other than rules or • Natural Resources Conservation Government; State, Local or Tribal proposed rules that are applicable to the Government; 5,800,162 responses; public. Notices of hearings and investigations, Service • Volunteer Program—Earth Team 1,364,228 hours committee meetings, agency decisions and • rulings, delegations of authority, filing of NRCS–PER–001, NRCS–PER–002, Roy Bruner (202) 720–7485 NRCS–PER–003, NRCS–PER–004 petitions and applications and agency • Animal and Plant Health Inspection statements of organization and functions are • Individuals or households; 33,150 examples of documents appearing in this responses; 1,175 hours Service section. • Paula Jones (202) 720–2847 7 CFR 340—Introduction of Organisms • Forest Service and Products Altered or Produced • Airplane Pilot Qualifications and Through Genetic Engineering Which DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Approval Record, Helicopter Pilot are Plant Pests or Which there is Qualifications and Approval Record Reason to Believe are Plant Pests Forms Under Review by Office of Airplane Data Record, and Helicopter Management and Budget APHIS 2000, 2050, 2051, 2052, 2053, Data Record and 2054 • July 28, 1995. FS–5700–20 and 20a, FS–5700–21 and 21a Business or other for-profit; Not-for- The Department of Agriculture has • Business or other for-profit; profit institutions; State, Local or submitted to OMB for review the Individuals or households; Tribal Government; 3,273 responses; following proposal for the collection of • 1185 responses; 296 hours 4,740 hours information under the provisions of the • Ed Stone (202) 205–1497 Shirley Ingebritsen (301) 734–5874 Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. • Forest Service • Animal and Plant Health Inspection Chapter 35) since the last list was • National Survey on Outdoor Service published. This list is grouped into new Recreation proposals, revisions, extension, or • Individuals or households; 30,000 9 CFR 50 and 77, Tuberculosis reinstatements. Each entry contains the responses; 9,900 hours VS 1–24, 1–68, 6–22, 6–22B, 6–22A, 6– following information: • Ken Cordell (706) 546–2451 22C, 6–22D, 6–35, 6–38 (1) Agency proposing the information • Food and Nutrition Service Business or other for-profit; Farms; collection; (2) Title of the information • 7 CFR Part 215—Special Milk collection; (3) Form number(s), if State, Local or Tribal Government; 53, Program for Children 165 responses; 18,407 hours applicable; (4) Who will be required or • State, Local or Tribal Government; asked to report; (5) An estimate of the Business or other for-profit; Mitch Essey (301) 734–7927 • number of responses; (6) An estimate of Not-for-profit institutions; 145,996 • Rural Economic and Community the total number of hours needed to responses; 677,520 hours Development provide the information; (7) Name and • Winnie McQueen (703) 305–2607 telephone number of the agency contact 7 CFR 1951–T, Disaster Set-Aside Revision person. Program Questions about the items in the • Food Safety and Inspection Service Farms; Individuals or households; • listing should be directed to the agency Exportation, Transportation, and Business or other for-profit; State, person named at the end of each entry. Importation of Meat and Poultry Local or Tribal Government; 14,000 • Products responses; 1,970 hours Copies of the proposed forms and • supporting documents may be obtained FSIS Form 9540–5 • Business or other for-profit; 2,181,328 Jack Holston (202) 720–9736 from: Department Clearance Officer, responses; 168,758 hours • Forest Service USDA, OIRM, Room 404–W Admin. • Lee Puricelli (202) 720–7164 Forest Industries Data Collection System Bldg., Washington, DC 20250, (202) • 690–2118. Food Safety and Inspection Service • Questionnaire for Hotline Callers Business or other for-profit; 2,550 New • Individuals or households; 3,200 responses; 2,007 hours • responses; 287 hours Dennis M. May (612) 649–5132 Economic Research Service • • Lee Puricelli (202) 720–7163 • Adoption of Competitive Practices by • Agricultural Marketing Service U.S. Manufacturers Rural Utilities Service RUS Prepayments and Related Dried prunes Produced in California, • Business or other for-profit; 3,500 Reporting Burdens Marketing Order No. 993 responses; 1,750 hours • RUS Form 606 FV–165, FV–166, FV–167 FV–168, FV– David McGranahan (202) 219–0533 Business or other for-profit; Individuals 169, FV–169A, FV–170, FV–171 • Animal and Plan Health Inspection or households; Not-for-profit Business or other for-profit; Farms; Service institutions; 115 responses; 2,000 3,832 responses; 696 hours • Foreign quarantine Notices—Logs and hours Lumber—Addendum 1 F. Lamont Heppe (202) 720–0736 Valerie L. Emmer (202) 205–2829 • PPQ 585, 588 • Federal Grain Inspection Service Larry K. Roberson, • Business or other for-profit; 2,002,575 Regulations Governing the National Deputy Departmental Clearance Officer. responses; 301,360 hours Inspection and Weighing System [FR Doc. 95–19169 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] • Mary Joyce Burt (301) 734–8393 Under the USGSA and AMA of 46. BILLING CODE 3410±01±M Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39927 Animal and Plant Health Inspection applications for the following calendar regions of the Forest Service announced Service year. To be included in the December their decision on the Inland Native Fish lottery, applications must reach the Strategy. Based on public comment [Docket No. 95±060±1] Import-Export Animals Staff of the analysis and internal review, they have Procedures for Importing Animals Animal and Plant Health Inspection decided, with the support of the US Through the Harry S Truman Animal Service (APHIS) no earlier than October Fish and Wildlife Service, to select Import Center 1, and no later than October 15 of the Alternative D as described in the year of the lottery. Additionally, Environmental Assessment for the AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health applicants must send a deposit in the Inland Native Fish Strategy. Inspection Service, USDA. form of a certified check or money order The Inland Native Fish Strategy ACTION: Notice. in the amount of $32,000, payable to the covers approximately 25 million acres United States Department of of National Forest System lands in SUMMARY: We are giving notice of the Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health eastern Washington and Oregon, Idaho, date and location of the lottery for Inspection Service, for each application. western Montana, and portions of authorization of the use of the Harry S APHIS will not consider an application Nevada. The Environmental Assessment Truman Animal Import Center unless we receive this deposit from the for the strategy was distributed to the (HSTAIC) in calendar year 1996. We are applicant on or before November 29, public in June for a 30-day review. A also giving notice of the period during 1995. In the event that the Import- series of public hearings were held to which applications must reach the Export Animals Staff receives no more allow ample opportunity for the public Animal and Plant Health Inspection than one application between October 1, to share their concerns. All comments Service in order to be included in the 1995, and October 15, 1995, the lottery have been considered and incorporated lottery. will not be held, and APHIS will grant into the decision. DATES: To be included in the lottery for exclusive right to use HSTAIC during This decision notice reflects the final authorization to use HSTAIC in the calendar year 1996 in the order decision of the Forest Service. The calendar year 1996, applications must applications are received. decision may be appealed in accordance be received no earlier than October 1, Applicants should be aware that with the provisions identified in the 1995, and no later than October 15, certain improvements are being made to Decision Notice. Copies of the Decision 1995. Deposits must be received by the HSTAIC facility in order to meet Notice and Finding of No Significant November 29, 1995. The lottery for standards set by the Florida Department Impact are currently being printed, and authorization to use HSTAIC during of Environmental Protection. The will be distributed to the public near the 1996 will be held on December 6, 1995. availability of HSTAIC for use for 1996 end of August. At that time, legal ads will be published in designated ADDRESSES: Completed applications and lottery applicants will be dependent deposits must be sent to the upon satisfactory completion of these newspapers announcing the availability Administrator, c/o Import-Export projects. of the document and the start of the appeal period. Animal Staff, National Center for Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622; 19 U.S.C. 136; 21 In addition to the Inland Native Fish Import-Export, Veterinary Services, U.S.C. 102–105, 111, 114a, 134a, 134b, 134c, Strategy effort, the Forest Service is APHIS, USDA, 4700 River Road Unit 39, 134d, 134f, 135, 136, and 136a; 31 U.S.C. pursuing a cooperative effort with the Riverdale, MD 20737–1231. Application 9701; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(d). various states to assure a coordinated forms may be obtained by writing to the Done in Washington, DC, this 31st day of multi-agency effort to address inland same address, or by calling the July 1995. native fish issues. A proposal was sent telephone number provided under the Lonnie J. King, to the Governors of Idaho and Montana heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Administrator, Animal and Plant Health on June 23, 1995 to develop CONTACT. The lottery will be held at Inspection Service. conservation strategies that could be USDA, APHIS, Conference Room [FR Doc. 95–19185 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] used to replace this interim 3B01CN, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, BILLING CODE 3410±34±P management direction with longer term MD. direction working through the Upper FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Columbia River Basin EIS. Similar Joan Montgomery, Staff Specialist, Forest Service proposals will be made to the Governors Import-Export Animals Staff, National of Oregon and Washington. As part of Center for Import-Export, VS, APHIS, Inland Native Fish Strategy this cooperative effort, the Forest Suite 3B30, 4700 River Road Unit 39, ACTION: Notice of decision on the Inland Service will actively seek participation Riverdale, MD 20737–1231, (301) 734– Native Fish Strategy Environmental of local state fish and game personnel in 8172. Assessment and Finding of No the development of watershed analysis SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Significant Impact. efforts. regulations in 9 CFR part 92, §§ 92.430, Through review of the public 92.431, 92.522, and 92.523 (referred to SUMMARY: In the March 14, 1995, comment, the Forest Service recognizes below as the regulations), set forth the Federal Register (Vol. 60, No. 49, pp. that the selection of Alternative D will conditions under which importers may 13697–13698), notice was given that the concern many people who felt this qualify animals to enter the United Forest Service, in cooperation with the alternative provided either too much or States through the Harry S Truman Bureau of Land Management and US not enough protection. Both Animal Import Center (HSTAIC) in Fish and Wildlife Service, was gathering Alternatives C and E have features that Fleming Key, FL. information in order to prepare an are attractive for longer-term reduction Because the demand for quarantine Environmental Assessment (EA) for a of risk to habitat. The Regional Foresters space at HSTAIC has traditionally proposal to protect habitat and have directed Inland Native Fish exceeded the space available, the populations of native inland fish. Strategy Team Leader David Wright to regulations provide that a lottery will be On July 28, 1995, the Regional develop a strategy to apply the concepts held each year during the first 7 days of Foresters for the Northern, and philosophy of those two December, to determine the priority of Intermountain, and Pacific Northwest alternatives on a limited test basis. 39928 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices Alternative D will be implemented for statement is not being prepared for the ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW all of the areas outside the test Upper Blue River Watershed; Atoka, BOARD watersheds. Application of Alternative Bryan, Johnston, Murray, and Pontotoc D will provide the short-term reduction Counties, Oklahoma. Notice of Formal Determinations of risk we desire, while this test of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alternatives C and E will allow the Robert N. Jones, Acting Executive SUMMARY: The Assassination Records Forest Service to develop the Director, Natural Resources Review Board (Review Board) met in a information needed to provide better Conservation Service, 100 USDA Suite closed meeting on July 17 and 18, 1995, long-term direction. 203, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074–2655, and made formal determinations on the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (405) 742–1204. release of records under the President Questions about the Decision Notice, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Finding of No Significant Impact, and environmental assessment of this Collection Act of 1992 (JFK Act.) By Environmental Assessment should be federally assisted action indicates that issuing this notice, the Review Board directed to David Wright, Team Leader the project will not cause significant complies with the section of the JFK Act for the Inland Native Fish Strategy, local, regional, or national impacts on that requires the Review Board to USDA Forest Service, 3815 Schreiber the environment. As a result of these publish the results of its decisions on a Way, Coeur d’Alene, ID 83814. Phone: findings, Robert N. Jones, Acting document-by-document basis in the (208) 765–7223. Executive Director, has determined that Federal Register within 14 days of the Dated: July 28, 1995. the preparation and review of an date of the decision. David J. Wright, environmental impact statement are not Inland Native Fish Team Leader, USDA needed for this project. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Forest Service. The project purposes are watershed T. Jeremy Gunn, Acting General Counsel [FR Doc. 95–19228 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] protection and flood prevention. The and Associate Director for Research and planned works of improvement BILLING CODE 3410±11±M Analysis, Assassination Records Review included in this assessment are 42 Board, Second Floor, 600 E Street, NW., single-purpose floodwater retarding Washington, DC 20530, (202) 724–0088, structures. Natural Resources Conservation fax (202) 724–0457. Service The Notice of a Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Upper Blue River Watershed: Atoka, forwarded to the Environmental notice complies with the requirements Bryan, Johnston, Murray, and Protection Agency and to various of the President John F. Kennedy Pontotoc Counties, Oklahoma Federal, State, and local agencies and Assassination Records Collection Act of interested parties. A limited number of AGENCY: Natural Resources 1992, 44 U.S.C. 2017.9(c)(3) (1992). On copies of the FONSI are available to fill July 17 and 18, 1995, the Review Board Conservation Service, USDA. single copy requests at the above ACTION: Notice of a finding of no made formal determinations on records address. Basic data developed during it reviewed under the JFK Act. These significant impact. the environmental assessment are on determinations are listed below. The file and may be reviewed by contacting SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) assassination records are identified by Robert N. Jones. of the National Environmental Policy the record identification number Act of 1969: the Council on No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be assigned in the President John F. Environmental Quality Regulations (40 Kennedy Assassination Records CFR Part 1500); and the Natural taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the Federal Register. Collection database maintained by the Resources Conservation Service National Archives. For each document, Regulations (7 CFR Part 650); the Robert N. Jones, the number of releases of previously Natural Resources Conservation Service, Acting Executive Director. redacted information is noted. U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives [FR Doc. 95–18353 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] notice that an environmental impact BILLING CODE 3410±01±M REVIEW BOARD DETERMINATIONS Next re- Record No. Releases Status of document view date FBI Documents 124±10006±10342 ...... 4 Open in full ...... n/a 124±10023±10234 ...... 2 Open in full ...... n/a 124±10023±10235 ...... 2 Open in full ...... n/a 124±10023±10236 ...... 2 Open in full ...... n/a 124±10023±10237 ...... 4 Open in full ...... n/a 124±10023±10238 ...... 1 Open in full ...... n/a 124±10035±10065 ...... 4 Open in full ...... n/a 124±10070±10354 ...... 8 Open in full ...... n/a 124±10108±10142 ...... 8 Open in full ...... n/a 124±10119±10078 ...... 5 Open in full ...... n/a 124±10170±10064 ...... 4 Open in full ...... n/a 124±10184±10256 ...... 8 Open in full ...... n/a 124±10230±10425 ...... 2 Open in full ...... n/a 124±10232±10345 ...... 4 Open in full ...... n/a 124±10243±10367 ...... 4 Open in full ...... n/a Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39929 REVIEW BOARD DETERMINATIONSÐContinued Next re- Record No. Releases Status of document view date 124±10244±10077 ...... 4 Open in full ...... n/a CIA Documents 104±10007±10152 ...... 11 Open in full ...... n/a 104±10008±10116 ...... 4 Open in full ...... n/a Dated: July 31, 1995. Federal Register (60 FR 25886) the Administration, International Trade David G. Marwell, notice of initiation of that Administration, U.S. Department of Executive Director. administrative review. Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution [FR Doc. 95–19196 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] Skaarfish Group AS timely withdrew Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; BILLING CODE 6820±TD±M its request for a review on July 21, 1995, telephone (202) 482–5253. pursuant to 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5). As a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: result, the Department has terminated Applicable Statute and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE the review. This notice is published in Unless otherwise indicated, all International Trade Administration accordance with section 751 of the citations to the statute and to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 Department’s regulations are references [A±403±801] U.S.C. 1675) and 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5). to the provisions as they existed on Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon Dated: July 28, 1995. December 31, 1994. From Norway; Termination of Joseph A. Spetrini, Background Antidumping Duty Administrative Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance. On May 8, 1995, the Department Review [FR Doc. 95–19269 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] published in the Federal Register (60 BILLING CODE 3510±DS±M AGENCY: Import Administration, FR 22561) the preliminary results of the International Trade Administration, 1993–94 (fifth) administrative review of Department of Commerce. [A±588±807] the antidumping duty order on ACTION: Notice of termination of industrial belts from Japan (54 FR antidumping duty administrative Industrial Belts and Components and 25314, June 14, 1989). The Department review. Parts Thereof, Whether Cured or has now completed this review in Uncured, From Japan; Final Results of accordance with section 751 of the SUMMARY: On May 15, 1995, the Antidumping Duty Administrative Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Department of Commerce (the Review Tariff Act). Department) published in the Federal AGENCY: Import Administration, Scope of the Review Register (60 FR 25886) the notice of International Trade Administration, initiation of the administrative review of Imports covered by this review are Department of Commerce. the antidumping duty order on fresh shipments of industrial belts and and chilled Atlantic salmon from ACTION: Notice of final results of components and parts thereof, whether Norway. This review has now been antidumping duty administrative cured or uncured, from Japan. These terminated as a result of the withdrawal review. products include V-belts, synchronous belts, and other industrial belts, in part by the respondent of its request for the SUMMARY: On May 8, 1995, the review. or wholly of rubber or plastic, and Department of Commerce (the containing textile fiber (including glass EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 1995. Department) published a notice of fiber) or steel wire, cord or strand, and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: preliminary results of its administrative whether in endless (i.e., closed loops) Todd Peterson, Office of Antidumping review of the antidumping duty order belts, or in belting in lengths or links. Compliance, Import Administration, on industrial belts and components This review excludes conveyor belts International Trade Administration, thereof, whether cured or uncured and automotive belts, as well as front U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th (industrial belts), from Japan. This engine drive belts found on equipment Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., review covers one manufacturer/ powered by internal combustion Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone: exporter during the period June 1, 1993, engines, including trucks, tractors, (202) 482–4195. through May 31, 1994. buses, and lift trucks. We gave interested parties the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During the period of review the opportunity to comment on our merchandise was classifiable under Background preliminary results. Based on our Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) On April 28, 1995, Skaarfish Group analysis of the comments received, we subheadings, 3926.90.55, 3926.90.56, A/S requested an administrative review have not changed the dumping margin 3926.90.57, 3926.90.59, 3926.90.60, of the antidumping duty order on fresh from those presented in our preliminary 4010.10.10, 4010.10.50, 4010.91.11, and chilled Atlantic salmon from results. 4010.91.15, 4010.91.19, 4010.91.50, Norway for the period April 1, 1994 EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 1995. 4010.99.11, 4010.99.15, 4010.99.19, through March 31, 1995, pursuant to 19 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron 4010.99.50, 5910.00.10, 5910.00.90, and CFR 353.22(a)(2) (1994). On May 15, Trentham or Zev Primor, Office of 7326.20.00. These HTS subheadings are 1995, the Department published in the Antidumping Compliance, Import provided for convenience and U.S. 39930 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices Customs Service (Customs Service) MBL refused to respond to the Final Results of the Review purposes. Our written description of the questionnaire. As such, Gates contends, As a result of this administrative scope of the order remains dispositive. it is well-established under Department review, the Department determines that This review covers one Japanese practice that the highest prior rate a dumping margin of 93.16 percent manufacturer and exporter of industrial should apply. exists for MBL for the period June 1, belts to the United States, Mitsuboshi Department’s Position: Section 776(c) 1993 though May 31, 1994. Belting Limited (MBL), and the period of the Tariff Act requires us to use BIA The Department will instruct the June 1, 1993 through May 31, 1994. ‘‘whenever a party or any other person Customs Service to assess antidumping Analysis of the Comments Received refuses or is unable to produce duties on all appropriate entries. The information requested in a timely The Department gave interested Department will issue appraisement manner and in the form required, or parties the opportunity to comment on instructions directly to the Customs the preliminary results of this otherwise significantly impedes an Service. administrative review. We received a investigation.’’ In deciding what to use Furthermore, the following deposit case brief from MBL, and case and as BIA, the Department’s regulations requirement will be effective upon rebuttal briefs from the petitioner, Gates provide that the Department may take publication of this notice of final results Rubber Company (Gates). We did not into account whether a party refuses to of review for all shipments of the receive a request for a hearing. provide information requested (19 CFR subject merchandise entered, or Comment: MBL acknowledges that 353.37(b)). MBL’s contention that the withdrawn from warehouse, for the Department’s resort to best Department should use the information consumption on or after the publication information available (BIA) is obtained in the 1989–90 administrative date, as provided for by section authorized under section 776(c) of the review is contrary to Department policy. 751(a)(1) of the Tariff act: (1) For subject Tariff act, since MBL did not respond to When a respondent refuses to cooperate merchandise exported by MBL, a cash the Department’s questionnaire. MBL with the Department, it is our policy to deposit of 93.16 percent; (2) For argues, however, that the Department assign a dumping margin to that previously reviewed or investigated should use information obtained in the respondent, as BIA, based on the higher companies not listed above, the cash first administrative review (1989–90) as of: (1) The highest rate found for any deposit rate will continue to be the BIA instead of the rate from the original firm in the original LTFV investigation company-specific rate published for the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) or previous administrative review, or (2) most recent period; (3) If the exporter is investigation. MBL contends that the the highest rate found for any firm in not a firm covered in this review, a prior Department is required to consider the the current review (Antifriction Bearings review, or the original LTFV most recent information available in (Other than Tapered Roller Bearings) investigation, but the manufacturer is, deciding upon a BIA rate. According to and Parts Thereof From France et al., the cash deposit rate will be the rate MBL, the information provided by the Final Results of Antidumping Duty established for the most recent period respondent in the first administrative Administrative Reviews, 57 FR 28360, for the manufacturer of the review is the most probative evidence of 28379 (June 24, 1992)). The merchandise; and (4) If neither the the current margin because the LTFV Department’s methodology for assigning exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm margin was based solely on information BIA has been upheld by the Court of covered in this or any previous review provided by the petitioner for the period Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) conducted by the Department, the cash October 1986 through March 1988 while (see Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. deposit rate will be the ‘‘all others’’ rate the first review margin is based on United States, 996 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. of 93.16 percent established in the LTFV information provided by MBL for the 1993), Krupp Stahl AG et al. v. United investigation. period of February 1, 1989 through May States, 822 F. Supp. 789 (CIT 1993)). This notice serves as a final reminder 31, 1990. Because MBL refused to respond to the to importers of their responsibility Furthermore, MBL points out that in Department’s questionnaire, it was under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate two separate actions before the United reasonable for the Department to assign regarding the reimbursement of States Court of International Trade to MBL, as BIA, a rate of 93.16 percent, antidumping duties prior to liquidation (CIT), it is challenging the Department’s the highest rate found for any firm in of the relevant entries during this choice of BIA in the second the original LTFV investigation. Further, review period. Failure to comply with administrative review and in the third because the law does not provide for this requirement could result in the and fourth administrative reviews. MBL extensions of deadlines pending the Secretary’s presumption that urges the Department to withhold outcome of court decisions in other reimbursement of antidumping duties making a final determination as to the proceedings, we have not delayed our occurred and the subsequent assessment applicable BIA in this fifth final results. In addition, the CIT has of double antidumping duties. administrative review until the ongoing held that the Department may base BIA This notice also serves as a reminder litigation is resolved. on a rate established in a prior review to parties subject to administrative Gates argues that based on MBL’s that is subject to challenge (see D & L protective orders (APOs) of their refusal to cooperate in this review, the Supply Co. v. United States, Slip Op. responsibility concerning the Department should apply the highest 95–92 at 13 (CIT May 15, 1995), citing disposition of proprietary information margin determined for any period to D & L Supply Co., 841 F. Supp. 1312, disclosed under APO in accordance MBL’s entries. According to Gates, the 1314 (CIT 1993)). Furthermore, the CIT with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written Department has previously rejected has recognized the need for the notification of the return/destruction of MBL’s argument that information Department to be able to issue final APO materials or conversion to judicial obtained in the first administrative determinations in a timely fashion protective order is hereby requested. review (1989–90) should be used as BIA based upon the rates available at the Failure to comply with the regulations and has consistently applied the highest time the final determination is due (see and the terms of an APO is a margin determined for any period to D & L Supply Co., et al. v. United States, sanctionable violation. MBL’s entries. Gates states that the basis Slip Op. 95–92 at 15 (CIT May 15, This administrative review and this for this determination is the fact that 1995)). notice are in accordance with section Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39931 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. ACTION: Notice of termination of SUMMARY: In response to a request by the 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22. antidumping duty administrative petitioners, the Elkton Sparkler Dated: July 28, 1995. review. Company and the Diamond Sparkler Susan G. Esserman, Company, the Department of Commerce SUMMARY: On February 15, 1995, the (the Department) has conducted an Assistant Secretary for Import Department of Commerce (the administrative review of the Administration. Department) published in the Federal [FR Doc. 95–19257 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] antidumping duty order on sparklers Register (60 FR 8629) the notice of from the People’s Republic of China BILLING CODE 3510±DS±P initiation of the administrative review of (PRC). The review was requested for one the antidumping duty order on manufacturer, Guangxi Native Produce [A±588±836] potassium permanganate from the Import and Export Corporation, Beihai People’s Republic of China. This review Fireworks and Firecrackers Branch Notice of Postponement of Preliminary has now been terminated as a result of (Guangxi). The review covers the period Determination: Antidumping Duty the withdrawal by the petitioner of its June 1, 1993 through May 31, 1994. Investigation of Polyvinyl Alcohol request for the review. As a result of this review, we have From Japan EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 1995. preliminarily determined to assess an AGENCY: Import Administration, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: antidumping duty of 93.54 percent on International Trade Administration, Paul Stolz, Office of Antidumping the merchandise subject to the review. Department of Commerce. Compliance, Import Administration, Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: International Trade Administration, the review. Ellen Grebasch, Dorothy Tomaszewski U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th or Erik Warga, Office of Antidumping Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 1995. Investigations, Import Administration, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 482–4474. Matthew Blaskovich or Zev Primor, Office of Antidumping Compliance, Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Washington D.C. 20230; telephone (202) Import Administration, International 482–3773, (202) 482–0631, or (202) 482– Background Trade Administration, U.S. Department 0922, respectively. On January 27, 1995, Carus Chemical of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., The Applicable Statute Company (Carus) requested an administrative review of the Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) Unless otherwise indicated, all antidumping duty order on potassium 482–5831/4114. citations to the statute are references to permanganate from the People’s SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the provisions effective January 1, 1995, Republic of China for the period January the effective date of the amendments 1, 1994 through December 31, 1994, Background made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) pursuant to 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1)(1994). On June 18, 1991, the Department by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act On February 15, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register the (URAA). published in the Federal Register (60 antidumping duty order on sparklers Postponement of Preliminary FR 8629) the notice of initiation of that from the PRC (56 FR 27946). On June 7, Determination administrative review. 1994, the Department published a notice Carus timely withdrew its request for in the Federal Register notifying On July 21, 1995, petitioner, Air a review on May 16, 1995, pursuant to interested parties of the opportunity to Products and Chemicals Inc., made a 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5). As a result, the request an administrative review of timely request that the Department of Department has terminated the review. sparklers from the PRC (58 FR 31941). Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) postpone This notice is published in On June 23, 1994, the petitioners until October 2, 1995, its preliminary accordance with section 751 of the requested, in accordance with 19 CFR determination in this proceeding. Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 353.22(a), that we conduct an Accordingly, pursuant to section U.S.C. 1675) and 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5). administrative review of exports to the 733(c)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 Dated: July 28, 1995. United States by Guangxi, for the period (‘‘the Act’’), we have done so. June 1, 1993 through May 31, 1994. We This notice is published pursuant to Joseph A. Spetrini, published a notice of initiation of the section 733(c)(2) of the Act. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance. antidumping duty administrative review Dated: August 1, 1995. [FR Doc. 95–19270 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] on July 15, 1994 (58 FR 39007). Barbara R. Stafford. BILLING CODE 3510±DS±M The initiation notice indicated that Deputy Assistant Secretary for Investigations, the review would cover Guangxi and Import Administration. would cover conditionally all other [FR Doc. 95–19261 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] [A±570±804] exporters of this merchandise. The BILLING CODE 3510±DS±P Department is now conducting a review Sparklers From the People's Republic in accordance with section 751 of the of China; Preliminary Results of Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). [A±570±001] Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Scope of the Review Potassium Permanganate From the People's Republic of China; AGENCY: Import Administration, The products covered by this Termination of Antidumping Duty International Trade Administration, administrative review are sparklers from Administrative Review Department of Commerce. the PRC. Sparklers are fireworks, each comprising a cut-to-length wire, one end ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of AGENCY: Import Administration, of which is coated with a chemical mix Antidumping Duty Administrative International Trade Administration, that emits bright sparks while burning. Review. Department of Commerce. Sparklers are currently classifiable 39932 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices under the Harmonized Tariff System In determining what to use as BIA, the the first workday thereafter. The (HTS) subheading 3604.10.00. The HTS Department follows a two-tiered Department will publish a notice of the subheadings are provided for methodology whereby the Department final results of this administrative convenience and customs purposes. The normally assigns lower margins to those review, which will include the results of written description remains dispositive respondents who cooperate in a review, its analysis of issues raised in any briefs as to the scope of this proceeding. and margins based on more adverse or comments. assumptions for those respondents who Upon completion of this review, the Best Information Available do not cooperate in a review. Department shall determine, and the On July 20, 1994, we mailed Guangxi In accordance with our BIA U.S. Customs Service shall assess, a questionnaire explaining the review methodology for uncooperative antidumping duties on all appropriate procedures. In addition, a short respondents, we assign as BIA the entries. The Department will issue questionnaire was sent to Guangxi, the higher of: (1) the highest of the rates appraisement instructions directly to Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region found for any firm for the same class or the U.S. Customs Service. People’s Government, the Embassy of kind of merchandise in the same the People’s Republic of China, the country of origin in the less than fair Furthermore, the following deposit Guangxi Foreign Economic Relations value (LTFV) investigation or prior requirements will be effective upon and Trade Commission and the Guangxi administrative reviews; or (2) the publication of notice of final results of People’s Government-Beijing Office. highest rate found in this review for any administrative review for all shipments This questionnaire sought to ascertain firm for the same class or kind of of sparklers from the PRC entered, or whether Guangxi shall be entitled to a merchandise in the same country of withdrawn from warehouse, for separate rate by demonstrating both de origin (see Final Results of Antidumping consumption on or after the date of jure and de facto absence of central Administrative Review: Antifriction publication, as provided by section government control with respect to Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit exports. Bearings) and Parts Thereof From rate for Guangxi will be the PRC In addition, the questionnaire states: France; et. al. (57 FR 28379, June 24, country-wide rate as stated above; (2) for 1992)). [b]ecause we consider the PRC to be a non- previously reviewed or investigated This methodology has been upheld by companies that received separate rates market economy for the purposes of this the U.S. Court of Appeals for the review, we will presume that each company not listed above, the cash deposit rate that exported the subject merchandise during Federal Circuit (see Allied-Signal will continue to be the company- the period of review (POR) is owned or Aerospace Co. v. the United States, 996 specific rate published for the most controlled by the PRC government until F.2nd 1185 (CAFC 1993); see also Krupp recent period; (3) for all other PRC evidence is placed on the record that Stahl Ag. et. al. v. the United States, 822 exporters, the cash deposit rate will be demonstrates otherwise. Absent evidence to F. Supp. 789 (CIT 1993)). Given that the PRC country-wide rate of 93.54 the contrary, we will consider a single Guangxi did not respond to the percent, the rate established on remand antidumping duty rate to be appropriate for Department’s questionnaires, we find all exporters. However, if a company can of the LTFV final determination; and (4) that Guangxi has not cooperated in this the cash deposit rate for any non-PRC demonstrate an absence of central review. exporter will be the rate established for government control with respect to pricing In accordance with our methodology exports, both in law and in fact, it will be we have used as BIA the highest rate that firm; if a non-PRC exporter does not entitled to a rate separate from the rate for have its own separate rate, the deposit other PRC firms. established in the remand of the LTFV final determination (58 FR 53708, July rate for that firm’s shipments will be the The questionnaires, which covered 29, 1993), the PRC country-wide rate of rate applicable to the PRC supplier of exports to the United States for the 93.54 percent. that exporter. In all cases, the rate period of review (POR), were due on applicable to a firm normally should August 23, 1994. We did not receive a Preliminary Results of the Review change only as a result of a review of response from any party by the due As a result of our review, we that firm, except in instances of change date. preliminarily determine the dumping of ownership. Furthermore, we had previously margin to be the following: These deposit requirements, when asked Skypak International Express imposed, shall remain in effect until (TNT) to trace the mailing and verify Manufac- Margin turer/exporter Time period (percent) publication of the final results of the Guangxi’s receipt of the document. On next administrative review. August 3, 1994, TNT’s delivery office in PRC coun- This notice also serves as a Hong Kong confirmed that the try-wide preliminary reminder to importers of questionnaire was accepted by a rate ...... 6/1/93±5/31/94 93.54 their responsibility under 19 CFR representative of Guangxi on August 2, 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the 1994. Because we received no response Interested parties to this proceeding and have not been contacted by Guangxi may request disclosure within 5 days of reimbursement of antidumping duties or any other respondent, we publication of this notice and may prior to liquidation of the relevant preliminarily determine that Guangxi is request a hearing within 10 days of entries during this review period. no longer entitled to a separate rate, as publication. Interested parties may Failure to comply with this requirement absence of central government control submit case briefs and/or written could result in the Secretary’s with regard to exports was not comments not later than 30 days after presumption that reimbursement of demonstrated. Therefore, in accordance the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs antidumping duties occurred and the with section 776(c) of the Act, we are and rebuttals to written comments, subsequent assessment of double using the best information available limited to issues raised in such briefs or antidumping duties. (BIA) as the basis for determining a comments, may be filed not later than This administrative review and notice dumping margin for all entries into the 37 days after the date of publication. are in accordance with section 751(a)(1) United States of the subject Any hearing, if requested, will be held of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 merchandise during the POR. 44 days after the date of publication, or CFR 353.22. Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39933 Dated July 28, 1995. manufacturers/exporters of the subject withdrawn from warehouse, for Susan G. Esserman, merchandise and four programs. consumption on or after the date of Publication of the final results of this Assistant Secretary for Import Applicable Statute and Regulations Administration. review. [FR Doc. 95–19260 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] The Department is conducting this Parties to the proceeding may request BILLING CODE 3510±DS±P administrative review in accordance a hearing not later than 10 days after the with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of date of publication of this notice. 1930, as amended (the Act). Unless Interested parties may submit written [C±351±406] otherwise indicated, all citations to the arguments in case briefs on these statute and to the Department’s Certain Agricultural Tillage Tools From preliminary results within 30 days of regulations are in reference to the Brazil; Preliminary Results of the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs, provisions as they existed on December Countervailing Duty Administrative limited to arguments raised in case 31, 1994. Review briefs, may be submitted seven days Scope of the Review after the time limit for filing the case July 28, 1995. brief. Parties who submit written AGENCY: Import Administration, The merchandise subject to this arguments in this proceeding are International Trade Administration, review (hereinafter ‘‘subject requested to submit with the argument Department of Commerce. merchandise’’) is certain round shaped (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a agricultural tillage tools (discs) with ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of brief summary of the argument. Any plain or notched edges, such as colters Countervailing Duty Administrative hearing, if requested, will be held seven and furrow-opener blades. The products Review. days after the scheduled date for covered in this review are currently submission of rebuttal briefs. Copies of SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce classifiable under the following item case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be (the Department) is conducting an numbers of the Harmonized Tariff served on interested parties in administrative review of the Schedule of the United States (HTSUS): accordance with 19 CFR 355.38(e). countervailing duty order on certain 8432.21.00, 8432.29.00, 8432.80.00 and Representatives of parties to the agricultural tillage tools from Brazil. We 8432.90.00. The HTSUS subheadings proceeding may request disclosure of preliminarily determine the net subsidy are provided for convenience and proprietary information under to be zero for all companies for the Customs purpose. The written administrative protective order no later period January 1, 1993 through description remains dispositive. than 10 days after the representative’s December 31, 1993. If the final results Analysis of Programs client or employer becomes a party to remain the same as these preliminary the proceeding, but in no event later results; the Department intends to Programs Preliminarily Found Not to Be than the date the case briefs are due instruct the U.S. Customs Service to Used under section 355.38(c). The assess countervailing duties as indicated We examined the following programs Department will publish the final above. Interested parties are invited to and preliminarily determine that the results of this administrative review comment on these preliminary results. respondents did not use them during including the results of its analysis of EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 1995. the review period: issues raised in any case or rebuttal FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Preferential Financing under brief. Brian Albright and Kelly Parkhill, Office FINEP. This administrative review and notice of Countervailing Compliance, Import B. Preferential Financing for are in accordance with section 751(a)(1) Administration, International Trade Industrial Enterprises by the Banco de of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 Administration, U.S. Department of Brasil (FST and EGF loans). CFR 355.22. Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution C. Accelerated Depreciation for Dated: July 28, 1995. Brazilian-made Capital Goods. Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; Susan G. Esserman, telephone: (202) 482–2786. D. Preferential Financing under PROEX (Formerly under Resolution 68 Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and 509 through FINEX). [FR Doc. 95–19259 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] Background Preliminary Results of Review BILLING CODE 3510±DS±P On October 22, 1985, the Department For the period January 1, 1993 published in the Federal Register (50 through December 31, 1993, we [C±559±802] FR 42743) the countervailing duty order preliminarily determine the net subsidy on certain agricultural tillage tools from to be zero for all companies. If the final Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Brazil. On October 7, 1994, the results of this review remain the same Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Department published a notice of as these preliminary results, the Thereof (AFBs) From Singapore; ‘‘Opportunity to Request an Department intends to instruct the U. S. Preliminary Results of Countervailing Administrative Review’’ (59 FR 51166) Customs Service to assess the following Duty Administrative Reviews of this countervailing duty order. We countervailing duties: received a timely request for review AGENCY: Import Administration, from Marchesan Implementos Argicolas, Manufacturer/exporter Rate International Trade Administration, S.A. a Brazilian producer of the subject Department of Commerce. merchandise and a respondent, and All companies ...... Zero. ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Agritech Trading Company, an importer Countervailing Duty Administrative of the subject merchandise. The Department also intends to Reviews. We initiated the review, covering the instruct the U. S. Customs Service to period January 1, 1993 to December 31, collect zero cash deposits of estimated SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 1993, on November 14, 1994 (59 FR countervailing duties on all shipments (the Department) is conducting two 56459). The review covers four of the subject merchandise, entered or administrative reviews of the 39934 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices countervailing duty orders on Applicable Statute and Regulations person refuses or is unable to produce antifriction bearings (other than tapered The Department is conducting these information requested in a timely roller bearings) and parts thereof (AFBs) administrative reviews in accordance manner and in the form required, or from Singapore. We preliminarily with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of otherwise significantly impedes an determine the net subsidy to be zero for 1930, as amended (the Act). Unless investigation * * *’’ See also 19 CFR the Minebea group of companies otherwise indicated, all citations to the § 355.37. In determining what rate to (Pelmec Industries (Pte.) Ltd. (Pelmec), statute and to the Department’s use as BIA, the Department follows a NMB Singapore Ltd. (NMB), and regulations are in reference to the two-tiered methodology. The Minebea Co., Ltd. Singapore Branch provisions as they existed on December Department assigns lower rates to those (MSB)) and 9.11 percent ad valorem for 31, 1994. respondents who cooperate in an all other companies for the periods administrative review (tier two) and January 1, 1992, through December 31, Scope of Reviews rates based on more adverse 1992, and January 1, 1993, through Imports covered by these reviews are assumptions for respondents who do December 31, 1993. If the final results shipments of antifriction bearings (other not cooperate in the review, or who remain the same as these preliminary than tapered roller bearings) and parts significantly impede the proceeding results of administrative review, we will thereof. The subject merchandise covers (tier one). Cf. Allied Signal Aerospace instruct the U.S. Customs Service to five separate classes or kinds of Co. v. United States, 996 F. 2d 1185 assess countervailing duties as indicated merchandise, each of which is described (Fed. Cir. 1993), aff’d, 28 F. 3d 1188, above. Interested parties are invited to in detail in Appendix A to this notice. cert. denied, 1995 U.S. Lexis 100 (1995) comment on these preliminary results. The Harmonized Tariff Schedule item (Allied-Signal). EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 1995. numbers listed in Appendix A are In these reviews, only the three related Minebea companies, which FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: provided for convenience and Customs account for the majority of Singaporean Brian Albright or Melanie Brown, Office purposes. The written descriptions exports to the United States of the of Countervailing Compliance, Import remain dispositive. subject merchandise, responded to the Administration, International Trade On October 30, 1992, the Department Department’s questionnaires. Administration, U.S. Department of received a request for a scope Sundstrand did not respond to our Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution determination from Sundstrand Pacific questionnaires. Furthermore, during the Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20230; (Sundstrand). Specifically, Sundstrand course of the 1992 verification of the telephone: (202) 482–2786. asked the Department to find its part number 742973, an outer-race of the GOS questionnaire response, we SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: cylindrical roller bearing, not within the examined a list of companies which Background scopes of the countervailing duty exported subject merchandise to the orders. The request was subsequently United States but, for reasons unknown On May 3, 1989, the Department evaluated in accordance with section to the Department, did not respond to published in the Federal Register (54 355.29(i)(1) of the Department’s our questionnaire (see the April 8, 1994, FR 19125) the countervailing duty regulations. On February 4, 1993, the Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman orders on AFBs from Singapore. On Department determined that the product Regarding Verification of Questionnaire April 28, 1993, and May 4, 1994, the in question was within the scope of the Response in 1992 Administrative Department published in the Federal order on cylindrical roller bearings (58 Review of CVD Order on Antifriction Register notices of ‘‘Opportunity to FR 27542, 27543; May 10, 1993). Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Request Administrative Review’’ (58 FR Because the product descriptions Bearings) and Parts Thereof From 25802 and 59 FR 23051–52) of these detailed in Sundstrand’s request for a Singapore—Covering the Period January countervailing duty orders. We received scope determination were dispositive as 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992, at a timely request for review for the to whether part number 742973 was 4, which is on file in the Central period January 1, 1992, through within the scope of the order on Records Unit, Room B–099 of the December 31, 1992, from the petitioner, cylindrical roller bearings, the Department of Commerce). The GOS did the Torrington Company. We also Department did not initiate a formal not provide any information regarding received timely requests for review for scope inquiry. Accordingly, the U.S. Sundstrand or the other companies’ the period January 1, 1993, through Customs Service has been instructed to sales or exports of the subject December 31, 1993, from both the continue to suspend liquidation of part merchandise, or the extent to which petitioner, the Torrington Company, and 742973 exported by Sundstrand. Sundstrand or these companies the Minebea group of companies, which participated in the programs reviewed. accounts for most of the exports of Best Information Available During the course of the 1993 subject merchandise from Singapore to During the investigation, Sundstrand, verification of the GOS questionnaire the United States (see section on Best an exporter of the subject merchandise response, we again examined a list of Information Available, below). which was identified by the companies which exported subject We initiated the 1992 and 1993 Government of Singapore (GOS), merchandise to the United States but reviews on June 25, 1993 (58 FR 34414) refused to participate, and consequently did not respond to our questionnaire and June 15, 1994 (59 FR 30770), received a rate based entirely on best (see the April 9, 1995, Memorandum to respectively. We conducted information available (BIA)(see Final Barbara E. Tillman Regarding verifications of the questionnaire Affirmative Countervailing Duty Verification of Questionnaire Responses responses for both the 1992 and 1993 Determinations and Countervailing Duty in the 1993 Administrative Review of reviews. The 1992 review covers three Orders: Antifriction Bearings (other than Countervailing Duty Order on related manufacturers/exporters of the Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Antifriction Bearings (Other Than subject merchandise and 16 programs; thereof from Singapore (54 FR 19125, Tapered Roller Bearings) From the 1993 review covers the same 19126; May 3, 1989)). Section 776(c) of Singapore, at 3, which is on file in the manufacturers/exporters of the subject the Act requires the Department to use Central Records Unit, Room B–099 of merchandise and 17 programs. BIA ‘‘whenever a party or any other the Department of Commerce). Again, Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39935 the GOS did not provide any calculated using this methodology was project. The EEIA authorizes allowances information regarding Sundstrand or the above de minimis, as defined by 19 CFR for a project in any of the following other companies’ sales or exports of the § 355.7, for both periods of review, we areas: subject merchandise, or the extent to next examined the net subsidy rate a. for the manufacture or increased which they participated in the programs calculated for each company to manufacture of any product; reviewed. Therefore, in accordance with determine whether individual company b. for the provision of specialized section 776 of the Act and Allied-Signal, rates differed significantly from the engineering or technical services; we are assigning to Sundstrand and all weighted-average country-wide rate, c. for research and development; other non-respondent companies a first- pursuant to 19 CFR § 355.22(d)(3). d. for construction operations; tier uncooperative BIA rate for both For both periods of review, we found e. for reducing the consumption of periods of review. The rate we are that the Minebea companies and the potable water; applying for the periods January 1, non-respondent companies had f. for services listed under section 16 1992, through December 31, 1992, and significantly different net subsidy rates of the EEIA; or January 1, 1993, through December 31, (zero and 9.11 percent ad valorem, g. for the promotion of the tourist 1993, is 9.11 percent ad valorem. This respectively); therefore all companies industry (other than a hotel) in rate is the rate that has been assigned to are treated separately for assessment Singapore. Sundstrand in each review since the and cash deposit purposes for both If an investment project falls within first administrative review (see Final periods. one of the above categories, companies Results of Countervailing Duty will receive an allowance if the Administrative Review: Antifriction Analysis of Programs investment meets one of the following Bearings (other than Tapered Roller I. Programs Preliminarily Determined criteria: • the investment results in greater Bearings) and Parts thereof from Not To Confer Subsidies Investment Singapore (56 FR 26384; June 7, 1991)). efficiency in resource utilization; Allowances Under Part X of the • the investment introduces a new Calculation Methodology for Economic Expansion Incentives Act technology into an existing industry; Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes (EEIA) • the project is significantly more In accordance with our standard Pelmec and NMB received tax efficient in resource utilization than the practice, for both periods of review, we deductions under this program during industry average; or • calculated the net subsidy on a country- both periods of review, which the project produces parts and wide basis by first calculating the petitioners have alleged are components used by other industries. subsidy rate for each company subject to countervailable. The Investment We verified that, under each of the the administrative review. See Allowance program was originally eligible project areas, all companies Preliminary Results of Countervailing established under Part VIA of the EEIA investing in new plant and equipment Duty Administrative Review: Certain in 1979 to encourage investment in are eligible to participate in the program Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Singapore. The Department determined and that any such company which Steel Products from the United in 1985 that the investment allowance meets the above criteria will be Kingdom, 60 FR 24833, 24834 (May 10, program under Part VIA of the EEIA was approved to receive the investment 1995). We then weight-averaged the rate not countervailable (see Final Negative allowance. Moreover, we found no received by each company using as the Countervailing Duty Determination; evidence that the program is regional or weight the company’s share of total Certain Textile Mill Products and that company approval is contingent on exports from Singapore to the United Apparel from Singapore, 50 FR 9840 export. Finally, we found no evidence States of subject merchandise, including (March 12, 1985) (Textiles)). After the that the program is limited to a specific all companies, even those with de Department’s determination in Textiles, enterprise or industry, or a group of minimis and zero rates. To determine the EEIA was amended so that the enterprises or industries. There are a the value of exports for the Minebea investment allowance program was large number and wide variety of users group of companies, we added the included under Part X of the EEIA (see of the program. The range of industries reported total exports of subject Final Negative Countervailing Duty that received investment allowances merchandise to the United States by the Determination: Carbon Steel Wire Rod includes, among others, food & two related producers/exporters, NMB from Singapore (53 FR 16304; May 6, beverage, textiles, chemicals, steel, and Pelmec, to the total net mark-up on 1988) (Wire Rod)). Because the paper, minerals, electronics, plastics, exports of subject merchandise to the investment allowance program has not furniture, petroleum/coal, rubber, and United States reported by the related been examined since the EEIA was numerous service industries, including trading company respondent, MSB. To amended, we are doing so in the 1992 hotels, air transport, banking, real estate, determine the value of exports for review. (For a more detailed explanation accounting, information technology, Sundstrand and all other non- of the Department’s decision to examine medical/health, and photography. respondent companies based on BIA Part X, see the December 30, 1994, Moreover, the AFBs producers are (see Best Information Available, above), Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman neither a dominant nor disproportionate we subtracted the value of the Minebea Regarding 1992 and 1993 recipient of the investment allowances, companies’ exports of subject Administrative Reviews of Antifriction and there is no evidence that the GOS merchandise to the United States from Bearings (AFBs) from Singapore— exercises discretion, in general or across the total value of exports of subject Investment Allowance Program, Part X industries, in conferring benefits. Thus, merchandise to the United States, as of the Economic Expansion Incentives we preliminarily determine that this reported by the GOS. Act (EEIA), on file in the public file of program is not countervailable within We then summed the individual the Central Records Unit, Room B–099 the meaning of section 701(a) of the Act. weight-averaged rates to determine the of the Department of Commerce.) (A detailed specificity analysis is set subsidy from all programs benefitting Under Part X, companies are granted forth in the Memorandum dated July 28, Singaporean exports of subject a tax deduction for up to 50 percent of 1995, 1992 Administrative Reviews of merchandise to the United States. the investment in fixed assets made by the Countervailing Duty Orders on Because the country-wide rate the company over the course of a Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof 39936 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices from Singapore: Part X of the EEIA— and 9.11 percent ad valorem for all issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief Investment Allowances which is on file other companies (see Calculation or at a hearing. in the Central Records Unit, Room B– Methodology for Assessment and Cash These administrative reviews and this 099 of the Department of Commerce.) Deposit Purposes, above). notice are in accordance with section If the final results of these reviews 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S. II. Programs Preliminarily Determined remain the same as these preliminary C. § 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR § 355.22. Not To Be Used results, the Department intends to Dated: July 28, 1995. We examined the following programs instruct the U.S. Customs Service to Susan G. Esserman, and preliminarily determine that the assess the following countervailing Assistant Secretary for Import Minebea group of companies did not duties for the period January 1, 1992, Administration. apply for or receive benefits under these through December 31, 1993: programs during either the 1992 review Appendix A period or the 1993 review period: Rate Scope of The Reviews Manufacturer/Exporter (per- A. Production for Export under Part VI cent) The products covered by these reviews, of the EEIA antifriction bearings (other than tapered B. Monetary Authority of Singapore Minebea companies (Pelmec, NMB, roller bearings), mounted or unmounted, and Rediscount Facility and MSB) ...... 0.00 parts thereof, constitute the following C. Other Tax Incentives under the EEIA All Other Companies ...... 9.11 separate ‘‘classes or kinds’’ of merchandise as • outlined below. Part IV: Expansion of Established (1) Ball Bearings, Mounted or Unmounted, Enterprises The Department also intends to and Parts Thereof: These products include all • Part VII: International Trade instruct the U.S. Customs Service to antifriction bearings which employ balls as Incentives collect a cash deposit of estimated the rolling element. Such merchandise is • Part VIII: Foreign Loans for countervailing duties of zero percent of classifiable under the following Harmonized Productive Equipment the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers: • Part IX: Royalties, Fees and of the subject merchandise from the 8482.10.10, 8482.10.50, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.10, 8482.99.70, Development Contributions Minebea companies (Pelmec, NMB, and • 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.40, Part XI: Warehousing and MSB), and 9.11 percent of the f.o.b. 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, Servicing Incentives invoice price on all shipments of the 8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, and D. Incentives Under the Income Tax Act subject merchandise from all other 8708.99.50. • Sections 14B and 14C: Double companies entered, or withdrawn from (2) Spherical Roller Bearings, Mounted or Deduction of Export Promotion warehouse, for consumption on or after Unmounted, and Parts Thereof: These Expenses the date of publication of the final products include all antifriction bearings • which employ spherical rollers as the rolling Section 14E: Double Deduction for results of these reviews. element. Such merchandise is classifiable Research and Development Parties to the proceeding may request under the following HTS item numbers: • Section 19B: Write-Offs of disclosure of the calculation 8482.30.00, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, Payments for ‘‘Know-How’’, Patents methodology and interested parties may 8482.99.50, 8482.99.70, 8483.20.40, and Manufacturing Licenses request a hearing not later than 10 days 8483.20.80, 8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, E. Programs Administered by the after the date of publication of this 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, Economic Development Board notice. Interested parties may submit 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, and 8708.99.50. • Capital Assistance Scheme written arguments in case briefs on (3) Cylindrical Roller Bearings, Mounted or • Unmounted, and Parts Thereof: These Productive Development these preliminary results within 30 days products include all antifriction bearings Assistance Scheme of the date of publication. Rebuttal which employ cylindrical rollers as the • Initiatives in New Technology briefs, limited to arguments raised in rolling element. Such merchandise is Program case briefs, may be submitted seven classifiable under the following HTS item F. Program Administered by the days after the time limit for filing the numbers: 8482.50.00, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, National Science Technology case brief. Parties who submit written 8482.99.70, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, Board: Research & Development arguments in these proceedings are 8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, Assistance Scheme requested to submit with the argument 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, and 8708.99.50. In the 1993 review, we received a (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a (4) Needle Roller Bearings, Mounted or submission from the Torrington brief summary of the argument. Any Unmounted, and Parts Thereof: These Company, the petitioner in this hearing, if requested, will be held seven products include all antifriction bearings proceeding, alleging that post-pioneer days after the scheduled date for which employ needle rollers as the rolling status under Part IIIA of the EEIA might submission of rebuttal briefs. Copies of element. Such merchandise is classifiable have been granted to producers of the case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be under the following HTS item numbers: subject merchandise. We examined that served on interested parties in 8482.40.00, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, accordance with 19 CFR § 355.38(e). 8482.99.70, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, program and preliminarily determine 8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, that the producers/exporters of the Representatives of parties to these 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, subject merchandise did not apply for or proceedings may request disclosure of 8708.60.50, and 8708.99.50. receive benefits under that program and proprietary information under (5) Spherical Plain Bearings, Mounted or were not granted post-pioneer status. administrative protective order no later Unmounted, and Parts Thereof: These than 10 days after the representative’s products include all spherical plain bearings Preliminary Results of Reviews client or employer becomes a party to which do not employ rolling elements and For the periods January 1, 1992, the proceeding, but in no event later include spherical plain rod ends. Such through December 31, 1992, and January than the date the case briefs, under merchandise is classifiable under the following HTS item numbers: 8483.30.40, 1, 1993, through December 31, 1993, we section 355.38(c), are due. The 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, preliminarily determine the net subsidy Department will publish the final 8485.90.00, and 8708.99.50. to be zero for the Minebea group of results of these administrative reviews These reviews cover all of the subject companies (Pelmec, NMB, and MSB) including the results of its analysis of bearings and parts thereof outlined above Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39937 with certain limitations. With regard to June 19, 1995, a case brief was average rates to determine the bounty or finished parts (inner race, outer race, cage, submitted by Ceramica Regiomontana, grant from all programs benefitting rollers, balls, seals, shields, etc.), all such S.A., a producer of the subject exports of subject merchandise to the parts are included in the scope of this review. merchandise which exported ceramic United States. Since the country-wide For unfinished parts (inner race, outer race, rollers, balls, etc.), such parts are included if tile to the United States during the rate calculated using this methodology (1) they have been heat treated, or (2) heat review period (respondent). was de minimis, as defined by 19 CFR treatment is not required to be performed on The review period is January 1, 1993, § 355.7, no further calculations were the part. Thus, the only unfinished parts that through December 31, 1993. This review necessary. are not covered by this review are those involves 40 companies and the Analysis of Comments which will be subject to heat treatment after following programs: importation. (1) BANCOMEXT Financing for Comment 1: As in past reviews, [FR Doc. 95–19258 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] Exporters; Ceramica Regiomontana contends that BILLING CODE 3510±DS±P (2) The Program for Temporary the Department does not have the legal Importation of Products used in the authority to assess countervailing duties Production of Exports (PITEX); on ceramic tile from Mexico and must [C±201±003] (3) NAFINSA Long-Term Loans terminate the review. Effective April 23, (4) Other BANCOMEXT preferential Ceramic Tile From Mexico; Final 1985, the date of the ‘‘Understanding financing; Between the United States and Mexico Results of Countervailing Duty (5) Other Dollar-Denominated Administrative Review regarding Subsidies and Countervailing Financing Programs; Duties’’ (the Understanding), Mexico AGENCY: Import Administration, (6) Fiscal Promotion Certificates became a ‘‘country under the International Trade Administration, (CEPROFI); Agreement.’’ Therefore, Ceramica Department of Commerce. (7) Import duty reductions and Regiomontana argues that 19 U.S.C. exemptions; ACTION: Notice of Final Results of 1671 requires an affirmative injury (8) State tax incentives; Countervailing Duty Administrative determination as a prerequisite to the (9) Article 15 Loans; Review. imposition of countervailing duties on (10) NAFINSA FONEI-type financing; any Mexican merchandise imported on SUMMARY: On May 18, 1995, the and or after April 23, 1985. Furthermore, (11) NAFINSA FOGAIN-type Department of Commerce (the Ceramica Regiomontana argues that the financing. Department) published in the Federal only applicable statutory authority for Register its preliminary results of Applicable Statute and Regulations this review would be 19 U.S.C. 1303; administrative review of the however, because Mexico became a countervailing duty order on ceramic The Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance country under the Agreement, the tile from Mexico (60 FR 267177) for the provisions of section 1303 could no period January 1, 1993 through with section 751(a) of the Act. Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the longer apply. Therefore, Ceramica December 31, 1993. We have now Regiomontana maintains the completed this review and determine statute and to the Department’s regulations are in reference to the Department has no authority to conduct the total bounty or grant to be 0.48 this review and the review should be percent ad valorem for all companies. In provisions as they existed on December 31, 1994. terminated. accordance with 19 CFR 355.7, any rate Department’s Position: We fully less than 0.5 percent ad valorem is de Scope of Review addressed this issue in a previous minimis. We will instruct the U.S. Imports covered by this review are administrative review of this Customs Service to assess shipments of Mexican ceramic tile, countervailing duty order. See Ceramic countervailing assess countervailing including non-mosaic, glazed, and Tile from Mexico; Final Results of duties as indicated above. unglazed ceramic floor and wall tile. Countervailing Duty Administrative EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 1995. During the review period, such Review (55 FR 50744; December 10, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: merchandise was classifiable under the 1990). The CIT and the U.S. Court of Gayle Longest or Kelly Parkhill, Office Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal of Countervailing Compliance, Import numbers 6907.10.0000, 6907.90.0000, Circuit) have sustained the Administration, International Trade 6908.10.0000, and 6908.90.0000. The Department’s legal position that Administration, U.S. Department of HTS item numbers are provided for Mexican imports subject to an Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution convenience and Customs purposes. outstanding countervailing duty order Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; The written description remains already in effect when Mexico entered telephone: (202) 482–2786. dispositive. into the Understanding are not entitled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: to an injury test pursuant to section 701 Calculation Methodology for of the Act and paragraph 5 of the Background Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes Understanding (Ceramica On May 18, 1995, the DeparFederal We calculated the total bounty or Regiomontana, S.A., et. al v. United Register (60 FR 26717) the preliminary grant on a country-wide basis by first States, Slip Op. 96–78, Court No. 89– results of its administrative review of calculating the bounty or grant for each 06–00323 (May 5, 1994) (Ceramica the countervailing duty order on company subject to the administrative Regiomontana’’); Cementos Anajuac del ceramic tile from Mexico (47 FR 20012; review. We then weight-averaged the Golfo, S.A. v. U.S., 879 F.2d 847 (Fed. May 10, 1982). The Department has now rate received by each company, even Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S.CT. 1318 completed this administrative review in those with de minimis and zero rates, (1989)). The countervailing duty order accordance with section 751 of the using as the weight its share of total on ceramic tile from Mexico was Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Mexican exports to the United States of published prior to Mexico’s entering We invited interested parties to subject merchandise. We then summed into the Understanding and, therefore, comment on the preliminary results. On the individual companies’ weighted- imports of ceramic tile are not entitled 39938 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices to an injury test pursuant to section 701 net subsidy is incorrect because the This administrative review and notice of the Act. Department improperly divided the are in accordance with section 751(a)(1) Comment 2: As in past administrative PITEX benefit by each company’s total of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)), 19 CFR reviews, Ceramica Regiomontana exports. Ceramica Regiomontana § 355.22 and 19 CFR 355.25. contends that the Department contends that, since the machinery Dated: July 28, 1995. incorrectly treated the benefit from the imported under the PITEX program may Susan G. Esserman, PITEX program as a grant. According to be used to produce products for both the Ceramica Regiomontana, PITEX benefits export and domestic markets, the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. should be calculated as interest-free benefits from the program should be loans similar to the Department’s divided by total sales rather than by [FR Doc. 95–19253 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] treatment of loan duty deferrals under a total exports. Furthermore, Ceramica BILLING CODE 3510±DS±P Peruvian program in Cotton Sheeting Regiomontana argues that the program and Sateen from Peru; Final Results of does not limit the use of imported [(C±428±812)] Administrative Review of Countervailing machinery to production for export Duty Order (49 FR 34542). products only. According to Ceramica Certain Lead and Bismuth Carbon Ceramica Regiomontana contends that Regiomontana, machinery imported by Steel Products From Germany; the Department provides no legal the company is used for production of Termination of Countervailing Duty justification for refusing to treat PITEX merchandise for both export and Administrative Review as an interest-free loan rather than a domestic markets. grant in Certain Textile Mill Products Ceramica Regiomontana claims that AGENCY: International Trade from Mexico; Final Results of the Department’s allocation method in Administration/Import Administration, Countervailing Duty Administrative PITEX is incorrect because it does not Department of Commerce. Review (56 FR 50858). Furthermore, measure the benefit of the subsidy to the ACTION: Notice of Termination of Ceramica Regiomontana argues that the recipient and the proper method of Countervailing Duty Administration Department bases its refusal to calculate allocation would be based on total sales. Review (01/01/94–12/31/94). PITEX as an interest-free loan on the Department’s Position: We disagree. difficulty of doing the calculation. In order to meet the eligibility criteria SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce Ceramica Regiomontana maintains that for the PITEX program, a company is (the Department) is terminating the although there is no certainty whether a required to have a proven export record, countervailing administrative review of company will ultimately be exempt and to use the imported merchandise certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth from payment of all or a portion of the (both raw materials and equipment) in carbon steel products from Germany duty, the deferral should be treated as the production of goods for export. initiated on April 14, 1995 (60 FR a loan rather than a grant in accordance Since receipt of benefits under PITEX is 19017). with legal requirements. tied to the company’s exports, thereby EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 1995. Department’s Position: We fully making the program an export subsidy, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: addressed this issue in the previous the proper basis for allocation of these administrative review of this case. See Russell Morris or Robert Copyak, Office benefits is total exports, as opposed to of Countervailing Compliance, Import Ceramic Tile from Mexico; Final Results total sales. See Certain Textile Mill of Countervailing Duty Administrative Administration, International Trade Products from Mexico; Final Results of Administration, U.S. Department of Review (60 FR 19022; April 14, 1995). Countervailing Duty Administrative We stated that, under PITEX, an Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Review (56 FR 12175, 12178; March 22, Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; exporter may temporarily import 1991). machinery for five years. At the end of telephone: (202) 482–2786. five years, the exporter can renew the Final Results of Review SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March temporary stay on an annual basis As a result of our review, we 7, 1995, the Department published in indefinitely. Since payment of import determine the total bounty or grant to be the Federal Register (60 FR 12540) a duties upon conversion to permanent 0.48 percent ad valorem for all notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request import status is based on the companies. In accordance with 19 CFR Administrative Review’’ on the depreciated value of the equipment at § 355.7, any rate less than 0.5 percent ad countervailing duty order (58 FR 15325; the time it is converted to permanent valorem is de minimis. March 22, 1993) on certain lead and import status, the exporter can on an Therefore, the Department will bismuth carbon steel products from annual basis continue the temporary instruct the Customs Service to Germany for the period January 1, 1994 import status after the initial five year liquidate, without regard to through December 31, 1994. On March period until the depreciated value of the countervailing duties, shipments of this 31, 1995, Inland Steel Bar Co. and USS/ equipment is zero and no import duties merchandise from all companies on or Kobe Steel Co., domestic producers, are owed. Therefore, duty exemptions after January 1, 1993, and on or before requested an administrative review of under PITEX are properly treated as December 31, 1993. the subject countervailing duty order. grants, and we expensed them in full at The Department will instruct the No other interested party requested the the time of importation, when the Customs Service to collect cash deposits review. exporters otherwise would have paid of estimated countervailing duties at a On April 14, 1995, the Department duties on the imported machinery. Id.; zero rate, as provided by section published a notice of initiation of a Final Negative Countervailing Duty 751(a)(1) of the Act, on shipments of review of the order (60 FR 19017). On Determination; Silicon Metal From this merchandise from all companies May 31, 1995, Inland Steel Bar Co. and Brazil (56 FR 26988). Ceramica entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, USS/Kobe Steel Co. withdrew their Regiomontana has presented us with no for consumption on or after the date of requests for an administrative review. new evidence or arguments on this publication of this notice. This deposit Because the requests for withdrawal issue. requirement shall remain in effect until were timely pursuant to 19 CFR Comment 3: Ceramica Regiomontana publication of the final results of the 355.22(a)(3), the Department is argues that the calculation of the PITEX next administrative review. terminating this review. Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39939 This notice is published in Dated: July 28, 1995. of intent to revoke the order, and accordance with 19 CFR 355.22(a)(3). Joseph A. Spetrini, withdrew its request for an Dated: July 26, 1995. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance. administrative review. For this reason and because the request for withdrawal Joseph A. Spetrini, [FR Doc. 95–19256 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510±DS±P was timely pursuant to 19 CFR 355.22 Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance. (a)(3)(a), the Department is terminating [FR Doc. 95–19254 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] this review. BILLING CODE 3510±DS±P [C±357±002] The notice is published in accordance with 19 CFR 355.22(a)(3). Wool From Argentina; Termination of Countervailing Duty Administrative Dated: July 28, 1995. [C±533±807] Review Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance. AGENCY: International Trade Sulfanilic Acid From India; Termination [FR Doc. 95–19255 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] of Countervailing Duty Administrative Administration/Import Administration, BILLING CODE 3510±DS±P Review Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Termination of AGENCY: International Trade Countervailing Duty Administration North American Free-Trade Agreement Administration/Import Administration, Review (01/01/94–12/31/94). (NAFTA), Article 1904; Binational Panel Department of Commerce. Reviews; Request for Panel Review SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce ACTION: Notice of Termination of (the Department) is terminating the AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United Countervailing Duty Administrative countervailing duty administrative States Section, International Trade Review (01/01/94–12/31/94). review of wool from Argentina initiated Administration, Department of on May 15, 1995 (60 FR 25885). Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 1995. ACTION: Notice of first request for panel (the Department) is terminating the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: review. countervailing duty administrative Russell Morris or Lorenza Olivas, Office review of the order on sulfanilic acid of Countervailing Compliance, Import SUMMARY: On July 26, 1995 Tubos de from India initiated on April 14, 1995 Administration, International Trade Acero de Mexico, S.A. (TAMSA) filed a (60 FR 19017). Administration, U.S. Department of First Request for Panel Review with the U.S. Section of the NAFTA Secretariat EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 1995. Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; pursuant to Article 1904 of the North FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: telephone: (202) 482–2786. American Free Trade Agreement. Panel Russell Morris or Lorenza Olivas, Office SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March review was requested of the Final of Countervailing Compliance, Import 31, 1995, the Department published in Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Administration, International Trade the Federal Register (60 FR 16620) a Value made by the International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of notice of intent to revoke the Administration respecting Oil Country Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution countervailing duty order on wool from Tubular Goods from Mexico. This Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; Argentina (48 FR 14423; April 4, 1983)). determination was published in the telephone: (202) 482–2786. On April 4, 1995, the Department Federal Register on June 28, 1995 (60 FR 33567). The NAFTA Secretariat has SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March published a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative Review’’ (60 FR assigned Case Number USA–95–1904– 7, 1995 the Department published in the 04 to this request. Federal Register (60 FR 12540) a notice 17052) of the countervailing duty order FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of ‘‘Opportunity to Request on wool from Argentina for the period James R. Holbein, United States Administrative Review’’ of the January 1, 1994 through December 31, Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite countervailing duty order (58 FR 12026; 1994. On April 21, 1995, the American 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, March 2, 1993) on sulfanilic acid from Sheep Industry Association (ASIA), Washington, D.C. 20230, (202) 482– India for the period January 1, 1994 petitioner, requested that the 5438. through December 31, 1994. On March Department conduct an administrative 29, 1995, Kokan Synthetics and M/S review of the countervailing duty order SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter Kay International From India requested on wool from Argentina in response to 19 of the North American Free-Trade that the Department conduct a review of the Department’s notice of intent to Agreement (‘‘Agreement’’) establishes a the subject countervailing duty order. revoke the order pursuant to section mechanism to replace domestic judicial No other interested party requested a 355.25(d)(4)(iii) of the Department review of final determinations in review. regulations. No other interested party antidumping and countervailing duty requested the review. On May 15, 1995, cases involving imports from a NAFTA On April 14, 1995, the Department the Department published a notice of country with review by independent published a notice of initiation of a initiation of a review of the order (60 FR binational panels. When a Request for review of the order (60 FR 19017). On 19017). On July 3, 1995, the Department Panel Review is filed, a panel is June 26, 1995, Kokan Synthetics and M/ published a notice of ‘‘Determination established to act in place of national S Kay International withdrew their Not to Revoke Countervailing Duty courts to review expeditiously the final request for an administrative review. Orders’’ on wool from Argentina (60 FR determination to determine whether it Because the request for withdrawal was 34518). conforms with the antidumping or timely pursuant to 19 CFR 355.22(a)(3), On June 30, 1995, the ASIA clarified countervailing duty law of the country the Department is terminating this its April 21, 1995 request for an that made the determination. review. administrative review. ASIA asked that Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, This notice is published in its April 21, 1995 request be considered which came into force on January 1, accordance with 19 CFR 355.22(a)(5). an objection to the Department’s notice 1994, the Government of the United 39940 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices States, the Government of Canada and DATES: The teleconference will be held membership on the Technology the Government of Mexico established on August 17, 1995, beginning at 9:00 Administration Performance Review Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 a.m. (Alaska Standard Time). Board are listed below: Binational Panel Reviews (‘‘Rules’’). ADDRESSES: Listening stations for the Andrew W. Fowell, Chief (C) These Rules were published in the public will be made available in Seattle, Chief, Fire Safety Engineering Division Federal Register on February 23, 1994 Juneau and Anchorage, AK. Please Building and Fire Research Laboratory (59 FR 8686). The panel review in this contact the Council office for more National Institute of Standards and matter will be conducted in accordance information. Technology with these Rules. Council address: North Pacific Gaithersburg, MD 20899 A first Request for Panel Review was Fishery Management Council, P.O. Box Appointment Expires: 12/31/97 filed with the U.S. Section of the 103136, Anchorage, AK 99510. Robert J. Mayher (C) NAFTA Secretariat, pursuant to Article FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Director, Office of Spectrum Plans and 1904 of the Agreement, on July 26, 1995, David Witherell, North Pacific Fishery Policies requesting panel review of the final Management Council; telephone: Office of Spectrum Management antidumping duty administrative review (907) 271–2809. National Telecommunications and described above. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Information Administration The Rules provide that: purpose of the meeting is to review the Washington, DC 20230 (a) A Party or interested person may Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Appointment Expires: 12/31/97 challenge the final determination in Impact Review of the proposed Stanley D. Rasberry (C) whole or in part by filing a Complaint alternatives for trawl closure areas in Chief, Office of Measurement Services in accordance with Rule 39 within 30 Bristol Bay to protect red king crabs. An Technology Services days after the filing of the first Request economic analysis has been National Institute of Standards and for Panel Review (the deadline for filing incorporated into the revised draft Technology a Complaint is August 25, 1995); document. If acceptable to the SSC, and, Gaithersburg, MD 20899 (b) A Party, investigating authority or if there are only minor changes, the Appointment Expires: 12/31/97 interested person that does not file a document will be released for public The following represents the full Complaint but that intends to appear in review on August 25, 1995, allowing for membership and expiration dates of the support of any reviewable portion of the a minimum 30-day review period. The members’ appointments to the final determination may participate in Council is scheduled to take final action Technology Administration the panel review by filing a Notice of on this amendment in September. Performance Review Board General and Appearance in accordance with Rule 40 Special Accommodations Limited Groups. within 45 days after the filing of the first Karl Bell (C) Request for Panel Review (the deadline These meetings are physically Deputy Director of Administration for filing a Notice of Appearance is accessible to people with disabilities. Office of the Director of Administration September 11, 1995); and Requests for sign language National Institute of Standards and (c) The panel review shall be limited interpretation or other auxiliary aids Technology to the allegations of error of fact or law, should be directed to Helen Allen, (907) 271–2809, at least 5 working days prior Gaithersburg, MD 20899 including the jurisdiction of the Appointment Expires: 12/31/96 investigating authority, that are set out to the meeting date. in the Complaints filed in the panel Dated: July 28, 1995. Kelly Carnes (NC) Deputy Assistant Secretary for review and the procedural and Donald J. Leedy, substantive defenses raised in the panel Technology Policy Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Technology Administration review. Conservation and Management, National Marine Fisheries Service. Washington, DC 20230 Dated: August 1, 1995. Appointment Expires: 12/31/96 James R. Holbein, [FR Doc. 95–19166 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510±22±F Andrew W. Fowell, Chief (C) U.S. Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat. Chief, Fire Safety Engineering Division [FR Doc. 95–19268 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] Building and Fire Research Laboratory BILLING CODE 3510±GT±M Technology Administration National Institute of Standards and Technology Technology Administration Gaithersburg, MD 20899 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Performance Review Board Appointment Expires: 12/31/97 Administration Membership William W. Fox (C) July 1995. Director, Office of Protected Resources [I.D. 072795A] The Technology Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Performance Review Board reviews National Oceanic and Atmospheric North Pacific Fishery Management Washington, DC 20233 Council; Meeting performance appraisals, agreements, and recommended actions pertaining to Appointment Expires: 12/31/96 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries employees in the Senior Executive Frederick Johnson (C) Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Service and performance-related pay Associate Director for Computing Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), increases for ST–31904 employees, and Computing and Applied Mathematics Commerce. makes appropriate recommendations to Laboratory National Institute of Standards & ACTION: Notice of public meeting. the Appointing Authority concerning such matters in such a manner as will Technology SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery ensure the fair and equitable treatment Gaithersburg, MD 20899 Management Council’s (Council) of these individuals. Appointment Expires: 12/31/96 Scientific and Statistical Committee Individuals who are newly appointed Samuel Kramer (C) (SSC) will meet by teleconference. by the Appointing Authority to Associate Director Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39941 Office of the Director COMMITTEE FOR THE Specialist, Office of Textiles and National Institute of Standards and IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology AGREEMENTS (202) 482–4212. For information on the Gaithersburg, MD 20899 quota status of this level, refer to the Appointment Expires: 12/31/96 Rescission of a Request to Consult on Quota Status Reports posted on the Certain Wool Textile Products Ronald E. Lawson (C) bulletin boards of each Customs port or Produced or Manufactured in the Assistant Secretary for Technology call (202) 927–5850. For information on Federative Republic of Brazil Policy embargoes and quota re-openings, call (202) 482–3715. National Technical Information Service July 31, 1995. Technology Administration AGENCY: Committee for the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Springfield, VA 22161 Implementation of Textile Agreements Authority: Executive Order 11651 of March Appointment Expires: 12/31/96 (CITA). 3, 1972, as amended; section 204 of the Robert J. Mayher (C) ACTION: Notice. Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 Director, Office of Spectrum Plans and U.S.C. 1854). Policies FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Spectrum Management Anne Novak, International Trade On request of the Government of National Telecommunications and Specialist, Office of Textiles and Costa Rica, the United States Information Administration Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, Government has agreed to increase the Washington, DC 20230 (202) 482–4212. 1995 Guaranteed Access Level (GAL) for Categories 347/348. Appointment Expires: 12/31/97 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Harry I. McHenry (C) Authority: Executive Order 11651 of March A description of the textile and Chief, Materials Reliability Division 3, 1972, as amended; section 204 of the apparel categories in terms of HTS Materials Science and Engineering Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 numbers is available in the Laboratory U.S.C. 1854). CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff National Institute of Standards and The United States Government has Schedule of the United States (see Technology decided to rescind the request made on Federal Register notice 59 FR 65531, Boulder, CO 80303 April 26, 1995 to consult on imports of published on December 20, 1994). Also Appointment Expires: 12/31/96 men’s and boys’ wool coats other than see 59 FR 62717, published on suit type in Category 434. Should it Robert Scace (C) December 6, 1994; and 55 FR 21047, become necessary to discuss this Director, Office of Microelectronics published on May 22, 1990; and 59 FR category with the Government of the Programs 62715, published on December 6, 1994. Electronics and Electrical Engineering Federative Republic of Brazil at a later Rita D. Hayes, Laboratory date, further notice will be published in National Institute of Standards and the Federal Register. Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. Technology A description of the textile and Gaithersburg, MD 20899 apparel categories in terms of HTS Committee for the Implementation of Textile Appointment Expires: 12/31/96 numbers is available in the Agreements CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Stanley D. Rasberry (C) July 31, 1995. Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Commissioner of Customs, Chief, Office of Measurement Services Schedule of the United States (see Technology Services Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC Federal Register notice 59 FR 65531, 20229. National Institute of Standards and published on December 20, 1994). Also Technology Dear Commissioner: This directive see 60 FR 27273, published on May 23, amends, but does not cancel, the directive Gaithersburg, MD 20899 1995. Appointment Expires: 12/31/97 issued to you on November 29, 1994, by the Rita D. Hayes, Chairman, Committee for the Implementation Kathryn D. Sullivan (PAS) Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That directive Chief Scientist of Textile Agreements. concerns imports of certain cotton, wool and National Oceanic and Atmospheric [FR Doc. 95–19262 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] man-made fiber textile products, produced or Administration BILLING CODE 3510±DR±F manufactured in Costa Rica and exported Washington, DC 20230 during the twelve-month period which began Appointment Expires: 12/31/96 on January 1, 1995 and extends through Rance A. Velapoldi (C) Increase of a Guaranteed Access Level December 31, 1995. Chief, Surface and Microanalysis for Certain Cotton Textile Products Effective on August 8, 1995, you are Science Division Produced or Manufactured in Costa directed to increase the current Guaranteed Chemical Science and Technology Rica Access Level for the Categories 347/348 to 2,100,000 dozen. Laboratory July 31, 1995. The Committee for the Implementation of National Institute of Standards and AGENCY: Committee for the Textile Agreements has determined that this Technology Implementation of Textile Agreements action falls within the foreign affairs Gaithersburg, MD 20899 (CITA). exception to the rulemaking provisions of 5 Appointment Expires: 12/31/96. U.S.C. 553(a)(1). ACTION: Issuing a directive to the Sincerely, Dated: July 28, 1995. Commissioner of Customs increasing a Mary L. Good, guaranteed access level. Rita D. Hayes, Under Secretary for Technology, Technology Chairman, Committee for the Implementation Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 1995. of Textile Agreements. [FR Doc. 95–19178 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [FR Doc. 95–19264 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510±18±M Anne Novak, International Trade BILLING CODE 3510±DR±F 39942 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices Adjustment of Import Limits and implementation of certain of their Increase Guaranteed Access Level for Guaranteed Access Levels for Certain provisions. Certain Cotton Textile Products Cotton, Wool and Man-Made Fiber Rita D. Hayes, Produced or Manufactured in Textile Products Produced or Chairman, Committee for the Implementation Guatemala Manufactured in the Dominican of Textile Agreements. July 31, 1995. Republic Committee for the Implementation of Textile AGENCY: Committee for the July 31, 1995. Agreements Implementation of Textile Agreements July 31, 1995. (CITA). AGENCY: Committee for the ACTION: Issuing a directive to the Implementation of Textile Agreements Commissioner of Customs, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC Commissioner of Customs increasing a (CITA). 20229. guaranteed access level. ACTION: Issuing a directive to the Dear Commissioner: This directive EFFECTIVE DATE: Commissioner of Customs adjusting amends, but does not cancel, the directive August 8, 1995. limits and guaranteed access levels. issued to you on March 30, 1995, by the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chairman, Committee for the Implementation Jennifer Aldrich, International Trade EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 1995. of Textile Agreements. That directive Specialist, Office of Textiles and concerns imports of certain cotton, wool and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: man-made fiber textile products, produced or (202) 482–4212. For information on the Naomi Freeman, International Trade manufactured in the Dominican Republic quota status of this level, refer to the Specialist, Office of Textiles and and exported during the twelve-month Quota Status Reports posted on the Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, period which began on January 1, 1995 and bulletin boards of each Customs port or (202) 482–4212. For information on the extends through December 31, 1995. call (202) 927–5850. For information on quota status of these limits, refer to the Effective on August 8, 1995, you are embargoes and quota re-openings, call Quota Status Reports posted on the directed to adjust the limits for the following (202) 482–3715. categories, as provided under the Uruguay bulletin boards of each Customs port or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Round Agreements Act and the Uruguay call (202) 927–5850. For information on Authority: Executive Order 11651 of March Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing: embargoes and quota re-openings, call 3, 1972, as amended; section 204 of the (202) 482–3715. Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On request of the Government of Authority: Executive Order 11651 of March Category Adjusted twelve-month limit 1 Guatemala, the Government of the 3, 1972, as amended; section 204 of the United States has agreed to increase the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 342/642 ...... 537,047 dozen. 1995 guaranteed access level (GAL) for U.S.C. 1854). 633 ...... 114,117 dozen. Categories 347/348. A description of the textile and On the request of the Government of 1 The limits have not been adjusted to ac- the Dominican Republic, the count for any imports exported after December apparel categories in terms of HTS Government of the United States agreed 31, 1994. numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel to increase the 1995 guaranteed access The guaranteed access levels (GALs) for levels for Categories 339/639 and 433. Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Categories 342/642 and 633 remain Schedule of the United States (see Also, the current limit for Category 633 unchanged. You are directed also to increase Federal Register notice 59 FR 65531, is being increased by application of the GALs for the following categories: published on December 20, 1994). Also swing, reducing the limit for Categories see 60 FR 14931, published on March 342/642. 21, 1995. A description of the textile and The letter to the Commissioner of Guaranteed access apparel categories in terms of HTS Category level Customs and the actions taken pursuant numbers is available in the to it are not designed to implement all CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel 339/639 ...... 1,350,000 dozen. of the provisions of the bilateral Categories with the Harmonized Tariff 433 ...... 61,000 dozen. agreement, but are designed to assist Schedule of the United States (see only in the implementation of certain of Federal Register notice 59 FR 65531, The Committee for the Implementation of its provisions. published on December 20, 1994). Also Textile Agreements has determined that Rita D. Hayes, see 60 FR 17321, published on April 5, these actions fall within the foreign affairs Chairman, Committee for the Implementation 1995. exception to the rulemaking provisions of 5 of Textile Agreements. U.S.C. 553(a)(1). Committee for the Implementation of Textile The letter to the Commissioner of Sincerely, Customs and the actions taken pursuant Agreements Rita D. Hayes, to it are not designed to implement all July 31, 1995. of the provisions of the Uruguay Round Chairman, Committee for the Implementation Commissioner of Customs, of Textile Agreements. Agreements Act and the Uruguay Round Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20229. Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, but [FR Doc. 95–19265 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] are designed to assist only in the BILLING CODE 3510±DR±F Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel, the directive issued to you on March 15, 1995, by the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That directive concerns imports of certain cotton, wool and man-made fiber textile products, produced or Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39943 manufactured in Guatemala and exported Schedule of the United States (see Settlement on an Import Limit and during the twelve-month period which began Federal Register notice 59 FR 65531, Amendment of Visa Requirements for on January 1, 1995 and extends through published on December 20, 1994). Also Certain Man-Made Fiber Textile December 31, 1995. Effective on August 8, 1995, you are see 59 FR 62718, published on Products Produced or Manufactured in directed to increase the guaranteed access December 6, 1994. Sri Lanka level for Categories 347/348 to 1,600,000 The letter to the Commissioner of July 31, 1995. dozen. Customs and the actions taken pursuant AGENCY: Committee for the The Committee for the Implementation of to it are not designed to implement all Textile Agreements has determined that this Implementation of Textile Agreements action falls within the foreign affairs of the provisions of the Uruguay Round (CITA). Agreements Act and the Uruguay Round exception to the rulemaking provisions of 5 ACTION: Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, but Issuing a directive to the U.S.C. 553(a)(1). Commissioner of Customs establishing a Sincerely, are designed to assist only in the limit and amending visa requirements. Rita D. Hayes, implementation of certain of their Chairman, Committee for the Implementation provisions. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 1995. of Textile Agreements. Rita D. Hayes, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [FR Doc. 95–19263 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] Chairman, Committee for the Implementation Helen L. LeGrande, International Trade BILLING CODE 3510±DR±F of Textile Agreements. Specialist, Office of Textiles and Committee for the Implementation of Textile Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, Agreements (202) 482–4212. For information on the Amendment and Adjustment of Import July 31, 1995. quota status of this limit, refer to the Limits for Certain Cotton, Wool and Commissioner of Customs, Quota Status Reports posted on the Man-Made Fiber Textile Products Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC bulletin boards of each Customs port or Produced or Manufactured in Poland 20229. call (202) 927–5850. For information on July 31, 1995. Dear Commissioner: This directive embargoes and quota re-openings, call AGENCY: Committee for the amends, but does not cancel, the directive (202) 482–3715. issued to you on November 29, 1994, by the Implementation of Textile Agreements SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chairman, Committee for the Implementation (CITA). of Textile Agreements. That directive Authority: Executive Order 11651 of March ACTION: Issuing a directive to the concerns imports of certain cotton, wool and 3, 1972, as amended; section 204 of the Commissioner of Customs amending man-made fiber textile products, produced or Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 and adjusting limits. manufactured in Poland and exported during U.S.C. 1854). the twelve-month period beginning on In a Memorandum of Understanding EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 1995. January 1, 1995 and extending through (MOU) dated June 23, 1995, the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: December 31, 1995. Governments of the United States and Effective on August 8, 1995, you are Naomi Freeman, International Trade the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri directed, pursuant to the Uruguay Round Specialist, Office of Textiles and Lanka agreed, pursuant to Article 6 of Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, Agreements Act and the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC), the Uruguay Round Agreement on (202) 482–4212. For information on the Textiles and Clothing (ATC), to quota status of these limits, refer to the to increase the limits for the following categories: establish a limit for man-made fiber Quota Status Reports posted on the luggage in Category 670–L for a three bulletin boards of each Customs port or year term—June 23, 1995 through call (202) 927–6718. For information on December 31, 1995; January 1, 1996 embargoes and quota re-openings, call Category Twelve-month limit 1 through December 31, 1996; January 1, (202) 482–3715. 1997 through December 31, 1997; and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 335 ...... 157,023 dozen. January 1, 1998 through June 22, 1998. 338/339 ...... 1,691,018 dozen. Authority: Executive Order 11651 of March In the letter published below, the 410 ...... 2,582,128 square me- 3, 1972, as amended; section 204 of the ters. Chairman of CITA directs the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 433 ...... 18,235 dozen. Commissioner of Customs to establish a U.S.C. 1854). 434 ...... 9,946 dozen. limit for Category 670–L for the period Pursuant to the Uruguay Round 435 ...... 13,014 dozen. beginning on June 23, 1995 and Agreements Act and the Uruguay Round 443 ...... 204,233 numbers. extending through December 31, 1995. Agreement on Textiles and Clothing 611 ...... 4,833,291 square me- Also, the visa arrangement is being (ATC), the current limits are being ters. amended to require a part-category visa amended for textile products, produced 645/646 ...... 247,613 dozen. for goods in Category 670–L and or manufactured in Poland and exported 1 The limits have not been adjusted to ac- Category 670–O, produced or during the period beginning on January count for any imports exported after December manufactured in Sri Lanka and exported 1, 1995 and extending through 31, 1994. from Sri Lanka on and after August 7, December 31, 1995. These limits are The Committee for the Implementation of 1995. Goods in Category 670 which are being amended because Poland is now Textile Agreements has determined that exported during the period August 7, a member of the World Trade these actions fall within the foreign affairs 1995 through September 6, 1995 shall Organization (WTO). Also, the limit for exception to the rulemaking provisions of 5 be permitted entry if visaed as 670 or Category 443 is being increased by U.S.C. 553(a)(1). the correct part category. Goods recrediting unused carryforward. Sincerely, exported on and after September 7, 1995 A description of the textile and Rita D. Hayes, must be accompanied by a 670–L visa apparel categories in terms of HTS Chairman, Committee for the Implementation or a 670–O visa. numbers is available in the of Textile Agreements. A description of the textile and CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel [FR Doc. 95–19266 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] apparel categories in terms of HTS Categories with the Harmonized Tariff BILLING CODE 3510±DR±F numbers is available in the 39944 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel effective date of this directive shall not be Additions Categories with the Harmonized Tariff denied entry under this directive. For visa purposes, you are directed to After consideration of the material Schedule of the United States (see presented to it concerning capability of Federal Register notice 59 FR 65531, amend further the directive dated September 1, 1988 to require a part-category visa for qualified nonprofit agencies to provide published on December 20, 1994). Also 670–L and 670–O for goods produced or the services, fair market price, and see 53 FR 34573, published on manufactured in Sri Lanka and exported impact of the additions on the current September 7, 1988; 60 FR 13410, from Sri Lanka on and after August 7, 1995. or most recent contractors, the published on March 13, 1995; and 60 FR Goods in Category 670 which are exported Committee has determined that the 27276, published on May 23, 1995. from Sri Lanka during the period August 7, services listed below are suitable for 1995 through September 6, 1995 may be The letter to the Commissioner of procurement by the Federal Government Customs and the actions taken pursuant visaed as Category 670 or the correct part- category. Goods in Category 670 which are under 41 U.S.C. 46–48c and 41 CFR 51– to it are not designed to implement all 2.4. of the provisions of the Uruguay Round exported on and after September 7, 1995 must be visaed as Category 670–L or Category I certify that the following action will Agreements Act and the ATC, but are 670–O. not have a significant impact on a designed to assist only in the In carrying out the above directions, the substantial number of small entities. implementation of certain of their Commissioner of Customs should construe The major factors considered for this provisions. entry into the United States for consumption certification were: Rita D. Hayes, to include entry for consumption into the 1. The action will not result in any Chairman, Committee for the Implementation Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. additional reporting, recordkeeping or of Textile Agreements. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that other compliance requirements for small Committee for the Implementation of Textile these actions fall within the foreign affairs entities other than the small Agreements exception to the rulemaking provisions of 5 organizations that will furnish the July 31, 1995. U.S.C. 553(a)(1). services to the Government. Commissioner of Customs, Sincerely, 2. The action does not appear to have Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC Rita D. Hayes, a severe economic impact on current 20229. Chairman, Committee for the Implementation contractors for the services. Dear Commissioner: Effective on August 7, of Textile Agreements. 3. The action will result in 1995, you are directed to cancel the directive [FR Doc. 95–19267 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] authorizing small entities to furnish the issued to you on May 12, 1995, by the BILLING CODE 3510±DR±F services to the Government. Chairman, Committee for the Implementation 4. There are no known regulatory of Textile Agreements (CITA), directing you alternatives which would accomplish to count imports of textile products in the objectives of the Javits-Wagner- Category 670–L 1 for the period beginning on COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM April 27, 1995 and extending through April PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR O’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46–48c) in 26, 1996. SEVERELY DISABLED connection with the services proposed This directive amends, but does not cancel, for addition to the Procurement List. the directive issued to you on March 7, 1995, Procurement List Additions and Accordingly, the following services by the Chairman of CITA. That directive Deletions are hereby added to the Procurement concerns, among other things, imports of List: certain cotton, wool and man-made fiber AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From Administrative Services, General textile products and silk blend and other People Who Are Blind or Severely Services Administration, FSS, vegetable fiber apparel, produced or Disabled. manufactured in Sri Lanka and exported National Furniture Center, Crystal during the period which began on January 1, ACTION: Additions to and deletions from Mall Building 4, Arlington, Virginia 1995 and extends through December 31, the procurement list. Microfilming of EEG Records, 1995. Department of Veterans Affairs, SUMMARY: This action adds to the Effective on August 7, 1995, you are William S. Middleton Memorial Procurement List services to be directed, pursuant to the Uruguay Round Veterans Hospital, Madison, furnished by nonprofit agencies Agreements Act, the Uruguay Round Wisconsin. Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC), employing persons who are blind or and a Memorandum of Understanding dated have other severe disabilities, and This action does not affect current June 23, 1995 between the Governments of deletes from the Procurement List contracts awarded prior to the effective the United States and the Democratic commodities previously furnished by date of this addition or options Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, to establish such agencies. exercised under those contracts. a limit for man-made fiber textile products in Category 670–L for the period beginning on EFFECTIVE DATE: September 5, 1995. Deletions June 23, 1995 and extending through ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase I certify that the following action will December 31, 1995 at a level of 3,945,206 From People Who Are Blind or Severely not have a significant impact on a kilograms 2. Disabled, Crystal Square 3, Suite 403, Textile products in Category 670–L which substantial number of small entities. 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway, The major factors considered for this have been exported to the United States prior Arlington, Virginia 22202–3461. to June 23, 1995 shall not be subject to this certification were: directive. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. The action will not result in any Textile products in Category 670–L which Beverly Milkman (703) 603–7740. additional reporting, recordkeeping or have been released from the custody of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April other compliance requirements for small U.S. Customs Service under the provisions of 28, May 26, June 2 and 9, 1995, the entities. 19 U.S.C. 1448(b) or 1484(a)(1) prior to the Committee for Purchase From People 2. The action will not have a severe Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled economic impact on future contractors 1 Category 670–L: only HTS numbers published notices (60 FR 15535, 20971, for the commodities. 4202.12.8030, 4202.12.8070, 4202.92.3020, 4202.92.3030 and 4202.92.9025. 27968, 30523) of proposed additions to 3. The action will result in 2 The limit has not been adjusted to account for and deletions from the Procurement authorizing small entities to furnish the any imports exported after June 22, 1995. List: commodities to the Government. Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39945 4. There are no known regulatory People Who Are Blind or Severely case that the contractor sells. Until last alternatives which would accomplish Disabled published notice (60 FR 28781) year, in fact, the Navy and Marine Corps the objectives of the Javits-Wagner- of proposed addition to the Procurement bought a different type of flag case for O’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46–48d) in List. the same purpose. Addition of the Navy connection with the commodities Comments were received from the and Marine Corps requirements for the deleted from the Procurement List. current contractor for the flag cases, case to the Procurement List is thus not After consideration of the relevant both Senators from North Carolina, two the only way the contractor can lose this matter presented, the Committee has other members of the State’s business. determined that the commodities listed Congressional delegation, the State’s The Committee does not believe that below are no longer suitable for Department of Commerce and its Small the proposed addition will cause the procurement by the Federal Government Business & Technology Development contractor to close its subsidiary and under 41 U.S.C. 46–48c and 41 CFR 51– Center, a county commissioner for one impact the local economy as some of the 2.4. North Carolina county, and the commenters have indicated. In its initial Accordingly, the following Chambers of Commerce of two other comment, the contractor indicated that commodities are hereby deleted from counties. Many of the commenters loss of its entire Government flag case the Procurement List: expressed concern that loss of sales of business would only cause the loss of Candle, Illuminating the flag cases proposed to be added to two sales positions and a possible 6260–00–840–5578 the Procurement List could severely closing of the subsidiary. Since the Tape, Red affect the current contractor, which is a amount being added to the Procurement 7510–00–NIB–0069 (1’’ x 60 yds.) startup business that has not yet shown List is only one-fifth of the contractor’s 7510–00–NIB–0070 (2’’ x 60 yds.) a profit from its activities to develop its Government flag case business, it 7510–00–NIB–0068 (3’’ x 60 yds.) flag case business and is located in an appears unlikely that the impact would Wood Container area classified as ‘‘severely force the subsidiary’s closing. To the 8115–L1–599–7320 economically distressed.’’ extent that the Committee’s action 8115–L1–599–7920 The majority of the current causes losses to the contractor or its 8115–L1–465–1020 contractor’s Government sales of the flag employees, the Committee believes the 8115–L1–599–8020 cases are to the Army, Air Force, or losses are outweighed by the creation of 8115–L1–599–7220 exchange system. The Committee jobs for people with severe disabilities, Cap, Garrison proposes to add only the Navy and whose overall unemployment rate 8410–01–381–5481 Marine Corps requirements to the exceeds 65 percent, well above the rate 8410–01–381–5507 Procurement List. These requirements for nondisabled workers in the 8410–01–381–5521 comprise less than five percent of the contractor’s locality. 8410–01–381–5536 contractor’s business, and the contractor One commenter expressed a fear that 8410–01–381–5544 has been selling the cases to the Navy the Committee would expand its share 8410–01–381–5559 and Marine Corps for less than a year. of the Government market for the flag 8410–01–381–5566 The Committee does not normally case beyond the Navy and Marine Corps 8410–01–381–5612 consider an impact of this size to be requirements, causing a greater impact 8410–01–381–5627 severe adverse impact, particularly on the contractor. The Committee could 8410–01–381–5647 8410–01–381–5504 when the contractor does not have a not do that without conducting a long-term dependence on sales of the separate rulemaking proceeding to add Beverly L. Milkman, item to the affected customer. the additional quantities to the Executive Director. Nevertheless, some of the commenters Procurement List. In that proceeding, [FR Doc. 95–19241 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] have indicated that even a sales loss of the Committee would be required to BILLING CODE 6820±33±P this lesser size would have a severe consider the cumulative impact on the impact on the contractor, given its contractor caused by both addition current profitability status, and actions. Unless the contractor’s business Procurement List Additions particularly on its subsidiary which fortunes had improved markedly, it is AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From makes the cases and on the county in unlikely the Committee would add any People Who Are Blind or Severely which the subsidiary is located if the further part of the contractor’s Disabled. subsidiary is forced to close. They Government sales of the flag case to the contend that the contractor must Procurement List. ACTION: Additions to the procurement continue to expand its business in order The same commenter indicated that list. to become profitable, so it cannot afford making flag cases is dangerous work, SUMMARY: This action adds to the to lose any part of its current sales or and questioned the ability of the Procurement List hardwood flag cases to prospects, and it would not be fair for designated nonprofit agency to produce be furnished by nonprofit agencies it to lose the fruits of its business the flag cases at a competitive price and employing persons who are blind or development efforts. in sufficient quantity to meet wartime have other severe disabilities. The contractor is currently selling the requirements. As the Navy official who flag cases to the Government under the conducted the plant inspection noted in EFFECTIVE DATE: September 5, 1995. competitive purchasing system. In this finding the nonprofit agency capable of ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase system, no contractor is guaranteed that meeting all Navy and Marine Corps From People Who Are Blind or Severely it will continue to receive Government supply requirements, the nonprofit Disabled, Crystal Square 3, Suite 403, contracts. Any company desiring to do agency has a fully equipped commercial 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway, business with the Government thus woodworking operation, with machines Arlington, Virginia 22202–3461. risks the loss of any expenditure of which have been specially designed to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: money or effort it makes in order to allow people with disabilities to operate Beverly Milkman (703) 603–7740 obtain this business. In addition, the them safely. The Committee is required SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 2, Government’s needs may change so that to set a fair market price for each item 1995, the Committee for Purchase From it would no longer buy the type of flag on the Procurement List, and the 39946 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices nonprofit agency has agreed to produce This action does not affect current Comments on this certification are the flag cases at the price that has been contracts awarded prior to the effective invited. Commenters should identify the set. date of this addition or options statement(s) underlying the certification Another commenter indicated that the exercised under those contracts. on which they are providing additional contractor’s firm may have disabled Beverly L. Milkman, information. employees. The contractor, however, Executive Director. The following commodities have been did not support this contention in its [FR Doc. 95–19242 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] proposed for addition to Procurement comments either to the Committee or in BILLING CODE 6820±33±P List for production by the nonprofit its letters to Members of Congress. One agency listed: commenter proposed that the Drawers, Cold Weather Committee permit the contractor to hire Procurement List Proposed Additions 8415–01–227–9542 some people with disabilities instead of 8415–01–227–9543 adopting the proposed addition to the AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From 8415–01–227–9544 Procurement List. The Committee People Who Are Blind or Severely 8415–01–227–9545 encourages companies to hire people Disabled. 8415–01–227–9546 with disabilities but does not believe ACTION: Proposed additions to (Remaining 50% of the Government’s this hiring should replace the creation procurement list. requirement) of jobs for people with severe NPA: Peckham Vocational Industries, SUMMARY: The Committee has received a disabilities through additions to the Inc., Lansing, Michigan. proposal to add to the Procurement List Procurement List, which guarantees Beverly L. Milkman, commodities to be furnished by employment for these people while Executive Director. nonprofit agencies employing persons [FR Doc. 95–19243 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] commercial businesses are free to who are blind or have other severe terminate workers with disabilities for disabilities. BILLING CODE 6820±33±P any reason. After consideration of the material COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED ON OR presented to it concerning capability of BEFORE: September 5, 1995. Procurement List Proposed Additions ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase qualified nonprofit agencies to provide AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From the commodities, fair market price, and From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Crystal Square 3, Suite 403, People Who Are Blind or Severely impact of the addition on the current or Disabled. most recent contractors, the Committee 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway, ACTION: Proposed additions to has determined that the commodities Arlington, Virginia 22202–3461. procurement list listed below are suitable for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: procurement by the Federal Government Beverly Milkman (703) 603–7740. SUMMARY: The Committee has received under 41 U.S.C. 46–48c and 41 CFR 51– SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposals to add to the Procurement List 2.4. notice is published pursuant to 41 services to be furnished by nonprofit I certify that the following action will U.S.C. 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51–2.3. Its agencies employing persons who are not have a significant impact on a purpose is to provide interested persons blind or have other severe disabilities. substantial number of small entities. an opportunity to submit comments on COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED ON OR The major factors considered for this the possible impact of the proposed BEFORE: September 5, 1995. certification were: actions. ADDRESSES: 1. The action will not result in any If the Committee approves the Committee for Purchase additional reporting, recordkeeping or proposed addition, all entities of the From People Who Are Blind or Severely other compliance requirements for small Federal Government (except as Disabled, Crystal Square 3, Suite 403, entities other than the small otherwise indicated) will be required to 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway, organizations that will furnish the procure the commodities listed below Arlington, Virginia 22202–3461. commodities to the Government. from nonprofit agencies employing FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 2. The action does not appear to have persons who are blind or have other Beverly Milkman, (703) 603–7740. a severe economic impact on current severe disabilities. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This contractors for the commodities. I certify that the following action will notice is published pursuant to 41 3. The action will result in not have a significant impact on a U.S.C. 47(a) (2) and 41 CFR 51–2.3. Its authorizing small entities to furnish the substantial number of small entities. purpose is to provide interested persons commodities to the Government. The major factors considered for this an opportunity to submit comments on 4. There are no known regulatory certification were: the possible impact of the proposed alternatives which would accomplish 1. The action will not result in any actions. the objectives of the Javits-Wagner- additional reporting, recordkeeping or If the Committee approves the O’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46–48c) in other compliance requirements for small proposed additions, all entities of the connection with the commodities entities other than the small Federal Government (except as proposed for addition to the organizations that will furnish the otherwise indicated) will be required to Procurement List. commodities to the Government. procure the services listed below from Accordingly, the following 2. The action will result in nonprofit agencies employing persons commodities are hereby added to the authorizing small entities to furnish the who are blind or have other severe Procurement List: commodities to the Government. disabilities. Case, Flag, Hardwood 3. There are no known regulatory I certify that the following action will 8345–00–NSH–0013 (18’’ x 25’’ Navy) alternatives which would accomplish not have a significant impact on a 8345–00–NSH–0014 (18’’ x 25’’ the objectives of the Javits-Wagner- substantial number of small entities. Marine Corps) O’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46–48c) in The major factors considered for this (Requirements for the Naval Medical connection with the commodities certification were: Logistics Command, Fort Detrick, proposed for addition to the 1. The action will not result in any Maryland) Procurement List. additional reporting, recordkeeping or Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39947 other compliance requirements for small Annual Responses: 2,532. Needs and Uses: This requirement entities other than the small Average Burden Per Response: 11 provides for the collection of organizations that will furnish the minutes. information pertaining to providing services to the Government. Annual Burden Hours: 460. government property to contractors; 2. The action does not appear to have Needs and Uses: This requirement contractors’ use and management of a severe economic impact on current provides for the collection of government property; and reporting, contractors for the services. information from contractors who redistributing, and disposing of 3. The action will result in transport supplies by sea. It is used in contractor inventory. It is used by authorizing small entities to furnish the the application of transportation and contractors, property administrators, services to the Government. traffic management procedures in the and contracting officers to maintain 4. There are no known regulatory acquisition of supplies. It is additionally records of Government furnished alternatives which would accomplish used by contracting officers to process property. the objectives of the Javits-Wagner- transportation and related services Affected Public: Business or other for- O’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46–48c) in contracts. profit; Not-for-profit institutions. connection with the services proposed Affected Public: Business or other for- Frequency: On occasion. for addition to the Procurement List. profit; Not-for-profit institutions. Respondent’s Obligation: Required to Comments on this certification are Frequency: On occasion. obtain or retain benefits. invited. Commenters should identify the Respondent’s Obligation: Required to OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Peter N. Weiss. statement(s) underlying the certification obtain or retain benefits. Written comments and on which they are providing additional OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Peter N. Weiss. recommendations on the proposed information. Written comments and information collection should be sent to The following services have been recommendations on the proposed Mr. Weiss at the Office of Management proposed for addition to Procurement information collection should be sent to and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room List for production by the nonprofit Mr. Weiss at the Office of Management 10236, New Executive Office Building, agencies listed: and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room Washington, DC 20503. Janitorial/Custodial 10236, New Executive Office Building, DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. William Department of Veterans Affairs Washington, DC 20503. Pearce. Franklin D. Roosevelt Hospital DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. William Written requests for copies of the Buildings 17, 18, 29, 39, 52, Paint Shop Pearce. information collection proposal should & Chapel Written requests for copies of the be sent to Mr. Pearce, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Montrose, New York information collection proposal should Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, NPA: Community Aid for Retarded be sent to Mr. Pearce, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Arlington, VA 22202–4302. Children, Inc., Peekskill, New York Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Dated: August 1, 1995. Arlington, VA 22202–4302. Janitorial/Custodial Patricia L. Toppings, U.S. Military Academy, Pershing Center Dated: August 1, 1995. Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Buildings 2101, 2104, 2107 and 2113 Patricia L. Toppings, Officer, Department of Defense. West Point, New York Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison [FR Doc. 95–19294 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] NPA: Orange County Rehabilitation Oficer, Department of Defense. Center—Occupations, Inc. BILLING CODE 5000±04±P [FR Doc. 95–19287 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] Middletown, New York BILLING CODE 5000±04±P Beverly L. Milkman, Public Information Collection Executive Director. Requirement Submitted to the Office of [FR Doc. 95–19244 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] Public Information Collection Management and Budget (OMB) for BILLING CODE 6820±33±P Requirement Submitted to the Office of Review Management and Budget (OMB) for Review ACTION: Notice. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ACTION: Notice. The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the Public Information Collection The Department of Defense has following proposal for collection of Requirement Submitted to the Office of submitted to OMB for clearance, the information under the provisions of the Management and Budget (OMB) for following proposal for collection of Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Review information under the provisions of the Chapter 35). ACTION: Notice. Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Title and OMB Control Number: DoD Chapter 35). FAR Supplement, Part 236, The Department of Defense has Title, Applicable Forms, and OMB Construction and Architect-Engineer submitted to OMB for clearance, the Control Number: DoD FAR Supplement, Contracts, and Related Clauses in following proposal for collection of Part 245, Government Property, and 252.236; OMB Control Number 0704– information under the provisions of the Related Clauses at 252.245; DD Forms 0255 Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 1149, 1149C, 1342, 1419, 1637, 1639, Type of Request: Extension. Chapter 35). 1640, and 1662; OMB Control Number Number of Respondents: 2,680. Title and OMB Control Number: DoD 0704–0246. Responses Per Respondent: 1. FAR Supplement, Part 247, Type of Request: Extension. Annual Responses: 2,680. Transportation, and Related Clause at Number of Respondents: 14,896. Average Burden Per Response: 103 252.247; OMB Control Number 0704– Responses Per Respondent: 3. hours. 0245. Annual Responses: 43,932. Annual Burden Hours: 276,620. Type of Request: Extension. Average Burden Per Response: 1 Needs and Uses: This requirement Number of Respondents: 2,532. hours 13 minutes. provides for the collection of Responses Per Respondent: 1. Annual Burden Hours: 53,185. information from contractors, pertaining 39948 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices to construction costs. It is used by the Affected Public: Business or other for- Written comments and Federal Government to evaluate price profit; Not-for-profit institutions. recommendations on the proposed proposals for contract modifications, Frequency: On occasion. information collection should be sent to determine whether contractors have Respondent’s Obligation: Required to Mr. Weiss at the Office of Management removed any obstructions to navigable obtain or retain benefits. and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room waterways, and review contractor’s OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Peter N. Weiss. 10236, New Executive Office Building, requests for payment when mobilization Written comments and Washington, DC 20503. or demobilization costs are included recommendations on the proposed DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. William therein. information collection should be sent to Pearce. Affected Public: Business or other for- Mr. Weiss at the Office of Management Written requests for copies of the profit. and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room information collection proposal should Frequency: On occasion. 10236, New Executive Office Building, be sent to Mr. Pearce, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Respondent’s Obligation: Required to Washington, DC 20503. Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, obtain or retain benefits. DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. William Arlington, VA 22202–4302. OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Peter N. Weiss. Pearce. Dated: August 1, 1995. Written comments and Written requests for copies of the Patricia L. Toppings, recommendations on the proposed information collection proposal should information collection should be sent to be sent to Mr. Pearce, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. Mr. Weiss at the Office of Management Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room Arlington, VA 22202–4302. [FR Doc. 95–19290 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] 10236, New Executive Office Building, BILLING CODE 5000±04±P Washington, DC 20503. Dated: August 1, 1995. DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. William Patricia L. Toppings, Pearce. Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Public Information Collection Written requests for copies of the Officer, Department of Defense. Requirement Submitted to the Office of information collection proposal should [FR Doc. 95–19289 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] Management and Budget (OMB) for be sent to Mr. Pearce, WHS/DIOR, 1215 BILLING CODE 5000±04±P Review. Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, ACTION: Arlington, VA 22202–4302. Notice. Public Information Collection Dated: August 1, 1995. The Department of Defense has Requirement Submitted to the Office of Patricia L. Toppings, submitted to OMB for clearance, the Management and Budget (OMB) for following proposal for collection of Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Review Officer, Department of Defense. information under the provisions of the [FR Doc. 95–19288 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] ACTION: Notice. Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. BILLING CODE 5000±04±P Chapter 35). The Department of Defense has Title and OMB Control Number: DoD submitted to OMB for clearance, the FAR Supplement, Part 228, Bonds and Public Information Collection following proposal for collection of Insurance, and Related Clauses at Requirement Submitted to the Office of information under the provisions of the 252.228; OMB Control Number 0704– Management and Budget (OMB) for Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 0216. Review Chapter 35). Type of Request: Revision. Title and OMB Control Number: DoD Number of Respondents: 31. ACTION: Notice. FAR Supplement, Part 205, Publicing Responses Per Respondent: 1. The Department of Defense has Contract Actions, and the Clause at Annual Responses: 31. submitted to OMB for clearance, the 252.205–7000; OMB Control Number Average Burden Per Response: 27 following proposal for collection of 0704–0296. hours 25 minutes. Annual Burden Hours: 850. information under the provisions of the Type of Request: Extension. Needs and Uses: This requirement Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Number of Respondents: 1,800. provides for the collection of Chapter 35). Responses per Respondent: .1. Title and OMB Control Number: DoD Annual Responses: 1,800. information from defense contractors FAR Supplement, Subpart 223.370, Average Burden per Response: 1 hour pertaining to reimbursement for war- Safety Precautions for Ammunition and 18 minutes. hazard losses, and accident reporting Explosives, and Related Clauses at Annual Burden Hours: 2,340. involving aircraft, missiles, and space Needs and Uses: This requirement 252.223–7002 and 252.223–7003, OMB launch vehicles being manufactured, provides for the collection of Control Number 0704–0272. modified, overhauled, or repaired. It is Type of Request: Extension. information from defense contractors used in monitoring accident reports, Number of Respondents: 1,401. awarded contracts exceeding $500,000. and in the processing of insurance Responses per Respondent: 1. It is provided to cooperative agreement claims relating to these areas. Annual Responses: 1,401. holders at their request, and specifies Affected Public: Business or other for- Average Burden per Response: 4 individuals or offices with subcontract profit. hours. authority. This language implements the Frequency: On occasion. Annual Burden Hours: 5,451. requirements contained in 10 U.S.C. Respondent’s Obligation: Required to Needs and Uses: The information 2413. obtain or retain benefits. collected hereby, is used by Federal Affected Public: Business or other for- OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Peter N. Weiss. Government personnel to ensure that profit. Written comments and contractors take reasonable precautions Frequency: On occasion. recommendations on the proposed in handling ammunition and explosives Respondent’s Obligation: Required to information collection should be sent to in order to minimize the potential for obtain or retain benefits. Mr. Weiss at the Office of Management mishaps. OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Peter N. Weiss. and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39949 10236, New Executive Office Building, Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, be sent to Mr. Pearce, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Washington, DC 20503. Arlington, VA 22202–4302. Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. William Dated: August 1, 1995. Arlington, VA 22202–4302. Pearce. Patricia L. Toppings, Dated: August 1, 1995. Written requests for copies of the Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Patricia L. Toppings, information collection proposal should Officer, Department of Defense. Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison be sent to Mr. Pearce, WHS/DIOR, 1215 [FR Doc. 95–19292 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] Officer, Department of Defense. Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, [FR Doc. 95–19291 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] Arlington, VA 22202–4302. BILLING CODE 5000±04±P BILLING CODE 5000±04±P Dated. August 1, 1995. Patricia L. Toppings, Public Information Collection Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Requirement Submitted to the Office of Office of the Secretary Officer Department of Defense. Management and Budget (OMB) for [FR Doc. 95–19293 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] Review Defense Science Board Task Force on Improved Application of Intelligence to BILLING CODE 5000±04±P ACTION: Notice. the Battlefield The Department of Defense has ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Public Information Collection submitted to OMB for clearance, the Meeting. Requirement Submitted to the Office of following proposal for collection of Management and Budget (OMB) for information under the provisions of the SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Review Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Task Force on Improved Application of Chapter 35). Intelligence to the Battlefield will meet ACTION: Notice. Title And OMB Control Number: DoD in closed session on August 8–10, 1995 at the Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia. In The Department of Defense has FAR Supplement, Part 232, Contract order for the Task Force to obtain time submitted to OMB for clearance, the Financing, and Related Clause at sensitive classified briefings, critical to following proposal for collection of 252.232–7007; OMB Control Number the understanding of the issues, this information under the provisions of the 0704–0359. meeting is scheduled on short notice. Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Type of Request: Extension. Number of Respondents: 800. The mission of the Defense Science Chapter 35). Responses Per Respondent: 1. Board is to advise the Secretary of Title and OMB Control Number: DoD Annual Responses: 800. Defense through the Under Secretary of FAR Supplement, Subpart 209.1, Average Burden Per Response: 1 hour. Defense for Acquisition and Technology Responsible Prospective Contractors, Annual Burden Hours: 800. on scientific and technical matters as and the Clause at 252.209–7002; OMB Needs And Uses: This requirement they affect the perceived needs of the Control Number 0704–353. provides for the collection of Department of Defense. At this meeting Type of Request: Extension. information from contractors who are the Task Force will determine the Number of Respondents: 25. awarded incrementally funded, fixed- optimum posture for the employment Responses Per Respondent: 1. price DoD contracts. The information and use of intelligence information Annual Responses: 25. collected hereby, constitutes a derived from strategic and other assets Average Burden Per Response: 1 hour. notification of the Federal Government and the timely delivery and fusion of Annual Burden Hours: 25. by the contractor, when the work under same to theater operating forces. Needs and Uses: This requirement the contract will, within ninety days, Particular emphasis should be placed on provides for the collection of reach the point at which the amount air defense and targeting information. information from companies submitting payable by the Government (including In accordance with Section 10(d) of offers under solicitations for contracts any termination costs) approximates 85 the Federal Advisory Committee Act, under a national security program percent of the funds currently allotted to P.L. No. 92–463, as amended (5 U.S.C. requiring access to proscribed the contract. This information will also App. II, (1988)), it has been determined information. It is used by contracting be used to determine what course of that this DSB Task Force meeting officers to identify offers from action the Government will take; i.e., concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. companies that are effectively allot additional funds for continued § 552b(c)(1) (1988), and that accordingly controlled or owned by foreign performance, terminate the contract, or this meeting will be closed to the governments. terminate certain contract line items. public. Affected Public: Business or other for- Affected Public: Business or other for- profit; Not-for-profit institutions. Dated: August 1, 1995. profit; Not-for-profit institutions. Patricia L. Toppings, Frequency: On occasion. Frequency: On occasion. Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. Respondent’s Obligation: Required to Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Peter N. Weiss. obtain or retain benefits. Officer, Department of Defense. Written comments and OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Peter N. Weiss. [FR Doc. 95–19247 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] recommendations on the proposed Written comments and BILLING CODE 5000±04±M information collection should be sent to recommendations on the proposed Mr. Weiss at the Office of Management information collection should be sent to and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room Mr. Weiss at the Office of Management Defense Science Board Task Force on 10236, New Executive Office Building, and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room US-New Independent States (NIS) Washington, DC 20503. 10236, New Executive Office Building, Defense Diversification DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. William Washington, DC 20503. ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Pearce. DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. William Meeting. Written requests for copies of the Pearce. information collection proposal should Written requests for copies of the SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board be sent to Mr. Pearce, WHS/DIOR, 1215 information collection proposal should Task Force on US-New Independent 39950 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices States (NIS) Defense Diversification will Ken C. Scheflen believes that the proposed action does meet in closed session on October 18, Mary Susan Chadick not constitute a major Federal action 1995 at the Pentagon, Arlington, Paul Carew significantly affecting the quality of the Virginia. Robert Snyder human environment within the meaning The mission of the Defense Science Sallie Wake of the National Environmental Policy Board is to advise the Secretary of Sam Worthington Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. Defense through the Under Secretary of Alternates Therefore, the preparation of an Defense for Acquisition and Technology environmental impact statement is not on scientific and technical matters as Steve Austin required and the DOE is issuing this they affect the perceived needs of the Tom Bozek finding of no significant impact. Department of Defense. At this meeting Jennifer C. Buck DATES: Proposed operation of the the Task Force will advise the US Gary Chirstoperson Mound Plant Glass Melter thermal Component(s) in efforts to promote the Richard Dunn treatment unit was the subject of a orderly shrinkage and reorientation to Bob Emmerichs public meeting in Miamisburg, Ohio, on peaceful purposes of Russian defense Walt Freeman March 10, 1994. No unfavorable written Thomas Garnett industrial, technological, and scientific comments from stakeholders were J. Michael Gilmore facilities and personnel not needed for received by the DOE as a result of this Timothy X. Morgan meeting. The environmental assessment legitimate defense requirements and to Robert A. Nemetz for the proposed operation of the Glass redirect them to satisfy the pressing Earl Payne needs of civil society. Theodore M. Prociv Melter was approved by DOE on In accordance with Section 10(d) of James Q. Roberts October 27, 1994. A proposed finding of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Kirk Griffin Russell no significant impact (FONSI) was P.L. No. 92–463, as amended (5 U.S.C. William Douglas Smith published in the Federal Register (FR) App. II, (1988)), it has been determined Larry Stotts on November 3, 1994 (FR 59 55085) for that this DSB Task Force meeting Dennis H. Trosch public review and comment. No concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. Craig Wilson comments on the proposed FONSI were § 552b(c)(1) (1988), and that accordingly received, although a small number of this meeting will be closed to the Dated: August 1, 1995. individuals requested, and were public. L. M. Bynum, provided, copies of the environmental Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison assessment (EA). Dated: August 1, 1995. Officer, Department of Defense. ADDRESSES: Patricia L. Topping, Mail any requests for [FR Doc. 95–19248 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] further information on the Glass Melter Alterate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, BILLING CODE 5000±04±M Department of Defense. project, or the associated EA and FONSI, to: Ms. Sue Smiley, NEPA [FR Doc. 95–19246 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] Compliance Officer, U.S. Department of BILLING CODE 5000±04±M DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Energy, Ohio Field Office, P.O. Box 3020, Miamisburg, Ohio 45343–3020, Finding of No Significant Impact for Membership of the Office of the Phone: (513) 865–3987, Facsimile: (513) Operation of the Glass Melter Thermal 865–4402. Secretary of Defense Performance Treatment Unit at the U.S. Department Review Board FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For further of Energy's Mound Plant, Miamisburg, information on the DOE National AGENCY: Department of Defense. Ohio Environmental Policy Act process, ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Department of Energy. contact: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and ACTION: SUMMARY: On July 25, 1995, FR Doc. 95– Finding of no significant impact. Assistance (EH–42), U.S. Department of 18249, the Department of Defense Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, published a notice concerning a SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: Performance Review Board (PRB). The Energy (DOE) has prepared an (202) 586–4600 or 1–800–472–2756. following replaces the identification of environmental assessment (DOE/EA– SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRB members. All other information 0821) for the proposed operation of the proposed action would bring the Mound remains unchanged. Glass Melter thermal treatment unit Plant Glass Melter out of cold shutdown Office of the Secretary of Defense (‘‘Glass Melter’’) at DOE’s Mound Plant mode and use it for treating mixed in Miamisburg, Ohio. The Glass Melter waste that was generated at the Mound Chairman would thermally treat mixed waste Plant and is now in storage. The Glass Vincent P. Roske, Jr. (hazardous waste contaminated with Melter, housed in an annex of the radioactive constituents, largely tritium, Liquid Waste Disposal Building, Members plutonium-238, and/or thorium-230), consists of a burn chamber of stainless Al Goldberg that was generated at the Mound Plant steel (lined with refractory material) Blair Ewing and is now in storage, by stabilizing the with an exhaust (offgas) system Claiborne Haughton waste in glass blocks. Depending upon connected to a system of pipes and Dr. Patricia A. Sanders the radiation level of the waste, the scrubbers ending in a stack (scrubbers Gordon K. Soper Glass Melter may operate for as short a are devices that remove small particles, John Mester time as one year, but not longer than six gasses, and airborne radionuclides John Maddy years. DOE considered two onsite generated during thermal treatment). John B. Rosamond alternatives to the proposed action and Waste in sealed drums would be Jordan Rizer seven offsite alternatives. transported by truck from the Mound Joseph V. Osterman Based on the analysis presented in the Hazardous Waste Storage Building or Judith Daly environmental assessment, DOE Radioactive Mixed-Waste Storage Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39951 Building to the annex, staged on a mixed waste backlog is estimated to environmental concern in storage. Most concrete loading dock adjacent to the have a total activity of 211 curies of of the waste would eventually require annex, and then moved individually to tritium and 0.42 curies of plutonium- transport to a radioactive mixed waste a fume hood in the annex where the 238; the calculations for Glass Melter land disposal facility. Any waste that is contents would be transferred into a operations, however, are based on a not mixed waste would be disposed of feed system for processing in the melter. total waste activity content of 240 with other, similar Mound wastes (e.g., The waste would be added to molten curies/yr of tritium and 0.48 curies/yr of hazardous waste is shipped offsite for soda-lime silica glass in the burn plutonium-238). The discussion below, disposal). chamber of the Glass Melter. Ash from which is based on the environmental Environmental Impacts: In a series of the combustion process would fall to assessment, therefore, would apply test burns conducted in January 1985, the glass surface, where it would be equally to the new proposed action. If the Glass Melter demonstrated the incorporated into the melt. When the the DOE later proposes to use the Glass capability to thermally treat hazardous molten glass would reach a prescribed Melter to treat other than mixed waste wastes in compliance with regulatory chemical mix (or a prescribed level of backlog, it will undertake appropriate requirements. In June 1987, the Glass radioactivity), it would be discharged further review under the National Melter was further tested and from the melter into 19 liter (five gallon) Environmental Policy Act. demonstrated effective treatment of low- containers. The containers would then Routine operation of the Glass Melter level radioactive waste while meeting be transferred to a storage area in the would generate treated offgas, scrubber applicable regulatory requirements. building using mechanical aids (e.g., sludge, scrubber liquid effluent, and Proposed future treatment of wastes hoists and a roller conveyor system) to several solid waste streams. The sludge using the Glass Melter would also meet cool and to await transport by truck to generated by the scrubbing operations all applicable environmental existing onsite storage facilities. [approximately 770 kg (170 lb) per year] requirements. The Glass Melter is The Glass Melter would have an would be transferred by pipeline: (1) considered a ‘‘thermal treatment unit,’’ estimated annual capacity of back to a Glass Melter feed port for not an ‘‘incinerator,’’ under the approximately 48,000 kg (106,000 lb) of reprocessing, (2) to an existing Environmental Protection Agency wastes, based on an average throughput cementation process for immobilization regulations (40 CFR 260.10). Under the of 23 kg/hour (51 lb/hr) and a 2,080- in concrete, or (3) to container storage regulations for miscellaneous treatment, hour work year. As originally proposed for any subsequent additional treatment storage, and disposal units (40 CFR Part by the DOE, and as analyzed in the required under the Resource 264, Subpart X), any permit for the glass environmental assessment, operating at Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) melter may include appropriate this capacity would have enabled DOE land disposal restrictions. Filtered conditions from the incinerator to eliminate the existing backlog of liquid scrubber effluent [approximately regulations (Subpart O). Thermal approximately 43,000 kg (95,000 lb) of 36,000 kg (79,000 lb) per year], treatment is one of the limited options mixed waste in approximately six years, depending on its composition, would DOE currently has to meet the while processing hazardous and mixed be: (1) pumped to an existing requirement for site treatment plans wastes [approximately 39,000 kg (86,000 wastewater treatment facility, (2) under the Federal Facility Compliance lb) annually of nonradioactive solvents pumped to the cementation process for Act. and mixed wastes] as generated. immobilization as concrete (if the waste The Environmental Protection Agency Since the environmental assessment processed involved significant tritium issued a Draft Strategy for Combustion was written, DOE has decided to close concentrations), or (3) packaged for any of Hazardous Waste in Incinerators and the Mound Plant. DOE proposes, subsequent additional treatment Boilers on May 18, 1993, initiating a therefore, to use the Glass Melter only required under RCRA land disposal reexamination of its existing regulations for the mixed waste backlog. DOE has restrictions. Most liquid effluent would and policies on waste combustion. In not yet fully characterized this waste for be treated at Mound’s existing the draft strategy, the Environmental radioactive contamination levels. The radioactive wastewater treatment Protection Agency indicates that, ‘‘if radiation level of the waste feed would facility and released via an existing conducted in compliance with be limited by the need to comply with outfall permitted under the National regulatory standards and guidance, the Environmental Protection Agency’s Pollutant Discharge Elimination System combustion can be a safe and effective National Emissions Standards for (NPDES). means of disposing [of] hazardous Hazardous Air Pollutants and by The Glass Melter would generate, per wastes.’’ To the extent that the Glass internal Mound limitations. If, after year, approximately 3,200 kg (7,000 lb) Melter would destroy hazardous wastes characterization, the radiation level of of glass block (mixed waste); 8,900 kg it would effectively ‘‘dispose’’ of that the waste is determined to be low (20,000 lb) of cementized scrubber portion of the mixed waste backlog. enough that the capacity of the Glass effluent and sludge (also mixed waste); Nevertheless, the thermal treatment of Melter would be the factor controlling and 1,900 kg (4,200 lb) of maintenance mixed wastes would necessitate the the processing rate, then the schedule wastes (filters, replacement parts, etc.). disposal of treatment residues as a for treatment of the backlog waste could The maintenance wastes would mixed waste. These residues would be be as short as one year. generally be considered mixed waste, stored, pending final disposal in an The environmental impacts of the although certain of the replacement approved location. proposed treatment of only the mixed parts may have only surface radioactive Emissions of nonradiological waste backlog are adequately covered, contamination or may not be hazardous pollutants to the air during routine and are bounded by, the analysis in the waste. The mixed wastes would be operation of the Glass Melter would environmental assessment, because stored onsite until a mixed waste include arsenic, cadmium, chromium, calculations of radiological exposures disposal facility is available. lead, carbon monoxide, hydrogen and impacts were based on assumptions The immediate result of Glass Melter chloride, nitrogen oxides, and of waste radioactivity content that treatment would be the conversion of particulates. Predicted concentrations of would exceed the actual content under waste that is primarily liquid and nonradiological pollutants would meet the current proposed action (according combustible, to a stable, inorganic form applicable National Ambient Air to the environmental assessment, the that would present very little Quality Standards and the maximum 39952 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices acceptable ground-level concentrations Agency’s maximum acceptable ground- —Idaho National Engineering established by the Ohio Environmental level concentrations. Taking into Laboratory (INEL): INEL has a Protection Agency. During routine account the low probability of such an permitted incinerator facility, the operation of the Glass Melter, the event, and the small magnitude of the Waste Experimental Reduction effective dose equivalent of radiation to consequences, the health risk posed by Facility (WERF), capable of burning the maximally exposed individual at the the accident would be very small. radioactive material and hazardous Mound Plant boundary [approximately No endangered species, critical waste. WERF is currently shut down, 470 meters (510 yd) north-northeast habitats, floodplains, wetlands, or and its operation is contingent upon from the Glass Melter stack] would be historical or archaeological resources completion of National 0.07 mrem/year (tritium, plutonium- would be affected by the proposed Environmental Policy Act review and 238, and thorium-230) from inhalation action. DOE approval of a Safety Analysis and ingestion pathways. These Alternatives Considered: In the Report. The current waste acceptance emissions would not cause the Mound environmental assessment, DOE criteria for WERF limit the radioactive Plant to exceed the individual effective considered two onsite alternatives to the and chloride content of wastes and dose equivalent limit of 10 mrem/year proposed action and seven offsite prohibit receipt of any free liquids. in the Environmental Protection alternatives in the context of the original These criteria would prohibit the Agency’s National Emission Standards proposed action (i.e., assuming the acceptance at WERF of almost all of for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Based on continuing operation of the Mound the Mound waste proposed for the 1990 population distribution Plant). The discussion below, however, treatment in the Glass Melter. The surrounding the Mound Plant, the while being based on the environmental criteria could not be changed without collective effective dose equivalent to assessment, reflects the current substantial upgrades to WERF. the total population residing within 80 proposed use of the Glass Melter (based —Los Alamos National Laboratory: The km (50 mi) of the facility would be 2.6 on DOE’s decision to close the Mound proposed Controlled Air Incinerator is person-rem/year. The environmental Plant), which is to treat only mixed currently being permitted and assessment shows that the health risk waste backlog. undergoing National Environmental from such exposures would be very • No Action: The present practice of Policy Act review for operation at small. waste storage and disposal would production capacity. Current Onsite personnel would not be continue and the Glass Melter would operational plans do not include exposed to unique hazards and would not be used. Most of the mixed waste acceptance of offsite wastes, and the be adequately protected from potential backlog is liquid, and much of it is draft RCRA permit proposes to exposure to radionuclides or other combustible. Storage of the untreated prohibit treatment of offsite waste. hazards by the existing health and safety waste, therefore, could adversely impact —Savannah River Site: DOE is currently programs. Existing facility design human health and the environment, constructing the Consolidated features would reduce direct worker especially in the case of a fire in the Incinerator Facility under a contact with radioactive materials. storage facility. construction permit from the State of The formation of dioxins from Glass • Administrative Action: Another South Carolina. This facility will not Melter operation would be virtually alternative would be to rely upon the allow out-of-state waste to be treated. precluded due to specific technological established Mound Waste Minimization DOE is preparing an environmental design features of the equipment. For and Pollution Prevention Program to impact statement on waste instance, the elevated operating identify, screen, and analyze options to management at the Savannah River temperatures of the Glass Melter would reduce the generation of waste. Waste Site, which will include further result in a high destruction and removal that is in storage would not be affected analysis of operation of the efficiency (99.9999% in test burns). In by this program. The need for treatment Consolidated Incinerator Facility and addition, the rapid cooling of the options would persist. other volume reduction alternatives. offgases below dioxin-forming • Offsite Treatment and Disposal: Trial burns and operation of the temperatures, as recommended by the These alternatives would involve the facility are being deferred until the Environmental Protection Agency for transportation of mixed wastes to completion of the environmental municipal waste incinerators, would designated sites. DOE considered seven impact statement process. also be used to preclude dioxin options for offsite treatment. All of the —Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant: formation. offsite treatment alternatives, with the The incinerator at the Oak Ridge The worst reasonably foreseeable exception of the Nevada Test Site, Gaseous Diffusion Plant currently accident involving the Glass Melter would involve thermal treatment. treats mixed waste. The primary would be a fire on the loading dock that —Quadrex HPS, Inc. (Gainesville, FL): sources of waste treated at this would result in the complete This commercial facility cannot incinerator are the Paducah Gaseous vaporization of the contents of ten accept certain of the Mound mixed Diffusion Plant, the Portsmouth mixed waste storage drums. The wastes, so this alternative would not, Gaseous Diffusion Plant, and the Oak estimated frequency of such an accident by itself, address the need to treat Ridge Reservation. A substantial is once every 100,000 years. The such wastes. backlog of waste exists that will take effective dose equivalent to the —Diversified Scientific Services, Inc. several years to treat. Thus, this maximally exposed individual (Kingston, TN): This commercial alternative would not be available to [approximately 200 m (220 yd) facility could accept most of the Mound for several years and would downwind] would be 0.2 mrem, well mixed waste from Mound. Treatment, not meet Mound’s immediate needs. below Environmental Protection Agency however, may be restricted by air —Nevada Test Site: Disposal of mixed standards. The environmental permit conditions limiting the type of waste at the Nevada Test site is assessment shows that the health risk waste used for fuel and by considered a possible alternative to from such exposures would be very Environmental Protection Agency treatment in the Glass Melter. Land small. Predicted concentrations of regulations for boilers and industrial disposal restrictions under the nonradiological pollutants would meet furnaces (40 CFR 266.100–112 and Resource Conservation and Recovery the Ohio Environmental Protection Appendices I–IX). Act would require, however, that any Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39953 mixed waste be treated before Mr. Rich Sena, Acting Director, 3. Howard Energy Company, Inc. disposal. The Nevada Test Site would Environmental Restoration Division, [Docket No. ER94–252–002] only, therefore, be a reasonable Department of Energy, Suite 4000, 2155 alternative for Mound waste already Louisiana NE, Albuquerque, New Take notice that on July 24, 1995, treated at another facility. DOE has Mexico 87110, Fax number: (505) 845– Howard Energy Company, Inc., (Howard not yet decided to what extent the 4239. Energy) filed certain information as required by the Commission’s February Nevada Test Site would be used for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 24, 1995, order in Docket No. ER94– future disposal of offsite waste; such Requests for copies of the draft 252–000. Copies of Howard Energy’s decisions will be made after programmatic environmental impact informational filing are on file with the completion of the Environmental statement and requests for further Commission and are available for public Restoration and Waste Management information concerning this document inspection. Programmatic Environmental Impact may be directed to Mr. Rich Sena at the Statement and the Nevada Test Site address above. Requests may also be 4. Cenergy, Inc. Sitewide Environmental Impact made by leaving a message at 1–800– [Docket No. ER94–1402–003] Statement. 523–6495 (outside New Mexico) and 1– Proposed Determination: Based on the 800–423–2539 (within New Mexico). Take notice that on July 18, 1995, information and the analysis in the For general information on the Cenergy, Inc., (Cenergy) filed certain environmental assessment, DOE procedures followed by the Department information as required by the believes the proposed action (i.e., of Energy in complying with the Commission’s December 7, 1994, order operation of the Glass Melter for National Environmental Policy Act, in Docket No. ER94–1402–000. Copies treatment of backlog mixed waste only) contact: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, of Cenergy’s informational filing are on does not constitute a major Federal Director, Office of NEPA Policy and file with the Commission and are action that would significantly affect the Assistance (EH–42), U.S. Department of available for public inspection. quality of the human environment Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, 5. ACME Power Marketing, Inc. within the meaning of the National SW, Washington, DC 20585, Telephone [Docket No. ER94–1530–004] Environmental Policy Act. Therefore, 1–202–586–4600 or leave a message at the preparation of an environmental 1–800–472–2756. Take notice that on July 13, 1995, impact statement is not required and the ACME Power Marketing, Inc. (ACME) DOE is issuing this finding of no Issued in Washington, D.C. on July 31, filed certain information as required by 1995. significant impact. the Commission’s October 18, 1994, Ralph G. Lightner, Issued in Miamisburg, Ohio, on July 26, order in Docket No. ER94–1530–000. Director, Office of Southwestern Area Copies of ACME’s informational filing 1995. Programs, Environmental Restoration. Robert D. Folker, are on file with the Commission and are [FR Doc. 95–19234 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] Acting Manager, Ohio Field Office. available for public inspection. BILLING CODE 6450±01±P [FR Doc. 95–19235 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] 6. AIG Trading Corporation BILLING CODE 6450±01±P [Docket No. ER94–1691–006] Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Take notice that on July 12, 1995, AIG Reopening of the Public Comment Trading Corporation (AIG) filed certain Period for the Draft Programmatic [Docket No. ER90±168±021, et al.] information as required by the Environmental Impact Statement for Commission’s January 19, 1995, order in National Electric Associates Limited the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Docket No. ER94–1691–000. Copies of Partnership, et al.; Electric Rate and Action Ground Water Project AIG’s informational filing are on file Corporate Regulation Filings with the Commission and are available AGENCY: Department of Energy. July 28, 1995. for public inspection. ACTION: Extension of public comment Take notice that the following filings period. 7. Petroleum Sources & Systems Group, have been made with the Commission: Inc. SUMMARY: In response to a request from 1. National Electric Associates Limited [Docket No. ER95–266–002] the Navajo Nation, the Department of Partnership Energy has decided to extend the period Take notice that on July 11, 1995, for public review and comment on the [Docket No. ER90–168–021] Petroleum Source Systems Group, Inc., draft Programmatic Environmental Take notice that on July 6, 1995, filed certain information as required by Impact Statement for the Uranium Mill National Electric Associates Limited the Commission’s January 18, 1995, Tailings Remedial Action Ground Water Partnership filed certain information as order in Docket No. ER95–266–000. Project. Public hearings on the draft required by the Commission’s March 20, Copies of Petroleum Source Systems document were held in nine 1990, order in Docket No. ER90–168– Group’s informational filing are on file communities June 7–28, 1995. The 000. Copies of the informatl filing are on with the Commission and are available public comment period, originally file with the Commission and are for public inspection. scheduled to conclude July 14, has been available for public inspection. 8. Wilson Power & Gas Smart, Inc. reopened and extended through 2. Wholesale Power Services, Inc. September 20, 1995. Written comments [Docket No. ER95–751–002] should be postmarked by that date to [Docket No. ER93–730–000] Take notice that on July 17, 1995, ensure consideration in preparation of Take notice that on July 26, 1995, Wilson Power & Gas Smart, Inc. filed the final document. Comments received Wholesale Power Services, Inc. filed an certain information as required by the after that date will be considered to the amended application in this proceeding. Commission’s April 25, 1995, order in extent practicable. Written comments on Comment date: August 11, 1995, in Docket No. ER95–751–000. Copies of the draft Programmatic Environmental accordance with Standard Paragraph E Wilson Power & Gas Smart’s Impact Statement should be directed to at the end of this notice. informational filing are on file with the 39954 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices Commission and are available for public [Docket No. EC95±17±000, et al.] Transmission Service Agreement inspection. between Delmarva and the City of Tampa Electric Company, et al.; Lewes, to be incorporated and made 9. Delhi Energy Services, Inc. Electric Rate and Corporate Regulation effective October 1, 1995, as Appendix [Docket No. ER95–940–001] Filings C of the Electric Service Agreement between Lewes and Delmarva that is Take notice that on July 19, 1995, July 31, 1995. before the Commission in this docket. Delhi Energy Services, Inc., filed certain Take notice that the following filings This Transmission Service Agreement is information as required by the have been made with the Commission: in accordance with Article VII of the Commission’s June 1, 1995, order in 1. Tampa Electric Company Electric Service Agreement and the rates Docket No. ER95–940–000. Copies of set forth in Appendix C–1 thereto as Delhi’s informational filing are on file [Docket No. EC95–17–000] originally filed. Appendix C of the with the Commission and are available Take notice that on July 26, 1995, Electric Service Agreement had been for public inspection. Tampa Electric Company (Tampa) filed an application for Commission reserved for such Transmission Service 10. Stalwart Power Company authorization to: (1) Acquire from the Agreement. [Docket No. ER95–1334–000] Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC) an The amendment does not modify the undivided interest in a 25-mile-long proposed effective date of the Service Take notice that on July 21, 1995, segment of 230 Kv transmission line Agreements of February 1, 1995. Stalwart Power Company (Stalwart) between the Lake Agnes and Cane Delmarva states that the amendment has tendered for filing an amendment to its Island substations; and (2) convey to been posted and has been served upon proposed FERC Electric Rate Schedule OUC undivided interest in certain the affected customers and the Delaware No. 1 which provides for negotiated facilities at the Osceola substation and Public Service Commission. rates, terms and conditions and which the 4.4-mile-long, 69 Kv transmission Comment date: August 14, 1995, in was filed as part of Stalwart’s line between the Osceola and Studio accordance with Standard Paragraph E Application for Blanket Authorizations, substations. at the end of this notice. Jurisdiction Disclaimer, Certain Waiver Copies of the application have been 5. Maine Public Service Company and Order Approving Rate Schedule on served on OUC and the Florida Public July 3, 1995 in the above captioned Service Commission. [Docket No. ER95–1131–000] proceeding. Comment date: August 18, 1995, in Take notice that on July 13, 1995, Stalwart states that its Rate Schedule accordance with Standard Paragraph E Central Maine Power Company tendered No. 1 is amended to restrict sales of at the end of this notice. for filing an amendment in the above- electric power to any parent, affiliate or referenced docket. 2. Howell Power Systems, Inc. subsidiary of Stalwart, as has been Comment date: August 14, 1995, in required of other electric power [Docket No. ER94–178–006] accordance with Standard Paragraph E marketers in Commission precedent and Take notice that on July 24, 1995, at the end of this notice. to establish a new effective date of Howell Power Systems, Inc., filed 6. Western Regional Transmission September 2, 1995. certain information as required by the Association Commission’s January 14, 1995, Order Comment date: August 11, 1995, in [Docket No. ER95–1211–002] accordance with Standard Paragraph E in Docket No. ER94–178–000. Copies of Take notice that on July 26, 1995, at the end of this notice. Howell Power Systems, Inc.’s informational filing are on file with the Western Regional Transmission Standard Paragraph Commission and are available for public Association tendered for filing Member inspection. Signature Page executed by Deseret E. Any person desiring to be heard or Generation & Transmission Co-operative to protest said filing should file a 3. Maine Public Service Company to become a member of the Western motion to intervene or protest with the [Docket No. ER95–836–001] Regional Transmission Association. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Take notice that the Notice of Filing Comment date: August 14, 1995, in 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., issued on July 19, 1995, in the above- accordance with Standard Paragraph E Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance referenced docket should be rescinded. at the end of this notice. with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 4. Delmarva Power & Light Company 7. Northeast Utilities Service Company Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR [Docket No. ER95–1038–000] [Docket No. ER95–1317–000] 385.214). All such motions or protests Take notice that on July 26, 1995, Take notice that on July 17, 1995, should be filed on or before the Delmarva Power & Light Company Northeast Utilities Service Company comment date. Protests will be (Delmarva) of Wilmington, Delaware, (NU) tendered for filing an amendment considered by the Commission in filed an amendment to its filing of eight in the above-referenced docket. determining the appropriate action to be year power supply contracts (the Comment date: August 14, 1995, in taken, but will not serve to make Service Agreements) under which accordance with Standard Paragraph E protestants parties to the proceeding. Delmarva will provide requirements at the end of this notice. Any person wishing to become a party service to four Delaware Municipal must file a motion to intervene. Copies 8. Wisconsin Power and Light Company customers, Lewes, Milford, Newark, and of this filing are on file with the New Castle. [Docket No. ER95–1388–000] Commission and are available for public The amendment provides additional Take notice that on July 18, 1995, inspection. cost support for certain of the pricing Wisconsin Power and Light Company Linwood A. Watson, Jr., terms reflected in the Service (WPL) tendered for filing a letter Acting Secretary. Agreements and responds to questions agreement and a new Appendix L to the [FR Doc. 95–19177 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] raised by FERC Staff with respect to Interconnection Agreement dated BILLING CODE 6717±01±P such pricing terms. Also filed is a January 5, 1966 between Wisconsin Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39955 Power and Light Company and Comment date: August 14, 1995, in Standard Paragraph Wisconsin Public Service Corporation accordance with Standard Paragraph E E. Any person desiring to be heard or (WPSC). Appendix L establishes the at the end of this notice. to protest said filing should file a new Dewey 115 kV Interconnection 12. Kansas City Power & Light motion to intervene or protest with the between the parties, located on WPSC’s Company Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Northpoint-Weston 115 kV transmission 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., [Docket No. ER95–1417–000] line. Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance A copy of this filing has been served Take notice that on July 21, 1995, with Rules 211 and 214 of the Kansas City Power & Light Company upon the Public Service Commission of Commission’s Rules of Practice and (KCPL) tendered for filing a Service Wisconsin. Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR Agreement dated July 10, 1995, between Comment date: August 14, 1995, in 385.214). All such motions or protests KCPL and St. Joseph & Light Company accordance with Standard Paragraph E should be filed on or before the (SJLP). KCPL proposes an effective date at the end of this notice. comment date. Protests will be of July 10, 1995, and requests waiver of considered by the Commission in 9. Northern States Power Company the Commission’s notice requirement. determining the appropriate action to be (Minnesota), Northern States Power This Agreement provides for the rates taken, but will not serve to make Company (Wisconsin) and charges for Non-Firm Transmission protestants parties to the proceeding. [Docket No. ER95–1390–000] Service between KCPL and SJLP. Any person wishing to become a party Take notice that on July 18, 1995, In its filing, KCPL states that the rates included in the above-mentioned must file a motion to intervene. Copies Northern States Power Company of this filing are on file with the Minnesota (NSP–M) and Northern Service Agreement are KCPL’s rates and charges which are under review by the Commission and are available for public States Power Company-Wisconsin inspection. (NSP–W) jointly tendered and request Commission in Docket No. ER94–1045– Linwood A. Watson, Jr., the Commission to accept two 000 and which are subject to a refund Transmission Service to MidCon Power pursuant to the Commission’s order in Acting Secretary. Services, Corp. that docket. [FR Doc. 95–19204 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] NSP requests that the Commission Comment date: August 14, 1995, in BILLING CODE 6717±01±P accept for filing the Transmission accordance with Standard Paragraph E Service Agreements effective as of at the end of this notice. August 6, 1995. NSP requests a waiver 13. Kansas City Power & Light [Project No. 11322±000, California] of the Commission’s notice Company Tuolumne Utilities District; Notice of requirements pursuant to 18 CFR Part [Docket No. ER95–1418–000] Availability of Final Environmental 35 so the Agreements may be accepted Take notice that on July 21, 1995, Assessment for filing effective on the date requested. Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) Comment date: August 14, 1995, in tendered for filing a proposed Service July 31, 1995. accordance with Standard Paragraph E Agreement with Catex Vitol Electric, In accordance with the National at the end of this notice. L.L.C. for transmission service under Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and 10. Wickford Energy Marketing, L.C. FPL’s Transmission Tariff No. 3. FPL the Federal Energy Regulatory requests that the proposed Service Commission’s (Commission) [Docket No. ER95–1415–000] Agreements be permitted to become Regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. Take notice that on July 21, 1995, effective on August 1, 1995, or as soon 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Wickford Energy Marketing, L.C. thereafter as practicable. Hydropower Licensing has reviewed the tendered for filing an application for Comment date: August 14, 1995, in application for a minor license for the blanket authorizations, certain waivers, accordance with Standard Paragraph E Columbia Water Supply Hydroelectric and order approving rate schedule. at the end of this notice. Project, located near the town of Sonora, Comment date: August 14, 1995, in in Tuolumne County, California, and accordance with Standard Paragraph E 14. Central Hudson Gas and Electric has prepared a final environmental at the end of this notice. Corporation assessment (EA) for the project. 11. Commonwealth Edison Company [Docket No. ER95–1420–000] On March 9, 1995, staff issued and Take notice that Central Hudson Gas distributed to all parties a draft EA, and [Docket No. ER95–1416–000] and Electric Corporation (CHG&E), on requested that comments on the draft Take notice that on July 21, 1995, July 24, 1995, tendered for filing a EA be filed with the Commission within Commonwealth Edison Company Service Agreement between CHG&E and 30 days. Comments were filed by the (ComEd) submitted two Service Montaup Electric Company. The terms applicant and are addressed in the final Agreements, establishing Tennessee and conditions of service under this EA. Power Company (TPCO) and Stand Agreement are made pursuant to In the final EA, the Commission’s staff Energy Corporation (Stand) as CHG&E’s FERC Electric Rate Schedule, has analyzed the existing and potential customers under the terms of ComEd’s Original Volume 1 (Power Sales Tariff) future environmental impacts of the Power Sales Tariff PS–1 (PS-Tariff). The accepted by the Commission in Docket project and has concluded that approval Commission has previously designated No. ER94–1662–000. CHG&E also has of the project, with appropriate the PS–1 Tariff as FERC Electric Tariff, requested waiver of the 60-day notice environmental protection and Original Volume No. 2. provision. enhancement measures, would not ComEd requests an effective date of A copy of this filing has been served constitute a major federal action that June 30, 1995, and accordingly seeks on the Public Service Commission of the would significantly affect quality of the waiver of the Commission’s State of New York. human environment. requirements. Copies of this filing were Comment date: August 14, 1995, in Copies of the EA are available for served upon TPCO, Stand and the accordance with Standard Paragraph E review in the Public Reference Branch, Illinois Commerce Commission. at the end of this notice. Room 3104, of the Commission’s offices 39956 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices at 941 North Capitol Street, N.E., MT, Due: September 05, 1995, EIS No. 950342, Draft EIS, FHW, NC, Washington, D.C. 20426. Contact: Becky Smith (406) 862–2508. Sunset Beach Bridge No. 198 on Linwood A. Watson, Jr., EIS No. 950334, Draft EIS, FHW, OK, Secondary Road NC–1172 Acting Secretary. Canadian River Bridge Crossing Replacement, Over the Atlantic [FR Doc. 95–19176 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] Construction, MT–37 east of Tuttle Intracoastal Waterway, Funding, COE northward to MT–152 in or near BILLING CODE 6717±01±M Section 10 and 404 Permit, Brunswick Mustang, Funding, COE Section 404 County, NC, Due: September 25, 1995, and EPA NPDES Permits Issuance, Contact: Nicholas L. Graf (919) 856– Canadian and Counties, MT, Due: 4346. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION September 18, 1995, Contact: James EIS No. 950343, Draft EIS, AFS, AK, AGENCY Erickson (405) 945–6011. EIS No. 950335, Draft EIS, AFS, AK, Lab Eight Fathom Timber Sales, [ER±FRL±4725±4] Bay Project Area Timber Harvest, Implementation, COE Section 404 Implementation, COE Section 404, Permit and EPA NPDES, Tongass Environmental Impact Statements; EPA NPDES and Coast Guard Bridge National Forests, Hoonah and Sitka Notice of Availability Permits Issuance, Thorne Bay Ranger Ranger District, Chatham Area, AK, District, Ketchikan Administrative Due: September 19, 1995, Contact: Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Michael Weber (907) 747–6671. Activities, General Information (202) Area, Tongass National Forest, Prince 260–5076 OR (202) 260–5075. of Wales Island, AK, Due: September EIS No. 950344, Draft EIS, FHW, CO, Weekly receipt of Environmental 18, 1995, Contact: Dave Arrasmith CO–82 Highway Transportation Impact Statements Filed July 24, 1995 (907) 225–3101. Project, Improvements to ‘‘Entrance to Through July 28, 1995 Pursuant to 40 EIS No. 950336, Final EIS, COE, IL, Aspen’’, Funding and COE Section CFR 1506.9. Sugar Creek Municipal Water Supply 404 Permit, City of Aspen, Pitkin Reservoir Construction, COE Section County, CO, Due: September 18, 1995, EIS No. 950328, Draft EIS, FHW, HI, 404 Permit Issuance, City of Marion, Contact: Ron Speral (303) 969–6737 Kealakehe Parkway Completion, Williamson and Johnson Counties, IL, ex.368 Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Due: September 05, 1995, Contact: Honokohau Harbor Road Intersection EIS No. 950345, Revised Draft EIS, UAF, Terry Siemsen (502) 582–5550. ME, Loring Air Force Base (AFB) to near the Mamalahoa Highway and EIS No. 950337, Final EIS, AFS, CA, Disposal and Reuse, Implementation, Old Mamalahoa Highway Mendocino National Forest Land and Updated and Additional Information, Intersection, North Korna District, Resource Management Plan, Aroostook County, ME, Due: Hawaii County, HI, Due: September Implementation, Colusa, Glenn, Lake, September 18, 1995, Contact: Nancy 18, 1995, Contact: Abraham Wong Mendocino, Tehama and Trinity Speake (210) 536–5630. (808) 541–2700. Counties, CA, Due: September 05, EIS No. 950329, Final EIS, AFS, MT, 1995, Contact: Daniel K. Chisholm EIS No. 950346, Draft EIS, UAF, NY, Wagner-Atlanta Vegetation Treatment (916) 934–3316. Griffis Air Force Base (AFB) Disposal Project, Implementation, Helena EIS No. 950338, Draft EIS, TVA, TN, and Reuse, Implementation, Oneida National Forest, Townsend Ranger KY, MS, AL, GA, NC, VA, County, NY, Due: September 25, 1995, District, Meagher County, MT, Due: Programmatic EIS—Energy Vision Contact: Jonathan D. Farthing (210) September 05, 1995, Contact: George 2020, Integrated Resource Plan, 536–3787. Weldon (406) 266–3425. Implementation of Long-Term Plan EIS No. 950347, Final EIS, FAA, NJ, EIS No. 950330, Final EIS, BLM, WY, and Short-Term Action, TN, AL, KY, Expanded East Coast Plan, Changes in Greater Wamsutter Area II Natural Gas GA, MS, NC and VA, Due: October 15, Aircraft Flight Patterns over the State Development Project, Approvals and 1995, Contact: Lynn Maxwell (615) of New Jersey, Implementation, NJ, Permits Issuance, Carbon and 751–2539. Due: September 11, 1995, Contact: Sweetwater Counties, WY, Due: EIS No. 950339, Draft EIS, AFS, MT, William Marx (202) 267–9155. September 05, 1995, Contact: John Skyline Ridge Project Area Timber Spehar (307) 324–4841. Salvage and Associated Activities, EIS No. 950348, FINAL EIS, NPS, WA, EIS No. 950331, Draft EIS, AFS, MT, Plan of Approval and Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration, Checkerboard Land Exchange, Plan of Implementation, Kootenai National Implementation, Olympic National Approval and Implementation, Forest, Three Rivers Ranger District, Park, Clallam County, WA, Due: Kootenai, Lolo and Flathead National Lincoln County, MT, Due: September September 05, 1995, Contact: Brian Forest, Lincoln, Flathead and Sanders 18, 1995, Contact: Steve Prieve (406) Winter (206) 452–0321. Counties, MT, Due: September 18, 295–4693. Amended Notices 1995, Contact: Ted Andersen (406) EIS No. 950340, Draft EIS, AFS, WA, 293–6211. First Creek Basin Restoration Project, EIS No. 950250, Final EIS, FHW, PA, I– EIS No. 950332, Final EIS, EPA, CA, Implementation, Wenatchee National 81 Interchange Project, Construction, Humboldt Bay Open Ocean Dredged Forest, Chelan Ranger District, Chelan Funding Chambersburg, Franklin Material Disposal Site (ODMDs) County, WA, Due: September 18, County, PA, Due: July 17, 1995, Designation, Samoa Peninsula, 1995, Contact: Al Murphy (509) 682– Contact: Manuel Marks (717) 782– Humboldt County, CA, Due: 2576. 3461. Published FR—6–16–95 September 05, 1995, Contact: Allan EIS No. 950341, Draft EIS, SFW, CA, Correction to Title. Ota (415) 744–1980. Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Dated: August 1, 1995. EIS No. 950333, Final EIS, AFS, MT, Big Authorization for Incidental Take and Mountain Ski and Summer Resort Implementation of a Long-Term B. Katherine Biggs, Expansion Project, Special-Use- Habitat Conservation Plan, Western Associate Director, NEPA Compliance Permit, Flathead National Forest, Riverside County, CA, Due: Division, Office of Federal Activities. Tally Lake and Glacier View Ranger September 18, 1995, Contact: Jeff [FR Doc. 95–19271 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] Districts, Whitefish, Flathead County, Newman (619) 431–9440. BILLING CODE 6560±50±U Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39957 FEDERAL EMERGENCY (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. the Board of Governors. Interested MANAGEMENT AGENCY 83.516, Disaster Assistance) persons may express their views in G. Clay Hollister, writing to the Reserve Bank indicated [FEMA±1059±DR] Deputy Associate Director, Response and for the notice or to the offices of the Recovery Directorate. Board of Governors. Comments must be Virginia; Amendment to Notice of a [FR Doc. 95–19222 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] received not later than August 18, 1995. Major Disaster Declaration BILLING CODE 6718±02±M A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (John E. Yorke, Senior Vice AGENCY: Federal Emergency President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas Management Agency (FEMA). FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM City, Missouri 64198: ACTION: Notice. 1. Bill J. Horne, Sr., Ada, Oklahoma; Agency Forms Under Review: to retain 27.14 percent, for a total of SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice Correction 27.14 percent, and thereby retain of a major disaster for the control of the voting shares of First Ada Commonwealth of Virginia (FEMA– AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Bancshares, Inc., Ada, Oklahoma, and 1059–DR), dated July 1, 1995, and Federal Reserve System. thereby indirectly acquire The First related determinations. ACTION: Correction. National Bank & Trust Co., Ada, EFFECTIVE DATE: July 31, 1995. Oklahoma. SUMMARY: In notice document 95–18314 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve beginning on page 38339 in the issue of System, July 31, 1995. Pauline C. Campbell, Response and Wednesday, July 26, 1995, make the William W. Wiles, Recovery Directorate, Federal following corrections: Emergency Management Agency, 1. On page 38340 in the first column, Secretary of the Board. Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3606. the comment period previously was [FR Doc. 95–19207 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is stated to expire on August 21, 1995. BILLING CODE 6210±01±F hereby given that the incident period for DATES: should be changed to read this disaster is closed effective July 7, ‘‘Comments must be submitted on or Pikeville National Corporation, et al.; 1995. before August 25, 1995.’’ Formations of; Acquisitions by; and 2. On page 38341 in the third column, (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. Mergers of Bank Holding Companies 83.516, Disaster Assistance) the annual reporting hours for the third G. Clay Hollister, report of those proposed to be extended The companies listed in this notice Deputy Associate Director, Response and without revision, OMB Docket Number have applied for the Board’s approval Recovery Directorate. 7100–0042, Applications for the under section 3 of the Bank Holding [FR Doc. 95–19221 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] Issuance and Cancellation of Federal Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1842) and § BILLING CODE 6718±02±M Reserve Stock-National Bank, 225.14 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 Nonmember Bank, Member Bank, were CFR 225.14) to become a bank holding incorrectly stated. Annual reporting company or to acquire a bank or bank hours: should be changed to read ‘‘940 holding company. The factors that are [FEMA±1059±DR] (FR 2030: 43; FR 2030a: 28; FR 2056: considered in acting on the applications Virginia; Amendment to Notice of a 797; FR 2086a: 26; FR 2086b: 24; FR are set forth in section 3(c) of the Act Major Disaster Declaration 2087: 22).’’ (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Each application is available for AGENCY: Federal Emergency System, July 31, 1995. immediate inspection at the Federal Management Agency (FEMA). William W. Wiles, Reserve Bank indicated. Once the ACTION: Notice. Secretary of the Board. application has been accepted for processing, it will also be available for [FR Doc. 95–19206 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice inspection at the offices of the Board of of a major disaster for the BILLING CODE 6210±01±P Governors. Interested persons may Commonwealth of Virginia, FEMA– express their views in writing to the 1059–DR), dated July 1, 1995, and Bill J. Horne, Sr.; Change in Bank Reserve Bank or to the offices of the related determinations. Control Notice Board of Governors. Any comment on EFFECTIVE DATE: July 31, 1995. an application that requests a hearing FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Acquisition of Shares of Banks or must include a statement of why a Pauline C. Campbell, Response and Bank Holding Companies written presentation would not suffice Recovery Directorate, Federal in lieu of a hearing, identifying The notificant listed below has specifically any questions of fact that Emergency Management Agency, applied under the Change in Bank Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3606. are in dispute and summarizing the Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § evidence that would be presented at a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 hearing. of a major disaster for the CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank Unless otherwise noted, comments Commonwealth of Virginia dated July 1, holding company. The factors that are regarding each of these applications 1995, is hereby amended to include the considered in acting on notices are set must be received not later than August following area among those areas forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 28, 1995. determined to have been adversely U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland affected by the catastrophe declared a The notice is available for immediate (John J. Wixted, Jr., Vice President) 1455 major disaster by the President in his inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio declaration of July 1, 1995: indicated. Once the notice has been 44101: Roanoke County for Individual Assistance accepted for processing, it will also be 1. Pikeville National Corporation and and Hazard Mitigation Assistance. available for inspection at the offices of Whitley Acquisition Corp., both of 39958 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices Pikeville, Kentucky; to acquire 100 (12 CFR 225.23(a)(1)) for the Board’s credit, pursuant to § 225.25(b)(1)(i) of percent of the voting shares of United approval under section 4(c)(8) of the the Board’s Regulation Y. Whitley Corp., Williamsburg, Kentucky, Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve and thereby indirectly acquire Bank of 1843(c)(8)) and § 225.21(a) of Regulation System, July 31, 1995. Williamsburg, Williamsburg, Kentucky. Y (12 CFR 225.21(a)) to commence or to William W. Wiles, In connection with this application engage de novo, either directly or Secretary of the Board. Whitley Acquisition Corp., Pikeville, through a subsidiary, in a nonbanking [FR Doc. 95–19209 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] Kentucky, has applied to become a bank activity that is listed in § 225.25 of holding company. Regulation Y as closely related to BILLING CODE 6210±01±F B. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago banking and permissible for bank (James A. Bluemle, Vice President) 230 holding companies. Unless otherwise South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois noted, such activities will be conducted FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 60690: throughout the United States. [Dkt. 9207] 1. Comerica Inc., Detroit, Michigan, Each application is available for and Comerica Texas, Inc., Dallas, Texas; immediate inspection at the Federal The Coca-Cola Company; Prohibited to acquire 100 percent of the voting Reserve Bank indicated. Once the Trade Practices and Affirmative shares of QuestStar Bank, NA, Houston, application has been accepted for Corrective Actions Texas. processing, it will also be available for AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. C. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis inspection at the offices of the Board of (Randall C. Sumner, Vice President) 411 Governors. Interested persons may ACTION: Modifying order. Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166: express their views in writing on the 1. Boatmen’s Bancshares, Inc., St. SUMMARY: This order reopens a 1994 question whether consummation of the final order that requires the respondent Louis, Missouri; to merge with Citizens proposal can ‘‘reasonably be expected to Bancshares Corporation, Little Rock, to obtain Commission approval before produce benefits to the public, such as acquiring stock or interest in any Arkansas, and thereby indirectly acquire greater convenience, increased Citizens Bank of Jonesboro, Jonesboro, company that manufactures or sells competition, or gains in efficiency, that concentrate, syrup, or carbonated soft Arkansas. outweigh possible adverse effects, such D. Federal Reserve Bank of drinks in the U.S. This order modifies as undue concentration of resources, Minneapolis (James M. Lyon, Vice the final order in settlement of the decreased or unfair competition, President) 250 Marquette Avenue, petitions for review filed by the conflicts of interests, or unsound Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480: respondent in the U.S. Court of Appeals. banking practices.’’ Any request for a 1. Norwest Corporation, Minneapolis, DATES: Complaint issued June 13, 1994. hearing on this question must be Minnesota; to acquire 100 percent of the Modified final order issued May 25, accompanied by a statement of the voting shares of Liberty National Bank, 1995.1 reasons a written presentation would Austin, Texas. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: not suffice in lieu of a hearing, E. Federal Reserve Bank of San Naomi Licker or Daniel Ducore, FTC/ identifying specifically any questions of Francisco (Kenneth R. Binning, 2115, Washington, DC 20580. (202) 326– fact that are in dispute, summarizing the Director, Bank Holding Company) 101 2851 or 326–2526. evidence that would be presented at a Market Street, San Francisco, California SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 94105: hearing, and indicating how the party commenting would be aggrieved by Matter of the Coca-Cola Company. The 1. Northeast Portland Community prohibited trade practices and/or Development Trust, Portland, Oregon; to approval of the proposal. Unless otherwise noted, comments corrective actions as set forth at 59 FR become a bank holding company by 40031, are changed in part. acquiring 100 percent of the voting regarding the applications must be shares of Albina Community Bancorp, received at the Reserve Bank indicated (Sec. 6, 38 Stat. 721; 15 U.S.C. 46. Interpret Portland, Oregon, and thereby indirectly or the offices of the Board of Governors or apply sec. 5, 38 Stat. 719, as amended; sec. not later than August 18, 1995. 7, 38 Stat. 731, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 45, acquire Albina Community Bank (in 18)) organization), Portland, Oregon. A. Federal Reserve Bank of In connection with this application Philadelphia (Michael E. Collins, Senior Benjamin I. Berman, Albina Community Bancorp also has Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, Acting Secretary. applied to become a bank holding Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105: [FR Doc. 95–19237 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] company by acquiring Albina 1. Sun Bancorp, Inc., Selinsgrove, BILLING CODE 6750±01±M Community Bank (in organization), Pennsylvania; to engage de novo Portland, Oregon. through Mifflin Associates, Mifflinburg, [Docket No. C±2966] Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Pennsylvania, in community System, July 31, 1995. development activities through its General Motors Corporation William W. Wiles, investment in Mifflin Associates, pursuant to § 225.25(b)(6) of the Board’s AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. Secretary of the Board. Regulation Y. ACTION: Notice of period for public [FR Doc. 95–19208 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta comment on petition to modify consent BILLING CODE 6210±01±F (Zane R. Kelley, Vice President) 104 order. Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303: SUMMARY: General Motors Corporation Sun Bancorp, Inc., et al.; Notice of 1. SunTrust Banks, Inc., and Trust (‘‘GM’’), the respondent in Docket No. Applications to Engage de novo in C–2966, is subject to an order that Permissible Nonbanking Activities Company of Georgia, both of Atlanta, Georgia; to engage de novo through 1 Copies of the Modifying Order are available The companies listed in this notice Personal Express Loans, Inc., Atlanta, from the Commission’s Public Reference Branch, have filed an application under § Georgia, in making, acquiring, or H–130, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 225.23(a)(1) of the Board’s Regulation Y servicing loans or other extensions of Washington, DC 20580. Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39959 prohibits it from displaying the name of [Dkt. C±3591] unfair acts and practices and unfair any GM car division on any engine or methods of competition, this consent visible attachment to the engine unless Mattel, Inc.; Prohibited Trade agreement, accepted subject to final Practices, and Affirmative Corrective that engine is manufactured by that Commission approval, would prohibit, Actions division. GM filed a petition on July 7, among other things, a California 1995, requesting the Commission to AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. association from carrying out, participating in, inducing or assisting reopen and modify the order to allow ACTION: Consent order. GM to display a passenger car’s any boycott or concerted refusal to deal nameplate on the engine or visible SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged with any newspaper, periodical, attachment to the engine if the engine is violations of federal law prohibiting television or radio station, and would materially different from other engines unfair acts and practices and unfair require the association to amend its by- in GM cars under other nameplates. methods of competition, this consent laws to incorporate the stipulated prohibition, and to distribute the This document announces the public order prohibits, among other things, a amended by-laws and the final comment period on this petition. California-based corporation from representing that any aerosol product it Commission order to each of its DATES: The deadline for filing comments sells offers any environmental benefit, members. in this matter is August 25, 1995. unless it can substantiate the claim. DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 3, 1995. ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to DATES: Complaint and Order issued June the Office of the Secretary, Federal 23, 1995.1 ADDRESSES: Comments should be Trade Commission, 6th Street and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: directed to: FTC/Office of Secretary, Room 159, 6th St. and Pa. Ave., NW., Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Michael Dershowitz, FTC/S–4002, Washington, DC 20580. Washington, D.C. 20580. Requests for Washington, D.C. 20580, (202) 326– FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: copies of the petition should be sent to 3158. Ralph Stone, San Francisco Regional SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Friday, the Public Reference Branch, Room 130. Office, Federal Trade Commission, 901 April 14, 1995, there was published in Market St., Suite 570, San Francisco, CA FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the Federal Register, 60 FR 19068, a 94103. (415) 744–7920. Thomas D. Massie, Attorney, Division of proposed consent agreement with Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer analysis In the Matter of Mattel, Inc., for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant Protection, Federal Trade Commission, the purpose of soliciting public to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Washington, D.C. 20580, (202) 326– comment. Interested parties were given Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 2982. sixty (60) days in which to submit 46 and Section 2.34 of the Commission’s comments, suggestions or objections Rules and Practice (16 CFR 2.34), notice SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The order regarding the proposed form of the is hereby given that the following in Docket No. C–2966 was issued on order. consent agreement containing a consent May 18, 1979, and reported at 93 F.T.C. No comments having been received, order to cease and desist, having been 860. GM argues that changed conditions the Commission has ordered the filed with and accepted, subject to final of fact require modifying the order. In issuance of the complaint in the form approval, by the Commission, has been 1979, GM passenger car divisions contemplated by the agreement, made placed on the public record for a period manufactured engines. Passenger car its jurisdictional findings and entered of sixty (60) days. Public comment is divisions ceased manufacturing engines an order to cease and desist, as set forth invited. Such comments or views will in 1984. Through a series of in the proposed consent agreement, in be considered by the Commission and organizational changes, the manufacture disposition of this proceeding. will be available for inspection and copying at its principal office in of passenger car engines is now under (Sec. 6, 38 Stat. 721; 15 U.S.C. 46. Interprets the Power Train Group. The Power accordance with Section 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of or applies sec. 5, 38 Stat. 719, as amended; the Commission’s Rule of Practice (16 Train Group produces engines and 15 U.S.C. 45) CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)). transmissions for all GM passenger cars Benjamin I. Berman, except Saturn. As a consequence, the Acting Secretary. In the Matter of: Santa Clara County Motor order provision prohibiting the Car Dealers Association, an unincorporated [FR Doc. 95–19239 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] association; File No. 941–0107. placement of a car divisions’s name on BILLING CODE 6750±01±M the engine unless it was manufactured Agreement Containing Consent Order to by that division has prevented GM from Cease and Desist [File No. 941±0107] placing the name of car division, such The Federal Trade Commission, as Cadillac, on the engine of any Santa Clara County Motor Car Dealers having initiated an investigation of passenger car produced by GM. GM Association; Proposed Consent certain acts and practices of the Santa seeks to place the nameplate of a Agreement With Analysis to Aid Public Clara County Motor Car Dealers passenger car on the engine only if it is Comment Association, an unincorporated unique to that nameplate because of association, and it now appearing that material differences such as horsepower AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. the Santa Clara County Motor Car or displacement from similar engines ACTION: Proposed consent agreement. Dealers Association, hereinafter used in different nameplates. sometimes referred to as the SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged Donald S. Clark, ‘‘Association’’ or ‘‘proposed violations of federal law prohibiting respondent,’’ is willing to enter into an Secretary. agreement containing an order to cease [FR Doc. 95–19238 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] 1 Copies of the Complaint and the Decision and and desist from the acts and practices BILLING CODE 6750±01±M Order are available from the Commission’s Public Reference Branch, H–130, 6th Street and being investigated, Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. It is Hereby Agreed by and between 20580 the Association, by its duly authorized 39960 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices officers, and its attorney, and counsel the same manner and within the same III for the Federal Trade Commission that: time provided by statute for other 1. The Association is an orders. The Order shall become final It Is Further Ordered that the unincorporated association organized, upon service. Delivery by the U.S. Association shall: existing, and doing business under and Postal Service of the Complaint and A. Within sixty (60) days after the by virtue of the laws of the State of decision containing the agreed-to Order date this Order becomes final, amend its California, with its office and principal to proposed respondent’s address as by-laws to incorporate by reference place of business at 336 East Hamilton stated in this agreement shall constitute Paragraph II of this Order, and distribute Avenue, Campbell, California 95008. service. Proposed respondent waives by first-class mail a copy of the 2. The Association admits all the any right it may have to any other amended by-laws to each of its jurisdictional facts set forth in the draft manner of service. The Complaint may members; of Complaint. be used in construing the terms of the B. Within thirty (30) days after the 3. The Association waives: Order, and no agreement, (a) Any further procedural steps; date this Order becomes final, distribute understanding, representation, or by first-class mail a copy of this Order (b) The requirement that the interpretation not contained in the Commission’s decision contain a and the Complaint to each of its Order or the agreement may be used to members; statement of findings of fact and vary or contradict the terms of the conclusions of law; Order. C. For a period of five (5) years after (c) All rights to seek judicial review the date this Order become final, or otherwise to challenge or contest the 7. Proposed respondent has read the provide each new member with a copy validity of the Order entered pursuant to proposed Complaint and Order of this Order, the complaint, and the this agreement; and contemplated hereby. Proposed amended by-laws within thirty (30) days (d) All claims under the Equal Access respondent understands that once the of the new member’s admission to the to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. § 504. Order has been issued, it will be Association; and 4. This agreement shall not become required to file one or more compliance part of the public record of the reports showing that it has fully D. Within seventy-five (75) days after proceeding unless and until it is complied with the Order. Proposed the date this Order becomes final, and accepted by the Commission. If this respondent further understands that it annually thereafter for a period of five agreement is accepted by the may be liable for civil penalties in the (5) years on the anniversary of the date Commission, it together with the draft of amount provided by law for each this Order became final, file with the Complaint contemplated thereby, will violation of the Order after it becomes Secretary of the Commission a verified be placed on the public record for a final. written report setting forth in detail the manner and form in which the period of sixty (60) days and Order information in respect thereto publicly Association has complied with and is released. The Commission thereafter I complying with this Order. may either withdraw its acceptance of IV this agreement and so notify the It Is Ordered that, for the purposes of proposed respondent, in which event it this Order, ‘‘respondent’’ or It Is Further Ordered that the will take such action as it may consider ‘‘Association’’ shall mean the Santa Association shall notify the Commission appropriate, or issue and serve its Clara County Motor Car Dealers at least thirty (30) days prior to any Complaint (in such form as the Association, its predecessors, successors change in the Association, such as circumstances may require) and and assigns, and its directors, dissolution or reorganization resulting decision, in disposition of the committees, officers, delegates, in the emergence of a successor proceeding. representatives, agents, and employees. corporation or association, or any other 5. This agreement is for settlement II change in the corporation or association purposes only and does not constitute which may affect compliance an admission by proposed respondent It Is Further Ordered that the obligations arising out of this Order. that the law has been violated as alleged Association, directly or indirectly, or in the draft of Complaint, or that the through any person or any corporate or V facts as alleged in the draft of other device, in or in connection with It Is Further Ordered that, for the Complaint, other than the jurisdictional its activities as a trade association, in or purpose of determining or securing facts, are true. affecting commerce, as ‘‘commerce’’ is compliance with this Order, respondent 6. This agreement contemplates that, defined in the Federal Trade shall permit any duly authorized if it is accepted by the Commission, and Commission Act, shall forthwith cease representative of the Commission: if such acceptance is not subsequently and desist from carrying out, withdrawn by the Commission pursuant participating in, inducing, suggesting, A. Upon seven (7) days’ notice to to the provisions of Section 2.34 of the urging, encouraging, or assisting any respondent, to have access, during office Commission’s Rules, the Commission boycott of, or concerted refusal to deal hours and in the presence of counsel, to may, without further notice to proposed with, any newspaper, periodical, inspect and copy all books, ledgers, respondent, (a) issue its Complaint television station, or radio station; accounts, correspondence, memoranda corresponding in form and substance provided, however, that nothing in this and other records and documents in the with the draft of Complaint and its Order shall prohibit the Association or possession or under the control of decision containing the following Order any of its members from establishing, respondent relating to any matters to cease and desist in disposition of the participating in, or maintaining joint contained in this Order; and proceeding and (b) make information advertising programs, so long as such B. Upon seven (7) days’ notice to public in respect thereto. When so joint advertising programs are not a part respondent and without restraint or entered, the Order to cease and desist of any boycott or concerted refusal to interference from it, to interview shall have the same force and effect and deal and do not otherwise violate this officers, directors, or employees of may be altered, modified or set aside in Order. respondent. Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39961 VI automobile and truck dealers in Santa Finally, the proposed order contains a It Is Further Ordered that this Order Clara County, California, and to deprive twenty year ‘‘sunset’’ provision. Under shall terminate twenty (20) years from consumers of truthful information this provision, the terms of the order the date this Order becomes final. pertinent to the purchase of new shall terminate twenty years after the automobiles and trucks. Agreements not date the order becomes final. Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To to disemminate information through The purpose of this analysis is to Aid Public Comment advertising can make it more difficult facilitate public comment on the The Federal Trade Commission has for consumers to choose among proposed order, and it is not intended accepted, subject to final approval, an automobile dealers by preventing direct to constitute an official interpretation of agreement to a proposed consent order interbrand and intrabrand comparisons the agreement and proposed order or to from the Santa Clara County Motor Car of dealers’ automobiles and their prices modify in any way their terms. Dealers Association (‘‘Association’’). and services, and thus may increase The proposed consent order has been The proposed consent order has been consumer search costs. Moreover, the entered into for settlement purposes placed on the public record for sixty use of the combined economic power of only and does not constitute an (60) days for reception of comments by the automobile dealers to affect a admission by the Association that the interested persons. Comments received newspaper’s editorial content may chill law has been violated as alleged in the during this period will become part of the publication of information that complaint. the public record. After sixty (60) days, would lower search costs and make Benjamin I. Berman, the Commission will again review the readers more effective consumers. Acting Secretary. agreement and the comments received Description of the Proposed Consent [FR Doc. 95–19240 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] and will decide whether it should Order BILLING CODE 6750±01±M withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement’s proposed order. The proposed order would prohibit the Association from carrying out, Description of the Complaint participating in, inducing, suggesting, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND A complaint prepared for issuance by urging, encouraging, or assisting any HUMAN SERVICES the Commission along with the boycott of, or concerted refusal to deal Administration for Children and proposed order alleges that the with, any newspaper, periodical, Families Association and at least some of its television station, or radio station. members agreed that members would The proposed order would permit the Agency Information Collection Under cancel advertising in, and thereafter Association to establish, participate in, OMB Review collectively withhold advertising from, and maintain joint advertising the San Jose Mercury News newspaper programs, so long as such joint Title: Uniform Reporting in retaliation for a Mercury News article advertising programs are not part of any Requirements for IV–A and IV–F that was intended to educate consumers boycott or concerted refusal to deal. Funded Child Care for Non-JOBS on how to analyze the manufacturer’s The proposed order would require the Participants, Tribal JOBS Participants, factory invoice as part of the Association to amend its by-laws to Transitional Child Care and At-Risk automobile-buying process. Armed with incorporate by reference the order. It Child Care. this information, the consumer may be would also require the Association to OMB No.: 0970–0115. better equipped to negotiate a lower distribute a copy of the amended by- Description: Title IV–A and IV–F price. laws, the order, and the complaint to funded child care data collection form The complaint alleges that the each of its members, file compliance ACF–115. States are required to report purposes or effects of the agreement reports, and notify the Commission of child care data on a quarterly basis. were to restrain competition among new certain changes in its structure. Respondents: State governments. Number of Number of responses Average Title respondents per re- burden per Burden spondent response ACF±115 ...... 54 4 35 7560 Estimated Total Annual Burden directly to the following: Office of Office of Child Support Enforcement; Hours: 7,560. Management and Budget, Paperwork Statement of Organization, Functions, Additional Information: Copies of the Reduction Project, 725 17th Street, NW., and Delegations of Authority proposed collection may be obtained by Washington, D.C. 20503, Attn: Ms. writing to The Administration for Wendy Taylor. This notice amends Part K of the Children and Families, Office of Dated: August 1, 1995. Statement of Organization, Functions, Information systems, 370 L’Enfant and Delegations of Authority of the Roberta Katson, Promenade, S.W., Washington, D.C. Department of Health and Human 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Acting Director, Office of Information Services (DHHS), Administration for Officer. Resource Management. Children and Families (ACF) as follows: OMB Comment: Consideration will be [FR Doc. 95–19277 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] Chapter KF, The Office of Child Support given to comments and suggestions BILLING CODE 4184±01±M Enforcement (OCSE) (56 FR 42341), as received within 30 days of publication. Written comments and last amended, August 27, 1991. This recommendations for the proposed reorganization will establish a new information collection should be sent office within the OCSE. 39962 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 1. Amend KF.10 Organization. Delete of program requirements; coordinates Contact Person: Dr. Zakir Bengali, in its entirety and replace it with the child support enforcement activities Scientific Review Administrator, 6701 following: with regional offices; develops guides Rockledge Drive, Room 5150, Bethesda KF.10 Organization. The Office of and resource materials for use by states MD 20892, (301) 534–1742. Child Support Enforcement is headed and ACF regional offices; documents The meeting will be closed in by a Director and consists of: specialized program techniques for use accordance with the provisions set forth Office of the Director (KFA) by states and local agencies; and ensures in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title Division of Audit (KFB) transfer of best practices among state 5, U.S.C. Applications and/or proposals Division of Program Operations (KFC) and local support enforcement agencies. and the discussions could reveal Division of Policy and Planning (KFD) The Division provides specialized confidential trade secrets or commercial Division of Consumer Services (KFE) services and operation of the Federal property such as patentable material 2. Amend KF.20 Functions. Parent Locator Service, the Federal Tax and personal information concerning a. Delete paragraph A in its entirety, Refund Offset Program, Project 1099, the individuals associated with the and replace it with the following: IRS Full Collection Project and the applications and/or proposals, the KF.20 Functions. A. Offices of the Parental Kidnapping Service. It disclosure of which would constitute a Director. The Director is also the develops and publishes informational clearly unwarranted invasion of Assistant Secretary for Children and materials and operates a training center personal privacy. Families and is directly responsible to on child support programs; and This notice is being published less the Secretary for Carrying out OCSE’s monitors contracts with organizations than 15 days prior to the meeting due mission. The Deputy Director has day- affiliated with child support to the urgent need to meet timing to-day operational responsibility for enforcement programs. It provides limitations imposed by the grant review Child Support Enforcement programs. liaison services to a variety of special cycle. The Associate Deputy Director for interest populations concerning (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance information Systems, who is also the collections of child support. Program Nos. 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393– Director of the ACF Office of c. Add paragraph E. Add the 93.396, 93.837–93.844, 93.846–93.878, Information Systems/Child Support following to establish paragraph E: 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, Systems, has responsibility for day-to- E. Division of Consumer Services HHS) day management of child support provides direction and leadership for a Dated: July 31, 1995. information systems. The Deputy variety of consumer affairs activities in Susan K. Feldman, Director assists the Director in carrying support of the nationwide child support Committee Management Officer, NIH. out responsibilities of the Office and enforcement program. Provides advice [FR Doc. 95–19397 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] oversees day-to-day operation of OCSE’s on strategies and approaches to be used BILLING CODE 4140±01±M Audit, Program Operations, Policy and to improve public understanding of and Planning and Consumer Services access to OCSE programs and policies. Divisions. The Associate Deputy Promotes ‘‘best’’ child support practices DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND Director assists the Deputy Director in to the public through monthly URBAN DEVELOPMENT carrying out the responsibilities of the publication of the Child Support Report. Office. Advises the Director, OCSE of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for The Office is responsible for impact of child support enforcement Community Planning and developing regulations, guidance and policy and program upon consumers Development and provides a focal point for consumer standards for states to observe in [Docket No. FR±3778±N±48] locating absent parents; establishing relations and consultation. paternity and support obligations and Dated: July 31, 1995. Federal Property Suitable as Facilities enforcing support obligations; Mary Jo Bane, to Assist the Homeless maintaining relationships with Assistant Secretary for Children and Families. Department officials, other federal AGENCY: Office of the Assistant [FR Doc. 95–19278 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] departments, state and local officials, Secretary for Community Planning and and private organizations and BILLING CODE 4184±01±M Development, HUD. individuals interested in the CSE ACTION: Notice. program; coordinating and planning National Institutes of Health SUMMARY: This Notice identifies child support enforcement activities to unutilized, underutilized, excess, and maximize program effectiveness; and Division of Research Grants; Notice of surplus Federal property reviewed by approving all instructions, policies and Closed Meetings HUD for suitability for possible use to publications issued by OCSE staff. assist the homeless. Within the Office of the Director, Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the administrative staff assist the Director, Federal Advisory Committee Act, as EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 1995. Deputy Director and Associate Deputy amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice ADDRESSES: For further information, Director in managing the formulation is hereby given of the following Division contact David Pollack, Department of and execution of program and salaries of Research Grants Special Emphasis Housing and Urban Development, Room and expense budgets; and in providing Panel (SEP) meeting: 7254, 451 Seventh Street, SW., administrative, personnel and data Purpose/Agenda: To review Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) processing support services. individual grant applications. 708–1234; TDD number for the hearing- b. Delete paragraph C in its entirety, Name of SEP: Chemistry and Related and speech-impaired (202) 708–2565, and replace it with the following: Sciences. (these telephone numbers are not toll- C. Division of Program Operations Date: August 9, 1995. free), or call the toll-free Title V assesses state performance and provides Time: 2:00 p.m. information line at 1–800–927–7588. information and assistance on program Place: NIH, Rockledge II, Room 5150, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In operations. It monitors implementation Telephone Conference. accordance with the December 12, 1988 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39963 court order in National Coalition for the Secretary decided to remove the the Director, OPC, at the Headquarters Homeless v. Veterans Administration, Regional organizational layer and Office, are revised to streamline the No. 88–2503–OG (D.D.C.), HUD provide officials at lower organizational Department’s management of the publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, levels full authority to carry out Governmentwide Commercial Credit identifying unutilized, underutilized, program functions, with these Field Card Program. However, this excess and surplus Federal buildings Office officials reporting directly to redelegation does not address the and real property that HUD has program officials in Headquarters.. Government Travel Card Program. reviewed for suitability for use to assist In a delegation of authority, published American Express or other credit cards the homeless. Today’s Notice is for the on April 15, 1994 at 59 FR 18276, the issued under the Government Travel purpose of announcing that no Secretary of Housing and Urban Card Program may only be used to pay additional properties have been Development revoked all delegations of for authorized travel-related services for determined suitable or unsuitable this procurement authority, and issued a which the individual traveler is week. new delegation which consolidated into responsible. Dated: July 28, 1995. a single document all delegations of Accordingly, the Assistant Secreatry for Administration revokes and Jacquie M. Lawing, procurement authority to the Assistant redelegates authority as follows: Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Secretary for Administration (the Development. Department’s Senior Procurement Section A. Redelegation of Authority Executive.) On that same day, the [FR Doc. 95–19135 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] The Assistant Secretary for BILLING CODE 4210±29±M Assistant Secretary for Administration published a redelegation of procurement Administration, designated as the authority, at 59 FR 18277, implementing Department’s Senior Procurement Executive, redelegatees the following Office of the Assistant Secretary for the initial phase of the field reorganization of procurement authority power and authority: Administration 1. The Director, Office of Procurement for the Office of Administration. In that and Contracts, designated as the [Docket No. FR±3876±D±01] redelegation, the Assistant Secretary for Department’s principal Contracting Administration revoked all Revocation and Delegation of Officer, is authorized to: redelegations of procurement authority, Procurement Authority a. Enter into and administer all and issued a new redelegation procurement contracts and interagency AGENCY: Office of the Assistant consolidating into one document all agreements for property and services Secretary for Administration, HUD. redelegations of procurement authority required by the Department (including ACTION to HUD Headquarters and Field staff. : Notice of revocation and the placement of paid advertisements in In this phase of HUD’s Field redelegation of procurement authority. newspapers;) reorganization, Administrative Service SUMMARY: This notice revokes current b. Enter into and administer grants Centers (ASCs) will be established to and cooperative agreements in support redelegations of procurement authority consolidate and expedite contracting, to the Field and Headquarters staff. It of the Department’s discretionary personnel, accounting, facilities, assistance programs; implements the final phase of the field management information, and other reorganization of procurement authority c. Make determinations and findings common administrative support regarding the use of advance payments for the Office of Administration. In this functions. On October 27, 1994, the phase, procurement authority in the under FAR Subpart 32.4 and HUDAR Assistant Secretary for Administration 2432.402; and, Field is consolidated under three announced the selection of three ASCs: Administrative Service Centers. This d. Further redelegate the following New York, Atlanta and Denver. authority which has been redelegated in document makes no changes to the Accordingly, in this notice, the procurement authority redelegated to this notice, to the headquarters and field Assistant Secretary for Administration personnel identified below, provided the President of the Government is revoking the redelegation issued on National Mortgage Association (GNMA). they meet experience, education, and April 15, 1994, including all training requirements established by the EFFECTIVE DATE: July 28, 1995. procurement authority redelegated to Senior Procurement Executive: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regional and Field Office officials. In (i) The authority identified in Edward L. Girovasi, Jr., Director, Policy this new redelegation reflecting the Sections 1.a. and 1.b., above, to and Evaluation Division, Office of changed Field organizational structure, qualified Office of Procurement and Procurement and Contracts, Room 5262, authority is redelegated to each ASC Contracts personnel; 451 7th Street S.W., Washington, D.C. Director and ASC Contracting Division (ii) The authority identified in 20410, (202) 708–0294. A Director. In addition, this document Sections 1.a. and 1.b., above, to the telecommunications device for the gives HUD procurement officials Directors, Administrative Service Center hearing impaired (TDD) is available at increased flexibility: The Director, Contracting Divisions for purposes of 202–708–1112. (These are not toll-free Office of Procurement and Contracts awarding and adminsitering contracts or numbers.) (OPC), at the Headquarters Office, has other agreements which are national in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the authority to award and administer scope or which cover more than one November of 1993, the Secretary contracts which are national in scope or Administrative Service Center service announced the reorganization of HUD’s which may cover more than one ASC area; field structure to improve HUD’s service area; and ASC contracting (iii) To qualified Departmental performance and provide HUD’s officials have the authority to meet employees, the authority to engage in customers (members of the public and changing workload demands by further the following purchasing procedures: program beneficiaries) more efficient redelegating certain procurement 1. Small purchases (FAR Part 13); service and less bureaucracy by authority to qualified HUD field 2. Issuance of delivery orders under empowering HUD employees to serve personnel, as specified. contracts established by other HUD’s customers more effectively. In Lastly, in this document, the Government sources (FAR Part 8, e.g., implementing this objective, the redelegations to the Field staff and to GSA Federal Supply Schedules) or 39964 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices under pre-priced indefinite-delivery Executive and provided that any other DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR contracts established by the Department; requirements listed below are met: Fish and Wildlife Service and, (i) To ASC Contracting Division 3. Purchases using the Government- personnel; wide Commercial Credit Card system in Availability of a Draft Joint accordance with the Department’s (ii) To Office of Housing personnel in Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) directives governing credit card State or Area Offices within the ASC and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) purchasing. Authority redelegated to the service area for procurement contracts Regarding the Application for Commercial Credit Card Program which concern programmatic functions Incidental Take and Implementation of Administrator may be further and which are funded by the FHA Fund. a Long-Term Habitat Conservation redelegated by the Program At a minimum, this authority shall be Plan for the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat, Administrator to qualified Headquarters delegated to a specific Office of Housing an Endangered Species, in Western employees for purchases within the management official designated by the Riverside County, CA Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal micro-purchase threshold established in AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife, Interior. FAR Part 13. Housing Commissioner in each State ACTION: 2. The President of the Government and Area Office for the following Notice of availability and public National Mortgage Association (GNMA) purposes: meeting. 1. Emergency procurement authority; is authorized to exercise procurement SUMMARY: This notice advises the public authority with respect to requirements 2. Small purchase authority (FAR Part that the draft Joint Environmental related to GNMA’s programmatic 13) in offices without full-time Impact Statement/Environmental functions. The President of GNMA is contracting personnel. Impact Report on the application to authorized to redelegate any of the The Office of Housing will be given Incidentally Take Stephens’ Kangaroo powers or authority redelegated to him 30 days advance notice if any of the Rat (SKR) in Riverside County, or her to qualified GNMA employees. above authority in paragraph 3.e.(ii) will California, is available for public 3. Each Director, Administrative be withdrawn and subsequently review. The Riverside County Habitat Service Center (ASC), and Director, ASC redelegated to ASC personnel. Conservation Agency (RCHCA) has Contracting Division, is designated as a applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (iii) To Administration personnel Contracting Officer and is authorized to, Service (Service) for a 30-year Incidental within the ASC service area for the subject to any limitations imposed by Take Permit pursuant to section following purposes: the Senior Procurement Executive: 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species a. Enter into and administer all 1. Small purchases (FAR Part 13); Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The procurement contracts and interagency and, Service also advises the public that the agreements for property and services 2. Issuance of delivery orders under application package prepared by the required by the Department (including contracts established by other RCHCA, which includes the SKR Long- the placement of paid advertisements in Government sources (FAR Part 8, e.g. term Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), newspapers) with regard to: Activities GSA Federal Supply Schedules) or Implementing Agreement (IA), and within his or her ASC service area; or, under pre-priced indefinite-delivery Incidental Take Permit Application, is activities which may be national in contracts established by the Department. available for public review. Comments scope or which cover more than one are requested and a public hearing will (iv) To Departmental personnel ASC service area when specifically be held. All comments received, within the ASC service area, for delegated by the Director, Office of including names and addresses, will purchases using the Governmentwide Procurement and Contracts. However, become part of the administrative record Commercial Credit Card system, in any purchase of Federal Information and may be made available to the accordance with the Department’s Processing (FIP) supplies or services public. (i.e., ADP-related contract actions) directives governing credit card DATES: requires the prior approval of the purchasing. Authority redelegated to the Written comments are requested Director, Office of Information Policies Director, Administrative Resources by September 18, 1995. A public and Systems; Division may be further redelegated by meeting will be conducted on September 6, 1995, in Riverside, b. Order a Limited Denial of that Director to qualified field personnel California, beginning at 1:00 pm. Participation sanction, pursuant to HUD within the service area for purchases Agency representatives will be available regulations at 24 CFR 24.700; within the micro-purchase threshold to answer questions and receive either c. Make determinations and findings established in FAR Part 13. written or oral comments concerning regarding the use of advance payments Section B. Authority Revoked the draft Joint EIS/EIR. under FAR Subpart 32.4 and HUDAR 2432.402; All power and authority redelegated ADDRESSES: Written comments should d. Further redelegate the award and at Section A. of the Notice of be addressed to: Gail C. Kobetich, Field administration of an individual or class Redelegation of Authority, published on Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife of procurement contracts or interagency April 15, 1994 at 59 FR 18277, is Service, Carlsbad Field Office, 2730 agreements to another director, ASC revoked. Loker Ave. West, Carlsbad, California 92008. Written comments may also be Contracting Division, with the Authority: Sec. 7(d), Department of concurrence of the Senior Procurement sent by facsimile to (619) 431–9618. The Housing and Urban Development Act [42 public meeting will be held at the Board Executive; and, U.S.C. 3535(d)]. of Supervisors Meeting Room, County e. Further redelegate the authority Dated: July 28, 1995. redelegated in paragraph 3.a., above, to Administrative Center, 14th Floor, 4080 any of the following personnel, Marilynn A. Davis, Lemon Street, Riverside, CA. provided that they meet experience, Assistant Secretary for Administration. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pete education, and training requirements [FR Doc. 95–19224 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] Sorensen, Endangered Species Division established by the Senior Procurement BILLING CODE 4210±01±M Chief, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39965 Carlsbad Field Office, 2730 Loker Ave. mitigation fees collected by the RCHCA selected for detailed analysis: (1) West, Carlsbad, California 92008. as developments proceed. Proposed Action/Project (approve and As intended when the interim permit implement the Long-term SKR HCP); (2) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: was granted in August 1990, the RCHCA Expanded Conservation/Protection Availability of Documents is applying to the Service for a 30-year (conserve more SKR habitat); (3) Individuals wishing copies of this incidental take permit for the same Existing Reserves/Public Lands (focus draft Joint EIS/EIR for review should purposes. The area covered by the on SKR habitat already protected); and immediately contact the U.S. Fish and proposed 30-year permit will include (4) a No Project/No Action Alternative much of the historical range of the SKR Wildlife Service Carlsbad Field Office at (assume no regional program). The in Riverside County. The procedures for the above referenced address, or by Service will identify its preferred the RCHCA to incidentally take SKRs telephone at (619) 431–9440. alternative and environmentally under the proposed 30-year permit are Individuals wishing to review the SKR preferable alternative as defined in the evaluated in the EIS/EIR. NEPA in the final EIS/EIR. Long-term HCP and IA should This draft Joint EIS/EIR has been immediately contact the RCHCA at (909) Each alternative was evaluated in developed cooperatively by the terms of its potential to result in 275–1100. Documents will be available Service’s Carlsbad Field Office (lead for public inspection by appointment significant adverse impacts, and the agency for the draft EIS), the RCHCA, adequacy or inadequacy of the proposed during normal business hours (8 am to and California Department of Fish and 5 pm, Monday through Thursday) at the measures to avoid, minimize, and Game. substantially lessen the effects. RCHCA, 4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor, In the development of this draft Joint Riverside, California 92501. Documents EIS/EIR, the Service has initiated action Dated: July 27, 1995. will also be available for public to assure compliance with the purpose David L. McMullen, inspection by appointment during and intent of the National Acting Deputy Regional Director, Region 1, normal business hours (8 am to 5 pm, Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Portland, Oregon. Monday through Friday) at the Service’s (NEPA), as amended. Scoping activities [FR Doc. 95–19115 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] Office at the above referenced address were undertaken preparatory to BILLING CODE 4310±55±P and telephone. Documents will also be developing the draft EIS with a variety available for public inspection at of Federal, State, and local entities. A numerous libraries throughout the Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS was Bureau of Land Management planning area. The location of specific published in the Federal Register on [AK±964±1410±00±P; F±14944±A] libraries having copies can be obtained March 2, 1993. by contacting the Service at the above The RCHCA’s preparation of the long- Alaska Native Claims Selection number. Copies of the draft EIS have term HCP has been on-going since the been sent to all agencies and individuals short-term permit was authorized. In In accordance with Departmental who participated in the scoping process March 1993 the Service and the RCHCA regulation 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is and to all others who have already initiated a joint scoping process for the hereby given that a decision to issue requested copies. preparation of a joint EIS/EIR in conveyance under the provisions of Sec. 14(a) and 22(j) of the Alaska Native Background anticipation of the Service receiving a permit application for a 30-year Section Claims Settlement Act of December 18, The Service listed the SKR as an 10(a) permit for incidental take of SKR. 1971, 43 U.S.C. 1601, 1613(a), will be endangered species, effective October The scoping process was initiated in issued to Tozitna, Limited for 31, 1988 (53 FR 38485). Because of its accordance with NEPA to solicit approximately 330 acres. The lands listing as an endangered species, the comments on issues and alternatives to involved are in the vicinity of Tanana, SKR is protected by the Act’s be addressed in the EIS/EIR. Because of Alaska, within T. 4 N., R. 22 W., prohibition against ‘‘take’’, that is, no the extended 2-year scoping process, a Fairbanks Meridian, Alaska. one may harass, harm, pursue, hunt, draft Scoping Report was prepared to A notice of the decision will be shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or update public knowledge of the scoping published once a week, for four (4) collect the species, or attempt to engage process. That report summarizes the 2- consecutive weeks, in the Fairbanks in such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1538). The year scoping process, identifies the Daily News-Miner. Copies of the Service, however, may issue permits to scoping issues raised by interested decision may be obtained by contacting conduct activities involving endangered parties at public meetings and in written the Alaska State Office of the Bureau of species under certain circumstances, statements, and outlines the issues and Land Management, 222 West Seventh including carrying out scientific alternatives that will be addressed in the Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513– purposes, enhancing the propagation or draft EIS/EIR. The availability of the 7599 ((907) 271–5960). survival of the species, or incidentally draft Scoping Report was published in Any party claiming a property interest taking the species in connection with the Federal Register on March 24, 1995. which is adversely affected by the otherwise lawful activities. Key issues addressed in this draft EIS/ decision, an agency of the Federal The RCHCA presently has a short- EIR are identified as the effects that government or regional corporation, term 10(a)(1)(B) permit (PRT–739678) implementation of various alternatives shall have until September 5, 1995 to from the Service to incidentally take would have upon: (1) The endangered file an appeal. However, parties SKRs in connection with various SKR; (2) other wildlife and their receiving service by certified mail shall proposed public and private projects in habitats; (3) land uses and general plans; have 30 days from the date of receipt to the western portion of Riverside County. (4) provision of public facilities, file an appeal. Appeals must be filed in Under the program established through services and utilities; and (5) social and the Bureau of Land Management at the this interim permit, SKR habitat in economic conditions. address identified above, where the public and private ownership is being More than 10 alternatives were requirements for filing an appeal may be acquired and managed for the long-term considered before limiting the obtained. Parties who do not file an benefit of the species. Acquisition of alternatives to be advanced for further appeal in accordance with the private lands is funded in part from study. Ultimately, 4 alternatives were requirements of 43 CFR Part 4, Subpart 39966 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices E, shall be deemed to have waived their availability of the Greater Wamsutter endangered or threatened species which rights. Area II (GWA II) Natural Gas Project are likely to be affected by the proposed Elizabeth Sherwood, Final Environmental Impact Statement action. Land Law Examiner, Branch of Northern analyzing the environmental Dated: July 24, 1995. Adjudication. consequences of a proposed natural gas Alan Kesterke, exploration, development, and [FR Doc. 95–19210 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] Acting State Director. BILLING CODE 4310±JA±P production operation in the Wamsutter Area II of southwestern Carbon and [FR Doc. 95–19211 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] southeastern Sweetwater Counties, BILLING CODE 4310±22±P [NV±030±5700±10; Closure Notice No. NV± Wyoming. The project area encompasses 030±95±05] approximately 334,919 acres within National Park Service portions of Townships 16 through 22 Temporary Closure of Public Lands; North, Ranges 92 through 95 West. Washoe County, Nevada Notice of Availability of the Final DATES: Comments on the Final General Management Plan and Final AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Environmental Impact Statement will be Environmental Impact Statement for Nevada. accepted for 30 days following the date Fort Clatsop National Memorial, SUMMARY: The Carson City District the Environmental Protection Agency Oregon Manager announces the temporary (EPA) publishes their Notice of SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2) (C) closure of selected public lands under Availability in the Federal Register. The EPA notice is expected to be published of the National Environmental Policy his administration. This action is being Act of 1969 (P.L. 91–190, as amended), taken to provide for public safety during on August 4, 1995. There are no plans to hold a public meeting on the Greater the National Park Service, Department the 1995 Reno National Championship of the Interior, has prepared a Final Air Races. Wamsutter Area II Natural Gas Project. Reviewers are encouraged to visit the General Management Plan/ EFFECTIVE DATES: September 11 through local BLM offices in Cheyenne and Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/ September 17, 1995. Rawlins to talk with the managers about FEIS) that describes and analyzes a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: any concerns. proposal and three alternatives to meet James M. Phillips, Lahontan Resource immediate and long-term needs at Fort ADDRESSES: Comments on the Final Area Manager, Carson City District Clatsop National Memorial; these Environmental Impact Statement should Office, 1535 Hot Springs Road, Carson alternatives address visitor use and the be sent to Mr. John Spehar, Great Divide City, Nevada 89706–0638. Telephone preservation of the natural and cultural Resource Area, Bureau of Land (702) 855–6100. resources that provide the environment Management, P.O. Box 880, Rawlins, in which the Lewis and Clark story is SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Wyoming 82301. closure applies to all the public, on foot presented to the public. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. A Notice of Availability of the Draft or in vehicles. The public lands affected John Spehar, Great Divide Resource by this closure are described as follows: General Management Plan/ Area, Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/ Mt. Diablo Meridian Box 880, Rawlins, Wyoming 82301, DEIS) was published in the Federal T.21 N.,R. 19 E. phone 307–324–4841. Register on 3 November 1993 (58 FR Sec. 8, N1⁄2NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 and E1⁄2SE1⁄4 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Final 211), with the public comment period to Sec. 16, N1⁄2 and SW1⁄4 Environmental Impact Statement close on 7 January 1994; responding to Aggregating approximately 680 acres. analyzes three project development a request that additional time be The above restrictions do not apply to alternatives and a no action alternative. provided for review and comment, the emergency or law enforcement The proposed project provides a review period was extended until 7 personnel or event officials. The maximum development of 750 wells February 1994 through notices in the authority for this closure is 43 CFR and 300 locations within the GWA II local media and the 5 January 1994 8364.1. Persons who violate this closure analysis area in addition to existing issue of the Federal Register (59 FR 3). order are subject to arrest and, upon operations. During this comment period, three The proposed project would affect conviction, may be fined not more than public meetings were held and written 2,416 acres, bringing the total $1,000 and/or imprisoned for not more comments were also received. The disturbance area within the GWA II area than 12 months. GMP/FEIS contains responses to the A map of the closed area is posted in to 14,943 acres of land. The proposed comments received and modifications to the Carson City District Office of Bureau project entails drilling, completion the document as needed in response to of Land Management. testing, production, abandonment, and the comments. reclamation of natural gas operations by The proposal, which was developed Dated: July 25, 1995. Union Pacific Resources Company, in response to public and agency James M. Phillips, Amoco Production Company, and comments on the GMP/DEIS, calls for: Area Manager, Lahontan Resource Area. others. Impacts to most resources would (1) Establishment of a trail between the [FR Doc. 95–19229 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] be negligible to moderate during the life Fort and the Pacific Ocean; (2) addition BILLING CODE 4310±HC±M of the project. The proposed project of approximately 963 acres to the would have beneficial impacts Memorial’s boundary; (3) coordination associated with increased revenues of interpretive activities with other [WY±030±05±1310±01] generated by taxes, royalties, and the public and private entities throughout Notice of Availability of Greater use of local goods and services. This the lower Columbia River region; and Wamsutter Area II Natural Gas Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (4) increasing the Memorial’s staffing Final Environmental Impact Statement is in compliance with Section 7(c) of the levels. Endangered Species Act (as amended) Three alternatives were considered, in SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land and includes a Biological Assessment addition to the proposal. The No-Action Management (BLM) announces the for the purpose of identifying any Alternative would maintain the existing Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39967 conditions: no Fort-Ocean trail would draft environmental impact statement: San Jose (Main, Alviso, Berryessa, East be developed; current size of the INT DES–95–36. San Jose, Carnegie, and Empire Memorial would be maintained at 125 Branches). SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National acres; no new coordination initiatives FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. would be undertaken; and staffing levels Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (as amended), the Bureau of Jefferies-Soniea at the above address and would not be increased. The Minimum telephone. Requirements Alternative would add a Reclamation (Reclamation) has prepared SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Fort-Ocean trail and increase the a draft environmental impact statement The Memorial’s boundary to encompass an (DEIS) for the South Bay Water SBWRP, formerly known as the San Jose additional 963 acres; some additional Recycling Project (SBWRP). The DEIS is Nonpotable Reclamation Project, was interpretive coordination activities based on a 1992 environmental impact developed in response to an order from would be undertaken by virtue of report (EIR) prepared by the City of San the Environmental Protection Agency slightly increased staff numbers. The Jose (City). The SBWRP would divert (EPA) and San Francisco Regional Water fourth alternative would expand the treated freshwater effluent from South Quality Control Board in order to re- Memorial’s natural resource base to San Francisco Bay through a water establish salinity levels of the salt water enhance the historic setting of the reclamation program. This would marsh in the southern tip of San Memorial; it would add approximately include construction of pump stations Francisco Bay. In addition to protecting 2,315 acres to the park, develop a Fort- and recycled distribution pipelines. the South Bay habitat, the program also Ocean trail with a commensurate Reclamation would provide a grant of develops nonpotable water supply for increase in staffing to manage the larger up to 25 percent of the total project cost the Santa Clara Valley, which can be land base. to the City to support the SBWRP. A used in place of potable water for public hearing will be held to receive appropriate purposes. Funding will Major impact topics assessed for the written or verbal comments on the DEIS come from loans from the State Water proposed action and the alternatives from interested organizations and Resources Control Board and EPA, a include cultural and natural resources, individuals on the environmental grant from Reclamation, and local visitor use, interpretation, regional impacts of the proposal. This notice funding. cooperation, park facilities/staffing/ corrects the date of availability of the The SBWRP would be implemented operations, visual/aural qualities, draft environmental impact statement in two phases: Phase I would consist of adjacent land uses and boundary published in 60 FR 37902, Jul 24, 1995 installing facilities to supply up to 9,000 adjustment/land protection. to August 2, 1995. acre-feet/year of nonpotable water for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The no- DATES: The DEIS will be available on landscape irrigation, agriculture and action period on this final plan and August 2, 1995 for a 60-day public industrial uses. Phase II would consist environmental impact statement will review period. of installing facilities to supply an end 30 days after the Environmental A public hearing on the DEIS will be additional up to 27,000 acre-feet/year Protection Agency has published a held on August 23, 1995 at 4:00 p.m. at for either nonpotable or potable use. notice of availability of the GMP/FEIS in the San Jose Convention Center, First The City completed a final EIR for the the Federal Register. For further Floor, Room L, 150 West San Carlos SBWRP in November 1992. At that time, information, contact: Superintendent, Street, San Jose, CA 95113. Reclamation had not been involved and Fort Clatsop National Memorial, Route ADDRESSES: Written comments on the therefore no compliance with NEPA was 3, Box 604–FC, Astoria, OR 97103–9803; DEIS and requests for copies of the DEIS needed. The EIS will be based on this telephone (503) 861–2471. should be addressed to Mona Jefferies- final EIR. The EIR analyzed Phase I in Copies of the GMP/FEIS will be Soniea, Bureau of Reclamation, Division detail and analyzed Phase II available at Fort Clatsop National of Resources Management Planning, programmatically. Memorial, as well as the following 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA The proposed action (Phase I) is to locations: Office of Public Affairs, 95825; telephone: (916) 979–2297. construct pump stations, storage tanks, National Park Service, Department of Copies of the DEIS are also available 48.5 miles of 6 to 54-inch diameter the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., for public inspection and review at the pipeline and appurtenant facilities in Washington, DC; and National Park following locations: the cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, and Service, Columbia Cascades System • Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Milpitas. There would also be minor Support Office, 909 First Ave., Seattle, Regional Liaison, 1849 C Street NW., modifications of the existing San Jose/ WA. Washington, DC 20240; telephone: (202) Santa Clara Water Pollution Control 208–6274. Plant to provide additional chlorination. Dated: July 25, 1995. • Bureau of Reclamation, Regional William C. Walters, Alternatives to the proposed action Director, Attn: MP–720, 2800 Cottage include: Deputy Field Director, Pacific West Area, Way, Sacramento, CA 95825–1898; • National Park Service. Pipeline Alignment Alternative, to telephone: (916) 979–2297. avoid construction of pipelines near [FR Doc. 95–19167 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] • Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific residences. BILLING CODE 4310±70±M Regional Library, 2800 Cottage Way, • Sacramento, CA. 95825–1898; Flow Allocation Alternative, which telephone: (916) 979–2462. would allocate most of the reclaimed Bureau of Reclamation • City of San Jose, Environmental water for potable uses. The water would Services Department, Tech. Support be used for groundwater recharge, South Bay Water Recycling Project, Division, 700 Los Esteros Road, San mainly using percolation basins. • San Jose, CA Jose, CA 95134; telephone: (408) 945– Habitat Enhancement Alternative, 5300. to also supply water to riparian AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, restoration areas along creeks and rivers Interior. Libraries in the study area, as well as for potable ACTION: Correction notice of availability Copies will also be available for and other nonpotable purposes. and notice of public hearings on the inspection at public libraries located in • No Action. 39968 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices Hearing Process Information Provided no formal expression of By the Commission, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. Written comments, for inclusion in intent to file an offer of financial Vernon A. Williams, the hearing record, from those unable to assistance (OFA) has been received, this attend the hearing or wishing to exemption will be effective on Secretary. supplement their oral presentation September 3, 1995, unless stayed [FR Doc. 95–19226 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] should be received at the Bureau of pending reconsideration. Petitions to BILLING CODE 7035±01±P Reclamation by September 6, 1995. stay that do not involve environmental issues,1 formal expressions of intent to Note: If special assistance is required, [Docket No. AB±449 (Sub-No. 1X)] contact Mona Jefferies-Soniea at (916) 979– file an OFA under 49 CFR 2 2297. Please notify Ms. Jefferies-Soniea as far 1152.27(c)(2), and trail use/rail banking Western Kentucky Railway, L.L.C.Ð in advance of the hearings as possible and requests under 49 CFR 1152.29 3 must Abandonment ExemptionÐin Union not later than 1 week prior to the hearing be filed by August 14, 1995. Petitions to County, KY date to enable Reclamation to secure the reopen or requests for public use needed services. If a request cannot be conditions under 49 CFR 1152.28 must Western Kentucky Railway, L.L.C. honored, the requester will be notified. be filed by August 24, 1995, with: Office (WKR), has filed a notice of exemption Dated: July 28, 1995. of the Secretary, Case Control Branch, under 49 CFR Part 1152 Subpart F— Dan M. Fults, Interstate Commerce Commission, Exempt Abandonments to abandon 20 Acting Regional Director. Washington, DC 20423. miles of its line between milepost JE48.0 [FR Doc. 95–19213 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] north of Dekoven, and milepost JE28.0 A copy of any pleading filed with the BILLING CODE 4310±94±P at Waverly, in Union County, KY. Commission should be sent to WKR has certified that: (1) No local applicant’s representative: Sarah J. traffic has moved over the line for at Whitley, Assistant General Counsel, least 2 years; (2) any overhead traffic INTERSTATE COMMERCE Burlington Northern Railroad Company, that could move over the line can be COMMISSION 3800 Continental Plaza, 777 Main rerouted over other lines; (3) no formal Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102–5348. complaint filed by a user of rail service [Docket No. AB±6 (Sub-No. 366X] If the notice of exemption contains on the line (or by a state or local Burlington Northern Railroad false or misleading information, the government entity acting on behalf of Company; Abandonment Exemption; exemption is void ab initio. such user) regarding cessation of service in Buchanan County, MO over the line either is pending with the BN has filed an environmental report Commission or with any U.S. District Burlington Northern Railroad which addresses the abandonment’s Court or has been decided in favor of Company (BN) has filed a notice of effects, if any, on the environmental and the complainant within the 2-year exemption under 49 CFR part 1152 historic resources. The Section of period; and (4) the requirements at 49 Subpart F—Exempt Abandonments to Environmental Analysis (SEA) will CFR 1105.7 (environmental report), 49 abandon 0.85 miles of rail line between issue an environmental assessment (EA) CFR 1105.8 (historic report), 49 CFR milepost 142.19 and milepost 143.04 in by August 9, 1995. Interested persons 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR the City of St. Joseph, in Buchanan may obtain a copy of the EA by writing 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and County, MO. to SEA (Room 3219, Interstate 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to BN has certified that: (1) No local Commerce Commission, Washington, governmental agencies) have been met. traffic has moved over the line for at DC 20423) or by calling Elaine Kaiser, As a condition to use of this least 2 years; (2) any overhead traffic on Chief of SEA, at (202) 927–6248. exemption, any employee adversely the line can be rerouted over other lines; Comments on environmental and affected by the abandonment shall be (3) no formal complaint filed by a user historic preservation matters must be protected under Oregon Short Line R. of rail service on the line (or by a State filed within 15 days after the EA is Co.—Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. or local government entity acting on available to the public. 91 (1979). To address whether this behalf of such user) regarding cessation condition adequately protects affected of service over the line either is pending Environmental, historic preservation, employees, a petition for partial with the Commission or with any U.S. public use, or trail use/rail banking revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10505(d) District Court or has been decided in conditions will be imposed, where must be filed. favor of the complainant within the 2- appropriate, in a subsequent decision. Provided no formal expression of year period; and (4) the requirements at Decided: July 28, 1995. intent to file an offer of financial 49 CFR 1105.7 (environmental report), assistance (OFA) has been received, this 49 CFR 1105.8 (historic report), 49 CFR 1 A stay will be issued routinely by the exemption will be effective on 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR Commission in those proceedings where an September 2, 1995, unless stayed 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and informed decision on environmental issues pending reconsideration. Petitions to 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to (whether raised by a party or by the Commission’s stay that do not involve environmental governmental agencies) have been met. Section of Environmental Analysis in its issues,1 formal expressions of intent to independent investigation) cannot be made prior to As a condition to this exemption, any the effective date of the notice of exemption. See employee adversely affected by the Exemption of Out-of-Service Rail Lines, 5 I.C.C.2d 1 A stay will be issued routinely by the abandonment shall be protected under 377 (1989). Any entity seeking a stay on Commission in those proceedings where an environmental concerns is encouraged to file its informed decision on environmental issues Oregon Short Line R. Co.— (whether raised by a party or by the Commission’s request as soon as possible in order to permit the Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91 Section of Environmental Analysis in its Commission to review and act on the request before (1979). To address whether this independent investigation) cannot be made before the effective date of this exemption. condition adequately protects affected the effective date of the notice of exemption. See 2 See Exempt. of Rail Abandonment—Offers of Exemption of Out-of-Service Rail Lines, 5 I.C.C.2d employees, a petition for partial Finan. Assist., 4 I.C.C.2d 164 (1987). 377 (1989). Any entity seeking a stay on revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10505(d) 3 The Commission will accept a late-filed trail use environmental concerns is encouraged to file its must be filed. request as long as it retains jurisdiction to do so. request as soon as possible in order to permit the Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39969 file an OFA under 49 CFR Hills, California (Respondent), dispensed or furnished dangerous drugs 1152.27(c)(2),2 and trail use/rail banking proposing to revoke his DEA Certificate without a good faith prior medical requests under 49 CFR 1152.29 3 must of Registration, BG2764226, and deny examination; and submitted Quarterly be filed by August 14, 1995. Petitions to any pending applications for Reports, executed under penalty of reopen or requests for public use registration as a practitioner. The perjury, falsely reporting compliance conditions under 49 CFR 1152.28 must statutory basis for the Order to Show with both Federal and State laws. On be filed by August 23, 1995, with: Office Cause was that the continued February 29, 1993, Respondent pled of the Secretary, Case Control Branch, registration of Respondent was nolo contendere in absentia to six Interstate Commerce Commission, 1201 inconsistent with the public interest and counts of state criminal charges that Respondent was no longer Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, involving controlled substances. On authorized to handle controlled DC 20423. August 3, 1993, the California Medical A copy of any pleading filed with the substances in the State of California. 21 Board revoked Respondent’s license to Commission should be sent to U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a) (3) and (4). applicant’s representative: Kelvin J. On December 9, 1993, Respondent practice medicine in the State of Dowd, Esq., Slover & Loftus, 1224 17th requested a hearing and the proceeding California effective September 3, 1993. St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. was docketed before Administrative On October 14, 1992, Respondent If the notice of exemption contains Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner. requested a modification of his DEA false or misleading information, the Following filing of prehearing registration from California to Georgia. exemption is void ab initio. statements by both parties, the On November 3, 1994, the Georgia WKR has filed an environmental Government filed a motion for summary Composite State Board of Medical report which addresses the disposition on November 30, 1994. No Examiners revoked Respondent’s abandonment’s effects, if any, on the response was filed by Respondent. No license to practice medicine in the State environment and historic resources. The evidentiary hearing was held as there of Georgia. Respondent does not deny were no factual issues involved, only a Section of Environmental Analysis that he is not licensed in California or question of law. The administrative law (SEA) will issue an environmental Georgia. assessment (EA) by August 8, 1995. judge issued her opinion and Interested persons may obtain a copy of recommended decision on December 23, DEA has consistently held that it does the EA by writing to SEA (Room 3219, 1994. No exception were filed by either not have statutory authority under the Interstate Commerce Commission, party. Controlled Substances Act to register a Washington, DC 20423) or by calling On January 23, 1995, the practitioner unless that practitioner is Elaine Kaiser, Chief of SEA, at (202) administrative law judge transmitted the authorized to dispense controlled 927–6248. Comments on environmental record of the proceeding to the Deputy substances by the state in which he and historic preservation matters must Administrator. After careful proposes to practice. See Lawrence R. be filed within 15 days after the EA is consideration of the record in its Alexander, M.D., 57 FR 22256 (1992); available to the public. entirety, the Deputy Administrator Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11919 (1988); Environmental, historic preservation, enters his final order in this matter, in Robert F. Witek, D.D.S., 52 FR 4770 public use, or trail use/rail banking accordance with 21 CFR 1316.67, based (1987). In such cases, a motion for on conclusions of law and facts conditions will be imposed, where summary disposition is properly contained in the record which were not appropriate, in a subsequent decision. entertained. There is no need for a disputed, as set forth herein. Decided: July 28, 1995. On October 24, 1987, the California plenary evidentiary hearing since there By the Commission, David M. Konschnik, Medical Board suspended Respondent’s are no questions of fact to be resolved Director, Office of Proceedings. state medical license for ninety days by such a hearing. Phillip E. Kirk, M.D., Vernon A. Williams, and placed him on probation for eight 48 FR 32887 (1983), aff’d sub nom, Kirk Secretary. years upon a finding that Respondent v. Mullen, 749 F.2d 297 (6th Cir. 1984); [FR Doc. 95–19227 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] failed to supervise a physician’s Floyd A. Santner, M.D., 47 FR 51831 BILLING CODE FR±7035±01±P assistant and that such failure (1982). Therefore, because Respondent constituted an extreme departure from is no longer authorized to handle the Standard of medical practice in controlled substances in the State of DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Southern California. On May 13, 1991, California or the State of Georgia, the Respondent falsified an application for states in which Respondent proposes to Drug Enforcement Administration a new DEA Certificate of Registration by practice, the Deputy Administrator [Docket No. 94±16] answering ‘‘no’’ to the liability question cannot permit him to maintain a DEA concerning revocation, suspension, Certificate of Registration in either state. denial, restriction, or probation of state Barnett J.W. Grier, Jr., M.D., Accordingly, the Deputy Revocation of Registration professional license or controlled substance registration. Administrator of the Drug Enforcement On November 1, 1993, the Deputy On October 2, 1992, the California Administration, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Assistant Administrator (then-Director), Medical Board petitioned to revoke 823 and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and Office of Diversion Control, Drug Respondent’s probation because he had 0.104, hereby orders that DEA Enforcement Administration (DEA), violated the terms of his probation by Certificate of Registration, BG2764226, issued an Order to Show Cause to issuing numerous prescriptions for previously issued to Barnett J.W. Grier, Barnett J.W. Grier, Jr., M.D. of Beverly controlled substances, including Jr., M.D., be, and it is hereby, revoked, Promethazine with codeine, Emperin and any pending application for Commission to review and act on the request before with codeine, Tylenol #3 with codeine, renewal of such registration be, and they the effective date of this exemption. and Phenergan with codeine for other hereby are, denied, and that any request 2 See Exempt. of Rail Abandonment—Offers of Finan. Assist., 4 I.C.C.2d 164 (1987). than a legitimate medical purpose. The for modification be, and it hereby is, 3 The Commission will accept a late-filed trail use California Medical Board also found denied. This order is effective request as long as it retains jurisdiction to do so. that Respondent had prescribed, September 5, 1995. 39970 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices Dated: July 28, 1995. promulgated after public comments 1994; hearing scheduled for August 11, Stephen H. Greene, requested March 16, 1994; hearing 1994; (no comments were received). The Deputy Administrator. scheduled for April 7, 1994; (no standard was effective September 14, [FR Doc. 95–19168 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] comments were received). The standard 1994; and notice of its adoption was BILLING CODE 4410±09±M was effective May 11, 1994; and notice published by the State on September 14, of its adoption was published by the 1994. State on May 11, 1994. In the October 19, 1994 letter, the DEPARTMENT OF LABOR In the June 13, 1994 letter, the State State also submitted State standards also submitted State standards comparable to: Electric Power Occupational Safety and Health comparable to: Occupational Safety and Generation, Transmission, and Administration Health Standards for Cadmium for distribution; electrical protective Shipyards Employment and equipment, correction; as published in Iowa State Standards; Notice of Construction, Redesignation; as the Federal Register (59 FR 33661, Approval published in the Federal Register (59 dated June 30, 1994). This standard, FR 215, dated January 3, 1994). This which is contained in Chapter 88 of the 1. Background. Part 1953 of Title 29, standard, which is contained in Chapter Code of Iowa (1983), was promulgated Code of Federal Regulations prescribes 88 of the Code of Iowa (1983), was after public comments requested August procedures under Section 18 of the promulgated after public comments 3, 1994; hearing scheduled for August Occupational Safety and Health Act of requested March 16, 1994; hearing 25, 1994; (no comments were received). 1970 (29 U.S.C. 667; hereinafter called scheduled for April 7, 1994; (no The standard was effective September the Act) by which the Regional comments were received). The standard 28, 1994; and notice of its adoption was Administrators for Occupational Safety was effective May 11, 1994; and notice published by the State on September 28, and Health (hereinafter called the of its adoption was published by the 1994. Regional Administrator) under a State on May 11, 1994. In the October 19, 1994 letter, the delegation of authority from the In the June 13, 1994 letter, the State State also submitted State standards Assistant Secretary of Labor for also submitted State standards comparable to: Personal Protective Occupational Safety and Health comparable to: Hazard Communication; Equipment for General Industry, (hereinafter called the Assistant as published in the Federal Register (59 correction; as published in the Federal Secretary) (29 CFR 1953.4) will review FR 6170, dated February 9, 1994). This Register (59 FR 33910, dated July 1, and approve standards promulgated standard, which is contained in Chapter 1994). This standard, which is pursuant to a State Plan which has been 88 of the Code of Iowa (1983), was contained in Chapter 88 of the Code of approved in accordance with Section promulgated after public comments Iowa (1983), was promulgated after 18(c) of the Act and 29 CFR part 1902. requested March 16, 1994; hearing public comments requested August 3, On July 20, 1973, notice was published scheduled for April 7, 1994; (no 1994; hearing scheduled for August 25, in the Federal Register (38 FR 19368) of comments were received). The standard 1994; (no comments were received). The the approval of the Iowa Plan and the was effective May 11, 1994; and notice standard was effective September 28, adoption of subpart J of part 1952 of its adoption was published by the 1994; and notice of its adoption was containing the decision. Iowa was State on May 11, 1994. published by the State on September 28, granted final approval under Section By letter dated July 29, 1994, from 1994. 18(e) of the Act on July 2, 1985. The Walter H. Johnson, Deputy Labor In the October 19, 1994 letter, the Iowa Plan provides for the adoption of Commissioner, to Alonzo L. Griffin, State also submitted State standards Federal standards by reference after Area Director, and incorporated as part comparable to: Retention of DOT comments and public hearing). By a of the Plan, the State submitted State Markings, Placards, and Labels; as letter dated June 13, 1994, from Walter standards comparable to: Personal published in the Federal Register (59 H. Johnson, Deputy Labor Protective Equipment for General FR 36699, dated July 19, 1994). This Commissioner, to Alonzo L. Griffin, Industry; as published in the Federal standard, which is contained in Chapter Area Director, and incorporated as part Register (59 FR 16360, dated April 6, 88 of the Code of Iowa (1983), was of the Plan, the State submitted State 1994). This standard, which is promulgated after public comments standards comparable to: Electric Power contained in Chapter 88 of the Code of requested July 20, 1994; hearing Generation Transmission and Iowa (1983), was promulgated after scheduled for August 11, 1994; (no Distribution; Electrical Protective public comments requested May 11, comments were received). The standard Equipment; as published in the Federal 1994; hearing scheduled for June 2, was effective September 14, 1994; and Register (59 FR 4435, dated January 31, 1994; (no comments were received). The notice of its adoption was published by 1994). This standard, which is standard was effective July 6, 1994; and the State on September 14, 1994. contained in Chapter 88 of the Code of notice of its adoption was published by By letter dated February 21, 1995, Iowa (1983), was promulgated after the State on July 6, 1994. from Walter H. Johnson, Deputy Labor public comments requested March 16, By letter dated October 19, 1994, from Commissioner, to Alonzo L. Griffin, 1994; hearing scheduled for April 7, Walter H. Johnson, Deputy Labor Area Director, and incorporated as part 1994; (no comments were received). The Commissioner, to Alonzo L. Griffin, of the Plan, the State submitted State standard was effective May 11, 1994; Area Director, and incorporated as part standards comparable to: Safety and notice of its adoption was of the Plan, the State submitted State Standards for Fall Protection in the published by the State on May 11, 1994. standards comparable to: Permit- Construction industry; as published in In the June 13, 1994 letter, the State Required Confined Spaces, technical the Federal Register (59 FR 40729, also submitted State standards amendment; as published in the Federal dated August 9, 1994). This standard, comparable to: Hazard Communication; Register (59 FR 26115, dated May 19, which is contained in Chapter 88 of the as published in the Federal Register (59 1994). This standard, which is Code of Iowa (1983), was promulgated FR 6169, dated February 9, 1994). This contained in Chapter 88 of the Code of after public comments requested standard, which is contained in Chapter Iowa (1983), was promulgated after September 14, 1994; hearing scheduled 88 of the Code of Iowa (1983), was public comments requested July 20, for October 6, 1994; (no comments were Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39971 received). The standard was effective contained in Chapter 88 of the Code of standards and should therefore be November 9, 1994; and notice of its Iowa (1983), was promulgated after approved. adoption was published by the State on public comments requested September OSHA has determined that the State November 9, 1994. 14, 1994; hearing scheduled for October standard for 347–4.8(88) is at least as In the February 21, 1995 letter, the 6, 1994; (no comments were received). effective as the comparable Federal State also submitted State standards The standard was effective November 9, standard, as required by section 18(c)(2) comparable to: Occupational Exposure 1994; and notice of its adoption was of the Act. OSHA has also determined to Asbestos; as published in the Federal published by the State on November 9, Register (59 FR 41057, dated August 10, 1994. that the differences between the State and Federal standards are minimal and 1994). This standard, which is In the February 21, 1995 letter, the contained in Chapter 88 of the Code of State also submitted State standards that the standards are thus substantially Iowa (1983), was promulgated after comparable to: Hazardous Waste identical. OSHA therefore approves this public comments requested September Operations and Emergency Response; as standard; however, the right to 14, 1994; hearing scheduled for October published in the Federal Register (59 reconsider this approval is reserved 6, 1994; (no comments were received). FR 43275, dated August 22, 1994). This should substantial objections be The standard was effective November 9, standard, which is contained in Chapter submitted to the Assistant Secretary. 1994; and notice of its adoption was 88 of the Code of Iowa (1983), was 3. Location of Supplement for published by the State on November 9, promulgated after public comments Inspection and Copying. A copy of the 1994. requested September 28, 1994; hearing standard supplement, along with the In the February 21, 1995 letter, the scheduled for October 20, 1994; (no State also submitted State standards approved plan, may be inspected and comments were received). The standard copied during normal business hours at comparable to: Hazardous Waste was effective November 23, 1994; and Operations and Emergency Response; as the following locations: Directorate of notice of its adoption was published by Federal/State Operations, Office of State published in the Federal Register (59 the State on November 23, 1994. FR 43270, dated August 12, 1994). This Programs, Room N3700, 200 In the February 21, 1995 letter, the standard, which is contained in Chapter Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, State also submitted State standards 88 of the Code of Iowa (1983), was DC 20210; Office of the Regional comparable to: Logging Operations; as promulgated after public comments Administrator, Occupational Safety and published in the Federal Register (59 requested September 28, 1994; hearing Health Administration, 406 Federal FR 51748, dated October 12, 1994). This scheduled for October 20, 1994; (no Office Building, 911 Walnut Street, standard, which is contained in Chapter comments were received). The standard 88 of the Code of Iowa (1983), was Kansas City, Missouri 64106; and was effective November 23, 1994; and promulgated after public comments Division of Labor Services, 1000 East notice of its adoption was published by Grand Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa 50319. the State on November 23, 1994. requested November 9, 1994; hearing In the February 21, 1995 letter, the scheduled for December 1, 1994; (no 4. Public Participation. Under 29 CFR State also submitted State standards comments were received). The standard 1953.2(c) of this Chapter, the Assistant comparable to: Logging Operations; as was effective February 1, 1995; and Secretary may prescribe alternative published in the Federal Register (59 notice of its adoption was published by procedures to expedite the review FR 51741, dated October 12, 1994). This the State on February 1, 1995. process or for other good cause which standard, which is contained in Chapter By letter dated November 8, 1994, may be consistent with applicable laws. 88 of the Code of Iowa (1983), was from Walter H. Johnson, Deputy Labor The Assistant Secretary finds that good promulgated after public comments Commissioner, to Alonzo L. Griffin, cause exists for not publishing the requested November 9, 1994; hearing Area Director, and incorporated as part supplement to the Iowa State Plan as a scheduled for December 1, 1994; (no of the Plan, the State submitted State proposed change and for making the comments were received). The standard standards comparable to: Reporting of Regional Administrator’s approval was effective February 1, 1995; and fatality or multiple hospitalization effective upon publication for the notice of its adoption was published by incidents; as published in the Federal following reasons: the State on February 1, 1995. Register (59 FR 15594, dated April 1, In the February 21, 1995 letter, the 1994). This standard, which is 1. The standards are identical to the State also submitted State standards contained in Chapter 88 of the Code of comparable Federal standards, with the comparable to: Safety Standards for Fall Iowa (1993), was promulgated after exception of 1904.8, and are therefore Protection in the Construction Industry; public comments requested July 26, deemed to be at least as effective. as published in the Federal Register (59 1994; hearing scheduled for July 28, 2. The standards were adopted in FR 40729, dated August 9, 1994). This 1994; (no comments were received). The accordance with the procedural standard, which is contained in Chapter standard was effective October 26, 1994; requirements of State law and further 88 of the Code of Iowa (1983), was and notice of its adoption was public participation and notice would promulgated after public comments published by the State on October 26, be unnecessary. requested September 14, 1994; hearing 1994. This decision is effective August 4, scheduled for October 6, 1994; (no 2. Decision. All of the above State comments were received). The standard submissions have been compared to 1995. was effective November 9, 1994; and federal standards and it has been (Section 18, Public Law 91–596, 84 Stat. 1608 notice of its adoption was published by determined that they are identical to the [29 U.S.C. 667]) the State on November 9, 1994. comparable federal standard and should Signed at Kansas City, Missouri, this 11th In the February 21, 1995 letter, the therefore be approved. Having reviewed day of July, 1995. State also submitted State standards the State submission, in comparison Marcia Drumm, comparable to: Occupational Exposure with the Federal standards, it has been Acting Regional Administrator. to Asbestos; as published in the Federal determined that the State standards, Register (59 FR 41131, dated August 10, with the exception of 1904.8, are [FR Doc. 95–19202 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] 1994). This standard, which is identical to the comparable Federal BILLING CODE 4510±26±M 39972 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices Employment Standards applicable decision, together with any Volume I Administration; Wage and Hour modifications issued, must be made a New Jersey Division part of every contract for performance of NJ950002 (Feb. 10, 1995) the described work within the NJ950003 (Feb. 10, 1995) Minimum Wages for Federal and geographic area indicated as required by NJ950004 (Feb. 10, 1995) Federally Assisted Construction; an applicable Federal prevailing wage NJ950008 (Feb. 10, 1995) General Wage Determination Decisions law and 29 CFR Part 5. The wage rates NJ950021 (Feb. 10, 1995) Volume II General wage determination decisions and fringe benefits, notice of which is of the Secretary of Labor are issued in published herein, and which are Pennsylvania accordance with applicable law and are contained in the Government Printing PA950005 (Feb. 10, 1995) PA950006 (Feb. 10, 1995) based on the information obtained by Office (GPO) document entitled ‘‘General Wage Determinations Issued PA950007 (Feb. 10, 1995) the Department of Labor from its study PA950008 (Feb. 10, 1995) of local wage conditions and data made Under The Davis-Bacon And Related Acts,’’ shall be the minimum paid by PA950009 (Feb. 10, 1995) available from other sources. They PA950010 (Feb. 10, 1995) specify the basic hourly wage rates and contractors and subcontractors to PA950012 (Feb. 10, 1995) fringe benefits which are determined to laborers and mechanics. PA950015 (Feb. 10, 1995) be prevailing for the described classes of Any person, organization, or PA950019 (Feb. 10, 1995) laborers and mechanics employed on governmental agency having an interest PA950021 (Feb. 10, 1995) in the rates determined as prevailing is PA950023 (Feb. 10, 1995) construction projects of a similar PA950028 (Feb. 10, 1995) character and in the localities specified encouraged to submit wage rate and PA950029 (Feb. 10, 1995) therein. fringe benefit information for PA950040 (Feb. 10, 1995) The determinations in these decisions consideration by the Department. PA950054 (Feb. 10, 1995) of prevailing rates and fringe benefits Further information and self- PA950060 (Feb. 10, 1995) have been made in accordance with 29 explanatory forms for the purpose of Volume III CFR Part 1, by authority of the Secretary submitting this data may be obtained by of Labor pursuant to the provisions of writing to the U.S. Department of Labor, Georgia the Davis-Bacon Act of March 3, 1931, Employment Standards Administration, GA950003 (Feb. 10, 1995) GA950022 (Feb. 10, 1995) as amended (46 Stat. 1494, as amended, Wage and Hour Division, Division of GA950032 (Feb. 10, 1995) 40 U.S.C. 276a) and of other Federal Wage Determinations, 200 Constitution GA950040 (Feb. 10, 1995) statutes referred to in 29 CFR Part 1, Avenue, N.W., Room S–3014, GA950050 (Feb. 10, 1995) Appendix, as well as such additional Washington, D.C. 20210. GA950065 (Feb. 10, 1995) statutes as may from time to time be GA950073 (Feb. 10, 1995) Withdrawn General Wage enacted containing provisions for the GA950084 (Jul. 14, 1995) Determination Decisions payment of wages determined to be Volume IV prevailing by the Secretary of Labor in This is to advise all interested parties Illinois accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act. that the Department of Labor is IL950001 (Feb. 10, 1995) The prevailing rates and fringe benefits withdrawing, from the date of this IL950002 (Feb. 10, 1995) determined in these decisions shall, in notice, General Wage Determination IL950003 (Feb. 10, 1995) accordance with the provisions of the Nos. OK950016, OK950018 and IL950004 (Feb. 10, 1995) foregoing statutes, constitute the OK950024 dated February 10, 1994. IL950005 (Feb. 10, 1995) minimum wages payable on Federal and IL950007 (Feb. 10, 1995) federally assisted construction projects Agencies with construction projects IL950008 (Feb. 10, 1995) to laborers and mechanics of the pending, to which this wage decision IL950009 (Feb. 10, 1995) specified classes engaged on contract would have been applicable, should IL950011 (Feb. 10, 1995) IL950012 (Feb. 10, 1995) work of the character and in the utilize the project determination procedure by submitting an SF–308. IL950013 (Feb. 10, 1995) localities described therein. IL950014 (Feb. 10, 1995) Good cause is hereby found for not Contracts for which bids have been opened shall not be affected by this IL950015 (Feb. 10, 1995) utilizing notice and public comment IL950016 (Feb. 10, 1995) procedure thereon prior to the issuance notice. Also, consistent with 29 CFR IL950017 (Feb. 10, 1995) of these determinations as prescribed in 1.6(c)(2)(i)(A), when the opening of bids IL950023 (Feb. 10, 1995) 5 U.S.C. 553 and not providing for delay is less than ten (10) days from the date IL950029 (Feb. 10, 1995) in the effective data as prescribed in that of this notice, this action shall be IL950030 (Feb. 10, 1995) section, because the necessity to issue effective unless the agency finds that IL950042 (Feb. 10, 1995) current construction industry wage there is insufficient time to notify IL950043 (Feb. 10, 1995) IL950049 (Feb. 10, 1995) determinations frequently and in large bidders of the change and the finding is documented in the contract file. IL950052 (Feb. 10, 1995) volume causes procedures to be IL950061 (Feb. 10, 1995) impractical and contrary to the public Modifications to General Wage IL950069 (Feb. 10, 1995) interest. Determination Decisions IL950075 (Feb. 10, 1995) General wage determination IL950079 (Feb. 10, 1995) decisions, and modifications and The number of decisions listed in the IL950094 (Feb. 10, 1995) supersedeas decisions thereto, contain Government Printing Office document Minnesota no expiration dates and are effective entitled ‘‘General Wage Determinations MN950058 (Feb. 10, 1995) from their date of notice in the Federal Issued Under the Davis-Bacon and Ohio OH950001 (Feb. 10, 1995) Register, or on the date written notice Related Acts’’ being modified are listed OH950002 (Feb. 10, 1995) is received by the agency, whichever is by Volume and State. Dates of OH950003 (Feb. 10, 1995) earlier. These decisions are to be used publication in the Federal Register are OH950012 (Feb. 10, 1995) in accordance with the provisions of 29 in parentheses following the decisions OH950024 (Feb. 10, 1995) CFR Parts 1 and 5. Accordingly, the being modified. OH950026 (Feb. 10, 1995) Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39973 OH950027 (Feb. 10, 1995) Determinations Issued Under the Davis- consistency with 10 CFR part 20, and OH950028 (Feb. 10, 1995) Bacon and Related Acts’’. This change administrative controls for OH950029 (Feb. 10, 1995) publication is available at each of the 50 reporting and recordkeeping to maintain OH950034 (Feb. 10, 1995) Regional Government Depository compliance with the new 10 CFR part Volume V Libraries and many of the 1,400 20. The changes would revise the Kansas Government Depository Libraries across limitations on concentrations of KS950023 (Feb. 10, 1995) the country. radioactive material released in liquid KS950035 (Feb. 10, 1995) The general wage determinations effluents and the limitations on the dose New Mexico issued under the Davis-Bacon and rate resulting from radioactive material NM950001 (Feb. 10, 1995) related Acts are available electronically released in gaseous effluents and reflect NM950005 (Feb. 10, 1995) by subscription to the FedWorld the relocation of the prior 10 CFR Texas 20.106 requirements to the new 10 CFR TX950002 (Feb. 10, 1995) Bulletin Board System of the National TX950003 (Feb. 10, 1995) Technical Information Service (NTIS) of 20.1302. These changes are in response TX950005 (Feb. 10, 1995) the U.S. Department of Commerce at to the licensee’s application for TX950007 (Feb. 10, 1995) (703) 487–4630. amendment dated August 12, 1994, TX950010 (Feb. 10, 1995) Hard-copy subscriptions may be implementing the new 10 CFR part 20. TX950015 (Feb. 10, 1995) purchased from: Superintendent of The Need for the Proposed Action TX950018 (Feb. 10, 1995) Documents, U.S. Government Printing TX950019 (Feb. 10, 1995) Office, Washington, DC 20402, (202) The proposed action is needed in TX950033 (Feb. 10, 1995) order to retain operational flexibility TX950034 (Feb. 10, 1995) 512–1800. When ordering hard-copy consistent with 10 CFR part 50, TX950037 (Feb. 10, 1995) appendix I, concurrent with the TX950051 (Feb. 10, 1995) subscription(s), be sure to specify the TX950053 (Feb. 10, 1995) State(s) of interest, since subscriptions implementation of the revised 10 CFR TX950055 (Feb. 10, 1995) may be ordered for any or all of the six part 20. TX950059 (Feb. 10, 1995) separate volumes, arranged by State. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed TX950060 (Feb. 10, 1995) Subscriptions include an annual edition Action TX950061 (Feb. 10, 1995) (issued in January or February) which TX950063 (Feb. 10, 1995) The Commission has completed its includes all current general wage TX950069 (Feb. 10, 1995) evaluation of the proposed action, in determinations for the States covered by TX950081 (Feb. 10, 1995) regard to the actual release rates as each volume. Throughout the remainder TX950093 (Feb. 10, 1995) referenced in the Technical of the year, regular weekly updates are TX950096 (Feb. 10, 1995) Specifications as a dose rate to the TX950100 (Feb. 10, 1995) distributed to subscribers. TX950114 (Feb. 10, 1995) maximally exposed member of the Signed at Washington, D.C. this 28th day public, and concludes that the change Volume VI of July 1995. will not increase the probability or Alaska Alan L. Moss, consequences of accidents, no changes AK950001 (Feb. 10, 1995) Director, Division of Wage Determinations. are being made in the types of any Arizona [FR Doc. 95–18982 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] effluents that may be released offsite, AZ950001 (Feb. 10, 1995) and there is no significant increase in AZ950002 (Feb. 10, 1995) BILLING CODE 4510±27±M AZ950003 (Feb. 10, 1995) the allowable individual or cumulative AZ950005 (Feb. 10, 1995) occupational radiation exposure. AZ950006 (Feb. 10, 1995) NUCLEAR REGULATORY Accordingly, the Commission concludes AZ950007 (Feb. 10, 1995) COMMISSION that there are no significant radiological AZ950011 (Feb. 10, 1995) environmental impacts associated with AZ950013 (Feb. 10, 1995) [Docket Nos. 50±445 and 50±446] the proposed action. AZ950014 (Feb. 10, 1995) With regard to potential AZ950015 (Feb. 10, 1995) Texas Utilities Electric Company; nonradiological impacts, the proposed AZ950016 (Feb. 10, 1995) Comanche Peak Steam Electric action does not affect nonradiological AZ950017 (Feb. 10, 1995) Station, Units 1 and 2; Environmental plant effluents and has no other Colorado Assessment and Finding of No CO950011 (Feb. 10, 1995) environmental impact. Accordingly, the CO950025 (Feb. 10, 1995) Significant Impact Commission concludes that there are no Idaho The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory significant nonradiological ID950001 (Feb. 10, 1995) Commission (the Commission) is environmental impacts associated with ID950004 (Feb. 10, 1995) the proposed action. ID950013 (Jul. 28, 1995) considering issuance of an amendment Washington to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– Alternatives to the Proposed Action WA950001 (Feb. 10, 1995) 87 and NPF–89, issued to Texas Utilities Since the Commission has concluded WA950002 (Feb. 10, 1995) Electric Company (TU Electric, the there is no measurable environmental WA950003 (Feb. 10, 1995) licensee), for operation of the Comanche WA950007 (Feb. 10, 1995) impact associated with the proposed Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), action, any alternatives with equal or WA950025 (Feb. 10, 1995) Units 1 and 2, located in Somervell WA950027 (Feb. 10, 1995) greater environmental impact need not County, Texas. be evaluated. As an alternative to the General Wage Determination Environmental Assessment proposed action, the staff considered Publication denial of the proposed action. Denial of General wage determinations issued Identification of Proposed Action the application would result in no under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts, The proposed amendment would change in current environmental including those noted above, may be consist of revisions to 10 CFR part 20 impacts. The environmental impacts of found in the Government Printing Office references to recognize the new section the proposed action and the alternative (GPO) document entitled ‘‘General Wage numbers, revise definitions to ensure action are similar. 39974 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices Alternative Use of Resources II Currently, unescorted access into the This action does not involve the use In 10 CFR 73.55, ‘‘Requirements for protected area for both employee and of any resources not previously Physical Protection of Licensed contractor personnel into the Braidwood considered in the Final Environmental Activities in Nuclear Power Reactors Station, Units 1 and 2, is controlled Statement for the CPSES, Units 1 and 2, Against Radiological Sabotage,’’ through the use of picture badges. dated October 1989. paragraph (a), in part, states that ‘‘the Positive identification of personnel which are authorized and request access Agencies and Persons Consulted licensee shall establish and maintain an onsite physical protection system and into the protected area is established by security personnel making a visual In accordance with its stated policy, security organization which will have as comparison of the individual requesting on July 20, 1995, the staff consulted its objective to provide high assurance access and that individual’s picture with the Texas State official, Mr. Arthur that activities involving special nuclear badge. In accordance with 10 CFR Tate of the Texas Department of Health, material are not inimical to the common 73.55(d)(5), contractor personnel are not Bureau of Radiation Control, regarding defense and security and do not allowed to take their picture badges off the environmental impact of the constitute an unreasonable risk to the site. In addition, in accordance with the proposed action. The State official had public health and safety.’’ plant’s physical security plan, the no comments. In 10 CFR 73.55(d), ‘‘Access licensee’s employees are also not Requirements,’’ paragraph (1), it Finding of No Significant Impact allowed to take their picture badges off specifies that ‘‘the licensee shall control Based upon the environmental site. all points of personnel and vehicle assessment, the Commission concludes The proposed system will require that access into a protected area.’’ Also, 10 that the proposed action will not have all individuals with authorized a significant effect on the quality of the CFR 73.55(d)(5) requires that ‘‘A unescorted access have the physical human environment. Accordingly, the numbered picture badge identification characteristics of their hand (hand Commission has determined not to system shall be used for all individuals geometry) registered with their picture prepare an environmental impact who are authorized access to protected badge number in a computerized access statement for the proposed action. areas without escort.’’ It further states control system. Therefore, all authorized For further details with respect to this that individuals not employed by the individuals must not only have their action, see the application for licensee (e.g., contractors) may be picture badge to gain access to the amendment dated August 12, 1994, authorized access to protected areas protected area, but must also have their which is available for public inspection without escort provided that the hand geometry confirmed. All at the Commission’s Public Document individual, ‘‘receives a picture badge individuals, including contractors, who Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L upon entrance into a protected area have authorized unescorted access into Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the which must be returned upon exit from the protected area will be allowed to local public document room located at the protected area * * *.’’ keep their picture badges in their the University of Texas at Arlington The licensee proposes to implement possession when departing the Library, Government Publications/ an alternative unescorted access system Braidwood site. Maps, 702 College, P.O. Box 19497, which would eliminate the need to All other access processes, including Arlington, TX 76019. issue and retrieve picture badges at the search function capability and access entrance/exit location to the protected revocation, will remain the same. A Dated Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of area and would allow all individuals, July 1995. security officer responsible for access including contractors, to keep their control will continue to be positioned For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. picture badges in their possession when within a bullet-resistant structure. It Chandu P. Patel, departing the Braidwood site. should also be noted that the proposed Project Manager, Division of Reactor Projects III system is only for individuals with III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. authorized unescorted access and will [FR Doc. 95–19197 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] Pursuant to 10 CFR 73.5, ‘‘Specific not be used for those individuals BILLING CODE 7590±01±M exemptions,’’ the Commission may, requiring escorts. upon application of any interested Sandia National Laboratories [Docket Nos. STN 50±456 and STN 50±457] person or upon its own initiative, grant conducted testing which demonstrated such exemptions from the requirements that the hand geometry equipment Commonwealth Edison Company of the regulations in this part as it possesses strong performance (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2); determines are authorized by law and characteristics. Details of the testing Exemption will not endanger life or property or the performed are in the Sandia report, ‘‘A common defense and security, and are Performance Evaluation of Biometric I otherwise in the public interest. Identification Devices,’’ SAND91—0276 The Commonwealth Edison Company According to 10 CFR 73.55, the UC—906 Unlimited Release, June 1991. (ComEd, the licensee) is the holder of Commission may authorize a licensee to Based on the Sandia report and the Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–72 provide alternative measures for licensee’s experience using the current and NPF–77, which authorize operation protection against radiological sabotage photo picture identification system, the of Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 (the provided the licensee demonstrates that false acceptance rate for the proposed facilities). The licenses provide, among the alternative measures have the same hand geometry system would be at least other things, that the facilities are ‘‘high assurance’’ objective, that the equivalent to that of the current system. subject to all the rules, regulations, and proposed measures meet the general To assure that the proposed system will orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory performance requirements of the continue to meet the general Commission (the Commission) now or regulation, and that the overall level of performance requirements of 10 CFR hereafter in effect. system performance provides protection 73.55(d)(5), the licensee will implement The facilities are pressurized water against radiological sabotage equivalent a process for testing the system. The site reactors located at the licensee’s site in to that which would be provided by the security plans will also be revised to Will County, Illinois. regulation. allow implementation of the hand Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39975 geometry system and to allow among other things, that the licensee is performance of the overall air lock employees and contractors with subject to all rules, regulations and leakage test. The licensee indicated that unescorted access to keep their picture orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory performance of the overall air lock test badges in their possession when leaving Commission (the Commission) now or is very time consuming and results in the Braidwood site. hereafter in effect. additional occupational radiation The facilities are two pressurized exposure. The proposed exemption IV water reactors located at the licensee’s would allow local leakage testing to be For the foregoing reasons, the NRC site in Beaver County, Pennsylvania substituted for the overall air lock staff has determined that the proposed II leakage test when the design of the alternative measures for protection components permits local leakage rate Section 50.54(o) of 10 CFR part 50 against radiological sabotage meet the testing at a pressure of at least Pa. A same high assurance objective and the requires that primary reactor leakage rate would then be measured in general performance requirements of 10 containments for water cooled power accordance with the requirements of CFR 73.55. In addition, the staff has reactors be subject to the requirements appendix J. The typical air lock determined that the overall level of the of appendix J to 10 CFR part 50. components which could be tested in proposed systems’s performance will Appendix J contains the leakage test this manner are components such as the provide protection against radiological requirements, schedules, and o-ring seals on the personnel air lock sabotage equivalent to that which is acceptance criteria for tests of the leak door(s), the mechanical penetrations for provided by the current system in tight integrity for the primary reactor the 18-inch escape hatches, and the accordance with 10 CFR 73.55. containment and systems and equalizing valves located on each of the Accordingly, the Commission has components which penetrate the air lock doors. Pursuant to 10 CFR determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR containment. 50.12, the Commission may, upon 73.5, this exemption is authorized by Section III.D.2(b)(ii) of appendix J to application by any interested person or law, will not endanger life or property 10 CFR part 50 requires that an overall upon its own initiative, grant or common defense and security, and is air lock Type B test shall be performed exemptions from the requirements of 10 otherwise in the public interest. on air locks opened during periods CFR part 50 when (1) The exemptions Therefore, the Commission hereby when containment integrity is not are authorized by law, will not present grants the following exemption: required by the plant’s Technical an undue risk to public health or safety, The requirement of 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5) that Specifications at the end of such periods and are consistent with the common individuals who have been granted at not less than Pa (the calculated peak defense and security; and (2) when unescorted access and are not employed by containment internal pressure related to special circumstances are present. the licensee are to return their picture badges the design basis accident and specified Special circumstances are present upon exit from the protected area is no longer either in the technical specification or necessary. Thus, these individuals may keep whenever, according to 10 CFR associated bases). The overall air lock 50.12(a)(2)(ii), ‘‘Application of the their picture badges in their possession upon Type B tests are intended to detect local leaving the Braidwood site. regulation in the particular leaks and measure leakage across each circumstances would not serve the Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the pressure-containing or leakage-limiting underlying purpose of the rule or is not Commission has determined that the boundary of the air locks. necessary to achieve the underlying granting of this exemption will not purpose of the rule. * * *’’ The result in any significant adverse III underlying purpose of the airlock Type environmental impact (60 FR 38855). By letter dated February 4, 1994, the B testing is to ensure that each Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day licensee requested an exemption to the requirements of Section III.D.2(b)(ii) of containment air lock will perform its of July 1995. safety function as part of the For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 10 CFR part 50, appendix J. The proposed exemption would permit local containment to control offsite radiation Jack W. Roe, leak rate testing to be substituted for an exposure resulting from a design basis Director, Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV, overall air lock leakage test where the accident. The proposed local leakage Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. design permits. The exemption would testing is sufficient to achieve the [FR Doc. 95–19198 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] be applicable to only those air lock underlying purpose of the requirements BILLING CODE 7590±01±P components which are designed to be of 10 CFR part 50, appendix J, section local leakage rate tested at a pressure of III.D.2(b)(ii) because it provides adequate assurance of the continued [Docket Nos. 50±334 and 50±412] at least Pa. The leakage rate of each component would then be measured leak-tight integrity of the air lock(s). As Duquesne Light Company, Ohio and verified to be within acceptable a result, the application of the Edison Company, Pennsylvania Power limits (i.e., containment leakage would regulation in the particular Company, The Cleveland Electric be limited such that offsite radiation circumstances is not necessary to Illuminating Company, The Toledo exposures will not exceed the achieve the underlying purpose of the Edison Company (Beaver Valley Power guidelines of 10 CFR part 100 in the rule. Station, Units 1 and 2); Exemption event of a design basis accident). With respect to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(1), the NRC staff has I IV concluded that the requested action is Duquesne Light Company, et al. (the The licensee presented information in authorized by law in that no prohibition licensee), is the holder of Operating support of its request for an exemption of law exists which would preclude the License Nos. DPR–66 and NPF–73, from the requirements of section activities which would be authorized by which authorize operation of the Beaver III.D.2(b)(ii) of appendix J to 10 CFR part the exemption. In addition, for the Valley Power Station, Units Nos. 1 and 50. The proposed exemption would reasons discussed above, the NRC staff 2, at steady state reactor core power allow maintenance to be performed on has determined that the requested levels not in excess of 2652 megawatts the air lock that could affect its sealing exemption does not present an undue thermal (per unit). The licenses provide, capability without requiring risk to the public health and safety, is 39976 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices consistent with the common defense The proposed amendment would due to the inadvertent startup of two and security and that there are special incorporate revised pressure/ charging pumps at water solid conditions circumstances present, as specified in temperature (P/T) limits and an without propagation of the assumed design 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii). associated Low Temperature basis flaw. 2. Create the possibility of a new or Overpressure System (LTOPS) setpoint V different kind of accident from any accident that will be valid to the end-of-license previously evaluated. The proposed Based on the above, the NRC staff (28.8 and 29.4 effective full power years Technical Specifications modify pressure/ finds the requested exemption, to allow for Units 1 and 2, respectively). The temperature operating limits, LTOPS setpoint local leak rate testing to be substituted proposed change also incorporates and enabling temperature, and component for an overall air lock leakage test where analytical and operational features into operability requirements. The revised the design permits, acceptable. the Surry design basis on the P/T pressure/temperature operating limits and Accordingly, the Commission has operating margin. The request also LTOPS setpoint are only slightly different determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR than those currently in the Technical updates the unirradiated reactor vessel Specifications. The LTOPS enabling 50.12(a), the requested exemption is material toughness data presented in the temperature remains unchanged. No authorized by law, will not present an Technical Specifications to reflect the operating limits or setpoints are added or undue risk to the public health and data previously provided to the NRC in deleted by the proposed changes. Therefore, safety, and is consistent with the the licensee’s response to Generic Letter it may be concluded that the operating limits common defense and security. The 92–01, Revision 1, ‘‘Reactor Vessel and setpoint changes do not create the Commission finds that the special Structural Integrity.’’ possibility of a new or different kind of circumstances as required by 10 CFR Before issuance of the proposed accident. With regard to component 50.12(a)(2)(ii) are present. operability requirements, restrictions on the license amendment, the Commission number of charging pumps which may be An exemption is hereby granted from will have made findings required by the operable, the number of PORVs which must the requirements of section III.D.2(b)(ii) Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended be operable, and the allowable temperature of appendix J to 10 CFR part 50, which (the Act) and the Commission’s difference between the steam generator requires an overall leakage test of air regulations. primary and secondary remain unchanged. locks opened during periods when The Commission has made a Only the setpoint temperature at which these containment integrity is not required by proposed determination that the restrictions apply have been modified. The the plant’s Technical Specifications at amendment request involves no proposed changes are entirely consistent the end of such periods at a pressure of significant hazards consideration. Under with the reactor vessel integrity protection philosophy which ensures that the design not less than Pa. Local leak rate testing the Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR basis reactor vessel flaw will not propagate shall be substituted for the overall 50.92, this means that operation of the under normal operation or postulated leakage test whenever this exemption is facility in accordance with the proposed accident conditions. Further, the proposed utilized. amendment would not (1) involve a changes do not invalidate . . . any Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the significant increase in the probability or component design criteria or the assumptions Commission has determined that consequences of an accident previously of any UFSAR Chapter 14 accident analysis. granting of this exemption will have no evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of 3. Involve a significant reduction in a significant impact on the quality of the a new or different kind of accident from margin of safety. As described above, the human environment (60 FR 30611). any accident previously evaluated; or reactor vessel integrity protection philosophy This exemption is effective upon ensures that the design basis assumed flaw (3) involve a significant reduction in a will not propagate under normal operation or issuance. margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR design basis accident conditions. Adherence Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 26th day 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its to the Technical Specification pressure/ of July 1995. analysis of the issue of no significant temperature operating limits ensures that the For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. hazards consideration, which is margin to vessel fracture provided by the ASME Section XI methodology is Steven A. Varga, presented below: Specifically, operation of Surry Power maintained. With regard to LTOPS Director, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, protection, the safety analysis demonstrates Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Station in accordance with the Technical Specification changes will that the proposed LTOPS design ensures [FR Doc. 95–19199 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] margins consistent with those provided by not: BILLING CODE 7590±01±M ASME Section XI Appendix G methods as 1. Involve a significant increase in the amended by ASME Code Case N–514. probability or consequences of an accident Utilization of ASME Code Case N–514 previously evaluated. The safety analysis technically results in a reduction in the [Docket Nos. 50±280 and 50±281] demonstrates that the proposed reactor vessel margin of safety, since a less restrictive protection philosophy, and the associated LTOPS analysis design limit (i.e., 110% of Virginia Electric and Power Company; pressure/temperature limits, LTOPS setpoint, the isothermal limit curve) is employed. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of and component operability requirements, However, the proposed design has been Amendment to Facility Operating ensure that reactor vessel integrity will be demonstrated to provide an acceptable License, Proposed No Significant maintained during normal operation and margin of safety. Both industry experience Hazards Consideration Determination, design basis accident conditions. and engineering evaluation support the and Opportunity for a Hearing Specifically, adherence to the heatup/ conclusion that LTOPS design basis events cooldown rate-dependent pressure/ may be expected to occur at essentially The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory temperature operating limits ensures that the isothermal conditions. An engineering Commission (the Commission) is assumed design basis flaw will not propagate evaluation demonstrates that any reduction considering issuance of an amendment during normal operation. Below the LTOPS in allowable pressure due to thermal stresses to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– enabling temperature, automatic actuation of which may be expected to exist during an the PORVs ensures that the assumed design LTOPS design basis event is insignificant 32 and DPR–37 issued to the Virginia basis flaw will not propagate under design when compared to margins provided by the Electric and Power Company (the basis low-temperature overpressurization ASME Section XI Appendix G methods for licensee) for operation of the Surry accident conditions. Above the enabling calculating pressure/temperature operating Power Station, Units 1 and 2 located in temperature, two pressurizer safety valves are limits. This design maximizes the operating Surry County, Virginia. sufficient to relieve the overpressurization margin above the minimum RCS pressure for Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39977 reactor coolant pump (RCP) operation, proceeding must file a written request statement of the alleged facts or expert thereby minimizing the probability of for a hearing and a petition for leave to opinion which support the contention undesired PORV lifts during RCP startup. intervene. Requests for a hearing and a and on which the petitioner intends to The NRC staff has reviewed the petition for leave to intervene shall be rely in proving the contention at the licensee’s analysis and, based on this filed in accordance with the hearing. The petitioner must also review, it appears that the three Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for provide references to those specific standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 sources and documents of which the satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff CFR part 2. Interested persons should petitioner is aware and on which the proposes to determine that the consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 petitioner intends to rely to establish amendment request involves no which is available at the Commission’s those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner significant hazards consideration. Public Document Room, the Gelman must provide sufficient information to The Commission is seeking public Building, 2120 L Street, NW., show that a genuine dispute exists with comments on this proposed Washington, DC, and at the local public the applicant on a material issue of a determination. Any comments received document room located at the Swem law or fact. Contentions shall be limited within 30 days after the date of Library, College of William and Mary, to matters within the scope of the publication of this notice will be Williamsburg, Virginia 23185. If a amendment under consideration. The considered in making any final request for a hearing or petition for contention must be one which, if determination. leave to intervene is filed by the above proven, would entitle the petitioner to Normally, the Commission will not date, the Commission or an Atomic relief. A petitioner who fails to file such issue the amendment until the Safety and Licensing Board, designated a supplement which satisfies these expiration of the 30-day notice period. by the Commission or by the Chairman requirements with respect to at least one However, should circumstances change of the Atomic Safety and Licensing contention will not be permitted to during the notice period such that Board Panel, will rule on the request participate as a party. failure to act in a timely way would and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Those permitted to intervene become result, for example, in derating or designated Atomic Safety and Licensing parties to the proceeding, subject to any shutdown of the facility, the Board will issue a notice of hearing or limitations in the order granting leave to Commission may issue the license an appropriate order. intervene, and have the opportunity to amendment before the expiration of the As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a participate fully in the conduct of the 30-day notice period, provided that its petition for leave to intervene shall set hearing, including the opportunity to final determination is that the forth with particularity the interest of present evidence and cross-examine amendment involves no significant the petitioner in the proceeding, and witnesses. hazards consideration. The final how that interest may be affected by the If a hearing is requested, the determination will consider all public results of the proceeding. The petition Commission will make a final and State comments received. Should should specifically explain the reasons determination on the issue of no the Commission take this action, it will why intervention should be permitted significant hazards consideration. The publish in the Federal Register a notice with particular reference to the final determination will serve to decide of issuance and provide for opportunity following factors: (1) The nature of the when the hearing is held. for a hearing after issuance. The petitioner’s right under the Act to be If the final determination is that the Commission expects that the need to made party to the proceeding; amendment request involves no take this action will occur very (2) The nature and extent of the significant hazards consideration, the infrequently. petitioner’s property, financial, or other Commission may issue the amendment Written comments may be submitted interest in the proceeding; and (3) the and make it immediately effective, by mail to the Rules Review and possible effect of any order which may notwithstanding the request for a Directives Branch, Division of Freedom be entered in the proceeding on the hearing. Any hearing held would take of Information and Publications petitioner’s interest. The petition should place after issuance of the amendment. Services, Office of Administration, U.S. also identify the specific aspect(s) of the If the final determination is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, subject matter of the proceeding as to amendment request involves a Washington, DC 20555, and should cite which petitioner wishes to intervene. significant hazards consideration, any the publication date and page number of Any person who has filed a petition for hearing held would take place before this Federal Register notice. Written leave to intervene or who has been the issuance of any amendment. comments may also be delivered to admitted as a party may amend the A request for a hearing or a petition Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, petition without requesting leave of the for leave to intervene must be filed with 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Board up to 15 days prior to the first the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. prehearing conference scheduled in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal workdays. Copies of written proceeding, but such an amended Washington, DC 20555. Attention: comments received may be examined at petition must satisfy the specificity Docketing and Services Branch, or may the NRC Public Document Room, the requirements described above. be delivered to the Commission’s Public Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Not later than 15 days prior to the first Document Room, the Gelman Building, Washington, DC. prehearing conference scheduled in the 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by The filing of requests for hearing and proceeding, a petitioner shall file a the above date. Where petitions are filed petitions for leave to intervene is supplement to the petition to intervene during the last 10 days of the notice discussed below. which must include a list of the period, it is requested that the petitioner By September 5, 1995, the licensee contentions which are sought to be promptly so inform the Commission by may file a request for a hearing with litigated in the matter. Each contention a toll-free telephone call to Western respect to issuance of the amendment to must consist of a specific statement of Union at 1–(800) 248–5100 (in Missouri the subject facility operating license and the issue of law or fact to be raised or 1–(800) 342–6700). The Western Union any person whose interest may be controverted. In addition, the petitioner operator should be given Datagram affected by this proceeding and who shall provide a brief explanation of the Identification Number N1023 and the wishes to participate as a party in the bases of the contention and a concise following message addressed to David 39978 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices B. Matthews: petitioner’s name and Interested persons wishing to preceding year. Similarly, the cost of telephone number, date petition was comment or request a hearing on the debt and preferred stock would be mailed, plant name, and publication application(s) and/or declaration(s) updated to reflect the overall cost of date and page number of this Federal should submit their views in writing by debt and preferred stock at December 31 Register notice. A copy of the petition August 21, 1995, to the Secretary, of the preceding year. should also be sent to the Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission, The rate changes resulting from this General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Washington, DC 20549, and serve a methodology would be applied for Regulatory Commission, Washington, copy on the relevant applicant(s) and/or billing purposes to the 12-month period DC 20555, and to Michael W. Maupin, declarant(s) at the address(es) specified commencing on the April 1 subsequent Esq., Hunton and Williams, Riverfront below. Proof of service (by affidavit or, to the applicable December 31 Plaza, East Tower, 951 E. Byrd Street, in case of an attorney at law, by calculation. By adjusting the provision Richmond, Virginia 23219, attorney for certificate) should be filed with the for the cost of capital, the cost of capital the licensee. request. Any request for hearing shall rate will be reduced from the 12.3% Nontimely filings of petitions for identify specifically the issues of fact or currently authorized to 10.12%, thus leave to intervene, amended petitions, law that are disputed. A person who so reducing the fees charged by OPCo. supplemental petitions and/or requests requests will be notified of any hearing, However, in the event the cost of debt for hearing will not be entertained if ordered, and will receive a copy of or preferred stock or the return on absent a determination by the any notice or order issued in the matter. common equity increases, the capital Commission, the presiding officer or the After said date, the application(s) and/ rate will likewise increase. presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing or declaration(s), as filed or as amended, AEP Generating Company, et al. (70– Board that the petition and/or request may be granted and/or permitted to 7167) should be granted based upon a become effective. AEP Generating Company, 1 Riverside balancing of the factors specified in 10 Ohio Power Company (70–5862) CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d). Plaza, Columbus, Ohio 43215; For further details with respect to this Ohio Power Company (‘‘OPCo’’), 301 Appalachian Power Company, 40 action, see the application for Cleveland Avenue, SW., Canton, Ohio Franklin Road, Roanoke, Virginia 24022; amendment dated June 8, 1995, which 44702, a public-utility subsidiary Columbus Southern Power Company, is available for public inspection at the company of American Electric Power 215 North Front Street, Columbus, Ohio commission’s Public Document Room, Company, Inc., a registered holding 43215; Indiana Michigan Power the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, company has filed a post-effective Company, One Summit Square, P.O. NW., Washington, DC, and at the local amendment to its application- Box 60, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802; public document room located at the declaration under section 13 of the Act Kentucky Power Company, 1701 Central Swem Library, College of William and and rules 86, 87, 90 and 91 thereunder. Avenue, P.O. Box 1428, Ashland, Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia 23185. In accordance with the Kentucky 41101; Ohio Power Company, recommendation of the Commission’s 301 Cleveland Avenue, SW., Canton, Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day staff, resulting from its field audit of Ohio 44702, all public-utility subsidiary of July 1995. OPCo’s Cook Coal Terminal, OPCo companies of American Electric Power For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. proposes that it adjust the cost of capital Company, Inc., a registered holding David B. Matthews, rate authorized in Commission order company have filed a post-effective Director, Project Directorate II–I, Division of dated June 17, 1983 (HCAR No. 22977) amendment to their application- Reactor Projects-I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor to conform the rate to the current declaration under section 12(f) and Regulation. market. OPCo proposes that the overall 13(b) of the Act and rules 43 and 80 [FR Doc. 95–19200 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] rate of return on its investment in the through 95 thereunder. BILLING CODE 7590±01±M Cook Coal Terminal would be subject to In accordance with the annual adjustment of the first day of recommendation of the Commission’s April in each succeeding year based on staff, resulting from its field audit of SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE changes in the rate of return on common Indiana Michigan Power Company’s COMMISSION equity most recently allowed by either ‘‘(I&M’’) River Transportation Division, I&M proposes to adjust the cost of [Release No. 35±26344] (1) the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the last wholesale rate capital rate authorized in Commission Filings Under the Public Utility Holding proceeding involving OPCo or (2) The order dated March 4, 1986 (HCAR No. Company Act of 1935, as Amended Public Utilities Commission of Ohio in 24039) to conform the rate to the current (``Act'') OPCo’s most recent retail rate market. I&M proposes that the overall proceeding. rate of return on I&M’s investment in July 28, 1995. OPCo proposes to charge a cost-of- the River Transportation Division would Notice is hereby given that the capital component on its investment in be subject to annual adjustment on the following filing(s) has/have been made the Transcisco railcar maintenance first day of April in each succeeding with the Commission pursuant to facility, in which OPCo has an year based on changes in the rate of provisions of the Act and rules investment of approximately $350,000. return on common equity most recently promulgated thereunder. All interested OPCo proposes to use this same allowed by either (i) The Federal Energy persons are referred to the application(s) methodology to calculate the cost-of- Regulatory Commission (‘‘FERC’’) in the and/or declaration(s) for complete capital rate associated with its railcar last wholesale rate proceeding involving statements of the proposed maintenance facility located at the Cool I&M or (ii) the Indiana Utility transaction(s) summarized below. The Coal Terminal and the Transcisco Regulatory Commission in I&M’s most application(s) and/or declaration(s) and maintenance facility. recent retail rate proceeding. any amendments thereto is/are available OPCo proposes to adjust the Furthermore, I&M proposes to change for public inspection through the capitalization ratio on an annual basis, the way in which the working capital Commission’s Office of Public using OPCo’s financial information as base is calculated in determining the Reference. reported at December 31 of the cost-of-capital rate. Specifically, I&M Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39979 proposes to include one-eighth of the shares to 50,000 shares. NUSCO will LP&L may also enter into a guaranty sum of the River Transportation continue to acquire the Common on the pursuant to which it will Division’s annual expenditures, year- open market on NU’s behalf. However, unconditionally guarantee, (1) payment end undercollection, prepayments, because of revisions in rule 42(b) of distributions on the Entity Interests, materials and supplies inventories Nusco’s acquisitions do not require the if the Leasing Entity has funds available, balances, less year-end current Commission’s prior approval, under the (2) payments to the holders of Entity liabilities and accrual balances. circumstances of this matter (HCAR No. Interests of amounts due upon I&M proposes to adjust the 26031, April 19, 1994). liquidation of the Issuing Entity or capitalization ratio on an annual basis, redemption of the Entity Interest, and using I&M’s financial information as Louisiana Power & Light Company (70– (3) certain additional amounts that may reported at December 31 of the 8487) be payable in respect of the Entity preceding year. Similarly, the cost of Louisiana Power & Light Company Interests. debt and preferred stock would be (‘‘LP&L’’), 639 Loyola Avenue, New Each series of Bonds and/or each updated to reflect the overall cost of Orleans, Louisiana 70113, an electric series of Debentures will be sold at such debt and preferred stock at December 31 public-utility subsidiary company of price, will bear interest at such rate, of the preceding year. Entergy Corporation, a registered either fixed or adjustable, and will The rate changes resulting from this holding company, has filed an mature on such date as will be methodology would be applied for application-declaration under sections determined at the time of sale. LP&L billing purposes to the 12-month period 6(a), 7, 9(a) and 10 the Act and rule and may determine to provide an insurance commencing on the April 1 subsequent 54 thereunder. policy for the payment of the principal to the applicable December 31 LP&L seeks authorization to issue and of and/or interest and/or premium on calculation. By adjusting the provision sell, directly or indirectly through a one or more series of Bonds and/or one for the cost of capital, the cost of capital subsidiary, not more than $610 million or more series of Debentures. The Bonds rate will be increased from the 8.82% principal amount of its first mortgage and/or Debentures and/or Entity currently authorized to 9.69%, thus bonds (‘‘Bonds’’), debentures Interests may include provisions for increasing the fees charged by I&M. (‘‘Debentures’’) and securities of a redemption or retirement prior to However, in the event the cost of debt subsidiary of LP&L (‘‘Entity Interests’’) maturity, including restrictions on or preferred stock or the return on to be issued in one or more new series optional redemption for a given number common equity decreases, the capital from time to time no later than of years. rate will likewise decrease. LP&L further proposes to issue and December 31, 1997. sell, from time to time not later than Northeast Utilities et al. (70–8080) LP&L proposes to organize either a December 31, 1997, one or more new Northeast Utilities (‘‘NU’’), 174 Brush special purpose limited partnership or a series of its preferred stock, cumulative, Hill Avenue, West Springfield, statutory business trust for the sole of either $25 par value or $100 par value Massachusetts 01090–0010, a registered purpose of issuing the Entity Interests (collectively ‘‘Preferred’’). The total holding company, and its subsidiary (‘‘Issuing Entity’’). LP&L will directly or aggregate par value of shares of service company, Northeast Utilities indirectly make an equity contribution Preferred may not exceed $123.5 Service Company (‘‘NUSCO’’), Seldom to the Issuing Entity at the time the million. The price exclusive of Street, Berlin, Connecticut 06037, have Entity Interests are issued and thereby accumulated dividends, and the filed a post-effective amendment under directly or indirectly acquire all of the dividend rate for each series of Preferred sections 6(a) and 7 of the Act and rule general partnership interest or common will be determined at the time of sale. 54 thereunder to their application- securities in such Issuing Entity. LP&L’s LP&L may determine that the terms of declaration previously filed under equity contribution to the Issuing Entity the Preferred should provide for an sections 6(a), 7, 9(a), 10 and 12(c) of the will at all times constitute at least 3% adjustable dividend rate thereon to be Act and rules 42 and 50(a)(5) of the aggregate equity contributions by determined on a periodic basis, subject thereunder. all securityholders to such Issuing to specified maximum and minimum By order dated June 30, 1993 (HCAR Entity. rates, rather than a fixed dividend rate. No. 25842), NU was authorized to LP&L will issue, from time to time in The terms of the Preferred may include acquire, through NUSCO acting on one or more series, subordinated provisions for redemption, including behalf of NU from time-to-time prior to debentures (‘‘Entity Subordinated restrictions on optional redemption, May 1, 2002, up to a total of 15,000 Debentures’’) to the Issuing Entity. The and/or a sinking fund designed to shares of NU’s common stock, $5.00 par Issuing Entity will use the proceeds redeem all outstanding shares of a series value (‘‘Common’’) on the open market. from the sale of its Entity Interests, plus not later than thirty years after the date NU may transfer annually the Common the equity contributions made to it by of original issuance. to the non-employee trustees on NU’s either, (1) Its general partner (in the case LP&L proposes to use the net Board of Trustees as a portion of their of a limited partnership) or (2) LP&L (in proceeds derived from the issuance and compensation. Share compensation the case of a business trust), to purchase sale of Bonds, Debentures, Entity would be paid in addition to cash the Entity Subordinated Debentures. Interests and/or the Preferred for general retainers and fees, and would be at a The distribution rates, payment dates, corporate purposes, including, but not rate of 100 shares per year per outside redemption, maturity, and other similar limited to, the possible acquisition of trustee for 1993, subject to change in the provisions of each series of Entity certain outstanding securities. future by Board of Trustees. Interests will be substantially identical LP&L states that it presently Because of changes to the trustee to such terms and conditions of the contemplates selling the Bonds, the compensation program, NU now Entity Subordinated Debentures relating Debentures, the Entity Interests and the proposes to increase the number of thereto, and will be determined by the Preferred either by competitive bidding, shares of Common that it may issue and Issuing Entity at the time of issuance. negotiated public offering or private sell for non-employee trustee Each series of Entity Interests will have placement. compensation, from time-to-time a $25 per share stated liquidation LP&L also proposes to enter into through April 30, 2005, from 15,000 preference. arrangements to finance on a tax-exempt 39980 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices basis certain solid waste, sewage policy for the payment of the principal $1.00 par value (‘‘Additional Common disposal and/or pollution control of and/or interest and/or premium on Stock’’), to Chemical Bank, or such facilities (‘‘Facilities’’) at any of (i) Unit one or more series of Revenue Bonds; other bank or trust company as National No. 3 of its Waterford Steam Electric and/or (3) obtain authentication of one may designate, as agent for the Generating Station in the Parish of St. or more new series of first mortgage participants in the Plan. National also Charles, Louisiana, (ii) Units Nos. 6 and bonds (‘’Collateral Bonds’’), to be issued proposes to invest the cash and 7 of the LP&L’s Sterlington Gas up to an aggregate principal amount of dividends of shareholders participating Generating Station in the Parish of $75 million, under LP&L’s mortgage on in the Plan through open market Ouachita, Louisiana, or (iii) Units Nos. the basis of unfunded net property purchases of National’s common stock. 1–5 of LP&L’s Ninemile Point Gas additions and/or previously retired first National will make such a decision from Generating Station in the Parish of mortgage bonds and delivered and time-to-time based upon its needs for Jefferson, Louisiana (collectively, pledged to the Trustee and/or the Bank common stock, and the price and ‘‘Parish’’). LP&L proposes, from time to to evidence and secure LP&L’s availability of its common stock on the time through December 31, 1997, to obligations under the Agreement and/or market. enter into one or more installment sale the Reimbursement Agreement. National intends to use the proceeds agreements and supplements LP&L also proposes to acquire, from the sale of the Additional Common (‘‘Agreement’’), pursuant to which the through tender offers or otherwise, Stock to repay existing short-term and Parish may issue one or more series of certain of its outstanding securities, long-term debt, to pay interest and tax-exempt revenue bonds (‘‘Revenue including its outstanding first mortgage dividends, and for other corporate Bonds’’) in an aggregate principal bonds, its outstanding preferred stock purposes. In addition, National will, amount not to exceed $65 million. The and/or outstanding pollution control from time-to-time, use the proceeds to net proceeds from the sale of Revenue revenue bonds and industrial make additional capital contributions to Bonds will be deposited by the Parish development revenue bonds issued for its wholly owned subsidiaries. with the trustee (‘‘Trustee’’) under one LP&L’s benefit, at any time, prior to For the Commission, by the Division of or more indentures (‘‘Indenture’’) and December 31, 1997. Investment Management, pursuant to will be applied by the Trustee to National Fuel Gas Company (70–8657) delegated authority. reimburse the Company for, or to National Fuel Gas Company Margaret H. McFarland, permanently finance on a tax-exempt Deputy Secretary. basis, the costs of the acquisition, (‘‘National’’), 10 Lafayette Square, construction, installation or equipping Buffalo, New York 14203, a registered [FR Doc. 95–19170 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] of the Facilities. holding company, has filed a BILLING CODE 8010±01±M LP&L further proposes, under the declaration under sections 6(a) and 7 of Agreement, to sell the Facilities to the the Act. [Rel. No. IC±21262; No. 812±9462] Parish for cash and simultaneously By order dated December 18, 1990 repurchase the Facilities from the Parish (HCAR No. 25216) (‘‘Order’’), National Security Equity Life Insurance for a purchase price, payable on an was authorized, among other things, to Company, et al. installment basis over a period or years, issue and sell from time-to-time through sufficient to pay the principal of, October 31, 1995, up to 1 million shares July 28, 1995. purchase price of, the premium, if any, of its authorized but unissued common AGENCY: Securities and Exchange and the interest on Revenue Bonds as stock, no par value, to such bank or trust Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’). the same become due and payable. company as National may designate as ACTION: Notice of application for an Under the Agreement, LP&L will also be agent for the participants in National’s order under the Investment Company obligated to pay certain fees incurred in Customer Stock Purchase Plan (‘‘Plan’’). Act of 1940 (‘‘1940 Act’’). the transactions. All material aspects of the Plan as APPLICANTS: Security Equity Life The price to be paid to the Parish for authorized by the Order remain Insurance Company (‘‘Security Equity’’), each series of Revenue Bonds and the unchanged. interest rate applicable thereto will be From December 18, 1990 to January Security Equity Life Insurance Company determined at the time of sale. The 15, 1995, National issued and sold Separate Account 13 (‘‘Separate Agreement and the Indenture will 609,156 shares of common stock under Account’’), and Walnut Street provide for either a fixed interest rate or the Plan. No shares of common stock Securities, Inc. (‘‘Walnut Street’’). an adjustable interest rate for each series have been issued under the Plan since RELEVANT 1940 ACT SECTIONS: Order of Revenue Bonds. Each series may be January 15, 1995. Rather, as provided in requested under Section 6(c) for subject to optional and mandatory the Order, cash dividends on all shares exemptions from Sections 27(a)(3) and redemption and/or a mandatory cash of common stock received from, or 27(c)(2) of the 1940 Act and Rules 63– sinking fund under which stated optional cash payments made by 2(c)(4)(v), 6e–3(T)(b)(13)(ii), and 6e– portions of such series would be retired customers participating in the Plan have 3(T)(c)(4)(v) thereunder. at stated times. been reinvested by using open market SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: This order In order to obtain a more favorable purchases of National’s common stock. will permit: (1) The Separate Account to rating and thereby improve the From January 16, 1995 to April 15, issue certain flexible premium variable marketability of the Revenue Bonds, 1995, 47,522 shares of common stock life insurance policies (‘‘Policies’’) in LP&L may: (1) Arrange for a letter of have been purchased on the open which the sales charge deducted from credit from a bank (‘‘Bank’’) in favor of market for distribution under the Plan. premiums up to one target premium the Trustee (in connection therewith, National now proposes to issue and paid during any year exceeds the sales LP&L may enter into a Reimbursement sell, in addition to those shares charge payable on any excess premium Agreement pursuant to which LP&L authorized to be distributed under the payments made in any prior year; and would agree to reimburse the Bank for Plan by the Order, from time-to-time (2) the Separate Count and any future amounts drawn under the letter of credit through October 31, 2000, up to an separate accounts established by and to pay commitment and/or letter of additional one million shares or its Security Equity, to issue Policies, as credit fees); (2) provide an insurance authorized but unissued common stock, well as other flexible premium, single Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39981 premium, or scheduled premium Securities Act of 1933. The Separate 6. In addition, applicants propose to variable life insurance policies, in Account presently is comprised of ten deduct from premium payments a which a deduction is made from sub-accounts (‘‘Sub-Accounts’’), which premium load charge consists of a premium payments of an amount that is invest exclusively in certain open-end distribution charge, a premium tax reasonably related to Security Equity’s management investment companies or charge, and a charge equal to 1.0% of increased federal tax burden resulting series of such companies (‘‘Funds’’). each premium payment to cover the from the receipt of such premium 3. Walnut Street, a wholly-owned estimated cost of the federal income tax payments pursuant to the application of subsidiary of General American Holding treatment under Section 848 of the Section 848 of the Internal Revenue Company (which, in turn, is a wholly- Code, commonly referred to as the Code of 1986, as amended. owned subsidiary of General American), ‘‘DAC Tax.’’ Premium load is expressed FILING DATE: The application was filed is the distributor for the Policies. as a percentage of premium, and on February 2, 1995, and amended on Walnut Street is registered as a broker- depends upon the amount of the July 17, 1995. dealer under the Securities Exchange premium paid in relation to the target HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An Act of 1934, and is a member of the premium,5 the Policy year in which the order granting the application will be National Association of Securities premium is paid, and the issue age of issued unless the Commission orders a Dealers, Inc. the insured. hearing. Interested persons may request 4. The Policies are flexible premium a. Distribution Charge a hearing by writing to the variable life insurance contracts that Commission’s Secretary and serving provide for allocation of premium Applicants assert that the distribution Applicants with a copy of the request, payments to the Sub-Accounts or to a charge compensates Security Equity for personally or by mail. Hearing requests fixed fund. The cash value and the its Policy sales expenses, and is should be received by the Commission death benefit under the Policies may comprised of a premium expense load by 5:30 p.m. on August 22, 1995, and fluctuate depending on the investment and a commission charge. The should be accompanied by proof of experience of the Sub-Accounts. There percentage premium expense load service on applicants in the form of an are three Death Benefit Options: (a) Face deducted from each premium payment affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of amount; (b) face amount plus account will be based on the sum of the initial service. Hearing requests should state value; or (c) face amount plus a return premiums of all Policies in a case,6 in the nature of the requestor’s interest, the of premiums. The minimum death accordance with the following table. reason for the request, and the issues benefit is equal to the account value contested. Persons may request multiplied by a specified percentage, Premium notification of a hearing by writing to which varies according to certain Sum of the initial premiums of expense the Secretary of the Commission. conditions. The Policies will not lapse all policies in a case load (percent) ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and if the net cash value is sufficient to Exchange Commission, 450 5th Street, cover monthly fees and charges 1 Less than $250,000 ...... 2.00 N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549. deducted from the account value. The $250,000±$999,999 ...... 1.50 Applicants, Juanita M. Thomas, Esq., Policies also offer Policy owners the $1 million and more ...... 1.25 Security Equity Life Insurance opportunity to obtain a loan. Company, c/o General American Life 5. Certain fees and charges are The commission charge will be Insurance Company, 700 Market Street, deducted under the Policies. Each Sub- deducted from premiums paid in each St. Louis, MO 63101. Account is assessed a daily mortality and expense risk charge, as well as Policy year up to a target premium FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: amount. There is no commission charge Pamela K. Ellis, Senior Counsel, or monthly administrative charges, cost of insurance charges, charges for optional on any premium amount paid during a Wendy Finck Friedlander, Deputy Policy year in excess of the target Chief, at (202) 942–0670, Office of rider benefits, and charges for special insurance class rating, if any. If the premium (‘‘Excess Premium’’). The Insurance Products (Division of commission charge on premiums paid Investment Management). Policy is issued on a medically underwritten basis,2 a $100 in a Policy year up to the target SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The underwriting charge will be deducted premium amount is based upon the following is a summary of the from the account value on the issue issue age of the insured and the Policy application; the complete application is date, and the first day of the Policy year as follows: available for a fee from the month following a medically Commission’s Public Reference Branch. underwritten increase in the face Policy year 3 4 Applicants’ Representations amount of the Policy. Issue ages 1 2±10 11±15 1. Security Equity, a New York stock (per- (per- (per- life insurance company, offers life 1 Net cash value is defined as the account value cent) cent) cent) insurance in thirty-eight states and the less any outstanding Policy loan and accrued and unpaid loan interest. 20±51 ...... 28.00 8.00 6.00 District of Columbia. Security Equity is 2 Medically underwritten contracts, for the 52±59 ...... 28.00 6.33 4.00 a wholly-owned subsidiary of General purposes of this underwriting charge, are all 60±67 ...... 28.00 4.66 4.00 American Life Insurance Company Policies other than those issued on a guaranteed 68±80 ...... 19.00 4.00 4.00 (‘‘General American’’). issue or simplified issue basis. Security Equity may reduce or waive the underwriting charge in 81±85 ...... 13.00 4.00 4.00 2. The Separate Account is a separate connection with the purchase of Policies sold by account established by Security Equity licensed agents of Security Equity that are also to fund the Policies. The Separate registered representatives of selected broker-dealers 5 The target premium is a percentage of the level Account is registered with the or banks that have entered into written sales annual premium payment necessary to provide Commission under the 1940 Act as a agreements with Walnut Street. future benefits under the Policy through maturity. 3 The face amount of the Policy is defined as the 6 A case is a grouping of one or more Policies unit investment trust, and interests in amount of insurance under the Policy. connected by a non-arbitrary factor such as the Policies are registered with the 4 The underwriting charge is modified if the common employer of each insured under the Commission as securities under the Policy is issued with a joint and last survivor rider. Policy. Every Policy is part of a case. 39982 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices For all issue ages the commission charge remainder of the $770 ($77 in each of deductible in computing Security will be 2.0% for Policy years 16 and the following nine years and $38.50 in Equity’s federal income taxes. beyond. year ten). Conversely, federal income taxes are not c. In calculating the present value of deductible in computing Security b. State Premium Tax Charge these increased future deductions, Equity’s federal income taxes. To Security Equity also deducts from Security Equity determined that, in its compensate Security Equity fully for the each premium a premium tax charge, business judgment, it is appropriate to impact of Section 848, an additional equal to the taxes that are imposed on use a discount rate of 10% for the charge must be imposed to make Security Equity by the state in which following reasons. To the extent that security Equity whole for the $95.63 the Policy owner resides or by the state capital must be used by Security Equity additional tax burden attributable to in which the insured resides, and that to pay the increased federal tax burden Section 848, as well as the tax on the are based on such premiums received under Section 848, such surplus will be additional $95.63 itself. This additional under the Policy. unavailable for investment. Thus, the charge can be determined by dividing c. Section 848 ‘‘DAC Tax’’ Charge cost of capital used to satisfy this $95.63 by the complement of 35% increased tax burden under Section 848 federal corporate income tax rate (i.e., Applicants state that the 1.0% charge is Security Equity’s targeted rate of 65%), resulting in an additional charge deducted from each Premium Payment return (i.e., return sought on surplus), of $147.12 for each $10,000 of net is designed to reimburse Security Equity which is in excess of 10%. Accordingly, premiums, or 1.47%. for its increased federal tax burden applicants submit that the targeted rate h. Based on prior experience, Security resulting from the application of Section of return on surplus is appropriate for Equity reasonably expects to take almost 848 of the Code to the receipt of those use in this present value calculation. all future deductions. It is the judgment premiums. Section 848, as amended, d. Applicants also submit that, to the of Security Equity that a charge of 1.0% requires life insurance companies to extent that the 10% discount rate is would reimburse it for the increased capitalize and amortize over ten years lower than Security Equity’s actual federal income tax liabilities under certain general expenses for the current targeted rate of return on surplus, the Section 848 of the Code, and will be year rather than deduct these expenses calculation of this increased tax burden reasonably related to such increased in full from the current year’s gross will continue to be reasonable over federal income tax burden. This income, as allowed under prior law. time, even if the applicable corporate representation takes into account the Section 848 effectively accelerates the tax rate is reduced, or Security Equity’s realization of income from specified benefit to Security Equity of the targeted rate of return on surplus is amortization permitted by Section 848 contracts and, consequently, the lowered. payment of taxes on that income. Taking and the use of a 10% discount rate e. Security Equity has computed its (which is equivalent to Security Equity’s into account the time value of money, cost of capital as the after tax rate of targeted rate of return on surplus) in Section 848 increases that insurance return that it seeks to earn on its computing the future deductions company’s tax burden because the surplus. Security Equity’s rate of return resulting from such amortization. amount of general deductions that must is based on a number of factors Applicants assert that it is appropriate be capitalized and amortized is including market interest rates, the to deduct this charge, and to exclude the measured by the premiums received anticipated long-term growth rates for deduction of this charge from sales load, under the Policies. Security Equity and its parent company, because it is a legitimate expense of a. Deductions subject to Section 848 General American, acceptable level of Security Equity and not for sales and equal a percentage of the current year’s risks for both Security Equity and distribution expenses. net premiums received (i.e., gross General American, inflation, and premiums minus return premiums and available information about the rates of Applicants’ Legal Analysis reinsurance premiums) under life return obtained by other mutual life insurance or other contracts categorized insurance companies and their A. Exemptive Relief Under Section under this Section. The Policies will be subsidiaries. Security Equity represents 27(a)(3) of the 1940 Act and Rule 6e- categorized as specific contracts under that these factors are appropriate to 3(T)(b)(13)(ii) Thereunder Section 848 requiring 7.7% of the net consider in determining its cost of 1. Section 27(a)(3) of the 1940 Act premiums received to be capitalized and capital. Security Equity seeks to provides that the amount of sales charge amortized under the schedule set forth maintain a ratio of surplus to assets that deducted from any of the first twelve in Section 848(c)(1). is established based on judgment of the monthly payments on a periodic b. The increased tax burden on every risks represented by various payment plan certificate may not exceed $10,000 of net premiums received under components of assets and liabilities. proportionately the amount deducted the Policies is quantified by applicants f. Using a federal corporate tax rate of from any other such payment. Section as follows. For each $10,000 of net 35%, and applying a discount rate of 27(a)(3) further provides that the sales premiums received in a given year, 10%, the present value of the tax effect charge deducted from any subsequent Security Equity’s general deductions are of the increased deductions allowable in payment may not exceed reduced by $731.50 i.e., an amount the following ten years, which partially proportionately the amount deducted equal to (a) $770 (7.7% of $10,000) offsets the increased tax burden, equals from any other subsequent payment. minus (b) $38.50 (one-half year’s $160.40. The effect of Section 848 on 2. Rule 6e-3(T)(b)(13)(ii) provides a portion of the ten year amortization the Policy, therefore, is and increased partial exception from the prohibitions which may be deducted in the current tax burden with a present value of of Section 27(a)(3). Exemptive relief year). Using a 35% corporate tax rate, $95.63 for each $10,000 of net from the prohibitions of Section 27(a)(3) applicants assert that Security Equity’s premiums (i.e., $256.03 less $160.40). provided by Rule 6e-3(T)(b)(13)(ii) is taxes would increase for the current g. Applicants state that Security available if the proportionate amount of year by $256.03. However, the current Equity does not incur incremental sales charge deducted from any tax increase will be offset partially by federal income tax when it passes on premium payment does not exceed the deductions allowed during the next ten state premium taxes to Policy owners proportionate amount deducted from years, which result from amortizing the because state premium taxes are any prior premium payment, unless an Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39983 increase is caused by reductions in the necessary to adequately defray their 2. The Separate Accounts are, and the annual cost of insurance or in sales expenses. Future Accounts will be, regulated charge for amount transferred to a 6. Applicants argue that Section under the 1940 Act as issuers of variable life insurance contract from 27(a)(3) was designed to address the periodic payment plan certificates. another plan of insurance. Rule 6e- abuse of periodic payment plan Accordingly, the Separate Accounts, the 3(T)(b)(13)(ii) thus permits a decrease in certificates under which large amounts Other Accounts, Security Equity (as sales load for any subsequent premium of front-end sales loads were deducted depositor), and Walnut Street (as payment but not an increase. so early in the life of the plan that an principal distributor) are deemed to be 3. Under the Policies’ sales load investor redeeming in the early periods subject to Section 27 of the 1940 Act. structure, a Policy owner could pay a would recoup little of his or her Applicants thus request an order under premium in any given Policy year from investment since only a small portion of Section 6(c) of the 1940 Act granting which a 2.0% front-end sales load the investor’s early payments were exemptions from Sections 27(c)(2) of the deduction (the premium expense load) actually invested. Applicants submit 1940 Act to allow the deduction of a is made, because at the time such that the deduction of a reduced front- charge from premium payments to premium was paid, cumulative end sales load on Excess Premiums paid compensate Security Equity for their premiums paid during the Policy year in any Policy year does not have the increased federal tax burden resulting exceeded the target premium amount. detrimental effect that Section 27(a)(3) from the receipt of such premium Premiums paid in a subsequent Policy was designed to prevent because a payments under the Policies. year up to a target premium would be greater proportion of the Policies’ sales 3. Certain provisions of Rules 6e–2 subject to a front-end sales load loads are deducted later than otherwise and 6e–3(T) provide exemptive relief deduction of more than 2.0% (the would be the case. from Section 27(c)(2) if the separate applicable commission charge plus the 7. Applicants state that under the account issues variable life insurance premium expense load). Applicants Policy, premiums up to the target contracts, or flexible premium variable thus request an exemption from the premium amount have higher levels of life insurance contracts, respectively. requirements of Section 27(a)(3) and actual sales expenses (i.e., commissions) Rule 6e–2(b)(13)(iii) provides an Rule 6e3(T)(13)(ii) because the Policies’ associated with them than premiums in exemption from Section 27(c)(2) of the sales load structure would appear to excess of such target premium amounts. 1940 Act to permit an insurer to deduct violate the ‘‘stair-step’’ provisions in Because the excess premiums have a certain charges, other than sales load, Section 27(a)(3) and because the lower level of sales expenses, applicants including administrative expenses. exemption from Section 27(a)(3) argue that it is appropriate to analyze Similarly, Rule 6e–3(T)(b)(13)(iii) provided by Rule 6e–3(T)(b)(13)(ii) does separately the sales load structures for provides exemptive relief from Section not seem to apply to the Policies’ sales the two types of payments. Applicant 27(c)(2) to permit an insurer to make load structure. submit that, when analyzed separately, certain deductions, other than sales 4. Applicants state that, had they both types of sales load comply with load, including the insurer’s tax chosen to impose the higher front-end Rule 6e–3(T)(b)(13)(ii). liabilities from receipt of premium sales load equally on all premium payments imposed by states or by B. Exemptive Request With Respect to payments, the Policies would qualify for governmental entity. Section 27(c)(2) of the 1940 Act and exemptive relief under Rule 6e– Rule 6e–2(b)(1), together with Rule Rules 6e–2(c)(4)(v) and 6e–3(T)(c)(4)(v) 3(T)(b)(13)(ii), subject to the maximum 6e–2(c)(4), provides an exemption from Thereunder in Connection With limits permissible under subparagraph the Section 2(a)(35) definition of sales Deduction of a Charge for Code Section (b)(13)(i) or the Rule. Applicants assert, load by the substitution of a new 848’s Deferred Acquisition Costs however, that such a front-end charge, definition to be used for the purposes of would be less favorable to Policy 1. Section 27(c)(2) prohibits a Rule 6e–2. Rule 6e–2(c)(4) defines sales owners than provided under the registered investment company or its load charged on any payment as the Policies; under such a sales charge depositor or underwriter from making excess of the payment over certain structure, sales load would be recovered any deduction from premium payments specified charges and adjustments, by Security Equity earlier than is the made under periodic payment plan including a deduction approximately case under the Policies’ sales load certificates other than a deduction for equal to state premium taxes. Rule 6e– structure. The sales charge structure sales load. Section 2(a)(35)7 defines 3(T)(b)(1), together with Rule 6e– under the Policies benefits Policy sales load as the difference between the 3(T)(c)(4), also provides an exemption owners by spreading Security Equity’s price of a security to the public and that from the Section 2(a)(35) definition to recovery of sales load over a longer portion of the proceeds from its sale be used for the purposes of Rule 6e– period of time, and thereby permitting which is received and invested or held 3(T). Rule 6e–3(T)(c)(4) defines sales a greater portion of a Policy owner’s for investment, less amounts deducted load during a period as the excess of any excess premiums to be credited to for trustee’s or custodian’s fees, payments made during that period over account value. insurance premiums, issue taxes, or certain specified charges and 5. In addition, applicants represent administrative expenses or fees that are adjustments, including a deduction for that the sales load structure has been not properly chargeable to sales load. and approximately equal to state designed based on Security Equity’s premium taxes. operating expenses for the sale of the 7 Sales loads, as defined under Section 2(a)(35), 4. Applicants request exemptions Policies and, thus, reflects in part the are limited by Sections 27(a)(1) and 27(h)(1) to a from Rules 6e–2(c)(4)(v) and 6e– maximum of 9% of total payments on periodic lower overall distribution costs that are payment plan certificates. The proceeds of all 3(T)(c)(4)(v) under the 1940 Act to associated with Excess Premiums paid payments (except amounts deducted for sales load) permit the proposed deduction with over the life of a Policy. Applicants must be held by a trustee or custodian having the respect to Section 848 of the Code to be submit that it would not be in the best qualifications established under Section 26(a)(1) for treated as other than sales load, as the trustees of unit investment trusts and held interest of a Policy owner to require the under an indenture or agreement that conforms defined under Section 2(a)(35) of the imposition of a higher sales load with the provisions of Section 26(a)(2) and Section 1940 Act, for purposes of Section 27 and structure than applicants deem 26(a)(3) of the 1940 Act. the exemptions from various provisions 39984 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices of that Section found implicitly in Rule proposed deductions will be used to deducted pursuant to the requested 6e–2 and explicitly in Rule 6e–3(T). compensate Security Equity for its exemptive relief. 5. Applicants assert that the proposed increased federal tax burden attributable b. The registration statement for each deduction with respect to Section 848 of to the receipt of premiums and not for Policy and Future Policy under which the Code arguably is covered by Rules sales or promotional activities. the above-referenced federal tax charge 6e–2(b)(13)(iii) and 6e–3(T)(b)(13)(iii) Applicants, therefore, believe the is deducted will: (1) disclose the charge; and should be treated as other than sales language in Section 2(a)(35) further load. Applicants note, however, that indicates that not treating such (2) explain the purpose of the charge; under a literal reading of Rules 6e– deductions as sales load is consistent and (3) state that the charge is 2(c)(4) and 6e–3(T)(c)(4), a deduction for with the policies of the 1940 Act. reasonable in relation to Security an insurer’s increased federal tax 9. Finally, applicants submit that it is Equity’s increased federal tax burden burden does not fall squarely into those probably an historical accident that the under Section 848 of the Code resulting itemized charges or deductions, exclusion of premium tax in from the receipt of premium payments. arguably causing the deduction to be subparagraph (c)(4)(v) of Rules 6e 2 and c. The registration statement for each treated as part of sales load. 6e–3(T) from the definition of sales load Policy and Future Policy under which 6. Applicants state that they have is limited to state premium taxes. the above-referenced federal tax charge found no public policy reason for Applicants note that, when Rules 6e–2 is deducted will contain as an exhibit an including a deduction for an insurer’s and 6e–3(T) were adopted, and later actuarial opinion as to: (1) The increased federal tax burden in sales amended, the additional Section 848 tax reasonableness of the charge in relation load. Applicants assert that the public burden attributable to the receipt of policy that underlies paragraph premiums did not yet exist. to Security Equity’s increased federal (b)(13)(i) of Rules 6e–2 and 6e–3(T), like 10. Applicants further submit that the tax burden under Section 848 of the that which underlies paragraphs (a)(1) terms of the relief requested with Code resulting from the receipt of and (h)(1) of Section 27, is to prevent respect to Future Policies to be issued premiums; (2) the reasonableness of the excessive sales loads from being charged through Other Accounts are also rate of return on surplus that is used in for the sale of periodic payment plan consistent with the standards of Section calculating such charge; and (3) the certificates. Applicants submit that this 6(c). Without the requested relief, appropriateness of the factors taken into legislative purpose is not furthered by applicants would have to request and account by Security Equity in treating a federal income tax charge obtain such exemptive relief for each determining such rate of return. based on premium payments as a sales Future Contract to be issued through an Conclusion load because the deduction is not Other Account. Such additional related to the payment of sales requests for exemptive relief would 1. Section 6(c) of the 1940 Act, in commissions or other distribution present no issues under the 1940 Act pertinent part, provides that the expenses. Applicants assert that the that have not already been addressed in Commission, by order upon application, Commission has concurred with this this application. may conditionally or unconditionally conclusion by excluding deductions for 11. The requested relief is appropriate exempt any person, security or state premium taxes from the definition in the public interest because it would transaction, or any class or classes of of sales load in Rules 6e–2(c)(4) and 6e– promote competitiveness in the variable 3(T)(c)(4). life insurance market by eliminating the persons, securities or transactions, from 7. Applicants submit that the source need for applicants to file redundant any provision or provisions of the 1940 for the definition of sales load found in exemptive applications regarding the Act, to the extent that such exemption Rules 6e–2(c)(4) and 6e–3(T)(c)(4) federal tax charge, thereby reducing is necessary or appropriate in the public supports this analysis. Applicants their administrative expenses and interest and consistent with the believe that, in adopting paragraph maximizing the efficient use of their protection of investors and the purposes (c)(4) of the Rules, the Commission resources. Applicants represent that the fairly intended by the contract and intended to tailor the general terms of delay and expense involved in having to provisions of the 1940 Act. Section 2(a)(35) to variable life repeatedly seek exemptive relief would 2. For the reasons and upon the facts insurance contracts to ease verification impair their ability to effectively take set forth above, applicants submit that by the Commission of compliance with advantage of business opportunities as the requested exemptions from Sections the sales load limits of subparagraph they arise. (b)(13)(i) of the Rules. 27(a)(3) and 27(c)(2) of the 1940 Act and 12. Applicants further submit that the Rules 6e–2(c)(4)(v), 6e–3(T)(b)(13)(ii), 8. Applicants submit that the requested relief is consistent with the and 6e–3(T)(c)(4)(v) thereunder, are exclusion from the definition of sales purposes of the 1940 Act and the necessary and appropriate in the public load under Section 2(a)(35) of protection of investors for the same interest and consistent with the deductions from premiums for issue reasons. If applicants were required to taxes suggests that it is consistent with repeatedly seek exemptive relief with protection of investors and the purposes the policies of the 1940 Act to exclude respect to the same issues regarding the fairly intended by the contract and from the definition of sales load in Rule federal tax charge addressed in this provisions of the 1940 Act. Therefore, 6e–2 and 6e–3(T) deductions made to application, investors would not receive the standards set forth in Section 6(c) of pay an insurer’s costs attributable to its any benefit or additional protection the 1940 Act are satisfied. federal tax obligations. Additionally, the thereby and might be disadvantaged as For the Commission, by the Division exclusion of administrative expenses or a result of applicants’ increased of investment Management, pursuant to fees that are ‘‘not properly chargeable to overhead expenses. sales or promotional activities’’ also delegated authority. suggests that the only deductions Conditions for Relief Margaret H. McFarland, intended to fall within the definition of Applicants agree to the following Deputy Secretary. sales load are those that are properly conditions: [FR Doc. 95–19171 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] chargeable to sales or promotional a. Security Equity will monitor the BILLING CODE 8010±01±M activities. Applicants represent that the reasonableness of the charge to be Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39985 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION an individual’s disability benefits DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION should be terminated or continued on Agency Forms Submitted to the Office the basis of his/her impairment. The Federal Aviation Administration of Management and Budget for respondents are State disability Clearance determination services adjudicating [AC 20±62D] Title XVI disability claims. Normally on Fridays, the Social Draft Advisory Circular on Eligibility, Security Administration publishes a list Number of Respondents: 53,700. Quality, and Identification of of information collection packages that Frequency of Response: 1. Aeronautical Replacement Parts will require submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Average Burden Per Response: 30 AGENCY: Federal Aviation clearance in compliance with P.L. 96– minutes. Administration (FAA), DOT. 511, as amended (P.L. 104–13 effective Estimated Annual Burden: 26,850 ACTION: Notice of Availability of draft October 1, 1995), The Paperwork hours. Advisory Circular (AC) 20–62D and Reduction Act. Since the last list was request for comments. published in the Federal Register on 4. Cessation or Continuance of Disability or Blindness Determination July 28, 1995, the following information SUMMARY: This notice announces the collections have been proposed or will and Transmittal—Title II—OMB Control availability of and request comments on require extension of the current OMB No. 0960–0442. The information on a draft AC pertaining to guidance for use approvals: form SSA–833 is used by State in the determination of quality, A copy of each (the) collection disability determination services to eligibility, and traceability of instrument is included at the end of this prepare determinations of whether aeronautical replacement parts intended notice. Call Reports Clearance Officer on individuals receiving Title II disability for installation on type-certificated (410) 965–4142 for copies of clearance or blindness benefits continue to be products. This notice is necessary to package. unable to engage in substantial gainful give all interested persons the SSA Reports Clearance Officer: work by reason of their impairments opportunity to present their views on Charlotte S. Whitenight. and are still eligible for benefit the draft AC. 1. Notice Regarding Substitution of payments. It is also used to collect data Party Upon Death of Claimant— DATES: Comments must be received on for program evaluation and program or before October 3, 1995. Reconsideration of Disability management. Cessation—OMB Control No. 0960– ADDRESSES: Send all comments on the 0351. The information on form SSA–770 Number of Respondents: 268,700. draft AC to: Federal Aviation is used by the Social Security Frequency of Response: 1. Administration, General Aviation and Administration to obtain information Commercial Branch, AFS–340, 800 Average Burden Per Response: 30 from substitute parties regarding their Independence Avenue, SW., intention to pursue the appeals process minutes. Washington, DC 20591. Comments may on behalf of an individual who died. Estimated Annual Burden: 134,350 be inspected at the above address The respondents are such parties. hours. between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, Number of Respondents: 1,200. Written comments and except Federal holidays. Frequency of Response: 1. recommendations regarding these FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Average Burden Per Response: 5 information collections should be sent Al Michaels, AFS–340, at the address minutes. within 60 days from the date of this above, or telephone (202) 267–7501. Estimated Annual Burden: 100 hours. publication, directly to the SSA Reports SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 2. Disability Determination and Clearance Officer at the following Transmittal—OMB Control No. 0960– address: Social Security Administration, Comments Invited 0437. The information on form SSA–831 DCFAM, Attn: Charlotte S. Whitenight, A copy of the draft AC may be will be used by the State disability 6401 Security Blvd., 1–A–21 Operations obtained by contacting the person determination services to document Bldg., Baltimore, MD 21235. named above under FOR FURTHER whether an individual who applies for In addition to your comments on the INFORMATION CONTACT. The draft AC may disability benefits is eligible for those also be downloaded from the FedWorld benefits based on his or her alleged accuracy of the Agency’s burden estimate, we are soliciting comments on BBS by dialing (703) 321–8020, ANSI 8, disability. It is also used by SSA for 1, N, 9600 baud, or through the Internet program management and evaluation. the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its at the following Uniform Resource The respondents are state agency Location (URL): ftp:// employees who make disability quality, utility and clarity; and on ways to minimize burden on respondents, fwux.fedworld.gov/pub/faa/faa.htm. determinations for SSA. The file name is ‘‘AC20–62D.TXT.’’ including the use of automated Number of Respondents: 3,525,600. Interested persons are invited to collection techniques or other forms of Frequency of Response: 1. comment on the draft AC by submitting Average Burden Per Response: 15 information technology. such written data, views, or arguments minutes. Date: July 31, 1995. as they may desire. Commenters should Estimated Annual Burden: 881,400. Charlotte Whitenight, identify AC 20–62D, Eligibility, Quality, 3. Cessation or Continuance of Reports Clearance Officer, Social Security and Identification of Aeronautical Disability or Blindness Determination Administration, Replacement Parts, and submit and Transmittal—Title XVI—OMB [FR Doc. 95–19205 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] comments, in duplicate, to the address Control No. 0960–0443. The information specified above. All comments will be on form SSA–832 is used by State BILLING CODE 4190±29±P considered by the General Aviation and disability determination services to Commercial Branch, AFS–340, before document determinations as to whether issuing the final AC. 39986 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices Background Roberts, Jr., Director of Finance/ germane to the application in person at The FAA continues to receive reports Administration, Huntsville-Madison the office of the Huntsville-Madison of replacement parts being offered for County Airport Authority at the County Airport Authority. sales as aircraft quality and where the following address: 1000 Glenn Hearn Issued in Jackson, Mississippi on July 27, origin of the parts are unknown or Blvd, Box 20008, Huntsville, AL 35824. 1995. questionable. Such parts may be Air carriers and foreign air carriers Elton E. Jay, may submit copies of written comments advertised or presented as ‘‘unused,’’ Acting Manager, Airports District Office, ‘‘like new,’’ or ‘‘remanufactured.’’ previously provided to the Huntsville- Southern Region, Jackson, Mississippi. Madison County Airport Authority Purchasers of these parts may not be [FR Doc. 95–19189 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] under § 158.23 of part 158. aware of the potential hazards involved BILLING CODE 4910±13±M with replacement parts for which FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: acceptability for installation on a type- Elton E. Jay, Principal Engineer, FAA certificated product has not been Airports District Office, 120 North Notice of Intent to Rule on Application established. In determining whether Hangar Drive, Suite B, Jackson, to Use the Revenue From a Passenger installation of a part conforms with all Mississippi 39208–2306, telephone Facility Charge (PFC) at Philadelphia applicable regulations, the installer can number 601–965–4628. The application International Airport, Philadelphia, establish that the part was manufactured may be reviewed in person at this same Pennsylvania under a production approval pursuant location. AGENCY: to part 21 of the Federal Aviation SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), that an originally proposes to rule and invites public Administration (FAA), DOT. acceptable part has been maintained in comment on the application to use the ACTION: Notice of intent to rule on accordance with part 43 of the FAR, or revenue from a PFC at the Huntsville application. International Airport under the that the part is otherwise acceptable for SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and provisions of the Aviation Safety and installation, e.g., has been found to invites public comment on the Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title conform to data approved by the FAA. application to use the revenue from a IX of the Omnibus Budget This AC would address means to help PFC at Philadelphia International Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Public Law the installer make the required Airport under the provisions of the 101–508) and part 158 of the Federal determinations. Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158). Issued in Washington, D.C., on July 31, Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus 1995. On July 27, 1995, the FAA determined Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) William J. White, that the application to use the revenue (Public Law 101–508) and part 158 of Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service. from a PFC submitted by Huntsville- the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 Madison County Airport Authority was [FR Doc. 95–19188 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] CFR part 158). substantially complete within the BILLING CODE 4910±13±M DATES: Comments must be received on requirements of section 158.25 of part or before September 5, 1995. 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or ADDRESSES: Comments on this Notice of Intent to Rule on Application application may be mailed or delivered to Use the Revenue From a Passenger in part, no later than November 23, 1995. in triplicate to the FAA at the following Facility Charge (PFC) at the Huntsville address: Mr. L.W. Walsh, Manager, International Airport The following is a brief overview of the application. Harrisburg Airports District Office, 3911 Hartzdale Drive, Suite 1, Camp Hill, AGENCY: Federal Aviation Level of the proposed PFC: $3.00. Administration (FAA), DOT. Actual charge effective date: June 1, Pennsylvania 17011. In addition, one copy of any ACTION: Notice of intent to rule on 1992. application. Estimated charge expiration date: comments submitted to the FAA must October 31, 2008. be mailed or delivered to Mary Rose SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and Total estimated net PFC revenue: Loney, Director of Aviation for the City invites public comment on the $19,125,142. of Philadelphia at the following address: application to use the revenue from a Estimated PFC revenues to be used on Philadelphia International Airport, PFC at the Huntsville International projects in this application: Terminal E, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Airport under the provisions of the $1,563,128. 19153. Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Brief description of proposed project(s): Air carriers and foreign air carriers Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Land acquisition (23 acres), Air cargo may submit copies of written comments Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) apron expansion, and runway 18R– previously provided to the City of (Public Law 101–508) and part 158 of 36L rehabilitation. Philadelphia under § 158.23 of part 158. the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 Class or classes of air carriers which FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. CFR part 158). the public agency has requested not be L.W. Walsh, Manager, Harrisburg DATES: Comments must be received on required to collect PFCs: Air taxi/ Airports District Office, 3911 Hartzdale or before September 5, 1995. commercial operators, certified air Drive, Suite 1, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania ADDRESSES: Comments on this carriers, and certified route air carriers 17011, (717) 730–2835. The application application may be mailed or delivered having fewer than 500 annual may be reviewed in person at this same in triplicate to the FAA at the following operations. location. address: FAA/Airports District Office, Any person may inspect the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA 120 North Hangar Drive, Suite B, application in person at the FAA office proposes to rule and invites public Jackson, Mississippi 39208–2306. listed above the FOR FURTHER comment on the application to use the In addition, one copy of any INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, any revenue from a PFC at Philadelphia comments submitted to the FAA must person may, upon request, inspect the International Airport under the be mailed or delivered to Mr. Luther H. application, notice and other documents provisions of the Aviation Safety and Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39987 Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title Sprite Musketeer trailers are eligible for specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA IX of the Omnibus Budget importation. publishes notice in the Federal Register Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Public Law of each petition that it receives, and 101–508) and part 158 of the Federal SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt affords interested persons an Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158). by the National Highway Traffic Safety opportunity to comment on the petition. On July 11, 1995, the FAA determined Administration (NHTSA) of a petition At the close of the comment period, that the application to use the revenue for a decision that a 1980 Sprite NHTSA decides, on the basis of the from a PFC submitted by the City of Musketeer trailer that was not originally petition and any comments that it has Philadelphia was substantially complete manufactured to comply with all received, whether the vehicle is eligible within the requirements of § 158.25 of applicable Federal motor vehicle safety for importation. The agency then part 158. The FAA will approve or standards is eligible for importation into publishes this decision in the Federal disapprove the application, in whole or the United States because it has safety Register. features that comply with, or are in part, no later than October 24, 1995. Northern California Diagnostic capable of being altered to comply with, The following is a brief overview of Laboratories, Inc. of Napa, California all such standards. the application. Level of the proposed (Registered Importer R–92–011) has PFC: $3.00. DATES: The closing date for comments petitioned NHTSA to decide whether Proposed charge effective date: on the petition is September 5, 1995. 1980 Sprite Musketeer trailers are September 1, 1992. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to eligible for importation into the United Proposed charge expiration date: the docket number and notice number, States. The petitioner contends that this August 31, 1997. and be submitted to: Docket Section, vehicle, which it describes as an Total estimated PFC revenue: Room 5109, National Highway Traffic eighteen-foot, single axle, towable trailer $116,700,000. Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., manufactured in England, is eligible for Brief description of proposed project: SW, Washington, DC 20590. [Docket importation under 49 U.S.C. § 30141 This project provides for a boat hours are from 9:30 am to 4 pm.] (a)(1)(B) because it has safety features launching and storage facility on the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: that comply with, or are capable of Delaware River immediately south of being altered to comply with, all the airport. This will provide water George Entwistle, Office of Vehicle applicable Federal motor vehicle safety rescue capability which will greatly Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202–366– standards. enhance safety at the airport. 5306). Class or classes of air carriers which Specifically, the petitioner claims that the public agency has requested not be SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the 1980 Sprite Musketeer trailer required to collect PFCs: Air Taxi/ Background complies with the following standards: Standard Nos. 106 Brake Hoses, 115 Commercial Operators (ACTO) Filing Under 49 U.S.C. § 30141(a)(1)(A) FAA From 1800–31. Vehicle Identification Number, 119 New (formerly section 108(c)(3)(A)(i)(I) of the Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles other than Any person may inspect the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle application in person at the FAA office Passenger Cars, 120 Tire Selection and Safety Act (the Act)), a motor vehicle Rims for Motor Vehicles other than listed above under FOR FURTHER that was not originally manufactured to INFORMATION CONTACT and at the FAA Passenger Cars, and 121 Air Brake conform to all applicable Federal motor Systems. regional Airports office at: Fitzgerald vehicle safety standards shall be refused The petitioner also contends that the Federal Building, John F. Kennedy admission into the United States unless vehicle is capable of being readily International Airport, Jamaica, New NHTSA has decided that the motor altered to meet Standard No. 108 York, 11430. vehicle is substantially similar to a Lamps, Reflective Devices, and In addition, any person may, upon motor vehicle originally manufactured Associated Equipment, through the request, inspect the application, notice for importation into and sale in the installation of the equipment required and other documents germane to the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. by this standard. application in person at the § 30115 (formerly section 114 of the Philadelphia International Airport. Act), and of the same model year as the Interested persons are invited to Issued in Jamaica, New York on July 28, model of the motor vehicle to be submit comments on the petition 1995. compared, and is capable of being described above. Comments should refer Anthony P. Spera, readily altered to conform to all to the docket number and be submitted Manager, Airports Division, Eastern Region. applicable Federal motor vehicle safety to: Docket Section, National Highway [FR Doc. 95–19190 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] standards. Where there is no Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, SW, BILLING CODE 4910±13±M substantially similar U.S.-certified motor vehicle, 49 U.S.C. § 30141(a)(1)(B) Washington, DC 20590. It is requested (formerly section 108(c)(3)(A)(i)(II) of but not required that 10 copies be National Highway Traffic Safety the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1397(c)(3)(A)(i)(II)) submitted. Administration permits a nonconforming motor vehicle All comments received before the [Docket No. 95±58; Notice 1] to be admitted into the United States if close of business on the closing date its safety features comply with, or are indicated above will be considered, and Notice of Receipt of Petition for capable of being altered to comply with, will be available for examination in the Decision That Nonconforming 1980 all applicable Federal motor vehicle docket at the above address both before Sprite Musketeer Trailers Are Eligible safety standards based on destructive and after that date. To the extent for Importation test data or such other evidence as possible, comments filed after the NHTSA decides to be adequate. closing date will also be considered. AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Petitions for eligibility decisions may Notice of final action on the petition Safety Administration, DOT. be submitted by either manufacturers or will be published in the Federal ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for importers who have registered with Register pursuant to the authority decision that nonconforming 1980 NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592. As indicated below. 39988 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices Authority: 49 U.S.C. § 30141(a)(1)(B) and should address the specific questions of data on traffic related deaths and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority listed in the notice and any data-related injuries by the States. The comment at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. concerns applicable to the concept of a period closed on July 20, 1995. Issued on: August 1, 1995. national uniform data system or to the NHTSA received two requests that the Marilynne Jacobs, ISTEA requirement. Accordingly, the comment period be extended for sixty Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. comment period for Docket 95–26; (60) days. The first request, filed by [FR Doc. 95–19279 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] Notice 1 is reopened so that it closes Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, BILLING CODE 4910±59±M September 20, 1995. asked that the comment period be DATES: The comment period for Docket extended due to the variety of topics [Docket No. 95±26; Notice 2] 95–26; Notice 1 is reopened so that it included in the request for comments closes September 20, 1995. and because the National Safety Council Uniform Data Collection and Reporting ADDRESSES: Written comments should is due to publish a committee report on Program refer to Docket No. 95–26; Notice 2 and traffic records and the report has not yet should be submitted to: Docket Section, been completed. AGENCY: National Highway Traffic NHTSA, Room 5109, Nassif Building, The second request, filed by the Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, ACTION: This notice reopens the National Safety Council (NSC), asked D.C. 20590. (Docket hours are 9:30 A.M. that the comment period be extended to comment period on Uniform Data to 4:00 P.M.) Collection and Reporting Program allow for their solicitation of views from FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: published June 20, 1995. The comment the traffic records professionals who Janet Johnson, Office of Strategic period closed on July 20, 1995. will be attending their August meeting Planning and Evaluation, NPP–11, on analysis of highway safety data. This SUMMARY: This notice reopens the National Highway Traffic Safety conference is being cosponsored by comment period on a notice inviting Administration, 400 Seventh Street, NHTSA. NSC also mentions the report comments, suggestions and S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590; that is being prepared by the committee recommendations from individuals and telephone 202/366–2571. examining traffic needs and states that organizations with an interest in data SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA it would like the opportunity to submit support for highway and traffic safety published a notice and request for it to the docket as a comment to the problem identification and comments, suggestions and notice. countermeasure activities. NHTSA recommendations from individuals and NHTSA has carefully considered received two requests asking that the organizations with an interest in data these requests and believes that comment period be extended because of support for highway and traffic safety reopening the comment period will be related activity occurring in a committee problem identification and beneficial to our acquiring the conducted by the National Safety countermeasure activities. In particular, maximum input from the highway Council. NHTSA believes that a it solicited participation from the traffic safety community for use in our report reopening of the comment period would safety community regarding a uniform to Congress. satisfy the identified concerns of the data collection methodology and two petitioners and allow time for those process pursuant to the Intermodal Issued on: July 31, 1995. attending the Joint Conference on Surface Transportation Efficiency Act Donald C. Bischoff, Traffic Records and Highway Safety (ISTEA) of 1991. ISTEA required that Associate Administrator for Plans and Policy. Data to submit additional comments the Secretary establish a highway safety [FR Doc. 95–19280 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] after the August conference. Comments program for the collection and reporting BILLING CODE 4910±59±P 39989 Sunshine Act Meetings Federal Register Vol. 60, No. 150 Friday, August 4, 1995 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER 4. Any items carried forward from a FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT contains notices of meetings published under previously announced meeting. BOARD the ``Government in the Sunshine Act'' (Pub. L. 94-409) 5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3). Discussion Agenda TIME AND DATE: 9:00 a.m., August 21, 1995. Please Note That No Discussion Items PLACE: Are Scheduled For This Meeting. National Finance Center, First UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATION Floor, Conference Room 6, USDA/NFC Note: If an item is moved from the Board of Directors Building No. 350, NASA Space Facility, Summary Agenda to the Discussion Agenda, 13800 Old Gentilly Road, New Orleans, TIME AND DATE: 8:00 a.m., Tuesday, discussion of the item will be recorded. Louisiana. August 8, 1995. Cassettes will then be available for listening in the Board’s Freedom of Information Office, STATUS: Open. PLACE : USEC Corporate Headquarters, and copies can be ordered for $5 per cassette MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 6903 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, by calling (202) 452–3684 or by writing to: Maryland 20817. 1. Approval of the minutes of the July 17, Freedom of Information Office, Board of 1995, Board meeting STATUS: The meeting will be closed to Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 2. Thrift Savings Plan activity report by the the public. Washington, D.C. 20551. Executive Director MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 3. Review of investment policy CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 4. Review of Arthur Andersen’s semiannual • Review of commercial and financial Mr. Joseph R. Coyne, Assistant to the review issues of the Corporation. Board; (202) 452–3204. 5. Briefings by National Finance Center and • Procedural matters. Dated: August 2, 1995. Board staff on: CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: William W. Wiles, a. Update on Recordkeeper organization Barbara Arnold, 301–564–3354. and activity Secretary of the Board. b. Recordkeeper costs Dated: August 1, 1995. [FR Doc. 95–19373 Filed 8–2–95; 11:11 am] c. Thrift Savings Plan system issues William H. Timbers, Jr., BILLING CODE 6210±01±P±M d. Implementation of audit President and Chief Executive Officer. recommendations [FR Doc. 95–19419 Filed 8–2–95; 3:06 pm] e. Participant services BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL BILLING CODE 8720±01±M CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: RESERVE SYSTEM Tom Trabucco, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942–1640. BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL TIME AND DATE: Approximately 10:15 RESERVE SYSTEM a.m., Wednesday, August 9, 1995, Dated: August 1, 1995. following a recess at the conclusion of Roger W. Mehle, TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, the open meeting. August 9, 1995. Executive Director, Federal Retirement Thrift PLACE: Investment Board. PLACEL: William McChesney Martin, Jr., William McChesney Martin, Jr. [FR Doc. 95–19375 Filed 8–2–95; 3:06 pm] Federal Reserve Board Building, C Federal Reserve Board Building, C Street entrance between 20th and 21st Street entrance between 20th and 21st BILLING CODE 6760±01±M Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551. Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551. Note: Until further notice, open meetings STATUS: Closed. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE will be held in the Martin Building, not the CORPORATION MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Eccles Building. 1. Personnel actions (appointments, Notice of Agency Meeting STATUS: Open. promotions, assignments, reassignments, and Pursuant to the provisions of the MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: salary actions) involving individual Federal ‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (5 Reserve System employees. Summary Agenda U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that 2. Any items carried forward from a the Federal Deposit Insurance previously announced meeting. Because of their routine nature, no Corporation’s Board of Directors will discussion of the following items is meet in open session at 10:00 a.m. on anticipated. These matters will be voted CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Mr. Joseph R. Coyne, Assistant to the Tuesday, August 8, 1995, to consider on without discussion unless a member the following matters: of the Board requests that an item be Board; (202) 452–3204. You may call moved to the discussion agenda. (202) 452–3207, beginning at Summary Agenda approximately 5 p.m. two business days 1. Proposal to establish a firm closing time before this meeting, for a recorded No substantive discussion of the for the Fedwire securities transfer service announcement of bank and bank following items is anticipated. These (proposed earlier for public comment; Docket matters will be resolved with a single No. R–0866). holding company applications scheduled for the meeting. vote unless a member of the Board of 2. Proposed modifications to the Fedwire Directors requests that an item be third-party access policy. Dated: August 2, 1995. moved to the discussion agenda. 3. Publication for comment of a proposal William W. Wiles, to control third-party and respondent Disposition of minutes of previous Secretary of the Board. institution access to the Federal Reserve meetings. Banks’ automated clearing house (ACH) [FR Doc. 95–19374 Filed 8–2–95; 11:11 am] Reports of actions approved by the service. BILLING CODE 6210±01±P standing committees of the Corporation and 39990 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Sunshine Act Meetings by officers of the Corporation pursuant to The FDIC will provide attendees with STATUS: Open to the public. authority delegated by the Board of Directors. auxiliary aids (e.g., sign language MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Memorandum re: Mid-Year Budget Review interpretation) required for this meeting. Summary Report. Those attendees needing such assistance 1. Agenda for future meeting Memorandum re: Quarterly Budget Variance should call (202) 942–3132 (Voice); 2. Minutes Summary Report. (202) 942–3111 (TTY), to make 3. Ratification List Discussion Agenda necessary arrangements. 4. Inv. Nos. 731–TA–736–737 (Preliminary) Memorandum and resolution re: Final Requests for further information (Large Newspaper Printing Presses and amendments to Part 327 of the Corporation’s concerning the meeting may be directed Components Thereof, Whether rules and regulations, entitled to Mr. Jerry L. Langley, Executive Assembled or Unassembled, from Germany and Japan)—briefing and vote. ‘‘Assessments,’’ which (1) establish a new Secretary of the Corporation, at (202) 5. Outstanding action jackets: assessment rate schedule for institutions 898–6757. whose deposits are subject to assessment by 1. ID–95–024, Report on Inv. No. 332–357 the Bank Insurance Fund, (2) amend the Dated: August 1, 1995. (Lamb Meat: Competitive Conditions assessment risk classification matrix to Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Affecting the U.S. and Foreign Lamb widen the existing assessment rate spread, Jerry L. Langley, Industries). and (3) establish a procedure for adjusting Executive Secretary. the rate schedule semiannually as necessary In accordance with Commission to meet statutory requirements. [FR Doc. 95–19450 Filed 8–2–95; 3:57 pm] policy, subject matter listed above, not Memorandum and resolution re: Final BILLING CODE 6714±O±M disposed of at the scheduled meeting, amendments to Part 327 of the Corporation’s rules and regulations, entitled may be carried over to the agenda of the ‘‘Assessments,’’ which would adopt an UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE following meeting. assessment rate schedule applicable to COMMISSION By order of the Commission: members of the Savings Association Insurance Fund. [USITC SE–95–023] Issued: August 2, 1995. The meeting will be held in the Board TIME AND DATE: August 14, 1995 at 11:00 Donna R. Koehnke, Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC a.m. Secretary. Building located at 550–17th Street, PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street S.W., [FR Doc. 95–19438 Filed 8–02–95; 3:18 pm] N.W., Washington, D.C. Washington, DC 20436. BILLING CODE 7020±02±P 39991 Corrections Federal Register Vol. 60, No. 150 Friday, August 4, 1995 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER It should have appeared in the Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION contains editorial corrections of previously and Regulations section. published Presidential, Rule, Proposed Rule, Research amd Special Programs and Notice documents. These corrections are BILLING CODE 1505±01±D Administration prepared by the Office of the Federal Register. Agency prepared corrections are 49 CFR Part 172 issued as signed documents and appear in LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION the appropriate document categories [Docket No. HM-215A; Amdt Nos. 171-131, elsewhere in the issue. Grant Award for the Provision of Civil 172-139, 173-241, 175-52, 176-36, 177-84, Legal Services to Hawaii Migrant 178-106] Farmworkers RIN 2137-aC42 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Correction Implementation of the United Nations Recommendations, International National Oceanic and Atmospheric In notice document 95–18032 Administration Maritime Danagerous Goods Code, beginning on page 37690 in the issue of and International Civil Aviation 50 CFR Part 661 Friday, July 21, 1995, make the Organization's Technical Instructions following correction: Correction [Docket No. 950426116-5116-01; I.D. On page 37691, in the first column, 071095B] under DATES:, in the third line, ‘‘August In rule document 94–31175 beginning 12, 1995.’’ should read ‘‘August 21, on page 67390 in the issue of Thursday, Ocean Salmon Fisheries Off the 1995.’’ December 29, 1994, make the following Coasts of Washington, Oregon, and correction: California; Closure BILLING CODE 1505±01±D § 172.101 [Corrected] Correction On page 67419, in § 172.101, in the Final rule document 95–17686 was table, in the first column, in the last inadvertently published in the Proposed entry, ‘‘+’’ should appear before Rules section of the issue of Wednesday, ‘‘Bromine trifluoride’’. July 19, 1995, beginning on page 37045. BILLING CODE 1505±01±D federal register August 4,1995 Friday Grants Program;SolicitationNotice Fiscal Year1996EnvironmentalEducation Protection Agency Environmental Part II 39993 39994 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION office? Is there a difference between the 1992, EPA has funded only about 10 AGENCY type of project that is funded by EPA proposals annually for projects headquarters as opposed to EPA’s requesting between $25,001 and [FRL±5268±2] regional offices? $250,000, and only 1 proposal each year Fiscal Year 1996 Environmental Pre-applications requesting between has been funded at or near the $250,000 Education Grants Program; $25,001 and $250,000 in federal level. By contrast, EPA has funded Solicitation Notice environmental education grant funds about 30 proposals annually for projects must be mailed to EPA headquarters in requesting between $5,001 and $25,000, Section I. Important Pre-Application Washington, DC; pre-applications and about 200 proposals annually for Information requesting $25,000 or less must be projects requesting $5,000 or less. EPA mailed to the EPA regional office where A. What is the purpose of this has received between 1,200 and 3,000 the project takes place (rather than to solicitation notice? pre-applications each year. To increase the regional office where the applicant This notice solicits grant pre- your chance of obtaining funding in FY is located, if these locations are applications from education 1996, EPA strongly encourages different). A list of addresses is included institutions, public agencies, and non- applicants to request regional grants of at the end of this notice. The EPA profit organizations to support $5,000 or less. If larger sums are needed, headquarters and regional grants will be environmental education projects as EPA strongly encourages applicants to evaluated using the same criteria as request a headquarters grant closer to defined in this notice. defined in this solicitation. The only B. What is the Environmental difference between grants that are $25,000 rather than the maximum of Education Grants Program? How much awarded by EPA headquarters and by $250,000. money is available for this program? EPA’s regional offices is the amount of Section II. Eligible Applicants The Environmental Education Grants money awarded. Program provides financial support for F. Where do I get the information and H. Who is eligible to submit pre- projects which design, demonstrate, or forms needed to prepare my pre- applications? disseminate environmental education application? Any local or tribal government practices, methods, or techniques. This Please read this solicitation notice program is authorized under Section 6 education agency, state government carefully; it contains all the information education or environmental agency, of the National Environmental and forms necessary to prepare a pre- college or university, not-for-profit Education Act of 1990 (the Act) (P.L. application. If your project is selected as organization, or noncommercial 101–619). Congress has appropriated a finalist after the evaluation process is educational broadcasting entity may approximately $11 million for this concluded, EPA will provide you with submit a pre-application. These terms grants program over the past four years additional forms needed to process your are defined in Section 3 of the Act and (between $2.5 and $2.9 million per year pre-application. from FY 1992 through FY 1995). EPA G. How much money can I request for 40 CFR Part 47.105. headquarters awards approximately $1 my grant project? How does the dollar I. May an organization submit more million in grant funds per year and each amount requested affect my chance of than one pre-application in FY 1996? of EPA’s ten regional offices award being funded? Yes, an organization may submit more approximately $150,000 to $180,000 per Applicants may request up to than one pre-application, but only if the year. EPA expects funding in FY 1996 $250,000 in environmental education pre-applications are for different to be about the same as in the past and grant funds for any one grant. However, projects. No organization will be will award grants subject to the amount pre-applications which request awarded more than one grant for the of funds appropriated by Congress. relatively small amounts of funding, same project during the same fiscal year. C. What is environmental education? especially for $5,000 or less, have a The goal of environmental education much better chance of being funded J. May I submit a pre-application for is to increase public awareness and because EPA awards a much greater Fiscal Year 1996 even if I have been knowledge about environmental issues, number of grants at lower funding awarded funding under this program in and to provide the public with the skills levels. In fact, your chance of being the past four years? needed to make informed decisions and funded increases dramatically as the Yes, applicants who were awarded to take responsible actions. amount of money you request decreases. funding previously may submit a pre- Environmental education enhances A significant number of smaller awards application for FY 1996. The FY 1996 critical-thinking, problem-solving, and are made for the following reasons. pre-application may or may not have effective decision-making skills. It also First, EPA is required, under Section any relationship to the project funded in teaches individuals to weigh various 6(i) of the Act, to award 25% of the total a previous year. Each pre-application for sides of an environmental issue to make amount of our grant funds for projects FY 1996 will be evaluated based upon informed and responsible decisions. which request $5,000 or less. For each the specific criteria set forth in this D. When is my pre-application due to EPA region, this means that 50% of the solicitation and in relation to the other EPA and when will EPA announce the regional grant funds each year are pre-applications. grant awards? designated for grants of $5,000 or less. K. May a teacher, educator, or faculty Pre-applications (a signed original Second, EPA chooses to award only a member apply? plus two copies) must be mailed to EPA few large grants (e.g., those submitted to postmarked no later than Friday, headquarters which request over A teacher’s school district, an October 13, 1995. Pre-applications $100,000) to enable EPA to support educator’s nonprofit organization, or a which are postmarked after October 13, more projects. faculty member’s college or university 1995 will not be considered for funding. EPA has awarded grants under the may apply, but an individual teacher, EPA expects to announce the 1996 grant Environmental Education Grants educator, or faculty member cannot. awards in the Spring of 1996. Program from FY 1992 through FY 1995. Only agencies, organizations, and E. Do I mail my pre-application to Individual awards have ranged from less institutions—not individuals—are EPA headquarters or an EPA regional than $5,000 up to $250,000. Since FY eligible to apply for grants. Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39995 Section III. Eligible Activities and projects, NOT projects that are solely b. educating teachers, students, or the Funding Priorities designed to develop or disseminate public about human health problems L. What general activities are eligible environmental information. As from environmental pollution; c. building state, local, or tribal for funding under this program? discussed under Section I.C. above, As specified under the Act, the environmental education teaches capacity to develop and deliver environmental education activities that critical-thinking, problem-solving skills, environmental education programs; d. promoting environmental careers are eligible for funding under this and decision-making skills. By contrast, environmental information provides among students; program must include, but are not e. educating members of a community limited to, at least one of the following: facts or opinions about environmental issues or problems, but does not through a community-based 1. designing, demonstrating, or organization; OR disseminating environmental curricula; enhance critical-thinking, problem- solving, or effective decision-making f. educating the general public to be 2. assessing environmental and more environmentally conscious in ecological conditions or specific skills. Although information is an essential element of any educational making informed decisions and taking environmental issues or problems; responsible actions through print, film, 3. training or educating teachers, effort, environmental information is not, by itself, environmental education. In broadcast, or other media. faculty, or related personnel; or All proposals MUST clearly identify 4. fostering international cooperation other words, environmental education teaches people how to think, not what which of the above the proposal will in addressing environmental issues and focus on. You will NOT increase your problems in the United States, Canada, to think. N. What specific type of projects will chances of being funded by focusing on and/or Mexico. more than one of the above. The terms Under Section III.L.1. above, EPA EPA fund? EPA will fund only those proposals used under Section III.N.2.a–f. are strongly encourages applicants to which meet the criteria specified under defined below. demonstrate or disseminate existing #1 and #2 below. Proposals which do The term workshop refers to training environmental curricula rather than not meet these criteria will not be activities that prepare educators to designing new curricula because experts funded. utilize environmental education indicate that a significant amount of 1. As specified under the Act, all materials. Workshops may be directed quality curricula have already been proposals MUST discuss how the toward young people and/or adults in developed and are under-utilized. EPA proposed project: formal and/or informal settings. (A will consider funding new curricula a. is new or significantly improved; formal setting is a school, college, only where the applicant demonstrates b. has the potential for wide university, or other similar institution that there is a need (e.g., that the new application; AND devoted to learning; an informal setting curriculum has not been designed for a c. addresses a high priority may include a museum, nature center, certain audience, existing curricula environmental issue. park, or community center which may cannot be adapted well to a particular Applicants must define ‘‘new or not be devoted to learning but often local environmental concern, or existing significantly improved,’’ ‘‘wide includes such activities). Workshops curricula are not otherwise accessible). application,’’ and ‘‘high priority should emphasize a process, problem- The applicant must specify what steps environmental issue’’ as they relate to solving, and investigative approach to they have taken to determine this need each individual project. For example, a learning, and use a ‘‘hands-on’’ (e.g., you may cite a conference where project may be new or significantly approach to learning that leads to the this need was discussed, the results of improved if it reaches a specific development of problem-solving and inquiries made within your community community for the first time, develops critical-thinking skills. or with various educational institutions, a new or improved teaching strategy, or The term building state, local, or or a research or other published uses a new or improved method of tribal capacity refers to the development document). applying existing materials. Similarly, a and implementation of plans designed M. What activities are NOT eligible project may have wide application if it to improve the coordinated delivery of for funding under this program? targets a large and diverse audience in environmental education at the state, Funds cannot be used for: terms of numbers or demographics or if local, or tribal level. This should 1. construction projects; it can serve as a model program involve a coordinated effort by the 2. technical training of environmental elsewhere. Finally, a project may primary environmental education management professionals; address a high priority environmental providers from the respective state, 3. non-educational research and issue if the applicant demonstrates its local, or tribal government in the development; and/or importance to the community, state, or planning and implementation of the 4. environmental information region being targeted by the project (e.g., project (e.g., State Departments of projects. one community may have significant air Education or Natural Resources, local Under Section III.M.4. above, EPA pollution problems which makes school districts, and state, local, and will not fund construction activities teaching about human health affects tribal environmental education such as the acquisition of real property from and solutions to air pollution coordinating councils). Examples of (e.g., buildings) or the construction or important, while rapid development in how to build state, local, or tribal modification of any building. EPA may, another community may threaten a capacity include the development of however, fund activities such as nearby wildlife habitat, thus, making plans for: creating a nature trail or building a bird habitat or ecosystem protection a high • identifying and assessing needs as watching station as long as these items priority issue). well as setting priorities; are an integral part of the environmental 2. All proposals MUST also focus on • creating grant programs or education project, and the cost is a ONE of the following: identifying funding sources for relatively small percentage of the total a. improving environmental education environmental education providers; amount of federal funds requested. teaching skills for teachers, faculty, and and/or Under Section III.M.4. above, EPA other nonformal educators (e.g., through • identifying environmental will fund only environmental education workshops); education teacher training needs. 39996 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices The term community-based any federal funds to meet all or any part be given the flexibility to provide up to organization refers to organizations in of the required 25% match as stated in 10 additional points for exceptional which local problems are addressed by Section IV.P. above. If you have already projects based upon the overall quality individuals who reside in the been awarded federal funds for a project of the proposal. All criteria used to community being served. in which you are seeking additional provide these 10 additional points will support from this program, you must Section IV. The Pre-Application be consistent with the criteria indicate in the budget section of the established in the solicitation. O. What is a pre-application? work plan that you have been awarded All work plans must include and be The pre-application contains three other federal support for this project. formatted according all four sections (a– parts: (1) The ‘‘Application for Federal You must also identify the project d) below: Assistance’’ (Standard Form 424 (or SF officer, agency, office, address, phone a. Project Summary: Provide EPA 424, attached)), (2) the ‘‘Budget number, and the amount of the award. with an overview of your entire project. Information: Non-Construction R. Can I request funding for any The summary must be no more than one Programs’’ (Standard Form 424A (or SF budget category on the SF 424A (i.e., page and must briefly include all seven 424A, attached)), and (3) a work plan personnel/salaries, fringe benefits, of the following: (described below). To ensure your pre- travel, equipment, supplies, contractual, (1) Describe your organization (and application is completed properly, and indirect charges)? your key partners); carefully follow the instructions on the Yes, you may request funding for any (2) State the goals and specific SF 424, SF 424A, and those provided or all of the budget categories identified objectives of your project; below. The SF 424, SF 424A, and above with the following exceptions. (3) Identify what type of project you completed work plan contain all the First, as indicated under Section III.M.1. will focus on as described under Section information EPA will use to evaluate the above, EPA will not fund the acquisition III.N.2.a–f. (e.g., teacher training or merits of your pre-application. Only of real property (including buildings) or community-based education); finalists will be asked to submit the construction or modification of any (4) Describe the demographics of your additional forms needed to process your building. target audience (including the total pre-application. Second, you may request funds to pay number of direct participants, ethnic P. Are matching funds required? for salaries and fringe benefits, but only composition, and type of individuals Yes, non-federal matching funds of at for those personnel who are directly reached such as teachers, students, or least 25% of the total cost of the project involved in implementing the proposed the general public). are required, although EPA encourages project and whose salaries and fringe (5) Indicate how you will reach your matching funds of greater than 25%. benefits are directly related to specific target audience; Federal funds to support the project products or outcomes of the proposed (6) Describe the expected results of must not exceed 75% of the total cost project. EPA strongly encourages your project and how you will evaluate of the project. The 25% match may be applicants to request reasonable it; and provided by the applicant or any amounts of funding for salaries and (7) Indicate what types of activities another organization or institution, fringe benefits. Third, you may include the EPA funds will be used for. except that no portion of the 25% match a request for indirect costs if your The project summary will be scored can include federal funds (unless organization has already negotiated and on how well you provide an overview specifically authorized by statute). The received an indirect cost rate from the of your entire project based upon the 25% match may be provided in cash or federal government. seven subsections identified above. by in-kind contributions and other non- S. What must be included in the pre- cash support. In-kind contributions application? Project Summary Maximum Score: 5 often include salaries or other verifiable The pre-application must contain an points costs. In the case of salaries, applicants SF 424, SF 424A, and work plan as b. Project Description: Provide EPA may use either minimum wage or fair described below: with an explanation of how your market value. The proposed match, 1. Application for Federal Assistance proposed project meets #1 and #2 below. including the value of in-kind and Budget Information (SF 424 and SF (1) Explain how the proposed project contributions, is subject to negotiation 424A). The SF 424 and SF 424A are (a) is new or significantly improved, (b) with EPA. The value of in-kind required for all federal grants. A has wide application, AND (c) addresses contributions must be carefully completed SF 424 and SF 424A must be a priority issue as described under documented. All grants are subject to submitted as part of your pre- Section III.N.1.a, b, and c. audit. application. These forms, along with This subsection will be scored on how The matching non-federal share is a instructions and samples, are included well you explain how your proposal percentage of the entire cost of the at the end of this notice. Please carefully meets the three elements identified project. For example, if the 75% federal review the instructions and the sample. above. Subsection maximum score: 15 portion is $5,000, then the entire project Refer to Section IV.R. above for points (5 points for each of the three should, at a minimum, have a budget of information on what types of budget elements identified above). $6,667, with the recipient providing a categories can and cannot be funded (2) Explain how the proposed project contribution of $1,667. The amount of under this program. (a) improves teaching skills; (b) educates non-federal funds, including in-kind 2. Work Plan. A work plan describes about human health problems from contributions, must be itemized in your proposed project. The total number pollution; (c) builds state, local, or tribal Block 15 of the SF 424. of points possible for each proposal is capacity; (d) promotes environmental Q. Can I use federal funds in addition 100. These points will be distributed as careers; (e) educates a community to those provided by this program to follows. First, each of the following four through a community-based support the same project? sections of the work plan are assigned organization; OR (f) educates the general Yes, you may use federal funds in points which add up to 90. (Certain public as described under Section addition to those provided by this sections are given more points than III.N.2.a–f. program, but only for different others reflecting the relative importance This subsection will be scored on how activities. However, you may not use of each section). Second, reviewers will clearly and effectively your project (a) Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39997 establishes realistic goals and objectives, This subsection will be scored based Section V. Review and Selection (b) identifies its target audience and upon whether resumes of key personnel Process demonstrates an understanding of the are included and whether the key W. How will pre-applications be needs of that audience, (c) uses an personnel are qualified to implement reviewed and who will conduct the effective means or delivery system for the proposed project. In addition, the reviews? reaching the target audience/ score will reflect whether letters of Pre-applications will be reviewed in implementing the project, and (d) commitment are included (if partners two phases—the screening phase and demonstrates that it uses or produces are used) and the extent to which a firm the evaluation phase. During the quality educational products or methods commitment is made. Subsection screening phase, pre-applications will which teach critical-thinking, problem- maximum score: 10 points. be reviewed to determine whether they solving, and decision-making skills. Appendices Maximum Score: 20 points meet the basic requirements of this Subsection maximum score: 40 points T. What are the page limits for the notice, especially as described under (10 points for each of the four work plan? Sections II and III. Only those pre- elements identified in this paragraph) Your work plan may include the applications which meet all of the basic Project Description Maximum Score: 55 requirements will enter the evaluation points following number of pages for requests in federal funds of: phase of the review process. During the c. Project Evaluation: Provide EPA 1. $5,000 or less—EPA prefers a work evaluation phase, pre-applications will with an explanation of how you will plan of 3 pages, but will accept up to 5 be evaluated based upon the quality of determine or measure whether you are pages. their work plans, especially the degree meeting the goals and objectives of your to which the work plan meets the project. Evaluation plans may be 2. $5,001 up to $250,000—a work plan of up to 10 pages. requirements set forth in Section III.N.1 quantitative and/or qualitative and may and 2. Reviewers conducting the These page limits apply only to the include, for example, surveys, screening and evaluation phases of the work plan (i.e., the ‘‘summary,’’ ‘‘project observation, or outside consultation. review process will include EPA description,’’ and ‘‘project evaluation’’), The project evaluation will be scored officials and external environmental not the appendices. ‘‘One page’’ refers on the extent to which (a) your educators approved by EPA. At the to one side of a single-spaced typed evaluation plan will measure the conclusion of the evaluation phase, the page. The pages must be letter sized (81⁄2 project’s effectiveness and (b) you plan reviewers will score each applicant’s X 11 inches), with normal type size (10 to apply data gathered from your work plan based upon the scoring or 12 cpi) and at least 1 inch margins. evaluation to strengthen your project. system identified in Section IV.S.2. To conserve paper, please provide Project Evaluation Maximum Score: 10 X. How will the final selections be double-sided copies of the pre- points (5 points for each of the two made? elements identified above) application. After individual projects are d. Appendices: Provide EPA with a U. How must the pre-application be evaluated and scored by the reviewers detailed budget, resumes of key submitted? as described under Section V.W. above, personnel, and letters of commitment. The applicant must submit one EPA officials in the regions and at No other appendices or attachments original and two copies of the pre- headquarters will identify finalists such as video tapes or sample curricula application (a signed SF 424, an SF among the highest ranking pre- may be submitted. 424A, and a work plan). Please submit applications. In making final selections, (1) Budget: Describe how you will use ONLY the SF 424, the SF 424A, and the EPA’s goal is to fund diverse types of the funds for personnel/salaries, fringe work plan. Do not include other projects that take into account, but are benefits, travel, equipment, supplies, attachments such as cover letters, tables not limited to, the following: contract costs, and indirect costs. You of contents, or appendices other than 1. the geographic location of the must also include a table which lists those required (budget, resumes, letters project; each major proposed activity as well as of commitment). The SF 424 should be 2. the type of environmental problem the month and year it will be completed the first page of your pre-application or issue addressed; and the amount of EPA funds that will and must be signed by a person 3. the type of target audience and be spent on each activity. For smaller authorized to receive funds. Pre- their socioeconomic status; grants, your table may list only one or applications must be reproducible; they 4. the methods used to reach the two activities. should not be bound. They should be target audience; This subsection will be scored on (a) stapled or clipped once in the upper left 5. the type of organization submitting how well the budget information clearly hand corner, on white paper, and with the proposal and/or whether the and accurately shows how funds will be page numbers in the upper right hand proposal makes effective use of used, and (b) whether the funding corner. partnerships; and request is reasonable given the activities V. What regulations must I comply 6. the cost. proposed. Subsection maximum score: with in submitting my proposal? In reference to socioeconomic status, 10 points (5 points for each of the two The Environmental Education Grant under Section V.X.1. above, EPA’s goal elements identified in this paragraph). Program Regulations, published in the is to encourage applicants to submit (2) Key Personnel and Letters of Federal Register on March 9, 1992, proposals that promote environmental Commitment: Attach one or two page provides some additional information justice for culturally-diverse and low- resumes for up to three key personnel on EPA’s administration this program income populations. EPA hopes to fund implementing the project. Also, include (57 Federal Register 8390; Title 40 CFR, many proposals which score high in the one page letters of commitment from Part 47 or 40 CFR Part 47). Also, EPA’s evaluation process and which promote partners (if there are partners) with a general assistance regulations at 40 CFR environmental justice. The term significant role in the proposed project. Part 31 applies to state, local, and environmental justice refers to the fair Do not include letters of support; they Indian tribal governments and 40 CFR treatment of people of all races, will not be considered in evaluating pre- Part 30 applies to all other applicants cultures, and income with respect to the applications. such as nonprofit organizations. development, implementation and 39998 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices enforcement of environmental laws, everyday lives to minimize adverse EPA grant agreement. Since EPA plans regulations, and policies. Fair treatment effects of human activities on the to announce awards in the spring of means that no racial, ethnic, or environment (e.g., in the home, work 1996, EPA recommends that you do not socioeconomic group should bear a place, market place, and/or community). plan to begin incurring costs until June disproportionate share of the negative EPA Regional Administrators will of 1996. environmental consequences resulting select grant recipients for projects with BB. May an applicant request Fiscal from the operation of industrial, federal environmental education grant Year 1996 funds for a project that municipal, and commercial enterprises funding of $25,000 or less, taking into extends beyond a one-year budget and from the execution of federal, state, account the recommendations of the period? local, and tribal programs and policies. regional environmental education Pre-applications submitted to EPA Efforts to address environmental coordinators who will base their regional offices for up to $5,000 may justice through environmental recommendations on the factors request funds for only a one-year budget education may include educational discussed above. The Associate period. Pre-applications submitted to programs that provide culturally-diverse Administrator for Communications, EPA regional offices or headquarters and low-income populations with Education, and Public Affairs at EPA requesting funds of more than $5,000 critical-thinking, problem-solving, and headquarters will select the grant may request funds for up to a two-year decision-making skills to identify, recipients for projects with federal budget period, although EPA strongly assess, and address an environmental environmental education grant funding encourages applicants to request funds problem that has a disproportionately of more than $25,000 and up to for only a one-year budget period. high and adverse human health or $250,000, taking into account the CC. Who will perform projects and environmental impact in their recommendations of the Environmental activities? community. Education Division Director who will The Act requires that projects be In reference to the effective use of base the recommendations on the performed by the applicant or by a partnerships, under Section V.X.3. factors discussed above. person satisfactory to the applicant and above, EPA’s goal is to encourage Y. How and when will I be notified EPA. All pre-applications must identify applicants to submit proposals which about the status of my proposal? any person other than the applicant that form partnerships, where possible. EPA Applicants will receive a will assist in carrying out the project. hopes to fund many proposals which confirmation that EPA has received DD. What reports and work products score high in the evaluation process and their pre-application once EPA has must grant recipients submit to EPA and which promote the effective use of received all pre-applications and when are they due? partnerships between organizations. The entered them into a computerized data All grant recipients must submit two term partnerships refers to forming a base (in the winter of 1995–1996). EPA copies of their final report and two collaborative working relationship will notify applicants again after awards copies of all work products to the EPA between two or more organizations such have been announced (in the spring of project officer within 30 days after the as governmental agencies, non-profit 1996). To the extent possible, this expiration of the budget period. This organizations, educational institutions, notification will include feedback on report will be accepted as the final and/or the private sector. those proposals which were screened report unless the EPA project officer In reference to the type of out of the process early and on how notifies you that changes must be made. environmental issue, under Section proposals were evaluated. The degree to Grant recipients with projects that have V.X.4. above, EPA’s goal is to encourage which EPA can provide such feedback a two-year budget period must also applicants to submit proposals which will vary among EPA offices depending submit a progress report at the end of use pollution prevention concepts or upon the availability of resources to the first year. Grant recipients with a techniques to address a high priority conduct these activities. federal environmental education grant environmental issue (as discussed under Z. Where may I obtain more share greater than $5,000 may also be Section III.N.1.c.). EPA hopes to fund information on possible sources of required to submit a semi-annual many proposals which score high in the funding other than this program? progress report. Specific report evaluation process and which convey The large number of pre-applications requirements will be identified in the the importance of pollution prevention. EPA received in the past four years EPA award agreement. The term pollution prevention refers to demonstrates the strong demand for EE. What does EPA plan to do with reducing or eliminating waste or funding environmental education the grant recipients’ final reports and pollution at the source. It means not projects. Unfortunately, EPA alone final work products? creating waste or pollution in the first cannot meet this demand. In EPA hopes to assemble a central place, instead of deciding how to cooperation with EPA, the North library of all final reports and work recycle, treat, or dispose of waste and American Association for products at headquarters in Washington, pollution that has already been created. Environmental Education (NAAEE) has D.C. EPA plans to evaluate these final Pollution prevention may include developed a publication called ‘‘Grant reports and work products and may increasing energy efficiency and Funding For Your Environmental disseminate them to others to serve as resource conservation efforts, as well as Education Program’’ which provides model programs. finding non-polluting substitutes for strategies for identifying potential Section VII. Additional Information on existing products and activities. sources of funding. This publication can Preparing Pre-Applications and for the Pollution prevention is EPA’s be purchased for a $5.00 fee by writing FY 1997 Program preferred approach to reduce risk to to NAAEE, Publications and Member public health and the environment. Services, P.O. Box 400, Troy, Ohio, FF. Where can I get additional Efforts to promote pollution prevention 45373. information in preparing my pre- through environmental education may application? include projects that educate the public Section VI. Grant Recipient Activities EPA strongly encourages applicants to about the value of preventive AA. When can I begin incurring costs? carefully read the solicitation notice. approaches to environmental problems Grant recipients may begin incurring Many questions, such as when is the and the choices they can make in their costs on the start date identified in your deadline for submitting pre-applications Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 39999 and what activities can be funded under include all applicants who submitted Section (3PM71), 841 Chestnut Street, this program, are answered in this pre-applications for Fiscal Year 1996 as Philadelphia, PA 19107 solicitation. Applicants who need more well as anyone else who specifically Information: EE Coordinator, 215–597–9076 information about this grant program or requests to be placed on the mailing list. EPA Region IV—AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, clarification about specific requirements If you did not submit a pre-application TN in this solicitation notice, may contact for Fiscal Year 1996 and you wish to be Mail pre-applications to: U.S. EPA, Region added to our mailing list to receive the EPA Environmental Education IV, Env Ed Grants, Office of Public Affairs information on the Fiscal Year 1997 Division in Washington, D.C. for grant (E2), 345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, GA requests of more than $25,000 or your Environmental Education Grants 30365 EPA regional office for grant requests of Program, you must mail your request— Information: Fred Thornburg, Environmental $25,000 or less. A list of the names and please do not telephone—along with Education Office, 404–347–3004 telephone numbers of EPA your name, organization, address, and representatives are listed at the end of phone number to: U.S. Environmental EPA Region V—IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI this notice. Information about the grants Protection Agency, Environmental Mail pre-applications to: U.S. EPA, Region V, program is also available on the Education Division (1707), Env Ed Grants, Grants Management Section Internet. You can view and download Environmental Education Grants (MC–10J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, this solicitation notice, a list of EPA Program (FY 1997), 401 M Street, S.W., Chicago, IL 60604 environmental education contacts, and Washington, D.C. 20460. Information: Suzanne Saric, EE Coordinator, 312–353–3209 descriptions of past projects funded Approved By: under this program from: Denise Graveline, Region VI—AR, LA, NM, OK, TX Gopher: ‘‘nceet.snre.umich.edu’’ (in the Acting Associate Administrator, Office of Mail pre-applications to: U.S. EPA, Region ‘‘Grants’’ directory’’) or from Communications, Education, and Public VI, Env Ed Grants, Environmental World Wide Web: ‘‘http:// Affairs. Education Coordinator (6X), 1445 Ross www.nceet.snre.umich.edu/ U.S. EPA Representatives and Mailing Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202 grant.html’’ Addresses Information: Sandy Sevier, EE Coordinator, In addition, may contact the National 214–665–2204 U.S. EPA Headquarters—For Grants Over Consortium for Environmental $25,000 Region VII—IA, KS, MO, NE Education and Training (NCEET) at the Mail pre-applications to: U.S. EPA, Env Ed University of Michigan for general Mail pre-applications to: U.S. EPA, Region Grants, Environmental Education Division VII, Env Ed Grants, Grants Administration information on current environmental (1707), Office of Communications, Division, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas education activities and recent Education, and Public Affairs, 401 M City, KS 66101 developments in the field (e.g., Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460 Information: Rowena Michaels, EE information about current in-service Information: George Walker or Kathleen Coordinator, 913–551–7003 teacher education needs and MacKinnon, Environmental Education opportunities as well as resources that Specialists, 202–260–8619 Region VIII—CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY identify environmental education U.S. EPA Regional Offices—For Grants of Mail pre-applications to: U.S. EPA, Region organizations, curricula, and research). $25,000 or less VIII, Env Ed Grants, 999 18th Street (80EA), Denver, CO 80202–2466 NCEET can also provide you with a list EPA Region I—CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT of all environmental education grants Information: Cece Forget, EE Coordinator, Mail pre-applications to: U.S. EPA, Region I, 303–294–1113 awarded by EPA during the past four Env Ed Grants, Henry Burrell, Chief, Grants years. NCEET will not provide sample Information and Mgnt Section, JFK Federal Region IX—AZ, CA, HI, NV, American curricula nor will they evaluate Building (PGI), Boston, MA 02203 Somoa, Guam, Northern Marianas products or funding proposals. NCEET Hand-deliver to: One Congress Street, 11th Mail pre-applications to: U.S. EPA, Region Floor, Mail Room, Boston, MA 02114 was established in 1992 with financial IX, Env Ed Grants, Office of Public Affairs (8am–4pm) support from EPA to facilitate teacher (E2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, training opportunities. You may contact Information: Maria Pirie, EE Coordinator, 617–565–9447 CA 94105 NCEET by writing to NCEET, School of Information: Matt Gaffney, Office of Public Natural Resources, University of EPA Region II—NJ, NY, PR, VI Affairs, 415–744–1582 Michigan, Dana Building, Ann Arbor, Mail pre-applications to: U.S. EPA, Region II, Michigan, 48109–1115 or by calling Env Ed Grants, Grants Administration Region X—AK, ID, OR, WA 313–998–6726. Branch, 290 Broadway, 27th Floor, New Mail pre-applications to: U.S. EPA, Region X, GG. How can I get information on the York, NY 10007–1866 Env Ed Grants, Public Information Center Fiscal Year 1997 EPA Environmental Information: Teresa Ippolito, EE Coordinator, (SO–143), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA Education Grants Program? 212–637–3671 98101 EPA develops an entirely new mailing EPA Region III—DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV Information: Sally Hanft, EE Coordinator, 206–553–1207 list for the grants program each year. Mail pre-applications to: U.S. EPA, Region The Fiscal Year 1997 mailing list will III, Env Ed Grants, Grants Management BILLING CODE 6560±50±P 40000 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 40001 BILLING CODE 6560±50±C 40002 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices Instructions for the SF–424 on a separate sheet. If appropriate (e.g., listed. If it covers the entire state, simply put This is a standard form used by applicants construction or real property projects), attach in statewide. If your are not sure about the as a required factsheet for preapplications a map showing project location. For congressional district, call the County Voter and applications submitted for Federal preapplications, use a separate sheet to Registration Department. # assistance. It will be used by Federal agencies provide a summary description of this Block 15: Line a is for the amount of to obtain applicant certification that States project. money you are requesting from EPA. Lines b– which have established a review and 12. List only the largest political entities e are for the amounts either you or another comment procedure in response to Executive affected (e.g., State, counties, cities). organization are providing for this project. Order 12372 and have selected the program 13. Self-explanatory. Line f is for any program income which you to be included in their process, have been 14. List the applicant’s Congressional expect will be generated by this project. District and any District(s) affected by the given an opportunity to review the Program income can be fees for services program or project. applicant’s submission. performed, income generated from the sale of 15. Amount requested or to be contributed a brochure which was produced with the Item and Entry during the first funding/budget period by grant funds, or admission fees to a conference 1. Self-explanatory. each contributor. Value of in-kind financed by the grant funds. The total of lines 2. Date application submitted to Federal contributions should be included on b–e must be at least 25% of line g, as this agency (or State if applicable) and applicant’s appropriate lines as applicable. If the action grant has a match requirement of 25% of the control number (if applicable). will result in a dollar change to an existing TOTAL ALLOWABLE PROJECT COSTS. 3. State use only (if applicable). award, indicate only the amount of the Block #16: Check b, (NO) since your 4. If this application is to continue to revise change. For decreases, enclose the amounts application does not have to be sent through in parentheses. If both basic and an existing award, enter present Federal the state clearinghouse for review. supplemental amounts are included, show identifier number. If for a new project, leave Block #18: The authorized representative is breakdown on an attached sheet. For blank. the person who is able to contact or obligate multiple program funding, use totals and 5. Legal name of applicant, name of your agency to the terms and conditions of show breakdown using same categories as primary organizational unit which will the grant. (Please sign with blue ink.) undertake the assistance activity, complete item 15. address of the applicant, and name and 16. Applicants should contact the State Instructions for the SF–424A Single Point of Contact (SPOC) for Federal telephone number of the person to contact on Do not fill in Section A—Budget Summary. matters related to this application. Executive Order 12372 to determine whether Section B Budget Categories 6. Enter Employer Identification Number the application is subject to the State (EIN) as assigned by the Internal Revenue intergovernmental review process. All applications should contain a Service. 17. This question applies to the applicant breakdown by the object class categories 7. Enter the appropriate letter in the space organization, not the person who signs as the shown in Lines a–k of Section B. Include provided. authorized representative. Categories of debt both Federal and non-Federal (matching) 8. Check appropriate box and enter include delinquent audit disallowances, funds combined. appropriate letter(s) in the space(s) provided: loans and taxes. For each major program, function or 18. To be signed by the authorized —‘‘New’’ means a new assistance award. activity, fill in the total requirements for representative of the applicant. A copy of the funds by object class categories. Most —‘‘Continuation’’ means an extension for an governing body’s authorization for you to additional funding/budget period for a applications will only have one program, sign this application as official representative function, or activity. project with a projected completion date. must be on file in the applicant’s office. —‘‘Revision’’ means any change in the Line 6I—Show the totals of lines 6a (Certain Federal agencies may require that through 6h in each column. Federal Government’s financial obligation this authorization be submitted as part of the Line 6j—Show the amount of indirect cost or contingent liability from an existing application.) obligation. (if applicable). 9. Name of Federal agency from which Additional Instructions for the SF–424 Line 6k—Enter the total of amounts on assistance is being requested with this Block #6: You can obtain this number from Lines 6i and 6j. application. your payroll office. It is the same Federal Program Income—Enter the estimated 10. Use the Catalog of Federal Domestic Identification Number which appears on W– amount of income, if any, expected to be Assistance number and title of the program 2 forms. If your organization does not have generated from this project. Do not add or under which assistance is requested. a number, you may obtain one by calling the subtract this amount from the total project 11. Enter a brief descriptive title of the Taxpayer Services number for the IRS. amount. Show under the program narrative project. If more than one program is Block #14: If your project covers many statement the nature and source of income. involved, you should append an explanation areas, several congressional districts will be BILLING CODE 6560±50±P Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices 40003 40004 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Notices [FR Doc. 95–18991 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560±50±C federal register August 4,1995 Friday Standards; FinalandProposedRules Reformulated andConventionalGasoline 40 CFRPart80 Protection Agency Environmental Part III 40005 40006 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 2565 Plymouth Rd., Ann Arbor, MI with the rotocol, § 80.91 Individual baseline determination. 3. Section 80.101 is amended by CS%CHG=percent change in average * * * * * adding a new paragraph (b)(1)(v) to read sulfur content of crude slate; and (e) * * * as follows: (vii) Can show that gasoline sulfur (7) * * * § 80.101 Standards applicable to refiners changes are directly and solely (iv) The provisions of and importers. attributable to the crude sulfur change, § 80.91(e)(7)(i)(A) through (C) are stayed and not due to alterations in refinery until October 19, 1995, for all refiners * * * * * (b) * * * operation nor choice of products. which meet the following requirements: (1) * * * (2) The adjusted baseline sulfur value (A) Baseline adjustments may be (v) The provisions of § 80.101 (b)(1)(ii) shall be calculated as follows: allowed, upon petition and approval are stayed until October 19, 1995, for all (i) Determine the average sulfur (per § 80.93), if a refinery produced JP– refiners that meet the following content (ppm) of the crude slate utilized 4 jet fuel in 1990 and all of the following requirements: in the production of gasoline in the requirements are also met: (A)(1) Baseline adjustments may be refinery in 1990; (1) The type of refinery must be allowed, upon petition and approval described as one of the following: (ii) Determine the highest crude sulfur (per § 80.93), if a refinery meets all of level (ppm) of the crude slate utilized in (i) The refinery is the only refinery of the following requirements: a refiner such that it cannot form an the production of gasoline in the (i) The refinery does not produce refinery in 1994; and aggregate baseline with another refinery reformulated gasoline. If the refinery (iii) Determine the adjusted baseline (per paragraph (f) of this section); or produces reformulated gasoline at any (ii) The refinery is one refinery of a time in a calendar year, its compliance sulfur value as follows: multi-refinery refiner for which all of its baseline shall revert to its unadjusted CSHI refineries produced JP–4 in 1990 and baseline values for that year and all ASULF = × BSULF each of the refineries also meets the subsequent years; CS90 requirements specified in paragraphs (ii) Has an unadjusted baseline sulfur Where: (e)(7)(iv)(A)(2) and (3); or value of not more than 50 ppm; (iii) The refinery is one refinery of a (iii) Is not aggregated with one or ASULF=adjusted baseline sulfur value, multi-refinery refiner for which not all more other refineries per § 80.91(f). If a ppm of the refiner’s refineries produced JP– refinery which received an adjustment BSULF=actual baseline sulfur value, 4 in 1990. per this paragraph (b)(1)(v) subsequently ppm (2) No refinery of the refiner produces is included in an aggregate baseline, its CSHI=highest crude sulfur (ppm) per reformulated gasoline. If any refinery of compliance baseline shall revert to its paragraph (b)(1)(v)(A)(2)(ii) of this the refiner produces reformulated unadjusted baseline values for that year section gasoline at any time in a calendar year, and all subsequent years; CS90=1990 annual average crude slate the compliance baseline of all its (iv) Would require refinery sulfur per paragraph refineries receiving a baseline improvements of at least $10 million or (b)(1)(v)(A)(2)(i) of this section 10 percent of the depreciated value of adjustment per this paragraph (e)(7)(A) (3) In no case can the adjusted the refinery to comply with its shall revert to each refinery’s baseline sulfur value determined per unadjusted baseline; unadjusted baseline for that year and all paragraph (b)(1)(v)(A)(2) of this section subsequent years. (v) Can show that it could not reasonably or economically obtain crude exceed the sulfur value specified in (3) 1990 JP–4 to gasoline ratio. § 80.91(c)(5)(iii). (i) For a refiner per paragraph oil from an alternative source that (4) All adjustments made pursuant to (e)(7)(iv)(A)(1)(i) of this section, the would permit it to produce this paragraph (b)(1)(v) must be ratio of its refinery’s 1990 JP–4 conventional gasoline which would accompanied by: production to its 1990 gasoline comply with its unadjusted baseline; production must equal or exceed 0.15. (vi) Has experienced at least a 25% (i) Unadjusted and adjusted fuel (ii) For a refiner per paragraph increase in the average sulfur content of parameters and emissions; and (e)(7)(iv)(A)(1)(ii) of this section, the the crude oil used in the production of (ii) A narrative describing the ratio of each of its refinery’s 1990 JP–4 gasoline in the refinery since 1990, situation, the types of calculations, and production to its 1990 gasoline calculated as follows: the reasoning supporting the types of calculations done to determine the production must equal or exceed 0.15. (CSHI− CS90 (iii) For a refiner per paragraph ×100 = CS% CHG adjusted values. (e)(7)(iv)(A)(1)(iii) of this section, the CS90 (B) Annual average levels of sulfur ratio of the refiner’s 1990 JP–4 Where: shall not exceed 125% of the refiner’s compliance baseline of sulfur, using the production to its 1990 gasoline CSHI=highest annual average crude adjusted baseline determined under production must equal or exceed 0.15, slate per paragraph (b)(1)(v)(A)(2)(ii) paragraph (b)(1)(v)(A) of this section. when determined across all of its of this section refineries. CS90=1990 annual average crude slate * * * * * (B) [Reserved] sulfur per paragraph [FR Doc. 95–18992 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] * * * * * (b)(1)(v)(A)(2)(i) of this section BILLING CODE 6560±50±P Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 40009 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 5, 1995 unless a hearing is requested, in menu choices from the Top Menu to AGENCY which case the comment period will access information on this rulemaking. close 30 days after the close of the X. Administrative Designation governments in the aggregate, or to the distillation point in degrees Fahrenheit, Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, private sector. This action has the net indicating whether the average is greater (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the effect of reducing burden of the or lesser than the applicable standard. Agency must determine whether the reformulated gasoline program on * * * * * regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and regulated entities. Therefore, the 3. Section 80.91 is amended by therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates revising paragraph (e)(7)(i) and adding requirements of the executive order. The Act do not apply to this action. paragraphs (e)(8) and (e)(9) to read as Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory XIII. Statutory Authority follows: action’’ as one that is likely to result in The statutory authority for the actions § 80.91 Individual baseline determination. a rule that may: proposed today is granted to EPA by * * * * * (1) Have an annual effect on the Sections 114, 211 (c) and (k) and 301 of (e) * * * economy of $100 million or more or the Clean Air Act, as amended; 42 (7) * * * adversely affect in a material way the U.S.C. 7414, 7545 (c) and (k), and 7601. (i) Baseline adjustments may be economy, a sector of the economy, allowed, upon petition and approval productivity, competition, jobs, the List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80 (per § 80.93), if a refinery produced JP– environment, public health or safety, or Environmental protection, Air 4 jet fuel in 1990 and all of the following State, local or tribal governments or pollution control, Fuel additives, requirements are also met: communities; Gasoline, Motor vehicle pollution, (A) Refinery type. (2) Create a serious inconsistency or Reporting and recordkeeping (1) The refinery is the only refinery of otherwise interfere with an action taken requirements. a refiner such that it cannot form an or planned by another agency; aggregate baseline with another refinery Dated: May 25, 1995. (3) Materially alter the budgetary (per paragraph (f) of this section); or impact of entitlement, grants, user fees, Carol M. Browner, (2) The refinery is one refinery of a or loan programs or the rights and Administrator. multi-refinery refiner for which all of its obligations of recipients thereof; or For the reasons set out in the refineries produced JP–4 in 1990 and (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues preamble, part 80 of title 40 of the Code each of the refineries also meets the arising out of legal mandates, the of Federal Regulations is amended as requirements specified in paragraphs President’s priorities, or the principles follows: (e)(7)(i) (B) and (C) of this section; or set forth in the Executive Order. (3) The refinery is one refinery of a Pursuant to the terms of Executive PART 80ÐREGULATION OF FUELS multi-refinery refiner for which not all Order 12866, it has been determined AND FUEL ADDITIVES of the refiner’s refineries produced JP– that this notice of proposed rulemaking 4 in 1990. 1. The authority citation for part 80 is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’. (B) No refinery of the refiner produces continues to read as follows: reformulated gasoline. If any refinery of XI. Paperwork Reduction Act Authority: Sections 114, 211, and 301(a) of the refiner produces reformulated The Paperwork Reduction Act of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. gasoline at any time in a calendar year, 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and 7414, 7545 and 7601(a)). the compliance baseline of all its implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part 2. Section 80.75 is amended by refineries receiving a baseline 1320, do not apply to this action as it removing ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph adjustment per this paragraph (e)(7) does not involve the collection of (b)(2)(ii)(F), by adding a semi-colon in shall revert to each refinery’s information as defined therein. place of the period at the end of unadjusted baseline for that year and all XII. Unfunded Mandates Act paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(G), and adding subsequent years. paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) (H), (I), and (J) to (C) 1990 JP–4 to gasoline ratio. Section 202 of the Unfunded read as follows: (1) For a refiner per paragraph Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (e)(7)(i)(A)(1) of this section, the ratio of (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed § 80.75 Reporting requirements. its refinery’s 1990 JP–4 production to its into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must * * * * * 1990 gasoline production must equal or prepare a budgetary impact statement to (b) * * * exceed 0.15. accompany any proposed or final rule (2) * * * (2) For a refiner per paragraph that includes a Federal mandate that (ii) * * * (e)(7)(i)(A)(2) of this section, the ratio of may result in expenditure by State, (H) The difference between the each of its refinery’s 1990 JP–4 local, and tribal governments, in the applicable sulfur content standard production to its 1990 gasoline aggregate; or by the private sector, of under § 80.41(h)(2)(i) in parts per production must equal or exceed 0.15. $100 million or more. Under Section million and the average sulfur content (3) For a refiner per paragraph 205, EPA must select the most cost- in parts per million, indicating whether (e)(7)(i)(A)(3) of this section, the ratio of effective and least burdensome the average is greater or lesser than the the refiner’s 1990 JP–4 production to its alternative that achieves the objectives applicable standard; 1990 gasoline production must equal or of the rule and is consistent with (I) The difference between the exceed 0.15, when determined across all statutory requirements. Section 203 applicable olefin content standard of its refineries. requires EPA to establish a plan for under § 80.41(h)(2)(i) in volume percent * * * * * informing and advising any small and the average olefin content in (8) Baseline adjustments due to governments that may be significantly volume percent, indicating whether the increasing crude sulfur content. or uniquely impacted by the rule. average is greater or lesser than the (i) Baseline adjustments may be EPA has determined that the action applicable standard; and allowed, upon petition and approval promulgated today does not include a (J) The difference between the (per § 80.93), if a refinery meets all of Federal mandate that may result in applicable T90 distillation point the following requirements: estimated costs of $100 million or more standard under § 80.41(h)(2)(i) in (A) The refinery does not produce to either State, local or tribal degrees Fahrenheit and the average T90 reformulated gasoline. If the refinery Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 40017 produces reformulated gasoline at any ASULF=adjusted baseline sulfur value, (b) * * * time in a calendar year, its compliance ppm (6) Confidential business information. baseline shall revert to its unadjusted BSULF=actual baseline sulfur value, baseline values for that year and all ppm (i) Upon approval of an individual subsequent years; CSHI=highest crude sulfur (ppm) per baseline, EPA will publish the (B) Has an unadjusted baseline sulfur paragraph (e)(8)(ii)(B) of this section individual annualized baseline exhaust value of not more than 50 ppm; CS90=1990 annual average crude slate emissions, on an annual average basis, (C) Is not aggregated with one or more sulfur per paragraph (e)(8)(ii)(A) of specified in paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this other refineries per paragraph (f) of this this section section. Such individual baseline section. If a refinery which received an (iii) In no case can the adjusted exhaust emissions shall not be adjustment per this paragraph (e)(8) baseline sulfur value determined per considered confidential. In addition, the subsequently is included in an aggregate paragraph (e)(8)(ii) of this section reporting information required under baseline, its compliance baseline shall exceed the sulfur value specified in § 80.75(b)(2)(ii) (H), (I) and (J), and revert to its unadjusted baseline values paragraph (c)(5)(iii) of this section. § 80.105(a)(4) (ii), (iii) and (iv) shall not for that year and all subsequent years; (iv) All adjustments made pursuant to be considered confidential. (D) Would require refinery this paragraph (e)(8) must be (ii) Information in the baseline improvements of at least $10 million or accompanied by: submission which the submitter desires 10 percent of the depreciated value of (A) Unadjusted and adjusted fuel to be considered confidential business the refinery to comply with its parameters and emissions; and information (per 40 CFR part 2, subpart unadjusted baseline; (B) A narrative describing the B) must be clearly identified. If no claim (E) Can show that it could not situation, the types of calculations, and of confidentiality accompanies a reasonably or economically obtain crude the reasoning supporting the types of submission when it is received by EPA, oil from an alternative source that calculations done to determine the the information may be made available would permit it to produce adjusted values. to the public without further notice to conventional gasoline which would (9) Baseline adjustment for low sulfur the submitter pursuant to the provisions comply with its unadjusted baseline; and olefins. of 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. (F) Has experienced at least a 25% (i) Baseline adjustments may be * * * * * increase in the average sulfur content of allowed, upon petition and approval the crude oil used in the production of (per § 80.93), if a refinery meets all of 5. Section 80.105 is amended by gasoline in the refinery since 1990, the following requirements: redesignating paragraph (a)(4) as calculated as follows: (A) The unadjusted annual average paragraph (a)(4)(i) and adding baseline sulfur value is less than 30 paragraphs (a)(4) (ii), (iii), and (iv) to ()CSHI− CS90 read as follows: ×100 = CS% CHG ppm; CS90 (B) The unadjusted annual average § 80.105 Reporting requirements. Where: baseline olefin value is less than 1.0 vol%; (a) * * * CSHI=highest annual average crude (C) Would require refinery slate per paragraph (e)(8)(ii)(B) of (4)(i) * * * improvements of at least $10 million or this section 10 percent of the depreciated value of (ii) If using the simple model, the CS90=1990 annual average crude slate the refinery to comply with its difference between the applicable sulfur sulfur per paragraph (e)(8)(ii)(A) of unadjusted baseline. content standard under § 80.101(b)(1)(ii) this section. (ii) If a refinery is aggregated with one in parts per million and the average CS%CHG=percent change in average or more other refineries per paragraph sulfur content in parts per million, sulfur content of crude slate; (f) of this section, then no adjustment indicating whether the average is greater (G) Can show that gasoline sulfur per this paragraph (e)(9) shall be or lesser than the applicable standard; changes are directly and solely allowed, and the unadjusted baseline (iii) If using the simple model, the attributable to the crude sulfur change, shall be used in the aggregated baseline. difference between the applicable olefin and not due to alterations in refinery (iii) (A) The adjusted baseline shall content standard under operation nor choice of products. have an annual average sulfur value of § 80.101(b)(1)(iii) in volume percent and (ii) The adjusted baseline sulfur value 30 ppm, and an annual average olefin the average olefin content in volume shall be calculated as follows: value of 1.0 vol%. percent, indicating whether the average (A) Determine the average sulfur (B) The adjusted baseline shall have a is greater or lesser than the applicable content (ppm) of the crude slate utilized summer sulfur value of 30 ppm, and a standard; and in the production of gasoline in the summer olefin value of 1.0 vol%. (iv) If using the simple model, the refinery in 1990; (C) The adjusted baseline shall have a difference between the applicable T90 (B) Determine the highest crude sulfur winter sulfur value of 30 ppm, and a distillation point standard under level (ppm) of the crude slate utilized in winter olefin value of 1.0 vol%. the production of gasoline in the § 80.101(b)(1)(iv) in degrees Fahrenheit refinery in 1994; * * * * * and the average T90 distillation point in (C) Determine the adjusted baseline 4. Section 80.93 is amended by degrees Fahrenheit, indicating whether sulfur value as follows: revising paragraph (b)(6) to read as the average is greater or lesser than the follows: applicable standard. CSHI ASULF = × BSULF § 80.93 Individual baseline submission * * * * * CS90 and approval. [FR Doc. 95–14429 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] Where * * * * * BILLING CODE 6560±50±P federal register August 4,1995 Friday UT; ProposedRule Class BAirspaceArea,SaltLakeCity, Modification oftheSaltLakeCity(SLC) 14 CFRPart71 Federal AviationAdministration Transportation Department of Part IV 40019 40020 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Mode C equipment when operating Comments Invited within 30 nautical miles of any Federal Aviation Administration designated TCA primary airport from Interested parties are invited to the surface up to 10,000 feet MSL, 14 CFR Part 71 participate in this proposed rulemaking except aircraft not originally certificated by submitting such written data, views, with an engine-driven electrical system, [Airspace Docket No. 93±AWA±11] or arguments as they may desire. or which had not subsequently been Comments that provide the factual basis certified with such a system installed supporting the views and suggestions RIN 2120±AF56 (53 FR 23356). presented are particularly helpful in On October 14, 1988, the FAA Proposed Modification of the Salt Lake developing reasoned regulatory published a final rule that revised the City (SLC) Class B Airspace Area, Salt decisions on the proposal. Comments classification and pilot/equipment Lake City, Utah are specifically invited on the overall requirements for conducting operations regulatory, aeronautical, economic, in a TCA (53 FR 40318). Specifically, AGENCY: Federal Aviation environmental, and energy-related the rule: (a) Established a single-class Administration (FAA), DOT. aspects of the proposal. TCA; (b) required the pilot-in-command Communications should identify the of a civil aircraft operating within a TCA ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking airspace docket number and be to hold at least a private pilot certificate, (NPRM). submitted in triplicate to the address except for a student pilot who has listed above. Commenters wishing the received certain documented training; SUMMARY: This notice proposes to FAA to acknowledge receipt of their and (c) eliminated the helicopter modify the Salt Lake City (SLC) Class B comments on this notice must submit exception from the minimum airspace area, Salt Lake City, Utah. This with those comments a self-addressed, navigational equipment requirements. proposal would maintain the ceiling of stamped postcard on which the On December 17, 1991, the FAA the SLC Class B airspace area at 10,000 following statement is made: published a final rule on airspace feet mean sea level (MSL); subdivide ‘‘Comments to Airspace Docket No. 93– reclassification (56 FR 65655). This and redefine existing subareas by AWA–11.’’ The postcard will be date/ airspace reclassification, which became altering their floors and boundaries time stamped and returned to the effective September 16, 1993, except for Area B; and create additional commenter. All communications discontinued the use of the term areas E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, and M. This received on or before the specified ‘‘Terminal Control Area’’ (TCA) and proposal would improve the flow of closing date for comments will be replaced it with the designation ‘‘Class aviation traffic and enhance safety in considered before taking action on the B airspace.’’ This change in terminology the Salt Lake City area, while proposed rule. The proposal contained is reflected in this proposed rule. accommodating the concerns of the in this notice may be changed in light airspace users. Background of comments received. All comments DATES: Comments must be received on submitted will be available for The Class B airspace (formerly TCA) or before September 5, 1995. examination in the Rules Docket both program was developed to reduce the midair collision potential in the ADDRESSES: Send comments on the before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each congested airspace surrounding airports proposal in triplicate to the Federal with high density air traffic by Aviation Administration, Office of the substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this providing an area in which all aircraft Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket will be subject to certain operating rules (AGC–10), Airspace Docket No. 93– rulemaking will also be filed in the docket. and equipment requirements. AWA–11, 800 Independence Avenue, The density of traffic and the type of SW., Washington, DC 20591. Comments Availability of NPRM’s operations being conducted in the may also be sent electronically to the Any persons may obtain a copy of this airspace surrounding major terminals following Internet address: NPRM by submitting a request to the increase the probability of midair [email protected]. Federal Aviation Administration, Office collisions. In 1970, an extensive study The official docket may be examined of Public Affairs, Attention: Public found that the majority of midair in the Rules Docket, Office of Chief Inquiry Center, APA–220, 800 collisions occurred between a general Counsel, Room 916, 800 Independence Independence Avenue, SW., aviation (GA) aircraft and an air carrier, Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling military or another GA aircraft. The weekdays, except Federal holidays, (202) 267–3485. Communications must basic causal factor common to these between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. identify the notice number of this conflicts was the mix of uncontrolled An informal docket may also be NPRM. Persons interested in being aircraft operating under VFR and examined during normal business hours placed on a mailing list for future controlled aircraft operating under at the office of the Regional Air Traffic NPRM’s should also request a copy of instrument flight rules (IFR). Class B Division. Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, which airspace areas provide a method to describes the application procedure. accommodate the increasing number of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: IFR and VFR operations. The regulatory Mr. Norman W. Thomas, Airspace and Related Rulemaking Actions requirements of Class B airspace areas Obstruction Evaluation Branch (ATP– On May 21, 1970, the FAA published afford the greatest protection for the 240), Airspace-Rules and Aeronautical Amendment 91–78 to part 91 of the greatest number of people by giving air Information Division, Air Traffic Rules Federal Aviation Regulations (35 FR traffic control (ATC) increased and Procedures Service, Federal 7782) which provided for the capability to provide aircraft separation Aviation Administration, 800 establishment of Terminal Control Areas service; this minimizes the mix of Independence Avenue, SW., (TCA’s). controlled and uncontrolled aircraft. To Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) On June 21, 1988, the FAA published date, the FAA has established a total of 267–9230. a final rule that requires aircraft to have 29 Class B airspace areas; the SLC Class Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 40021 B airspace area was established on due south to lat. 40°42′30′′ N., then due of the Area C then due south to lat. November 16, 1989 (54 FR 43786). The west to long. 111°54′00′′ W., then north 40°27′30′′ N., south to the Class B FAA is proposing to take action to along the present Class B airspace area airspace present boundary, then north modify or implement the application of boundary to the point of origin. The along the Salt Lake City 167° radial to these proven control techniques to more FAA determined that the Salt Lake City the Class B airspace boundary to the airports to provide greater protection of Terminal Radar Approach Control point of origin. These suggested altitude air traffic in the airspace regions most (TRACON) does not utilize the middle and subdivision changes are adopted. commonly used by passenger-carrying portion of that 9,000 to 10,000 foot MSL The FAA is proposing to subdivide Area aircraft. shelf to contain slow climbing C, forming Area D with a base altitude The coordinates for this airspace eastbound commercial aircraft and of 6,000 feet MSL and Area F with a docket are based on North American deleting that area would permit easier base altitude of 7,000 feet MSL. Datum 83. Class B airspace areas are and safer access to both the Salt Lake 4. Several commenters recommended published in Paragraph 3000 of FAA Valley and airports to the east of the that the floor of Area C be raised from Order 7400.9B dated July 18, 1994, and Wasatch Range by VFR aircraft. 6,000 to 7,000 feet MSL in the area effective September 16, 1994, which is 2. Several commenters suggested south and west of Magna to the Garfield incorporated by reference in 14 CFR raising the base altitude of the Class B Stacks to eliminate possible 71.1. The Class B airspace area listed in airspace area from the surface to 7,600 compression caused by VFR traffic this document would be published feet MSL west of Farmington from transiting in this area along the shore subsequently in the Order. Interstate Highway 15 (I–15) to the line. The commenters claim that most The standard configuration of a Class power line along the shore of aircraft do not have flotation equipment B airspace area is three concentric Farmington Bay. These commenters to fly off shore over the Great Salt Lake circles centered on the primary airport believe this would permit VFR traffic to thus making this area congested with extending to 10, 20, and 30 nautical transit through a wider corridor and opposite direction traffic. The FAA is miles, respectively. The standard greatly lessen the chance of a midair proposing to subdivide this area and to vertical limits of the Class B airspace collision. This proposal would retain raise the base altitude from 6,000 to area normally should not exceed 12,000 the present eastern boundary of the 6,500 feet MSL. This would allow more feet MSL, with the floor established at Class B airspace area but would raise vertical separation with recommended the surface in the inner area and at the base altitude to 7,600 feet MSL east altitudes and transition routes that are levels appropriate to containment of of the power line and would require now being used in designated areas operations in the outer areas. Variations subdividing this sector along the power within the SLC Class B airspace area. of these criteria may be authorized line from its intersection with the Salt This would greatly assist with VFR contingent upon terrain, adjacent Lake City International Instrument pilots who normally fly the coastline of regulatory airspace, and factors unique Landing System/Distance Measuring the Great Salt Lake because the aircraft to the terminal area. Equipment (I–BNT) 13-mile arc may not be equipped with necessary southward along the power line to the flotation equipment to fly over the Great Pre-NPRM Public Input Skypark Airport ‘‘notch,’’ (hereafter Salt Lake. This not only would enhance As announced in the Federal Register referred to as exclusion area) then safety within this congested area, but on September 2, 1992, 57 FR 40202, a northeastward along the exclusion area would also relieve any potential traffic pre-NPRM airspace meeting was held on to I–15, then north along I–15 to the I– compression around the Tooele Valley October 28, 1992, in the Salt Lake City BNT 13-mile arc, then along the arc to Airport. area to provide local interested airspace the point of origin. The suggestion to 5. One commenter suggested raising users an opportunity to present input on raise the base altitude to 7,600 feet was the altitude one mile east of the the design of the proposed modification not adopted, because the FAA is altering Antelope Island in Area A, from the of the SLC Class B airspace area. the exclusion area in the vicinity of the surface to 6,000 feet MSL, thus helping Comments were received from local Skypark Airport by raising the base to relieve any compression of VFR government agencies, private pilots, altitude from 5,300 feet to 7,000 feet traffic off shore along the main user groups, and local airport MSL and extending the boundary to the coastline. The FAA is proposing to raise authorities. Pilot groups were concerned north and west. This would provide the base altitude of Area A from the with three primary aviation aspects of more airspace for VFR traffic transiting surface to 6,000 feet MSL. Area A would the proposal: flight congestion, flights north and south, thus further reducing become a portion of Area K. This would over water (Great Salt Lake), and flights the potential for midair collisions. provide that portion of airspace along in close proximity to nonparticipating 3. Several commenters suggested the shoreline to allow VFR traffic to aircraft (hang gliders). All comments raising the altitude of Area C of the traverse Antelope Island and remain were considered in the formulation of Class B airspace in the vicinity of over land for most of this route. This is this proposed modification, and Riverton from 6,000 to 7,000 feet MSL, particularly important for single-engine recommendations were incorporated, in subdividing this area along 12600 Street aircraft without flotation equipment. part, in this proposed modification. south, and raising the Class B airspace 6. One pilot suggested that more Both the verbal and written comments Area C south of 12600 Street south to uncontrolled airspace is required in along with the FAA’s findings are 7,000 feet MSL. It was also Area C, near the Point of the Mountain, summarized as follows: recommended that the floor of the Class to allow aircraft below 6,000 feet MSL 1. One commenter suggested deleting B airspace Area D in the southwest area to clear the hang glider area. This pilot a portion of the 9,000 to 10,000 foot be raised from 7,000 to 8,000 feet MSL asserts that departing aircraft are MSL shelf of the Class B airspace area and this area subdivided from the frequently instructed to remain below east of Salt Lake City International intersection of the Salt Lake City 167° 6,000 feet MSL east of I–15, keeping Airport, from due east of Skypark radial and 12600 Street south due west aircraft in an area of hang gliding Airport south, to 3 miles south of along long. 112°05′00′ W., then due activity. Interstate 80 (I–80), from approximately north to the I–BNT 11-mile arc, then Under this proposal, the airspace lat. 40°53′00′′ N., long. 111°53′30′′ W., southeast along the arc to long. would be subdivided into two separate due east to long. 111°45′00′′ W., then 112°09′00′′ W., to the present boundary areas. The floor of one area, proposed 40022 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules Area F, would be raised from 6,000 to intercepting the 13-mile arc of the I– fly over the Great Salt Lake. 7,000 feet MSL, thus allowing for more BNT ILS/DME antenna clockwise until Additionally, this area would relieve the vertical airspace for the transversing the point of beginning, excluding Areas potential for traffic congestion around VFR aircraft traversing the constriction C, D, K, and L described hereinafter. the Tooele Valley Airport. at Point of the Mountain. The floor of This airspace is necessary to Area D. That airspace extending the other area, proposed Area G, would accommodate high performance traffic upward from 6,000 feet MSL to and be raised from 7,000 to 8,000 feet MSL, within the Salt Lake City International including 10,000 feet MSL beginning at providing more vertical airspace for Airport and to provide for ingress/egress a point at lat. 40°39′20′′ N, long. traversing VFR aircraft in this to secondary airports. Reducing the area 112°02′33′′ W, extending east to a point mountainous area. Additionally, this to the north would provide sufficient at lat. 40°39′20′′ N, long. 111°58′13′′ W, change would greatly enhance the airspace for VFR traffic transiting over extending south along long. 111°58′13′′ utility of area for flight instruction and the Skypark Airport area. The exclusion W, until intercepting the 11-mile arc of other users. area to the northeast of the Salt Lake the I–BNT ILS/DME antenna, then 7. Several commenters suggested City Airport in the vicinity of the counterclockwise until intercepting I– eliminating a portion of Area E east of Skypark Airport would be modified by 15, extending south on I–15 until I–15 between 9,000 and 10,000 feet MSL expanding the boundary west and intercepting a line at lat. 40°31′05′′ N, because there is no need to compress northwest. The floor would be raised extending west on lat. 40°31′05′′ N, until VFR aircraft in this area of the Wasatch from 5,300 to 7,000 feet MSL to provide a point at lat. 40°31′05′′ N, long. Mountains. The commenters stated that transiting VFR traffic sufficient airspace 112°00′33′′ W, then north along long. 9,000 feet MSL is too restrictive and to reduce the potential for midair 112°00′33′′ W, to intercept the 11-mile forces traffic to fly the canyons in order collisions between northbound and arc of the I–BNT ILS/DME antenna at to get over the Wasatch range. The southbound traffic. lat. 40°35′22′′ N, long. 112°00′33′′ W, commenters further stated that the Area B. That airspace extending then clockwise on the 11-mile arc of I– minimum altitude over the mountains upward from 7,600 feet MSL to and BNT ILS/DME antenna to long. should be raised to 10,000 feet MSL, including 10,000 feet MSL between the 112°02′33′′ N, then to the point of establishing a VFR traffic flow (such as 13-mile radius and the 25-mile radius of beginning. Immigration Canyon for eastbound the I–BNT ILS/DME antenna, excluding This area is currently a portion of traffic and Parleys Canyon for that airspace south of the Union Pacific Area C and would be redesignated by westbound traffic). railroad tracks and that airspace east of this proposal. The FAA determined that commercial where the 25-mile arc intercepts the Area E. That airspace extending traffic is not heavy in this area of Area Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT, Airspace upward from 7,000 feet MSL to and E and that deleting the middle segment Class D airspace area and the Ogden, including 10,000 feet MSL beginning at of Area I would permit VFR aircraft Hill AFB, UT, Class D airspace area a point where the 11-mile arc of the I– easier and safer access to Salt Lake until intercepting U.S. Highway 89, BNT ILS/DME antenna intercepts a line Valley and airports to the east of the extending south on U.S. Highway 89 at long. 112°09′03′′ W, bounded on the Wasatch Range. until intercepting the 11-mile arc of the west by long. 112°09′03′′ W, on the I–BNT ILS/DME antenna. This segment south by a line at lat. 40°31′05′′ N, to a The Proposal of airspace provides sufficient room for point at lat. 40°31′05′′ N, long. The FAA proposes to amend 14 Code aircraft climbing and descending into 112°00′33′′ W, extending north to lat. of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 71 the Salt Lake City International Airport. 40°35′22′′ N, long. 112°00′33′′ W, then and 91 and modify the Salt Lake City Area C. That airspace extending clockwise on the 11-mile arc of the I– (SLC), UT, Class B airspace area. The upward from 6,500 feet to and including BNT ILS/DME antenna to the point of decision to pursue modifications to the 10,000 feet MSL beginning at a point beginning. existing Class B airspace area was based where the 11-mile arc of the I–BNT ILS/ This area is currently a portion of on aviation safety and operational DME antenna intercepts the Union Area D and would be redesignated by efficiencies. The proposed alteration, Pacific railroad tracks extending this proposal. depicted in the attached chart, considers southwest of the Union Pacific railroad Area F. That airspace extending the current Class B airspace area flight tracks until intercepting the 13-mile arc upward from 7,000 feet MSL to and operations and terrain. Specific areas of the I–BNT ILS/DME antenna including 10,000 feet MSL beginning at would be modified as follows: clockwise until a point at lat. 40°46′30′′ a point where a line at lat. 40°31′05′′ N Area A. That airspace extending N, long. 112°14′50′′ W, extending east to intercepts I–15 extending west on lat. upward from the surface to and a bend on I–80 at lat. 40°46′30′′ N, long. 40°31′05′′ N, to long. 112°00′33′′ W, including 10,000 feet MSL beginning at 112°08′48′′ W, then southeast to the then south on long. 112°00′33′′ W, to lat. a point where the 13-mile arc of the Salt drive-in theater north of the city of 40°27′30′′ N, then east along lat. Lake City International Airport Runway Magna at lat. 40°43′00′′ N, long. 40°27′30′′ N, to I–15, then north to the 17 Instrument Landing System (ILS) I– 112°04′48′′ W, then southeast to the point of beginning. BNT ILS/DME antenna intercepts water tank at lat. 40°40′00′′ N, long. This area is currently a portion of Interstate 15 (I–15), extending south on 112°03′33′′ W, extending southeast to a Area D and would be redesignated by I–15 until intercepting the 4.3-mile arc point at lat. 40°39′20′′ N, long. this proposal. Additionally, the floor of from the Salt Lake City International 112°02′33′′ W, extending south along this area would be raised from 6,000 to Airport, extending south along the 4.3- long. 112°02′33′′ W, until intercepting 7,000 feet MSL to provide more airspace mile arc from the Salt Lake City the 11-mile arc of the I–BNT ILS/DME for the VFR aircraft transiting the area International Airport until intercepting antenna then northwest on the 11-mile of Point of the Mountain. I–15, extending south on I–15 until arc of the I–BNT ILS/DME antenna Area G. That airspace extending intercepting the 11-mile arc of the I– clockwise to the point of beginning. upward form 8,000 feet MSL to and BNT ILS/DME antenna clockwise until This area would provide more including 10,000 feet MSL beginning at intercepting the Union Pacific railroad transition routes for VFR operations, the Bingham Copper Mine at lat. tracks, extending southwest on the particularly for aircraft not equipped 40°31′05′′ N, long. 112°09′03′′ W, Union Pacific railroad tracks until with the required flotation equipment to extending south to lat. 40°27′30′′ N, Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 40023 long. 112°09′03′′ W, then east to lat. a point where the 25-mile arc of the I– Regulatory Evaluation Summary 40°27′30′′ N, long. 112°00′33′′ W, then BNT ILS/DME antenna intercepts the ° ′ ′′ The FAA has determined that this north to lat. 40 31 05 N, extending west Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT, Class D rulemaking is not a ‘‘significant to the point of beginning. This is a airspace area counterclockwise along regulatory action’’ as defined by subdivision of the former Area D, Salt the Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT, Class Executive Order 12866, and therefore no Lake City Class B airspace area. The D airspace area and the Ogden, Hill Regulatory Impact Analysis is required. base altitude was raised from 7,000 feet AFB, UT, Class D airspace area until Nevertheless, in accordance with the MSL to 8,000 feet MSL. intercepting the 25-mile arc of the I– Department of Transportation policies This area is a portion of the current BNT ILS/DME antenna to the point to and procedures, the FAA has evaluated Area D and would be redesignated by beginning. This area currently is Area G the anticipated costs and benefits, this proposal. Additionally, the floor of and would be redesignated as Area J which are summarized below. For more this area would be raised from 7,000 to under this proposal. detailed economic information, see the 8,000 feet MSL to provide more airspace Area K. That airspace extending for the VFR aircraft transiting this upward from 6,000 feet MSL to and full regulatory evaluation contained in mountainous area and to allow space for including 10,000 feet MSL beginning at the docket. flight instruction activity in this area. a point on the 13-mile arc of the I–BNT Benefit-Cost Analysis Area H. That airspace extending ILS/DME antenna at lat. 40°46′30′′ N., This regulatory evaluation analyzes upward from 9,000 feet MSL to and long. 111°14′50′′ W., extending east to the potential costs and benefits of including 10,000 feet MSL beginning at the bend on I–80 at lat. 40°46′30′′ N., proposed modifications to the Salt Lake a point where a line at lat. 40°27′30′′ N, long. 112°08′48′′ W., then north along City International Airport, Utah, Class B intercepts the I–15 freeway, extending long. 112°08′48′′ W., until intercepting airspace area. These proposed south along I–15 to lat. 40°23′30′′ N, the 13-mile arc of the I–BNT ILS/DME modifications would raise the floor of extending west along lat. 40°23′30′′ N to antenna, then counterclockwise along the Class B airspace in areas A, C, and long. 111°54′00′′ W thence south along the 13-mile arc of the I–BNT ILS/DME D and reduce the lateral boundaries east long. 111′54′00′′W until intercepting the antenna to the point of beginning. 30-mile arc of the I–BNT ILS/DME, then This area would provide more of the airport in area E to enhance safe clockwise along the 30-mile arc until airspace for nonparticipating aircraft, and efficient VFR traffic operations. The intercepting long. 112°06′00′′ W, until particularly for aircraft not equipped new floor altitudes would be raised by intercepting lat. 40°23′30′′ N, extending with the required flotation equipment to as much as 500 to 6,000 feet MSL in west along lat. 40°23′30′′ N until long. fly over the Great Salt Lake. This would areas A, C, and D without changing the 112°09′06′′ W, then north along long. assist the VFR pilot who normally flies original lateral boundaries. The original 112°09′06′′ W until intercepting the coastline of the Great Salt Lake areas of the Class B airspace would be 40°27′30′′ N, extending east to the point because the aircraft may not be subdivided and renamed as A, K, and L of beginning, excluding that airspace equipped with flotation equipment to (from A); C, D, and F (from C); E and contained in restricted areas R–6412A fly over the Great Salt Lake. G (from D); H (from F); and I (from E). and R–6412B when active. Area L. That airspace extending These modifications would provide This area is currently area F and upward from 7,000 feet MSL to and additional airspace for VFR traffic would be redesignated as Area H under including 10,000 feet MSL west of I–15 operations. Also, an area of controlled this proposal. bounded on the south by Cudahy Lane, airspace (area M) would be added to the Area I. That airspace extending on the west by Redwood Road until north, and the lateral boundaries of area upward from 9,000 feet MSL to and intercepting the Utah Power H would be expanded to the south with including 10,000 feet MSL beginning at Transmission lines, extending northeast floor and ceiling altitudes of 9,000 and a point where a line at long. 111°45′03′′ along the power transmission lines until 10,000 feet MSL respectively. These two W intercepts Interstate 84 (I–84), intercepting the 13-mile arc of the I– proposed modifications are designed to extending south on long. 111°45′03′′ W, BNT ILS/DME antenna to the point of provide additional controlled airspace until intercepting lat. 40°31′05′′ N, beginning. for new instrument flight rules (IFR) extending west until intercepting I–15, This area would be expanded to procedures to the new parallel then north along I–15 until intercepting maintain safety for north and instrument runway that is scheduled to the Salt Lake City International Airport southbound VFR traffic. open in the latter part of 1995. The Salt 4.3-mile arc, extending north along the Area M. That airspace extending Lake City Tower/Tracon (SLC ATCT) Salt Lake City International Airport 4.3- upward from 9,000 MSL to and has determined that the above mile arc until intercepting I–15, then including 10,000 feet MSL beginning at modifications would not adversely north along I–15 until intercepting U.S. a point where the 25-mile arc of the I– impact their ability to monitor and Highway 89, extending north along U.S. BNT ILS/DME intersects the I–15 control IFR and VFR traffic in the Class Highway 89 until intercepting the freeway south of the Ogden Municipal B airspace. Ogden, Hill AFB, UT, Class D airspace Airport extending north along the I–15 The NPRM would enhance aviation area, then north along the Ogden, Hill freeway to the 30-mile arc of the I–BNT safety and operational efficiency by AFB, UT, Class D airspace area until ILS/DME, thence counterclockwise lowering the risk of midair collisions, intercepting I–84, extending east along along the 30-mile are to long. 112°10′00′′ while accommodating the legitimate I–84 until the point of beginning, W, then south along long. 112°10′00′′ W concerns of system users. The proposed excluding that block of airspace east of to the 25-mile arc of the I–BNT ILS/ modifications to the Salt Lake City Class Salt Lake City International Airport DME, then clockwise along the 25-mile B airspace would provide VFR traffic between lat. 40°52′16′′ N, and lat. arc to the point of beginning. with more operating room, aid 40°42′00′′ N. This area is currently Area This proposal would provide controllers vectoring IFR traffic to and E and would be redesignated as Area I additional controlled airspace for new from the new parallel instrument under this proposal. instrument approach procedures to the runway, and improve the SLC ATCT’s Area J. That airspace extending new parallel instrument runway, 16 ability to separate controlled and upward from 7,800 feet MSL to and Right—34 Left at the Salt Lake City uncontrolled aircraft near the floor and including 10,000 feet MSL beginning at International Airport. lateral boundaries of the airspace. The 40024 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules FAA determined that implementing the SLC Class B airspace area Paperwork Reduction Act these proposed modifications would not operations, thereby enhancing This proposed rule contains no impose any additional costs on either operational efficiency. information collection requests the agency or aircraft operators. Conclusion requiring approval of the Office of Cost Management and Budget pursuant to the The FAA has determined that the In view of the negligible cost of Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. implementation of the NPRM would not compliance and the benefits of 3507 et seq.). enhanced aviation safety and increased impose any additional cost on either the International Civil Aviation agency or aircraft operators for the operational efficiency, the FAA has determined that the proposed Organization (ICAO) and Joint Aviation reasons discussed below. Regulations (JAR) In terms of the FAA, the NPRM would modifications would be cost-beneficial. The FAA has determined that this not impose any additional Regulatory Flexibility Determination administrative costs for personnel, proposal, if adopted, would not conflict facilities, or equipment. This assessment The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 with any international agreements of the is based on the fact that the proposed (RFA) was enacted by Congress to United States. modification would not increase the ensure that small entities are not Conclusion volume of air traffic using the SLC Class unnecessarily and disproportionately B airspace. The simultaneous burdened by Federal regulations. The For reasons discussed in the contraction and expansion of the Class RFA requires a Regulatory Flexibility preamble, and based on the findings in B airspace would not dramatically Analysis if an NPRM would have ‘‘a the Regulatory Flexibility Determination and the International Trade Impact change the overall size of the airspace significant economic impact on a Assessment, the FAA has determined and would not impose additional substantial number of small entities.’’ that this proposed regulation is not a workloads on current personnel and FAA Order 2100.14A outlines the FAA’s ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under equipment resources. Required procedures and criteria for Executive Order 12866. In addition, the revisions to aeronautical charts would implementing the RFA. A substantial FAA certifies that this proposed be accomplished during normal charting number of small entities is defined as a cycles. Therefore, no additional costs regulation will not have a significant number that is 11 or more and which is economic impact, positive or negative, beyond routine operating expenses more than one-third of the small entities would be imposed. on a substantial number of small entities subject to the NPRM. The only under the criteria of the Regulatory Costs to Aircraft Operators potentially affected small entities would Flexibility Act. This proposed The proposed modifications should be unscheduled air taxis owning nine or regulation is not considered significant impose little if any, additional cost such fewer aircraft and flight training schools under DOT Order 2100.5, Policies and as required avionics equipment, around the Oquirrh Mountains. The Procedures for Simplification, Analysis installation, or circumnavigation. Many NPRM would maintain aviation safety and Review of Regulations. A final affected GA aircraft operators are and operational efficiency for VFR regulatory evaluation of the proposed assumed to already have the types of traffic while imposing negligible regulation, including a final Regulatory avionic equipment (such as an operable additional costs or requirements. Flexibility Determination and two-way radio and VOR) required for Therefore, the NPRM would not have a International Trade Impact Analysis has entering a Class B airspace area. The significant economic impact on a been placed in the docket. A copy may only aircraft without Mode C substantial number of small entities. be obtained by contacting the person transponders would be aircraft not International Trade Impact Assessment identified under FOR FURTHER originally certified with an engine- INFORMATION CONTACT. driven electrical system or not The proposed rule would neither have List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 subsequently certified with such a an effect on the sale of foreign aviation system installed. These potential costs products or services in the United Airspace, Incorporation by reference, to aircraft operators without Mode C States, nor the sale of United States Navigation (air). transponders have already been products or services in foreign The Proposed Amendment accounted for by the Mode C rule. countries. The proposed rule would Additionally, the proposed impose negligible costs on aircraft In consideration of the foregoing, the modifications should not adversely operators or aircraft manufacturers Federal Aviation Administration impact aircraft operators who routinely (United States or foreign). proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as operate under IFR, primarily large air follows: carriers, business jets, commuters and Federalism Implications air taxis, nor should the proposed PART 71Ð[AMENDED] modifications impose substantial cost to This proposed rule would not have VFR users. substantial direct effects on the States, 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR the relationship between the national part 71 continues to read as follows: Benefits government and the States, or the Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, The proposed modifications are distribution of power and 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– expected to generate benefits primarily responsibilities among the various 1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69. in the form of safety enhancements to levels of government. Therefore, in the aviation community and the flying accordance with Executive Order 12612 § 71.1 [Amended] public. Such benefits include reduced (52 FR 41695; October 30, 1987), it is 2. The incorporation by reference in aviation fatalities and property damages determined that this proposed rule does 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation as a result of a lowered risk of midair not have sufficient federalism Administration Order 7400.9B, Airspace collisions. The proposed changes would implications to warrant the preparation Designations and Reporting Points, enable VFR aircraft to circumnavigate of a Federalism Assessment. dated July 18, 1994, and effective Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 40025 September 16, 1994, is amended as 112°03′33′′ W, extending southeast to a south along I–15 to lat. 40°23′30′′ N, follows: point at lat. 40°39′20′′ N, long. extending west along lat. 40°23′30′′ N to ° ′ ′′ ° ′ ′′ Paragraph 3000—Subpart B-Class B Airspace 112 02 33 W, extending south along long. 111 54 00 W thence south along long. 112°02′33′′ W, until intercepting long. 111°54′00′′ W, until intercepting * * * * * the 11-mile arc of the I–BNT ILS/DME the 30-mile arc of the I–BNT ILS/DME, ANM UT B Salt Lake City, UT [Revised] antenna then northwest on the 11-mile then clockwise along the 30-mile arc Salt Lake City International Airport arc of the I–BNT ILS/DME antenna until intercepting long. 112°06′00′′ W (Lat. 40°47′12′′ N, long. 111°58′08′′ W) clockwise to the point of beginning. then north along long. 112°06′00′′ W Salt Lake City International Airport Runway Area D. That airspace extending until intercepting lat. 40°23′30′′ N, 17 ILS (I–BNT) ILS/DME Antenna upward from 6,000 feet MSL to and extending west along lat. 40°23′30′′ N, ° ′ ′′ ° ′ ′′ (Lat. 40 46 10 N, long. 111 57 44 W) including 10,000 feet MSL beginning at until along long. 112°09′06′′ W, then ° ′ ′′ Boundaries a point at lat. 40 39 20 N, long. north along long. 112°09′06′′ W until 112°02′33′′ W, extending east to a point intercepting lat. 40°27′30′′ N extending Area A. That airspace extending at lat. 40°39′20′′ N, long. 111°58′13′′ W, upward from the surface to and east to the point of beginning, excluding extending south along long. 111°58′13′′ that airspace contained in Restricted including 10,000 feet MSL beginning at W, until intercepting the 11-mile arc of a point where the 13-mile arc of the Salt Areas R–6412A and R–6412B when the I–BNT ILS/DME antenna, then active. Lake City International Airport Runway counterclockwise until intercepting I- 17 ILS (I–BNT) instrument landing Area I. That airspace extending 15, extending south on I–15 until upward from 9,000 feet MSL to and system/distance measuring equipment intercepting a line at lat. 40°31′05′′ N, (ILS/DME) antenna intercepts Interstate ° ′ ′′ including 10,000 feet MSL beginning at extending west on lat. 40 31 05 N, until a point where a line at long. 111°45′03′′ 15 (I–15), extending south on I–15 until a point at lat. 40°31′05′′ N. long. intercepting a 4.3-mile arc from the Salt W, intercepts Interstate 84 (I–84), 112°00′33′′ W, then north along long. ° ′ ′′ Lake City International Airport, ° ′ ′′ extending south on long. 111 45 03 W, 112 00 33 W, to intercept the 11-mile until intercepting lat. 40°31′05′′ N, extending south along the 4.3-mile arc arc of the I–BNT ILS/DME antenna at from the Salt Lake City International ° ′ ′′ ° ′ ′′ extending west until intercepting I–15, lat. 40 35 22 N, long. 112 00 33 W, then north along I–15 until intercepting Airport until intercepting I–15, then clockwise on the 11-mile arc of I- extending south on I–15 until the Salt Lake City International Airport BNT ILS/DME antenna to long. 4.3-mile arc, extending north along the intercepting the 11-mile arc of the I– 112°02′33′′ N, then to the point of BNT ILS/DME antenna clockwise until Salt Lake City International Airport 4.3- beginning. mile arc until intercepting I–15, then intercepting the Union Pacific railroad Area E. That airspace extending north along I–15 until intercepting U.S. tracks, extending southwest on the upward from 7,000 feet MSL to and Highway 89, extending north along U.S. Union Pacific railroad tracks until including 10,000 feet MSL beginning at Highway 89 until intercepting the intercepting the 13-mile arc of the I– a point where the 11-mile arc of the I– Ogden, Hill AFB, UT, Class D airspace BNT ILS/DME antenna clockwise until BNT ILS/DME antenna intercepts a line the point of beginning, excluding Areas at long. 112°09′03′′ W, bounded on the area, then north along the Ogden, Hill C, D, K, and L described hereinafter. west by long. 112°09′03′′ W, on the AFB, UT, Class D airspace area until Area B. That airspace extending south by a line at lat. 40°31′05′′ N, to a intercepting I–84, extending east along upward from 7,600 feet MSL to and point at lat. 40°31′05′′ N, long. I–84 until the point of beginning, including 10,000 feet MSL between the 112°00′33′′ W, extending north to lat. excluding that block of airspace east of 13-mile radius and the 25-mile radius of 40°35′22′′ N, long. 112°00′33′′ W, then Salt Lake City International Airport the I–BNT ILS/DME antenna, excluding between lat. 40°52′16′′ N, and lat. clockwise on the 11-mile arc of the I– ° ′ ′′ that airspace south of the Union Pacific BNT ILS/DME antenna to the point of 40 42 00 N. railroad tracks and that airspace east of beginning. Area J. That airspace extending where the 25-mile arc intercepts the Area F. That airspace extending upward from 7,800 feet MSL to and Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT, Class D upward from 7,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 feet MSL beginning at airspace area and the Ogden, Hill AFB, including 10,000 feet MSL beginning at a point where the 25-mile arc of the I– UT, Class D airspace area until a point where a line at lat. 40°31′05′′ N, BNT ILS/DME antenna intercepts the intercepting U.S. Highway 89, extending intercepts I–15 extending west on lat. Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT, Class D south on U.S. Highway 89 until 40°31′05′′ N, to long. 112°00′33′′ W, airspace area counterclockwise along intercepting the 11-mile arc of the I– then south on long. 112°00′33′′ W, to lat. the Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT, Class BNT ILS/DME antenna. 40°27′30′′ N, then east along lat. D airspace area and the Ogden, Hill Area C. That airspace extending 40°27′30′′ N, to I–15, then north to the AFB, UT, Class D airspace area until upward from 6,500 feet MSL to and point of beginning. intercepting the 25-mile arc of the I– including 10,000 feet MSL beginning at Area G. That airspace extending BNT ILS/DME antenna to the point of a point where the 11-mile arc of the I– upward from 8,000 to MSL to and beginning. BNT ILS/DME antenna intercepts the including 10,000 feet MSL beginning at Area K. That airspace extending Union Pacific railroad tracks extending the Bingham Copper Mine at lat. upward from 6,000 feet MSL to and southwest on the Union Pacific railroad 40°31′05′′ N, long. 112°09′03′′ W, including 10,000 feet MSL beginning at tracks until intercepting the 13-mile arc extending south to lat. 40°27′30′′ N, a point on the 13-mile arc of the I–BNT of the I–BNT ILS/DME antenna long. 112°09′03′′ W, then east to lat. ILS/DME antenna at lat. 40°46′30′′ N, clockwise until a point at lat. 40°46′30′′ 40°27′30′′ N, long. 112°00′33′′ W, then long. 111°14′50′′ W, extending east to N, long. 112°14′50′′ W, extending east to north to lat. 40°31′05′′ N, extending west the bend on I–80 at lat. 40°46′30′′ N, a bend on Interstate 80 (I–80) at lat. to the point of beginning. long. 112°08′48′′ W, then north along 40°46′30′′ N, long. 112°08′48′′ W, then Area H. That airspace extending long. 112°08′48′′ W, until intercepting southeast to the drive-in theater north of upward from 9,000 feet MSL to and the 13-mile arc of the I–BNT ILS/DME the city of Magna at lat. 40°43′00′′ N, including 10,000 feet MSL beginning at antenna, then counterclockwise along long. 112°04′48′′ W, then southeast to a point where a line at lat. 40°27′30′′ N the 13-mile arc of the I–BNT ILS/DME the water tank at lat. 40°40°00′′ N, long. intercepts the I–15 freeway, extending antenna to the point of beginning. 40026 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules Area L. That airspace extending Area M. That airspace extending DME, then clockwise along the 25-mile upward from 7,000 feet MSL to and upward from 9,000 MSL to and arc to the point of beginning. including 10,000 feet MSL west of I–15 including 10,000 feet MSL beginning at Issued in Washington, DC, on July 31, bounded on the south by Cudahy Lane, a point where the 25-mile arc of the I– 1995. on the west by Redwood Road until BNT ILS/DME intersects the I–15 Nancy B. Kalinowski, intercepting the Utah Power freeway south of the Ogden Municipal Acting Manager, Airspace-Rules and Transmission lines, extending northeast Airport extending north along the I–15 Aeronautical Information Division. along the power transmission lines until freeway to the 30-mile arc of the I–BNT Appendix—Salt Lake City International intercepting the 13-mile arc of the I– ILS/DME, thence counterclockwise Airport Class B Airspace Areas BNT ILS/DME antenna to the point of along the 30-mile arc to long. 112°10′00′′ Note: This appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. beginning. W, then south along long. 112°10′00′′ W to the 25-mile arc of the I–BNT ILS/ BILLING CODE 4910±13±M Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 40027 [FR Doc. 95–19179 Filed 8–1–95; 11:12 am] BILLING CODE 4910±13±C federal register August 4,1995 Friday Hazardous Materials;FinalRule Intermediate BulkContainersfor 49 CFRParts171,172,173,and178 Administration Research andSpecialPrograms Transportation Department of Part V 40029 40030 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION transportation of hazardous materials. In be exceeded when the IBC is tested and response to 29 petitions for certified for a Packing Group II liquid Research and Special Programs reconsideration, this document revises, and filled with a Packing Group III Administration clarifies and makes corrections to the solid; or an IBC is tested and certified final rule. Petitioners recommended for a Packing Group I solid and filled 49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173 and 178 revisions to: (1) The policy stated in the with a Packing Group II or Packing [Docket No. HM±181E; Amdt. Nos. 171±134, preamble at 59 FR 38040 addressing Group III solid. RSPA concurs and, 172±142, 173±243, 178±108] exemption packagings affected by this accordingly, is adding a paragraph (l) to final rule; (2) the special provisions for provide for this flexibility in IBC use. RIN 2137±AC23 IBCs contained in § 172.102; (3) the RSPA notes that the amount by which Intermediate Bulk Containers for provision for the manufacture and use the gross mass of IBCs can be exceeded Hazardous Materials of DOT specification 56 and 57 portable in these cases is based on the ratios tanks provided in § 173.32(d); (4) between drop heights specified for AGENCY: Research and Special Programs operational requirements for reuse of Packing Groups I and III (2.25) and Administration (RSPA), DOT. IBCs in § 173.35(b); (5) generic Packing Groups I and II, and II and III ACTION: Final rule; revisions and authorizations for use of IBCs in (1.5). IBCs certified for liquids may also response to petitions for §§ 173.240, 173.241, 173.242, and be used for solids. reconsideration. 173.243; (6) standards for rigid plastic In response to a petition, a maximum and composite IBCs in §§ 178.706 and net mass capacity standard of not less SUMMARY: This amendment makes 178.707; (7) responsibility for the than 400 kilograms (882 pounds) is revisions to a final rule published in the performance of UN-certified IBCs in added in § 178.700(c)(1) for consistency Federal Register under Docket HM– § 178.801(b); (8) testing and certification with similar standards for non-bulk 181E (59 FR 38040, July 26, 1994) in of IBCs in § 178.803; and (9) application packagings in subpart L. To reduce the response to a number of petitions for of the IBC vibration test in § 178.819. need for IBC retesting, RSPA grants a reconsideration. This document also Several petitions relating to IBC petition from the Rigid Intermediate clarifies and makes corrections to the commodity authorizations, such as Bulk Container Association by adding final rule. That final rule established hydrogen peroxide aqueous solutions, Note 6 to the table of IBC tests in requirements for the construction, were addressed in a final rule published § 178.803 to permit any desired maintenance and use of intermediate under Docket HM–215A (59 FR 67390– sequencing of the vibration test for dual- bulk containers (IBCs) for the 67522, December 29, 1994). marked, exemption IBCs and non-DOT specification portable tanks intended for transportation of hazardous materials. Petitions Granted These changes respond to petitions for export that were tested before October 1, reconsideration regarding IBC In response to petitions, 1994. authorizations, design, construction and authorizations for use of IBCs for a Several petitioners requested removal use, and align requirements for IBCs number of materials are added to the of the word ‘‘rotate’’ from the vibration with revisions in the 8th edition of the § 172.101 Hazardous Materials Table. test method prescribed for IBCs in U.N. Recommendations on the Some of these changes are consistent § 178.819(b)(2). They contend that Transport of Dangerous Goods and the with many of the latest revised IBC allowing an IBC to rotate would involve 27th revision of the International authorizations in the International a ‘‘major redesign of all known testing Maritime Organization’s International Maritime Organization’s International platforms and restraining members.’’ Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Section 178.608(b)(2) requires that non- Code. Code. Others reflect prior safe bulk packagings be left free to rotate, a hazardous materials shipping standard that may be inappropriate for DATES: This amendment is effective on experience in DOT exemption bulk IBCs which are unlikely to experience October 1, 1995. However, immediate packagings. For example, IBC the same vibration stresses in compliance with the regulations as authorizations are revised for a number transportation. RSPA further amended herein is authorized. of Division 4.3 DANGEROUS WHEN acknowledges that the vibration test Incorporation by reference: The WET materials in Packing Groups II and requirement for DOT 56 and 57 portable incorporation by reference listed in this III, which were previously forbidden for tanks in §§ 178.252–3 and 178.253–5 final rule is approved by the Director of transportation in IBCs. Many of these allows only vertical motion. Therefore, the Office of the Federal Register as of materials now are permitted in all sift- the word ‘‘rotate’’ is removed from the October 1, 1995. proof and water-resistant IBCs. In test method stated in § 178.819(b)(2). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John addition, certain Division 4.3 Packing However, RSPA will not restrict rotation Potter, Office of Hazardous Materials Group I solid materials are authorized if it is included in an established Standards, (202) 366–8553 or William for transportation in IBCs, consistent vibration test protocol. Gramer, Office of Hazardous Materials with the IMDG Code. Prohibitions One petitioner stated that general Technology, (202) 366–4545, RSPA, against use of IBCs are removed from requirements in § 178.801(b) for U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 ‘‘Cyclohexylamine’’ and ‘‘Hafnium assuring that each IBC is capable of Seventh Street SW., Washington DC powder, dry.’’ A wider range of IBCs is meeting Part 178 performance standards 20590–0001. permitted for ‘‘Toxic, liquids, organic, are inconsistent with other provisions in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July n.o.s.,’’ and ‘‘Toxic liquid, inorganic, the HMR. As written, the petitioner 26, 1994, the Research and Special n.o.s.,’’ Packing Group II. said, paragraph (b) makes the shipper Programs Administration published a One petitioner asked RSPA to add ‘‘responsible for every aspect of [IBC] final rule under Docket HM–181E (59 filling limit provisions to the IBC fabrication and testing, including those FR 38040) that revised the Hazardous operational requirements in § 173.35 aspects that were not performed by the Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR similar to those provided in § 173.24a(b) shipper.’’ The petitioner suggested that Parts 171–180) by incorporating for non-bulk packagings. For example, paragraph (b) conform with final rules requirements for the construction, the gross mass (or net mass in the case published under HM–215A clarifying maintenance and use of IBCs for the of flexible IBCs) marked on the IBC can §§ 173.22, 178.2 and 178.601(b) Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 40031 requiring shippers to be responsible for the preamble to the final rule in HM– 49 CFR Parts 100–199, as amended. only the manufacturing functions they 181E (59 FR 38042), there is a lack of However, RSPA encourages them to perform. RSPA concurs and paragraph sufficient evidence ‘‘that fiberboard, convert to the new standards as soon as (b) is revised accordingly. wooden or flexible IBCs are designed to practicable. A petitioner asked RSPA to be, or are suitable for, reuse in add a ‘‘fusible’’ device to the pressure Petitions Denied hazardous materials service.’’ relief devices specified for metal, rigid A petitioner claimed that RSPA’s Two petitioners asked RSPA to amend plastic and composite IBCs in exemption policy for IBCs established in paragraph (c) of §§ 173.240 and 173.241 §§ 178.705(c)(2)(i), 178.706(c)(4) and the final rule (59 FR 38040) is by adding the phrase ‘‘rigid 178.707(c)(3)(iv). This petition is denied unworkable for every exemption IBC intermediate bulk containers ‘‘ to the as unnecessary. Fusible devices are considered to be ‘‘equivalent’’ to IBCs titles of these paragraphs. They currently permitted by the provision in already meeting UN standards. The requested revisions to § 173.240(c) to each section that states pressure relief petitioner said no exemption IBC could authorize ‘‘sift-proof non-DOT may be achieved by ‘‘other means of meet terms in option 2 permitting specification portable tanks, closed bulk construction.’’ exemption IBCs to be certified as UN bins and rigid intermediate bulk Petitions requesting revisions to standard packagings if they already containers suitable for transport of §§ 178.706(c)(3) and 178.707(c)(3)(iii) to conform with subpart N and O liquids,’’ and to § 173.241(c) to permit use of recycled materials for the requirements. The petitioner said, ‘‘A authorize ‘‘non-DOT specification construction of plastic and composite builder of existing exemption tanks portable tanks and intermediate bulk IBCs are denied. Although RSPA would have had to predict the tests and containers suitable for transport of recognizes the benefits of recycling their order in testing that DOT liquids.’’ The petitions are denied since plastic waste, RSPA has not been prescribes.’’ The petitioner observed a non-specification bulk packaging provided with sufficient information to that the proposed testing differed from fitting this description currently is justify use of recycled plastic materials tests prescribed in the final rule. The permitted by paragraph (c) of these in the construction of IBCs. petitioner asked RSPA to add a note to sections. In effect, any rigid enclosed Petitions to allow use of the ‘‘USA’’ the table of IBC tests in § 178.803 packaging that is strong and tight (but mark on IBCs manufactured in other allowing exemption IBCs to be marked not a flexible IBC), and constructed so countries and intended for sale and use to indicate compliance with subparts N that its contents will not leak under in the U.S. are denied. As clarified in and O but that they need not ‘‘be tested conditions normally incident to § 178.3(b)(3) under Docket HM–215A as prescribed in this section.’’ However, transportation meets requirements for a (59 FR 67519, December 29, 1994), ‘‘the the petitioner said such IBCs ‘‘must be ‘‘closed bulk bin’’ in § 173.240(c), a letters ‘USA’ may only be used to capable of passing all the applicable ‘‘sift-proof non-DOT specification indicate that the IBC was manufactured tests.’’ portable tank’’ in § 173.240(c), or a in the United States.’’ IBCs This request is denied. Exemption ‘‘non-DOT specification portable tank manufactured in a foreign country IBCs that meet new construction and suitable for transport of liquids’’ in should conform to requirements of the performance testing standards in § 173.241(c). competent authority of that country. subparts N and O, under option 2, ‘‘may Petitioners asked RSPA to authorize, Clarifications and Corrections be remarked and certified as UN under § 173.242, rigid plastic and standard packagings.’’ Under option 3, composite IBCs for ‘‘Oxidizing In other revisions to this final rule, existing exemption IBCs developed substances, liquid, corrosive, n.o.s.,’’ RSPA corrects U.S. standard under standards different from those Packing Group II, and ‘‘Corrosive conversions relating to the upper adopted under subparts N and O ‘‘may liquids, oxidizing, n.o.s.,’’ Packing capacity for IBCs authorized for Packing be approved as a UN standard Group II. In the final rule, these Group I solids in § 173.242(d)(2)(i) to packaging’’ under the approval process materials are authorized in metal-only read ‘‘53 cubic feet’’ and ‘‘106 cubic provided in § 178.801(i) if they are IBCs under § 173.243. The petitions are feet,’’ respectively. Also in shown to be equally effective and denied. RSPA believes there is an § 173.242(d)(2), ‘‘flexible’’ and testing methods used are equivalent to insufficient shipment history of these ‘‘fiberboard’’ IBCs (inadvertently UN standards. With respect to the materials in a wide range of IBC design omitted in the final rule) are authorized. petitioner’s request, under option 3, types to warrant broader IBC In § 173.243(d)(2)(i), Packing Group I manufacturers or users of IBCs differing authorization. solids are authorized for transportation from subpart O requirements in the way RSPA is denying a petition to restore in metal IBCs with capacities up to three they were tested, including test DOT 56 and 57 portable tank design and cubic meters (106 cubic feet). In sequences differing from the order of construction requirements in §§ 178.251 § 178.700(c)(1)(i), the volumetric tests established in § 178.803, may through 178.251–7, 178.252 and capacity for the body of a receptacle is demonstrate that IBCs developed under 178.253. The petitioner claimed that specified as not more than three cubic exemption are equally effective, removal of these sections would lead to meters (3,000 liters, 793 gallons, or 106 including test methods. ‘‘unnecessary confusion and cubic feet) and not less than 0.45 meters Several petitioners requested uncertainty’’ since new construction of (450 liters, 119 gallons, or 15.9 cubic indefinite use of exemption IBCs as long these tanks is authorized through feet). as they meet applicable periodic retest September 30, 1996. Removal of RSPA is correcting § 173.243(d)(2) by requirements. These requests are construction requirements for DOT removing references to IBCs other than denied. Under the exemption policy Specification 56 and 57 portable tanks metal. Section 178.705(c)(2)(ii) is stated at 59 FR 38040, an equivalent is consistent with removal of pre-HM– clarified to show that the pressure relief packaging may be approved by RSPA as 181 non-bulk packaging specifications requirement for metal IBCs is measured a UN standard packaging under the four years prior to the date on which in gauge pressure and not absolute provision in § 178.801(i). they were no longer permitted to be pressure. Thus, reference to the A petitioner’s request to revise manufactured. For reference to DOT 56 subtraction of atmospheric pressure is § 173.35(b) to permit reuse of flexible and 57 specifications, manufacturers removed and reference to measurement IBCs is denied. As RSPA pointed out in and users can retain the 1993 edition of of gauge pressure of the hazardous 40032 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations material measured in the IBC is added (iv) The written notification, List of Subjects in its place. recording, and reporting of the 49 CFR Part 171 RSPA is aligning the table of IBC tests unintentional release in transportation in § 178.803 with new provisions in the of hazardous materials; or Exports, Hazardous materials 8th revision of the UN (v) The design, manufacturing, transportation, Hazardous waste, Recommendations on the Transport of fabrication, marking, maintenance, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Dangerous Goods for the bottom lift and reconditioning, repairing, or testing of a Reporting and recordkeeping stacking tests. Therefore, in this final package or container which is requirements. rule, rigid plastic and composite IBCs represented, marked, certified, or sold are required to be bottom lift-tested as qualified for use in the transportation 49 CFR Part 172 without qualification. References to of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials transportation, Note 2 in the table specifying that test This final rule addresses covered Hazardous waste, Labels, Markings, only if IBCs are ‘‘designed to be subjects, under items (ii) and (v) above Packaging and containers, Reporting handled’’ this way are removed from and, therefore, preempts State, local, or and recordkeeping requirements. rigid plastic and composite IBC design Indian tribe requirements not meeting types. RSPA also is changing Note 2 to the ‘‘substantively the same’’ standard. 49 CFR Part 173 require metal IBCs to withstand either The Federal hazardous materials Hazardous materials transportation, transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(2)) the top lift test or the bottom lift test. Incorporation by reference, Packagings provides that if DOT issues a regulation Note 7 is added to except metal, rigid and containers, Radioactive materials, concerning any of the covered subjects plastic, composite, fiberboard and Reporting and recordkeeping after November 16, 1990, DOT must wooden IBCs from the stacking test if requirements, Uranium. the IBC is not designed to be stacked. determine and publish in the Federal In this final rule, RSPA also is making Register the effective date of Federal 49 CFR Part 178 an editorial correction to § 173.306(e) by preemption. The effective date may not be earlier than the 90th day following Hazardous materials transportation, updating a reference to a national Motor vehicle safety, Packaging and consensus standard for refrigerating the date of issuance of the final rule and no later than two years after the date of containers, Reporting and recordkeeping machines. Section 173.306(e) is requirements. amended to replace the reference to issuance. RSPA has determined that the ANSI B9.1 with a reference to ANSI/ effective date of Federal preemption of In consideration of the foregoing, 49 ASHRAE 15–1994, which has the July 26, 1994 final rule was January CFR Parts 171, 172, 173 and 178 are superseded ANSI B9.1. 13, 1995. RSPA has determined that the amended as follows: effective date of Federal preemption for Regulatory Analyses and Notices this final rule will be November 1, 1995. PART 171ÐGENERAL INFORMATION, REGULATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS Executive Order 12866 and DOT Because RSPA lacks discretion in this Regulatory Policies and Procedures area, preparation of a federalism § 171.7 [Amended] assessment is not warranted. This final rule is not considered a 1. The authority citation for part 171 significant regulatory action under Regulatory Flexibility Act continues to read as follows: section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 I certify that this final rule will not Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101–5127; 49 CFR and was not reviewed by the Office of have a significant economic impact on 1.53. Management and Budget. The rule is not a substantial number of small entities. 2. In § 171.7, in the table in paragraph considered significant under the Although this rule applies to certain (a)(3), under ‘‘American National Regulatory Policies and Procedures of shippers and carriers of hazardous Standards Institute, Inc.’’, in column 1, the Department of Transportation (44 FR materials in intermediate bulk the entry ‘‘ANSI B9.1–89, Safety Code 11034). containers, some of whom may be small for Mechanical Refrigeration’’ is revised Executive Order 12612 entities, its economic impacts are to read ‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 15–94, Safety minimal. This final rule has been analyzed in Code for Mechanical Refrigeration’’. Paperwork Reduction Act accordance with the principles and PART 172ÐHAZARDOUS MATERIALS criteria contained in Executive Order The information collection TABLE, SPECIAL PROVISIONS, 12612 (‘‘Federalism’’). Federal law requirements contained in this rule have HAZARDOUS MATERIALS expressly preempts State, local, and been approved by the Office of COMMUNICATIONS, EMERGENCY Indian tribe requirements applicable to Management and Budget under the RESPONSE INFORMATION, AND the transportation of hazardous provisions of the Paperwork Reduction TRAINING REQUIREMENTS materials that cover certain subjects and Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3504(h)) and are not substantively the same as assigned control number 2137–0510. 3. The authority citation for part 172 Federal requirements. 49 U.S.C. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) continues to read as follows: 5125(b)(1). Covered subjects are: (i) The designation, description, and A regulation identifier number (RIN) Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101–5127; 49 CFR 1.53. classification of hazardous materials; is assigned to each regulatory action (ii) The packing, repacking, handling, listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal 4. In § 172.101, the following entries labeling, marking, and placarding of Regulations. The Regulatory Information in the Hazardous Materials Table are hazardous materials; Service Center publishes the Unified revised to read as follows: (iii) The preparation, execution, and Agenda in April and October of each use of shipping documents pertaining to year. The RIN number contained in the § 172.101 Purpose and use of hazardous hazardous materials and requirements heading of this document can be used materials table. respecting the number, content, and to cross-reference this action with the * * * * * placement of such documents; Unified Agenda. Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 40033 103 103 103 sions (10B) Other provi- stowage 40 40, 85, 40, 85, 39 39 85, 103 85, 103 40, 85, (10) requirements (10A) Vessel stowage Vessel stowage .A .B .A .. A ... E ... A ... A ... E ... E ... B ... E ... D ... B only (9B) Cargo aircraft 50 kg 50 kg 15 kg 50 kg 100kg 50 kg 100 kg 50 kg 100 kg 100 kg 50 kg 50 kg 15 kg (9) ...... car den den (9A) Pas- or rail- senger aircraft Quantity limitations 15 kg 15 kg Forbid- 15 kg 25 kg 15 kg 25 kg 15 kg 25 kg 25 kg 15 kg 15 kg Forbid- ...... ing (8C) Bulk packag- 241 241 242 242 241 242 241 242 241 241 241 241 242 ...... (8) ing (8B) 173.***) packag- Nonbulk 212 212 211 212 213 212 213 212 213 213 212 212 211 (§ ...... Packaging authorizations (8A) tions Excep- None None None None None None None None None None None None None ...... (7) A8, A19, A20, B106 B101, B106 B101, B106, N34, N40 B106, B108 A20, B106, B108 A20, B106, B108 A20, B106, B108 A19, B108 B101, B106 B106 B55, B101, B106, N34 sions provi- Special A6, A7, A19, A19, A19, A19, A19, A19, B106 B106 A1, A19, B101, A1, A8, ...... (6) . (if not excepted) Label(s) required son away from food Dangerous when wet Dangerous when wet Dangerous when wet Dangerous when wet, poi- Dangerous when wet, keep Dangerous when wet Dangerous when wet Dangerous when wet Dangerous when wet Dangerous when wet Dangerous when wet Dangerous when wet Dangerous when wet (5) group Packing II II I II III II III II III III II II I (4) bers Num- Identi- fication UN1392 UN1395 UN1396 UN3170 UN1398 UN1400 UN1390 UN1393 UN1401 UN1402 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 (3) Hazard class or Division ...... ******* ...... (2) ...... shipping names . Hazardous materials n.o.s gams der uncoated products uncoated descriptions and proper Alkaline earth metal alloys, Alkaline earth metal amal- Aluminum ferrosilicon pow- Aluminum powder, Aluminum processing by- Aluminum solicon powder, Barium Calcium Calcium carbide Alkali metal amides (1) Symbols 40034 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations sions (10B) Other provi- stowage 85, 103 85, 103 40 85, 103 39 39 (10) requirements (10A) Vessel stowage Vessel stowage D .B .D ... B ... B ... E ... D ... E ... A ... A ... E ... A ...... B ..... A den only (9B) Cargo aircraft 50 kg 50 kg 100 kg 50 kg 30 L 30 L Forbid- 50 kg 100 kg 15 kg 15 kg 50 kg 15 kg 50 kg (9) ...... car den den den den (9A) Pas- or rail- senger aircraft Quantity limitations 15 kg 15 kg 25 kg 15 kg 1 L 1 L Forbid- 15 kg 25 kg Forbid- Forbid- 15 kg Forbid- 15 kg ...... ing (8C) Bulk packag- 241 241 241 242 243 243 242 241 241 242 242 241 244 241 ...... (8) ing (8B) 173.***) packag- Nonbulk 211 211 212 212 213 212 202 202 212 213 211 212 211 212 (§ ...... Packaging authorizations (8A) tions Excep- None None None None None None None None None None None None None None ...... (7) B100, N40 B55, B101, B106, N34 B105, B106 A19, B106, B108 B106, B109 T8 T8, T26 A20, B101, B106, N34 B106 B101, B106, N40 A20, B105, B106 B56 B56, B101, B106 sions provi- Special B100 A19, A1, A8, A19, A1, A1, B110, B101, A19, B105, A19, A19, A19, A19, ...... (6) . . (if not excepted) Label(s) required spontaneously combus- tible spontaneously combus- tible Spontaneously combustible Dangerous when wet Dangerous when wet Dangerous when wet Dangerous when wet Dangerous when wet Poison, corrosive Corrosive, flammable liquid Spontaneously combustible Spontaneously combustible Dangerous when wet Dangerous when wet Dangerous when wet, Dangerous when wet, (5) group Packing I I II II III II II II II III I II I II (4) bers Num- Identi- fication UN2545 UN1413 UN1405 UN3078 UN2022 UN2357 UN2806 UN1417 UN1418 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.3 6.1 4.3 4.3 4.3 (3) Hazard class or Division ...... ...... or ...... 8 ...... (2) turnings or gritty . shipping names . Hazardous materials power Magnesium alloys, pow- der descriptions and proper Calcium silicide Cerium, Cresylic acid Cyclohexylamine Hafnium powder, dry Lithium borohydride Lithium nitride Lithium silicon Magnesium, powder (1) Symbols Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 40035 39 34 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 74 40 40 .E .A .B .E ... A ... D ... E ... E ... E ... D ... E ... E ... B ..... E ...... A ...... B ...... B ...... E ...... A ...... E ...... E 100 kg 100 kg 15 kg 50 kg 15 kg 50 kg 100 kg 15 kg 50 kg 100 kg 1 L 5 L 60 L 50 kg 15k 15 kg 30L 60L 220 L 30L 60L ...... den den den den den den 25 kg 25 kg Forbid- 15 kg Forbid- 15 kg 25 kg Forbid- 15 kg 25 kg Forbid- 1 L 5L 15 kg Forbid- Forbid- 1 L 5 L 60 L 1L 5 L ...... 241 242 242 242 242 242 241 242 242 242 244 243 242 242 242 242 243 243 241 243 243 ...... 213 213 211 212 211 212 213 211 212 213 201 202 203 212 211 211 201 202 203 201 202 ...... None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None 153 None None ...... B56, B106, B108 A19, B108 B100, N34, N40 B101, B106, N34, N40 B106 B106 B108 B106 B106 B106 B59, B101, B106 B100, N40 N40 B110 T14 ...... A19, 54, A1, A19, A19, B101, B101, B105, B100 B101, B101, B101, B106 A20, A19, B100, T42 T14, T7 T42 B110, ...... spontaneously combus- tible spontaneously combus- tible spontaneously combus- tible spontaneously combus- tible mable liquid mable liquid mable liquid mable solid Dangerous when wet, Dangerous when wet Dangerous when wet Dangerous when wet Dangerous when wet Dangerous when wet Dangerous when wet Dangerous when wet, Dangerous when wet, Dangerous when wet, Dangerous when wet, flam- Dangerous when wet, flam- Dangerous when wet, flam- Dangerous when wet, flam- Dangerous when wet Dangerous when wet Poison Poison Keep away from food Poison Poison III III I II I II III I II III I II III II I I I II III I II UN1409 UN3208 UN1870 UN1426 UN2968 UN3209 UN3207 UN1340 UN3287 UN2810 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 6.1 6.1 or ...... Maneb or ...... Compound solution tive, n.o.s reactive, n.o.s reactive, self-heating, n.o.s n.o.s n.o.s Compound dispersion, water-reactive, flam- mable, n.o.s preparations, stabilized against self-heating or free from yellow or white phosphorus Maneb stabilized Metal hydrides, water reac- Metallic substance, water Metallic substance, water Organometallic compound Phosphorus pentasulfide, Potassium borohydride Sodium borohydride Toxic liquid, inorganic, Toxic, liquids, organic, 40036 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations sions (10B) Other provi- stowage 40 85 40 40 40 85 85 85 85 40 40 40 (10) requirements (10A) Vessel stowage Vessel stowage .E .E .E .E ... A ... E ... E ... D ... E ... E ... E ... E ... E ..... E ..... E ..... E ...... D ...... E ...... E ...... E ...... D ...... E only (9B) Cargo aircraft 220 L 1 L 5 L 60 L 1 L 5 L 60 L 1 L 5 L 60 L 15 kg 50 kg 100 kg 15 kg 50 kg 100 kg 15 kg 50 kg 100 kg 15 kg 50 kg 100 kg (9) ...... car den den den den den den den (9A) Pas- or rail- senger aircraft Quantity limitations 60 L Forbid- 1 L 5 L Forbid- 1 L 5 L Forbid- 1 L 5 L Forbid- 15 kg 25 kg Forbid- 15 kg 25 kg Forbid- 15 kg 25 kg Forbid- 15 kg 25 kg ...... ing (8C) Bulk packag- 241 243 243 242 244 243 242 243 243 242 242 242 241 242 242 241 242 242 241 242 242 241 ...... (8) ing (8B) 173.***) packag- Nonbulk 201 203 202 203 201 202 203 201 202 211 203 212 213 211 212 213 211 212 213 211 212 213 (§ ...... Packaging authorizations (8A) tions Excep- None 153 None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None ...... (7) B106, N40 B106 B106 B106, N40 B106 B106 B106, N40 B106 B106 N40 B106 B106 sions provi- Special ...... T7 B106 B106 B106 B106 A4 B106 B101, B106 B101, B105, B101, B101, B105, B101, B101, B105, B100, B101, B101, ...... (6) ...... (if not excepted) Label(s) required rosive rosive rosive son son rosive away from food rosive rosive mable solid mable solid mable solid spontaneously combus- tible spontaneously combus- tible spontaneously combus- tible Dangerous when wet, cor- Keep away from food Dangerous when wet, cor- Dangerous when wet, cor- Dangerous when wet Dangerous when wet Dangerous when wet Dangerous when wet, poi- Dangerous when wet, poi- Dangerous when wet, cor- Dangerous when wet, keep Dangerous when wet, cor- Dangerous when wet, cor- Dangerous when wet, flam- Dangerous when wet, flam- Dangerous when wet, flam- Dangerous when wet Dangerous when wet Dangerous when wet Dangerous when wet, Dangerous when wet, Dangerous when wet, (5) group Packing I III II III I II III I II I III II III I II III I II III I II III (4) bers Num- Identi- fication UN3129 UN3148 UN3130 UN3131 UN3132 UN3135 UN2813 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 (3) Hazard class or Division . . . (2) . . . shipping names Hazardous materials sive, n.o.s n.o.s sive, n.o.s mable, n.o.s heating, n.o.s descriptions and proper Water-reactive liquid, corro- Water-reactive liquid, n.o.s Water-reactive liquid, toxic, Water-reactive solid, corro- Water-reactive solid, flam- Water-reactive solid, n.o.s Water-reactive solid, self- (1) Symbols Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 40037 85 85 .E .A ... D ... A ... A ... E 15 kg 50 kg 100 kg 15 kg 50 kg 100 kg ...... den den Forbid- 15 kg 25 kg Forbid- 15 kg 25 kg ...... 242 242 241 242 242 242 ...... 211 212 213 211 212 213 ...... None None None None None None ...... B101, B106, N40 B106 B106 B109, N40 B109 A8, B105, B105, A19, A19, B108 ...... son son away from food spontaneously combus- tible spontaneously combus- tible spontaneously combus- tible Dangerous when wet, poi- Dangerous when wet, poi- Dangerous when wet, keep Dangerous when wet, Dangerous when wet, Dangerous when wet, I II III I II III UN3134 UN1436 4.3 4.3 ... Zinc dust or . n.o.s Zinc powder Water-reactive solid, toxic, 40038 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations * * * * * III solid material to a gross mass not § 173.306 [Amended] exceeding the maximum gross mass 12. In addition, in § 173.306, PART 173ÐSHIPPERSÐGENERAL marked on the intermediate bulk paragraphs (e)(1)(iii), (e)(1)(v) and REQUIREMENTS FOR SHIPMENTS container, multiplied by 2.25, if all the (e)(1)(vi) are amended by removing the AND PACKAGINGS performance criteria can be met at the phrase ‘‘American National Standard 5. The authority citation for part 173 higher gross mass. An intermediate bulk B9.1.’’ and replacing it with the phrase continues to read as follows: container which is tested and marked ‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 15’’. for Packing Group II solid materials may Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101–5127; 49 CFR be filled with a Packing Group III solid PART 178ÐSPECIFICATIONS FOR 1.53. material to a gross mass not exceeding PACKAGINGS 6. In § 173.24b, paragraph (d)(2) is the maximum gross mass marked on the revised to read as follows: intermediate bulk container, multiplied 13. The authority citation for part 178 by 1.5. continues to read as follows: § 173.24b Additional general requirements Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101–5127; 49 CFR for bulk packagings. § 173.35 [Amended] 1.53. * * * * * 8. In addition, in § 173.35, in 13. In § 178.700, paragraph (c)(1) is (d) * * * paragraph (j), the references to ‘‘35.3 revised to read as follows: (1) * * * cubic feet’’ and ‘‘17.7 cubic feet’’ are (2) Except as otherwise provided in amended to read ‘‘106 cubic feet’’ and § 178.700 Purpose, scope and definitions this subchapter, exceeds the maximum ‘‘53 cubic feet’’ respectively. * * * * * weight of lading marked on the (c) * * * specification plate. § 173.242 [Amended] 7. In § 173.35, paragraph l is added to 9. In paragraph (d)(2)(i) of § 173.242, (1) Body means the receptacle proper read as follows: the following changes are made: (including openings and their closures, a. The references to ‘‘35.4 cubic feet’’ but not including service equipment), § 173.35 Hazardous materials in and ‘‘17.7 cubic feet’’ are amended to that has a volumetric capacity of not intermediate bulk containers read ‘‘106 cubic feet’’ and ‘‘53 cubic more than three cubic meters (3,000 * * * * * feet’’ respectively. liters, 793 gallons, or 106 cubic feet) and (l) Intermediate bulk container filling b. After the word ‘‘composite’’, the not less than 0.45 cubic meters (450 limits. words ‘‘flexible, fiberboard’’ are added. liters, 119 gallons, or 15.9 cubic feet) or (1) Except as provided in this section, 10. In § 173.243, paragraph (d)(2) is a maximum net mass of not less than an intermediate bulk container may not revised as follows: 400 kilograms (882) pounds. be filled with a hazardous material in § 173.243 Bulk packaging for certain high * * * * * excess of the maximum gross mass hazard liquids and dual hazard materials § 178.705 [Amended] marked on that container. which pose a moderate hazard. (2) An intermediate bulk container 15. In § 178.705, in paragraph which is tested and marked for Packing * * * * * (c)(2)(ii), the words ‘‘minus 100 kPa (d) * * * Group II liquid materials may be filled (2) Intermediate bulk containers are (14.5 psig)’’ are removed and the words with a Packing Group III liquid material authorized subject to the following ‘‘measured in the intermediate bulk to a gross mass not exceeding 1.5 times conditions and limitations: container’’ are added in their place. the maximum gross mass marked on (i) No Packing Group I liquids or § 178.710 [Amended] that container, if all the performance materials classified as Division 4.2 16. In § 178.710, in paragraph (c)(5), criteria can still be met at the higher Packing Group I are authorized in the words ‘‘throughout the life of the gross mass. intermediate bulk containers. (3) An intermediate bulk container (ii) Packing Group I solids are inner receptacle’’ are removed and the which is tested and marked for liquid authorized only in metal intermediate words ‘‘throughout the life of the hazardous materials may be filled with bulk containers with capacities up to container’’ are added in their place. a solid hazardous material to a gross three cubic meters (106 cubic feet); and 17. In § 178.801, paragraph (b) is mass not exceeding the maximum gross (iii) Liquids with a vapor pressure revised to read as follows: mass marked on that container. In ° greater than 110 kPa (16 psig) at 50 C § 178.801 General requirements addition, an intermediate bulk container (122 °F), or 130 kPa (18.9 psig) at 55 °C * * * * * intended for the transport of liquids (131 °F), are not authorized in metal (a) * * * which is tested and marked for Packing intermediate bulk containers. (b) Responsibility. It is the Group II liquid materials may be filled * * * * * with a Packing Group III solid responsibility of the intermediate bulk 11. In § 173.306, paragraph (e)(1)(i) is container manufacturer to assure that hazardous material to a gross mass not revised to read as follows: exceeding the marked maximum gross each intermediate bulk container is mass multiplied by 1.5 if all the § 173.306 Limited quantities of capable of passing the prescribed tests. performance criteria can still be met at compressed gases. To the extent that an intermediate bulk the higher gross mass. * * * * * container assembly function, including (4) An intermediate bulk container (e) * * * final closure, is performed by the person which is tested and marked for Packing (1) * * * who offers a hazardous material for Group I solid materials may be filled (i) Each pressure vessel may not transportation, that person is with a Packing Group II solid material contain more than 5,000 pounds of responsible for performing the function to a gross mass not exceeding the Group A1 refrigerant as classified in in accordance with §§ 173.22 and 178.2 maximum gross mass marked on that ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15 or not more of this subchapter. container, multiplied by 1.5, if all the than 50 pounds of refrigerant other than * * * * * performance criteria can be met at the Group A1. 18. Section 178.803 is revised to read higher gross mass; or a Packing Group * * * * * as follows: Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 40039 § 178.803 Testing and certification of type are specified in the following table. be subjected to the tests in the order intermediate bulk containers. The letter X indicates that one presented: Tests required for the certification of intermediate bulk container (except each intermediate bulk container design where noted) of each design type must Intermediate Bulk Container (IBC) type Performance test Rigid plas- Composite Fiber- Wooden Flexible Metal IBCs tic IBCs IBCs board IBCs IBCs IBCs Vibration ...... 6X 6X 6X 6X 6X 1,5↓ Bottom lift ...... 2XXXXX Top lift ...... 2X 2X 2X 2,5X Stacking ...... 7X 7X 7X 7X 7X 5X Leakproofness ...... 3X 3X 3X Hydrostatic ...... 4X 3X 3X Drop ...... 4X 4X 4X 4X 4X 5X Topple ...... 5X Righting ...... 2,5X Tear ...... 5X 1 Flexible intermediate bulk containers must be capable of withstanding the vibration test. 2 This test must be performed only if intermediate bulk containers are designed to be handled this way. For metal intermediate bulk containers, at least one of the bottom lift or top lift tests must be performed. 3 The leakproofness and hydrostatic pressure tests are required only for intermediate bulk containers intended to contain liquids or intended to contain solids loaded or discharged under pressure. 4 Another intermediate bulk container of the same design type may be used for the drop test set forth in § 178.810 of this subchapter. 5 Another different flexible intermediate bulk container of the same design type may be used for each test. 6 The vibration test may be performed in another order for intermediate bulk containers manufactured and tested under provisions of an ex- emption before October 1, 1994 and for non-DOT specification portable tanks tested before October 1, 1994, intended for export. 7 This test must be performed only if the intermediate bulk container is designed to be stacked. § 178.819 [Amended] 19. In § 178.819, in paragraph (b)(2), the word ‘‘rotate’’ is removed and the words ‘‘and bounce’’ are added in its place. Issued in Washington, DC on July 31, 1995, under authority delegated in 49 CFR Part 1. Ana Sol Gutie´rrez, Deputy Administrator, Research and Special Programs Administration. [FR Doc. 95–19157 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910±60±P federal register August 4,1995 Friday Rule Certain RadionuclideReleases;Proposed Administrative ReportingExemptionsfor 40 CFRParts302and355 Protection Agency Environmental Part VI 40041 40042 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Document Viewing: Copies of I. Introduction materials relevant to this rulemaking are AGENCY A. Statutory Authority contained in Docket Number 102RQ– 40 CFR Parts 302 and 355 RN–2 at EPA Headquarters at the The Comprehensive Environmental following address: U.S. EPA CERCLA Response, Compensation, and Liability [FRL±5268±9] Docket Office (Mail Code 5201G), Act of 1980 (CERCLA) (Pub. L. 96–510), # Administrative Reporting Exemptions Crystal Gateway 1, 12th Floor, 1235 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., as amended, for Certain Radionuclide Releases Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA established broad Federal authority to 22202. The docket is available for respond to releases or threats of releases AGENCY: Environmental Protection viewing, by appointment only, after the of hazardous substances from vessels Agency (EPA). appearance of this rule. An appointment and facilities. Section 101(14) of ACTION: Proposed rule. to view the docket can be made by CERCLA defines the term ‘‘hazardous calling the Docket Coordinator at 703/ substance’’ primarily by reference to SUMMARY: This notice of proposed 603–8917. The hours of operation for various Federal environmental statutes. rulemaking requests comments on the Headquarters docket are from 9 a.m. Under section 103(a) of CERCLA, the broader administrative exemptions from to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, person in charge of a vessel or facility the release reporting requirements excluding Federal holidays. Please note from which a CERCLA hazardous under the Comprehensive that this is the visiting address only. substance has been released in an Environmental Response, Mail comments to the address listed amount equal to or greater than its Compensation, and Liability Act of above in the ‘‘Submittal of Comments’’ reportable quantity (RQ) must 1980, as amended, and the Emergency section. immediately notify the National Planning and Community Right-to- The public may copy a maximum of Response Center (see 40 CFR 302.6). In Know Act. In particular, the 266 pages from any regulatory docket at addition, the person in charge of a Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) no cost. If the number of pages copied facility from which a CERCLA is proposing to grant reporting exceeds 266, however, an administrative hazardous substance has been released exemptions for releases of naturally fee of $25 and a charge of $0.15 per page in an amount equal to or greater than its occurring radionuclides associated with for each page after page 266 will be RQ must immediately notify State and land disturbance incidental to incurred. The docket will mail copies of local response authorities, as required extraction activities at certain kinds of materials to requestors who are outside by section 304 of the Emergency mines, and coal and coal ash piles at all the Washington, DC metropolitan area. Planning and Community Right-to- kinds of sites. EPA also is requesting Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) (Pub. L. 99– comments on two alternatives to these Release Notification: The toll-free 499), 42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq. (see 40 exemptions. telephone number of the National CFR 355.40). As established by EPA in These reporting exemptions are being Response Center is 800/424–8802; in the an earlier RQ rulemaking (50 FR 13463, proposed in response to comments on a Washington, DC metropolitan area, the April 4, 1985), a 24-hour period is used November 30, 1992 proposed rule on number is 202/267–2675. The facsimile for measuring whether an RQ or more of administrative reporting exemptions (57 number for the National Response a hazardous substance has been released FR 56726). Center is 202/267–2165 and the telex (i.e., only releases of an RQ or more EPA thoroughly evaluated the number is 892427. within 24 hours need to be reported) radionuclide concentrations in various FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The (see 40 CFR 302.6(a)). mining materials, coal, and coal ash RCRA/UST, Superfund, and EPCRA Section 102(b) of CERCLA establishes relative to background levels to Hotline at 800/424–9346 (in the RQs at one pound for releases of determine the scope of the proposed Washington, DC metropolitan area, hazardous substances, except for those reporting exemptions; thus, this contact 703/412–9810); the substances for which RQs were document reflects a sound, scientific Telecommunications Device for the Deaf established pursuant to section 311(b)(4) approach. The exemptions would be (TDD) Hotline at 800/553–7672 (in the of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section consistent with the Agency’s common Washington, DC metropolitan area, 102(a) of CERCLA authorizes EPA to sense goals in that they would eliminate contact 703/486–3323); or Ms. Gerain H. adjust the RQs for all hazardous unnecessary reporting burdens and Perry, Response Standards and Criteria substances by regulation. allow EPA to focus its resources on the Branch, Emergency Response Division A major purpose of the section 103(a) most serious releases. The reporting (5202G), U.S. Environmental Protection notification requirements is to alert the exemptions would result in an Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, appropriate government officials to estimated net cost savings to industry of DC 20460, or at 703/603–8760. releases of hazardous substances that approximately $455,000 annually. may require a response to protect public SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The DATES: Comments must be submitted on health or welfare or the environment. contents of today’s preamble are listed or before October 3, 1995. EPA emphasizes that an RQ is merely a in the following outline: ADDRESSES: Submittal of Comments: trigger for informing the government of I. Introduction Comments should be submitted in A. Statutory Authority a release so that the appropriate triplicate (no facsimiles or tapes) to: B. Background of this Rulemaking government personnel can evaluate the Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. C. Consultation and Outreach Activities need for a response action and can EPA; CERCLA Docket Office; (Mail Code II. Regulatory Reporting Exemptions undertake any necessary response 5201G); 401 M Street, SW; Washington, A. Proposed Exemptions action in a timely fashion. Federal DC 20460; 703/603–8917. Please note B. Alternative Exemptions personnel evaluate all reported releases, that this is the mailing address only. III. Regulatory Analyses but in some cases will not initiate a Documents are available for viewing, by A. Executive Order 12866 response because the release of an RQ appointment only, at the address B. Regulatory Flexibility Act does not pose a hazard in all provided below in the ‘‘Document C. Paperwork Reduction Act circumstances. Government personnel Viewing’’ section. D. Unfunded Mandates assess each reported release on a case- Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 40043 by-case basis to determine the CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section inspection in Docket Number 102RQ– appropriate response action, if any. 304 reporting requirements based on RN–1 located at the U.S. EPA CERCLA CERCLA sections 102(a), 103, and 115 those comments. In particular, the Docket Office (Mail Code 5201G), (the general rulemaking authority under Agency exempted: (1) Releases of Crystal Gateway #1, 12th Floor, 1235 CERCLA) together provide EPA with naturally occurring radionuclides from Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA authority to grant administrative large generally undisturbed land 22202. reporting exemptions. Such exemptions holdings, such as golf courses and A total of 27 comment letters, may be granted for releases of hazardous parks; (2) releases of radionuclides totalling more than 750 pages, were substances that pose little or no risk or naturally occurring from the disturbance received on the November 30, 1992 to which a Federal response is infeasible of large areas of land for purposes other NPRM, including two after the initial or inappropriate. Requiring reports of than mining, such as farming or deadline and one after the close of the such releases serves little or no useful building construction; (3) releases of second comment period. These purpose and could, instead, impose a radionuclides from the dumping of coal comments raised a number of issues that significant burden on the Federal and coal ash at utility and industrial the Agency cannot resolve without response system and on the persons facilities with coal-fired boilers; and (4) additional information and analysis. responsible for notifying the Federal radionuclide releases to all media from Chief among these issues are: government of the release. Through coal and coal ash piles at utility and —Do radionuclide releases from land such reporting exemptions, therefore, industrial facilities with coal-fired disturbance incidental to extraction the Federal response system is able to boilers. activities at mines pose a greater risk more efficiently implement CERCLA Following the final rulemaking, the than such releases from farming and and EPCRA and more effectively focus American Mining Congress (AMC), The construction? on reports of releases that are more Fertilizer Institute (TFI), and others —Do coal and coal ash piles at sites likely to pose a significant hazard to challenged the rule in the United States without coal-fired boilers (e.g., coal human health and the environment. Court of Appeals for the District of piles at mines, railroad stockyards, Columbia in TFI v. EPA (935 F2d 1303). B. Background of This Rulemaking and steel mills, and coal ash disposed In the litigation, AMC and TFI argued of in off-site landfills) pose a greater Radionuclides are CERCLA hazardous that EPA violated the Administrative radiological threat than such piles at substances because they are listed as Procedure Act (APA) by failing to boiler sites? hazardous air pollutants under section provide notice and opportunity to —Is the government likely to respond to 112 of the Clean Air Act. Radionuclides comment on the proposed exemptions. radionuclide releases from land initially had a one-pound RQ as The petitioners also argued that it was disturbance incidental to extraction established by CERCLA section 102(b). arbitrary and capricious for EPA to activities or coal and coal ash piles at EPA recognized that an RQ of one discriminate against mining by non-boiler sites, and if so, what pound for radionuclides was not excluding it from the land disturbance response realistically can be taken? appropriate because radionuclides are exemption. not generally measured in units of The Court found that the After reviewing the public comment pounds, and releases of much less than administrative reporting exemptions letters and evaluating these issues, the one pound of radionuclides may present were improperly promulgated because Agency has decided to issue this a substantial threat to public health or EPA failed to provide adequate notice supplemental proposal requesting welfare or the environment. On March of, and opportunity for public comment information and comment on expanded 16, 1987, EPA published a Notice of on, those exemptions. The Court, reporting exemptions for certain Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to adjust however, left the four exemptions in radionuclide releases. the RQ for radionuclide releases (52 FR place while the Agency undertakes a C. Consultation and Outreach Activities 8172), with the comment period ending new round of notice and comment on May 15, 1987. A total of 28 comment rulemaking. EPA has undertaken a number of letters, totaling about 150 pages, were In a proposed rule published on activities to involve interested received. The comments received, November 30, 1992 (57 FR 56726), the stakeholders in considering and together with the Agency’s responses, Agency complied with the Court’s developing this supplemental proposal. are contained in ‘‘Responses to decision by providing notice of, and The November 30, 1992 NPRM served Comments on the Notice of Proposed requesting comment on, the same four as a basis for informing and soliciting Rulemaking on the Adjustment of exemptions from CERCLA section 103 comments from all parties on the Reportable Quantities for and EPCRA section 304 notification original reporting exemptions for four Radionuclides’’ (Responses to requirements that were promulgated in categories of radionuclide releases. Comments), which is available for the 1989 final radionuclide RQ Comment letters from mining trade inspection in Docket Number 102RQ– adjustment regulation. EPA requested organizations, individual mining RN located at the U.S. EPA CERCLA that public comments on the November companies, electric power generators Docket Office (Mail Code 5201G), 30, 1992 proposal be submitted by and trade organizations, railroads, steel Crystal Gateway #1, 12th Floor, 1235 January 29, 1993. In response to several manufacturers, private citizens, States, Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA requests for an extension to the and others were received and served as 22202. comment period, and in the interest of the prime impetus for considering The Agency promulgated a final rule allowing the public greater opportunity broader exemptions. At their request, (54 FR 22524; May 24, 1989) to adjust to evaluate the issues raised in the EPA met with representatives of AMC the RQs for all (approximately 1,500) November 30, 1992 NPRM, EPA re- and TFI on January 22, 1993 to hear radionuclides. In preparing the final opened the public comment period for their issues and concerns regarding the rule, EPA considered carefully all of the an additional 60 days beginning on November 30, 1992 NPRM. Following public comments submitted on the March 5, 1993 (58 FR 12876). All this meeting and the receipt of requests proposals made in the March 16, 1987 background materials and public submitted by commenters, EPA re- NPRM. The final rule granted four comments related to the November 30, opened the public comment period for administrative exemptions from 1992 proposal are available for an additional 60 days to give 40044 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules stakeholders ample opportunity to fully 304 reporting requirements, not from background, and (2) the resulting address their concerns. EPA then met CERCLA response or liability radionuclide releases are expected to be again with representatives of AMC and provisions. continuously low, spread over large TFI, at their request, on February 25, EPA also is proposing to broaden the areas, and widely dispersed in the 1994 to receive further information and existing exemptions for coal and coal environment. Third, the submission of hear their views on the matter. ash piles to include radionuclide individual notifications of these releases This supplemental proposal was releases to and from coal and coal ash does not appear necessary for the developed based on careful piles at all kinds of sites, not just sites government to assess whether a consideration of all information and where there is a coal-fired boiler. As response action is needed, since the comments received since the reporting with the broader land disturbance releases should be similarly low across exemptions for certain radionuclide exemption, this exemption for coal and all sites subject to the broader releases were originally promulgated. coal ash piles would apply only to exemptions. As a result, the broader EPA will develop a final rule on this CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section reporting exemptions are intended to matter based on combined information 304 reporting requirements, not to the allow EPA to focus its resources on the and comments received on both the related response or liability provisions. most serious releases and to protect November 30, 1992, NPRM and this In the 1989 final radionuclide RQ public health and welfare and the supplemental proposal. adjustment rulemaking, the reporting environment more effectively and exemptions for radionuclide releases to efficiently. At the same time, the II. Regulatory Reporting Exemptions and from coal and coal ash piles at exemptions would eliminate A. Proposed Exemptions boiler sites were granted based both unnecessary reporting burdens on upon the risks posed and the EPA is proposing to broaden the persons responsible for land disturbance appropriateness of a federal response to present reporting exemption for land at certain mine sites and any sites where such releases under CERCLA (54 FR disturbance activities to include land coal or coal ash is stored or disposed. 22529, May 24, 1989). The exemptions With respect to radionuclide disturbance incidental to extraction were limited to only boiler sites because concentrations, EPA reviewed available activities at all mines except certain there was sufficient information data on the concentrations of naturally categories of mines that are likely to available to quantify the radiological occurring radionuclides in surficial handle raw materials with ‘‘elevated’’ risks of coal and coal ash piles at boiler rocks and soils, as well as in various radionuclide concentrations. The sites, but not other kinds of sites. As ores, coal, and coal ash. These data are particular types of mines that would not discussed in more detail below, EPA is presented in a Technical Background be within the scope of the reporting proposing today that a quantitative risk Document (‘‘Technical Background exemption would be uranium, assessment is not necessary to support Document Supporting Proposed phosphate, tin, titanium, zirconium, a CERCLA and EPCRA reporting Administrative Reporting Exemptions hafnium, vanadium, and rare earth exemption, if threshold questions about for Certain Releases of Radionuclides’’) mines. For the purpose of this preamble the appropriateness and feasibility of a available for inspection in the U.S. EPA and proposed rule, mines that extract federal response can be answered by a CERCLA Docket Office (Mail Code monazite (a particular kind of rare earth simple determination that radionuclide 5201G), Crystal Gateway #1, 12th Floor, mineral) for its thorium content are releases are at or near natural 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, considered rare earth mines. Releases of background levels. While this approach Arlington, VA 22202. As discussed in naturally occurring radionuclides from would be a departure from the detailed more detail in this document, typical land disturbance at all other types of risk analysis performed for coal and coal concentrations of uranium-238, mines would be exempted from ash piles at boiler sites, it would in fact thorium-232, and their respective decay CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section be consistent with the original products in surficial rocks and soils in 304 reporting requirements. For the exemptions granted for undisturbed the U.S. hover around 1 picocurie per purpose of this proposal, land land holdings and land disturbance gram (pCi/g), although data developed disturbance incidental to extraction activities such as farming and by Myrick et al.1 and other researchers activities would include land clearing, construction, which were based on a show that uranium-238 concentrations overburden removal and stockpiling, qualitative review of radionuclide may range from 0.12 to 3.8 pCi/g and and excavating, handling, transporting, releases relative to background rather thorium-232 concentrations may range and storing ores and other raw than a quantitative risk assessment. from 0.10 to 3.4 pCi/g. Concentrations materials. Beneficiation and mineral EPA is proposing these broader well above these typical values, processing activities, including the exemptions for three primary reasons, however, are known to occur in certain associated handling, transporting, and which apply equally to both land hot spot areas of the country. For storing of bulk materials, would not be disturbance at certain mines and to coal example, elevated radioactivity has been included within the scope of the and coal ash piles at non-boiler sites. observed in association with certain exemption because such operations may First, the concentrations of naturally faults and shear zones in the Reading tend to (1) concentrate radionuclides in occurring radionuclides in the different Prong region of Pennsylvania, New waste streams or other materials well materials that would be subject to the York, and New Jersey, with uranium- above natural background levels, and/or exemption (e.g., overburden and ores in 238 concentrations as high as 27 pCi/g (2) result in substantially greater the subject mining sectors, coal, and being reported in one ‘‘profound case.’’ 2 releases than associated with land coal ash) are generally within the range Similarly, uranium-238 concentrations disturbance incidental to extraction of ‘‘typical’’ background concentrations (e.g., smokestack emissions from in surficial rocks and soils in the U.S. 1 Myrick, T.E., B.A. Berven, and F.F. Haywood, smelters may far exceed fugitive releases Second, EPA believes that a CERCLA ‘‘Determination of Concentrations of Selected from mining). Additionally, this broader response, to the release otherwise Radionuclides in Surface Soil in the U.S.,’’ Health exemption would exempt radionuclide reportable, would be very unlikely and Physics, Vol. 45, No. 3 (September), pp. 631–642, 1983. releases from the subject land possibly infeasible or inappropriate, 2 Smith et al., ‘‘Radon: A Profound Case,’’ disturbance activities only from because (1) the concentrations of Pennsylvania Geology, Volume 18, No. 2, p. 1–7, CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section materials being handled are at or near 1987. Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 40045 of 20 pCi/g or more have been observed site averages are likely to be lower and This same logic does not necessarily in isolated spots in central Florida approaching typical background levels. hold for other types of extraction sites where phosphate deposits are exposed EPA requests more reliable and current that handle ores and other raw materials or near the land surface. data on the radionuclide concentrations that routinely have radionuclide Available data indicate that the in copper ores along with comments on concentrations well above background radionuclide concentrations in many how these ores should be treated for the levels. As discussed in more detail in mining materials, coal, and coal ash are purpose of the final reporting exemption the Technical Background Document generally within the range reported for rule. If found to be necessary based on supporting this proposed rule typical background. For example, as data and other information submitted (‘‘Technical Background Document shown in the Technical Background during the comment period, land Supporting Proposed Administrative Document supporting this proposed disturbance incidental to copper mining Reporting Exemptions for Certain rule, all available data on the uranium- could be grouped with those mining Releases of Radionuclides,’’ available 238 and thorium-232 concentrations in sectors that would not be granted a for inspection in the Superfund Docket), iron ore, zinc ore, limestone, clay, and reporting exemption in the final rule. the materials extracted at uranium, fluorspar are within the range reported The relatively low radionuclide phosphate, tin, titanium, zirconium, by Myrick et al. for background surface concentrations reported for these hafnium, vanadium, and rare earth soils. Ninety-eight percent of all coal different materials do not necessarily mines can have elevated concentrations samples analyzed in support of EPA’s mean that the risks associated with of uranium-238 and/or thorium-232, 1989 final airborne emission standards radionuclide releases from many types along with their respective decay for radionuclides were also within the of extraction sites and coal and coal ash products. For example: typical background range; piles are low or representative of — Uranium ore has a uranium-238 concentrations significantly above this undisturbed background. Indeed, many concentration on the order of 280–560 range (between 20 and 43 pCi/g of factors associated with the nature of the pCi/g, although concentrations as uranium-238) were observed in only materials, management practices, and high as 760 pCi/g are reported in the two out of more than 3,700 coal samples environmental and population literature. analyzed. The radioactivity of coal ash characteristics at these sites would need — Uranium-238 concentrations in is usually higher than that of coal to be studied in substantially more phosphate rock range from 3–4 pCi/g (estimated to be about ten times higher). detail before it could be demonstrated in Tennessee to 20–60 pCi/g in other However, typical coal ashes are that such risks are low in all or most States (Florida, North Carolina, Idaho, expected to contain 4.3 pCi/g of cases. However, based on the relatively Montana, Wyoming, and Utah). uranium-238 and 3.5 pCi/g of thorium- low radionuclide concentrations and the Concentrations as high as 270 pCi/g of uranium-238 have been reported. 232, which are only slightly higher than generally low-level, diffuse releases —No data are available on the the background range reported by associated with the activities involved Myrick et al. Bauxite (aluminum) ore radionuclide concentrations in (land disturbance incidental to mining domestically mined tin ores. also can contain radionuclide extraction; transporting, dumping, and concentrations that are slightly elevated However, available data show that tin storing coal; and transporting, dumping, slag (produced from tin ore compared to normal background storing, and disposing of coal ash), EPA (around 6 pCi/g of thorium-232 and 7 processing) contains 17–34 pCi/g of believes that a CERCLA removal or uranium-238. In addition, pCi/g of uranium-238), but still remedial response to such radionuclide relatively low compared to the levels concentrated processed ores from releases would very rarely, if ever, be Malaysia have been shown to contain that naturally exist in surface rocks and necessary. Moreover, it is not clear that soils in some areas of the country. 1,160 to 8,830 pCi/g of thorium-238. it would be feasible or practical to — Some titanium ores (rutile and Most data indicate that radionuclide mount a CERCLA response at these concentrations in copper ores are at or leucoxene) are reported to contain 12– types of sites, since the materials in 14 pCi/g of uranium-238 and 1–10 near typical background levels. For question already have radionuclide example, a 1982 EPA study 3 reports that pCi/g of thorium-232. concentrations that are likely to be at or — Zircon (zirconium and hafnium ore) the uranium-238 concentration in near background and CERCLA has been measured to contain 13 pCi/ copper ore ranges from 0.79 pCi/g at an responses would not normally clean up g of radium-226, a decay product of underground mine to 2.2 pCi/g at a to below background levels. Any effort uranium-238 (which would be surface mine. The concentration of to remove the subject extraction expected to be present at about the thorium-232 is reported to range from materials, coal, or coal ash or cover same concentration as radium-226). 0.62 pCi/g at an underground mine to these materials with soil, for example, Measurements of radium-226 3.1 pCi/g at a surface mine. These levels would leave exposed soils that would concentrations in processed ore fall within the background ranges for have comparable concentrations of concentrates from South Africa are as surficial soils as reported by Myrick et naturally occurring radionuclides. high as 200 pCi/g. al. Elevated levels, however, have been Therefore, EPA believes that reporting — Vanadium-bearing ores are observed in certain copper ores from exemptions are warranted because commonly the same as uranium ores, Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico (see the continued evaluation and reporting of because vanadium is often recovered Technical Background Document for such radionuclide releases serves no as a coproduct from uranium ore. more information). Based on current useful purpose and, in fact, places an Ores recovered primarily for their information and understanding, EPA unnecessary burden on society. vanadium content contain lower believes that many of these elevated CERCLA response and liability radionuclide concentrations than readings are probably reflective of a provisions, however, would remain uranium ore, but still appear to biased sampling program, and that large intact, enabling a response if a serious contain uranium at levels higher than radiation threat is ever discovered by typical background (in the 30 to 58 3 U.S. EPA, ‘‘Emissions of Naturally Occurring Radioactivity from Aluminum and Copper other means (e.g., Regional and State pCi/g range). Facilities,’’ Office of Radiation Programs, Las Vegas inspections) at an exempted mine or —Monazite, an ore mined for its rare Facility, NV, EPA–520/6–82–018, 1982. coal or coal ash pile. earth and thorium content, typically 40046 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules contains 3,900 pCi/g of thorium and construction—generally much larger that might influence risk, such as 1,800 pCi/g of uranium. Another rare sites, larger quantities of earthen generalized statements that mines are earth ore, bastnasite, typically materials moved and stockpiled, longer- commonly located in remote areas or contains less than 97 pCi/g of term and more frequent land that radon released from mines thorium. disturbances at a given site, and disperses rapidly and causes no These concentrations generally are far frequently substantially greater depths incremental exposure above natural above typical background uncovered (see the Technical background radiation, are not concentrations expected in surface soils Background Document for more convincing unless supported by data across most of the U.S. (i.e., uranium- detail)—EPA believes there is a and an integrated risk analysis. 238 ranging from 0.12 to 3.8 pCi/g, with reasonable basis for not including Moreover, EPA believes that broad an average of 1 pCi/g, and thorium-232 uranium, phosphate, tin, titanium, comparisons of the cumulative amount ranging from 0.10 to 3.4 pCi/g, with an zirconium, hafnium, vanadium, and rare of soil moved or the cumulative amount average of 1 pCi/g). The concentrations earth mining in the reporting exemption of radon released at all mines versus all in uranium ore, phosphate rock, and for land disturbance activities. Again, farming and construction sites are rare earth ores (including monazite this does not mean that the radiation immaterial, since the need for a mined for its thorium content) also are risks at such mines are necessarily high, CERCLA response hinges on the above the elevated background but only that, in EPA’s judgment, particular conditions at any individual concentrations known to exist at or near further evaluation would be required site, not all like sites in aggregate. before it can be concluded with a the land surface in certain hot spot Other special circumstances that regions of the country, such as the sufficient degree of confidence that such risks are indeed low and that a might argue for additional reporting Reading Prong region. exemptions include a demonstration Just as the relatively low government response would be unwarranted or infeasible. that a CERCLA response is infeasible or concentrations in iron, zinc, limestone, inappropriate at a particular type of copper, and other mining sectors Commenters wishing to support exemptions for uranium, phosphate, tin, mine. With respect to this issue, the proposed to be exempted do not Agency wishes to point out that necessarily mean that the radiation risks titanium, zirconium, hafnium, appropriate CERCLA responses at mines are low, the relatively high vanadium, and rare earth mining and can fall well short of covering the entire concentrations encountered during wishing to obtain a reporting exemption site with soil or water, which would uranium, phosphate, tin, titanium, are requested to submit particular kinds of information along with their defeat the very purpose of extraction. zirconium, hafnium, vanadium, and rare comments on this proposal. Data and For example, it may be feasible or earth mining do not necessarily mean analyses regarding the radionuclide appropriate to cover certain waste piles that the radiation risks at these sites are concentrations in ores and other raw or inactive mine areas with soil or high. To the contrary, EPA’s risk materials handled in these mining water. Many other types of response analysis 4 supporting the National sectors relative to the undisturbed, actions have actually been taken at mine Emission Standards for Hazardous Air naturally occurring levels at or near the sites on the National Priorities List, Pollutants (NESHAPs) shows that land surface around the mine sites airborne emissions of radionuclides although not in response to releases of would be especially helpful. If such data from surface uranium mines result in a radionuclides. These actions have and analyses can demonstrate that the included measures to control and treat maximally exposed individual risk of radionuclide concentrations in the ores fatal cancer of 5 × 10¥5. Furthermore, mine water, diverting and controlling and raw materials being handled are stormwater runoff, dumping materials U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission generally within the normal background licenses control radionuclide releases to in areas engineered for waste disposal, range for surficial rocks and soils in the isolating contaminated areas with fences all media from in-situ uranium mines same area, a basis for broadening the and an EPA NESHAP limits radon and signs, providing nearby reporting exemptions further to include communities with alternate sources of emissions to the air from underground these mining sectors may exist. If such uranium mines (40 CFR part 61, subpart drinking water, excavating and a demonstration cannot be made, EPA removing contaminated soil, and B); as a consequence, releases in requests information on special compliance with these limits may be injecting concrete into inactive circumstances that would make a underground mine workings. If these or federally permitted under CERCLA and CERCLA response to radionuclide thus excluded from CERCLA reporting other responses to radionuclide releases releases at these mine sites very at mines would be infeasible or and liability requirements. unlikely, infeasible, and/or EPA believes, however, that the inappropriate, EPA requests information inappropriate. explaining why. elevated radionuclide concentrations in These special circumstances could raw materials handled at uranium, include a demonstration that the B. Alternative Exemptions phosphate, tin, titanium, zirconium, radiation exposures and risks, for all hafnium, vanadium, and rare earth radionuclides and all possible exposure As outlined below, EPA is mines distinguish such materials from pathways (not just radon and not just considering two alternative approaches the soil and rock disturbed at the vast the air pathway), are low (e.g., 10¥4 or for broadening the existing reporting majority of farming and construction lower lifetime cancer risk) for exemptions for certain radionuclide sites across the U.S. When these reasonably maximally exposed releases. EPA solicits comments and elevated radionuclide concentrations individuals, including closest offsite data to assist in consideration of these are coupled with other factors that tend residents and onsite workers. Any alternatives with regard to differences in to distinguish mining from farming and analysis of risks should focus either on protection of public health and welfare all sites within a given mining sector or and the environment. All comments on 4 U.S. EPA, ‘‘Risk Assessments, Environmental on a model site that is demonstrated to these alternatives, together with Impact Statement, NESHAPS for Radionuclides, Background Information Document—Volume 2,’’ conservatively represent other sites. comments on the proposed approach Office of Radiation Programs, EPA/520/1–89–006– Anecdotal information or basic described above, will be considered in 1, Chapter 12, 1989. assertions regarding independent factors developing the final rule. Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 40047 1. Alternative 1: Exempt All Extraction Compared to the proposed released and to submit a report if the and Coal and Coal Ash Piles exemptions, this alternative may be less RQs were met or exceeded. Under one alternative, EPA would successful in contributing to CERCLA’s EPA is considering a concentration exempt from CERCLA section 103 and overall goal of protecting public health cutoff because there may be very little EPCRA section 304 reporting and welfare and the environment. This benefit in requiring reports when more requirements radionuclide releases from could be particularly true at the few than an RQ of naturally occurring land disturbance incidental to categories of mines discussed above that radionuclides is released from diffuse extraction activities at all mines, as well are believed to handle materials with sources (such as land clearing, as coal and coal ash piles at all kinds elevated concentrations of overburden removal and stockpiling, of sites. As in the proposed exemptions, radionuclides. and excavating, handling, transporting, To assist in the evaluation of this this alternative would not exempt dumping, and storing ores, beneficiation alternative, EPA specifically requests radionuclide releases associated with or mineral processing materials and information and comment on the need beneficiation or processing operations wastes, coal, and coal ash) that to obtain reports of radionuclide that may be located at mine sites, nor continuously emit radionuclides in low releases from uranium, phosphate, tin, concentrations spread over large areas. would it exempt the disposal of high titanium, zirconium, hafnium, concentration materials, for example, in In developing the adjusted radionuclide vanadium, and rare earth mines RQs, the Agency determined quantities inactive mines. (including monazite mined for its This alternative recognizes that that may result in unacceptable human thorium content), which would have to reporting may not serve a useful exposures under a conservative be submitted under the proposed purpose if a CERCLA response would be hypothetical scenario in which exemptions but would not be required infeasible or inappropriate and if a radionuclides are released from a under this alternative. Data and analyses response would rarely be undertaken. A ground-level, point source (54 FR regarding the magnitude and extent of 22524, May 24, 1989). In essence, this broad exemption would allow the radiation threats (if any) at these types Agency to focus its resources on the assumes that radionuclides are released of mines, as well as the feasibility and in a concentrated form and unable to most serious releases, and this appropriateness of a CERCLA response, alternative could result in a greater undergo substantial dilution as they would be particularly helpful in this migrate to a point where a person might reduction in reporting burden for both regard. Information and comment on the industry and government and a greater be exposed. This conservative approach degree to which other existing was taken to develop adjusted RQs that cost savings compared to the proposed regulations and programs adequately would ensure timely reporting in most exemptions. control any radiation threats at these circumstances. EPA recognizes, Another factor possibly in favor of types of mines also would assist in however, that the RQs based on this this approach is that individual release evaluating the need for CERCLA section scenario may be unnecessarily low reports and responses under CERCLA 103 and EPCRA section 304 reporting. may not be the most appropriate Federal when radionuclides are actually regulatory response to radionuclide 2. Alternative 2: Exempt All Land released in more dilute form from a releases from mines. EPA and other Disturbance Incidental to Extraction large area source. government agencies are already aware During Mining Activities and All Piles In the radionuclide RQ adjustment that all mines in the U.S. are of Diffuse Naturally Occurring NPRM (52 FR 8182, March 16, 1987), continuously releasing radionuclides to Radioactive Material Below a EPA requested comments on such a the environment, usually in relatively Concentration Cutoff concentration cutoff concept in general low concentrations. Rather than Under another alternative, EPA would and, in particular, on the use of 0.002 requiring release reports and evaluating eliminate the requirement to report microcuries per gram (or 2,000 pCi/g) the need for response on a facility-by- releases of radionuclides from land established by the Department of facility basis, it may be more effective disturbance incidental to extraction and Transportation (DOT) for the purpose of for the Agency to study radiation threats releases of radionuclides to and from all defining radioactive material in at mines categorically and, if found to piles of diffuse naturally occurring hazardous material transport regulations be necessary, develop more stringent radioactive material (including (49 CFR parts 171–177). All commenters regulations under other statutes. Such extraction, beneficiation, and mineral who addressed this issue (slightly over investigations focusing primarily on processing materials and wastes as well half of all commenters) favored a mining and mineral processing wastes as coal and coal ash piles at any kind concentration cutoff. However, EPA are already underway within EPA, of site), as long as the concentration of decided not to pursue the issue further including the Office of Radiation and naturally occurring radionuclides was through the radionuclide RQ adjustment Indoor Air’s study of diffuse naturally below a certain concentration threshold. rulemaking primarily because: (1) There occurring radioactive material (NORM) Persons in charge of sites where such was not a pre-existing concentration wastes and the Office of Solid Waste’s materials are disturbed and/or threshold that was widely believed to be evaluation of extraction and stockpiled would have to determine the acceptable for all possible radionuclide beneficiation wastes under the Resource radionuclide concentration of the release scenarios (the DOT level of 2,000 Conservation and Recovery Act. Under material that they move or handle. If the pCi/g was generally regarded as too high this alternative, CERCLA response and concentration fell below the pre- for many release and exposure liability provisions would remain intact established threshold, it would not be situations); (2) EPA did not have a to respond to any serious radiation necessary to determine total quantities sufficient technical basis at that time for threats at mine sites that are not being of radionuclides released for determining an appropriate adequately controlled under the existing comparison with the RQs (i.e., no concentration cutoff; and (3) an RQ network of regulations, but release release report would be required, adjustment regulation was not viewed reporting requirements would be regardless of the total quantity released). as the appropriate forum for conducting eliminated in deference to these or other However, if the concentration exceeded the complex analysis needed to studies designed to address radiation the threshold, it then would be determine such a level (54 FR 22528, threats at mines more categorically. necessary to determine quantities May 24, 1989). 40048 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules Nevertheless, after reviewing public not necessarily represent the conditions undisturbed background radioactivity in comments on the November 30, 1992, at other kinds of sites where naturally surface rocks and soils (to which the NPRM on administrative reporting occurring radioactive materials are public is already exposed). EPA exemptions, EPA would like to revisit disturbed and handled (e.g., there may presently is considering three the idea of a concentration cutoff to be be differences in the physical properties alternatives, but invites information and applied specifically to land disturbance and radionuclide concentrations of the comment on the practicality and and piles of diffuse naturally occurring materials being handled, as well as in appropriateness of any other radioactive material (rather than all potential human exposure scenarios). In possibilities. The three alternatives possible radionuclide releases, as addition, the 40 CFR part 192 standard presently being considered are: (1) originally envisioned in the was developed using risk assessment Using site-specific values; (2) radionuclide RQ adjustment NPRM). In techniques and standards in place establishing a single value for the nation particular, EPA requests information during the early 1980s. More recently, as a whole to be used when site-specific and comment on two major issues EPA has established guidelines for data are not available, or (3) establishing associated with such an approach. First, determining remediation goals for regional or State-specific values to be what would be an appropriate radioactively contaminated soils at used when site-specific data are not concentration cutoff level (or levels)? Superfund sites.5 Depending on the available. EPA believes that such a level would particular conditions at a site, use of The first alternative, using site- best be expressed as some increment to these more recent guidelines may result specific values, recognizes the natural background. Second, what in a cleanup target that differs from 5 variability in background radioactivity would be the best way to determine pCi/g of radium-226 above background. that exists across different sites and the natural background levels? Nevertheless, these potential difficulties in determining With regard to the question of an limitations may not seriously representative, undisturbed background appropriate level, 5 pCi/g of radium-226 undermine the utility of 5 pCi/g above values. Under this alternative, reporting above background is one possibility. background as an administrative cutoff would depend on site-specific This is EPA’s standard in 40 CFR part level for the purpose of establishing background levels of radionuclides in 192 for the cleanup of surface soil CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section surface soils. Existing and emerging contaminated with residual radioactive 304 reporting exemptions. If this EPA guidance for determining material from inactive uranium approach is adopted, EPA could background concentrations of processing sites (i.e., uranium mill establish this level as an interim cutoff radionuclides could be used to establish tailings). As stated in 40 CFR 192.12, pending the development of a better these levels. For example, EPA’s remedial actions at such sites shall be value or set of values. As part of a Guidance for Data Useability in Risk 6 conducted to provide reasonable separate rulemaking, the Agency is Assessment provides general guidance assurance that the concentration of presently developing new cleanup on how to discriminate radioactive site radium-226 in land averaged over any levels for radioactively contaminated contamination from background. area of 100 square meters shall not soil and ground water. Once these or Chapter 10 of the Agency’s Risk 7 exceed the background level by more other levels are finalized, and if they are Assessment Guidance for Superfund than 5 pCi/g, averaged over the first 15 considered appropriate for the purpose also discusses general issues concerning centimeters of soil below the surface. In of CERCLA and EPCRA reporting the determination of background promulgating this cleanup standard, the exemptions, they could be adopted as concentrations of radionuclides. In Agency stated: updated concentration cutoffs. cooperation with the Department of The Agency specifically requests Energy, Department of Defense, and The purpose of this standard is to limit the information and comment on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, EPA is risk from inhalation of radon decay products in houses built on land contaminated with appropriateness of using 5 pCi/g of in the process of developing more tailings, and to limit gamma radiation radium-226 above background as a specific guidelines for surveying exposure of people using contaminated land. concentration cutoff for the purpose of radioactively contaminated sites and ** * Because the risks from soils establishing CERCLA section 103 and determining radiological background contaminated with radium-226 are EPCRA section 304 reporting levels (as part of the Multi-Agency potentially so great, the proposed standard exemptions for land disturbance and Manual for Environmental Radiological was set at a level as close to background as piles of diffuse naturally occurring Surveys). Once completed, these we believed reasonable, taking into radioactive material. EPA also requests guidelines could be adopted for use in consideration the difficulties in measuring proposals and supporting rationale for determining background levels under this level and distinguishing it from natural any alternative values. Major issues of the RQ program. background. (48 FR 600, January 5, 1983) interest that have a bearing on the Under the second and third EPA believes this underlying purpose appropriateness of any candidate value alternatives, EPA would establish and rationale make the 5 pCi/g standard include its level of protectiveness, the default values that site owners or a candidate for possible use as a lower- ability to detect the value and operators would use in the absence of bound concentration cutoff for the distinguish it from natural background, reliable site-specific data. If either of purpose of reporting exemptions for and consistency with other existing these alternatives were adopted, the land disturbance and piles of diffuse regulations and controls. Agency could use the background naturally occurring radioactive material, With regard to the question of such as extraction, beneficiation, and determining background, EPA believes 6 U.S. EPA, ‘‘Guidance for Data Useability in Risk mineral processing materials and that it would be appropriate to use a Assessment,’’ Part A (Publication 9285.7–09A, April 1992) and Part B (Publication 9285.7–09B, wastes, as well as coal and coal ash. concentration that represents May 1992), Office of Emergency and Remedial EPA recognizes, however, that this Response. For example, see Section 6.2 of Part B. number would have some limitations if 5 U.S. EPA, ‘‘Risk Assessment Guidance for 7 U.S. EPA, ‘‘Risk Assessment Guidance for applied in this context. Most notably, Superfund: Volume I—Human Health Evaluation Superfund, Volume I—Human Health Evaluation the standard was developed based on Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-based Manual (Part A), Interim Final,’’ Office of Preliminary Remediation Goals),’’ Interim, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA/540/1–89/ conditions that represent an inactive Emergency and Remedial Response, Publication 002, December 1989. For example, see Sections uranium mill tailings site, which would 9285.7–01B, December 1991. 10.3.4 and 10.3.7. Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 40049 concentrations of radium-226 developed 226. Alternatively, site owners or occurring radioactive material. The by Myrick et al. (1983), shown in Table operators could use the background distinction created above between land 1. If a single default value were adopted values for their specific State (again, disturbance incidental to extraction and for the nation as a whole, EPA could central or upper end values are other activities that may occur at adopt either a central value (the candidates). If a site were located in a extraction, beneficiation, and/or mineral arithmetic or geometric mean of State not covered by the Myrick et al. processing sites would be lost. Instead, approximately 1 pCi/g of radium-226) or data, background values could be the excavation, movement, dumping, the maximum value reported for all estimated by averaging values reported stockpiling, and disposal of any kind of samples analyzed (4.2 pCi/g). Adding a for adjacent States. diffuse naturally occurring radioactive 5 pCi/g concentration cutoff to these Compared to the proposal and the material handled at any kind of site background values would result in an first alternative discussed above, this would qualify for a reporting exemption overall threshold for reporting purposes alternative would result in more if it was below the concentration cutoff. of either 6 pCi/g or 9.2 pCi/g of radium- uniform treatment of diffuse naturally TABLE 1.ÐSTATE BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIUM-226 IN SURFACE SOIL # of Samples Range of values (pCi/ Arithmetic Geometric State analyzed g) mean (pCi/g) mean (pCi/g) Alabama ...... 8 0.47±1.4 0.82 0.77 Alaska ...... 6 0.43±0.92 0.65 0.64 Arizona ...... 6 0.23±2.0 0.95 0.70 California ...... 3 0.24±1.3 0.77 0.62 Colorado ...... 32 0.48±3.4 1.4 1.3 Delaware ...... 2 1.1±1.2 1.2 1.2 Florida ...... 11 0.25±2.3 0.84 0.67 Georgia ...... 9 0.46±1.6 0.88 0.81 Idaho ...... 12 0.64±1.6 1.1 1.1 Illinois ...... 7 0.65±1.2 0.97 0.95 Indiana ...... 2 1.0±1.1 1.1 1.1 Kansas ...... 6 0.34±1.4 0.97 0.86 Kentucky ...... 13 0.81±4.2 1.5 1.4 Louisiana ...... 2 0.58±0.84 0.71 0.70 Maryland ...... 6 0.49±1.2 0.72 0.69 Michigan ...... 10 0.46±2.0 1.1 0.95 Mississippi ...... 3 0.77±1.6 1.2 1.2 Missouri ...... 10 0.31±1.4 1.1 1.0 Nevada ...... 6 0.89±2.0 1.5 1.5 New Jersey ...... 24 0.24±1.4 0.87 0.78 New Mexico ...... 13 0.72±2.7 1.5 1.5 New York ...... 6 0.48±1.2 0.85 0.81 North Carolina ...... 8 0.48±1.2 0.78 0.74 Ohio ...... 12 0.81±2.5 1.5 1.4 Oregon ...... 8 0.24±2.1 0.82 0.68 Pennsylvania ...... 33 0.46±2.4 1.2 1.1 Tennessee ...... 10 0.65±1.4 1.1 1.0 Texas ...... 10 0.54±1.4 0.89 0.85 Utah ...... 32 0.53±1.9 1.3 1.2 Virginia ...... 13 0.60±1.1 0.85 0.83 West Virginia ...... 11 0.78±1.6 1.3 1.2 Wyoming ...... 13 0.65±1.7 1.0 1.0 U.S. Average ...... 327 0.23±4.2 1.1 1.0 Source: Myrick, T.E., B.A. Berven, and F.F. Haywood, ``Determination of Concentrations of Selected Radionuclides in Surface Soil in the U.S.,'' Health Physics, Vol. 45, No. 3 (September), pp. 631±642, 1983. EPA also believes that the use of such proposed exemptions, but also other operators than the proposed approach, a concentration cutoff would be more types of mining sites that happen to be since facilities would have to determine protective than the proposed extracting and handling raw materials concentrations relative to background, exemptions. Under this approach, all with unusually high concentrations of as well as releases relative to the RQs if sites excavating and/or handling diffuse radionuclides. At the same time, EPA the concentration cutoff is exceeded. naturally occurring radioactive recognizes that there may be instances However, determining radionuclide materials (e.g., all mining, beneficiation, when continued releases below some concentrations of the materials being and mineral processing sites and all concentration cutoff (and thus exempt extracted and/or handled at a site sites that handle coal and coal ash) from CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA should be much simpler than estimating would be required to evaluate the section 304 reporting requirements) total releases into the environment radionuclide concentration of those could pose a threat, by resulting in the (concentrations likely would be materials. Release reports then could be long-term build up of elevated levels of determined anyway when estimating radioactivity in the environment. required not only from those sites in releases relative to the RQs), and mining sectors that commonly extract Finally, the Agency recognizes that burdens associated with determining and handle materials with elevated this approach would impose a greater background levels can be reduced radionuclide concentrations, as in the burden on individual site owners or 40050 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules substantially through the use of national C. Paperwork Reduction Act planning, Disaster assistance, or regional default values. Because this rule provides an Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, Extremely III. Regulatory Analyses exemption from CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 reporting hazardous substances, Hazardous A. Executive Order 12866 requirements for certain radionuclide substances, Intergovernmental relations, Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR releases, there are no unique reporting Natural resources, Penalties, Reportable 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency or recordkeeping provisions that require quantity, Reporting and recordkeeping must determine whether a regulatory approval from OMB under the requirements, Threshold planning action is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 quantity, Water pollution control, Water subject to review by the Office of U.S.C. 3501 et. seq. supply. Management and Budget (OMB) and the Approval has previously been granted Dated: July 25, 1995. requirements of the Executive Order. by OMB for other release reporting Carol M. Browner, The Order defines ‘‘significant requirements referenced in this rule: Administrator. regulatory action’’ as one that is likely collection of information pursuant to to result in a rule that may: CERCLA section 103 for releases of For the reasons set out in the (1) Have an annual effect on the hazardous substances equal to or greater preamble, it is proposed to amend title economy of $100 million or more, or than their RQs (OMB control # 2050– 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal adversely affect in a material way the 0046). Regulations as follows: economy, a sector of the economy, PART 302ÐDESIGNATION, productivity, competition, jobs, the D. Unfunded Mandates REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND environment, public health or safety, or Under section 202 of the Unfunded NOTIFICATION State, local, or Tribal governments or Mandates Reform Act of 1995, signed communities; into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 1. The authority citation for part 302 (2) Create a serious inconsistency or prepare a statement to accompany any continues to read as follows: otherwise interfere with an action taken rule in which the estimated costs to or planned by another agency; Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602, 9603, and 9604; State, local, or tribal governments in the 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1361. (3) Materially alter the budgetary aggregate, or to the private sector, will impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, be $100 million or more in any one year. 2. Section 302.6 is amended by or loan programs or the rights and Under section 205 of this Act, EPA must revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: obligations of recipients thereof; or select the most cost-effective and least- § 302.6 Notification requirements. (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues burdensome alternative that achieves * * * * * arising out of legal mandates, the the objective of the rule and that is President’s priorities, or the principles (c) The following categories of consistent with statutory requirements. releases are exempt from the set forth in the Executive Order. Section 203 of the Act requires EPA to The Agency has determined that this notification requirements of this section: establish a plan for informing and proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant (1) Releases of those radionuclides advising any small governments that regulatory action’’ under the terms of that occur naturally in the soil from may be significantly impacted by the Executive Order 12866 and is, therefore, land holdings such as parks, golf rule. courses, or other large tracts of land; not subject to OMB review. EPA has determined that this rule These proposed exemptions will (2) Releases of naturally occurring does not include a Federal mandate that result in an estimated net cost savings radionuclides from land disturbance may result in estimated costs of $100 to the regulated community of $455,000 activities, including farming, million or more to either State, local, or annually, as demonstrated by an construction, and land disturbance tribal governments in the aggregate, or economic analysis (Estimated Economic incidental to extraction activities, Effects of Administrative Reporting to the private sector. except that which occurs at uranium, Exemptions for Certain Releases of List of Subjects phosphate, tin, titanium, zirconium, Radionuclides) performed by the hafnium, vanadium, and rare earth Agency, available for inspection in the 40 CFR Part 302 mines (including monazite mined for its U.S. EPA CERCLA Docket Office (Mail Environmental protection, Air thorium content); Code 5201G), Crystal Gateway #1, 12th pollution control, Chemicals, (3) Releases of radionuclides from the Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Emergency Planning and Community dumping of coal and coal ash; and Arlington, VA 22202. Right-to-Know Act, Extremely (4) Releases of radionuclides from hazardous substances, Hazardous coal and coal ash piles. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act chemicals, Hazardous materials, * * * * * The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 Hazardous materials transportation, requires that a Regulatory Flexibility Hazardous substances, Hazardous PART 355ÐEMERGENCY PLANNING Analysis be performed for all rules that wastes, Intergovernmental relations, AND NOTIFICATION are likely to have a ‘‘significant impact Natural resources, Pesticides and pests, on a substantial number of small Reporting and recordkeeping 3. The authority citation for part 355 entities.’’ Because this proposed rule requirements, Superfund, Waste continues to read as follows: would grant reporting relief to certain treatment and disposal, Water pollution Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11002, 11004, and sources of radionuclide releases, the control, Water supply. 11048. rule would not result in a significant 40 CFR Part 355 4. Section 355.40 is amended by impact on a substantial number of small revising paragraph (a)(2)(vi) to read as entities. EPA certifies that this proposed Air pollution control, Chemical follows: rule is not likely to have a significant accident prevention, Chemical impact on a substantial number of small emergency preparedness, Chemicals, § 355.40 Emergency release notification. entities and, therefore, that a Regulatory Community emergency response plan, (a) * * * Flexibility Analysis is not necessary. Community right-to-know, Contingency (2) * * * Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 40051 (vi) Any radionuclide release which occurs: (A) Naturally in soil from land holdings such as parks, golf courses, or other large tracts of land; (B) Naturally from land disturbance activities, including farming, construction, and land disturbance incidental to extraction activities, except that which occurs at uranium, phosphate, tin, titanium, zirconium, hafnium, vanadium, and rare earth mines (including monazite mined for its thorium content); (C) From the dumping of coal and coal ash; and (D) From coal and coal ash piles. * * * * * [FR Doc. 95–19194 Filed 8–3–95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560±50±P i Reader Aids Federal Register Vol. 60, No. 150 Friday, August 4, 1995 INFORMATION AND ASSISTANCE CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING AUGUST Federal Register At the end of each month, the Office of the Federal Register Index, finding aids & general information 202±523±5227 publishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), which Public inspection announcement line 523±5215 lists parts and sections affected by documents published since Corrections to published documents 523±5237 the revision date of each title. 990...... 39804 Document drafting information 523±3187 3 CFR Machine readable documents 523±4534 Executive Orders: 16 CFR Code of Federal Regulations 12967...... 39623 3...... 39640 Index, finding aids & general information 523±5227 5 CFR 17 CFR Printing schedules 523±3419 316...... 39101 200...... 39643 Laws Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: Public Laws Update Service (numbers, dates, etc.) 523±6641 2421...... 39878 270...... 39574, 39592 Additional information 523±5230 2422...... 39878 274...... 39574 Presidential Documents 7 CFR 18 CFR Executive orders and proclamations 523±5230 51...... 39241 35...... 39251 Public Papers of the Presidents 523±5230 301...... 39101, 39835 284...... 39252 Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 523±5230 319...... 39101 Proposed Rules: The United States Government Manual 800...... 39242 284...... 39895 922...... 39104 General information 523±5230 923...... 39104 19 CFR Other Services 924...... 39104 132...... 39108 948...... 39105 Data base and machine readable specifications 523±4534 21 CFR Guide to Record Retention Requirements 523±3187 989...... 39837 175...... 39645 523±4534 993...... 39107 Legal staff 176...... 39645 Privacy Act Compilation 523±3187 Proposed Rules: 319...... 39888, 39889 177...... 39647 Public Laws Update Service (PLUS) 523±6641 178...... 39648 TDD for the hearing impaired 523±5229 9 CFR 510...... 39846 160...... 39840 520...... 39846 ELECTRONIC BULLETIN BOARD 161...... 39840 522...... 39846 524...... 39846 Free Electronic Bulletin Board service for Public Law numbers, Proposed Rules: 94...... 39890 558...... 39846, 39847 Federal Register finding aids, and list of documents on public 24 CFR inspection. 202±275±0920 12 CFR FAX-ON-DEMAND 25...... 39236 3...... 39226, 39490 26...... 39236 You may access our Fax-On-Demand service. You only need a fax 6...... 39226 202...... 39236 machine and there is no charge for the service except for long 208...... 39226, 39490 distance telephone charges the user may incur. The list of 225...... 39226 26 CFR documents on public inspection and the daily Federal Register’s 325...... 39226, 39490 1...... 39649 table of contents are available using this service. The document 565...... 39226 31...... 39109 numbers are 7050-Public Inspection list and 7051-Table of 567...... 39226 301...... 39652 Contents list. The public inspection list will be updated Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: immediately for documents filed on an emergency basis. 3...... 39495 1...... 39896, 39902 208...... 39495 301...... 39903 NOTE: YOU WILL ONLY GET A LISTING OF DOCUMENTS ON 325...... 39495 FILE AND NOT THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT. Documents on 701...... 39273 29 CFR public inspection may be viewed and copied in our office located 741...... 39274 at 800 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 700. The Fax-On-Demand 1926...... 39254 telephone number is: 301±713±6905 14 CFR 2606...... 39848 2609...... 39848 25...... 39625 Proposed Rules: FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATES, AUGUST 39 ...... 39243, 39245, 39627, 2510...... 39208 39628, 39631, 39633, 39635, 1910...... 39281 39101±39240...... 1 39637, 39842 39241±39624...... 2 71 ...... 39247, 39638, 39639 31 CFR 39625±39834...... 3 189...... 39614 515...... 39255 39835±40052...... 4 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 71 ...... 39280, 39893, 39894, 103...... 39665 40020 32 CFR 15 CFR Proposed Rules: 902...... 39248 220...... 39285 905...... 39249 Proposed Rules: 33 CFR 806...... 39128 126...... 39788 ii Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Reader Aids 127...... 39788 180...... 39299, 39302 160...... 39268 939...... 39871 137...... 39849 185...... 39302 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 194...... 39131 5...... 39306 49 CFR 1...... 39130 302...... 40042 10...... 39306 171...... 39608, 40030 117...... 39287 355...... 40042 12...... 39306 172 ...... 39608, 39991, 40030 372...... 39132 15...... 39306 34 CFR 173...... 40030 178...... 40030 366...... 39216 41 CFR 47 CFR 575...... 39269 Ch. 114 ...... 39864 1...... 39268, 39656 36 CFR 653...... 39618 2...... 39657 654...... 39618 7...... 39257 42 CFR 73...... 39127, 39659 1023...... 39874 Proposed Rules: 409...... 39122 90...... 39660 Proposed Rules: 1415...... 39905 484...... 39122 Proposed Rules: 5...... 39919 Proposed Rules: 1...... 39134 571...... 39308 39 CFR 412...... 39304 61...... 39136 1312...... 39143 111...... 39111 413...... 39304 64...... 39136 424...... 39304 69...... 39136 40 CFR 485...... 39304 73 ...... 39141, 39142, 39143, 50 CFR 52 ...... 39115, 39258, 39851, 489...... 39304 39308 204...... 39248 39855, 39857 210...... 39271 61...... 39263 43 CFR 48 CFR 216...... 39271 70...... 39862 Public Land Orders: 519...... 39660 250...... 39271 80...... 40006 7149...... 39655 552...... 39660 270...... 39271 81 ...... 39115, 39258, 39857 7150...... 39655 601...... 39661 301...... 39663 86...... 39264 602...... 39661 604...... 39271 44 CFR 136...... 39586 605...... 39661 661...... 39991 712...... 39654 64...... 39123 606...... 39661 663...... 39875 Proposed Rules: 65...... 39865, 39867 609...... 39661 675...... 39877 Ch. I ...... 39668 67...... 39868 610...... 39661 Proposed Rules: 51...... 39297 Proposed Rules: 613...... 39661 17 ...... 39309, 39314, 39326, 52 ...... 39298, 39907, 39910, 10...... 39694 616...... 39661 39337 39911 67...... 39912 619...... 39661 23...... 39347 61...... 39299 625...... 39661 402...... 39921 70...... 39911 46 CFR 636...... 39661 642...... 39698 80...... 40009 30...... 39267 637...... 39661 663...... 39144 81...... 39298, 39911 150...... 39267 653...... 39661 697...... 39700ystems Utilities from the top menu, have historically relied on the document, contact Delores Frank, U.S. under rchivers/de-archivers. After availability of low sulfur crude could EPA (RDSD–12), Regulation getting the files you want onto your not identify for EPA the full impact of Development and Support Division, computer, you can quit the TTNBBS the final conventional gasoline Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 40007 requirements on their ability to continue reformulated gasoline program are VII. Unfunded Mandates Act marketing conventional gasoline. described in the Regulatory Impact Based on the above, and the Agency’s Analysis supporting the December 1993 Under Section 202 of the Unfunded interest in reconsidering these rule, which is available in Public Docket Mandates Reform Act of 1995 provisions (discussed in the separate A–92–12 located at Room M–1500, (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Waterside Mall (ground floor), U.S. into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must published elsewhere in this issue of the Environmental Protection Agency, 401 prepare a budgetary impact statement to Federal Register), EPA hereby issues a M Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. accompany any proposed or final rule three-month administrative stay of the that includes a Federal mandate that effectiveness of the following rules, with IV. Compliance With the Regulatory may result in expenditure by State, certain conditions keyed to the Flexibility Act local, and tribal governments, in the requirements proposed elsewhere in The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) aggregate; or by the private sector, of this issue of the Federal Register. The of 1980 requires federal agencies to $100 million or more. Under Section stay is structured such that it will only examine the effects of their regulations 205, EPA must select the most cost- affect those persons who meet the and to identify any significant adverse effective and least burdensome proposed requirements for a baseline impacts of those regulations on a alternative that achieves the objectives adjustment. substantial number of small entities. of the rule and is consistent with First, 40 CFR 80.91(e)(7)(i)(A) through Pursuant to section 605(b) of the statutory requirements. Section 203 (C) is stayed for three months for all Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. requires EPA to establish a plan for persons that meet the requirements of 605(b), the Administrator certifies that informing and advising any small section 80.91(e)(7) as proposed in a this rule will not have a significant governments that may be significantly separate Notice of Proposed economic impact on a substantial or uniquely impacted by the rule. Rulemaking. In effect, persons who meet number of small entities. In fact, today’s EPA has determined that today’s the proposed requirements would be action is designed to promote successful action does not include a Federal able to receive a baseline adjustment implementation of the anti-dumping mandate that may result in estimated under 80.91(e)(7) if they also met the requirements of the reformulated costs of $100 million or more to either requirements of 80.91(e)(7) (ii) and (iii). gasoline program for all affected parties. State, local or tribal governments in the If a person does meet these conditions, aggregate, or to the private sector. This then the Agency may approve a baseline V. Administrative Designation action has the net effect of reducing adjustment under the terms of this stay, Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, burden of the reformulated gasoline or under the terms of any stay issued (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) the program on regulated entities. through rulemaking. Agency must determine whether the Therefore, the requirements of the Second, 40 CFR 80.101(b)(1)(ii) is regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to stayed for three months for all persons therefore subject to OMB review and the this action. that meet the requirements proposed requirements of the executive order. The elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory XIII. Statutory Authority Register as of a new proposed section action as one that is likely to result in The statutory authority for the 80.91(e)(8), and that comply with an a rule that may: administrative stay granted today is annual average sulfur level of 125% of (1) Have an annual effect on the Section 307(d) and 301 of the Clean Air the compliance baseline that would economy of $100 million or more or Act as amended; 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545(c) apply under the new proposed section adversely affect in a material way the and (k), and 7601. 80.91(e)(8). In effect, the stay would economy, a sector of the economy, only affect those persons who meet the productivity, competition, jobs, the List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80 proposed requirements for a baseline environment, public health or safety, or Environmental protection, Air adjustment and who also meet the State, local or tribal governments or pollution control, Fuel additives, annual average sulfur level for communities; Gasoline, Motor vehicle pollution, conventional gasoline that would apply (2) Create a serious inconsistency or Reporting and recordkeeping if they received a baseline adjustment otherwise interfere with an action taken requirements. under the related Notice of Proposed or planned by another agency; Rulemaking. (3) Materially alter the budgetary Dated: July 21, 1995. The terms of the three-month impact of entitlement, grants, user fees, Carol M. Browner, administrative stay apply to all gasoline or loan programs or the rights and Administrator. produced from January 1, 1995 through obligations of recipients thereof; or For the reasons set out in the to the end of any such stay. (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues preamble, part 80 of title 40 of the Code arising out of legal mandates, the III. Environmental and Economic of Federal Regulations is amended as President’s priorities, or the principles Impacts follows: set forth in the Executive Order. The environmental impacts of today’s Pursuant to the terms of Executive PART 80ÐREGULATION OF FUELS action are minimal, as discussed above. Order 12866, it has been determined AND FUEL ADDITIVES Additionally, economic impacts are that this final rulemaking is not a generally beneficial to affected refiners ‘‘significant regulatory action’’. 1. The authority citation for part 80 due to the additional flexibility afforded continues to read as follows: by the stay in combination with the VI. Paperwork Reduction Act baseline adjustments in a related Notice The Paperwork Reduction Act of Authority: Sections 114, 211, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. of Proposed Rulemaking published 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and 7414, 7545 and 7601(a)). elsewhere in this issue of the Federal implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part Register. Minimal anti-competitive 1320, do not apply to this action as it 2. Section 80.91 is amended by effects are expected. The environmental does not involve the collection of adding a new paragraph (e)(7)(iv) to and economic impacts of the information as defined therein. read as follows: 40008 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations