Tuesday March 30, 1999

Pages 15123±15284 Vol. 64 3±30±99 eDt 3MR9 72 a 9 99Jt134 O000Fm001Ft41 ft41 :F\M3MW.X fm1PsN:30MRWS pfrm01 E:\FR\FM\30MRWS.XXX Sfmt4710 Fmt4710 Frm00001 PO00000 Jkt183247 17:25Mar29, 1999 VerDate 23-MAR-99 No. 60 federal register March 30,1999 Tuesday announcement ontheinsidecoverofthisissue. For informationonbriefingsinWashington,DC,see Briefings onhowtousetheFederalRegister 1 II Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999

The FEDERAL REGISTER is published daily, Monday through SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Friday, except official holidays, by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, PUBLIC Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C. Subscriptions: Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Committee of Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Superintendent of Assistance with public subscriptions 512–1806 Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official edition. General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498 Single copies/back copies: The Federal Register provides a uniform system for making available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Paper or fiche 512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and Assistance with public single copies 512–1803 Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published Subscriptions: by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public Paper or fiche 523–5243 interest. Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions 523–5243 Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the issuing agency requests earlier filing. For a list of documents currently on file for public inspection, see http://www.nara.gov/ fedreg. FEDERAL REGISTER WORKSHOP The seal of the National Archives and Records Administration THE FEDERAL REGISTER: WHAT IT IS AND authenticates the Federal Register as the official serial publication established under the Federal Register Act. Under 44 U.S.C. 1507, HOW TO USE IT the contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed. FOR: Any person who uses the Federal Register and Code of Federal The Federal Register is published in paper and on 24x microfiche. Regulations. It is also available online at no charge as one of the databases WHO: Sponsored by the Office of the Federal Register. on GPO Access, a service of the U.S. Government Printing Office. WHAT: Free public briefings (approximately 3 hours) to present: The online edition of the Federal Register is issued under the 1. The regulatory process, with a focus on the Federal Register authority of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register system and the public’s role in the development regulations. as the official legal equivalent of the paper and microfiche editions 2. The relationship between the Federal Register and Code (44 U.S.C. 4101 and 1 CFR 5.10). It is updated by 6 a.m. each of Federal Regulations. day the Federal Register is published and it includes both text 3. The important elements of typical Federal Register and graphics from Volume 59, Number 1 (January 2, 1994) forward. documents. GPO Access users can choose to retrieve online Federal Register 4. An introduction to the finding aids of the FR/CFR system. documents as TEXT (ASCII text, graphics omitted), PDF (Adobe WHY: To provide the public with access to information necessary to Portable Document Format, including full text and all graphics), research Federal agency regulations which directly affect them. or SUMMARY (abbreviated text) files. Users should carefully check There will be no discussion of specific agency regulations. retrieved material to ensure that documents were properly downloaded. On the World Wide Web, connect to the Federal Register at http:/ WASHINGTON, DC /www.access.gpo.gov/nara. Those without World Wide Web access WHEN: April 20, 1999 at 9:00 am. can also connect with a local WAIS client, by Telnet to WHERE: Office of the Federal Register swais.access.gpo.gov, or by dialing (202) 512-1661 with a computer and modem. When using Telnet or modem, type swais, then log Conference Room in as guest with no password. 800 North Capitol Street, NW. For more information about GPO Access, contact the GPO Access Washington, DC User Support Team by E-mail at [email protected]; by fax at (3 blocks north of Union Station Metro) (202) 512–1262; or call (202) 512–1530 or 1–888–293–6498 (toll RESERVATIONS: 202–523–4538 free) between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday–Friday, except Federal holidays. The annual subscription price for the Federal Register paper edition is $555, or $607 for a combined Federal Register, Federal Register Index and List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA) subscription; the microfiche edition of the Federal Register including the Federal Register Index and LSA is $220. Six month subscriptions are available for one-half the annual rate. The charge for individual copies in paper form is $8.00 for each issue, or $8.00 for each group of pages as actually bound; or $1.50 for each issue in microfiche form. All prices include regular domestic postage and handling. International customers please add 25% for foreign handling. Remit check or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or charge to your GPO Deposit Account, VISA, MasterCard or Discover. Mail to: New Orders, Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250–7954. There are no restrictions on the republication of material appearing in the Federal Register. How To Cite This Publication: Use the volume number and the page number. Example: 64 FR 12345.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 17:25 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\30MRWS.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 30MRWS III

Contents Federal Register Vol. 64, No. 60

Tuesday, March 30, 1999

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Meridian Dyed Yarn Group, 15177 NOTICES Pool Co., 15177 Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Quebecor Printing Federated, Inc., et al., 15178 Childhood Asthma and Hazardous Substances Applied Schlumberger Oilfield Services, 15178 Research and Development Program; correction, Simpson Pasadena Paper Co., 15178 15168 Southwest Fashion, Inc., 15178–15179 Hazardous substances releases and facilities: Stanley Fastening Systems, 15179 Public health assessments and effects— VF Knitwear, Inc., 15179 Quarterly listing, 15168–15169 Adjustment assistance and NAFTA transitional adjustment assistance: Agriculture Department Mitchell Manufacturing Group, 15172 See Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension United Technologies Automotive, 15171–15172 Service Agency information collection activities: Proposed collection; comment request, 15179–15181 Children and Families Administration NAFTA transitional adjustment assistance: RULES Pillsbury Co., 15181 Child support enforcement program: Southwest Fashions, Inc., 15181–15182 Grants to States for access and visitation programs; VF Knitwear, Inc., 15182 monitoring, evaluation, and reporting, 15132–15136 Energy Department Comptroller of the Currency See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Minimum security devices and procedures, reports of suspicious activities, and Bank Secrecy Act compliance Environmental Protection Agency program: RULES National banks; Know Your Customer programs Air pollution control; new motor vehicles and engines: development; withdrawn, 15137 New nonroad spark-ignition nonhandheld engines at or below 19 kilowatts; phase 2 emission standards, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 15207–15255 Service Air quality implementation plans; approval and NOTICES promulgation; various States: Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: California, 15129–15132 Special Research Program— PROPOSED RULES Pest Management Alternatives Research; Food Quality Air quality implementation plans; approval and Protection Act Issues, 15267–15274 promulgation; various States: Potato Research, 15257–15265 California, 15148 NOTICES Defense Department Clean Air Act: NOTICES Citizens suits; proposed settlements— Arms sales notification; transmittal letter, etc., 15149–15153 Sierra Club v. Browner, 15157 Meetings: Education Department Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, 15157 NOTICES Drinking water issues— Agency information collection activities: Ultraviolet radiation use for disinfection, 15157 Proposed collection; comment request, 15153–15154 Effluent guidelines plan; update, 15158–15159 Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Environmental Policy and Technology National Advisory Institute for International Public Policy Program, 15279– Council, 15159 15280 Science Advisory Board, 15160–15163

Employment and Training Administration Executive Office of the President NOTICES See Management and Budget Office Adjustment assistance: See Presidential Documents Ainge Enterprises, Inc., 15172–15173 ASM America, Inc., et al., 15173–15174 Federal Aviation Administration Buckeye, Inc., 15174 RULES Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc., 15174 Airworthiness directives: Caza Drilling, Inc., 15174 Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.; correction, Geneva Steel, 15174–15175 15126–15127 Heckett Multiserv, 15175 PROPOSED RULES Kellwood Co., 15175 Airworthiness directives: Kelly Springfield Tire et al., 15175–15177 Pratt & Whitney, 15137–15139 Kentucky Apparel LLP, 15177 Class E airspace, 15139–15143

VerDate 23-MAR-99 17:27 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\30MRCN.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 30MRCN IV Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Contents

NOTICES Indian Health Service Passenger facility charges; applications, etc.: NOTICES Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, VA, 15197 Agency information collection activities: Proposed collection; comment request, 15169–15170 Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Interior Department Agency information collection activities: See Land Management Bureau Submission for OMB review; comment request, 15163 Meetings: Internal Revenue Service Network Reliability and Interoperability Council, 15163– NOTICES 15164 Agency information collection activities: Proposed collection; comment request, 15201–15205 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Meetings: NOTICES Brooklyn District Citizen Advocacy Panel, 15205 Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: Midwest District Citizen Advocacy Panel, 15205 CNG Transmission Corp., 15154 Pacific-Northwest District Citizen Advocacy Panel, 15205 Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 15154–15155 El Paso Natural Gas Co., 15155 International Trade Commission Midcoast Interstate Transmission, Inc., 15156 NOTICES Mid-Continent Area Power Pool, 15155 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 15171 National Fuel Gas Supply Corp., 15156 Northern Natural Gas Co., 15156 Labor Department See Employment and Training Administration Federal Maritime Commission See Labor-Management Standards Office NOTICES See Mine Safety and Health Administration Agreements filed, etc., 15164–15165 See Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration Freight forwarder licenses: International Cargo Transporters, Inc., et al., 15165 Labor-Management Standards Office PROPOSED RULES Federal Reserve System Transportation Equity Act for 21st Century; NOTICES implementation: Banks and bank holding companies: Employee protections; certification requirements, 15275– Change in bank control, 15165 15277 Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, 15165 Permissible nonbanking activities, 15165–15166 Land Management Bureau Meetings; Sunshine Act, 15166 NOTICES Alaska Native claims selection: Federal Trade Commission Iliamna Natives Ltd., 15170–15171 NOTICES Realty actions; sales, leases, etc.: Prohibited trade practices: Arizona, 15171 Zeneca Group PLC, 15166–15167 Management and Budget Office Federal Transit Administration NOTICES NOTICES Commercial activities performance (Circular A-76); Federal Environmental statements; notice of intent: pay raise assumptions and inflation factors update New York City, NY; subway service extension from (Transmittal Memorandum No. 19), 15190–15191 Manhattan to LaGuardia Airport, 15197–15200 Mine Safety and Health Administration General Accounting Office PROPOSED RULES RULES Coal, metal, and nonmetal mine safety and health: Personnel Appeals Board; procedural rules, 15125 Hazard communication, 15144–15148

General Services Administration National Mediation Board NOTICES NOTICES Transportation and property management: Agency information collection activities: Centralized household goods traffic management Proposed collection; comment request, 15182–15183 program, 15167–15168 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Health and Human Services Department NOTICES See Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Environmental statements; availability, etc.: See Children and Families Administration Portland General Electric Co., 15183–15186 See Indian Health Service Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp., 15186–15189 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 15189–15190 Housing and Urban Development Department Regulatory guides; issuance, availability, and withdrawal, NOTICES 15190 Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Welfare-to-work rental voucher program (Section 8); Office of Management and Budget tenant-based assistance; correction, 15170 See Management and Budget Office

VerDate 23-MAR-99 17:27 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\30MRCN.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 30MRCN Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Contents V

Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration RULES PROPOSED RULES Computer reservation systems, carrier-owned Employee Retirement Income Security Act: Expiration date extension, 15127–15129 Section 3(40) Collective Bargaining Agreements Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Treasury Department meetings, 15143–15144 See Comptroller of the Currency See Internal Revenue Service Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS United States Information Agency Special observances: NOTICES Education and Sharing Day, U.S.A. (Proc. 7176), 15123– Art objects; importation for exhibition: 15124 Degas and New Orleans: A French Impressionist in EXECUTIVE ORDERS America, 15205–15206 Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: Coast Guard, Interagency Task Force on the Roles and Veterans Affairs Department Missions of the U.S.; establishment (EO 13115), NOTICES 15281–15284 Meetings: Cemeteries and Memorials Advisory Committee, 15206 Public Health Service See Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry See Indian Health Service Separate Parts In This Issue

Securities and Exchange Commission Part II PROPOSED RULES Environmental Protection Agency, 15207–15255 Securities: Securities offerings, regulatory structure; modernization Part III and clarification, 15143 Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, NOTICES Education and Extension Service, 15257–15265 Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: Security Benefit Life Insurance Co. et al., 15191–15197 Part IV State Department Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, 15267–15274 NOTICES Foreign Assistance Act; determinations: Part V Honduras, 15197 Department of Labor, Labor Standards Management Office, Surface Transportation Board 15275–15277 NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 15200 Part VI Railroad operation, acquisition, construction, etc.: Department of Education, 15279–15280 Tulare Valley Railroad Co., 15200 Part VII Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Agency The President, 15281–15284 See Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Transportation Department Reader Aids See Federal Aviation Administration Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for See Federal Transit Administration phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, See Surface Transportation Board and notice of recently enacted public laws.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 17:27 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\30MRCN.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 30MRCN VI Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Contents

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.

3 CFR Proclamations: 7176...... 15123 Executive Orders: 13115...... 15283 4 CFR 27...... 15125 28...... 15125 12 CFR Proposed Rules: 21...... 15137 14 CFR 39...... 15126 255...... 15127 Proposed Rules: 39...... 15137 71 (3 documents) ...... 15139, 15140, 15142 17 CFR Proposed Rules: 200...... 15143 202...... 15143 210...... 15143 228...... 15143 229...... 15143 230...... 15143 232...... 15143 239...... 15143 240...... 15143 249...... 15143 29 CFR Proposed Rules: 215...... 15276 2510...... 15143 30 CFR Proposed Rules: 56...... 15144 57...... 15144 77...... 15144 120...... 15144 40 CFR 52...... 15129 90...... 15208 Proposed Rules: 52...... 15148 45 CFR 303...... 15132

VerDate 23-MAR-99 17:28 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\30MRLS.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 30MRLS 15123

Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 64, No. 60

Tuesday, March 30, 1999

Title 3— Proclamation 7176 of March 25, 1999

The President Education and Sharing Day, U.S.A., 1999

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation Our Nation was founded at a time of extraordinary change, as the world began to move from an agrarian to an industrial economy. Today, as we approach the 21st century, exciting innovations in science and technology are revolutionizing our society, and once again Americans must adapt to the demands of a new era. Beckoning us with exciting new challenges and far-reaching opportunities, our future depends as never before on our Nation’s commitment to excellence in education. Americans have met the dynamic changes in our society not only through education but also by finding strength in our shared goals and values. And, as we prepare for the challenges of a new millennium, these time- honored principles must remain an important part of our children’s education. Far more than the accumulation of facts and figures, a well-rounded education that will serve our children throughout their lives must also include the wisdom and insights of past generations. Family members, teach- ers, administrators, and neighbors should share their experiences and ideals with young people to help them develop into mature, confident, and responsible adults. An esteemed scholar and inspired religious leader, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, devoted his life to empowering young people through education. His belief in the importance of intellectual and spiritual enlightenment led him to establish more than 2,000 educational and social institutions around the world. Promoting faith, family, and community, his work enriched our society and helped to lay the foundation for our continued progress. On this day and throughout the year, let us rededicate ourselves to the ideals of education and sharing that were championed by Rabbi Schneerson and are embraced by compassionate leaders across our country. As our society continues to change and evolve, let us work with keen minds and warm hearts to forge a future of peace and prosperity for all our children. NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim March 28, 1999, as Education and Sharing Day, U.S.A. I invite Government officials, educators, volunteers, and all of the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate activities, programs, and ceremonies.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:51 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4705 E:\FR\FM\30MRD0.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 30MRD0 15124 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Presidential Documents

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-fifth day of March, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-third. œ–

[FR Doc. 99–7906 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Billing code 3195–01–P

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:51 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4705 E:\FR\FM\30MRD0.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 30MRD0 15125

Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 64, No. 60

Tuesday, March 30, 1999

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER oversight over equal employment 4 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter B, as contains regulatory documents having general opportunity at the agency. By statute, follows: applicability and legal effect, most of which the Board is composed of five members are keyed to and codified in the Code of who serve five-year nonrenewable PART 27ÐGENERAL ACCOUNTING Federal Regulations, which is published under OFFICE PERSONNEL APPEALS 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. terms. 31 U.S.C. 751(a) and (c)(1). The statute contains no provision expressly BOARD; ORGANIZATION The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by governing Board procedures in the case the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of of a vacancy in Board membership. The 1. The authority citation for part 27 new books are listed in the first FEDERAL statute states that the Board may continues to read as follows: REGISTER issue of each week. delegate to a member or panel of Authority: 31 U.S.C. 753. members the authority to act under its power to consider and order corrective 2. Section 27.1 is revised to read as GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE and disciplinary action. 31 U.S.C. follows: 4 CFR Parts 27 and 28 753(c). A decision of a member or panel is final unless the Board reconsiders the § 27.1 The Board. decision either on motion of a party or Personnel Appeals Board; Procedural The General Accounting Office on its own initiative. 31 U.S.C. 753(c). Rules Personnel Appeals Board, hereinafter Further, the statute authorizes the Board AGENCY: General Accounting Office to prescribe regulations providing for the Board, is composed of five members Personnel Appeals Board. appeals and providing for the operating appointed by the Comptroller General, ACTION: Interim rule with request for procedures of the Board. 31 U.S.C. in accordance with the provisions of 31 comments. 753(e). U.S.C. 751. For purposes of the regulations in this part and 4 CFR parts The Board has followed the common SUMMARY: The General Accounting 28 and 29, a simple majority of the law rule, set forth in Roberts Rules of Office Personnel Appeals Board (PAB) Order and recognized by the Supreme Board shall constitute a quorum and a has authority with respect to Court in FTC v. Flotill Products, 389 majority of a quorum may act for the employment practices within the Board. The Board may designate a panel General Accounting Office (GAO or U.S. 179 (1967), that a majority of a quorum constituted of a simple majority of its members or an individual Board agency), pursuant to the General member to take any action within the Accounting Office Personnel Act of of a collective body may act for that body when the enabling statute is silent scope of the Board’s authority, subject to 1980. The PAB hereby amends its later reconsideration by the Board. regulations, on an interim basis, to on the question. This principle was adopted by the Board as a policy conform to Board policy recognizing PART 28ÐGENERAL ACCOUNTING that a quorum of three members of the statement on May 15, 1995. The amendment to the Board’s regulations is OFFICE PERSONNEL APPEALS Board may exercise all the powers of the BOARD; PROCEDURES APPLICABLE Board, and that a majority of a quorum intended to formalize the application of the common law rule to the Board’s TO CLAIMS CONCERNING may act in any matter requiring EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES AT THE consideration by the full Board. The operating procedures. The Board is GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE Board invites public comment on this making this regulation effective amendment before it becomes final. immediately upon publication, on an interim basis, to conform the regulation 1. The authority citation for Part 28 DATES: These interim regulations are to the Board’s practice and to clarify continues to read as follows: effective March 30, 1999. Comments on who may act for the Board. The Board, Authority: 31 U.S.C. 753. these regulations must be received by however, welcomes public comment the Board on or before June 1, 1999, in and will carefully consider all 2. Section 28.3 is amended by revising order to be considered. comments received before adopting this the definition of Board to read as ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed regulation in final form. follows: to: Clerk, General Accounting Office Personnel Appeals Board, Suite 560, List of Subjects § 28.3 General definitions. Union Center Plaza II, 441 G Street NW., 4 CFR Part 27 * * * * * Washington, DC 20548. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile Government employees, Organization Board means the General Accounting transmission to 202–512–7525. and functions (government agencies). Office Personnel Appeals Board as established by 31 U.S.C. 751 and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth 4 CFR Part 28 Don, Executive Director, 202–512–6137. explained in 4 CFR 27.1. Administrative practice and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The * * * * * General Accounting Office Personnel procedure, Equal employment Michael Wolf, Appeals Board is authorized by opportunity, Government employees, Labor-management relations. Chair, Personnel Appeals Board, U.S. General Congress, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 751– Accounting Office. 755, to hear and decide certain For the reasons set forth in the [FR Doc 99–7741 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] employment-related cases brought by preamble, the General Accounting BILLING CODE 1610±02±M GAO employees and to exercise Office Personnel Appeals Board amends

VerDate 23-MAR-99 14:50 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30MRR1.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR1 15126 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION nacelle structure; re-positioning the Administrator, the Federal Aviation engine exhaust duct; and replacing the Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Administration engine exhaust bracket with a new Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR engine exhaust bracket, if necessary. For part 39) as follows: 14 CFR Part 39 certain airplanes, that AD also requires [Docket No. 98±NM±265±AD; Amendment installing new stainless steel plates onto PART 39ÐAIRWORTHINESS 39±11100; AD 99±02±18 R1] the upper rear nacelle structure. That DIRECTIVES action was prompted by issuance of RIN 2120±AA64 1. The authority citation for part 39 mandatory continuing airworthiness continues to read as follows: information by a foreign civil Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. airworthiness authority. The actions (EMBRAER) Model EMB±120 Series required by that AD are intended to § 39.13 [Amended] Airplanes prevent fretting of the titanium thermal 2. Section 39.13 is amended by insulating blankets, which could result removing amendment 39–11012 (64 FR AGENCY: Federal Aviation in an increased risk of fire in the engine 4029, January 27, 1999), and by adding Administration, DOT. exhaust duct of the tail pipe. a new airworthiness directive (AD), ACTION: Final rule; correction. As published, paragraph (d) of AD amendment 39–11100, to read as 99–02–18 contained two incorrect follows: SUMMARY: This amendment corrects references to spare part numbers of information in an existing airworthiness thermal insulating blankets. The first 99–02–18 R1 Empresa Brasileira de directive (AD), applicable to certain incorrect reference was a typographical Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER): Amendment 39–11100. Docket 98–NM– EMBRAER Model EMB–120 series error that identified spare part number airplanes, that currently requires 265–AD. Revises AD 99–02–18, ‘‘120035413–001’’ as one of the blankets Amendment 39–11012. removing the thermal insulating that, as of the effective date of the AD, Applicability: Model EMB–120 series blankets from the upper rear nacelle shall not be installed on any airplane. airplanes, serial numbers (S/N) 120003, structure; re-positioning the engine That part number does not exist. The 120004, and 120006 through 120336 exhaust duct; and replacing the engine correct part number is identified in inclusive; certificated in any category. exhaust bracket with a new engine EMBRAER Service Bulletin S.B. 120– Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane exhaust bracket, if necessary. For certain 54–0035, Change 02, dated May 29, identified in the preceding applicability airplanes, that amendment also 1998 (which was referenced as the provision, regardless of whether it has been currently requires installing new appropriate source of service modified, altered, or repaired in the area stainless steel plates onto the upper rear information for accomplishment of the subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or nacelle structure. The actions specified required actions) as ‘‘120–35413–001.’’ in that AD are intended to prevent repaired so that the performance of the The second incorrect reference requirements of this AD is affected, the fretting of the titanium thermal identified a spare part number (i.e., owner/operator must request approval for an insulating blankets, which could result ‘‘120–35411–002’’) that does exist, but alternative method of compliance in in an increased risk of fire in the engine corresponds to a thermal insulating accordance with paragraph (e) of this AD. exhaust duct of the tail pipe. This blanket that is not subject the identified The request should include an assessment of amendment corrects the requirements of unsafe condition of the AD. The correct the effect of the modification, alteration, or the existing AD by correcting affected spare part number is identified in the repair on the unsafe condition addressed by spare part numbers of thermal referenced service bulletin as ‘‘120– this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not insulating blankets. This amendment is been eliminated, the request should include 35413–002.’’ Therefore, this action specific proposed actions to address it. prompted by review of the requirements revises paragraph (d) of the AD to of the existing AD. Compliance: Required as indicated, unless reference the correct spare part numbers accomplished previously. DATES: Effective March 3, 1999. identified above. To prevent fretting of the titanium thermal The incorporation by reference of Action is taken herein to correct these insulating blankets, which could result in an certain publications listed in the requirements of AD 99–02–18 and to increased risk of fire in the engine exhaust regulations was approved previously by correctly add the AD as an amendment duct of the tail pipe, accomplish the the Director of the Federal Register as of to section 39.13 of the Federal Aviation following: March 3, 1999 (64 FR 4029, January 27, Regulations (14 CFR 39.13). (a) For airplanes identified in ‘‘Part I’’ of 1999). The final rule is being reprinted in its the effectivity listing of EMBRAER Service entirety for the convenience of affected Bulletin S.B. 120–54–0035, Change 02, dated FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: May 29, 1998: Within 2,400 flight hours after Linda M. Haynes, Aerospace Engineer, operators. The effective date remains the effective date of this AD, accomplish Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ACE– March 3, 1999. paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) in accordance 117A, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, Since this action only corrects a with the service bulletin. Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, current requirement, it has no adverse (1) Remove the thermal insulating blankets One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix economic impact and imposes no from the upper rear nacelle structure. additional burden on any person. (2) Install new stainless steel plates onto Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia the upper rear nacelle structure. 30337–2748; telephone (770) 703–6091; Therefore, notice and public procedures hereon are unnecessary. (b) For airplanes identified in ‘‘Part II’’ of fax (770) 703–6097. the effectivity listing of EMBRAER Service SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Bulletin S.B. 120–54–0035, Change 02, dated January 15, 1999, the FAA issued AD Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation May 29, 1998: Within 2,400 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, remove the 99–02–18, amendment 39–11012 (64 FR safety, Incorporation by reference, 4029, January 27, 1999), which is thermal insulating blankets from the upper Safety. rear nacelle structure in accordance with the applicable to certain EMBRAER Model Adoption of the Correction service bulletin. EMB–120 series airplanes. That AD (c) For all airplanes: Prior to further flight requires removing the thermal Accordingly, pursuant to the following accomplishment of either insulating blankets from the upper rear authority delegated to me by the paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD, as applicable,

VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:37 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.070 pfrm07 PsN: 30MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 15127 re-position the engine exhaust duct with the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Background use of shims in accordance with EMBRAER As explained in our notice proposing Service Bulletin S.B. 120–54–0035, Change Office of the Secretary to revise the rules’ expiration date, we 02, dated May 29, 1998. If it is not possible have found that CRS rules are necessary to re-position the engine exhaust duct with 14 CFR Part 255 to protect airline competition and to the use of shims as specified in the service [Docket No. OST±99±5132] bulletin, prior to further flight, replace the ensure that consumers can obtain rear exhaust duct bracket with a new rear RIN 2105±AC75 accurate and complete information on exhaust duct bracket, in accordance with the airline services. 64 FR 9458–9459. CRSs ‘‘Note’’ in paragraph 1.3.1.1 of the Planning Second Extension of Computer have become essential for the marketing section of the service bulletin. Reservations Systems Regulations of airline services for almost all airlines operating in the United States, and (d) As of the effective date of this AD, no AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT. person shall install on any airplane a thermal market forces do not discipline the price ACTION: Final rule. insulating blanket having part number (P/N) and quality of service offered airlines by 120–35411–025, –035, –036, 120–35413–001, SUMMARY: The Department is revising its the CRSs. Travel agents rely on CRSs to or 120–35413–002. rules governing airline computer provide airline information and (e) An alternative method of compliance or reservations systems (CRSs) to change bookings for their customers, and almost adjustment of the compliance time that the rules’ expiration date for a second all airlines receive most of their provides an acceptable level of safety may be time. This revision changes the date bookings from travel agencies. The used if approved by the Manager, FAA, Small from March 31, 1999, to March 31, 2000, travel agencies’ typical exclusive or Airplane Directorate, Atlanta Aircraft to keep the rules from terminating on predominant use of one system compels Certification Office, One Crown Center, 1895 March 31, 1999. The rules will thus each airline to participate in an agency’s Phoenix Boulevard, Suite 450, Atlanta, remain in effect while the Department system if it wishes to have its services Georgia. Operators shall submit their requests continues out its reexamination of the readily saleable by that agency. Each through an appropriate FAA Principal need for CRS regulations. The system, moreover, is controlled by Maintenance Inspector, who may add Department finds that the current rules airlines or airline affiliates, who could comments and then send it to the Manager, should be maintained because they are use them to unreasonably prejudice the Atlanta ACO. necessary for promoting airline competitive position of other airlines or Note 2: Information concerning the competition and helping to ensure that to provide misleading or inaccurate existence of approved alternative methods of consumers and their travel agents can information to travel agents and their compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtain complete and accurate customers. For these reasons, we obtained from the Atlanta ACO. information on airline services. The adopted rules regulating CRS operations (f) Special flight permits may be issued in Department previously extended the in the United States, 57 FR 43780 accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 rules from December 31, 1997, to March (September 22, 1992). 64 FR 9458–9459. of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 31, 1999. Our rules included a sunset date, December 31, 1997, to ensure that we 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to DATES: This rule is effective on March would reexamine whether the rules a location where the requirements of this AD 31, 1999. can be accomplished. remained necessary and whether they FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (g) The actions shall be done in accordance were effective. 57 FR 43829–43830 Thomas Ray, Office of the General with EMBRAER Service Bulletin S.B. 120– (September 22, 1992). We have begun a 54–0035, Change 02, dated May 29, 1998. Counsel, U.S. Department of reexamination of our current rules by This incorporation by reference was Transportation, 400 Seventh St. SW., publishing an advance notice of approved previously by the Director of the Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366–4731. proposed rulemaking that invited Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Our CRS interested persons to comment on 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 as of March 3, 1999 rules have always had an expiration whether we should readopt the rules (64 FR 4029, January 27, 1999). Copies may date to ensure that we would and, if so, with what changes. 62 FR be obtained from Empresa Brasileira de periodically review the need for the 47606 (September 10, 1997). Almost all Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box rules and their effectiveness. In a 1997 of the parties responding to our advance 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, rulemaking we changed the rules’ notice of proposed rulemaking have Brazil. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, expiration date from the original sunset urged us to maintain CRS rules, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind date, December 31, 1997, to March 31, although these parties also argued that Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the 1999. 62 FR 66272 (December 18, 1997). various changes should be made to the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, Atlanta We will not be able to complete our rules, mostly to strengthen them. 64 FR Aircraft Certification Office, One Crown reexamination of the current rules by 9458. Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, Suite 450, March 31, 1999. Because we believed Atlanta, Georgia; or at the Office of the that the current rules should be Our Proposed Extension of the CRS Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, maintained pending our reexamination Rules NW., suite 700, Washington, DC. of the need for rules, we proposed to Our inability to complete our (h) The effective date of this amendment change the rules’ expiration date to reexamination of the rules by the remains March 3, 1999. March 31, 2000, and gave interested original sunset date, December 31, 1997, Issued in Renton, Washington, on March persons an opportunity to comment on caused us to change the sunset date to 23, 1999. that proposal. 64 FR 9457 (February 26, March 31, 1999. 62 FR 66272 (December Darrell M. Pederson, 1999). We received comments from 18, 1997). Amadeus Global Travel Distribution, We proposed again to change the Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. Worldspan, the Association of Asia expiration date for the rules to March Pacific Airlines, and America West 31, 2000, so that they would remain in [FR Doc. 99–7689 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Airlines, all of which supported the effect pending our reexamination of our BILLING CODE 4910±13±P proposal, as did Southwest Airlines, rules, since we could not complete that which filed a late reply. reexamination by March 31, 1999. 64 FR

VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:00 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30MRR1.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 30MRR1 15128 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

9457 (February 26, 1999). The time and other three parties endorse our tentative Effective Date procedures required for that process conclusion that CRS rules remain We have determined for good cause to made it impossible for us to meet that necessary. Worldspan and the Asia- make this amendment effective on deadline. The proposed temporary Pacific Association agree that our on- March 31, 1999, rather than thirty days extension of the current rules would going review of our current rules will be after publication as required by the maintain the status quo until we a complex process and must be done Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. determine which rules, if any, should be carefully. 553(d), except for good cause shown. adopted. As we explained, maintaining Three of the commenters urge us, Maintaining the current rules in effect the rules in effect appeared to be however, to act promptly on some CRS on a continuing basis requires us to necessary to protect airline competition issues before we complete our overall make this amendment effective by and consumers against unreasonable March 31, 1999. Since the amendment practices. A short-term extension of the review of the rules. Amadeus contends that we should adopt a rule prohibiting preserves the status quo, it will not rules would protect airline competition require the systems, airlines, and travel and consumers against the injuries that the tying of a travel agency’s ability to sell corporate discount fares with its agencies to change their operating would otherwise occur, given our earlier methods. As a result, making the findings on the market power of the choice of the system affiliated with the airline offering the discount fares. amendment effective less than thirty systems and each airline owner’s days after publication will not burden Worldspan objects to a piecemeal potential interest in using its affiliated anyone. CRS to prejudice the competitive revision of the current rules; Worldspan position of other airlines. Furthermore, asserts, however, that, if any issue is Regulatory Process Matters allowing the current rules to expire considered before the completion of the Regulatory Assessment could be disruptive, since the systems, rules’ overall reexamination, that issue airlines, and travel agencies have been should be the extension of the This rule is a nonsignificant conducting their operations in the mandatory participation rule, 14 CFR regulatory action under section 3(f) of expectation that each system will Part 255.7(a), to cover airlines like Executive Order 12866 and has not been comply with the rules. 64 FR 9458. Southwest that market one system reviewed by the Office of Management Finally, we noted that maintaining the without participating in other systems. and Budget under that order. The rules in effect appeared necessary to America West argues that we should act proposal is also not significant under meet the United States’ obligations immediately on its pending petitions for the regulatory policies and procedures under various treaties and bilateral air rules addressing the systems’ high of the Department of Transportation, 44 services agreements to assure foreign booking fees and the problems created FR 11034 (February 26, 1979). In our notice of proposed rulemaking, airlines a fair and equal opportunity to for airlines by Internet booking services. compete. 64 FR 9459. we tentatively determined that We stated that we regret our inability Southwest filed a reply which maintaining the current rules should to finish the reexamination of the rules supports our proposed extension of the impose no significant costs on the CRSs. by March 31, 1999. Recognizing the rules and argues that Worldspan’s Since the systems have already taken all importance of having CRS rules that proposed rule would injure both the steps necessary to comply with the reflect current industry conditions, we Southwest and airline travellers. rules’ requirements on displays and functionality, continuing to comply explained that our review has taken Decision more time than anticipated, in part due with those rules would not impose a to recent developments in airline We will change the rules’ sunset date substantial burden on the systems. distribution. In addition, we have had to to March 31, 2000, as we proposed. Keeping the rules in effect would address other airline competition issues Amadeus, Worldspan, America West, benefit participating airlines, since they that appeared to be more urgent. We the Asia Pacific Association, and would otherwise be subjected to recognize that several parties were Southwest support our proposal, and no unreasonable terms for participation, alleging that the compelling need for one has objected to it. The analysis and consumers, who might otherwise be certain additional CRS regulations underlying our proposal is consistent given incomplete or inaccurate required us to act promptly on those both with the findings made by us in information on airline services. The issues without waiting for the earlier CRS rulemakings and with the rules also contain provisions that are completion of the overall reexamination position of almost all parties in the designed to prevent abuses in the of the rules. We are considering whether underlying rulemaking (Docket OST– systems’ competition with each other there were issues that should be 97–2881) that CRS rules are still for travel agency subscribers. 64 FR addressed before we complete our necessary. We will consider, however, 9459. In our notice we also pointed out that overall reexamination of the rules. 64 whether CRS regulations are still our last comprehensive CRS rulemaking FR 9458. needed as part of our overall included an economic analysis that we Due to the need to make the proposed reexamination of the CRS rules. amendment effective by March 31, 1999, believe remains applicable to our we shortened the comment period to America West, Amadeus, and extension of the rules’ expiration date. fourteen days. 64 FR 9457. Worldspan each urge us to act quickly We concluded that no new economic on the specific rule proposals of interest analysis appeared to be necessary, but Comments to it. We will consider their requests as we stated that we would consider Four parties filed comments. The part of our review of the comments and comments from any party on that commenters are Amadeus Global reply comments filed in the proceeding analysis before we again revised the Distribution System (‘‘Amadeus’’), for reexamining all of the CRS rules. rules’ sunset date. 64 FR 9459. Worldspan, America West Airlines, and While we appreciate their interest in No one filed comments on the the Association of Asia-Pacific Airlines obtaining expedited action on certain economic analysis. We will therefore (‘‘Asia-Pacific Association’’). Worldspan issues, we note that their requests are base this rule on the analysis used in does not object to the proposed generally controversial and opposed by our last comprehensive CRS extension of the current rules, and the other commenters. rulemaking. We will prepare a new

VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:37 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.075 pfrm07 PsN: 30MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 15129 economic analysis as part of our review were no rules, the systems’ airline List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 255 of the existing rules, if we determine owners could use them to prejudice the Air carriers, Antitrust, Consumer that rules remain necessary. competitive position of other airlines. protection, Reporting and recordkeeping This rule does not impose unfunded Ibid. requirements, Travel agents. mandates or requirements that will have The CRS rules additionally affect the any impact on the quality of the human Accordingly, the Department of operations of smaller travel agencies, environment. Transportation amends 14 CFR Part 255, primarily by prohibiting certain CRS as follows: Small Business Impact practices that could unreasonably The Regulatory Flexibility Act of restrict the travel agencies’ ability to use PART 255Ð[AMENDED] 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., was enacted more than one system or to switch 1. The authority citation for part 255 by Congress to ensure that small entities systems. The rules prohibit CRS continues to read as follows: are not unnecessarily and contracts that have a term longer than disproportionately burdened by five years, give travel agencies the right Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40101, 40102, 40105, 40113, 41712. government regulations. The act to use third-party hardware and requires agencies to review proposed software, and prohibit certain types of 2. Section 255.12 is revised to read as regulations that may have a significant contract clauses, such as minimum use follows: economic impact on a substantial and parity clauses, that restrict an § 255.12 Termination. number of small entities. For purposes agency’s ability to use multiple systems. of this rule, small entities include By prohibiting display bias based on Unless extended, the rules in this part smaller U.S. and foreign airlines and carrier identity, the rules also enable shall terminate on March 31, 2000. smaller travel agencies. travel agencies to obtain more useful Issued in Washington, D.C. on March 25, Our notice of proposed rulemaking set displays of airline services. 64 FR 9459– 1999, under authority delegated by 49 CFR forth the reasons for our proposed 9460. 1.56a (h) 2. extension of the rules’ expiration date Patrick V. Murphy, We invited interested persons to and the objectives and legal basis for Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and that proposed rule. We also noted that address our tentative conclusions under International Affairs. the Regulatory Flexibility Act in their keeping the current rules in force would [FR Doc. 99–7753 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] comments submitted in response to this not modify the existing regulation of BILLING CODE 4910±62±P small businesses. We referred to the notice of proposed rulemaking. 64 FR final rule in our last comprehensive CRS 9460. rulemaking, which contained an No one filed comments on our ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION analysis that we used to determine that Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis. We AGENCY the rules would not have a significant will adopt the analysis set forth in the economic impact on a substantial notice of proposed rulemaking. 40 CFR Part 52 number of small entities. In proposing Our proposed rule contained no direct to revise the sunset date to March 31, [CA 211±0127a; FRL±6313±4] reporting, recordkeeping, or other 2000, we reasoned that that analysis compliance requirements that would Approval and Promulgation of appeared to remain valid for that affect small entities. There are no other Implementation Plans; California State proposed extension. We therefore Implementation Plan Revision; El adopted that analysis as our tentative federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with our proposed rules. Dorado County Air Pollution Control regulatory flexibility statement but District stated that we would consider any The Department certifies under comments filed on that analysis in section 605(b) of the Regulatory AGENCY: Environmental Protection connection with this proposal. 64 FR Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that Agency (EPA). 9459–9460. this regulation will not have a ACTION: Direct final rule. We tentatively concluded that significant economic impact on a maintaining our existing CRS rules substantial number of small entities. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final would primarily affect two types of action to approve revisions to the small entities, smaller airlines and Paperwork Reduction Act California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The El Dorado County Air travel agencies. We further noted that This rule contains no collection-of- Pollution Control District (EDCAPCD), the rule would also affect all small information requirements subject to the Rule 239 concerns control of emissions entities that purchase airline tickets, Paperwork Reduction Act, Public Law since airline fares may be somewhat of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) from natural 96–511, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. lower than they would otherwise be, gas-fired residential water heaters. although the amount may not be large, Federalism Implications This approval action will incorporate if our CRS rules allowed airlines to this rule into the Federally approved operate more efficiently than they This rule will have no substantial SIP. The intended effect of approving of otherwise would. 64 FR 9459. direct effects on the States, on the this rule is to regulate NOX emissions in Keeping the rules in effect would relationship between the national accordance with the requirements of the benefit smaller airlines that have no government and the States, or on the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 ownership interest in a CRS, since the distribution of power and (CAA or the Act). Thus, EPA is rules prohibit certain potential system responsibilities among the various finalizing the approval of this revision practices that could injure their ability levels of government. Therefore, in into the California SIP under provisions to operate profitably and compete accordance with Executive Order 12812, of the CAA regarding EPA actions on successfully. The rules provide we have determined that the proposed SIP submittals, SIPs for national important protection to smaller airlines, rule does not have sufficient federalism primary and secondary ambient air for example, by barring display bias and implications to warrant preparation of a quality standards (NAAQS), and plan discriminatory booking fees. If there Federalism Assessment. requirements for nonattainment areas.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 14:50 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30MRR1.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR1 15130 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

DATES: This rule is effective on June 1, requirements to major stationary sources Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of 1999 without further notice, unless EPA of NOX (‘‘major’’ as defined in section Implementation Plans). The EPA receives adverse comments by April 29, 302 and sections 182(c), (d), and (e)) as interpretation of these requirements, 1999. If EPA receives such comments, are applied to major stationary sources which forms the basis for today’s action, then it will publish a timely withdrawal of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), appears in the NOX Supplement (57 FR in the Federal Register informing the in moderate or above ozone 55620) and various other EPA policy public that this rule will not take effect. nonattainment areas. El Dorado County guidance documents.3 ADDRESSES: Written comments must be Air Pollution Control District South Coast Air Quality Management submitted to Andrew Steckel at the (EDCAPCD) is classified as serious 1; District (SCAQMD) has developed a Region IX office listed below. Copies of therefore this area is subject to the protocol document entitled Nitrogen the rule and EPA’s evaluation report of RACT requirements of section 182(b)(2) Oxides Emissions Compliance Testing each rule are available for public cited below and the November 15, 1992 for Natural Gas-fired Water Heaters and inspection at EPA’s Region IX office deadline. Small Boilers jointly with the industry during normal business hours. Copies of Section 182(b)(2) requires submittal of and replaces the ANSI requirements the submitted rule are also available for RACT rules for major stationary sources currently used by manufacturers. EPA inspection at the following locations: of VOC (and NOX) emissions (not has used SCAQMD’s guidance Rulemaking Office, AIR–4, Air Division, covered by a pre-enactment control document in evaluating EDCAPCD’s U.S. Environmental Protection technologies guidelines (CTG) Rule 239 for consistency with the Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne document or a post-enactment CTG enforceability requirements. Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901 document) by November 15, 1992. There is currently no version of Environmental Protection Agency, Air There are no major stationary sources EDCAPCD’s Rule 239, Natural Gas-fired Docket (6102) 401 ‘‘M’’ Street, S.W., covered by this rule; however, this rule Residential Water Heaters, in the SIP. Washington, D.C. 20460 is expected to achieve substantial Rule 239 establishes NOX and carbon California Air Resources Board, reductions of NOX because it applies to monoxide (CO) emissions limits for Stationary Source Division, Rule a large number of small sources. natural gas-fired residential water Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street, This document addresses EPA’s direct heaters with rated heat inputs of greater Sacramento, CA 95812 final action for EDCAPCD’s Rule 239, than or equal to 75,000 Btu per hour. El Dorado County Environmental Natural Gas-fired Residential Water The submitted rule includes the Management Department, Air Heaters. EDCAPCD’s Rule 239 was first following provisions: • Pollution Control District, 2850 adopted on March 24, 1998. General provisions including Fairlane Court, Placerville, CA 95667 The State of California submitted the applicability, exemptions, and rule to EPA for incorporation into its definitions. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed • Exhaust emissions standards for Addison, Rulemaking Office, AIR–4, Air SIP on June 23, 1998. Rule 239 was oxides of nitrogen (NOX). Division, U.S. Environmental Protection found to be complete on August 25, • Administrative and monitoring Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 1998 pursuant to EPA’s completeness requirements including compliance Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901 criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR Part 2 schedule, reporting requirements, Telephone: (415) 744–1185. 51, Appendix V and is being finalized for approval into the SIP. monitoring and record keeping, and test SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NOX emissions contribute to the methods. I. Applicability production of ground level ozone and Rules submitted to EPA for approval smog. EDCAPCD’s Rule 239 specifies as revisions to the SIP must be fully The rule being approved into the exhaust emission standards for NOX enforceable, must maintain or California SIP is EDCAPCD’s Rule 239, from natural gas-fired residential water strengthen the SIP and must conform Natural Gas-fired Residential Water heaters. This rule was originally with EPA policy in order to be approved Heaters. Rule 239 was submitted by the adopted as part of District’s efforts to by EPA. When reviewing rules for SIP State of California to EPA on June 23, achieve the National Ambient Air approvability, EPA evaluates 1998. Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone, enforceability elements such as test II. Background and in response to the CAA methods, record keeping, and On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air requirements cited above. The following compliance testing in addition to Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted. is EPA’s evaluation and final action for applicable guidance regarding emission Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399, this rule. limits. Rule 239 strengthens the SIP through the addition of enforceable codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. III. EPA Evaluation and Proposed measures such as record keeping, test On November 25, 1992, EPA Action published a proposed rule entitled, methods, definitions, and emissions In determining the approvability of a ‘‘State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen limits. Incorporation of the rule into the NOX rule, EPA must evaluate the rule Oxides Supplement to the General SIP would decrease the NOX emissions for consistency with the requirements of Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments allowed by the SIP. the CAA and EPA regulations, as found of 1990 Implementation of Title I; A detailed discussion of the sources in section 110 and Part D of the CAA controlled, the controls required, and Proposed Rule,’’ (the NOX Supplement) and 40 CFR Part 51 (Requirements for which describes and provides justification can be found in the preliminary guidance on the 1 EDCAPCD area retained the designation of 3 Among other things, the pre-amendment requirements of section 182(f). The nonattainment and is classified by operation of law guidance consists of those portions of the proposed November 25, 1992, action should be pursuant to sections 107(d) and 181(a) upon the post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy 52 FR referred to for further information on the date of enactment of the CAA. See 55 FR 56694 45044 (November 24, 1987); ‘‘Issues Relating to (November 6, 1991). NOX requirements and is incorporated VOC regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 2 EPA adopted the completeness criteria on Deviation, Clarification to Appendix D of November into this document by reference. February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to 24, 1987 Federal Register Notice’’ (Blue Book) Section 182 (f) of the Clean Air Act section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria (notice of availability was published in the Federal requires States to apply the same on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216). Register on May 25, 1988).

VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:37 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.079 pfrm07 PsN: 30MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 15131

Technical Support Document (TSD) for environmental health or safety risk that impact on a substantial number of small Rule 229, dated December 30, 1998, EPA has reason to believe may have a entities because SIP approvals under which is available from the U.S. EPA disproportionate effect on children. If section 110 and subchapter I, part D of Region IX office. the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Clean Air Act do not create any new EPA has evaluated the submitted rule the Agency must evaluate the requirements but simply approve and has determined it consistent with environmental health or safety effects of requirements that the State is already the CAA, EPA regulations and EPA the planned rule on children, and imposing. Therefore, because the policy. Therefore, Rule 239, Natural explain why the planned regulation is Federal SIP approval does not create Gas-fired Residential Water Heaters; is preferable to other potentially effective any new requirements, I certify that this being approved under section 110(k)(3) and reasonably feasible alternatives action will not have a significant of the CAA as meeting the requirements considered by the Agency. This rule is economic impact on a substantial of section 110(a), section 182(b)(2), not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does number of small entities. Moreover, due section 182(f) and the NOX Supplement not involve decisions intended to to the nature of the Federal-State to the General Preamble. mitigate environmental health or safety relationship under the Clean Air Act, risks. preparation of flexibility analysis would IV. Administrative Requirements constitute Federal inquiry into the D. Executive Order 13084 A. Executive Order 12866 economic reasonableness of state action. Under Executive Order 13084, The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base The Office of Management and Budget Consultation and Coordination with its actions concerning SIPs on such (OMB) has exempted this regulatory Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. action from Executive Order (E.O.) not issue a regulation that is not EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. required by statute, that significantly or U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). B. Executive Order 12875 uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that F. Unfunded Mandates Under Executive Order 12875, imposes substantial direct compliance Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Enhancing the Intergovernmental costs on those communities, unless the Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Partnership, EPA may not issue a Federal government provides the funds (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed regulation that is not required by statute necessary to pay the direct compliance into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must and that creates a mandate upon a State, costs incurred by the tribal prepare a budgetary impact statement to local or tribal government, unless the governments, or EPA consults with accompany any proposed or final rule Federal government provides the funds those governments. If EPA complies by that includes a Federal mandate that necessary to pay the direct compliance consulting, Executive Order 13084 may result in estimated annual costs to costs incurred by those governments, or requires EPA to provide to the Office of State, local, or tribal governments in the EPA consults with those governments. If Management and Budget, in a separately aggregate; or to private sector, of $100 EPA complies by consulting, Executive identified section of the preamble to the million or more. Under Section 205, Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s EPA must select the most cost-effective the Office of Management and Budget a prior consultation with representatives and least burdensome alternative that description of the extent of EPA’s prior of affected tribal governments, a achieves the objectives of the rule and consultation with representatives of summary of the nature of their concerns, is consistent with statutory affected State, local and tribal and a statement supporting the need to requirements. Section 203 requires EPA governments, the nature of their issue the regulation. In addition, to establish a plan for informing and concerns, copies of any written Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to advising any small governments that communications from the governments, develop an effective process permitting may be significantly or uniquely and a statement supporting the need to elected officials and other impacted by the rule. issue the regulation. In addition, representatives of Indian tribal EPA has determined that the approval Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to governments ‘‘to provide meaningful action promulgated does not include a develop an effective process permitting and timely input in the development of Federal mandate that may result in elected officials and other regulatory policies on matters that estimated annual costs of $100 million representatives of State, local and tribal significantly or uniquely affect their or more to either State, local, or tribal governments ‘‘to provide meaningful communities.’’ Today’s rule does not governments in the aggregate, or to the and timely input in the development of significantly or uniquely affect the private sector. This Federal action regulatory proposals containing communities of Indian tribal approves pre-existing requirements significant unfunded mandates.’’ governments. Accordingly, the under State or local law, and imposes Today’s rule does not create a mandate requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. no new requirements. Accordingly, no on State, local or tribal governments. 13084 do not apply to this rule. additional costs to State, local, or tribal The rule does not impose any governments, or to the private sector, E. Regulatory Flexibility Act enforceable duties on these entities. result from this action. Accordingly, the requirements of The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply generally requires an agency to conduct G. Submission to Congress and the to this rule. a regulatory flexibility analysis of any Comptroller General rule subject to notice and comment The Congressional Review Act, 5 C. Executive Order 13045 rulemaking requirements unless the U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Protection of Children from agency certifies that the rule will not Business Regulatory Enforcement Environmental Health Risks and Safety have a significant economic impact on Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), a substantial number of small entities. that before a rule may take effect, the applies to any rule that: (1) is Small entities include small businesses, agency promulgating the rule must determined to be ‘‘economically small not-for-profit enterprises, and submit a rule report, which includes a significant’’ as defined under E.O. small governmental jurisdictions. This copy of the rule, to each House of the 12866, and (2) concerns an final rule will not have a significant Congress and to the Comptroller General

VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:37 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.080 pfrm07 PsN: 30MRR1 15132 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations of the United States. EPA will submit a (256) * * * and Visitation Programs shall monitor, report containing this rule and other (i) * * * evaluate, and report on such programs required information to the U.S. Senate, (D) El Dorado County Pollution in accordance with regulations the U.S. House of Representatives, and Control District . prescribed by the Secretary. the Comptroller General of the United (1) Rule 239 adopted on March 24, Background States prior to publication of the rule in 1998. the Federal Register. This rule is not a * * * * * Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ‘‘major’’ rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. [FR Doc. 99–7668 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] On March 31, 1998 a Notice of 804(2). BILLING CODE 6560±50±P Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was H. Petitions for Judicial Review published in the Federal Register. Public comments were formally Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND requested. Comments received in Air Act, petitions for judicial review of HUMAN SERVICES response to this request are discussed this action must be filed in the United and summarized below. States Court of Appeals for the Administration for Children and appropriate circuit by June 1, 1999. Families History of Federal Involvement in Filing a petition for reconsideration by Access and Visitation the Administrator of this final rule does 45 CFR Part 303 The Federal financial involvement in not affect the finality of this rule for the RIN 0970±AB72 access and visitation began when the purposes of judicial review nor does it Family Support Act of 1988 (Pub. L. extend the time within which a petition Child Support Enforcement Program; 100–485) authorized up to $4 million for judicial review may be filed, and Grants to States for Access and each year for fiscal years 1990 and 1991 shall not postpone the effectiveness of Visitation Programs: Monitoring, for State demonstration projects to such rule or action. This action may not Evaluation, and Reporting develop, improve, or expand activities be challenged later in proceedings to designed to increase compliance with enforce its requirements. (See section AGENCY: Office of Child Support child access provisions of court orders. 307(b)(2).) Enforcement (OCSE), HHS. The legislation required an evaluation of List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 ACTION: Final rule. these projects and a Report to Congress on the findings. In October 1996, the Environmental protection, Air SUMMARY: This final rule implements Department of Health and Human pollution control, Hydrocarbons, provisions contained in section 391 of Services transmitted to Congress the Incorporation by reference, the Personal Responsibility and Work report entitled, ‘‘Evaluation of the Child Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 Access Demonstration Projects’’. The nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and and establishes the requirements for report indicated that requiring both recordkeeping requirements, Volatile State monitoring, reporting and parents to attend mediation sessions organic compounds. evaluation of Grants to States for Access and developing parenting plans was Environmental protection, Air and Visitation Programs. Access and successful for cases without extensive pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Visitation programs support and long-term problems. Incorporation by reference, facilitate non-custodial parents’ access In September, 1996, the U.S. Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen to and visitation of their children by Commission on Child and Family dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and means of activities including mediation Welfare submitted a report to the recordkeeping requirements, Volatile (both voluntary and mandatory), President and Congress which strongly organic compounds. counseling, education, development of endorsed additional emphases at all parenting plans, visitation enforcement Note: Incorporation by reference of the government levels, especially State and (including monitoring, supervision and State Implementation Plan for the State of local levels, to ensure that each child neutral drop-off and pickup) and California was approved by the Director of from a divorced or unwed family have the Federal Register on July 1, 1982. development of guidelines for visitation a parenting plan which encourages and and alternative custody arrangements. Dated: March 11, 1999. enables both parents to stay emotionally Laura Yoshii, EFFECTIVE DATE: April 29, 1999. involved with the child(ren). Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IX FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Finally, PRWORA added a new Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code David Arnaudo, OCSE, Division of provision at section 391 to award funds of Federal Regulations is amended as Automation and Special Projects, (202) annually to States to establish and follows: 401–5364. Hearing impaired individuals administer programs to support and may call the Federal Dual Relay Service facilitate non-custodial parents’ (fathers PART 52Ð[AMENDED] at 1–800–877–8339 between 8:00 a.m. or mothers) access to, and visitation of, and 7:00 p.m. their children. Activities funded by this 1. The authority citation for Part 52 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: program include mediation (both continues to read as follows: voluntary and mandatory), counseling, Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Statutory Authority education, development of parenting The final regulations are published plans, visitation enforcement (including Subpart FÐCalifornia under the authority of section 469B of monitoring, supervision, neutral drop- 2. Section 52.220 is amended by the Social Security Act (the Act), as off and pickup), development of adding paragraph (c) (256) (D) to read as added by section 391 of the Personal guidelines for visitation and alternative follows: Responsibility and Work Opportunity custody arrangements. States may Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) administer programs directly or through § 52.220 Identification of plan. (Pub. L. 104–193), and section 1102 of contracts or grants with courts, local * * * * * the Act. Section 469B(e)(3) requires that public agencies, or nonprofit private (c) * * * each State receiving a grant for Access entities; States are not required to

VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:37 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.082 pfrm07 PsN: 30MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 15133 operate such programs on a statewide Paragraph 303.109(c) requires that clients for domestic violence (spousal or basis. States provide a detailed description of child abuse) to ensure that the battered Under this provision, the amount of each funded program including such spouse is not put at further risk. the grant to be made to the State shall information as: service providers and Response: We share the concerns for be the lesser of 90 percent of State administrators, service area, population safety expressed by commentators who expenditures during the fiscal year for served, program goals, application or wrote about domestic violence. Access activities just described or the allotment referral process, referral agencies, nature and visitation by a non-custodial parent to the State for the fiscal year. The of the program, activities provided, and can lead to dangerous situations for Federal government will pay for 90 length and features of a ‘‘completed’’ some parents and their children. The percent of project costs, up to the program. This paragraph also requires, safety of the custodial parents and their amount of the grant allotment. In other with regard to programs which provide children must be addressed when it is words, States are required to provide for services: the number of applicants or a problem. It is our intent to encourage at least ten percent of project funding referrals for each program, the total States to ensure safety when necessary even if they do not spend their entire number of participating individuals and in implementing grants under this allotment. The allotment would be the number of persons completing program. States should develop determined as follows: an amount program requirements by authorized procedures to assess the degree of which bears the same ratio to activities (e.g., mediation, education danger, weighing sensitively the $10,000,000 for grants as the number of etc.). This information will help the assertions of both parents. children in the State living with only 1 Office of Child Support Enforcement In response to the comments, we have biological parent bears to the total assess: (1) The demand for the program, added to the regulation a new number of such children in all States. the effectiveness of outreach and ability requirement under § 303.109(a) Such allotments are to be adjusted so of the program to meet demand; (2) the requiring States to monitor programs to that no State is allotted less than services being delivered and the number safeguard against domestic violence, as $50,000 for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 and the characteristics of the follows: or $100,000 for any succeeding fiscal individuals being served; and (3) ‘‘(a) Monitoring. The State must year. These funds may not be used to whether such individuals are monitor all programs funded under supplant expenditures by the State for completing standard program Grants to States for Access and authorized activities; rather, States shall requirements. Visitation Programs to ensure that the use the grant to supplement such Paragraph 303.109(c)(3) requires programs * * * contain safeguards to expenditures at a level at least equal to States to report information specified in ensure the safety of parents and the level of such expenditures for fiscal paragraphs 303.109(c)(1) and (c)(2) children.’’ year 1995. annually, collected at a date and in a Comment: Several commenters In September 1997, the Office of Child form as the Secretary may prescribe. suggested that the regulation require Support Enforcement awarded 54 States specific approaches for addressing and independent jurisdictions Access Response to Comments problems that may occur in activities and Visitation Grants covering all the We received comments from funded by these grants. Concerns were activities mentioned in the Act. A representatives of 14 States and local noted regarding mandated mediation second round of grants was issued in IV–D agencies, national organizations, and supervised transfer and visitation of September 1998; all States and advocacy groups and private citizens on children. Territories, except Guam, received the proposed rule published March 31, Response: Since we wish to provide grants. Guam did not apply. 1998, in the Federal Register (63 FR maximum flexibility to the States, we 15351–53). A summary of the comments have not required specific approaches to Description of Regulatory Provisions received and our responses follows; dealing with issues of domestic Paragraph 303.109(a) has been added similar or identical comments have been violence. Consistent with our authority to 45 CFR part 303 containing grouped together: under the Statute to regulate what the procedures for States to follow in Comment: One commenter suggested States need to monitor, we require monitoring, evaluating and reporting on that § 303.109(a) of the regulation States to monitor their grantees to their Grants for Access and Visitation calling for monitoring of ‘‘all access and ensure that there are procedures in Programs. This rule requires States to visitation programs’’ should be place and being used to ensure safety. monitor all access and visitation restricted to mean only those programs Regarding mandated mediation, we programs to ensure that these programs funded by DHHS’ grants to States for wish to make clear that the statute does are: (1) Providing services authorized Access and Visitation Programs and not mandate mediation for any under section 469B(a) of the Act; (2) other funded programs. particular clients. Mediation mandated being conducted efficiently and Response: In this final rule, OCSE by the courts for contending parents is effectively; (3) complying with reporting states that: ‘‘The State must monitor all one service that the States may chose to and evaluation requirements, as set programs funded under Grants to States fund. We recognize that in some cases, forth in paragraphs 303.109(b) and for Access and Visitation Programs mediation may be dangerous for the 303.109(c); and (4) providing ** *.’’ This addresses the commenter’s victim of abuse. There is also evidence appropriate safeguards to insure the concern. In one section of the NPRM that in some cases involving partner safety of children and parents. this qualifier, ‘‘funded under Grants to abuse, mediation has been effective. Paragraph 303.109(b) allows States to States for Access and Visitation This is a service that warrants careful evaluate programs funded by section Programs’’, was not used, thereby giving monitoring by States to ensure that 469B of the Act, but does not require an inaccurate impression. It was not our safety assessments are conducted. When these programs to be evaluated. States intent to extend the monitoring it is determined not to be warranted, are, however, required to assist in the requirement to other funded programs. alternative forms of conflict resolution evaluation of programs deemed Comment: There was a concern should be used. significant or promising by the among commenters that the regulation States may choose to use their grants Department, as directed by program contains no requirement to monitor to fund supervised transfer and memorandum. whether States are screening potential visitation of children by non-custodial

VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:37 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.063 pfrm07 PsN: 30MRR1 15134 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations parents. Neutral drop-off or pickup of to be provided and qualifications of the Response: The philosophy of this Act children (supervised transfer) is providers. is to allow States maximum flexibility. designed to provide for the transfer of Comment: Another domestic violence Some States may concentrate their children without danger for the abused related concern is that the final rule efforts only on unwed families (or on parent or hostile actions between the should acknowledge that domestic divorced families) because there are parents when domestic violence or violence occurs in many of the access already State programs serving other other situations involving acrimony and visitation cases before the family families. We would not want to limit the between parents exist. Supervised court and, therefore, the statement that flexibility States have under this act to visitation is designed to promote and involvement by non-custodial parents is address unmet needs. protect the safety of the visited child. desirable for children should be (iii) OCSE should require that the States should monitor such programs dropped or amended. States report on the economic status of when funded by this authority (as Response: In response to the concern program participants. discussed above) to ensure that about domestic violence we have added Response: This has been done in the adequate and appropriate procedures to the regulations a requirement that all reporting requirements for a description are in place and being used to ensure States monitor access and visitation of the program under § 303.109(c)(1) of safety. programs to ensure that programs have this final regulation. Under these Comment: Commenters suggested that safeguards to ensure the safety of requirements States must report as grantees be required to consult local parents and children. follows: domestic violence agencies about Comment: One commenter stated that (c) Reporting: the State must: report a appropriate procedures for identifying visitation and access should not be mandatory for the non-custodial parent. detailed description of each program funded, and assisting battered parents. providing the following information as Response: Based on our experience The commenter also suggests that appropriate: * * * population served with other service sectors that have evaluation requirements should look at (income * * *) * * *. addressed domestic violence, the success of visitation and not just the consultation with community based number of visits. (iv) OCSE should involve experts on domestic violence experts is often very Response: The Act does not require the life situations and needs of the useful. While requiring such the noncustodial parent to visit the children of unmarried parents in setting consultation would go beyond the scope child; rather, it funds activities to up their programs. of this regulation, we do believe facilitate and encourage non-custodial Response: The philosophy behind this domestic violence experts have parents to participate in raising the program is to give the States maximum important experience and knowledge child(ren) as determined appropriate by flexibility. Most States are delivering that can be useful to access and the parents and the court. There are no programs through experienced visitation programs. We encourage all specific evaluation requirements placed community-based organizations or court access and visitation grantees to hold on either State or Federal government agencies. consultations with experts in the field of evaluation activities regarding visitation Comment: One commenter noted that domestic violence. programs or any other allowable some States are using grant funds in the Comment: One commenter wanted to services provided under the program. first year to assess which access and include domestic violence as one We would encourage any evaluators of visitation program strategies to category of participant data reported. visitation programs to carefully undertake; in such States there would Response: We have not included determine the most appropriate be no reporting of cases. Reporting domestic violence as a category of measures of success for program requirements are only where services participant data reported because the evaluation purposes. are provided. quality of information collected is not Comment: One commenter had Response: It is appropriate to footnote likely to be consistent or useful. It several suggestions: any report with this information. Thus would be difficult to reach any (i) OCSE should include in the no change needs to be made to the agreement for reporting responses on monitoring requirements that States regulation. how domestic violence should be assure that the Access and Visitation Comment: Two commenters had defined or how the determination Programs funded under Federal grants comments on reporting responsibilities would be made that domestic violence do not merely replace existing and definitions as follows: In the had occurred. Additionally, services programs. requirement for description of project— and targeted clientele will vary widely Response: Section 469B(d) of the Act § 303.109(c)—an addition should be from State to State, and even within does not allow States to supplant or use made for ‘‘outcome measures’’. There States, making comparisons even more Federal funds authorized under this Act should be some data elements that inappropriate. We do encourage States to replace or displace State funds spent measure whether the program is to use their own State protocols and for the same purposes as specified by achieving its goals; the current data definitions of domestic violence to section 469B(a) of the Act. States must elements do not. monitor and evaluate how their use these Federal grant funds to Response: We have chosen not to programs are protecting the safety of supplement these expenditures at a include outcome measures in our initial parents and children. level at least equal to the level of such reporting requirements. First, States can Comment: One commenter suggested expenditures as existed in fiscal year and are providing a wide variety of that Grants for Access and Visitation 1995. States are required to follow all services. It would be premature at this Programs be conducted by those with requirements in the statute, therefore, it early stage of program implementation domestic violence training. is not necessary to repeat the to specify a limited set of outcomes, that Response: The legislation mandates requirement in the regulation. may or may not measure the outcomes that the Governor of each State (ii) OCSE should prohibit use of funds or changes that States are attempting to determine the organizational entity for programs that are available only to achieve. Second, program outcomes in responsible for the grant program. Each children of divorced or separated this area are often difficult and State has the flexibility and parents, on the one hand, or children of expensive to measure. Given the limited responsibility to determine the services unmarried parents on the other hand. resources of this program it is more cost

VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:37 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.064 pfrm07 PsN: 30MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 15135 effective to focus routine reporting on responsible fatherhood programs, supervisor) are involved. However, only service delivery and use evaluation churches and self-referral. Additionally, the non-custodial father and the child or efforts to measure outcomes. the reporting forms will indicate children are served; this translates into Comment: The data requirement for whether clients are receiving services on two to three or more individual service program ‘‘graduates’’ could be a mandatory or voluntary basis. In units. The supervisor would not be meaningless due to definitional general, mandatory services will include considered a service unit since this is inconsistencies between States and services that a court or other agency part of the service, not someone served. projects. requires an individual to participate in. Comment: The definition of when a Response: For clarity, we have revised Voluntary services will include non- program is significant to require an the wording to read: ‘‘Number of mandatory referrals and self-referrals. evaluation by the State should be persons who have completed program We believe these two categories of defined. Will such evaluations be requirements.’’ Even though each source of referral and mandatory versus funded by the Federal government? program and project may have a voluntary participation will provide us Response: The regulations permit, but different set of program requirements for with the information we need about the do not require, States to evaluate their recipients, this data element will nature of participation. Self-referred access and visitation programs. State measure the extent to which programs relates to individuals signing up for initiated evaluations can be paid for out were successful in ensuring that access and visitation services on their of State access and visitation grant participants completed these own accord or on a voluntary basis. funds or other State funds. States must requirements. Comment: What is meant by program cooperate in any federally initiated Comment: In § 303.109(a) ‘‘effective’’ participant families and individuals? evaluations of the access and visitation and ‘‘efficient’’ should be defined. Response: We have revised the final grant program. It is not possible to Response: Effective means whether rule to ask only for information on determine in advance what type of the programs are actually doing what individuals. We have done this to avoid programs might be considered they are intended to do. Efficient means confusion about reporting of families or significant or promising. These that they are accomplishing their individuals. This is because in some decisions will be based on our review of mission using a reasonable amount of cases only the non custodial parent State program activities. Specific resources. Because each State may receives services. However, sometimes decisions regarding cost sharing will be provide very different services there is services would be received jointly by made in the context of specific no way to standardize these definitions both ex-spouses or father and mother as evaluation designs. for reporting purposes. in the case of mediation. Occasionally Comment: One commenter Comment: ACF should work with the child is involved. As such, if we use recommended that OCSE develop an on- States to create a standardized database family as a measure of service, all three line database for reporting of data. to track program information. of these types could be considered a Client satisfaction should be reported. Response: Given the variety of family; however, the service provider is Response: We will consider the programs, this is what we have not given credit for the differential costs suggestion for an on-line database. We attempted to do, while at the same time of serving different numbers of people. have not included client satisfaction in preserving State flexibility and Also, use of individual as opposed to the requirements since we wanted to minimizing burden. families is easier to do if the family avoid complexity and ambiguity. Comment: ‘‘Urban/rural’’ as part of under consideration changes (e.g., if a Comment: One commenter believed the required description of a project man applies for services, and then the that the requirement asking for should be defined due to the different ex-spouse becomes involved etc.). As information on race of recipients is nature of rural and urban in States of such, we would have the States count inappropriate, and in many cases where different sizes. individuals only and not families; work is handled by the phone, it would Response: We are not making a however, on the survey form we would be awkward for mediators to ask the change in the regulation. However, in have individuals identified as non- race question. The commenter the instructions that accompany the custodial parents, custodial parents recommended either eliminating this reporting form, we have indicated that and/or child(ren) to provide a more question or making it optional. an urban project is defined as operating precise definition. Response: We agree that there are within a Standard Metropolitan Comment: Does this language circumstances in which it would be Statistical Area (SMSA) and that a rural contemplate a father and his family in inappropriate or awkward. We will project is defined as operating outside a a supervised visitation program? How therefore include on the reporting form SMSA. We have added the category about a custodial parent? Do all the designation ‘‘unknown’’ in ‘‘mixed’’ to cover a project area that individuals in a family have to be recognition that sometimes this serves both SMSA and non-SMSA areas. recorded? More precision is needed in information cannot be collected. Comment: There are two comments defining individuals and families. Comment: One commenter felt that about reporting on the nature of the Response: As discussed above, we the State child support enforcement referral. One commenter suggested that have changed reporting to count agency should not be required to report the providers should have to report on individuals only. As such, if a family of on the Access and Visitation Grants the type of the referral. Another three (e.g., husband, ex-spouse, and when the agency in the State commenter indicated that in child) is served, States would count administering this grant is not the child § 303.109(c)(2), referral reporting should three individuals and not one family. support agency. distinguish between court-referred and The individual becomes the service Response: We agree. The reporting self-referred. unit. In the survey form, individuals agency is the State agency administering Response: The regulation at would be counted as non-custodial the Access and Visitation Program. This, § 303.109(c)(2) does indicate that the parents, custodial parents and/or in many cases, is not the child support source of referral will be included in the child(ren). enforcement agency. reporting requirements. Source of In the case of supervised visitation, a Comment: One commenter believed referral will include such categories as non-custodial father and a child or that enforcement of visitation rights is courts, social services agencies, children and a third person (the vital.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:37 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.066 pfrm07 PsN: 30MRR1 15136 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

Response: Visitation enforcement is 104–4) requires that a covered agency Visitation Programs to ensure that the an allowable program activity under prepare a budgetary impact statement programs are providing services section 469B(a) of the Act. Since there before promulgating a rule that includes authorized in section 469B(a) of the Act, are no specific reporting, monitoring, or any Federal mandate that may result in are being conducted in an effective and evaluation provisions dealing with the expenditure by State, local, and efficient manner, are complying with visitation enforcement in isolation, it is Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or Federal evaluation and reporting not specifically mentioned in the by the private sector, of $100 million or requirements, and contain safeguards to regulation. more in any one year. insure the safety of parents and Paperwork Reduction Act The Department has determined that children. this final rule will not impose a The new regulation at § 303.109(c) mandate that will result in the (b) Evaluation. The State: contains an information collection expenditure by State, local, and Tribal (1) May evaluate all programs funded requirement. As required by the governments, in the aggregate, or by the under Grants to States for Access and Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 private sector of more than $100 million Visitation Programs; U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Administration for in any one year. The Department has Children and Families has submitted a (2) Must assist in the evaluation of determined that this rule is not a significant or promising projects as copy of this section to the Office of significant regulatory action within the determined by the Secretary; Management and Budget (OMB) for its meaning of the Unfunded Mandates review and has received approval. The Reform Act of 1995. (c) Reporting. The State must: OMB control number is 0970–0178. (1) Report a detailed description of Legal Significance Statement: An Congressional Review of Rulemaking each program funded, providing the agency may not conduct or sponsor, and This rule is not a major rule as a person is not required to respond to, following information, as appropriate: defined in Chapter 8 of 5 U.S.C. List of service providers and administrators, a collection of information unless it Subjects 45 CFR Part 303 displays a currently valid OMB control service area (rural/urban), population Child support, Grant programs— served (income, race, marital status), number. social programs, Reporting and program goals, application or referral recordkeeping requirements. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis process (including referral sources), The Secretary certifies, under 5 U.S.C. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance voluntary or mandatory nature of the 605(b), as enacted by the Regulatory Programs No. 93.597, Grants to States for programs, types of activities, and length Access and Visitation). Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354), that and features of a completed program; this final regulation will not result in a Dated: March 10, 1999. (2) Report data including: the number significant impact on a substantial Olivia A. Golden, of applicants/referrals for each program, number of small entities. The primary Assistant Secretary for Children and Families. the total number of participating impact of the regulation will be on State For reasons stated in the preamble, we governments, which are not considered are amending 45 CFR Part 303 as individuals, and the number of persons small entities under this Act. follows: who have completed program requirements by authorized activities Executive Order 12866 PART 303ÐSTANDARDS FOR (mediation—voluntary and mandatory, Executive Order 12866 requires that PROGRAM OPERATIONS counseling, education, development of regulations be reviewed to ensure that parenting plans, visitation they are consistent with the priorities 1. The authority citation of Part 303 enforcement—including monitoring, and principles set forth in the Executive continues to read as follows: supervision and neutral drop-off and Order. The Department has determined Authority: 42 U.S.C. 651 through 658, 660, pickup) and development of guidelines that the rule is consistent with these 663, 664, 666, 667, 1302, 1396a(a)(25), for visitation and alternative custody priorities and principles. Statutory 1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p), and 1396(k). arrangements; and provisions require States that receive 2. A new section 303.109 is added to (3) Report the information required in grants for child access and visitation read as follows: programs to monitor, evaluate, and paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this report on such programs in accordance § 303.109 Procedures for State monitoring, section annually, at such time, and in with regulations prescribed by the evaluation and reporting on programs such form, as the Secretary may require. Secretary. funded by Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs. [FR Doc. 99–7667 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (a) Monitoring. The State must BILLING CODE 4184±01±P Section 202 of the Unfunded monitor all programs funded under Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. Grants to States for Access and

VerDate 23-MAR-99 14:50 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30MRR1.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR1 15137

Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 64, No. 60

Tuesday, March 30, 1999

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER customers; monitor account activity for large majority of national banks already contains notices to the public of the proposed transactions that are inconsistent with have policies and processes in place to issuance of rules and regulations. The those normal and expected transactions; accomplish these objectives. purpose of these notices is to give interested and report any transactions of its List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 21 persons an opportunity to participate in the customers that were determined to be rule making prior to the adoption of the final Bank Secrecy Act, Crime, Currency, rules. suspicious in accordance with the OCC’s existing suspicious activity National banks, Reporting and reporting regulations. recordkeeping requirements, Security DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY In response to its Know Your measures. Customer proposal, the OCC received Authority and Issuance Office of the Comptroller of the over 16,000 comments during the Currency comment period, which closed on For the reasons stated in the March 8, 1999. Virtually all of the Preamble, under the authority vested in 12 CFR Part 21 commenters opposed adoption of the the OCC by 12 U.S.C. 93a, the OCC’s [Docket No. 99±02] proposed rule. Commenters were notice of proposed rulemaking titled concerned primarily about the privacy ‘‘Know Your Customer’’ Requirements, RIN 1557±AB66 implications of the proposal and the published on December 7, 1998, at 63 FR 67524, is withdrawn. ``Know Your Customer'' Requirements burden it would impose on financial institutions. Dated: March 23, 1999. AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the The overwhelming majority of John D. Hawke, Jr., Currency (OCC), Treasury. commenters were individual, private Comptroller of the Currency. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; citizens who voiced very strong [FR Doc. 99–7767 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] opposition to the proposal as an withdrawal. BILLING CODE 4810±33±P invasion of personal privacy. Other SUMMARY: The OCC is withdrawing the issues raised by these commenters ‘‘Know Your Customer’’ proposal which included that the Agencies lack the was published December 7, 1998. The authority to issue the proposal; the cost DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OCC is taking this action in response to of any Know Your Customer program Federal Aviation Administration concerns about the privacy implications would be passed on to customers; and and likely burden of the proposed rule. the regulation would be ineffective in 14 CFR Part 39 DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn preventing money laundering and other on March 30, 1999. illicit financial activities. [Docket No. 95±ANE±69] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Banks, bank holding companies, and Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Robert Pasley, Assistant Director, banking trade groups that commented Whitney JT9D Series Turbofan Engines Enforcement and Compliance Division uniformly opposed the proposal. Their (202) 874–4879; Thomas Fleming, concerns included the following: (1) the AGENCY: Federal Aviation Compliance Specialist (202) 874–4879, regulation would be very costly to Administration, DOT. or Susan Quill, Compliance Expert (202) implement, especially for small banks; ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 874–4879, Community and Consumer (2) the Know Your Customer program (NPRM). Policy; or Mark Tenhundfeld, Assistant would invade customer privacy; (3) Director, Legislative and Regulatory commercial banks would be unfairly SUMMARY: This document proposes to Activities Division (202) 874–4879, disadvantaged and lose customers if all revise an existing airworthiness Office of the Comptroller of the segments of the financial services directive (AD), applicable to Pratt & Currency, 250 E Street SW, Washington, industry are not covered; (4) compliance Whitney JT9D series turbofan engines, DC 20219. with the regulation would divert that currently requires initial and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On resources from Y2K preparation; (5) the repetitive eddy current inspections (ECI) December 7, 1998, the OCC, the Federal Agencies lack authority to adopt the of 14th and 15th stage high pressure Reserve Board (FRB), the Federal regulation; (6) public confidence in the compressor (HPC) disks for cracks, and Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), banking industry would be harmed by removal of cracked disks and and the Office of Thrift Supervision the regulation; and (7) the regulation is replacement with serviceable parts. This (OTS) (collectively, the Agencies) each both unnecessary and redundant, as action would revise the definition of a published ‘‘Know Your Customer’’ banks are already familiar with their shop visit to make compliance less proposals.1 The proposed rules would customers and have adequate restrictive, and add references to a have required each bank and savings procedures in place. Nondestructive Inspection Procedure association to develop a program In light of the comments received, the attached to applicable service bulletins. designed to determine the identity of its OCC is withdrawing the proposal. While This proposal is prompted by feedback customers; determine its customers’ the OCC believes that banks should from operators saying that the shop visit sources of funds; determine the normal adopt their own policies and procedures definition in the current AD made AD and expected transactions of its to determine the identities of their compliance unnecessarily restrictive. customers, and should have systems The actions specified by the proposed 1 See 63 FR 67524 (OCC); 63 FR 67516 (FRB); 63 and controls that will allow them to AD are intended to prevent 14th and FR 67529 (FDIC); 63 FR 67536 (OTS). identify suspected illegal conduct, the 15th stage HPC disk rupture, which

VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:33 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A30MR2.017 pfrm07 PsN: 30MRP1 15138 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Proposed Rules could result in an uncontained engine Commenters wishing the FAA to proposed to be changed to ‘‘For the failure and damage to the aircraft. acknowledge receipt of their comments purpose of this AD, a shop visit is DATES: Comments must be received by submitted in response to this notice defined as a low pressure turbine April 29, 1999. must submit a self-addressed, stamped module removal’’. ADDRESSES: Submit comments in postcard on which the following In addition, this final rule adds triplicate to the Federal Aviation statement is made: ‘‘Comments to references to the Nondestructive Administration (FAA), New England Docket Number 95–ANE–69.’’ The Inspection Procedure No. 858 (NDIP– Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, postcard will be date stamped and 858), dated November 7, 1995, attached Attention: Rules Docket No. 95–ANE– returned to the commenter. to the various versions of the referenced 69, 12 New England Executive Park, Availability of NPRM’s service bulletins, which was Burlington, MA 01803–5299. Comments Any person may obtain a copy of this inadvertently omitted from the current may also be sent via the Internet using NPRM by submitting a request to the AD. the following address: ‘‘9-ad- FAA, New England Region, Office of the Since an unsafe condition has been [email protected]’’. Comments sent Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules identified that is likely to exist or via the Internet must contain the docket Docket No. 95–ANE–69, 12 New develop on other products of this same number in the subject line. Comments England Executive Park, Burlington, MA type design, the proposed AD would may be inspected at this location 01803–5299. revise AD 98–21–22 to revise the shop between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., visit definition and add reference to Discussion Monday through Friday, except Federal NDIP–858. holidays. On October 5, 1998, the Federal Since this revised proposed rule The service information referenced in Aviation Administration (FAA) issued would only change the definition of the the proposed rule may be obtained from airworthiness directive (AD) 98–21–22, shop visit and add reference to the Pratt & Whitney, Publications Amendment 39–10830 (63 FR 55500, NDIP, there is no effect on the economic Department, Supervisor Technical October 16, 1998), applicable to Pratt & analysis. Publications Distribution, M/S 132–30, Whitney (PW) Model JT9D–59A, –70A, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; –7Q, –7Q3, and JT9D–7R4 series The regulations proposed herein telephone (860) 565–7700. This turbofan engines, to require initial and would not have substantial direct effects information may be examined at the repetitive eddy current inspections (ECI) on the States, on the relationship FAA, New England Region, Office of the of 14th and 15th high pressure between the national government and Regional Counsel, 12 New England compressor (HPC) disks for cracks. That the States, or on the distribution of Executive Park, Burlington, MA. action was prompted by reports of disk power and responsibilities among the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara bore cracks found during shop various levels of government. Therefore, Goodman, Aerospace Engineer, Engine inspections on both the 14th and 15th in accordance with Executive Order Certification Office, FAA, Engine and stage HPC disks. That condition, if not 12612, it is determined that this Propeller Directorate, 12 New England corrected, could result in 14th and 15th proposal would not have sufficient Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803– stage HPC disk rupture, which could federalism implications to warrant the 5299; telephone (781) 238–7130; fax result in an uncontained engine failure preparation of a Federalism Assessment. (781) 238–7199. and damage to the aircraft. For the reasons discussed above, I SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Since the issuance of that AD, the certify that this proposed regulation (1) FAA has received feedback that requests Comments Invited is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ changing the definition of shop visit as under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not Interested persons are invited to published in the final rule, published a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT participate in the making of the October 16, 1998, to the wording used Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 proposed rule by submitting such in the supplemental NPRM (SNPRM), FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if written data, views, or arguments as published January 5, 1998. In writing promulgated, will not have a significant they may desire. Communications the final rule, the FAA changed the economic impact, positive or negative, should identify the Rules Docket definition of shop visit for clarification on a substantial number of small entities number and be submitted in triplicate to from the version published in the under the criteria of the Regulatory the address specified above. All SNPRM, January 5, 1998. This change, Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft communications received on or before in effect, made the definition of shop regulatory evaluation prepared for this the closing date for comments, specified visit more restrictive. The final rule action is contained in the Rules Docket. above, will be considered before taking states in paragraph (e) ‘‘For the purpose A copy of it may be obtained by action on the proposed rule. The of this AD, a shop visit is defined as the contacting the Rules Docket at the proposals contained in this notice may induction of an engine into the shop for location provided under the caption be changed in light of the comments scheduled maintenance.’’ The SNPRM ADDRESSES. received. stated in paragraph (e) ‘‘For the purpose Comments are specifically invited on of this AD, a shop visit is defined as a List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 the overall regulatory, economic, low pressure turbine module removal environmental, and energy aspects of from an uninstalled engine.’’ Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation the proposed rule. All comments In order to conduct the repetitive safety, Safety. submitted will be available, both before inspections of 14th and 15th stage HPC The Proposed Amendment and after the closing date for comments, disks for cracks when the opportunity in the Rules Docket for examination by presents itself when the low pressure Accordingly, pursuant to the interested persons. A report turbine module is removed, typically authority delegated to me by the summarizing each FAA-public contact when the engine is in the shop and Administrator, the Federal Aviation concerned with the substance of this maintenance work is being performed, Administration proposes to amend part proposal will be filed in the Rules and to be consistent with the risk 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations Docket. analysis, the definition of shop visit is (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:33 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A30MR2.001 pfrm07 PsN: 30MRP1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Proposed Rules 15139

PART 39ÐAIRWORTHINESS (iii) For disks with less than 7,000 CSN on (iv) For disks with less than 2,000 CSN on DIRECTIVES the effective date of this AD, inspect at the the effective date of this AD, inspect at the next shop visit after the effective date of this next shop visit after the effective date of this 1. The authority citation for part 39 AD, but before exceeding 4,000 CIS since last AD, but before exceeding 5,000 CSN. continues to read as follows: shop visit, or 8,000 CSN, whichever occurs (v) For uninstalled disks on or after the later. effective date of this AD, inspect prior to Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. (iv) For uninstalled disks on or after the installation. § 39.13 [Amended] effective date of this AD, inspect prior to (2) Thereafter, perform ECI for cracks at installation. intervals not to exceed 3,000 CIS since last 2. Section 39.13 is amended by (2) Thereafter, perform ECI for cracks at ECI. removing 39–10830 (63 FR 55500, intervals not to exceed 4,000 CIS since last (3) Prior to further flight, remove cracked October 16, 1998), and by adding a new ECI. disks and replace with serviceable parts. airworthiness directive, to read as (3) Prior to further flight, remove cracked (d) Within 30 days of inspection, report follows: disks and replace with serviceable parts. inspection results on the form labeled ‘‘14th (b) Inspect 14th stage HPC disks, P/N’s Pratt & Whitney: Docket No. 95–ANE–69. and 15th Stage HPC Disk Inspection Report,’’ 790014, 789914, 790114, and 15th stage HPC to Pratt & Whitney Customer Technical Revises AD 98–2122, Amendment 39– disks, P/N’s 5000815–01, 5000815–021, 10830. Support. The fax number is listed on that 704315, 704315–001, 786215, and 786215– form which is attached to PW ASB No. JT9D– Applicability: Pratt & Whitney (PW) Model 001, in accordance with NDIP–858, dated 7R4–A72–524, Revision 1, dated June 26, JT9D–59A, –70A, –7Q, –7Q3, and JT9D–7R4 November 7, 1995, attached to PW ASB No. 1997, or PW ASB No. A6232, Revision 2, JT9D–7R4–A72–524, dated December 13, series turbofan engines, with the following June 26, 1997. Reporting requirements have 14th and 15th stage high pressure compressor 1995, or Revision 1, dated June 26, 1997, or been approved by the Office of Management (HPC) disks installed: Part Numbers (P/Ns) PW ASB No. A6232, dated December 13, and Budget and assigned OMB control 5000814–01, 790014, 789914, 790114, 1995, or Revision 1, dated January 11, 1996, number 2120–0056. 5000815–01, 5000815–021, 704315, 704315– or Revision 2, June 26, 1997, as applicable, (e) For the purpose of this AD, a shop visit 001, 786215, 786215–001, 704314, 789814, as follows: and 790214. These engines are installed on (1) Perform an initial ECI for cracks as is defined as a low pressure turbine module but not limited to Airbus A300 and A310 follows: removal. series aircraft, Boeing 747 and 767 series (i) For disks with 6,500 or more CSN, and (f) An alternative method of compliance or aircraft, and McDonnell Douglas DC–10 3,000 or more CIS since last shop visit, on adjustment of the compliance time that series aircraft. the effective date of this AD, inspect within provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Engine Note 1: This airworthiness directive (AD) the next 1,000 CIS after the effective date of Certification Office. Operators shall submit applies to each engine identified in the this AD, or at the next shop visit, whichever their requests through an appropriate FAA preceding applicability provision, regardless occurs first. Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may of whether it has been modified, altered, or (ii) For disks with 6,500 or more CSN, and add comments and then send it to the repaired in the area subject to the less than 3,000 CIS since last shop visit, on requirements of this AD. For engines that the effective date of this AD, inspect within Manager, Engine Certification Office. have been modified, altered, or repaired so 4,000 CIS since the last shop visit, or at the Note 2: Information concerning the that the performance of the requirements of next shop visit, whichever occurs first. existence of approved alternative methods of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must (iii) For disks with less than 6,500 CSN on compliance with this airworthiness directive, request approval for an alternative method of the effective date of this AD, inspect at the if any, may be obtained from the Engine compliance in accordance with paragraph (f) next shop visit after the effective date of this Certification Office. of this AD. The request should include an AD, but before exceeding 4,000 CIS since last (g) Special flight permits may be issued in assessment of the effect of the modification, shop visit, or 7,500 CSN, whichever occurs accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition later. of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe (iv) For uninstalled disks on or after the 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to condition has not been eliminated, the effective date of this AD, inspect prior to a location where the requirements of this AD request should include specific proposed installation. can be accomplished. actions to address it. (2) Thereafter, perform ECI for cracks at intervals not to exceed 4,000 CIS since last Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on Compliance: Required as indicated, unless March 23, 1999. accomplished previously. ECI. To prevent 14th and 15th stage HPC disk (3) Prior to further flight, remove cracked David A. Downey, rupture, which could result in an disks and replace with serviceable parts. Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller uncontained engine failure and damage to (c) Inspect 14th stage HPC disks, P/N’s Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. the aircraft, accomplish the following: 704314, 789814, and 790214, in accordance [FR Doc. 99–7688 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] with NDIP–858, dated November 7, 1995, (a) Inspect 14th stage HPC disks, P/N BILLING CODE 4910±13±P 5000814–01, in accordance with attached to PW ASB No. A6232, original Nondestructive Inspection Procedure No. 858 issue, dated December 13, 1995, or Revision 1, dated January 11, 1996, or Revision 2, (NDIP–858), dated November 7, 1995, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION attached to PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) dated June 26, 1997, as follows: No. JT9D–7R4–524, original issue dated (1) Perform an initial ECI for cracks as December 13, 1995, or Revision 1, dated June follows: Federal Aviation Administration 26, 1997, as follows: (i) For disks with 2,000 or more CSN, and (1) Perform an initial eddy current 2,000 or more CIS since last shop visit, on 14 CFR Part 71 inspection (ECI) for cracks as follows: the effective date of this AD, inspect within [Airspace Docket No. 99±AGL±19] (i) For disks with 7,000 or more cycles the next 1,000 CIS after the effective date of since new (CSN), and 3,000 or more cycles this AD, or at the next shop visit, whichever Proposed Modification of Class E in service (CIS) since last shop visit, on the occurs first. Airspace; Savanna, IL effective date of this AD, inspect within the (ii) For disks with 2,000 or more CSN, and next 1,000 CIS after the effective date of this less than 2,000 CIS since last shop visit, on AGENCY: Federal Aviation AD, or at the next shop visit, whichever the effective date of this AD, inspect within Administration (FAA), DOT. occurs first. 3,000 CIS since the last shop visit, or at the (ii) For disks with 7,000 or more CSN, and next shop visit, whichever occurs first. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. less than 3,000 CIS since last shop visit, on (iii) For disks with 2,000 or more CSN, and the effective date of this AD, inspect within no previous shop visits, inspect within 3,000 SUMMARY: This notice proposes to 4,000 CIS since the last shop visit, or at the CIS after the effective date of this AD, or at modify Class E airspace at Savanna, IL. next shop visit, whichever occurs first. the next shop visit, whichever occurs first. A Global Positioning System (GPS)

VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:33 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A30MR2.002 pfrm07 PsN: 30MRP1 15140 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Proposed Rules

Standards Instrument Approach in this notice may be changed in light traffic procedures and air navigation, it Procedure (SIAP) to Runway (Rwy) 13 of comments received. All comments is certified that this proposed rule will has been developed for Tri-Township submitted will be available for not have a significant economic impact Airport. Controlled airspace extending examination in the Rules Docket, FAA, on a substantial number of small entities upward from 700 to 1200 feet above Great Lakes Region, Office of the under the criteria of the Regulatory ground level (AGL) is needed to contain Assistant Chief Counsel, 2300 East Flexibility Act. aircraft executing the approach. This Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois, List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 action proposes to increase the radius of both before and after the closing date for the existing controlled airspace for this comments. A report summarizing each Airspace, Incorporation by reference, airport. substantive public contact with FAA Navigation (air). DATES: Comments must be received on personnel concerned with this The Proposed Amendment or before May 18, 1999. rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Accordingly, pursuant to the ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Availability of NPRM’s authority delegated to me, the Federal proposal in triplicate to: Federal Any person may obtain a copy of this Aviation Administration proposes to Aviation Administration, Office of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: Assistant Chief Counsel, AGL–7, Rules by submitting a request to the Federal Docket No. 99–AGL–19, 2300 East Administration, Office of Public Affairs, PART 71ÐDESIGNATION OF CLASS A, Devon Avenue, Des Plaines Illinois Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA– CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND 60018. 230, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; The official docket may be examined Washington, DC 20591, or by calling AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING in the Office of the Assistant Chief (202) 267–3484. Communications must POINTS Counsel, Federal Aviation identify the notice number of this Administration, 2300 East Avenue, Des 1. The authority citation for part 71 NPRM. Persons interested in being continues to read as follows: Plaines, Illinois. An informal docket placed on a mailing list for future may also be examined during normal NPRM’s should also request a copy of Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, business hours at the Air Traffic Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, which 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 1963 Comp., p. 389. Division, Airspace Branch, Federal describes the application procedure. Aviation Administration, 2300 East § 71.1 [Amended] Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois. The Proposal 2. The incorporation by reference in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The FAA is considering an 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation Michelle M. Behm, Air Traffic Division, amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to modify Administration Order 7400.9E, Airspace Airspace Branch, AGL–520, Federal Class E airspace at Savanna, IL, to Designations and Reporting Points, Aviation Administration, 2300 East accommodate aircraft executing the dated September 10, 1998, and effective Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois proposed GPS Rwy 13 SIAP at Tri- September 16, 1998, is amended as 60018, telephone (847) 294–7568. Township Airport by modifying the follows: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: existing controlled airspace. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 to * * * * * Comments Invited 1200 feet AGL is needed to contain Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas Interested parties are invited to aircraft executing the approach. The extending upward from 700 feet or more participate in this proposed rulemaking area would be depicted on appropriate above the surface of the earth. by submitting such written data, views, aeronautical charts. Class E airspace * * * * * or arguments as they may desire. designations for airspace areas AGL IL E5 Savanna IL [Revised] Comments that provide the factual basis extending upward from 700 feet or more supporting the views and suggestions above the surface of the earth are Savanna, Tri-Township Airport, IL (Lat. 42°02′45′′N., long. 90°06′27′′W.) presented are particularly helpful in published in paragraph 6005 of FAA developing reasoned regulatory Order 7400.9E dated September 10, That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8.4-mile decisions on the proposal. Comments 1998, and effective September 16, 1998, radius of the Tri-Township Airport. are specifically invited on the overall which is incorporated by reference in 14 * * * * * regulatory, aeronautical, economic, CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois on March 16, environmental, and energy-related designation listed in this document 1999. aspects of the proposal. would be published subsequently in the John A. Clayborn, Communications should identify the Order. airspace docket number and be The FAA has determined that this Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division. submitted in triplicate to the address proposed regulation only involves an [FR Doc. 99–7456 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] listed above. Commenters wishing the established body of technical BILLING CODE 4910±13±M FAA to acknowledge receipt of their regulations for which frequent and comments on this notice must submit routine amendments are necessary to with those comments a self-addressed, keep them operationally current. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION stamped postcard on which the Therefore this proposed regulation—(1) Federal Aviation Administration following statement is made: Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ ‘‘Comments to Airspace Docket No. 99– under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not 14 CFR Part 71 AGL–19.’’ The postcard will be date/ a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT time stamped and returned to the Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 [Airspace Docket No. 99±AGL±18] commenter. All communications FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) Proposed Modification of Class E received on or before the specified does not warrant preparation of a Airspace; Hamilton, OH closing date for comments will be Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated considered before taking action on the impact is so minimal. Since this is a AGENCY: Federal Aviation proposed rule. The proposal contained routine matter that will only affect air Administration (FAA), DOT.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:33 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A30MR2.005 pfrm07 PsN: 30MRP1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Proposed Rules 15141

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. time stamped and returned to the a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT commenter. All communications Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 SUMMARY: This notice proposes to received on or before the specified FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) modify Class E airspace at Hamilton, closing date for comments will be does not warrant preparation of a OH. A Global Positioning System (GPS) considered before taking action on the Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated Standard Instrument Approach proposed rule. The proposal contained impact is so minimal. Since this is a Procedure (SIAP) to Runway (Rwy) 11 in this notice may be changed in light routine matter that will only affect air has been developed for Hamilton- of comments received. All comments Fairfield Airport. Controlled airspace traffic procedures and air navigation, it submitted will be available for is certified that this proposed rule will extending upward from 700 to 1200 feet examination in the Rules Docket, FAA, not have a significant economic impact above ground level (AGL) is needed to Great Lakes Region, Office of the on a substantial number of small entities contain aircraft executing the approach. Assistant Chief Counsel, 2300 East This action proposes to increase the Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois, under the criteria of the Regulatory radius of the existing controlled both before and after the closing date for Flexibility Act. airspace for this airport. comments. A report summarizing each List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 DATES: Comments must be received on substantive public contact with FAA or before May 18, 1999. personnel concerned with this Airspace, Incorporation by reference, ADDRESSES: Send comments on the rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Navigation (air). proposal in triplicate to: Federal Availability of NPRM’s The Proposed Amendment Aviation Administration, Office of the Any person may obtain a copy of this Assistant Chief Counsel, AGL–7, Rule Accordingly, pursuant to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Docket No. 99–AGL–18, 2300 East authority delegated to me, the Federal Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aviation Administration proposes to 60018. amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: The official docket may be examined Public Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA–230, 800 Independence in the Office of the Assistant Chief PART 71ÐDESIGNATION OF CLASS A, Counsel, Federal Aviation Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267–3484. CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND Administration, 2300 East Devon CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois. An Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM. Persons AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING informal docket may also be examined interested in being placed on a mailing POINTS during normal business hours at the Air list for future NPRM’s should also Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 1. The authority citation for part 71 Federal Aviation Administration, 2300 11–2A, which describes the application continues to read as follows: East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, procedure. Illinois. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Proposal 1963 Comp., p. 389. Michelle M. Behm, air Traffic Division, The FAA is considering an Airspace Branch, AGL–520, Federal amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to modify § 71.1 [Amended] Aviation Administration, 2300 East Class E airspace at Hamilton, OH, to 2. The incorporation by reference in Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois accommodate aircraft executing the 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation 60018, telephone (847) 294–7568. proposed GPS Rwy 11 SIAP at Administration Order 7400.9E, Airspace SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Hamilton-Fairfield Airport by modifying the existing controlled airspace. Designations and Reporting Points, Comments Invited Controlled airspace extending upward dated September 10, 1998, and effective Interested parties are invited to from 700 to 1200 feet AGL is needed to September 16, 1998, is amended as participate in this proposed rulemaking contain aircraft executing the approach. follows: by submitting such written data, views, The area would be depicted on * * * * * or arguments as they may desire. appropriate aeronautical charts. Class E Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas Comments that provide the factual basis airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more supporting the views and suggestions extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth. presented are particularly helpful in above the surface of the earth are developing reasoned regulatory published in paragraph 6005 of FAA * * * * * decisions on the proposal. Comments Order 7400.9E dated September 10, AGL OH E5 Hamilton, OH [Revised] are specifically invited on the overall 1998, and effective September 16, 1998, Hamilton, Hamilton-Fairfield Airport OH regulatory, aeronautical, economic, which is incorporated by reference in 14 (Lat. 39° 21′ 52′′N., long. 84° 34′ 29′′W.) environmental, and energy-related CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace Hamilton NDB aspects of the proposal. designation listed in this document (Lat. 39° 22′ 21′′N., long. 84° 34′ 21′′W.) Communications should identify the would be published subsequently in the airspace docket number and be Order. That airspace extending upward from 700 submitted in triplicate to the address The FAA has determined that this feet above the surface within an 6.6-mile radius of the Hamilton-Fairfield Airport and listed above. Commenters wishing the proposed regulation only involves an ° FAA to acknowledge receipt of their established body of technical within 2.9 miles either side of the 280 comments on this notice must submit regulations for which frequent and bearing from the Hamilton NDB, extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 10.0 miles west with those comments a self-addressed, routine amendments are necessary to of the NDB, excluding that airspace within stamped postcard on which the keep them operationally current. the Covington, KY, and Middletown, OH, following statement is made: Therefore this proposed regulation—(1) Class E airspace areas. ‘‘Comments to Airspace Docket No. 99– is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ AGL–18.’’ The postcard will be date/ under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not * * * * *

VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:33 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A30MR2.015 pfrm07 PsN: 30MRP1 15142 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Proposed Rules

Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois on March 16, Comments Invited needed to contain aircraft executing the 1998. Interested parties are invited to new approach procedures at Chico John A. Clayborn, participate in this proposed rulemaking Municipal Airport. The intended effect Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division. by submitting such written data, views, of this proposal is to provide adequate [FR Doc. 99–7449 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] or arguments as they may desire. controlled airspace for aircraft executing BILLING CODE 4910±13±M Comments that provide the factual basis the GPS RWY 31R SIAP at Chicago supporting the views and suggestions Municipal Airport, Chico, CA. Class E presented are particularly helpful in airspace designations are published in DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION developing reasoned regulatory paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9F dated September 10, 1998, and effective Federal Aviation Administration decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall September 16, 1998, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 14 CFR Part 71 regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related 71.1. The Class E airspace designation [Airspace Docket No. 98±AWP±4] aspects of the proposal. listed in this document would be published subsequently in this Order. Proposed Modification of Class E Communications should identify the Airspace; Chico, CA airspace docket number and be The FAA has determined that this submitted in triplicate to the address proposed regulation only involves an AGENCY: Federal Aviation listed above. Commenters wishing the established body of technical Administration (FAA), DOT. FAA to acknowledge receipt of their regulations for which frequent and ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. comments on this notice must submit routine amendments are necessary to with the comments a self-addressed, keep them operationally current. SUMMARY: This notice proposes to stamped postcard on which the Therefore, this proposed regulation—(1) modify the Class E airspace area at following statement is made: is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ Chico, CA. The establishment of a ‘‘Comments to Airspace Docket No. 98– under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not Global Positioning System (GPS) AWP–4.’’ The postcard will be date/ a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Standard Instrument Approach time stamped and returned to the Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 Procedure (SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 13L commenter. All communications FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) and GPS RWY 31R at Chico Municipal received on or before the specified does not warrant preparation of a Airport has made this proposal closing date for comments will be Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated necessary. Additional controlled considered before taking action on the impact is so minimal. Since this is a airspace extending upward from 700 proposed rule. The proposal contained routine matter that will only affect air feet or more above the surface of the in this notice may be changed in light traffic procedures and air navigation, it earth is needed to contain aircraft of comments received. All comments is certified that this proposed rule executing the GPS RWY 31R SIAP to submitted will be available for would not have a significant economic Chico Municipal Airport. The intended examination in the Airspace Branch, Air impact on a substantial number of small effect of this proposal is to provide Traffic Division, 15000 Aviation entities under the criteria of the adequate controlled airspace for Boulevard, Lawndale, California 90261, Regulatory Flexibility Act. Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations both before and after the closing date for at Chico Municipal Airport, Chico, CA. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 comments. A report summarizing each DATES: Comments must be received on substantive public contact with FAA or before April 29, 1999. Airspace, Incorporation by reference, personnel concerned with this Navigation (air). ADDRESSES: Send comments on the rulemaking will be filed in the docket. proposal in triplicate to: Federal The Proposed Amendment Aviation Administration, Attn: Availability of NPRM Manager, Airspace Branch, AWP–520, Any person may obtain a copy of this In consideration of the foregoing, the Docket No. 98–AWP–4, Air Traffic Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Federal Aviation Administration Division, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, by submitting a request to the Federal proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as Lawndale, California, 90261. Aviation Administration, Airspace follows: The official docket may be examined Branch, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, in the Office of the Regional Counsel, PART 71ÐDESIGNATION OF CLASS A, Lawndale, California 90261. CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND Western Pacific Region, Federal Communications must identify the Aviation Administration, Room 6007, CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; ROUTES; notice number of this NPRM. Persons AND REPORTING POINTS 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, interested in being placed on a mailing California, 90261. list for future NPRM’s should also An informal docket may also be 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR request a copy of Advisory Circular No. part 71 continues to read as follows: examined during normal business hours 11–2A, which describes the application at the Office of the Manager, Airspace procedures. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, Branch, Air Traffic Division at the above 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– address. The Proposal 1963 Comp., p. 389. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The FAA is considering an § 71.1 [Amended] Larry Tonish, Air Traffic Airspace amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by Specialist, Airspace Branch, AWP–520, modifying the Class E airspace area at 2. The incorporation by reference in Air Traffic Division, Western-Pacific Chico, CA. The establishment of a GPS 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation Region, Federal Aviation RWY 13L and GPS RWY 31R SIAP at Administration Order 7400.9F, Airspace Administration, 15000 Aviation Chico Municipal Airport has made this Designations and Reporting Points, Boulevard, Lawndale, California, 90261, proposal necessary. Additional dated September 10, 1998, and effective telephone (310) 725–6539. controlled airspace extending upward September 16, 1998, is amended as SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: from 700 feet above the surface is follows:

VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:33 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A30MR2.016 pfrm07 PsN: 30MRP1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Proposed Rules 15143

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange ACTION: Negotiated rulemaking advisory extending upward from 700 feet or more Commission, Mail Stop 0609, 450 Fifth committee meeting. above the surface of the earth. Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549– * * * * * 0609. You can send comment letters SUMMARY: The Department of Labor’s (Department) ERISA Section 3(40) AWP CA E5 Chico, CA [Revised] electronically to the following e-mail address: [email protected]. The Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Chico Municipal Airport, CA comment letter should refer to File Committee (Committee) was established (Lat. 39°47′44′′N, long. 121°51′30′′W) Number S7–30–98. If you use e-mail, under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of Chico VOR/DME 1990 and the Federal Advisory (Lat. 39°47′23′′N, long. 121°50′50′′W) include this file number in the subject Ranchaero Airport, CA line. Anyone can inspect and copy Committee Act (the FACA) to develop a (Lat. 39°43′15′′N, long. 121°52′04′′W) comment letters in the Commission’s proposed rule implementing the That airspace extending upward from 700 Public Reference Room, 450 Fifth Street, Employee Retirement Income Security feet above the surface within a 4.3-mile NW, Washington, DC 20549. We will Act of 1974 (ERISA), as amended. The radius of the Chico Municipal Airport and post comment letters submitted purpose of the proposed rule is to within 1.8 miles each side of the Chico VOR/ electronically on our Internet site (http:/ establish a process and criteria for a DME 316° radial, extending from the 4.3-mile /www.sec.gov). finding by the Secretary of Labor that an radius to 7 miles northwest of the Chico FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: agreement is a collective bargaining VOR/DME and that airspace 1.8 miles west agreement for purposes of section 3(40) and 3.5 miles east of the Chico VOR/DME Anita Klein at (202) 942–2980 or David ° Maltz at (202) 942–1921, Division of of ERISA. The proposed rule will also 164 radial extending from the 4.3-mile provide guidance for determining when radius to 6 miles south of the Chico VOR/ Corporation Finance, U.S. Securities DME and that airspace within 1.8 miles each and Exchange Commission, an employee benefit plan is established side of the Chico VOR/DME 222° radial Washington, DC 20549. or maintained under or pursuant to such extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 6.6 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On an agreement. Employee benefit plans miles southwest of the Chico VOR/DME, November 13, 1998, the Commission that are established or maintained for excluding the portion within a 1-mile radius issued the Proposing Release. It the purpose of providing benefits to the of the Ranchaero Airport. describes proposals to modernize and employees of more than one employer * * * * * clarify the regulatory structure for are ‘‘multiple employer welfare Issued in Los Angeles, California, on offerings under the Securities Act of arrangements’’ (MEWAs) under section February 4, 1999. 1933 while maintaining investor 3(40) of ERISA, and therefore are subject Dawna J. Vicars, protection. The proposals covered five to certain state laws, unless they meet Assistant Manager, Air Traffic Division, major topics: Registration system one of the exceptions set forth in section Western-Pacific Region. reform; communications around the 3(40)(A). At issue in this regulation is [FR Doc. 99–7629 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] time of an offering; prospectus delivery the exception for plans or arrangements BILLING CODE 4910±13±M requirements; integration of private and that are established or maintained under public offerings; and periodic reporting one or more agreements which the under the Securities Exchange Act of Secretary finds to be collective SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 1934. The deadline for submitting bargaining agreements. It is the view of COMMISSION public comments established by the the Department that it is necessary to Proposing Release was April 5, 1999. distinguish organizations that provide 17 CFR Part 200, 202, 210, 228, 229, The Commission has received requests benefits through collectively bargained 230, 232, 239, 240 and 249 to extend the deadline. We are therefore employee representation from organizations that are primarily in the [Release Nos. 33±7659; 34±41207; IC± extending the comment period to June 23751; File No. S7±30±98] 30, 1999, so that commenters have business of marketing commercial insurance products. RIN 3235±AG83 adequate time to address the issues raised by the Proposing Release. DATES: The Committee will meet from 8:30 am to approximately 5:00 pm on The Regulation of Securities Offerings Dated: March 24, 1999. each day on Tuesday, April 20 and By the Commission. AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Wednesday, April 21, 1999. Jonathan G. Katz, Commission. ADDRESSES: This Committee meeting Secretary. ACTION: Proposed Rule; Extension of will be held in Conference Room N– Comment Period. [FR Doc. 99–7684 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] 4437 C/D, at the offices of the U.S. BILLING CODE 8010±01±P Department of Labor, 200 Constitution SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20210. Commission is extending the comment All interested parties are invited to period for its proposals to modernize DEPARTMENT OF LABOR attend this public meeting. Seating is and clarify the regulatory structure for limited and will be available on a first- offerings under the Securities Act of Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration come, first-serve basis. Individuals with 1933. Those proposals are in Securities disabilities wishing to attend who need Act Release No. 7606A (11/13/98), 63 29 CFR Part 2510 special accommodations should contact, FR 67174 (12/4/98) (the ‘‘Proposing at least 4 business days in advance of Release’’). The original comment RIN 1210±AA48 the meeting, Patricia Arzuaga, Office of deadline established by the Proposing the Solicitor, Plan Benefits Security Release was April 5, 1999. The new Plans Established or Maintained Pursuant to Collective Bargaining Division, U.S. Department of Labor, deadline is June 30, 1999. Room N–4611, 200 Constitution DATES: Public comments are due on or Agreements Under Section 3(40)(A) of ERISA Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210 before June 30, 1999. (telephone (202) 219–4600; fax (202) ADDRESSES: Please send three copies of AGENCY: Pension and Welfare Benefits 219–7346). The date, location and time your comments to Jonathan G. Katz, Administration, Department of Labor. for subsequent Committee meetings will

VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:33 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A30MR2.008 pfrm07 PsN: 30MRP1 15144 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Proposed Rules be announced in advance in the Federal Signed at Washington, DC, this 22nd day I. Background of March, 1999. Register. On November 2, 1987, the United Richard McGahey, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mine Workers of America (UMWA) and Patricia Arzuaga, Office of the Solicitor, Assistant Secretary, Pension and Welfare the United Steelworkers of America Benefits Administration. Plan Benefits Security Division, U.S. (USWA) jointly petitioned MSHA to Department of Labor, Room N–4611, [FR Doc. 99–7709 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] adapt the Occupational Safety and 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, BILLING CODE 4510±29±P Health Administration’s (OSHA’s) Washington, DC 20210 (telephone (202) Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) 219–4600; fax (202) 219–7346). This is to both coal and metal/nonmetal (M/ DEPARTMENT OF LABOR not a toll-free number. NM) mines and to propose it for the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Minutes of Mine Safety and Health Administration mining industry. They based their all public meetings and other petition on the need for miners to be documents made available to the 30 CFR Parts 56, 57, 77, and 120 better informed about the chemical Committee will be available for public hazards in their workplace. inspection and copying in the Public RIN 1219±AA47 In response to this petition, we Documents Room, Pension and Welfare published an advance notice of Benefits Administration, U.S. Hazard Communication proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on Department of Labor, Room N–5638, hazard communication for the mining 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health industry on March 30, 1988 (53 FR Washington, DC from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 Administration (MSHA), Labor. 10256); published the hazcom proposal p.m. Any written comments on these ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of on November 2, 1990 (55 FR 46400); minutes should be directed to Patricia comment period. and held three public hearings in 1991. Arzuaga, Office of the Solicitor, Plan The record closed on January 31, 1992. Benefits Security Division, U.S. SUMMARY: This document concerns the The hazcom proposal would require Department of Labor, Room N–4611, factual basis for our (MSHA’s) an operator to develop and implement 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, certification that the proposed rule on a hazcom program which includes— Washington, DC 20210 (telephone (202) hazard communication (hazcom (1) Evaluating the hazards of 219–4600; fax (202) 219–7346). This is proposal) for the mining industry would chemicals present at the mine and not a toll-free number. have no significant impact on small maintaining a list of those determined to businesses; a preliminary determination be hazardous; Agenda that the hazcom proposal would not (2) Labeling containers of hazardous The Committee will continue to significantly or adversely impact the chemicals; discuss the possible elements of a environment; the health of children; or (3) Preparing or obtaining material process and potential criteria for a State, local, and tribal governments; and safety data sheets (MSDS’s) for each finding by the Secretary of Labor that an an updated analysis of the information hazardous chemical; agreement is a collective bargaining collection and paperwork burden under (4) Training miners; and agreement for purposes of section 3(40) the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (5) Providing access to the written of ERISA (29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). (PRA 95). We are reopening the materials. Discussion of these issues is intended to rulemaking record for the limited An effective hazcom program help the Committee members define the purpose of receiving comments on these increases both awareness and scope of a possible proposed rule. items. knowledge of the hazards of chemicals Members of the public may file a DATES: We must receive your comments in the workplace. Awareness and written statement pertaining to the by June 1, 1999. knowledge of chemical hazards present subject of this meeting by submitting 15 in the workplace increase the likelihood ADDRESSES: You may use mail, facsimile copies on or before Tuesday, April 13, (fax), or electronic mail to send your that a miner will take appropriate 1999, to Patricia Arzuaga, Office of the comments to MSHA. Clearly identify precautions when working with or Solicitor, Plan Benefits Security comments as such and send them— around chemicals. We believe that the Division, U.S. Department of Labor, use of these precautions will help (1) By mail to Carol J. Jones, Acting Room N–4611, 200 Constitution reduce the incidence of chemically- Director, Office of Standards, Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210. related, occupational injuries and Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, Individuals or representatives wishing illnesses among miners. 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Room 631, to address the Committee should Our hazcom proposal would integrate Arlington, VA 22203; forward their request to Ms. Arzuaga or our existing labeling requirements into (2) By fax to MSHA, Office of telephone (202) 219–4600. During each a new, comprehensive, hazcom Standards, Regulations, and Variances, day of the negotiation session, time program. We based the hazcom proposal 703–235–5551; or permitting, there shall be time for oral on comments received in response to (3) By electronic mail to public comment. Members of the public the ANPRM, as well as on our [email protected]. are encouraged to keep oral statements experience in the mining industry. We In addition, send your comments on brief, but extended written statements also considered relevant standards of the information collection requirements may be submitted for the record. other Federal agencies, including Organizations or individuals may also to the Office of Information and OSHA’s experience with its HCS, and submit written statements for the record Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: applicable legislation. MSHA’s hazcom without presenting an oral statement. 15 Desk Officer for MSHA, 725 17th Street proposal is generally consistent with copies of such statements should be sent NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC OSHA’s HCS. to Ms. Arzuaga at the address above. 20503. Although we are preparing the final Papers will be accepted and included in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: rule, we first need to address several the record of the meeting if received on Carol J. Jones, 703–235–1910. regulatory mandates, some of which or before April 13, 1999. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: were not in existence when we

VerDate 23-MAR-99 15:54 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30MRP1.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 30MRP1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Proposed Rules 15145 published our hazcom proposal in 1990. readily available to the public off-the- agency to include in the preamble to a These statutory mandates and Executive shelf or through the Internet. rule the factual basis for that agency’s Orders require us to evaluate the impact certification that the rule has no II. Specific Issues of a regulatory action on small mines; significant impact on a substantial State, local, and tribal governments; and A. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small number of small entities. The agency the environment. Business Regulatory Enforcement then must publish the factual basis in We recognize that the mining industry Fairness Act the Federal Register, followed by an has changed since 1990 when we The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) opportunity for public comment. developed the Preliminary Regulatory Although SBREFA did not exist when Impact Analysis (PRIA) and published requires a regulatory agency to evaluate each proposed rule and to consider we published the hazcom proposal, we the hazcom proposal. Most of the are now publishing the factual basis for changes, however, would decrease the alternatives so as to minimize the rule’s impact on small entities (businesses and our previous certification that the total impact of the hazcom proposal on hazcom proposal poses ‘‘no significant the mining industry. For example, the local governments). In the preamble to our hazcom proposal, we certified that impact,’’ to give you an opportunity to number of mines and miners has comment on it. decreased while the number of the hazcom proposal would not have a independent contractors has increased. significant economic impact on a Factual Basis for Certification of ‘‘No We believe that this change would substantial number of small mining Significant Impact’’ operations. The preamble also included decrease the impact of the hazcom At the time we published the hazcom proposal because fewer mines and a full discussion of our preliminary conclusions about regulatory proposal, we defined a small mine to be miners generally mean fewer total one that employed fewer than 20 compliance costs. alternatives and invited the public to miners. To determine the costs for Additionally, independent contractors comment. The preamble and PRIA, mines with 500 or fewer employees, we are more likely to have a hazcom however, did not use the Small Business program because they are more likely to Administration’s (SBA’s) definition of a applied the same basic methodology work in operations under OSHA small entity. Under the RFA, we must that we had used in the PRIA to jurisdiction, as well as in mines under use SBA’s definition of a small entity in estimate the costs for mines with fewer MSHA jurisdiction. Similarly, some determining a rule’s economic impact than 20 employees. We used 1997 mine operators already have a hazcom unless, after consultation with SBA and closeout data for numbers of mines and program as company policy, because the an opportunity for public comment, we miners and current data for the cost of parent company also has operations in establish another definition and publish materials and labor. industries subject to OSHA’s HCS, or the definition in the Federal Register. Table I indicates the number of the mine is located in a State with an For the mining industry, SBA defines operations with 500 or fewer employees individual State right-to-know law. We ‘‘small’’ as a business with 500 or fewer and the total number of employees at believe that these existing hazcom employees. To ensure that we comply these operations. We substituted these programs decrease the economic impact with the RFA requirements, this notice figures for those that we had used in the of MSHA’s hazcom proposal on the informs you of the hazcom proposal’s original 1990 PRIA to estimate the mining industry. impact on ‘‘small’’ mines, using the SBA impact on operations with fewer than 20 Another change that affects the hazard definition of a small entity, and employees. We estimate that the annual communication environment is provides you with an opportunity to cost of complying with the 1990 hazcom increased public awareness due to the comment. proposal for operations with 500 or length of time that the OSHA HCS has In 1996, Congress enacted the Small fewer employees would be about $5.54 been in effect. There is an abundance of Business Regulatory Enforcement million annually: $1.20 million for coal hazard communication information, Fairness Act (SBREFA) amending the operations and $4.34 million for M/NM supplies, training, and training aids RFA. SBREFA requires a regulatory operations.

TABLE I.ÐANNUAL COMPLIANCE COSTS BY MINE SIZE*

No. of mines No. of miners Annual compliance cost Mine size (employment) Coal M/NM Coal M/NM Coal M/NM

Small (1±500) ...... 6,558 14,306 112,864 178,303 $1,197,241 $4,344,381 Large (>500) ...... 11 35 6,179 28,190 32,033 195,775 All Operations ...... 6,569 14,341 119,043 206,493 1,229,274 4,540,156 *Includes independent contractors and their employees.

Whether these compliance costs The first step in this determination is controls or other items requiring impose a ‘‘significant’’ impact on small to establish whether compliance with substantial initial capital expenditure entities depends on their effect on the the hazcom proposal would impose that would place small mines at a profits, market share, and financial substantial capital or first-year, start-up competitive disadvantage relative to viability of small mines. To address costs on small mines. Because financing large mines. these issues, we had to determine is typically more difficult or more The initial costs associated with the whether compliance with the hazcom expensive to obtain for small mines than hazcom proposal are those necessary to proposal would place small mines at a for large mines, initial costs may impose develop and implement a hazard significant competitive disadvantage a greater burden on small mines than on communication program. Based on our relative to large mines or impose a large mines. The hazcom proposal, updated estimate of this cost on mines significant cost burden on small mines. however, does not require engineering employing 500 or fewer employees, we

VerDate 23-MAR-99 08:33 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A30MR2.010 pfrm07 PsN: 30MRP1 15146 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Proposed Rules projected that the first-year, start-up investigated economies of scale by difference may be significant, it is costs would be about $900 to $1,200 per calculating whether compliance costs unlikely to provide strategic leverage operation. Because this cost is less than are proportional to mine employment. because, as shown in Table II, both one percent of the revenue for these As shown in Table II, the annual small coal mines and small M/NM mines, we believe that the hazcom compliance cost per miner would be mines generate over 95 percent of the proposal would not impose substantial about $11 for small coal mines, $5 for revenues in their respective markets. capital or first-year, start-up costs on large coal mines, $24 for small M/NM Furthermore, as shown in Table II, total small mines. mines, and $7 for large M/NM mines. compliance costs would be about 18 The second step in this determination These compliance costs would be about times larger, on average, for a large coal is to establish whether there are twice as great per miner for small coal mine than for a small coal mine and significant economies of scale in mines than for large coal mines and over about 22 times larger, on average, for a compliance that would place small three times greater per miner for small large M/NM mine than for a small M/ mines at a competitive disadvantage M/NM mines than for large M/NM relative to large mines. In the PRIA, we mines. Although we believe that this NM mine.

TABLE II.ÐCOMPLIANCE COST PER MINER AND PER MINE*

Average compliance cost Average compliance cost Total revenues Mine size (employment) per miner per mine (in millions) Coal M/NM Coal M/NM Coal M/NM

Small (1±500) ...... $11 $24 $183 $304 $18,680 $22,370 Large (>500) ...... 5 7 2,912 5,594 1,980 2,630 All Operations ...... 10 22 187 317 20,660 25,000 *Includes independent contractors and their employees.

The third step in this determination is shown in Table III, compliance costs than one percent, we believe that this to establish whether the compliance represent only about 0.006 percent of result, in conjunction with the previous costs impose a significant burden on the value of coal mine production and analysis, provides a reasonable basis for small mines in absolute terms. For this only about 0.019 percent of the value of the certification of ‘‘no significant purpose, we examined compliance costs M/NM mine production. Because the impact’’ in this case. relative to revenues per small mine (or, cost of the rule as a percentage of equivalently, for all small mines). As revenue would be considerably less

TABLE III.ÐCOMPLIANCE COSTS COMPARED TO REVENUE*

Revenue per Small mines (employing 1±500) Average cost mine Total cost Total revenue Cost as % of per mine (millions) (millions) (millions) revenue

Coal ...... $183 $2.848 $1.197 $18,680 0.006 M/NM ...... 304 1.564 4.344 22,370 0.019 *Includes independent contractors and their employees.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act burden because of the expanded (1) Whether this collection of When we published our hazcom definition of ‘‘information’’ under PRA information is necessary to protect proposal, the information collection and 95. miners; paperwork requirements were not an The collection of information (2) The accuracy of our estimate of the information collection burden under the contained in the hazcom proposal is burden, including the validity of our 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA subject to review by OMB under PRA methodology and assumptions; 80) because they were third-party 95. We will submit the proposed (3) Ways to enhance the quality, disclosures. On August 29, 1995, the paperwork package to OMB for its usefulness, and clarity of the Office of Management and Budget review and approval under section information; and (OMB) published a final rule in the 3507(o) of PRA 95. We describe the Federal Register (60 FR 44978) (4) Ways to minimize the burden on respondents and information collection respondents, including the use of implementing the new Paperwork requirements below with an estimate of Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA 95). These automated collection techniques, when the annual information collection OMB rules expanded the definition of appropriate, and other forms of burden. This estimate includes the time ‘‘information’’ to clarify that PRA 95 information technology. to inventory chemicals, determine the also covered Agency rules that required Description of requirements: The businesses or individuals to maintain hazards of chemicals present, prepare or hazcom proposal is primarily an information for the benefit of a third- obtain labels or MSDS’s as necessary, information collection and party or the public, rather than the prepare training materials and train dissemination rule. The information government. The requirements for miners, and provide copies of written collection and paperwork burden information collection and materials. encompasses each section of this dissemination in the hazcom proposal We further invite comment on— proposed part. These requirements are are now an information collection summarized in Table IV below.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 14:57 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30MRP1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 30MRP1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Proposed Rules 15147

TABLE IV.ÐDESCRIPTION OF INFORMATION COLLECTION PROVISIONS

Provision Information collection burden

Written Hazard Communication Program ...... Preparation, administration, and annual review determine hazardous chemicals distribute written program when requested. Training Program ...... Develop or obtain training courses and materials conduct initial training for miners administer re: training miners about changing hazards. Material Safety Data Sheets ...... Develop for hazardous chemicals produced maintain availability and accuracy distribute to miners and reps, employers, and customers. Labeling Containers ...... Prepare for chemicals produced maintain legibility and accuracy provide information to customers. Trade Secrets ...... Provide confidential information when needed.

Description of respondents: The may keep MSDS’s and label containers, maintaining and administering the respondents are operators, including but do not have a written program or program. Because this hazcom proposal independent contractors. We estimate conduct hazcom training for miners. would not require any capital that this provision affects those Also, we assumed that all independent expenditures, we did not annualize operators who do not already have a contractors conduct some work at these initial costs. The total estimated hazcom program at their mines. For the locations under OSHA jurisdiction and first-year, start-up information purpose of the hazcom proposal, we would have an existing hazcom collection burden for the hazcom estimated that 5 percent of small mines program. The contractor’s hazcom proposal is about 789,500 hours ($20.3 and 10 percent of large mines program, however, may need million labor cost) plus an associated voluntarily have implemented all of the modification for a particular mine. The cost of about $3,757,000. The total requirements in MSHA’s hazcom magnitude of the burden for any estimated annually recurring proposal. In addition, some mines have individual mine operator or information collection burden for the implemented all or part of the independent contractor, therefore, will second year and each year thereafter is requirements contained in the hazcom vary greatly by the size, type, and about 230,700 hours ($5.2 million labor proposal to comply with State hazard location of the operation. cost) plus an associated annual cost of communication or right-to-know laws. Information Collection Burden: The about $578,000. Table V and Table VI The percentage of mines complying burden of the hazcom proposal is summarize MSHA’s estimate, by with these State laws varies depending greater initially, when developing and provision, of the information collection on the type of mine and the specific implementing the program. Subsequent burden on the mining industry for the provision. For example, some mines years, the burden is primarily for first year and annually thereafter.

TABLE V.ÐFIRST-YEAR INFORMATION COLLECTION BURDEN*

Number of Number of Number of responses Hours per Associated Provision respondents responses per respond- response Total hours costs** ent

Written Program ...... 17,042 24,365 1.4 3.76 91,595 $397,748 Training ...... 20,910 57,775 2.8 4.54 262,229 2,718,403 Hazard Determination and MSDS's ...... 20,910 1,441,459 69 0.23 334,216 578,095 Labels ...... 20,910 596,042 29 0.17 100,919 63,093 Trade Secrets ...... 147 147 1.0 4.00 586 0

Total ...... 20,910 2,119,787 101 0.37 789,544 3,757,339 * Discrepancies due to rounding. ** The cost associated with the information collection is for material, supplies, and copying expenses; it does not include the labor cost for the burden hours.

TABLE VI.ÐANNUAL INFORMATION COLLECTION BURDEN*

Number of Number of Number of responses Hours per Associated Provision respondents responses per respond- response Total hours costs** ent

Written Program ...... 4,364 4,364 1.0 3.79 16,544 $38,573 Training ...... 4,440 11,113 2.5 4.61 51,282 7,502 Hazard Determination and MSDS's ...... 20,910 952,722 46 0.13 125,517 339,631 Labels ...... 2,267 60,693 27 0.61 36,768 192,257 Trade Secrets ...... 147 147 1.0 4.00 586 0

Total ...... 20,910 1,029,038 49 0.22 230,697 577,963 * Discrepancies due to rounding. ** The cost associated with the information collection is for material, supplies, and copying expenses; it does not include the labor cost for the burden hours.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 14:57 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30MRP1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 30MRP1 15148 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Proposed Rules

C. Environmental Assessment several legislative mandates and the state’s SIP submittal as a direct final The National Environmental Policy President has issued several Executive rule without prior proposal because the Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et Orders affecting the promulgation of Agency views this as a noncontroversial seq.) requires each Federal agency to regulations. In addition, we did not revision and anticipates no adverse consider the environmental effects of address a mandate that existed in 1990. comments. A detailed rationale for this certain proposed actions. It requires With this in mind, we are reopening the approval is set forth in the direct final further that these agencies prepare an rulemaking record for a limited time to rule. If no adverse comments are Environmental Impact Statement for provide the public an opportunity to received, no further activity is major actions significantly affecting the comment on the hazcom proposal’s contemplated. If EPA receives adverse quality of the human environment. We economic and environmental impact comments, the direct final rule will be have reviewed the hazcom proposal in and paperwork burden. Allowing time withdrawn and all public comments accordance with the requirements of for additional public comments will not received will be addressed in a NEPA, the regulations of the Council on delay the promulgation of the final rule. subsequent final rule based on this Environmental Quality (40 CFR part I encourage all interested parties to proposed rule. The EPA will not 1500), and the Department of Labor’s take advantage of this opportunity to institute a second comment period. Any NEPA regulations (29 CFR part 11). As provide information and express your parties interested in commenting should a result of this review, we determined concerns on the specific issues do so at this time. discussed here. If not responding by that this hazcom proposal would have DATES: Written comments must be no significant environmental impact. electronic mail, we would appreciate receiving your comments on a computer received by April 29, 1999. D. Protection of Children From disk along with the original hard copy. ADDRESSES: Comments should be Environmental Health Risks and Safety Contact us with any questions about addressed to: Andrew Steckel, Risks format. Rulemaking Office, AIR–4, Air Division, In accordance with Executive Order You can obtain a copy of our hazcom U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 13045, we have evaluated the hazcom proposal or PRIA by contacting us at the Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San proposal for any potential address or telephone number provided Francisco, CA 94105–3901. at the beginning of this notice. environmental health and safety effects Copies of the rule and EPA’s on children and have determined that it Dated: March 23, 1999. evaluation report of the rule are would have no adverse effects on Marvin W. Nichols, Jr., available for public inspection at EPA’s children. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety Region 9 office during normal business E. Consultation and Coordination With and Health. hours. Copies of the submitted rule Indian Tribal Governments [FR Doc. 99–7683 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] revisions are also available for In accordance with Executive Order BILLING CODE 4510±43±P inspection at the following locations: 13084, we certify that the hazcom California Air Resources Board, proposal would not impose substantial Stationary Source Division, Rule direct compliance costs on Indian tribal ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street, governments. We provided the public, AGENCY Sacramento, CA 95812 including Indian tribal governments which operate mines, the opportunity to 40 CFR Part 52 El Dorado County Environmental Management Department, Air comment on the hazcom proposal and [CA 211±0127b; FRL±6313±5] to participate in the public hearings. Pollution Control District, 2850 Approval and Promulgation of Fairlane Court, Placerville, CA 95667 F. Unfunded Mandates Implementation Plans; California State FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Implementation Plan Revision; El Addison, Rulemaking Office, AIR–4, Air of 1995 requires Federal agencies to Dorado County Air Pollution Control Division, U.S. Environmental Protection consider the impact of proposed actions District Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne on State, local, and tribal governments. Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901 AGENCY: Environmental Protection The hazcom proposal would impact Telephone: (415) 744–1160. about 200 sand and gravel or crushed Agency (EPA). stone operations that are run by State, ACTION: Proposed rule. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This local, or tribal governments. We have document concerns El Dorado County determined that the hazcom proposal SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve Air Pollution Control District’s Rule does not include any Federal mandate revisions to the California State 239, Natural Gas-fired Residential Water that may result in increased Implementation Plan (SIP) which Heaters, submitted by the California Air expenditures by State, local, or tribal concern the control of oxides of nitrogen Resources Board to EPA on June 23, governments of more than $100 million (NOX) emissions from natural gas-fired 1998. For further information, please see in the aggregate, or increased residential water heaters within the El the information provided in the direct expenditures by the private sector of Dorado County Air Pollution Control final action that is located in the rules more than $100 million. Moreover, we District. section of this Federal Register. The intended effect of proposing have determined that the hazcom Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. approval of this rule is to regulate NOX proposal does not significantly or Dated: March 11, 1999. uniquely affect small governments. emissions in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as Laura Yoshii, III. Request for Comments amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). In Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IX. Since we published our hazcom the final rules Section of this Federal [FR Doc. 99–7669 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] proposal in 1990, Congress has passed Register, the EPA is approving the BILLING CODE 6560±50±P

VerDate 23-MAR-99 14:57 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30MRP1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 30MRP1 15149

Notices Federal Register Vol. 64, No. 60

Tuesday, March 30, 1999

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE requirements of section 155 of Pub. L. contains documents other than rules or 104–164 Dated 21 July 1996. proposed rules that are applicable to the Office of the Secretary FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: public. Notices of hearings and investigations, Ms. committee meetings, agency decisions and J. Hurd, DSCA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604– rulings, delegations of authority, filing of [Transmittal No. 99±08] 6575. petitions and applications and agency The following is a copy of a letter to statements of organization and functions are 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification the Speaker of the House of examples of documents appearing in this Representatives, Transmittal 99–08, AGENCY: Defense Security Cooperation section. with attached transmittal and policy Agency, Department of Defense. justification. ACTION: Notice. Dated: March 24, 1999. L.M. Bynum, SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. Officer Department of Defense. This is published to fulfill the BILLING CODE 6001±01±M

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.081 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 15150 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.081 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15151

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.081 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 15152 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices

BILLING CODE 5001±10±C

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.081 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15153

[FR Doc. 99–7739 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] requirement for public consultation to building, school-based probation, BILLING CODE 5001±10±M the extent that public participation in student assistance, teen courts, truancy the approval process would defeat the prevention, alternative education, purpose of the information collection, developing information sharing systems, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION violate State or Federal law, or staff/professional development, hiring substantially interfere with any agency’s additional resource officers, etc. Notice of Proposed Information ability to perform its statutory Additional Information: This program Collection Requests obligations. The Acting Leader, is a collaborative effort between the Information Management Group, Office Department of Justice, the Department AGENCY: Department of Education. of the Chief Information Officer, of Health and Human Services and the ACTION: Notice of proposed information publishes this notice containing Department of Education. collection requests. proposed information collection Frequency: Annually. requests at the beginning of the SUMMARY: The Acting Leader, Affected Public: State, local or Tribal Departmental review of the information Information Management Group, Office Gov’t, SEAs or LEAs. collection. Each proposed information of the Chief Information Officer, invites Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour collection, grouped by office, contains comments on the proposed information Burden: the following: (1) Type of review collection requests as required by the Responses: 425. requested, e.g., new, revision, extension, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Burden Hours: 11,900. existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) [FR Doc. 99–7700 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] DATES: An emergency review has been Summary of the collection; (4) BILLING CODE 4000±01±P requested in accordance with the Act Description of the need for, and (44 U.S.C. Chapter 3507 (j)), since proposed use of, the information; (5) public harm is reasonably likely to Respondents and frequency of DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION result if normal clearance procedures collection; and (6) Reporting and/or are followed. Approval by the Office of Recordkeeping burden. ED invites Notice of Proposed Information Management and Budget (OMB) has public comment at the address specified Collection Requests been requested by May 25, 1999. A above. Copies of the requests are AGENCY: regular clearance process is also available from Patrick J. Sherrill at the Department of Education. beginning. Interested persons are address specified above. SUMMARY: The Acting Leader, invited to submit comments on or before The Department of Education is June 1, 1999. Information Management Group, Office especially interested in public comment of the Chief Information Officer, invites ADDRESSES: Written comments addressing the following issues: (1) Is comments on the proposed information regarding the emergency review should this collection necessary to the proper collection requests as required by the be addressed to the Office of functions of the Department; (2) will Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Information and Regulatory Affairs, this information be processed and used DATES: Attention: Danny Werfel, Desk Officer: in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate Interested persons are invited to Department of Education, Office of of burden accurate; (4) how might the submit comments on or before June 1, Management and Budget, 725 17th Department enhance the quality, utility, 1999. Street, NW, Room 10235, New and clarity of the information to be ADDRESSES: Written comments and Executive Office Building, Washington, collected; and (5) how might the requests for copies of the proposed DC 20503. Comments regarding the Department minimize the burden of this information collection requests should regular clearance and requests for copies collection on respondents, including be addressed to Patrick J. Sherrill, of the proposed information collection through the use of information Department of Education, 400 Maryland request should be addressed to Patrick technology. Avenue, S.W., Room 5624, Regional J. Sherrill, Department of Education, 400 Office Building 3, Washington, D.C. Dated: March 24, 1999. Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 5624, 20202–4651, or should be electronically Regional Office Building 3, Washington, William E. Burrow, mailed to the internet address DC 20202–4651, or should be Acting Leader, Information Management [email protected], or should be electronically mailed to the internet Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer. faxed to 202–708–9346. address Pat [email protected], or Office of Elementary and Secondary FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: should be faxed to 202–708–9346. Education Patrick J. Sherrill (202) 708–8196. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Type of Review: New. Individuals who use a Patrick J. Sherrill (202) 708–8196. Title: School Violence Prevention and telecommunications device for the deaf Individuals who use a Early Childhood Development Activities (TDD) may call the Federal Information telecommunications device for the deaf Under the Safe Schools/Healthy Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 (TDD) may call the Federal Information Students Initiative. between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time, Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 Abstract: Safe Schools/Healthy Monday through Friday. between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time, Students Initiative is to assist schools SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section Monday through Friday. and communities to enhance and 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section implement comprehensive community- 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of wide strategies for creating safe and that the Office of Management and 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires drug-free schools and promoting healthy Budget (OMB) provide interested that the Director of OMB provide childhood development. Eligible Federal agencies and the public an early interested Federal agencies and the activities may include, but are not opportunity to comment on information public an early opportunity to comment limited to, programs such as mentoring, collection requests. OMB may amend or on information collection requests. The conflict resolution, after school waive the requirement for public Office of Management and Budget activities, multi-systemic therapy, consultation to the extent that public (OMB) may amend or waive the functional family therapy, social skill participation in the approval process

VerDate 23-MAR-99 15:37 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 30MRN1 15154 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices would defeat the purpose of the a critical period in the development of are being mailed to affected customers information collection, violate State or children, the years from zero to three. and interested state commissions. Federal law, or substantially interfere The principal purposes of the study are Any person desiring to protest said with any agency’s ability to perform its to assess children’s health status and filing should file a protest with the statutory obligations. The Acting their growth and development in a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Leader, Information Management variety of key domains that are critical 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. Group, Office of the Chief Information for later school readiness and academic 20426, in accordance with Section Officer, publishes that notice containing achievement. The key domains include 385.211 of the Commission’s Rules and proposed information collection physical health and growth, motor Regulations. All such protests must be requests prior to submission of these development, and social and emotional filed on or before March 31, 1999. requests to OMB. Each proposed maturation. Protests will be considered by the information collection, grouped by The data set will provide a Commission in determining the office, contains the following: (1) Type comprehensive and reliable longitudinal appropriate action to be taken, but will of review requested, e.g. new, revision, data set describing the growth of not serve to make protestants parties to extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) children, from birth through first grade. the proceedings. Copies of this filing are Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) The data can also be used by a wide on file with the Commission and are Description of the need for, and range of federal agencies on topics such available for public inspection in the proposed use of, the information; (5) as maternal and child health; childhood Public Reference Room. This filing may Respondents and frequency of illnesses and disabilities; nonparental be viewed on the web at http:// collection; and (6) Reporting and/or child care and early childhood www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites education; health intervention; family 202–208–2222 for assistance). public comment at the address specified economics and composition; welfare David P. Boergers, above. Copies of the requests are dependency; cultural diversity; and Secretary. available from Patrick J. Sherrill at the food and nutrition. [FR Doc. 99–7698 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] address specified above. The [FR Doc. 99–7701 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717±01±M Department of Education is especially BILLING CODE 4000±01±P interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY this collection necessary to the proper DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY functions of the Department; (2) will Federal Energy Regulatory Commission this information be processed and used Federal Energy Regulatory in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate Commission [Docket No. GP94±2±007] of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, [Docket No. RP97±406±022] Columbia Gas Transmission and clarity of the information to be Corporation; Notice of Refund Report CNG Transmission Corporation; Notice collected; and (5) how might the of Report of Refund March 24, 1999. Department minimize the burden of this Take notice that on February 23, 1999, collection on the respondents, including March 24, 1999. Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation through the use of information Take notice that on March 16, 1999, (Columbia) tendered for filing with the technology. CNG Transmission Corporation (CNG), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Dated: March 24, 1999. tendered for filing its report of refunds its Refund Report made to comply with William E. Burrow, attributable to the resolution of the the April 17, 1995 Settlement in Docket Acting Leader, Information Management captioned proceedings. CNG states that No. GP94–02, et al. as approved by the Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer. the reported refunds reflect CNG’s Commission on June 15, 1995. implementation of the rates contained Columbia states that on February 20, Office of Educational Research and in the Commission-approved 1999 it made refunds, as billing credits, Improvement Stipulation and Agreement filed on in the amount of $251,162.75. The Type of Review: New August 31, 1998 (the August 31 refunds represent a deferred tax refund Title: Early Childhood Longitudinal Stipulation). received from Trailblazer Pipeline Study—Birth Cohort 2000, Field Test CNG states that the purpose of this Company. These refunds were made and Full Scale Data Collection filing is to report refunds and associated pursuant to Article VIII, Section E of the Frequency: On occasion interest that CNG ultimately resolved Settlement using the allocation Affected Public: Individuals or with its customers effective February 18, percentages shown on Appendix G, households; Business or other for-profit; 1999. CNG further states that these Schedule 5 of the Settlement with FERC Not-for-profit institutions; State, local or refunds were made as a result of CNG’s Interest. Tribal Gov’t, SEAs or LEAs implementation of the settlement rates Any person desiring to protest said Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour approved by Commission order dated filing should file a protest with the Burden: November 24, 1998, in Docket Nos. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Responses: 2,280 RP97–406–000, et al. 85 FERC 61,261 888 First Street, N.E., Washington D.C. Burden Hours: 3,082 (1998). As detailed in Attachment A to 20426, in accordance with Section Abstract: The Early Childhood CNG’s transmittal letter, CNG’s total 385.211 of the Commission’s Rules and Longitudinal Study—Birth Cohort 2000 refund obligation consisted of a Regulations. All such protests must be (ECLS-B) is a component of the Early principal amount of $56,664,462.40, filed on or before March 31, 1999. Childhood Longitudinal Studies plus interest of $2,626,178.82 through Protests will be considered by the program. Studies also include the February 18, 1999, for a total refund Commission in determining the Kindergarten Class of 1998–1999, obligation of $59,290,641.22. appropriate action to be taken, but will currently underway. The ECLS program CNG states that copies of this letter of not serve to make Protestants parties to responds to increased policy interest in transmittal and summary workpapers the proceedings. Copies of this filing are

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.083 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15155 on file with the Commission and are DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a available for public inspection in the protest to the request. If no protest is Public Reference Room. This filing may Federal Energy Regulatory filed within the time allowed therefor, be viewed on the web at http:// Commission the proposed activity shall be deemed to www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call [Docket No. CP99±267±000] be authorized effective the day after the 202–208–2222 for assistance). time allowed for filing a protest. If a David P. Boergers, El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice protest is filed and not withdrawn of Request Under Blanket Secretary. within 30 days after the time allowed Authorization [FR Doc. 99–7696 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for BILLING CODE 6717±01±M March 24, 1999. Take notice that on March 22, 1999, authorization pursuant to Section 7 of El Paso Natural Gas Company (El Paso), the Natural Gas Act. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY P.O. Box 1492, El Paso, Texas 79978, David P. Boergers, filed in Docket No. CP99–267–000 a Secretary. Federal Energy Regulatory request pursuant to Sections 157.205 [FR Doc. 99–7695 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Commission and 157.212 of the Commission’s BILLING CODE 6717±01±M Regulations under the Natural Gas Act [Docket No. GP94±2±008] (18 CFR 157.205, 157.212) for authorization to certificate and to DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Columbia Gas Transmission continue the operation of an existing Corporation; Notice of Refund Report delivery point, installed under Section Federal Energy Regulatory 311(a) of the Natural Gas Policy Act, Commission March 24, 1999. under El Paso’s blanket certificate Take notice that on February 23, 1999, issued in Docket No. CP82–435–000 pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas [Docket Nos. ER99±1525±000 and ER99± Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation 1992±000] (Columbia) tendered for filing with the Act, all as more fully set forth in the request that is on file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Mid-Continent Area Power Pool; Notice Commission and open to public its Refund Report made to comply with of Filing inspection. This filing may be viewed the April 17, 1995 Settlement in Docket on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/ March 23, 1999. No. GP94–02, et al. as approved by the online/rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for Commission on June 15, 1995. assistance). Take notice that on March 18, 1999, Columbia states that on January 20, El Paso states that the Desert Hills Mid-Continent Area Power Pool 1999 it made refunds, as billing credits, Delivery Point was installed under (MAPP), tendered for filing a letter in the amount of $58,460.04. The Section 311(a) and has exclusively used informing the Commission of that on refunds represent a deferred tax refund this delivery point for the transportation March 3, 1999, MAPP’s Regional received from Overthrust Pipeline and delivery of natural gas under Part Transmission Committee passed a Company. These refunds were made 284, Subpart B on behalf of Southwest motion relevant to filings made in the pursuant to Article VIII, Section E of the Gas Corporation. El Paso states that the above-referenced dockets. Settlement using the allocation regulatory restriction placed on the Any person desiring to be heard or to operation of a facility installed under percentages shown on Appendix G. protest such filing should file a motion Section 311(a) of the NGPA prohibits El Schedule 5 of the Settlement with FERC to intervene or protest with the Federal Interest. Paso shippers from utilizing this delivery point under any transportation Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 Any person desiring to protest said arrangement other than a Subpart B First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. filing should file a protest with the transportation arrangement. In view of 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, this limited service flexibility, El Paso and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. believes that certification of the Desert Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 20426, in accordance with Section Hills Delivery Point, located in and 385.214). All such motions and 385.211 of the Commission’s Rules and Maricopa County, Arizona, pursuant to protests should be filed on or before Regulations. All such protests must be Section 157.212 of the Commission’s April 2, 1999. Protests will be filed on or before March 31, 1999. Regulations, is necessary and in the considered by the Commission to Protests will be considered by the public interest. El Paso states that determine the appropriate action to be Commission is determining the continued operation of the facility is not taken, but will not serve to make appropriate action to be taken, but will prohibited by El Paso’s existing Volume protestants parties to the proceedings. not serve to make protestants parties to No. 1–A FERC Gas Tariff. El Paso states Any person wishing to become a party the proceedings. Copies of this filing are that is has sufficient capacity to must file a motion to intervene. Copies on file with the Commission and are accomplish the deliveries without of this filing are on file with the available for public inspection in the detriment or disadvantage to El Paso’s Commission and are available for public Public Reference Room. This filing may other customers. inspection. This filing may also be be viewed on the web at http:// Any person or the Commission’s staff viewed on the Internet at http:// www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call may, within 45 days after issuance of www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for assistance). the instant notice by the Commission, 202–208–2222 for assistance). file pursuant to Rule 214 of the David P. Boergers, Commission’s Procedural Rules (18 CFR Linwood A. Watson, Jr., Secretary. 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. 99–7697 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] of intervention and pursuant to Section [FR Doc. 99–7693 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717±01±M 157.205 of the Regulations under the BILLING CODE 6717±01±M

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.007 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 15156 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY authorization pursuant to Section 7 of DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY the Natural Gas Act. Federal Energy Regulatory David P. Boergers, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Commission Secretary. [FR Doc. 99–7694 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] [Docket No. CP99±263±000] [Docket No. CP99±265±000] BILLING CODE 6717±01±M Midcoast Interstate Transmission, Inc.; Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket Notice of Request for Authorization DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Under Blanket Certificate Authorization Federal Energy Regulatory March 24, 1999. March 24, 1999. Commission Take notice that on March 19, 1999, Take notice that on March 19, 1999, Northern Natural Gas Company Midcoast Interstate Transmission, Inc. [Docket No. RP99±69±002] (Northern), 11 South 103rd Street, (Midcoast), 3230 Second Street, Muscle Omaha, Nebraska, 68103–0330, filed a Shoals, Alabama 355661, filed in FERC National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; prior notice request with the Docket No. CP99–263–000 a request Notice of Compliance Filing Commission in Docket No. CP99–265– pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 000 pursuant to Section 157.205 of the 157.211, of the Commission’s March 24, 1999. Commission’s Regulations under the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act Take notice that on February 18, 1999, Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization (18 CFR 157.205 and 157.211) for National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation to abandon 13 small volume measuring authorization to install and operate a (National Fuel) tendered for filing as stations located in Iowa, Kansas, new delivery point under Midcoast’s part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Minnesota, and Nebraska, under blanket certificate issued in Docket No. Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets Northern’s blanket certificate issued in CP85–359–000 pursuant to Section 7 of listed on Appendix A to the filing, with Docket No. CP82–401–000 pursuant to the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set a proposed effective date of November Section 7 of the NGA, all as more fully forth in the request that is on file with 1, 1998. set forth in the request which is open to the public for inspection. This filing the Commission and open to public National Fuel states that this filing is inspection. The application may be may be viewed on the web at being made in compliance with the http:www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm viewed on the web at www.ferc.fed.us. Commission’s Order issued on February Call (202) 208–2222 for assistance. (call 202–208–2222 for assistance). 11, 1999, in the above-referenced docket Northern proposes to abandon 13 Midcoast proposes to install and [86 FERC ¶ 61,143 (1999)], which small volume measuring stations based operate the facilities to accommodate directed National Fuel to remove the on requests from 13 end-users for the natural gas deliveries to Alventia LLC rate component adjustment proposal removal of the measuring stations from (Alventia), a Delaware Limited Liability from its pro forma service agreements. their property. Northern states that the Corporation, at a plant being National Fuel further indicates that a measuring stations are located in Carrol constructed in Morgan County, recurring typographical error was also County, Iowa; Ottawa County, Kansas; Alabama. Transportation service for corrected. Freeborn, Le Sueur, Pine, Scott, and Alventia will be provided pursuant to Any person desiring to protest this Sherburn Counties, Minnesota; and Rate Schedule FT of Midcoast’s FERC filing should file a protest with the Gage, Jefferson, and Johnson Counties, Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Nebraska. Northern further states that it would spend $2,000 to remove these 13 1. Midcoast states that Alventia 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. farm taps from its customers’ property. acquired FT capacity on its system by a 20426, in accordance with Section Any person or the Commission’s staff pre-arranged capacity release. Midcoast 385.211 of the Commission’s Rules and may, within 45 days after the also states that its existing tariff does not Regulations. All such protests must be Commission has issued this notice, file prohibit the additional service. filed as provided in Section 154.210 of Any person or the Commission’s Staff pursuant to Rule 214 of the the Commission’s Regulations. Protests Commission’s Procedural Rules (13 CFR may, within 45 days after issuance of will be considered by the Commission 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice the instant notice by the commission, in determining the appropriate action to of intervention and pursuant to file pursuant to Rule 214 of the be taken, but will not serve to make § 157.205 of the Regulations under the Commission’s Procedural Rules (18 CFR protestants parties to the proceedings. NGA (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice Copies of this filing are on file with the request. If no protest is filed within the of intervention and pursuant to Section Commission and are available for public allowed time, the proposed activity 157.205 of the Regulations under the inspection in the Public Reference shall be deemed to be authorized Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a Room. effective the day after the time allowed protest to the request. If no protest is David P. Boergers, for filing a protest. If a protest is filed filed in the time allowed, the proposed Secretary. and not withdrawn within 30 days after activity shall be deemed to be [FR Doc. 99–7699 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] the time allowed for filing a protest, the authorized affective the day after the instant request shall be treated as an time allowed for filing a protest. If a BILLING CODE 6717±01±M application for authorization pursuant protest is filed and not withdrawn to Section 7 of the NGA. within 30 days after the time allowed Linwood A. Watson, Jr., for filing a protest, the instant request Acting Secretary. shall be treated as an application for [FR Doc. 99–7747 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717±01±M

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.004 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15157

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (2344), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Background information can also be AGENCY Environmental Protection Agency, 401 obtained by visiting the subcommittee’s M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, website at: [ERL±6317±1] (202) 260–7606. Send written comments http://transaq.ce.gatech.edu/epatac Proposed Settlement Agreement, to Diane McConkey at the address Subcommittee members and Clean Air Act Citizen Suit above. Comments must arrive no later interested parties requesting than April 29, 1999. administrative information should AGENCY: Environmental Protection Lisa K. Friedman, contact: Ms. Jennifer Criss, FACA Agency (EPA). Acting General Counsel. Management Officer, Assessment and ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement; [FR Doc. 99–7774 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Modeling Division, U.S. EPA, 2000 request for public comment. BILLING CODE 6560±50±M Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, FACA Help Line: 734/214–4518, SUMMARY: In accordance with section Ph: 734/214–4029, Fax: 734/214–4821, 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION email: [email protected] (the ‘‘Act’’), this is a notice of a AGENCY Written comments of any length (with proposed consent decree, which the at least 20 copies provided) should be United States Environmental Protection [FRL±6316±9] sent to the subcommitte no later than Agency (‘‘EPA’’) lodged with the United Clean Air Act Advisory Committee; January 6, 1999. States District Court for the District of Mobile Sources Technical Review The Mobile Sources Technical Review Columbia on March 12, 1999, in a Subcommittee; Notification of Public Subcommittee expects that public lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club under Advisory Subcommittee; Open Meeting statements presented at its meetings will section 304(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. not be repetitive of previously 7604(a) (Sierra Club v. Browner, Civ. AGENCY: Environmental Protection submitted oral or written statements. No. 98–1610). This lawsuit concerns Agency (EPA). Margo T. Oge, EPA’s alleged failure to promulgate ACTION: Notice. Director, Office of Mobile Sources. regulations for fifty percent of the [FR Doc. 99–7775 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] categories and subcategories of sources SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal BILLING CODE 6560±50±M of hazardous air pollutants listed Advisory Committee Act, Public Law pursuant to section 112(c) of the Act, 42 92–463, notice is hereby given that the U.S.C. 7412(c). The lawsuit also Mobile Sources Technical Review ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION concerns EPA’s alleged failure to Subcommittee of the Clean Air Act AGENCY promulgate regulations by November 15, Advisory Committee will meet on: 1997, for specific categories and Wednesday, April 14, 1999 from 9:30 [FRL±6316±8] subcategories of sources of hazardous a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time air pollutants that EPA designated for (registration at 8:30 a.m.) at: Holiday Notice of Public Meeting on Drinking regulation by that date under section Inn—Eisenhower, 2460 Eisenhower Water Issues 112(e)(3) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314–4695, 7412(e)(3). The proposed consent decree Ph: (703) 960–3400; Fax: (703) 329– Notice is hereby given that the U.S. provides that EPA shall promulgate 0953. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations under section 112(d) for This is an open meeting and seating is holding a meeting on April 28–29, specified categories and subcategories is on a first-come basis. During this 1999, at Resolve, 1255 23rd St., NW, by specified deadlines.. meeting, the subcommittee will hear Suite 275, Washington, DC 20037, for For a period of thirty (30) days progress reports from its workgroups, the purpose of exchanging technical following the date of publication of this updates and announcements of general information on issues related to the use notice, you may submit written interest such as the status of the Tier 2 of ultraviolet (UV) radiation for comments relating to the proposed rulemaking, the Clean Air Act Advisory disinfection of drinking water. The consent decree if you were not named Committee, the National Research meeting will start at 8:30 a.m. on as a party to the litigation in question. Council’s study of the MOBILE model, Wednesday, April 28 and will adjourn EPA or the Department of Justice may and discuss other current issues in the on Thursday, April 29 at 4:00 p.m. The withhold or withdraw consent to the mobile source program, including a meeting will provide an evaluation of proposed consent decree if the presentation on environmental justice. the current status of knowledge and comments disclose facts or Members of the public requesting prioritize additional research needs circumstances that indicate that such further technical information should related to selected aspects of UV consent is inappropriate, improper, contact: disinfection of drinking water. The inadequate, or inconsistent with the Mr. Philip A. Lorang, Designated public is invited to attend the meeting requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or Federal Officer, Assessment and as observers. Seating is very limited so the Department of Justice determines, Modeling Division, U.S. EPA, 2000 advance registration is required. following the comment period, that Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI For additional information about the consent is inappropriate, the final 48105, Ph: 734/214–4374, Fax: 734/ meeting and to register, please contact Dan consent decree will establish deadlines 214–4821, email: [email protected] Schmelling of EPA’s Office of Ground Water for issuing certain regulations under or and Drinking Water at (202) 260–1439 or by section 112(d) of the Act. Mr. John T. White, Alternate Designated e-mail at [email protected]. EPA lodged a copy of the proposed Federal Officer, Assessment and Dated: March 23, 1999. consent decree with the Clerk of the Modeling Division, U.S. EPA, 2000 Cynthia C. Dougherty, United States District Court for the Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking District of Columbia on March 12, 1999. 48105, Ph: 734/214–4353, Fax: 734/ Water. You may also obtain a copy from Phyllis 214–4821, email: white. [FR Doc. 99–7776 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Cochran, Air and Radiation Division [email protected] BILLING CODE 6560±50±P

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.084 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 15158 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION By court order dated November 18, and habitat degradation; shoreline AGENCY 1998, the deadlines set forth in the erosion and stream bank widening; loss Consent Decree for the Iron and Steel of fish populations and loss of sensitive [FRL±6317±4] rule have been extended, to the dates aquatic species; increased frequency of noted below. The Agency has begun downstream flooding; and aesthetic Effluent Guidelines Plan Update and work on a new rulemaking project for degradation. Notice of Public Meeting the Construction and Development EPA intends to evaluate the inclusion industry. The affected projects are listed of design and maintenance criteria as AGENCY: Environmental Protection in the following table. minimum requirements for a variety of Agency (EPA). BMPs which are used at construction ACTION: Notice. MODIFICATIONS TO EFFLUENT sites to prevent or mitigate the impacts UIDELINES EADLINES of storm water discharges on surface SUMMARY: G D EPA announces several recent water quality. Current requirements for developments in the effluent guidelines Category Proposal Final action construction site BMPs vary around the program. The Agency is developing a United States, ranging from local proposed rule for the Construction and Iron and Steel erosion and sediment control programs Development industry and announces a Manufacturing 10/00 4/02 with detailed site plan requirements and public meeting to discuss the project. Construction and BMP specifications, to communities Development *12/00 *2/02 EPA also initiated a preliminary study with few or no requirements. of the Aquaculture industry. Finally, *EPA intends to pursue extensions to these EPA also intends to develop EPA announces a revised deadline for deadlines. effectiveness and applicability criteria the Iron and Steel Manufacturing rule. Construction and Development Rule for BMPs that are used to manage post- DATES: The public meeting for the construction discharges. By Construction and Development EPA’s new rulemaking project for the incorporating more water-quality rulemaking will be held on April 20, Construction and Development industry sensitive site design aspects during the 1999, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. follows the Agency’s publication of a planning phase of projects, the adverse Preliminary Data Summary on Urban ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place impacts of post-construction discharges Storm Water Best Management at the Voice of America Auditorium, can be minimized substantially. Practices. (Publication number pending. Wilbur J. Cohen Federal Building, 300 BMPs used during construction and The report will be available on the EPA block of C Street, SW (between 3rd and development activities include website at http://www.epa.gov/OST/ 4th Streets), Washington, DC. See temporary control measures, permanent stormwater). The regulations would control measures and low-impact land- SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for details apply to storm water discharges on parking and transit. Written inquiries use practices. Temporary control associated with construction activities, measures include sediment trapping may be sent to: Engineering and specifically for new development, as Analysis Division (4303), devices (such as silt fences, vegetated well as to those associated with re- filter strips and sediment basins) and Environmental Protection Agency, 401 development activities. The regulations M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. erosion control devices (such as would address storm water runoff from mulching, temporary re-vegetation, and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For construction sites during the active application of erosion control mats and the Construction and Development phase of construction, as well as design blankets). These measures are used rulemaking, contact Eric Strassler, considerations to minimize the adverse primarily to prevent loss of soil during telephone 202–260–7150, E-mail: effects of post-construction runoff. the active phase of construction. [email protected]. For the Entities potentially affected by this Permanent measures remain in place to Aquaculture preliminary study, contact rulemaking would include land manage runoff after completion of Michael Clipper, telephone 202–260– developers, home builders, builders of construction activities, and may include 1278, E-mail: [email protected]. For commercial and industrial property, and structural BMPs, such as extended the Iron and Steel rulemaking, contact other private and public sector detention wet ponds, constructed George Jett, telephone 202–260–7151, E- construction site owners and operators. wetland systems, and sand filters. Low- mail: [email protected]. Fact sheets on EPA chose to begin development of impact development practices can be these projects are available on EPA’s effluent guidelines for the construction incorporated into a site design during website at http://www.epa.gov/OST/ and development industry to support the planning phase of the project, and guide. applicable state and local requirements may include restrictions on the amounts SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA for erosion and sediment controls and of impervious surfaces created, published its 1998 Effluent Guidelines storm water best management practices preservation of stream buffers and Plan on September 4, 1998 (63 FR (BMPs). State and local requirements sensitive areas (such as natural wetlands 47285). The Plan described the Effluent vary widely, as does the performance of and riparian corridors), restrictions on Guidelines Program and listed BMPs used. Sediment loadings from the disturbance of soil and vegetation, regulations that the Agency was construction site discharges can be and maintenance of the natural developing or intended to develop. As orders of magnitude higher than those infiltrative capacity of an area. mentioned in the Plan, several of these associated with discharges from EPA intends to consider the merits regulation projects are required by a undisturbed areas. In addition, and performance of all appropriate Consent Decree in Natural Resources construction site runoff can contribute management measures that can be used Defense Council et al v. Browner (D.D.C. high loadings of nutrients and metals to to reduce the adverse impacts of storm 89–2980, January 31, 1992, as receiving streams. Besides contributing water discharges from construction and modified). Table 1 in the Plan listed pollutants, the increased runoff volumes development activities. The Agency deadlines for the rules, with a footnote and flow rates following development does not envision requirements for use explaining that EPA was discussing can cause significant degradation of of particular BMPs at specific sites, but extensions to some deadlines with the receiving stream quality. Adverse plans to assist builders in BMP selection plaintiffs. See 63 FR 47286. impacts include: stream bed scouring by publishing data on the performance

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.150 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15159 to be expected of various BMP types. St., SW; and 6th St. at C St., S.W. of the Sector Based Environmental EPA hopes to build on the successes of Agency staff will provide background Protection Action Plan for fiscal year some of the effective state and local on the effluent guidelines development 1999 and 2000. A formal Agenda will be programs currently in place around the process and identify data needs. EPA available at the meeting. country, and to establish nation-wide will answer questions and all The meeting will be held at the Hotel criteria to encourage improved BMP stakeholders can participate in an Washington located at 515–15th Street, selection, design, implementation and informal discussion as time allows. This NW, Washington, DC 20004 maintenance. The effluent guidelines meeting is not a public hearing and the (Pennsylvania Avenue and 15th Street). would also enhance the ‘‘menu’’ of Agency will not be accepting formal The telephone number is 202-638–5900. municipal BMPs (associated with the testimony. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NACEPT proposed construction, as well as EPA welcomes suggestions on the is a federal advisory committee under development and redevelopment development of effluent guidelines and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, ‘‘minimum measures’’) scheduled for preliminary studies. Internet web pages Pub. L. 92463. NACEPT provides advice release by the Agency under the NPDES will be provided to explain the projects and recommendations to the ‘‘Phase II’’ storm water rule in 2000. and distribute technical documents for Administrator and other EPA officials Aquaculture Preliminary Study review and comment. These web pages on a broad range of domestic and will be available through the Effluent international environmental policy EPA conducts preliminary studies to Guidelines home page at http:// issues. NACEPT consists of a evaluate existing information on www.epa.gov/OST/guide. representative cross-section of EPA’s wastewater discharges from industrial partners and principle constituents who categories. The Agency has begun a Dated: March 23, 1999. provide advice and recommendations study of Aquaculture, also known as Tudor T. Davies, on policy issues and serve as a sounding fish farming, in response to comments Director, Office of Science and Technology. board for new strategies that the Agency received during the preparation of the [FR Doc. 99–7772 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] is developing. 1998 Effluent Guidelines Plan. BILLING CODE 6560±50±P In follow-up to completion of work by EPA will summarize available EPA’s Common Sense Initiative (CSI) information on aquaculture wastewater characterization; waste collection, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Council, the Administrator has asked storage, and treatment systems; and AGENCY NACEPT to create a new Standing management practices. The Agency will Committee on Sectors. This will provide [FRL±6317±2] include information on industry a continuing Federal Advisory Committee forum from which the demographics, trends and economics. The National Advisory Council for EPA will also examine environmental Agency can continue to receive valuable Environmental Policy and Technology, multi-stakeholder advise and impacts that are associated with (NACEPT) New Standing Committee on wastewater from aquaculture operations recommendations on sector approaches. Sectors Based on the lessons learned in CSI and existing case studies of the costs and many other sector based programs, and benefits of controls to mitigate these AGENCY: Environmental Protection the Agency has developed a Sector impacts. This information may be used Agency (EPA). Based Environmental Protection Action to inform future decisions on the need ACTION: Notification of Public Advisory Plan to reinforce and expand sector to regulate wastewater discharges from for the NACEPT Standing Committee on based approaches to achieving this industry. Sectors Meeting; Open Meeting. environmental results. The Standing Stakeholder Involvement in Effluent SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Committee on Sectors will, through Guidelines Projects Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92– NACEPT (the Council): (1) Continue to EPA relies extensively on the 463, notice is hereby given that the support the on-going CSI work, (2) participation of stakeholders as it Standing Committee on Sectors will support the implementation of the develops effluent guidelines. The meet on the date and time described Action Plan, as noted above, and (3) Agency will be identifying its below. The meeting is open to the serve as a vehicle to get stakeholder information needs for the Construction public. Seating at the meeting will be a reaction and input on sector based and Development rule and the first-come basis and limited time will be issues in a timely way. Aquaculture study, and will initiate a provided for public comment. For For further information concerning data sharing process that will actively further information concerning this this NACEPT Standing Committee on involve interested participants from meeting, please contact the individual Sectors meeting, contact Kathleen industry, citizen groups, state and local listed with the announcement below. Bailey, Designated Federal Officer, on governments, other Federal agencies (202) 260–7417, or E-mail: NACEPT Standing Committee on and researchers. [email protected]. Sectors: April 15—April 16, 1999 EPA will conduct a public meeting on Inspection of Subcommittee Documents the Construction and Development Notice is hereby given that the rulemaking project on April 20, 1999, Environmental Protection Agency will Documents relating to the above from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, at the hold an open meeting of the NACEPT topics will be publicly available at the Voice of America Auditorium, Wilbur J. Standing Committee on Sectors on meeting. NACEPT Standing Committee Cohen Federal Building, 300 block of C Thursday, April 15, 1999 from 9:00 a.m. on Sectors Subcommittee information Street, SW (between 3rd and 4th EST to 5:30 p.m. EST on Friday, April can also be accessed electronically on Streets), Washington, DC. The closest 16, 1999 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. our web site at http.//www.epa.gov/ Metro subway station is Federal Center, EST. The agenda for the meeting sectors. SW (2 blocks from the Auditorium). includes an orientation to NACEPT, Kathleen Bailey, Limited public parking is available. review of the accomplishments of the Designated Federal Officer. Public garages are located at 301 4th St., Common Sense Initiative, discussion of [FR Doc. 99–7773 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] SW; Virginia Ave. between 3rd and 4th the Committee’s Charge, and discussion BILLING CODE 6560±50±P

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.151 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 15160 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION value of the additional requirements The draft document that presents, AGENCY established by the 1990-CAAA (CAAA– compiles and documents the results and 90); methodologies used for the first draft of [FRL±6317±3] (b) To facilitate greater understanding the Prospective Study: Report to Science Advisory Board; Notice of of where future investments in air Congress, including the Appendices to Public Meetings pollution control might yield the the draft, which are the subject of these greatest reduction in adverse human reviews will be available upon request Pursuant to the Federal Advisory health and/or environmental effects for from the originating EPA office (See Committee Act, Public Law 92–463, the resources expended; below for how to obtain copies from the notice is hereby given that two (c) To help evaluate the significance EPA Program Office). Subcommittees of the Advisory Council of potential new and emerging on Clean Air Compliance Analysis of information pertaining to the benefits 1. Health and Ecological Effects the Science Advisory Board (SAB) will and costs of air pollution control; Subcommittee (HEES) meet on the dates and times described (d) To help identify areas of economic The Health and Ecological Effects below. All times noted are Eastern Time and scientific research where additional Subcommittee (HEES) of the Advisory and all meetings are open to the public, effort might improve the Council on Clean Air Compliance however, seating is limited and comprehensiveness of and/or decrease Analysis will review the draft available on a first come basis. the uncertainty associated with future Prospective Study: Report to Congress, Documents that are the subject of SAB estimates of the benefits and costs of air with a focus on the health and reviews are normally available from the pollution control. ecological aspects of the Clean Air Act originating EPA Office and are not Pursuant to the above four goals, the Amendments (CAAA) Section 812 available from the SAB Office. Public Agency has embarked on and engaged Prospective Study data, emissions drafts of SAB reports are available to the the Council and its subcommittees in modeling assumptions, methodology, Agency and the public from the SAB review of the Prospective Study results and documentation of human Office. Details on availability are noted activities. These activities involve a health effects, ecological effects, and below. number of component studies, such as assessment of impact on stratospheric analytical design, scenario Background ozone. Specific review materials development, emissions profiles, air include: Draft Appendix D: Human The Air Quality Models quality modeling, physical effects Health Effects; Draft Appendix E: Subcommittee (AQMS) and the Health modeling, direct cost estimation, sector Ecological Effects; and Draft Appendix and Ecological Effects Subcommittee studies, air toxics analysis, economic G: Stratospheric Ozone Assessment. The (HEES) (both part of the Science valuation, comparison of benefits and HEES will meet on Tuesday, April 20, Advisory Board’s (SAB) Advisory costs, and report generation. Working 1999, from 9:30 am to 5:00 pm and Council on Clean Air Compliance drafts of relevant portions of these Wednesday, April 21, 1999 from 9:00 Analysis), will each hold public components, along with focused charges am to 4:00 pm. The meeting will take meetings on the dates and times have been presented to the Council and place in the Latham Hotel, 3000 M described below. For further its two subcommittees, the Air Quality Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20007; tel. information concerning the specific Models Subcommittee (AQMS) and the (202) 726–5000. meetings described in this section, Health and Ecological Effects The draft charge to the HEES is as please contact the individuals listed Subcommittee (HEES). For the most follows: below. These public meetings are a recent reviews, the Council, AQMS and It is respectfully requested that the follow-up to earlier Council, AQMS and HEES prepared the following Council—and its subsidiary HEES— HEES public meetings held on January Advisories: (a) Prospective Study I: review the forthcoming materials and 22 & 23, 1998 (AQMS), January 29 & 30, Advisory by the Air Quality Models provide advice to the Agency pursuant 1998 (HEES) and February 5 & 6, 1998 Subcommittee on the Air Quality to the following general charge (Council) (See 62 FR 67363, Wednesday, Models and Emissions Estimates Initial questions, consistent with the review December 24, 1997) pertaining to the Studies, EPA–SAB–COUNCIL–ADV– responsibilities of the Council as ongoing review of the 1990 Clean Air 98–02, September 9, 1998; (b) Advisory defined in section 812 of the CAAA90:1. Act Amendments (CAAA) Section 812 on the CAAA of 1990 Section 812 (a) Are the input data used for each Prospective Study of Costs and Benefits. Prospective Study: Overview of Air component of the analysis sufficiently (See also earlier meetings pertaining to Quality and Emissions Estimates valid and reliable for the intended the Prospective Study as announced in Modeling, Health and Ecological analytical purpose? 62 FR 10045, Wednesday, March 5, Valuation Issues Initial Studies, EPA– (b) Are the models, and the 1997; 62 FR 19320, April 21, 1997; and SAB–COUNCIL–ADV–98–003, methodologies they employ, used for 62 FR 32605, June 16, 1997). September 9, 1998; and (c) An SAB each component of the analysis Consistent with the apparent Advisory on the Health and Ecological sufficiently valid and reliable for the Congressional intent behind Section 812 Effects Initial Studies of the Section 812 intended analytical purpose? of the 1990 CAAA, and with the Prospective Study: Report to Congress, (c) If the answers to either of the two Environmental Protection Agency’s EPA–SAB–COUNCIL–ADV–99–005, questions above is negative, what (EPA’s) judgments regarding the February 10, 1999. (See below for how specific alternative assumptions, data or potential utility of a comprehensive to obtain copies of these reports from methodologies does the Council economic assessment of the Clean Air the SAB). recommend the Agency consider using Act, the four fundamental goals of the Upcoming meetings are described for the first prospective analysis? first Prospective Study to be submitted below. Other meetings, including a While the above charge defines the to Congress are stated succinctly as meeting of the full Council are in the general scope of the advice requested follows: planning stage and will take place this from the Council and the HEES, a (a) To facilitate greater understanding spring or summer. These meetings will number of specific questions are of the value of America’s overall be announced in a subsequent Federal presented below for which the Agency investment in clean air, particularly the Register Notice. is particularly interested in obtaining

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.132 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15161 advice from the Council and HEES. In threshold implies changes to the ecological evaluation approach, addition, further specific questions and functional form and slope of the C–R including the following: issues may be presented for function that is derived from the (1) Qualitative characterization of consideration to the Council and HEES underlying studies. interaction between air toxics and during the discussions scheduled to (f) Regarding assessment of the acidification in aquatic systems; take place on April 20–21, 1999. benefits of reductions in air toxics, EPA (2) Quantitative accounting for lag (d) In response to the emergence of requests guidance and clarification from times in the acidification analysis and new information and analysis EPA has the HEES as to how in-depth review of qualitative characterization in other recently re-evaluated the literature and high-risk HAPs can be used to generate parts of the analysis; developed a new approach to estimating estimates of avoided health impacts due (3) Quantitative consideration of reductions in mortality resulting from to reductions in HAP exposure, given nitrogen saturation of terrestrial decreased ozone concentrations. EPA the scarcity of HAP monitoring data and ecosystems; proposes to use a Monte-Carlo based HEES significant concerns about the (4) Use of the PnET II model in place meta-analysis of the literature relating reliability of HAP concentration of the deSteiguer study for estimating ozone concentrations and mortality, and estimates generated by the ASPEN the impacts of ozone exposure on requests comment on the following four model. commercial forest stands; (5) The criteria for selection of case issues: (g) In response to HEES study estuaries and the treatment of case (1) Soundness of Approach— recommendations, EPA is developing a study results in the analysis of the Reviewers should address the suitability qualitative characterization of regional of the study authors’ meta-analysis impacts of nitrogen deposition; variation in C–R functions. EPA (6) The rationale for considering the technique, and evaluate the method requests guidance on specific studies against other possible meta-analysis recreational fishing impacts of nitrogen that document the extent of regional deposition in a qualitative manner only. techniques. variation. (2) Study Selection Criteria— (h) EPA requests HEES review of the 2. Air Quality Models Subcommittee Reviewers should consider the proposed method to estimate changes in (AQMS) appropriateness and comprehensiveness health risks among Canadians and of the nine study selection criteria used The Air Quality Models Mexicans that would result from CAAA Subcommittee (AQMS) of the Advisory in the meta-analysis, and/or suggest controls. EPA requests HEES comments alternative or additional criteria where Council on Clean Air Compliance on the validity and defensibility of the Analysis will meet Tuesday, May 4, appropriate. In particular, EPA requests assumptions and methods proposed for comments on the use of European 1999, from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm and estimating these effects and on the Wednesday, May 5, 1999 from 9:00 am studies to characterize US suitability of the approach. concentration-response functions. to 4:00 pm. The meeting will take place (i) In response to HEES suggestions, (3) Treatment of Uncertainty— in the Science Advisory Board EPA plans to: incorporate the revised Reviewers should specifically address Conference Room M3709, U.S. Pope data; reduce PM-related neonatal any concerns or problems associated Environmental Protection Agency, 401 mortality to an illustrative calculation; with the authors’ treatment of M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. incorporate the most current research on uncertainty surrounding reported ozone In this meeting, the AQMS will CO-related health effects, chronic regression coefficients. review the draft Clean Air Act (4) Interpretation of Results—EPA bronchitis incidence, and ozone-related Amendments (CAAA) Section 812 seeks guidance on interpreting the meta- emergency room visits for asthma; Prospective Study: Report to Congress analysis results relative to the Pope PM develop a summary table of with a focus on the data, emissions study; i.e., the appropriateness of using uncertainties; and present non- modeling assumptions, methodology, these results to estimate the share of monetized health benefit results relative results and documentation. Specific mortality attributable to ozone exposure, to national incidence rates. EPA review materials include: Draft versus mortality incremental to the requests HEES review of these changes Appendix A: Scenario Development and results of the Pope study. in the review material submitted to Emissions Modeling; Draft Appendix C: (e) HEES encouraged EPA to evaluate ensure they adequately reflect concerns Air Quality Modeling; Memorandum a wide range of threshold assumptions expressed in previous HEES meetings. ‘‘Use of a Homology Mapping in the PM mortality analysis. In (j) EPA requests SAB review of our Technique to Estimate Ozone and response to HEES’ comments on this ecological assessment framework. In Particulate Matter; Concentrations for issue, EPA performed a sensitivity particular, EPA has incorporated in the Unmonitored Areas,’’ from Sharon G. analysis of thresholds below and above 812 report extensive discussion of: Douglas, Robert K. Iwamiya, and Hans the annual PM2.5 standard of 15 µg/m3. major stressors from air emissions P. Deuel, dated: 26 March 1999; Excerpt EPA requests guidance from the HEES subject to control under the CAAA and from Draft Human Health Effects on the following points: a broad range of possible impacts on Appendix D describing VNA method. In (1) Clarification of the HEES analytic ecosystem structure and function. EPA previous public meetings of the Council basis for rejecting use of the lowest also requests review of our clarification (See 61 FR 54196, Thursday, October observed effects level as estimated in of the selection process for identifying 17, 1996, and 62 FR 10045, Wednesday, the underlying health effects literature; those elements of ecological impacts March 5, 1997 for further information), (2) Clarification of the analytic basis that we find suitable for quantification the Council advised the Agency staff for any threshold greater than the 15 µg/ and monetization, based on the level of that the Subcommittee should review m3 level; understanding of the effect and the the emissions modeling information (3) Suggestions for an analytically ability to develop a defensible causal before proceeding to conduct any model defensible approach to developing link between changes in air pollution runs. The May 5, 1997 public concentration-response functions that emissions and specific ecological teleconference (See 62 FR 19320, correctly adjust for the threshold impacts. Monday, April 21, 1997) of the AQMS assumption. In particular, EPA requests (k) EPA requests review of other was conducted for this purpose and advice on whether introducing a modifications incorporated in the produced a letter report (EPA–SAB–

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.133 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 15162 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices

COUNCIL–LTR–97–012, dated applied based on decile midpoints 3. Air Quality Models Subcommittee: September 9, 1997, see below for generated by the relevant air quality (AQMS)—Teleconference ordering information). model. Do the Council and AQMS The Air Quality Models The charge to the AQMS is as follows: consider this methodological change to Subcommittee (AQMS) of the Council It is respectfully requested that the reflect an improvement in the validity will conduct a public teleconference on Council —and its subsidiary AQMS— and reliability of projected Thursday, June 3, 1999, from 11:00 am review the forthcoming materials and concentration changes relative to the to 1:00 pm, Eastern Time, to review provide advice to the Agency pursuant previous, single adjustment factor status of revisions to the draft to the following general charge approach? Prospective Study: Report to Congress, questions, consistent with the review as well as to conduct edits to its own responsibilities of the Council as (f) The Project Team has used an draft report in review of the prospective defined in section 812 of the CAAA90:1 alternative spatial interpolation method study at the previously scheduled (a) Are the input data used for each to estimate baseline air quality meeting on May 4 and 5, 1999 (see component of the analysis sufficiently concentrations in locations which do above). Please contact one of the SAB valid and reliable for the intended not have adequate local monitoring analytical purpose? Staff contacts listed below to see if these data. In the Retrospective Study, drafts are available to the public at that (b) Are the models, and the complete representation of initial air methodologies they employ, used for time. This Teleconference will be quality conditions in the 48 contiguous hosted out of the Science Advisory each component of the analysis states for each pollutant was obtained sufficiently valid and reliable for the Board Conference Room (Room M3709), by simple spatial interpolation to each intended analytical purpose? U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (c) If the answers to either of the two unmonitored or undermonitored Washington, DC 20460. questions above is negative, what location from the closest relevant, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: specific alternative assumptions, data or sufficiently operated monitor. Based on (a) Contacting Program Office Staff methodologies does the Council advice from the AQMS and Council and Obtaining Review Materials—To recommend the Agency consider using pursuant to the January–February 1998 obtain copies of the draft documents for the first prospective analysis? review meetings, the Project Team pertaining to the CAA Section 812 While the above charge defines the sought to develop an enhanced Prospective Study, please contact Ms. general scope of the advice requested methodology based on a ‘‘space-time Catrice Jefferson, Office Manager, Office from the Council and the AQMS, several continuum’’ concept described by the of Policy Analysis and Review (OPAR), specific questions are presented below AQMS. The ‘‘homology mapping (Mail Code 6103), U.S. Environmental for which the Agency is particularly technique’’ subsequently developed by Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, interested in obtaining advice from the the Project Team proved promising in Washington, DC 20460. Tel. (202) 260– Council and AQMS. In addition, further initial validation tests; however the 5580; FAX (202) 260–9766, or via e-mail > specific questions and issues may be Project Team concluded that additional at . 1998 review meetings? If not, are there Averaging (VNA)’’. The Project Team (b) Contacting SAB Staff and further adjustments which the Council requests advice from the Council and Obtaining Meeting Information—To and AQMS would recommend be made AQMS on the following two sub- obtain copies of the meeting agendas or in future assessments; and do residual questions: rosters of participants, please contact potential errors in the inventories (1) Do the Council and AQMS Ms. Diana L. Pozun, Management warrant—in the judgment of the Council consider the homology mapping Assistant to the Council, AQMS and and AQMS—inclusion in EPA’s technique a reasonable adaptation of the HEES, Science Advisory Board (1400), pending report specific caveats space-time continuum concept U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, regarding the magnitude and direction previously advanced? If so, what Washington, DC 20460; at Tel. (202) of potential biases which might be 260–8432; FAX (202) 260–7118; or via specific additional development, > introduced through reliance on these testing, and validation steps do the e-mail: ), and/or Retrospective Study to estimate approach to reflect an improvement in Dr. Angela Nugent (Tel. (202) 260–4126; concentration changes across the entire the validity and reliability of projected or via e-mail: range of initial ambient concentrations initial air quality concentration ), Designated for a given pollutant, ten separate estimates relative to the previous, single Federal Officers to the Council, AQMS adjustment factors were calculated and monitor spatial interpolation method? and HEES, Science Advisory Board

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.134 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15163

(1400), U.S. Environmental Protection business days prior to the meeting so SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agency, Washington, DC 20460, FAX that appropriate arrangements can be OMB Control Number: 3060–0020. (202) 260–7118. To obtain information made. Title: Application for Ground Station Authorization in the Aviation Services. concerning the teleconference and how Dated: March 24, 1999. Form Number: FCC Form 406. to participate in the SAB Conference Donald G. Barnes, Room or to call in, please contact Ms. Type of Review: Revision of a Staff Director, Science Advisory Board. Pozun. currently approved collection. (c) Providing Public Comments to the [FR Doc. 99–7771 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Respondents: Individuals or SAB—To request time to provide brief BILLING CODE 6560±50±U households, business or other for-profit, public comments at the meetings, please not-for-profit institutions, state, local or contact Ms. Diana L. Pozun in writing by tribal government. mail, FAX or E-Mail at the addresses FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Number of Respondents: 1,600. given above no later than one week COMMISSION Estimated Time Per Response: 1 hour. Frequency of Response: On occasion prior to each of the meetings. Please be Notice of Public Information reporting requirement. sure to specify which meeting(s) you Total Annual Burden: 1,600 hours. wish to attend and provide comments, Collection(s) Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval Total Annual Cost: $126,880. a summary of the issue you intend to Needs and Uses: FCC rules require present, your name and address (incl. March 22, 1999. that applicants file the FCC Form 406 to phone, fax and e-mail) and the SUMMARY: The Federal Communications apply for a new, modification, renewal organization (if any) you will represent. Commission, as part of its continuing with modification or for an assignment Written comments should be submitted effort to reduce paperwork burden of authorization for a Ground station. to Dr. Kooyoomjian at the above address invites the general public and other FCC Form 406 also allows for a purpose prior to the meeting date. Federal agencies to take this of renewal for those licenses who did (d) Obtaining Copies of SAB opportunity to comment on the not receive the FCC’s computer- Reports—Copies of SAB prepared final following information collection(s), as generated renewal application (FCC reports mentioned in this Federal required by the Paperwork Reduction Form 452R). This collection has been Register Notice may be obtained Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. An revised to delete the fee payment blocks immediately from the SAB Home Page agency may not conduct or sponsor a (i.e., Fee Type Code, FCC Multiple, and (www.epa.gov/sab)or by mail/fax from collection of information unless it Fee Due). The FCC Form 159, Fee the SAB’s Committee Evaluation and displays a currently valid control Remittance Advice, is required with any Support Staff at Tel. (202) 260–4126, or number. No person shall be subject to payment to the FCC and the FCC Form FAX (202) 260–1889. Please provide the any penalty for failing to comply with 159 duplicates this information. A block SAB report number when making your a collection of information subject to the has been added to the form for the request. Draft reports in progress can be Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that applicant’s e-mail address. obtained from Ms. Pozun once the does not display a valid control number. The information will be used by the Committee or Subcommittee Chair has Comments are requested concerning (a) Commission to determine whether the released the draft. whether the proposed collection of applicant is qualified to be licensed. Providing Oral or Written Comments at information is necessary for the proper Without such information the SAB Meetings performance of the functions of the Commission could not determine Commission, including whether the whether to issue the licenses to the The Science Advisory Board (SAB) information shall have practical utility; applicants and therefore fulfill its expects that public statements presented (b) the accuracy of the Commission’s statutory responsibilities in accordance at its meetings will not be repetitive of burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance with the Communications Act of 1934, previously submitted oral or written the quality, utility, and clarity of the as amended. It will also be used to statements. In general, opportunities for information collected; and (d) ways to update the database and provide for oral comment at face-to-face meetings minimize the burden of the collection of proper use of the frequency spectrum, as will be usually limited to ten minutes information on the respondents, well as for Compliance personnel in per speaker. At teleconference meetings, including the use of automated conjunction with field engineers for speakers will be usually limited to three collection techniques or other forms of enforcement and interference resolution minutes per speaker and no more than information technology. purposes. fifteen minutes total. Written comments DATES: (at least 35 copies) received in the SAB Written comments should be Federal Communications Commission. Staff Office sufficiently prior to a submitted on or before April 29, 1999. Magalie Roman Salas, meeting date (usually one week prior to If you anticipate that you will be Secretary. a meeting), may be mailed to the submitting comments, but find it [FR Doc. 99–7765 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] difficult to do so within the period of committees or its respective BILLING CODE 6712±01±P subcommittees prior to its meeting; time allowed by this notice, you should comments received too close to the advise the contact listed below as soon meeting date will normally be provided as possible. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS to the Council and its subcommittees at ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to Judy COMMISSION the meeting. Written comments may be Boley, Federal Communications Federal Advisory Committee; Notice of provided up until the time of the Commission, Room 1–C804, 445 12th Public Meeting meeting. Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554 or via the Internet to [email protected]. AGENCY: Meeting Access Federal Communications FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Commission. Individuals requiring special additional information or copies of the ACTION: Notice of public meeting. accommodation at this meeting, information collection(s), contact Judy including wheelchair access, should Boley at 202–418–0214 or via the SUMMARY: In accordance with the contact the appropriate DFO at least five Internet at [email protected]. Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.136 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 15164 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices

Law 92–463, as amended, this notice Federal Communications Commission. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines. Ltd. advises interested persons of a meeting Magalie Roman Salas, A.P. Moller-Maersk Line of the Network Reliability and Secretary. Nippon Yusen Kaisha Interoperability Council (‘‘Council’’), [FR Doc. 99–7797 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Orient Overseas Container Line, Inc. P&O Nedlloyd B.V. which will be held at the Federal BILLING CODE 6712±01±P Communications Commission in P&O Nedlloyd Limited Washington, DC. Sea-Land Service, Inc. Wilhelmsen Lines AS DATES: April 14, 1999 at 1:30 p.m.–3:30 FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Synopsis: The proposed agreement p.m. modification reduces the notice Notice of Agreement(s) Filed period for independent action from ADDRESSES: Federal Communications ten calendar days to five calendar Commission, Commission Meeting The Commission hereby gives notice days, revises the conference’s service Room, Room TW–C305, 445 12th St. of the filing of the following contract provisions to allow for joint SW, Washington, DC 20554. agreement(s) under the Shipping Act of 1984. and individual contracting, and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Interested parties can review or obtain permits the parties to establish Marsha MacBride, Executive Director of copies of agreements at the Washington, voluntary guidelines regarding to the FCC Year 2000 Task Force and DC offices of the Commission, 800 their joint and individual service Designated Federal Officer of the North Capitol Street, NW., Room 962. contracts. Council, 445 12th St. SW, Washington, Interested parties may submit comments Agreement No.: 217–011658 DC 20554; telephone (202) 418–2379, e- on an agreement to the Secretary, Title: Delmas/Wilhelmsen Slot Charter mail [email protected]. Federal Maritime Commission, Agreement Press Contact, Audrey Spivak, Office Washington, DC 20573, within 10 days Parties: of Public Affairs, 202–418–0512, of the date this notice appears in the Delmas America Africa Line [email protected]. Federal Register. Wilhelmsen Lines AS Agreement No.: 203–011421–014 Synopsis: The proposed Agreement SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Title: East Coast of South America authorizes the parties to charter or Council was established by the Federal Discussion Agreement make space and slots available to and Communications Commission to bring Parties: from each other in the trade between together leaders of the The Inter-American Freight ports on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts telecommunications industry and Conference and its member lines: of the United States, and inland and telecommunications experts from Crowley American Transport, Inc. coastal points served via those ports academic, consumer and other Ivaran Lines Limited d/b/a as Ivaran on the one hand, and ports in Africa organizations to explore and Lines with the range between, and recommend measures that would Libra Navegacao S.A. including Senegal and the Congo, and enhance network reliability. One of the Alianca Transportes Maritimos SA inland and coastal points served via current issues before the Council is the Columbus Line those ports on the other hand. The risk that the Year 2000 date conversion Mexican Line Limited parties have requested expedited problem presents for the APL Co. Pte Ltd. review. telecommunications networks. P&O Nedlloyd B.V. Dated: March 24, 1999. The agenda for the meeting is as Pan American Independent Line By order of the Federal Maritime follows: The Council will review Digregoria de Navegacao Commission. Zim Israel Navigation Co. Ltd. progress reports of Focus Groups 1 and Bryant L. VanBrakle, DSR-Senator Line 2 which will give refined Secretary. recommendations on and results from A.P. Moller-Maersk Line [FR Doc. 99–7671 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] testing of the Year 2000 date conversion CSAV/Braztrans Joint Service problem and the telecommunications Sea-Land Service, Inc. BILLING CODE 6730±01±M networks. Focus Group 3 will provide a Euroatlantic Container Line S.A. Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.A. status report. Finally, NRSC will FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION provide its quarterly report. Amazon Line Ltd. Synopsis: The proposed modification Notice of Agreement(s) Filed Information concerning the activities would authorize two or more of the of NRIC can be reviewed at the parties, effective May 1, 1999, to The Commission hereby gives notice Council’s website . jointly enter into service contracts and of the filing of the following Material relevant to the April 14, 1999 to establish voluntary service contract agreement(s) under the Shipping Act of meeting will be posted there. guidelines. The modification also 1984. Members of the general public may authorizes the parties to charter space Interested parties can review or obtain attend the meeting. The Federal to and from members of the Inter- copies of agreements at the Washington, Communications Commission will American Freight Conference on an DC offices of the Commission, 800 attempt to accommodate as many ad hoc basis and to discuss the North Capitol Street, NW., Room 962. people as possible. However, rationalization of vessels and other Interested parties may submit comments admittance will be limited to the seating matters. on an agreement to the Secretary, available. A live RealAudio feed will be Agreement No.: 202–011528–009 Federal Maritime Commission, available over the Internet; information Title: Japan/United States Eastbound Washington, DC 20573, within 10 days on how to tune in can be found at the Freight Conference of the date this notice appears in the Commission’s website . Parties: Federal Register. The public may submit written American President Lines, Ltd. Agreement No.: 232–011401–004 comments to the Council’s designated Hapag-Lloyd Container Line GmbH Title: MLL/H–L/Lykes Space Charter Federal Officer before the meeting. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd. and Sailing Agreement

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.040 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15165

Parties: FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM writing on the standards enumerated in Mexican Lines Limited the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the Change in Bank Control Notices; Hapag-Lloyd Container Linie GmbH proposal also involves the acquisition of Acquisitions of Shares of Banks or a nonbanking company, the review also Lykes Lines Limited Bank Holding Companies includes whether the acquisition of the Synopsis: The proposed modification nonbanking company complies with the The notificants listed below have would add Lykes Lines as a party and standards in section 4 of the BHC Act. applied under the Change in Bank change the name of Transportacion Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § Maritima Mexicana S.A. de C.V. to activities will be conducted throughout 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 Mexican Lines Limited. It also restates the United States. the agreement and specifies both the CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank Unless otherwise noted, comments number of vessels to be contributed holding company. The factors that are regarding each of these applications by each party and the total amount of considered in acting on the notices are must be received at the Reserve Bank space to be exchanged. set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 indicated or the offices of the Board of U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). Agreement No.: 301–201072 Governors not later than April 23, 1999. The notices are available for A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas Title: New Orleans—Americana Ships immediate inspection at the Federal Group Crane Lease Agreement City (D. Michael Manies, Assistant Vice Reserve Bank indicated. The notices President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas Parties: also will be available for inspection at City, Missouri 64198-0001: Board of Commissioners of the Port of the offices of the Board of Governors. 1. BOK Financial Corporation, and New Orleans Interested persons may express their BOKF Merger Corporation Number Americans Ships and its affiliates views in writing to the Reserve Bank Nine, both of Tulsa Oklahoma; to indicated for that notice or to the offices Synopsis: The proposed agreement acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of the Board of Governors. Comments provides for the rental of a crane and of Chapparal Bancshares, Inc., must be received not later than April 13, runs through December 31, 1999 Richardson, Texas; Chapparal 1999. Bancshares of Delaware, Dover, Dated: March 25, 1999. A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas By Order of the Federal Maritime Delaware; Van Alstyne Financial City (D. Michael Manies, Assistant Vice Corporation, Van Alstyne, Texas; and Commission. President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas Bryant L. VanBrakle, thereby indirectly acquire Canyon Creek City, Missouri 64198-0001: National Bank, Richardson, Texas; and Secretary. 1. Thomas J. Pinnick, Ulysses, Kansas; First National Bank, Van Alstyne, Texas. [FR Doc. 99–7703 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] to acquire Resource One, Inc., Ulysses, In connection with this proposal, BILLING CODE 6730±01±M Kansas, and thereby indirectly acquire BOKF Merger Corporation has applied Grant County Bank, Ulysses, Kansas. to become a bank holding company. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 24, 1999. System, March 24, 1999. Ocean Freight Forwarder License Robert deV. Frierson, Robert deV. Frierson, Applicants Associate Secretary of the Board. Associate Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. 99–7743 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 99–7744 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Notice is hereby given that the BILLING CODE 6210±01±F BILLING CODE 6210±01±F following applicants have filed with the Federal Maritime Commission applications for licenses as ocean freight FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM forwarders pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app. Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Notice of Proposals to Engage in 1718 and 46 CFR part 510). Mergers of Bank Holding Companies Permissible Nonbanking Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Persons knowing of any reason why The companies listed in this notice Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking any of the following applicants should have applied to the Board for approval, Activities not receive a license are requested to pursuant to the Bank Holding Company contact the Office of Freight Forwarders, Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) The companies listed in this notice Federal Maritime Commission, (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part have given notice under section 4 of the Washington, DC 20573. 225), and all other applicable statutes Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. International Cargo Transporters, Inc., and regulations to become a bank 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 2550 NW. 72nd Ave., Suite #109, holding company and/or to acquire the CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to Miami, FL 33122, Officers: Elizabeth assets or the ownership of, control of, or acquire or control voting securities or Armenteros, President, Lourdes the power to vote shares of a bank or assets of a company, including the Castano, Vice President. bank holding company and all of the companies listed below, that engages Golden Gate Shipping, Inc. d/b/a/ The banks and nonbanking companies either directly or through a subsidiary or Love Box, 405 N. Oak Street, owned by the bank holding company, other company, in a nonbanking activity Inglewood, CA 90302, Officers: including the companies listed below. that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Wenceslao Villaluz, President, Isabel The applications listed below, as well Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has Villaluz, Vice President. as other related filings required by the determined by Order to be closely Board, are available for immediate related to banking and permissible for Dated: March 24, 1999. inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank bank holding companies. Unless Bryant L. VanBrakle, indicated. The application also will be otherwise noted, these activities will be Secretary. available for inspection at the offices of conducted throughout the United States. [FR Doc. 99–7670 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] the Board of Governors. Interested Each notice is available for inspection BILLING CODE 6730±01±M persons may express their views in at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.041 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 15166 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices

The notice also will be available for Dated: March 26, 1999. Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania inspection at the offices of the Board of Robert deV. Frierson, Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580 Governors. Interested persons may Associate Secretary of the Board. Two paper copies of each comment express their views in writing on the [FR Doc. 99–7921 Filed 3–26–99; 3:59 pm] should be filed, and should be 1 question whether the proposal complies BILLING CODE 6210±01±P accompanied, if possible, by a 3 ⁄2 inch with the standards of section 4 of the diskette containing an electronic copy of BHC Act. the comment. Such comments or views will be considered by the Commission Unless otherwise noted, comments FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION regarding the applications must be and will be available for inspection and received at the Reserve Bank indicated [File No. 9910089] copying at its principal office in or the offices of the Board of Governors accordance with § 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the not later than April 23, 1999. Zeneca Group PLC.; Analysis to Aid Commission’s rules of practice (16 CFR A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Public Comment 4.9(b)(6)(ii). (Randall C. Sumner, Vice President) 411 AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63102- ACTION: Aid Public Comment 2034: Proposed consent agreement. The Federal Trade Commission 1. NBC Capital Corporation, SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this (‘‘Commission’’) has accepted, subject to Starkville, Mississippi; to acquire FFBS matter settles alleged violations of final approval, an agreement containing Bancorp, Inc., Columbus, Mississippi, federal law prohibiting unfair or a proposed Consent Order from and First Federal Bank of Savings, deceptive acts or practices or unfair Respondent Zeneca Group PLC Columbus, Mississippi, and thereby methods of competition. The attached (‘‘Zeneca’’), which is designed to engage in the operation of a savings Analysis to Aid Public Comment remedy the anticompetitive effects association, pursuant to § describes both the allegations in the resulting from the merger of Zeneca and 225.28(b)(4)(ii) of Regulation Y. draft complaint that accompanies the Astra AB (‘‘Astra’’). Under the terms of Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve consent agreement and the terms of the the agreement, Respondent will be System, March 24, 1999. consent order—embodied in the consent required, among other things, to transfer Robert deV. Frierson, agreement—that would settle these and surrender all of Zeneca’s rights and Associate Secretary of the Board. allegations. assets relating to levobupivacaine, a [FR Doc. 99–7742 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] DATES: Comments must be received on long-acting local anesthetic, to BILLING CODE 6210±01±F or before June 1, 1999. Chiroscience Group plc ADDRESSES: Comments should be (‘‘Chiroscience’’), the developer of directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, levobupivacaine. BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, The proposed Consent Order has been FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM NW, Washington, DC 20580. placed on the public record for sixty (60) days for reception of comments by Sunshine Meeting Notice FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: interested persons. Comments received Steven Berstein or David Inglefield, during this period will become part of TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., Monday, April FTC/S–2308, 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, the public record. After sixty (60) days, 5, 1999. NW, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326– the Commission will again review the PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal 2423 or (202) 326–2637. proposed Consent Order and the Reserve Board Building, 20th and C SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant comments received, and will decide Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551. to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade whether it should withdraw from the STATUS: Closed. Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. proposed Consent Order or make final 46, and § 2.34 of the Commission’s rules MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: the proposed Order. of practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is 1. Personnel actions (appointments, Pursuant to a December 9, 1998, hereby given that the above-captioned promotions, assignments, Merger Agreement and Plan of Merger, consent agreement containing a consent reassignments, and salary actions) Zeneca agreed to acquire 100 percent of order to cease and desist, having been involving individual Federal Reserve all issued shares of Astra stock for filed with and accepted, subject to final System employees. approximately $30.5 billion. Upon approval, by the Commission, has been completion of the merger, Zeneca will 2. Any items carried forward from a placed on the public record for a period be renamed AstraZeneca. The proposed previously announced meeting. of sixty (60) days. The following Complaint alleges that the merger, if CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Analysis to Aid Public Comment consummated, would violate section 7 Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the Board, describes the terms of the consent of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 (202) 452–3204. agreement, and the allegations in the U.S.C. 18, and section 5 of the Federal SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may complaint. An electronic copy of the Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 call (202) 452–3206 beginning at full text of the consent agreement U.S.C. 45, in the U.S. market for long- approximately 5 p.m. two business days package can be obtained from the FTC acting local anesthetics. before the meeting for a recorded Home Page (for March 25, 1999), on the Long-acting local anesthetics are announcement of bank and bank World Wide Web, at ‘‘http:// pharmaceutical products used to relieve holding company applications www.ftc.gov/os/actions97.htm.’’ A pain during the course of surgical or scheduled for the meeting; or you may paper copy can be obtained from the other medical procedures by blocking contact the Board’s Web site at http:// FTC Public Reference Room, Room H– pain impulses from reaching the central www.federalreserve.gov for an 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, nervous system. Long-acting local electronic announcement that not only Washington, DC 20580, either in person anesthetics have an effective duration of lists applications, but also indicates or by calling (202) 326–3627. up to six to seven hours, and allow procedural and other information about Public comment is invited. Comments patients to remain awake and conscious the meeting. should be directed to: FTC/Office of the throughout the medical procedure.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.140 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15167

The U.S. market for long-acting local entered into between Chiroscience and The purpose of this analysis is to anesthetics is highly concentrated, with Zeneca that is defined in the Agreement facilitate public comment on the a pre-acquisition HHI of 6,682. Astra is Containing Consent Order as the proposed Order, and it is not intended the leading supplier of long-acting local ‘‘Chiroscience/Zeneca Agreement.’’ The to constitute an official interpretation of anesthetics in the United States and assets to be transferred to Chiroscience the agreement and proposed Order or to worldwide, and is one of only two consist principally of intellectual modify in any way their terms. companies (along with Abbott property and know-how and include, By direction of the Commission. Laboratories) with Food and Drug among other things, all of the applicable Donald S. Clark, Administration (’’FDA’’) approval for patents, trademarks, copyrights, Secretary. the manufacture and sale of long-acting technical information and market [FR Doc. 99–7752 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] local anesthetics in the United States. research relating to lovobupivacaine. In While Zeneca does not currently sell addition, the Consent Order requires BILLING CODE 6750±01±M long-acting local anesthetics, it had Zeneca to comply with the other entered into an agreement with provisions of the Chiroscience/Zeneca Chiroscience to market and assist in the Agreement. That agreement establishes, GENERAL SERVICES development of levobupivacaine among other things, a trasitional period ADMINISTRATION (known commercially as Chirocaine), a during which Zeneca is required to new long-acting local anesthetic being Federal Supply Service; Revisions to continue carrying our certain ongoing the General Services Administration's developed by Chiroscience. Thus, activities relating to the through this agreement with (GSA's) Centralized Household Goods commercialization of levobupivacaine, Traffic Management Program (CHAMP) Chiroscience, Zeneca is an actual including manufacturing, regulatory, potential competitor in the U.S. market clinical, development and marketing AGENCY: Federal Supply Service, GSA. for long-acting local anesthetics. activities. The Chiroscience/Zeneca ACTION: Notice of proposed program The impending introduction of Agreement also contains provisions that changes for comment. levobupivacaine in 1999 was expected will protect the confidentiality of any to result in increased competition in the informaiton provided by Chiroscience to SUMMARY: This notice invites comments U.S. market for long-acting local Zeneca in the past, or during the on GSA’s revised plan to increase the anesthetics, leading to lower prices and transitional period. CHAMP shipment surcharge from $45 to potential improvements in product In addition, the Consent Order $145 instead of $105 as proposed in our safety. The proposed merger of Zeneca requires Zeneca to divest its January 20, 1999, Federal Register and Astra would eliminate this approximately 3% investment interest notice published for comment (64 FR significant source of new competition in Chiroscience within four (4) months 3131). Further evaluation of the and leave the long-acting local of the expiration of the Agreement program’s funding status has clearly anesthetic market highly concentrated Amending Share Subscription demonstrated that this action is for the foreseeable future. necessary to increase CHAMP funding It is unlikely that this lost competition Agreement, as defined in the proposed Consent Order. Pending divestiture of to a level that will enable GSA to defray would have been replaced by new the program’s expenses. This notice competitors due to the substantial this investment interest, the Order prohibits Zeneca from, directly or supersedes the January 20, 1999 Federal barriers to entry that exist in the U.S. Register notice. market for long-acting local anesthetics. indirectly: (i) Exercising dominion or control over, or otherwise seeking to DATES: Please submit your comments by A new entrant into this market would April 29, 1999. need to undertake the difficult, influence, the management, direction or ADDRESSES: Mail comments to the expensive and time-consuming process supervision of the business of Transportation Management Division of researching and developing a new Chiroscience; (ii) seeking or obtaining (FBF), General Services Administration, product, obtaining FDA approval and representation on the Board of Directors Washington, DC 20406, Attn: Federal gaining customer acceptance. Because of of Chiroscience; (iii) exercising any the difficulty of accomplishing these voting rights attached to the investment Register Surcharge Increase Notice. GSA tasks, new entry into this market, other interest; (iv) seeking or obtaining access will consider your comments prior to than Zeneca’s and Chiroscience’s to any confidential or proprietary implementing the proposed increase. imminent introduction of informaiton of Chiroscience; or (v) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: levobupivacaine, would not be timely, taking any action or failing to take any Larry Tucker, Senior Program Expert, likely or sufficient to deter or counteract action in a manner that would be Transportation Management Division, the anticompetitive effects resulting incompatible with the status of Zeneca FSS/GSA, 703–305–5745. from the merger. as a passive investor in Chiroscience. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: GSA’s The proposed Consent Order The proposed Consent Order also CHAMP receives no Congressional effectively remedies the merger’s requires Zeneca to provide the funding and must depend on a anticompetitive effects in the U.S. Commission a report of compliance shipment surcharge, currently $45, to market for long-acting local anesthetics with the Order within thirty (30) days defray its costs. The shipment surcharge by requiring Zeneca to transfer and following the date the Order becomes has been in effect since 1996 and no surrender all of its rights and assets final and every ninety (90) days longer fully funds program expenses. relating to levobupivacaine to thereafter until its has complied with GSA published a notice for comment in Chiroscience, the developer of the terms of the Order. Finally, the the Federal Register on January 20, levobupivacaine, no later than ten (10) Order allows the Commission to appoint 1999 (64 FR 3131) announcing its plan business days after the date the an Interim Trustee to facilitate an to increase the shipment surcharge from Commission accepts the Consent orderly transfer of the levobupivacaine $45 to $105, and to revise the Agreement for public comment. Under assets and to ensure that Zeneca carries Household Goods Tender of Service the terms of the Consent Order, Zeneca out its obligations under the Consent ‘‘shipment definition’’ for the purpose is required to transfer and surrender Agreement and the Chiroscience/Zeneca of assessing the surcharge on each these assets pursuant to an agreement Agreement. component of a shipment (i.e.,

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.096 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 15168 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices households, privately owned vehicle DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SUMMARY: This notice announces those (POV), and unaccompanied baggage) to HUMAN SERVICES sites for which ATSDR has completed allow us to recoup program costs. public health assessments during the Agency for Toxic Substances and Agency/industry comments GSA period October 1998 through December Disease Registry received on the proposed changes and 1998. This list includes sites that are on our own programmatic concerns suggest [Program Announcement 99059] or proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL), and it is time for GSA to change the way Childhood Asthma and Hazardous includes sites for which assessments CHAMP industrial funding fees are Substances Applied Research and were prepared in response to requests collected. We plan to work with our Development Amendment from the public. Federal agency and industry partners to develop and implement an alternative A notice announcing the availability FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: funding strategy by November 1, 1999. of fiscal year 1999 funds for the Robert C. Williams, P.E., DEE, Director, In the interim it is necessary for us to Childhood Asthma and Hazardous Division of Health Assessment and increase the shipment surcharge. Our Substances Applied Research and Consultation, Agency for Toxic ongoing analysis of the program’s Development Program was published in Substances and Disease Registry, 1600 financial status clearly indicates that the Federal Register on March 19, 1999, Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E–32, $105 would not adequately cover (Vol. 64 FR No. 53). The notice is Atlanta, Georgia 30333, telephone (404) program expenses even with cost amended as follows: 639–0610. On page 13585, third column, after cutting measures we have identified and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The most item G.4.d. add: are proceeding to implement. Indeed, recent list of completed public health our in-depth analysis indicates we must e. The extent to which the applicant has met the CDC Policy requirements assessments was published in the increase the surcharge to $145 to regarding the inclusion of women, Federal Register on January 28, 1999, adequately cover our expenses of ethnic, and racial groups in the (64 FR 4422). This announcement is the maintaining this valuable program. proposed research. This includes: responsibility of ATSDR under the We do, however, withdraw the i. The proposed plan for the inclusion regulation, Public Health Assessments January 20th proposal to add the of both sexes and racial and ethnic and Health Effects Studies of Hazardous surcharge to POV and unaccompanied minority populations for appropriate Substances Releases and Facilities (42 baggage shipments. Moreover, instead of representation. CFR Part 90). This rule sets forth a line-haul transportation rate increase ii. The proposed justification when ATSDR’s procedures for the conduct of to cover the $145 surcharge, GBL issuers representation is limited or absent. public health assessments under section are to include the surcharge as a iii. A statement as to whether the 104(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, separate line item on the GBL. Carriers design of the study is adequate to Compensation, and Liability Act then will bill Federal agencies for the measure differences when warranted. (CERCLA), as amended by the surcharge as a separate line item on the iv. A statement as to whether the Superfund Amendments and SF–1113. plans for recruitment and outreach for study participants include the process Reauthorization Act (SARA) (42 U.S.C. GSA is committed to providing a of establishing partnerships with 9604(i)). program that meets the needs of Federal community (ies) and recognition of Availability agencies. The funding increase will be mutual benefits. used to pay for personnel who directly Under item G.6. change 9 per cent to The completed public health support the program and activities 10 percent; delete item G.7. Minority assessments and addenda are available associated with the development of Populations; and change the number for for public inspection at the Division of program enhancements. Moreover, we item 8. to 7. Health Assessment and Consultation, are looking forward to working with our Dated: March 24, 1999. Agency for Toxic Substances and customer agency counterparts and Georgi Jones, Disease Registry, Building 33, Executive industry partners to devise by Director, Office of Policy and External Affairs, Park Drive, Atlanta, Georgia (not a November 1, 1999, a satisfactory Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease mailing address), between 8 a.m. and approach to handling future funding for Registry. 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday this important program. [FR Doc. 99–7706 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] except legal holidays. The completed Dated: March 25, 1999. BILLING CODE 4163±70±P public health assessments are also available by mail through the U.S. Barbara Vogt, Department of Commerce, National Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Office of DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Technical Information Service (NTIS), Transportation and Property Management. HUMAN SERVICES 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, [FR Doc. 99–7826 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Virginia 22161, or by telephone at (703) BILLING CODE 6820±24±P Agency for Toxic Substances and 605–6000. NTIS charges for copies of Disease Registry public health assessments and addenda. [ATSDR±145] The NTIS order numbers are listed in parentheses following the site names. Public Health Assessments Completed Public Health Assesssments Completed AGENCY: Agency for Toxic Substances or Issued and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Department of Health and Human Between October 1, 1998, and Services (HHS). December 31, 1999, public health assessments were issued for the sites ACTION: Notice. listed below:

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.125 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15169

NPL Sites Virginia Repayment Program’’ Type of Information Collection Request: California USAF Langley Air Force Base and NASA Research Center—Hampton— Revision of a currently approved George Air Force Base—Victorville— (PB99–105587) collection. Form Number: None. Need (PB99–120982) and Use of Information Collection: The West Virginia Hawaii IHS Loan Repayment Program (LRP) Hanlin-Allied-Olin—Moundsville— identifies health professionals with pre- Naval Computer and (PB99–118747) existing financial obligations for Telecommunication Area (a/k/a Non NPL Petitioned Sites education expenses that meet program NCTAMS EASTPAC Wahiawa— criteria and who are qualified and Wahiawa and NRTF Laulaulei— Alaska willing to serve at, often remote, IHS Laulaulei—(PB99–123093) Alaska Pulp Corporation—Sitka— health care facilities. Under the Illinois (PB99–106734) program, eligible health professionals Janneson Wright Corporation—Granite Georgia sign a contract under which the IHS City—(PB99–115412) agrees to repay part or all of their Old Douglas Landfill (a/k/a Douglas indebtedness for professional training Kaney Transportation—Rockford— County/Cedar Mountain Landfill)— education. In exchange, the health (PB99–118754) Douglasville—(PB99–119208) professionals agree to serve for a Lanson Chemical—East St. Louis— Dated: March 23, 1999. (PB99–110967) specified period of time in IHS health Georgi Jones, care facilities. Eligible health Missouri Director, Office of Policy and External Affairs, professionals must submit an Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease application to participate in the Armour Road Site—North Kansas City— Registry. (PB99–110934) program. The application requests [FR Doc. 99–7692 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] personal, demographic and educational New Jersey BILLING CODE 4163±70±P training information, including Grand Street Site—Hoboken—(PB99– information on the educational loans of 117152) DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND the individual for which repayment is being requested (i.e., date, amount, New York HUMAN SERVICES account number, purpose of each loan, GCL Tie and Treating—Sidney—(PB99– Indian Health Service interest rate, the current balance, etc.). 113938) The data collected is needed and used Rowe Industries Groundwater Request for Public Comment: 60-Day to evaluate applicant eligibility; rank Contamination—Sag Harbor—(PB99– Proposed Collection: Indian Health and prioritize applicants by speciality; Service, Scholarship and Loan 119521) assign applicants to IHS health care Repayment Program Pennsylvania facilities; determine payment amounts SUMMARY: In compliance with Section and schedules for paying the lending Salford Quarry—Lower Salford 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork institutions; and to provide data and Township—(PB99–120990) Reduction Act of 1995, to provide a 60- statistics for program management Texas day advance opportunity for public review and analysis. Affected Public: comment on proposed information Individuals and households. Type of Odessa Super Site (a/k/a Sprague Road collection projects, the Indian Health Respondents: Individuals. Table 1 Ground Water Plume)—Ector— Service (IHS) is publishing for comment below provides the following: types of (PB99–123085) a summary of proposed information data collection instruments, estimated Puerto Rico collection to be submitted to the Office number of respondents, number of of Management and Budget (OMB) for responses per respondent, annual V&M/Albaldejo Farms Site—Vega review. Baja—(PB99–123325) number of responses, average burden Vega Baja Solid Waste Disposal—Rio Proposed Collections hour per response, and total annual Abajo Ward/La Trocha—(PB99– Title: 09–17–0014, ‘‘Indian Health burden hour. 118903) Service, Scholarship and Loan

TABLE 1.ÐESTIMATED BURDEN HOURS

Estimated Responses Average burden Data collection instrument number of re- per respond- hour per re- Total annual spondents ent sponse * burden hrs

Section I ...... 350 1 0.25 (15 mins). Section II ...... 350 1 0.50 (30 mins). Section III ...... 350 4 0.25 (15 mins). Contract ...... 350 1 0.334 (20 mins). Affidavit ...... 350 1 0.167 (10 mins). Lender Certificate ...... 1400 1 0.25 (15 mins). * For ease of understanding, burden hours are also provided in actual minutes.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.043 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 15170 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices

There are no Capital Costs, Operating announced Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 subcontractor may make eligible an Costs and/or Maintenance Costs to funding of approximately $248.2 applicant that does not meet the 90 report. million to provide tenant-based rental percent leasing rate threshold, Request for Comments: Your written assistance that will help eligible paragraph IV.(E)(1)(b) is removed, and comments and/or suggestions are families make the transition from paragraph IV.(E)(1)(c) is redesignated as invited on one or more of the following welfare to work. This notice makes paragraph IV.(E)(1)(b). points: (a) Whether the information technical corrections to that NOFA to Accordingly, FR Doc. 99–1985, the FY collection activity is necessary to carry remove an inconsistent requirement and 1999 Welfare-to-Work (WTW) Section 8 out the treatment outcome evaluation; clarify the eligibility of applicants for Tenant-Based Assistance Program (b) whether the agency processes the funding. NOFA, published in the Federal information collected in a useful and DATES: The original April 28, 1999 Register on January 28, 1999 (64 FR timely fashion; (c) the accuracy of application deadline date and time is 4496) is amended on page 4498, in public burden estimate (the estimated not changed. Please see the January 28, column 2, by revising the introductory amount of time needed for individual 1998 NOFA for specific details. text and paragraph IV.(E)(1)(a), respondents to provide the requested FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For removing paragraph IV.(E)(1)(b), information); (d) whether the answers to your questions, you may redesignating paragraph IV.(E)(1)(c) as methodology and assumptions used to contact the Public and Indian Housing paragraph IV.(E)(1)(b) and revising determine the estimate are logical; (e) Information and Resource Center at 1– redesignated paragraph IV.(E)(1)(b), to ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 800–955–2232, or contact the Director of read as follows: clarity of the information being Public Housing, the Program Center (E) Program Compliance and collected; and (f) ways to minimize the Coordinator or the Office of Native Designation of Subcontractor. public burden through the use of American Program Administrator in Immediately after the publication of this automated, electronic, mechanical, or your local HUD Office. Hearing-or NOFA, the local HUD field office will other technological collection speech-impaired individuals may call notify, in writing, those HAs that are not techniques or other forms of information HUD’s TTY number (202) 708–0770 or eligible to apply without a subcontractor technology. 1–800–877–8339 (the Federal acceptable to HUD and a statement that SEND COMMENTS AND REQUESTS FOR Information Relay Service TTY). (Other outlines the steps being taken to resolve FURTHER INFORMATION: Send your written than the ‘‘800’’ number, these numbers the compliance problems, as explained comments, requests for more are not toll-free.) Information can also in this section. information on the proposed collection be accessed via the Internet through the (1) * * * or requests to obtain a copy of the data HUD web site at http://www.hud.gov. (a) Unaddressed material weaknesses collection instrument(s) and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Notice or reportable conditions outstanding instructions to: Mr. Lance Hodahkwen, of Funding Availability (NOFA) that from Inspector General audit findings, Sr., M.P.H., IHS Reports Clearance announced HUD’s Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 or HUD management review findings for Officer, 12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Welfare-to-Work (WTW) Section 8 one or more of your Section 8 rental Suite 450, Rockville, MD 20852–1601, Tenant-Based Assistance Program voucher, rental certificate or moderate call non-toll free (301) 443–5938, send funding of approximately $248.2 rehabilitation programs; or via fax to (301) 443–21316, or send your million was published on January 28, (b) Significant unaddressed findings e-mail requests, comments, and return 1999 (64 FR 4496). This notice clarifies in program compliance reviews. address to: [email protected]. the program compliance and * * * * * COMMENT DUE DATE: Your comments subcontractor designation requirements Dated: March 23, 1999. regarding this information collection are in section IV of that FY 1999 WTW Harold Lucas, best assured of having their full effect if NOFA. The introductory text of section Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian received on or before June 1, 1999. IV.(E) is made consistent with paragraph Housing. Dated: March 18, 1999. IV.(E)(2)(b) by requiring a statement that [FR Doc. 99–7702 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] outlines steps to resolve compliance Michael H. Trujillo, BILLING CODE 4210±33±P instead of a proposal for management Assistant Surgeon General Director. improvements. The term ‘‘unaddressed’’ [FR Doc. 99–7782 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] is added to modify the conditions listed DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BILLING CODE 4160±16±M in paragraphs IV.(E)(1)(a) and redesignated IV.(E)(1)(b), as explained Bureau of Land Management below, that trigger the compliance [AK±963±1410±00±P and AA±6670±A] DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND requirements. URBAN DEVELOPMENT Finally, the provision in paragraph ALASKA; Alaska Native Claims IV.(E)(1)(b), which appears to be Selection [Docket No. FR±4448±N±02] inconsistent with the threshold Notice of Funding Availability for the requirement at paragraph V.(B)(6, is In accordance with Departmental Welfare-to-Work Section 8 Tenant- removed. Paragraph IV.(E)(1)(b) would regulation 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is Based Assistance Program for Fiscal trigger the compliance requirements if hereby given that a decision to issue Year 1999; Technical Correction the applicant demonstrated ‘‘[s]erious conveyance under the provisions of Sec. underutilization evidenced by fewer 14(a) of the Alaska Native Claims AGENCY: Office of Public and Indian than 85 percent of budgeted rental Settlement Act of December 18, 1971, 43 Housing, HUD. certificates or vouchers under lease’’. U.S.C. 1601, 1613(a), will be issued to ACTION: Notice of Funding Availability The threshold requirement at paragraph Iliamna Natives Limited, for (NOFA); technical correction. V.(B)(6) would require an applicant to approximately 40 acres. The lands demonstrate a 90 percent leasing rate to involved are in the vicinity of Iliamna, SUMMARY: On January 28, 1999, at 64 FR be eligible for funding. To avoid any Alaska, within lot 7 of U.S. Survey No. 4496, HUD published a NOFA that confusion that the designation of a 2466, Alaska, and more particularly

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.141 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15171 within the S of Sec. 11 and southerly of or 270 days from the date of publication may be carried over to the agenda of the Iliamna-Nondalton Road and northerly of this notice, whichever occurs first. following meeting. of the Iliamna Spur Road, T. 5 S., R. 33 This land is being offered by direct Issued: March 24, 1999. W., Seward Meridian, Alaska. sale to Navajo County. If a By order of the Commission. A notice of the decision will be determination is reached that the Donna R. Koehnke, published once a week, for four (4) subject parcel contains no known Secretary. consecutive weeks, in the Bristol Bay mineral values, the mineral interests [FR Doc. 99–7868 Filed 3–26–99; 2:27 pm] Times. Copies of the decision may be may be conveyed simultaneously. obtained by contacting the Alaska State Acceptance of the direct sale offer will BILLING CODE 7020±02±P Office of the Bureau of Land qualify the purchaser to make Management, 222 West Seventh application for conveyance of those # INTERNATIONAL TRADE Avenue, 13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513– mineral interests. COMMISSION 7599 ((907) 271–5960). The patent, when issued, will contain Any party claiming a property interest certain reservations to the United States. Sunshine Act Meeting which is adversely affected by the Detailed information concerning these decision, an agency of the Federal reservations as well as specific AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United government or regional corporation, conditions of the sale are available for States International Trade Commission. shall have until April 29, 1999 to file an review at the Safford Field Office, TIME AND DATE: April 12, 1999 at 2:00 appeal. However, parties receiving Bureau of Land Management, 711 14th p.m. service by certified mail shall have 30 Avenue, Safford, Arizona 85546. PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street S.W., days from the date of receipt to file an For a period of 45 days from the date Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: appeal. Appeals must be filed in the of publication of this notice in the (202) 205–2000. Bureau of Land Management at the Federal Register, interested parties may STATUS: Open to the public. address identified above, where the submit comments to the Field Office requirements for filing an appeal may be Manager, Safford Field Office, at the MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: obtained. Parties who do not file an above address. In the absence of timely 1. Agenda for future meeting: none. appeal in accordance with the objections, this proposal shall become 2. Minutes. requirements of 43 CFR Part 4, Subpart the final determination of the 3. Ratification List. E, shall be deemed to have waived their Department of the Interior. 4. Inv. Nos. 731-TA–823–824 rights. (Preliminary)(Certain Aperture Masks Dated: March 15, 1999. from Japan and Korea)—briefing and Terrie D. Evarts, William T. Civish, vote. Land Law Examiner, Branch of State and Field Office Manager, 5. Outstanding action jackets: Project Adjudication. [FR Doc 99–7766 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] (1.) Document No. INV–99–045: [FR Doc. 99–7704 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310±32±M Approval of institution of five-year BILLING CODE 4310±$$±P reviews on Potassium Chloride, Certain Bearings, Internal Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks, and Nitrile DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Rubber. Bureau of Land Management In accordance with Commission Sunshine Act Meeting policy, subject matter listed above, not [AZ±040±09±1430±00] disposed of at the scheduled meeting, AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United may be carried over to the agenda of the Notice of Realty Action; States International Trade Commission. following meeting. Noncompetitive Sale of Public Lands, TIME AND DATE: April 7, 1999 at 2:00 Navajo County, AZ [AZA 30873] Issued: March 24, 1999. p.m. By order of the Commission. AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street S.W., Donna R. Koehnke, DOI. Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: Secretary. ACTION: Notice. (202) 205–2000. [FR Doc. 99–7869 Filed 3–26–99; 2:27 pm] STATUS: Open to the public. BILLING CODE 7020±02±P SUMMARY: The following lands in Navajo MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: County, Arizona have been found 1. Agenda for future meeting: none. suitable for direct sale under Section 2. Minutes. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 203 of the Federal Land Policy and 3. Ratification List. Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 4. Inv. No. 731–TA–101 Employment and Training 1713), at not less than the appraised fair (Review)(Greige Polyester Cotton Administration market value. The land will not be Printcloth from China)—briefing and offered for sale until at least 60 days vote. [TA±W±34,803 and NAFTA±2574] after the date of this notice. 5. Outstanding action jackets: United Technologies Automotive, Bay Gila and Salt River Meridian, Arizona (1.) Document No. INV–99–045: City, Michigan; Notice of Negative Approval of institution of five-year Determination Regarding Application T. 17 N., R. 21 E., reviews on Potassium Chloride, Certain Sec. 18, lots 1–4 incl., E1⁄2, E1⁄2W1⁄2. for Reconsideration Bearings, Internal Combustion Containing 638.360 acres, more or less. Industrial Forklift Trucks, and Nitrile By application dated January 5, 1999, The land described is hereby Rubber. petitioners requested administrative segregated from appropriation under the In accordance with Commission reconsideration of the Department’s public land laws, including the mining policy, subject matter listed above, not negative determination regarding laws, pending disposition of this action disposed of at the scheduled meeting, eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.100 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 15172 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices

Assistance (TAA) and NAFTA- back to the United States.’’ Shipping requirement of Section 222(3) of the Transitional Adjustment Assistance information was attached to the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not (NAFTA–TAA), applicable to workers application. The documents support met. and former workers of the subject firm. evidence of shipments being made from On reconsideration, the Department The denial notices applicable to workers Bay City to Mexico and other foreign conducted further survey analysis of the countries, and thus must be considered of the subject firm located in Bay City, major customer of Mitchell Michigan, were signed on September 15, exports. The Department did however, Manufacturing Group. The survey 1998. The TAA and NAFTA–TAA request that the subject firm provided revealed that a former major customer decisions were published in the Federal additional information regarding the changed manufacturers and the current Register on October 9, 1998 (63 FR petitioners assertion that (1) machinery 54495) and September 28, 1998 (63 FR was transferred from Bay City to manufacturer of seat covers is 51606), respectively. Mexico, and (2) product is being manufacturing those items in Mexico Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) imported from Mexico. Review of the and importing the finished product into reconsideration may be granted under information provided by the subject the U.S. the following circumstances: firm revealed that some presses and Conclusion (1) If it appears on the basis of facts related equipment were sent to Mexico, not previously considered that the but the amount accounted for an After careful review of the additional determination complained of was insignificant portion of total Bay City facts obtained on reconsideration, I erroneous; assets. The company official once again conclude that increased imports of (2) If it appears that the determination confirmed that all of the Bay City articles like or directly competitive with complained of was based on a mistake automotive interior trim production was seat covers, contributed importantly to in the determination of facts not shifted to other domestic plants of the declines in sales or production and previously considered; or United Technologies, and that none of to the total or partial separation of (3) If in the opinion of the Certifying the production in Mexico is returned to workers of Mitchell Manufacturing Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of the United States. Group, a Lamont Group Company, the law justified reconsideration of the Clare, Michigan. In accordance with the decision. Conclusion The TAA petition, filed on behalf of provisions of the Act, I make the After review of the application and following certification: workers of United Technologies investigative findings, I conclude that Automotive, Bay City, Michigan, there has been no error or All workers of Mitchell Manufacturing producing automotive interior trim was misinterpretation of the law or of the Group, a Lamont Group Company, Clare, denied because the ‘‘contributed facts which would justify Michigan who became totally or partially importantly’’ group eligibility reconsideration of the Department of separated from employment on or after requirement of Section 222(3) of the Labor’s prior decisions. Accordingly, October 2, 1997 are eligible to apply for Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not the application is denied. adjustment assistance under Section 223 of met. The ‘‘contributed importantly’’ test the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, D.C. this 12th day is generally demonstrated through a of March 1999. Signed in Washington, D.C. this 9th day of survey of the workers’ firm’s customers. March 1999. Grant D. Beale, The investigation revealed that none of Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Grant D. Beale, the subject firm customers reported Assistance. Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment increased import purchases of articles [FR Doc. 99–7730 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Assistance. like or directly competitive with those [FR Doc. 99–7720 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] produced at United Technologies BILLING CODE 4510±30±M Automotive’s Bay City plant. BILLING CODE 4510±30±M The NAFTA–TAA petition for the DEPARTMENT OF LABOR same worker group was denied because DEPARTMENT OF LABOR criteria (3) and (4) of the group Employment and Training eligibility requirements in paragraph Administration Employment and Training (a)(1) of Section 250 of the Trade Act, Administration as amended, were not met. There was [TA±W±35,102 and NAFTA±02669] no shift of production from the subject Mitchell Manufacturing Group, a [TA±W±35,394] firm to Canada or Mexico, nor did the Lamont Group Company, Clare, MI; company import automotive interior Notice of Revised Determination on Ainge Enterprises, Inc., Spanish Fork, trim from Canada or Mexico. The Reconsideration Utah; Notice of Termination of subject firm is transferring production of Investigation automotive interior trim to other On March 2, 1999, the Department domestic plants of United Technologies. issued an Affirmative Determination Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade The Department conducted a survey of Regarding Application on Act of 1974, an investigation was major customers of the subject firm Reconsideration applicable to workers initiated on December 21, 1998 in regarding purchases of automotive and former workers of the subject firm. response to a worker petition which was interior trim. The survey revealed that The notice will soon be published in the filed on behalf of workers at the Ainge the customers were not purchasing from Federal Register. Canada or Mexico automotive interior The Department initially denied TAA Enterprises, Inc., Spanish Fork, Utah. trim like or directly competitive with to workers of Mitchell Manufacturing An active certification covering the that produced in Bay City. Group, a Lamont Group Company, petitioning group of workers is already In support of their application for Clare, Michigan, producing automotive in effect (TA–W–34,034). Consequently, reconsideration, the petitioners assert interior covers including soft trim (seat further investigation in this case would that ‘‘tools and parts have been sent to covers) because the ‘‘contributed serve no purpose, and the investigation Mexico and these parts are then sent importantly’’ group eligibility has been terminated.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.016 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15173

Signed in Washington, D.C. this 18th day the Acting Director of the Office of Adjustment Assistance, at the address of March, 1999. Trade Adjustment Assistance, shown below, not later than April 9, Grant D. Beale, Employment and Training 1999. Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Administration, has instituted Interested person are invited to Assistance. investigations pursuant to Section 221 submit written comments regarding the [FR Doc. 99–7728 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] (a) of the Act. subject matter of the investigations to BILLING CODE 4510±30±M The purpose of each of the the Acting Director, Office of Trade investigations is to determine whether Adjustment Assistance, at the address the workers are eligible to apply for shown below, not later than April 9, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR adjustment assistance under Title II, 1999. Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations The petitions filed in this case are Employment and Training will further relate, as appropriate, to the available for inspection at the Office of Administration determination of the date on which total the Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment Investigations Regarding Certifications or partial separations began or and Training Administration, U.S. of Eligibility To Apply for Worker threatened to begin and the subdivision Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Adjustment Assistance of the firm involved. The petitioners or any other persons Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. Petitions have been filed with the showing a substantial interest in the Signed at Washington, D.C. this 22nd day Secretary of Labor under Section 221 (a) subject matter of the investigations may of February, 1999. of the Trade Act of 1974 (‘‘the Act’’) and request a public hearing, provided such Grant D. Beale, are identified in the Appendix to this request is filed in writing with the Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, Acing Director, Office of Trade Assistance.

APPENDIX [Petitions Instituted on 2/22/1999]

Date of TA±W Subject firm (petitioners) Location petition Product(s)

35,664 ...... ASM America, Inc (Comp) ...... Phoenix, AZ ...... 02/12/1999 Capitol Equipment. 35,665 ...... Triple A Trouser (UNITE) ...... Scranton, PA ...... 01/22/1999 Men's Dress and Casual Trousers. 35,666 ...... Mayflower Mfg. Co (UNITE) ...... Old Forge, PA ...... 01/22/1999 Men's Dress and Casual Trousers. 35,667 ...... Federal Mogul Friction (USWA) ...... New Castle, IN ...... 02/08/1999 Heavy Duty Brake. 35,668 ...... Pinson Mining Co. (Comp) ...... Winnemucca, NV ...... 02/04/1999 Gold and Silver Mining. 35,669 ...... Pathway Bellows, Inc (IBB) ...... Oak Ridge, TN ...... 02/06/1999 Expansion Joints. 35,670 ...... SGL Carbon Corp (ICWU) ...... Morgantown, NC ...... 02/08/1999 Graphite Electrodes and Products. 35,671 ...... Snap-On-Tools Co (Wrks) ...... Ottawa, IL ...... 02/08/1999 Wire-HarnessesÐDiagnostic Equipment. 35,672 ...... Allvac Latrobe Plant (USWA) ...... Latrobe, PA ...... 02/08/1999 Specialty SteelsÐStainless. 35,673 ...... Clayton Williams Energy (Wrks) ...... Midland, TX ...... 02/08/1999 Exploration & Prod. of Oil and Gas. 35,674 ...... Custom Engineering Co (Comp) ...... Erie, PA ...... 02/08/1999 Fabrication of Oil Pans for Locomotives. 35,675 ...... Connor Corp (PMMS) ...... Indianapolis, IN ...... 02/04/1999 Battery Parts. 35,676 ...... Texas Boot (Comp) ...... Smithville, TN ...... 02/05/1999 Western Boots. 35,677 ...... Schuylkill Haven Bleach (Comp) ...... Schuy'll Haven, PA ..... 01/09/1999 Bleaching, Dyeing & Finishing Garments. 35,678 ...... TerraTherm Environmental (Comp) ...... Houston, TX ...... 02/01/1999 Provide Administrative Function Services. 35,679 ...... Tektronix CNA (Comp) ...... Bend, OR ...... 01/22/1999 Metallic & Optical Fault Locators. 35,680 ...... Homestead Industries, Inc (UNITE) ...... Claremont, NH ...... 02/01/1999 Wool for Ladies' Outerwear. 35,681 ...... Apex Machine Shop, Inc (Wrks) ...... Williston, ND ...... 02/03/1999 Downhole Drilling Tools. 35,682 ...... Newport Steel Corp (Wrks) ...... Williston, ND ...... 02/03/1999 Downhole Drilling Tools. 35,683 ...... Franklin Dyed Yarns Co (Comp) ...... Greenville, SC ...... 02/06/1999 Dyes Yarn. 35,684 ...... Quaker State Corp (Comp) ...... Irving, TX ...... 02/03/1999 Motor Oil. 35,685 ...... Worcester Co (The) (Comp) ...... New York, NY ...... 02/04/1999 Menswear SuitingÐWorsted Wool 35,686 ...... A. C. Railroad Service Co (Comp) ...... McKees Rocks, PA ..... 01/29/1999 Steel. 35,687 ...... Ensign Oil and Gas, Inc (Wrks) ...... Denver, CO ...... 01/25/1999 Crude Oil, Natural Gas. 35,688 ...... Tactyl Technologies, Inc (Comp) ...... Vista, CA ...... 02/03/1999 Non-Latex Gloves. 35,689 ...... AMP, Inc. (Wrks) ...... Seven Valleys, PA ...... 02/01/1999 RF Coaxial Electrical Connectors. 35,690 ...... Kleinert's, Inc of Ala. (Comp) ...... Elba, AL ...... 02/01/1999 Children's Sportswear. 35,691 ...... Star Tool (Wrks) ...... Hobbs, NM ...... 01/22/1999 Exploration and Drilling Oil, Gas. 35,691A ...... Star Tool (Wrks) ...... Odessa, TX ...... 01/22/1999 Exploration and Drilling Oil, Gas. 35,691B ...... Star Tool (Wrks) ...... Brownfield, TX ...... 01/22/1999 Exploration and Drilling Oil, Gas. 35,692 ...... Rock-Tenn Co. Converting (Wrks) ...... Otsego, MI ...... 01/29/1999 Converted Paperboard Products. 35,693 ...... Columbia Forest Products (Wrks) ...... New Freedom, PA ...... 02/01/1999 Oak, Cherry and Hickory Veneer Panels. 35,694 ...... Inland Paperboard & Pack (Wrks) ...... Orange, TX ...... 02/03/1999 Brown, Mottled or White Paper for Boxes. 35,695 ...... Fellowes Manufacturing (Comp) ...... Boone, NC ...... 01/28/1999 Wood Racks for CD, Video, Cassettes. 35,696 ...... FWA-JSM Drilling Co (Wrks) ...... Midland, TX ...... 01/29/1999 Drilling Crude Oil, Natural Gas. 35,697 ...... Wood Group Pressure (Comp) ...... Houston, TX ...... 01/26/1999 Gas & Oilfield Equipment & Supplies. 35,698 ...... Marquip, Inc (Wrks) ...... Phillips, WI ...... 02/02/1999 Cardboard Making Machines. 35,699 ...... Patterson Energy, Inc (Comp) ...... Snyder, TX ...... 02/03/1999 Oilfield Drilling Services. 35,700 ...... Warnaco, Inc. (UNITE) ...... New York, NY ...... 01/28/1999 Gowns. 35,701 ...... Ansell Edmont (UNITE) ...... Haynesville, LA ...... 01/26/1999 Industrial Gloves. 35,702 ...... HAPCO Screenprinting Inc (Comp) ...... Emmans, PA ...... 02/02/1999 Screenprints Garments. 35,703 ...... General Electric Ind. Sys (Wrks) ...... Jonesboro, AR ...... 02/03/1999 Appliance Fan Motors. 35,704 ...... Johnson and Johnson (Comp) ...... Arlington, TX ...... 02/09/1999 Latex Surgical Gloves.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 17:18 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 30MRN1 15174 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices

[FR Doc. 99–7718 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DEPARTMENT OF LABOR BILLING CODE 4510±30±M Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration Administration DEPARTMENT OF LABOR [TA±W±34, 955, et al.] [TA±W±35,657]

Employment and Training Caza Drilling, Inc., North Dakota Caza Drilling, Inc., Denver, Colorado; Administration Operations; Amended Certification Notice of Termination of Investigation Regarding Eligibility to Apply for [TA±W±35,586] Worker Adjustment Assistance Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was Buckeye, Incorporated, Midland, TX; In accordance with Section 223 of the initiated on February 16, 1999 in Dismissal of Application for Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the response to a worker petition which was Reconsideration Department of Labor issued a filed on behalf of workers at the Caza Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Drilling, Inc., Denver, Colorado. Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an Worker Adjustment Assistance on An active certification covering the application for administrative September 21, 1998, applicable to petitioning group of workers is already reconsideration was filed with the workers of Caza Drilling, Inc., North in effect (TA–W–34,955). Consequently, Acting Director of the Office of Trade Dakota Operations headquartered in further investigation in this case would Adjustment Assistance for workers at Williston, North Dakota. The notice was serve no purpose, and the investigation Buckeye, Incorporated, Midland, Texas. published in the Federal Register on has been terminated. The review indicated that the October 9, 1998 (63 FR 54495). application contained no new Signed in Washington, D.C. this 18th day At the request of company, the of March, 1999. substantial information which would Department reviewed the certification Grant D. Beale, bear importantly on the Department’s for workers of the subject firm. New determination. Therefore, dismissal of findings revealed that the subject firm is Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment the application was issued. Assistance, Office of Trade Adjustment headquartered in Denver, Colorado Assistance. (TA–W–34,955). New findings also TA–W–35,586; Buckeye, Incorporated, [FR Doc. 99–7731 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Midland, Texas (March 16, 1999) show that worker separations have BILLING CODE 4510±30±M Signed at Washington, D.C. this 16th day occurred at Caza Drilling, operating at of March, 1999. various locations in Colorado (excluding Grant D. Beale, Denver), Utah, Wyoming, South Dakota, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Washington, and Nevada. The workers Assistance. are engaged in providing oil field Employment and Training [FR Doc. 99–7713 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] services on a contractual basis for crude Administration BILLING CODE 4510±30±M oil producers. The intent of the Department’s [TA±W±35,034] certification is to include all workers of Geneva Steel, Vineyard, Utah; DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Caza Drilling, Inc. adversely affected by Amended Certification Regarding increased import. Accordingly, the Eligibility to Apply for Worker Employment and Training Department is amending the Adjustment Assistance Administration certification to cover workers of Caza Drilling, Inc. operating at various In accordance with Section 223 of the [TA±W±35,620] locations in Colorado (excluding Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Denver), Utah, Wyoming, South Dakota, Department of Labor issued a Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Washington and Nevada. Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Incorporated McMinnville, OR; Notice The amended notice applicable to Worker Adjustment Assistance on of Termination of Investigation TA–W–34,955 is hereby issued as October 23, 1998, applicable to all follows: workers of Geneva Steel located in Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Vineyard, Utah. The notice was Act of 1974, an investigation was All workers of Caza Drilling, Inc., North published in the Federal Register on initiated on February 8, 1999 in Dakota Operations, headquartered in Denver, Colorado (TA–W–34,955) and operating at November 10, 1998 (63 FR 63087). response to a worker petition which was various locations in the State of Colorado At the request of the petitioners, the filed on February 8, 1999 on behalf of (excluding Denver) (TA–W–34,955B), Utah Department reviewed the certification workers at Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, (TA–W–34,955C), Wyoming (TA–W– for workers of the subject firm. New Incorporated, located in McMinnville, 34,955D), South Dakota (TA–W–34,955E), information shows that employees of Oregon. Washington (TA–W–34,955F) and Nevada (TA–W–34,955G) who became totally or Ainge Enterprises, Inc., Spanish Fork, The petitioner has requested that the Utah were employed by Geneva Steel to petition be withdrawn. Consequently, partially separated from employment on or after August 26, 1997 through September 21, prepare (cut) scrap steel for the blast further investigation in this case would 2000, are eligible to apply for worker furnaces used in the production of hot serve no purpose, and the investigation adjustment assistance under Section 223 of rolled steel products (plates, sheets, has been terminated. the Trade Act of 1974. coils and pipes) at the Vineyard, Utah Signed in Washington, D.C. this 8th day of Signed at Washington, D.C. this 18th day facility. Worker separations occurred at March, 1999. of March, 1999. Ainge Enterprises, Inc. as a result of Grant D. Beale, Grant D. Beale, workers separations at Geneva Steel. Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Based on these findings, the Assistance. Assistance. Department is amending the [FR Doc. 99–7710 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 99–7726 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] certification to include workers of Ainge BILLING CODE 4510±30±M BILLING CODE 4510±30±M Enterprises, Inc., Spanish Fork, Utah

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.054 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15175 employed by Geneva Steel, Vineyard, certification to include workers of DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Utah. Heckett Multiserv, Vineyard, Utah The intent of the Department’s employed at Geneva Steel, Vineyard, Employment and Training certification is to include all workers of Utah. Administration Geneva Steel adversely affected by The intent of the Department’s [TA±W±35,662] imports. The amended notice applicable to certification is to include all workers of Geneva Steel adversely affected by Kellwood Company, Spencer, WV; TA–W–35,034 is hereby issued as Notice of Termination of Investigation follows: imports. All workers of Geneva Steel, Vineyard, The amended notice applicable to Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Utah and workers of Ainge Enterprises, Inc., TA–W–35,034 is hereby issued as Act of 1974, an investigation was Spanish Fork, Utah engaged in employment follows: initiated on February 16, 1999 in related to preparing (cutting) scrap steel for response to a petition filed by AFL–CIO, the blast furnaces used in the production of All workers of Geneva Steel and workers Union of Needletrades, Industrial and hot rolled steel products at Geneva Steel, of Heckett Multiserv, a Division of Harsco Textile Employees (UNITE), Mid- Vineland, Utah who became totally or Corporation, Vineyard, Utah engaged in Atlantic Regional Joint Board, Local partially separated from employment on or employment related to processing slag 2363, on January 26, 1999 on behalf of after September 18, 1997 through October 23, products and providing scrap and metal workers at Kellwood Company, 2000 are eligible to apply for adjustment reclamation from the blast furnaces for the Spencer, West Virginia. assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act production of hot rolled steel products at The petitioner has requested that the of 1974. Geneva Steel, Vineyard, Utah who became petition be withdrawn. Consequently, Signed at Washington, DC this 8th day of totally or partially separated from further investigation in this case would March, 1999. employment on or after September 18, 1997 serve no purpose, and the investigation Grant D. Beale, through October 23, 2000 are eligible to Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment apply for adjustment assistance under has been terminated. Assistance. Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed in Washington, D.C. this 8th day of [FR Doc. 99–7727 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Signed at Washington, DC this 9th day of March, 1999. BILLING CODE 4510±30±M March 1999. Grant D. Beale, Grant D. Beale, Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance. Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment DEPARTMENT OF LABOR [FR Doc. 99–7715 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Assistance. BILLING CODE 4510±30±M Employment and Training [FR Doc. 99–7729 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Administration BILLING CODE 4510±30±M [TA±W±35,034] DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Geneva Steel, Including Workers of DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Heckett Multiserv, a Division of Harsco Administration Corporation, Vineyard, UT; Amended Employment and Training Certification Regarding Eligibility to Administration Investigations Regarding Certifications Apply for Worker Adjustment of Eligibility To Apply for Worker Assistance [TA±W±35,763] Adjustment Assistance Petitions have been filed with the In accordance with Section 223 of the Heckett Multiserv, a Division of Harsco Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Corporation Vineyard, UT; Notice of Department of Labor issued a of the Trade Act of 1974 (‘‘the Act’’) and Termination of Investigation Certification of Eligibility to Apply for are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, Worker Adjustment Assistance on Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade October 23, 1998, applicable to all the Acting Director of the Office of Act of 1974, an investigation was workers of Geneva Steel located in Trade Adjustment Assistance, initiated on March 8, 1999 in response Vineyard, Utah. The notice was Employment and Training published in the Federal Register on to a worker petition which was filed on Administration, has instituted November 10, 1998 (63 FR 63087). March 8, 1999 on behalf of workers at investigations pursuant to Section 221 At the request of the petitioners, the Heckett Multiserv, a division of Harsco (a) of the Act. Department reviewed the certification Corporation, located in Vineyard, Utah. The purpose of each of the for workers of the subject firm. New An active certification covering the investigations is to determine whether information shows that employees of petitioning group of workers remains in the workers are eligible to apply for Heckett Multiserv, a division of Harsco effect (TA–W–35,034). Consequently, adjustment assistance under Title II, Corporation, Vineyard, Utah were further investigation in this case would Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations employed by Geneva Steel to process serve no purpose, and the investigation will further relate, as appropriate, to the slag products and provide scrap and has been terminated. determination of the date on which total metal reclamation from the blast or partial separations began or furnaces used in the production of hot Signed in Washington, D.C. this 9th day of threatened to begin and the subdivision rolled steel products (plates, sheets, March, 1999. of the firm involved. coils and pipes) at the Vineyard, Utah Grant D. Beale, The petitioners or any other persons facility. Worker separations occurred at Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment showing a substantial interest in the Heckett Multiserv as a result of workers Assistance. subject matter of the investigations may separation at Geneva Steel. [FR Doc. 99–7721 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] request a public hearing, provided such Based on these findings, the BILLING CODE 4510±30±M request is filed in writing with the Department is amending the Acting Director, Office of Trade

VerDate 23-MAR-99 15:37 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 30MRN1 15176 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices

Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than April 9, Department of Labor, 200 Constitution show below, not later than April 9, 1999. Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. 1999. The petitions filed in this case are Signed at Washington, D.C. this 1st day of Interested persons are invited to available for inspection at the Office of March, 1999. submit written comments regarding the the Acting Director, Office of Trade subject matter of the investigations to Grant D. Beale, the Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Adjustment Assistance, at the address and Training Administration, U.S. Assistance.

APPENDIX [Petitions instituted on 03/01/1999]

Date of TA±W Subject firm (petitioners) Location petition Product(s)

35,705 ...... Kelly Springfield Tire (USWA) ...... Freeport, IL ...... 02/11/1999 Tires. 35,706 ...... Nooter Fabricators (Wkrs) ...... St. Louis, MO ...... 02/04/1999 Steel Fabrication. 35,707 ...... Wool Fashions, Inc (UNITE) ...... Hoboken, NJ ...... 02/08/1999 Ladies' Coats. 35,708 ...... Donohue Industries (PACE) ...... Sheldon, TX ...... 01/30/1999 Market Pulp and PaperÐNewsprint. 35,709 ...... Handy Button Machine (Wkrs) ...... New York, NY ...... 02/01/1999 Belt Buckles, Nailheads, Button Molds. 35,710 ...... Forrest Yarns, Inc. (Co.) ...... Newport, ME ...... 02/16/1999 Cone Yarn. 35,711 ...... Halliburton (Co.) ...... Houston, TX ...... 02/10/1999 Oil Drilling. 35,712 ...... Cyprus Sierrita (Wkrs) ...... Green Valley, AZ ...... 02/09/1999 Copper Mining. 35,713 ...... Crete Oil Co., Inc. (Co.) ...... Robinson, IL ...... 02/17/1999 Crude Oil. 35,714 ...... Allegheny Ludlum Steel (USWA) ...... Wallingford, CT ...... 02/11/1999 Stainless Steel Strip and Sheet. 35,715 ...... Gulf Canada Resources (Wkrs) ...... Denver, CO ...... 02/09/1999 Crude Oil, Natural Gas Liquids. 35,716 ...... KLH Industries (Co.) ...... Clinton, MS ...... 12/04/1999 Electrical Wiring Harness. 35,717 ...... Blue Ridge Screen Print (Co.) ...... Stuart, VA ...... 02/11/1999 Screenprinting. 35,718 ...... H.B. and R., Inc. (Co.) ...... Dickinson, ND ...... 02/11/1999 Oilfield Services. 35,719 ...... CNB International (UAW) ...... Buffalo, NY ...... 02/09/1999 Metal Forming Machinery. 35,720 ...... Indera Mills Co. (Co.) ...... Winston Salem, NC ..... 02/11/1999 Thermal Underwear. 35,721 ...... Newark Paperboard, Inc. (Wkrs) ...... Woodburn, OR ...... 02/02/1999 Paper Products Machinery. 35,722 ...... Rostra Precision Controls (Wkrs) ...... Laurinburg, NC ...... 02/11/1999 Modulators, Cruise Controls. 35,723 ...... Litton ATD (Wkrs) ...... Grants Pass, OR ...... 02/11/1999 Radar Warning Receivers. 35,724 ...... IRI International Corp. (Co.) ...... Houston, TX ...... 02/11/1999 EquipmentÐPetroleum Industry. 35,725 ...... DLB Equities, L.L.C. (Co.) ...... Oklahoma City, OK ..... 02/11/1999 Oil and Gas. 35,726 ...... Ponderosa Fibres of PA (Wkrs) ...... Northampton, PA ...... 02/09/1999 Recycles Mixed Office Waste Paper. 35,727 ...... Martin Marietta Magnesia (Wkrs) ...... Manistee, MI ...... 02/09/1999 Refractories Products. 35,728 ...... Teledyne Ryan Aeronautica (Co.) ...... San Diego, CA ...... 02/10/1999 Apache Hellicopter Fuselages. 35,729 ...... Nabors Alaska Drilling (Co.) ...... Anchorage, AK ...... 02/18/1999 Drilling Wells. 35,730 ...... Medinas Concrete and Sand (Wkrs) ...... Questa, NM ...... 02/08/1999 Mine Construction. 35,731 ...... National Material Co. (USWA) ...... Arnold, PA ...... 02/17/1999 Silicon Steel Service Center. 35,732 ...... Westvaco Luke Mill (PACE) ...... Luke, MD ...... 02/12/1999 Zinc Coated Papers. 35,733 ...... Chinook Group (Wkrs) ...... North Branch, MN ...... 02/09/1999 Choline Chloride Powder. 35,734 ...... Basin Tools and Service (Wkrs) ...... Williston, ND ...... 02/02/1999 Sells, rents Down Hole Tools. 35,735 ...... McDowell County Apparel (Wkrs) ...... Bradshaw, WV ...... 02/01/1999 Fleece Apparel. 35,736 ...... Diamond Resources, Inc. (Wkrs) ...... Williston, ND ...... 02/11/1999 Admin. FunctionsÐOil, Gas Leasing. 35,737 ...... Weatherford, Inc. (Wkrs) ...... Williston, ND ...... 02/09/1999 Oilfield Fishing & Rental. 35,738 ...... Red Man Pipe and Supply (Wkrs) ...... Roosevelt, UT ...... 02/11/1999 Line Pipe, Valves and Fittings. 35,739 ...... Southwest Royalties (Wkrs) ...... Midland, TX ...... 02/11/1999 Crude Oil, Natural Gas. 35,740 ...... Borg Warner Automotive (Co.) ...... Sterling Hghts, MI ...... 02/25/1999 Torque Converters. 35,741 ...... Partners In Exploration (Co.) ...... Richardson, TX ...... 02/16/1999 Oil and Gas Explorations. 35,742 ...... Florida Canyon Mining (Co.) ...... Imlay, NV ...... 02/11/1999 Gold Mining.. 35,743 ...... Advance Consultants (Co.) ...... Midland, TX ...... 02/11/1999 On-Site Well Evaluation. 35,744 ...... Petroglyph Operating Co. (Wkrs) ...... Hutchinson, KS ...... 02/09/1999 Crude Oil. 35,745 ...... Berk Knit Shirt (Co.) ...... Colon, MI ...... 02/11/1999 Sportswear. 35,746 ...... Boise Cascade Corp. (Co.) ...... Fisher, LA ...... 02/08/1999 Lumber. 35,747 ...... John Rems Corp. (The) (Co.) ...... Macungie, PA ...... 02/03/1999 Thermal Underwear and Sleepwear. 35,748 ...... Boones Bit Sewing (Co.) ...... Williston, ND ...... 01/26/1999 Oil Drilling. 35,749 ...... Regal Ware, Inc. (PACE) ...... Kewaskum, WI ...... 02/16/1999 Drip Coffee Makers. 35,750 ...... Cross Creek Apparel (Co.) ...... Mt. Airy, NC ...... 02/01/1999 Knitted Shirts. 35,751 ...... Baker HughesÐCentrilift (Wkrs) ...... Cody, Wy ...... 02/04/1999 Submersible Oilfield Equipment. 35,752 ...... Rhodia, Inc. (Co.) ...... Freeport, TX ...... 02/01/1999 Rare Earth Chemical Compounds. 35,753 ...... Molen Drilling (Wkrs) ...... Billings, MT ...... 02/15/1999 Oil Drilling. 35,754 ...... Shasta, Inc. (IAMAW) ...... Monaca, PA ...... 02/15/1999 Semi-Finish Stainless Steel Products. 35,755 ...... Smith Meter, Inc. (UAW) ...... Erie, PA ...... 02/17/1999 Liquid Measuring Meters. 35,756 ...... Ringo Drilling (Wkrs) ...... Abilene, TX ...... 02/17/1999 Oil and Gas Drilling. 35,757 ...... Vanport Manufacturing (Co.) ...... Boring, OR ...... 02/18/1999 Dimension Lumber. 35,758 ...... ASARCO Amarillo Copper (USWA) ...... Amarillo, TX ...... 02/05/1999 Refined Copper.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.051 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15177

[FR Doc. 99–7717 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Department is amending the BILLING CODE 4510±30±M certification to cover workers of Pool Employment and Training Company operating at various locations Administration in Alaska, Louisiana and California. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR [TA±W±35,683] The amended notice applicable to TA–W–35,125 is hereby issued as Employment and Training Meridian Dyed Yarn Group Franklyn follows: Administration Dyed Yarns Greenville, SC; Notice of Termination of Investigation All workers of Pool Company, [TA±W±35,265, et al.] headquartered in Houston, Texas (TA–W– Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade 35,125), operating at various locations in Kentucky Apparel LLP; Amended Act of 1974, an investigation was Alaska (TA–W–35,125F), Lousiana (TA–W– initiated on February 22, 1999, in Certification Regarding Eligibility To 35,125G), and California (TA–W–35,125H), response to a petition filed on the same Apply for Worker Adjustment who became totally or partially separated date on behalf of workers at Franklyn Assistance from employment on or after October 10, Dyed Yarns, Greenville, South Carolina. 1997 through December 10, 2000 are eligible The company official submitting the In accordance with Section 223 of the to apply for adjustment assistance under petition has requested that the petition Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974. be withdrawn. Consequently, further Department Labor issued a Certification Signed at Washington, D.C. This 18th day investigation in this case would serve of Eligibility to Apply for Worker of March, 1999. no purpose, and the investigation has Grant D. Beale, Adjustment Assistance on January 21, been terminated. 1999, applicable to all workers of Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Kentucky Apparel LLP, located in Signed in Washington, D.C. this 8th day of Assistance. March, 1999. Jamestown, Tennessee. The notice was [FR Doc. 99–7725 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Grant D. Beale, published in the Federal Register on BILLING CODE 4510±30±M February 25, 1999 (64 FR 9354). Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance. At the request of the petitioners, the [FR Doc. 99–7716 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Department reviewed the certification DEPARTMENT OF LABOR BILLING CODE 4510±30±M for workers of the subject firm. New information received by the company Employment and Training Administration shows that worker separations occurred DEPARTMENT OF LABOR at the Summer Shade, Fountain Run, Tomkinsville and Gamaliel, Kentucky Employment and Training [TA±W±35,845] locations of Kentucky Apparel LLP. The Administration workers produce denim jeans. Pool Company (A/K/A Pool California [TA±W±35,125] Energy Services), Bakersfield, The intent of the Department’s certification is to include all workers of Pool Company, Headquartered in California; Notice of Termination of Kentucky Apparel LLP who were Houston, TX; Amended Certification Investigation adversely affected by increased imports Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade of denim jeans. Accordingly, the Worker Adjustment Assistance Department is amending the Act of 1974, an investigation was In accordance with Section 223 of the initiated on March 15, 1999 in response certification to cover the workers of Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 2273) the Kentucky Apparel LLP, Summer Shade, to a worker petition which was filed on Department of Labor issued a behalf of workers at the Pool Company Fountain Run, Tompkinsville and Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Gamaliel, Kentucky. (a/k/a Pool California Energy Services), Worker Adjustment Assistance on Bakersfield, California. The amended notice applicable to December 10, 1998, applicable to all TA–W–35,265 is hereby issued as workers of Pool Company, An active certification covering the follows: headquartered in Houston, Texas and petitioning group of workers is already operating in Texas, Oklahoma, New in effect (TA–W–35,125H). All workers of Kentucky Apparel LLP, Consequently, further investigation in Jamestown, Tennessee (TA–W–35,265), Mexico, Montana and North Dakota. this case would serve no purpose, and Summer Shade, Kentucky (TA–W–35,265A), The notice was published in the Federal Fountain Run, Kentucky (TA–W–35,265B), Register on December 23, 1998 (63 FR the investigation has been terminated. Tomkinsville, Kentucky (TA–W–35,265C) 71166). Signed in Washington, D.C. this 18th day and Gamaliel, Kentucky (TA–W–35,265D) At the request of the company, the of March, 1999. Department reviewed the certification who became totally or partially separated Grant D. Beale, for workers of the subject firm. New from employment on or after April 30, 1998 Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment through January 21, 2001 are eligible to apply findings show that worker separations have occurred at Pool Company Assistance, Office of Trade Adjustment for adjustment assistance under Section 223 Assistance. of the Trade Act of 1974. operating at various locations in Alaska, [FR Doc. 99–7732 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Signed at Washington, D.C. this 11th day Louisiana and California. The workers BILLING CODE 4510±30±M of March, 1999. provide oilfield services related to the exploration and drilling of crude oil and Grand D. Beale, natural gas. Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment The intent of the Department’s Assistance. certification is to include all workers of [FR Doc. 99–7735 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Pool Company adversely affected by BILLING CODE 4510±30±M increased imports.Accordingly, the

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.052 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 15178 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR for workers of the subject firm. New DEPARTMENT OF LABOR findings show that Schlumberger Employment and Training Oilfield Services is comprised of other Employment and Training Administration ‘‘also known as’’, firm entities; Geo- Administration [TA±W±35,201 and TA±W±35,485] Prakla, IPM, Product Centers, GeoQuest, [TA±W±35,319] Sedco-Forex, Wireline and Shared Quebecor Printing Federated, Inc. and Services. Findings also show that Simpson Pasadena Paper Company, Quebecor Printing Providence, Inc., worker separations occurred at Pasadena, TX; Dismissal of Providence, Rhode Island; Dismissal Schlumberger Oilfield Services Application for Reconsideration of Application for Reconsideration operating at various locations in the above cited states. The workers provide Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an oilfield and gas drilling and exploration application for administrative application for administrative services, as well as related support and reconsideration was filed with the reconsideration was filed with the warehouse duties. Acting Director of the Office of Trade Acting Director of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at Adjustment Assistance for workers at The intent of the Department’s Pasadena Paper Company, Pasadena, Quebecor Printing Federated, Inc. and certification is to include all workers of Texas. The review indicated that the Quebecor Printing Providence, Inc., Schlumberger Oilfield Services, a/k/a application contained no new both located in Providence, Rhode Dowell Schulmberger, a/k/a Anadrill substantial information which would Island. The review indicated that the Schlumberger, a/k/a Geco-Prakla, a/k/a bear importantly on the Department’s application contained no new IMP, a/k/a Product Centers, a/k/a determination. Therefore, dismissal of substantial information which would GeoQuest, a/k/a Sedco-Forex, a/k/a the application was issued. bear importantly on the Department’s Wireline and a/k/a Shared Services adversely affected by imports. TA–W–35,319; Pasadena Paper Company, determination. Therefore, dismissal of Pasadena, Texas (March 15, 1999) the application was issued. Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to properly Signed at Washington, D.C. this 16th day TA–W–35,201; Quebecor Printing reflect this matter. of March, 1999. Federated, Inc. Grant D. Beale, The amended notice applicable to TA–W–35,485; Quebecor Printing Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Providence, Inc. Providence, Rhode TA–W–35,463 is hereby issued as Assistance. follows: Island (March 17, 1999) [FR Doc. 99–7712 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Signed at Washington, D.C. this 18th day All workers of Schlumberger Oilfield BILLING CODE 4510±30±M of March, 1999. Services, headquartered in Sugarland, Texas, Grant D. Beale, a/k/a Dowell Schlumberger, a/k/a Anadrill Schlumberger (TA–W–35,463), a/k/a Geco- DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Prakla, a/k/a IPM, a/k/a Product Centers, a/ Assistance. k/a GeoQuest, a/k/a Sedco-Forex, a/k/a [FR Doc. 99–7714 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Employment and Training Wireline, and a/k/a Shared Services (TA–W– Administration BILLING CODE 4510±30±M 35,463) operating at various locations cited below who became totally or partially [TA±W±35,439] separated from employment on or after DEPARTMENT OF LABOR December 21, 1997 through January 26, 2001 Southwest Fashion, Inc., El Paso, TX; are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance Amended Certification Regarding Employment and Training under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974. Eligibility To Apply for Worker Administration Wyoming TA–W–35,463B Adjustment Assistance [TA±W±35,463, et. al.] California TA–W–35,463C In accordance with Section 223 of the Schlumberger Oilfield Services A/K/A Alaska TA–W–35,463D Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 2273) the Geco-Prakla, A/K/A IPM, A/K/A Product Colorado TA–W–35,463E Department of Labor issued a Notice of Certification Regarding Eligibility to Centers A/K/A Geoquest, A/K/A Sedco- Arkansas TA–W–35,463F Forex, A/K/A Wireline A/K/A Shared Apply for Worker Adjustment Alabama TA–W–35,463G Assistance on January 19, 1999, Services Headquartered in Sugarland, North Dakota TA–W–35,463H TX, et. al.; Amended Certification applicable to workers of Southwest Regarding Eligibility To Apply for West Virginia TA–W–35,463I Fashion, Inc., El Paso, Texas. The notice Worker Adjustment Assistance Illinois TA–W–35,463J was published in the Federal Register Kansas TA–W–35,463K on January 29, 1999 (64 FR 4712). In accordance with Section 223 of the At the request of the State agency, the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 2273) the Michigan TA–W–35,463L Department reviewed the certification Department of Labor issued a Mississippi TA–W–35,463M for workers of the subject firm. The Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Utah TA–W–35,463N workers produce (cut) men’s pants and Worker Adjustment Assistance on Virginia TA–W–35,463O some other apparel. New findings show January 26, 1999, applicable to all New Jersey TA–W–35,463P that there was a previous certification covering the same work group, TA–W– workers of Schlumberger Oilfield Pennsylvania TA–W–35,463Q Services, a/k/a Dowell Schlumberger 32,684, issued on October 28, 1996. and a/k/a Anadrill Schlumberger, Signed at Washington, DC this 10th day of That certification expired October 28, headquartered in Sugarland, Texas. The March, 1999. 1998. To avoid an overlap in worker notice was published in the Federal Grant D. Beale, group coverage, the certification is being Register on February 25, 1999 (64 FR Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment amended to change the impact date 9354). Assistance. from October 28, 1998 to October 29, At the request of the company, the [FR Doc. 99–7723 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] 1998, for the workers of Southwest Department reviewed the certification BILLING CODE 4510±30±M Fashion, Inc., El Paso, Texas.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 15:37 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 30MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15179

The amended notice applicable to Stanley Fastening Systems adversely Commerce, Georgia and Ferrum Plant, TA–W–35,439 is hereby issued as affected by imports. Ferrum, Virginia. follows: The amended notice applicable to The amended notice applicable to All workers of Southwest Fashion, Inc., El TA–W–35,417 is hereby issued as TA–W–34,567 is hereby issued as Paso, Texas who became totally or partially follows: follows: separated from employment on or after All workers of Stanley Fastening Systems, All workers of VF Knitwear, Inc., October 29, 1998 through January 19, 2001 E. Greenwich and N. Kingstown, Rhode Hillsville, Virginia (TA–W–34,567) are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance Island and leased workers of Olsten Staffing Commerce Plant, Commerce, Georgia (TA– under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974. Services, E. Greenwich and N. Kingstown, W–35,567B) and Ferrum Plant, Ferrum, Signed at Washington, D.C. this 18th day Rhode Island engaged in employment related Virginia) (TA–W–34,567C) who became of March, 1999. to the production of nails for Stanley totally or partially separated from Grant D. Beale, Fastening Systems, E. Greenwich and N. employment on or after May 11, 1997 Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Kingstown, Rhode Island who became totally through June 8, 2000, are eligible to apply for Assistance. or partially separated from employment on or adjustment assistance under Section 223 of after December 10, 1997 through January 19, the Trade Act of 1974. [FR Doc. 99–7724 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] 2001 are eligible to apply for adjustment Signed in Washington, D.C. this 11th day BILLING CODE 4510±30±M assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of March 1999. of 1974. Grant D. Beale, Signed at Washington, D.C. this 12th day DEPARTMENT OF LABOR of March, 1999. Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance. Grant D. Beale, Employment and Training [FR Doc. 99–7733 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Administration Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance. BILLING CODE 4510±30±M [FR Doc. 99–7722 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] [TA±W±35,417 & TA±W±35417A] BILLING CODE 4510±30±M DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Stanley Fastening Systems E. Greenwich, RI and N. Kingstown, RI Employment and Training Including Leased Workers of Olsen DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Administration Staffing Services E. Greenwich RI, and Employment and Training Proposed Information Collection N. Kingstown, RI, Amended Administration Certification Regarding Eligibility To Request Submitted for Public Apply for Worker Adjustment [TA±W±34,567, et al.] Comment and Recommendations; Assistance Survey of the Costs to States and VF Knitwear, Inc., etc., Hillsville, Employers To Convert Existing In accordance with Section 223 of the Virginia; Amended Certification Reports To Accommodate the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 2273) the Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Standardization and Expansion of Department of Labor issued a Worker Adjustment Assistance Payroll Reporting Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on In accordance with Section 223 of the ACTION: Notice. January 19, 1999, applicable to all Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the workers of Stanley Fastening Systems, Department of Labor issued a Notice of SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as located in E. Greenwich and N. Certification Regarding Eligibility to part of its continuing effort to reduce Kingstown, Rhode Island. The notice Apply for Worker Adjustment paperwork and respondent burden, was published in the Federal Register Assistance on June 8, 1998, applicable conducts a preclearance consultation on January 29, 1999 (64 FR 4712). to workers of VF Knitwear, Inc. located program to provide the general public At the request of the State agency, the in Hillsville, Virginia. The notice was and Federal agencies with an Department reviewed the certification published in the Federal Register on opportunity to comment on proposed for workers of the subject firm. New July 13, 1998 (63 FR 37590). and/or continuing collections of information provided by the company At the request of the company, the information in accordance with the shows that some employees of Stanley Department reviewed the certification Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Fastening Systems, E. Greenwich and N. for workers of the subject firm. The (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This Kingstown, Rhode Island were leased company reports that worker program helps to ensure that requested from Olsten Staffing Services to produce separations have occurred at the data can be provided in the desired nails at the E. Greenwich and N. Commerce Plant, Commerce, Georgia format, reporting burden (time and Kingstown, Rhode Island facilities. and the Ferrum Plant, Ferrum, Virginia financial resources) is minimized, Worker separations occurred at Olsten facilities of VF Knitwear, Inc. All collection instruments are clearly Staffing Services as a result of workers workers will be separated from the understood, and the impact of collection separations at Stanley Fastening Commerce, Georgia and Ferrum, requirements on respondents can be Systems, E. Greenwich and N. Virginia locations when they close properly assessed. Currently, the Kingstown, Rhode Island. permanently in June, 1999. The workers Employment and Training Based on these findings, the are engaged in the production of t-shirts Administration is soliciting comments Department is amending the and fleecewear. concerning the proposed survey of certification to include workers of The intent of the Department’s States concerning estimated costs that Olsten Staffing Services, leased to certification is to include all workers of States and employers will incur if they Stanley Fastening Systems, E. VF Knitwear, Inc. adversely affected by were to adopt the new standards being Greenwich and N. Kingstown, Rhode increased imports. Accordingly, the recommended by the Social Security Island. Department is amending the Administration (SSA). A copy of the The intent of the Department’s certification to include workers of VF proposed survey follows in this certification is to include all workers of Knitwear, Inc., Commerce Plant, document.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 15:37 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 30MRN1 15180 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices

DATES: Written comments must be of the information in the data base. Agency: Employment and Training submitted on or before June 1, 1999. Recently the SSA took the lead in Administration, Department of Labor. Written comments should: establishing a standard for storage of Title: Survey of the Costs to States and —Evaluate whether the proposed name and social security information. Employers to Convert Existing Reports collection of information is necessary Employers will begin using the new to Accommodate the Standardization for the proper performance of the standards for W–2’s issued in 1999 to and Expansion of Payroll Reporting. functions of the agency, including report wages earned in 1998. Listed Affected Public: State governments whether the information will have below are some agencies that HHS (State Employment Security Agencies) practical utility; indicates may probably benefit as a —Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s result of implementation of the plan for and employers. estimate of the burden of the the new standards: Total Respondents: Fifty three State proposed collection of information, • State child support agencies (parent governments and, possibly, SESA- including the validity of the locator systems) selected samples of employers. • methodology and assumptions used; Treasury (debt collections) Frequency: One time only. • SSA (Supplemental Security —Enhance the quality, utility, and Total Responses: Fifty three. clarity of the information to be Income, disability, and retirement collected; and overpayment detection) and Average Time Per Response: 90 hours —Minimize the burden of the collection • IRS (fraud detection, tax for ‘‘Name Fields’’ portion of survey. To of information on those who are to enforcement). estimate how much extra equipment • respond, including the use of States (fraud prevention and and staff it will take to gather and store appropriate automated, electronic, detection for UI, worker’s the additional name fields characters, mechanical, or other technological compensation, Transitional Assistance each State would have to consult with collection techniques or other forms for Needy Families, Foodstamps and its data processing units about of information technology, e.g., Medicaid). equipment needs and programming permitting electronic submission of A system change of this magnitude requirements. Estimates would have to responses. will be very costly for some States to be produced, detailed and discussed. To implement. Other States may already be ADDRESSES: obtain the impact on the State’s Rett Hensley, using these or similar standards. The Unemployment Insurance Service, employers, some discussions would Office of Management and Budget, at need to take place with a number of Employment and Training the request of SSA asked the Administration, Department of Labor, employers and their data processing Department of Labor to include $40 staff as well. Room S4015, 200 Constitution Ave, million in its Fiscal Year 2000 budget N.W., Washington, D.C., 20210; 202 request for States to use in adopting the The complete the more difficult 219–5615 (this is not a toll-free new standards in payroll reporting. portion of the survey, ‘‘Labor Market number). Since the $40 million is only a rough Information’’, 180 hours is estimated. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: estimate of need, the Unemployment States will have to consider costs involved in: training employers and I. Background Insurance Service (UIS) must gather estimates from State Employment staff to granter and report new data (e.g., The passage of welfare reform Security Agencies (SESAS) of the costs hours worked, weeks worked, legislation, child support legislation and that States and their employers might occupational codes and FIPS codes) that increased concern about unemployment expect to incur if they were to adopt the they are not accustomed to working insurance (UI) fraud and overpayments, new standards. This information will with; bringing about compliance by has stimulated a movement toward produce a more accurate estimate of hiring additional staff to answer adoption of a standardized payroll actual need in the event that all States employer questions, and calling and reporting format. In a cooperative effort implement this new standard. A survey training employers who fail to comply; to improve the welfare of children form, which shows the standards, has and fir the purchase of additional almost all States now report UI wages been developed to assist in reporting equipment, redesigning forms and and benefit payments to the National these estimates. It is titled ‘‘Name software, and hiring staff to process, Directory of New Hires (NDNH). The Fields’’. store and forward the new data. reporting began with States voluntarily The survey also asks for an estimate Total survey response time is reporting third quarter 1997 wages and of the cost a State agency and its estimated at 270 hours. fourth quarter 1997 benefit payments. employers might experience in Estimated Total Burden Hours: 14,310 The quarterly wage data reported from gathering some new information hours for 53 States. State maintained systems is already a concerning average wages, hours vital source of information within the worked and the location of jobs. Having The survey would look as follows: NDNH. some knowledge of the potential cost of Section One—Survey Concerning the The NDNH, which is maintained by gathering this information will help in Standardization of Name Fields the Social Security Administration making future decisions on whether or (SSA) on behalf of the Department of not it is feasible to ask employers and Please fill in the following table Health and Human Services (HHS), also States for this information. This second showing your estimate of the cost (for stores information from W–2 forms. portion is title ‘‘Labor Market both your State and the employers of Unfortunately a lack of standardization Information’’. your State) of converting your existing in the reporting of name and social system to the new standards shown security number (SSN) information by II. Current Actions below. You should assume that your the States makes matching the W–2 This is a request for OMB approval State will be utilizing magnetic media to information with the State wage data under the Paperwork Reduction Act of make your reports to the National difficult and diminishes the usefulness 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(2)(A)). Directory of New Hires.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.102 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15181

Employ- State's State's Employ- er's ongo- Total cost Field SESA's current char- New SSA standards field initial cost ongoing er's initial ing an- for first acter capability type to annual cost * nual year change * cost ** cost **

First Name ...... 15 characters alpha Middle Name ...... 15 characters alpha Last Name ...... 20 characters alpha Suffix *** ...... 4 characters numeric SSN ...... 9 characters numeric * Consider the cost of additional computer storage equipment and programming. ** Consider the ongoing costs of entering additional data each quarter and maintaining the additional volume of records. *** This is an optional field, for future use by SSA. It refers to Jr. or Sr. etc., after some names. Section Two—Survey Concerning Collecting Labor Market Information Some agencies have requested labor market information from UIS that is not currently available on most States’ Contribution and Wage Reports. Your cost estimates for providing this information is requested to facilitate long term planning for labor market information needs. There are no immediate plans to begin requesting or utilizing this additional information.

State's Employ- Employ- Anticipated characters State's ongoing er's initial er's ongo- Total cost Fields on the quarterly wage report needed initial cost annual cost to ing an- for first cost add nual cost year

A column showing the quarterly hours worked per 3 Characters. employee. A column showing the weeks worked per employee ... 2 Characters. A column showing the occupational code of each em- 6 Characters. ployee. A column showing the FIPS code or zip code of 5 Characters. where each worker works.

Please use this space to make any Company, Haagen-Dazs Plant located in Warehouse Operation, Dayton, New Jersey comments or observations you wish to Woodbridge, New Jersey. The notice (NAFTA–2858A) who became totally or express about the survey. will be published soon in the Federal partially separated from employment on or Comments submitted in response to Register. after December 21, 1997 through February 11, this notice will be summarized and/or At the request of a State agency, the 2001 are eligible to apply for NAFTA–TAA included in the request for Office of Department reviewed the certification under Section 250 of the Trade Act of 1974. Management and Budget approval of the for workers of the subject firm. New Signed at Washington, DC this 19th day of information collection request; they will findings show that worker separations March, 1999. also become a matter of public record. occurred at the Haagen-Dazs Warehouse Grant D. Beale, Operation of The Pillsbury Company, Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Dated: March 23, 1999. Dayton, New Jersey when it closed in Assistance. Grace A. Kilbane, March, 1999. The Dayton, New Jersey [FR Doc. 99–7734 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Director, Unemployment Insurance Service. location provided warehousing and BILLING CODE 4510±30±M [FR Doc. 99–7777 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] distribution services for The Pillsbury BILLING CODE 4510±30±M Company, Haagen-Dazs’s production facilities including Woodbridge, New DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Jersey. The workers are engaged in the DEPARTMENT OF LABOR production of ice cream products Employment and Training Administration Employment and Training (gallons of ice cream, stick bars, pops Administration and sorbet). Accordingly, the Department is [NAFTA±02814] amending the certification to cover the [NAFTA±02858 & 0258A] workers of The Pillsbury Company, Southwest Fashions, Inc. El Paso, TX; The Pillsbury Company, Etc.; Amended Haagen-Dazs Warehouse Operation, Amended Certification Regarding Certification Regarding Eligibility to Dayton, New Jersey. Eligibility To Apply for NAFTA- Apply for NAFTA Transitional The intent of the Department’s Transitional Adjustment Assistance Adjustment Assistance certification is to include all workers of The Pillsbury Company, Haagen-Dazs In accordance with Section 250(A), In accordance with Section 250(a), who were adversely affected by a shift Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Subchapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act of production to Canada. Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 2273), the of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273), The amended notice applicable to Department of Labor issued a the Department of Labor issued a NAFTA–02858 is hereby issued as Certification for NAFTA Transitional Certification of Eligibility to Apply for follows: Adjustment Assistance on January 19, NAFTA Transitional Adjustment All workers of The Pillsbury Company, 1999, applicable to all workers of Assistance on February 11, 1998, Haagen-Dazs Plant, Woodbridge, New Jersey Southwest Fashion, Inc., El Paso, Texas. applicable to workers of The Pillsbury (NAFTA–02858) and Haagen-Dazs The notice was published in the Federal

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.105 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 15182 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices

Register on January 29, 1999 (64 FR and Ferrum, Virginia locations when A copy of the proposed information 4713). they close permanently in June, 1999. collection request can be obtained by At the request of the State agency, the The workers are engaged in the contacting the employee listed below in Department reviewed the certification production of t-shirts and fleecewear. the contact section of this notice. for workers of the subject firm. The The intent of the Department’s DATES: Written comments must be workers produce (cut) men’s pants and certification is to include all workers of submitted on or before June 1, 1999. some other apparel. New findings show VF Knitwear, Inc. adversely affected by Written comments should: that there was a previous certification increased imports from Mexico. evaluate whether the proposed covering the same worker group, Accordingly, the Department is collection of information is necessary NAFTA–01200, issued on October 23, amending the certification to include for the proper performance of the 1996. That certification expired October workers of VF Knitwear, Inc., Commerce functions of the agency, including 23, 1998. To avoid an overlap in worker Plant, Commerce, Georgia and Ferrum whether the information will have group coverage, the certification is being Plant, Ferrum, Virginia. practical utility; amended to change the impact date The amended notice applicable to evaluate the accuracy of the Agency’s from December 27, 1997 to October 24, NAFTA–2360 is hereby issued as estimate of the burden of the proposed 1998 for the workers of Southwest follows: collection of information, including the Fashion, Inc., El Paso Texas. All workers of VF Knitwear, Inc., validity of the methodology and The amended notice applicable to Hillsville, Virginia (NAFTA–2360), assumptions used; NAFTA–02814 is hereby issued as Commerce Plant, Commerce, Georgia enhance the quality, utility, and follows: (NAFTA–2360B) and Ferrum Plant, Ferrum, clarity of the information to be Virginia (NAFTA–2360C) who became totally collected; and All workers of Southwest Fashion, Inc., El or partially separated from employment on or Paso, Texas who became totally or partially minimize the burden of the collection after May 1, 1997 through June 8, 2000, are of information on those who are to separated from employment on or after eligible to apply for NAFTA–TAA under October 24, 1998 through January 19, 2001 Section 250 of the Trade Act of 1974. respond, including through the use of are eligible to apply for NAFTA–TAA under Signed in Washington, D.C. this 11th day appropriate automated, electronic, Section 250 of the Trade Act of 1974. of March, 1999. mechanical, or other technological Signed at Washington, D.C. this 18th day Grant D. Beale, collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting of March, 1999. Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Grant D. Beale, Assistance. electronic submissions of responses. Acting Director, Office of Trade; Adjustment [FR Doc. 99–7719 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] ADDRESSES: Send comments to Reba F. Assistance. BILLING CODE 4510±30±M Streaker, Records Officer, National [FR Doc. 99–7711 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Mediation Board, 1301 K Street, N.W., BILLING CODE 4510±30±M Suite 250 East, Washington, DC 20572. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD Telephone No. (202) 692–5050 and FAX No. (202) 692–5086. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Proposed Information Collection SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request Submitted for Public A. Application for Mediation Services, Employment and Training Comment and Recommendations; NMB–2 Administration Application for Mediation Services, [NAFTA±2360, NAFTA±2360B and NAFTA± and Application for Investigation of I. Background 2360C] Representation Dispute Section 5, First of the Railway Labor VF Knitwear, Inc., Hillsville, VA ACTION: Notice. Act, 45 U.S.C., 155, First, provides that Commerce Plant, Commerce, GA and both, or either, of the parties to the SUMMARY: The National Mediation Ferrum Plant, Ferrum, VA; Amended labor-management dispute may invoke Board, as part of its continuing effort to Certification Regarding Eligibility To the mediation services of the National reduce paperwork and respondent Apply for NAFTA±Transitional Mediation Board. Congress has burden, conducts a preclearance Adjustment Assistance determined that it is in the nation’s best consultation program to provide the interest to provide for Governmental In accordance with Section 250(a), general public and Federal agencies mediation as the primary dispute Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the with an opportunity to comment on resolution mechanism to resolve labor- Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 USC proposed and/or continuing collections management disputes in the railroad 2273), the Department of Labor issued a of information in accordance with the and airline industries. Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 The Railway Labor Act is silent as to NAFTA Transitional Adjustment (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This how the invocation of mediation is to be Assistance on June 8, 1998, applicable program helps to ensure that requested accomplished and the Board has not to workers of VF Knitwear, Inc., data can be provided in the desired promulgated regulations requiring any Hillsville, Virginia. The notice was format, reporting burden (time and specific vehicle. Nonetheless, 29 CFR published in the Federal Register on financial resources) is minimized, 1203.1, provides that applications for July 13, 1998 (63 FR 37591). collection instruments are clearly mediation services be made on printed At the request of the company, the understood, and the impact of collection forms which may be secured from the Department reviewed the certification requirements on respondents can be National Mediation Board. This section for workers of the subject firm. The properly assessed. Currently, the of the regulations provides that company reports that worker National Mediation Board is soliciting applications should be submitted in separations occurred at the Commerce comments concerning the proposed duplicate, show the exact nature of the Plant, Commerce, Georgia and the extension of the Application for dispute, the number of employees Ferrum Plant, Ferrum, Virginia facilities Mediation Services, and the Application involved, name of the carrier and name of VF Knitwear, Inc. All workers will be for Investigation of Representation of the labor organization, date of separated from the Commerce, Georgia Dispute. agreement between the parties, date and

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.045 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15183 copy of notice served by the invoking bargaining representative, the National Management and Budget approval of the party to the other and date of final Mediation Board is required by Section information collection request, they will conference between the parties. The 2, Ninth to investigate the dispute, to also become a matter of public record. application should be signed by the determine who is the authorized Reba Streaker, highest officer of the carrier who has representative, if any, and to certify Records Officer/Paperwork Clearance Officer. been designated to handle disputes such representative to the employer. [FR Doc. 99–7763 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] under the Railway Labor Act or by the The Board’s duties do not arise until its BILLING CODE 7550±01±P chief executive of the labor services have been invoked by a party organization, whichever party files the to the dispute. The Railway Labor Act application. is silent as to how the invocation of a NUCLEAR REGULATORY representation dispute is to be II. Current Actions COMMISSION accomplished and the Board has not The extension of this form is promulgated regulations requiring any [Docket 72±17] necessary considering the information specific vehicle. Nonetheless, 29 CFR provided by the parties is used by the 1203.2 provides that requests to Portland General Electric Company; Board to structure a mediation process investigate representation disputes may Issuance of Environmental that will be productive to the parties be made on printed forms NMB–3. The Assessment and Finding of No and result in a settlement without resort application shows the name or Significant Impact Regarding the to strike or lockout. The Board has been description of the craft or class Proposed Exemption From Certain very successful in resolving labor involved, the name of the invoking Requirements of 10 CFR Part 72 disputes in the railroad and airline organization, the name of the The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory industries. Historically, some 97 percent organization currently representing the Commission (NRC or the Commission) of all NMB mediation cases have been employees, if any, and the estimated is considering issuance of an exemption, successfully resolved without number of employees in the craft or pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, from the interruptions to public service. Since class involved. This basic information is requirements of 10 CFR 72.82(e) to 1980, only slightly more than 1 percent essential to the Board in that it provides Portland General Electric Company of cases have involved a disruption of a short description of the particulars of (PGE). Exemption from 10 CFR 72.82(e) service. This success ratio would dispute and the Board can begin would release PGE from submitting the possibly be reduced if the Board was determining what resources will be report of preoperational test acceptance unable to collect the brief information required to conduct an investigation. criteria and test results concerning the that it does in the application for II. Current Actions operation of its independent spent fuel mediation services. storage installation (ISFSI). The Type of Review: Extension of the The extension of this form is proposed ISFSI is to be located at the expiration date of a currently approved necessary considering the information is Trojan Nuclear Plant (Docket Nos. 72– collection without any change in the used by the Board in determining such 17 and 50–344) in Columbia County, substance or in the method of matters as how many staff will be Oregon. The proposed ISFSI would collection. required to conduct an investigation and store the spent nuclear fuel from the Agency: National Mediation Board. what other resources must be mobilized Trojan Nuclear Plant. Title of Form: Application for to complete our statutory Mediation Services. responsibilities. Without this Environmental Assessment (EA) OMB Number: 3140–0001. information, the Board would have to Identification of Proposed Action Agency Number: NMB–2. delay the commencement of the Frequency: Daily. investigation, which is contrary to the By letter dated February 10, 1998, Affected Public: Carrier and Union intent of the Railway Labor Act. PGE requested an exemption from the Officials, and employees of railroads Type of Review: Extension of the requirement of 10 CFR 72.82(e) to and airlines. expiration date of a currently approved submit a report of the preoperational Number of Respondents: 123 collection without any change in the test acceptance criteria and test results annually. substance or in the method of at least 30 days prior to the receipt of Estimated Time Per Respondent: The collection. spent fuel or high-level radioactive burden on the parties is minimal in Agency: National Mediation Board. waste. completing the Application for Title of Forms: Application for The proposed action before the Mediation Services. There is no Investigation of Representation Dispute. Commission is whether to grant this improved technological method for OMB Number: 3140–002. exemption under 10 CFR 72.7 to release obtaining this information. Agency Number: NMB–3. PGE from submitting a report to NRC in Total Estimated Cost: $1040.00. Frequency: Daily. accordance with 10 CFR 72.82(e). Total Burden Hours: 43. Affected Public: Union Officials, and Need for the Proposed Action employees of railroads and airlines. B. Application for Investigation of Number of Respondents: 68 annually. The applicant is preparing to build Representation Dispute, NMB–3 Estimated Time Per Respondent: The and operate the Trojan ISFSI as burden on the parties is minimal in described in its application and SAR, I. Background completing the Application for subject to approval of the pending Section 2, Fourth of the Railway Investigation of Representation Dispute. licensing application. The exemption Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. 152, Fourth, There is no improved technological from 10 CFR 72.82(e) is necessary provides that railroad and airline method for obtaining this information. because PGE is preparing to transfer the employees shall have the right to Total Estimated Cost: $517.00. spent nuclear fuel from its current organize and bargain collectively Total Burden Hours: 24.50. location in the Trojan Nuclear Plant through representatives of their own Comments submitted in response to spent fuel pool to the Trojan ISFSI, choosing. When a dispute arises among this notice will be summarized and/or immediately following the completion the employees as to who will be their included in the request for Office of of the preoperational testing.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.106 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 15184 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed accordance with the requirements set requirement in 10 CFR 72.124(b) which Action forth in 10 CFR Part 51. Based upon the states: ‘‘When practicable the design of Section 72.82(e) currently requires foregoing EA, the Commission finds that an ISFSI or MRS must be based on that a Part 72 licensee submit to NRC a the proposed action of granting an favorable geometry, permanently fixed report of preoperational test acceptance exemption from 10 CFR 72.82(e) will neutron absorbing materials (poisons), criteria and test results at least 30 days not significantly impact the quality of or both. Where solid neutron absorbing before the receipt of spent fuel into an the human environment. Accordingly, materials are used [as a means for ISFSI. As part of the review of the the Commission has determined not to criticality control], the design shall applicant’s SAR, the staff determined prepare an environmental impact provide for positive means to verify that the scope of the preoperational statement for the proposed exemption. their continued efficacy.’’ Specifically, testing was adequately described. In This application was docketed under PGE is requesting exemption from the addition, the staff will be on site during 10 CFR Part 72, Docket 72–17. For requirement to provide a positive means the preoperational testing to both further details with respect to this to verify the continued efficacy of observe and conduct inspections. This action, see the application for an ISFSI neutron absorbing materials. allows the staff to conduct a direct license dated March 26, 1996, and the The proposed action before the observation and independent evaluation request for exemption dated February Commission is whether to grant this as to whether the applicant has 10, 1998, which are available for public exemption under 10 CFR 72.7 to release developed, implemented, and evaluated inspection at the Commission’s Public PGE from the requirement to use preoperational testing activities. Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW, positive means to verify the continued Therefore, the reports required by 10 Washington, DC 20555, and the Local efficacy of neutron absorbing materials CFR 72.82(e) are not necessary to Public Document Room at the Portland for spent fuel storage casks stored at an provide a hold period for NRC staff State University, Branford Price Millar ISFSI in accordance with 10 CFR review. Further, on September 14, 1998, Library, 934 SW Harrison, Portland, 72.124(a). the Commission issued a proposed rule Oregon 97207. Need for the Proposed Action (63 FR 49046) to eliminate 10 CFR Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day The applicant is preparing to build 72.82(e). Applicants for a license are of March 1999. and operate the Trojan ISFSI as currently required to submit For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. described in its application and SAR, information on a preoperational test E. William Brach, subject to approval of the pending program as part of an SAR. The Director, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of licensing application. The exemption to Commission’s current practice is to Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. 10 CFR 72.124(b) is necessary because, maintain an extensive oversight (i.e., [FR Doc. 99–7760 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] while this requirement is appropriate inspection) presence during the BILLING CODE 7590±01±P for wet spent fuel storage systems, it is preoperational testing phase of the not appropriate for dry spent fuel ISFSI; reviewing the acceptance criteria, storage systems such as the one PGE preoperational test, and test results as NUCLEAR REGULATORY plans to use for storage of spent fuel at they occur. In the proposed rule, the COMMISSION the Trojan ISFSI. Periodic verification of Commission states that it believes [DOCKET 72±17] neutron poison effectiveness is neither neither the report nor the 30-day hold necessary nor practical for these casks. period are needed for regulatory Portland General Electric Company; Environmental Impacts of the Proposed purposes and taking this action will Issuance of Environmental Action relieve licensees from an unnecessary Assessment and Finding of No regulatory burden. A final rule to Significant Impact Regarding the Section 72.124(b) currently requires remove this regulation has not yet been Proposed Exemption From Certain that where the design of an ISFSI uses issued by the Commission. Requirements of 10 CFR Part 72 solid neutron absorbing material as a Alternative to the Proposed Action method of criticality control, the design The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory of the ISFSI shall provide a positive Since there is no environmental Commission (NRC or the Commission) means to verify the continued efficacy impact associated with the proposed is considering issuance of an exemption, of the absorbing material. On June 9, action, any alternatives with equal or pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, from the 1998, the Commission issued a greater environmental impact are not requirements of 10 CFR 72.124(b) to proposed rule (63 FR 31364) to revise 10 evaluated. The alternative to the Portland General Electric Company CFR 72.124(b). The Commission proposed action would be to deny (PGE). Exemption from10 CFR 72.124(b) approval of the 10 CFR 72.82(e) proposed that for dry spent fuel storage would provide relief to PGE from the systems, the continued efficacy of exemption and require the report of requirement to use positive means to preoperational test acceptance criteria neutron absorbing material may be verify the continued efficacy of neutron confirmed by a demonstration and and test results at least 30 days before absorbing materials for spent fuel the receipt of spent fuel into the ISFSI. analysis before use, showing that storage casks stored at an independent significant degradation of the material This alternative would have the same spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) at environmental impact. cannot occur over the life of the facility. the Trojan Nuclear Plant (Docket Nos. The Commission stated in the proposed Agencies and Persons Consulted 72–17 and 50–344) in Columbia County, rule that the potentially corrosive Oregon. The proposed ISFSI would On March 1, 1999, Adam Bless from environment under wet storage store spent nuclear fuel from the Trojan the Oregon Office of Energy was conditions is not present in dry storage Nuclear Plant. contacted about this EA for the systems because an inert environment is proposed action and had no concerns. Environmental Assessment (EA) maintained. Under these conditions, there is no mechanism to significantly Finding of No Significant Impact Identification of Proposed degrade the neutron absorbing material. The environmental impacts of the By letter dated March 20, 1997, PGE Consequently, a positive means for proposed action have been reviewed in requested an exemption from the verifying the continued efficacy of the

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.146 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15185 material is not required. A final rule to For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. would cause an unnecessary burden to revise this regulation has not yet been E. William Brach, PGE. issued by the Commission. Director, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed The review of the applicant’s SAR Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. Action showed that credit was taken for only [FR Doc. 99–7761 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] 75% of the original neutron absorbing BILLING CODE 7590±01±P PGE last submitted a major revision to material being present and that the the SAR on October 31, 1998. Since that neutron flux produced by the spent time PGE has submitted several minor nuclear fuel would deplete only a small NUCLEAR REGULATORY changes to the SAR. NRC staff has percentage of neutron absorbing COMMISSION reviewed all SAR changes through material during the expected life of this March 11, 1999, in consideration for facility. The neutron absorbing material [DOCKET 72±17] issuing PGE a license, pursuant to 10 (poison) is in a form that exposure to the CFR Part 72, to operate an ISFSI at ambient atmosphere of the basket Portland General Electric Company; Trojan Nuclear Plant. Therefore, the interior will not cause a significant Issuance of Environmental staff has concluded that a period of 90 deterioration of the structural properties Assessment and Finding of No days would not be required to review of the material over the expected life of Significant Impact Regarding the the final SAR. Based on the review of the facility. Proposed Exemption From Certain the Trojan ISFSI SAR as supplemented Alternative to the Proposed Action Requirements of 10 CFR Part 72 through March 11, 1999, the staff further concluded that a period of 5 days would Since there is no significant The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory be sufficient to review the final SAR environmental impact associated with Commission (NRC or the Commission) and, if necessary, take additional the proposed action, any alternatives is considering issuance of an exemption, regulatory action prior to PGE receiving with equal or greater environmental pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, from certain fuel at the Trojan ISFSI. Accordingly, impact are not evaluated. The requirements of 10 CFR 72.70(a), to the Commission concludes that this alternative to the proposed action would Portland General Electric Company proposed exemption will have no be to deny approval of the 10 CFR (PGE). Exemption from portions of 10 significant environmental impacts. 72.124(b) exemption and, therefore, not CFR 72.70(a) would release PGE from allow elimination of the requirement to submitting the final Safety Analysis Alternative to the Proposed Action verify the continued efficacy of neutron Report (SAR) at least 90 days prior to Since there is no significant absorbing materials. This alternative the receipt of fuel at its independent environmental impact associated with would have the same or greater spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) at the proposed action, any alternatives environmental impacts. the Trojan Nuclear Plant (Docket Nos. with equal or greater environmental Agencies and Persons Consulted 72–17 and 50–344) in Columbia County, impact are not evaluated. The Oregon. alternative to the proposed action would On March 1, 1999, Adam Bless from be to deny approval of the 10 CFR the Oregon Office of Energy was Environmental Assessment (EA) 72.70(a) exemption and require the final contacted about this EA for the Identification of Proposed Action SAR update at least 90 days before the proposed action and had no concerns. receipt of spent fuel at the ISFSI. This By letter dated February 9, 1999, PGE Finding of No Significant Impact alternative would also have no requested an exemption from the significant environmental impact. The environmental impacts of the requirement in 10 CFR 72.70(a) which proposed action have been reviewed in states, in part, that the ‘‘. . . information Agencies and Persons Consulted accordance with the requirements set submitted in the Safety Analysis Report On March 1, 1999, Adam Bless from forth in 10 CFR Part 51. Based upon the shall be updated and submitted to the the Oregon Office of Energy was foregoing EA, the Commission finds that Commission ‘‘. . . with final Safety contacted about this EA for the the proposed action of granting an Analysis Report completion and proposed action and had no concerns. exemption from 10 CFR 72.124(b) will submittal to the Commission at least 90 not significantly impact the quality of days prior to the planned receipt of Finding of No Significant Impact the human environment. Accordingly, spent fuel . . .’’ The environmental impacts of the the Commission has determined not to The proposed action before the proposed action have been reviewed in prepare an environmental impact Commission is whether to grant this accordance with the requirements set statement for the proposed exemption. exemption under 10 CFR 72.7 to release forth in 10 CFR Part 51. Based upon the This application was docketed under PGE from submitting the final SAR to foregoing EA, granting an exemption 10 CFR Part 72, Docket 72–17. For NRC 90 days prior to receipt of spent from 10 CFR 72.70(a) to release PGE further details with respect to this fuel at the Trojan ISFSI in accordance from submitting the final SAR at least action, see the application for an ISFSI with 10 CFR 72.70(a). 90 days prior to the receipt of fuel at its license dated March 26, 1996, and the ISFSI at the Trojan Nuclear Plant and Need for the Proposed Action request for exemption dated March 20, instead require the final SAR be 1997, which are available for public The exemption from 10 CFR 72.70(a) submitted at least 5 days prior to the inspection at the Commission’s Public is necessary because, while PGE has receipt of fuel at the Trojan ISFSI will Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW, submitted all major changes to the SAR not significantly impact the quality of Washington, DC 20555, and the Local within the 90-day limit, a number of the human environment. Accordingly, Public Document Room at the Portland minor changes have been submitted in the Commission concludes that an State University, Branford Price Millar a timeframe that would not permit PGE environmental impact statement is not Library, 934 SW Harrison, Portland, to receive spent fuel at the ISFSI on its required for the proposed exemption. Oregon 97207. planned schedule if it must comply This application was docketed under Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day with the 90-day limit. A delay of 90 10 CFR Part 72, Docket 72–17. For of March 1999. days to receive fuel at the Trojan ISFSI further details with respect to this

VerDate 23-MAR-99 15:37 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 30MRN1 15186 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices action, see the application for an ISFSI benefit from an improvement and methodology for the licensees in license dated March 26, 1996, and the standardization of plant Technical marking-up the CTS and NUREG–1431 request for exemption dated February 9, Specifications (TS). The NRC’s ‘‘Interim specifications, and the NUREG–1431 1999, which are available for public Policy Statement on Technical Bases, that has been accepted by the inspection at the Commission’s Public Specification Improvements for Nuclear staff. Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW, Power Plants,’’ (52 FR 3788) contained This common methodology is Washington, DC 20555, and the Local proposed criteria for defining the scope discussed at the end of Enclosure 2, Public Document Room at the Portland of TS. Later, the NRC’s ‘‘FinalPolicy ‘‘Mark-Up of Current TS’’; Enclosure 5a, State University, Branford Price Millar Statement on Technical Specifications ‘‘Mark-Up of NUREG–1431 Library, 934 SW Harrison, Portland, Improvements for Nuclear Power Specifications’’; and Enclosure 5b, Oregon 97207. Reactors,’’ published on July 22, 1993 ‘‘Mark-Up of NUREG–1431 Bases’’, for each of the 14 separate ITS sections that Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day (58 FR 39132), incorporated lessons of March 1999. learned since publication of the interim were submitted with the licensee’s application. Each of the 14 ITS sections For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. policy statement and formed the basis for revisions to 10 CFR 50.36, also includes the following enclosures: E. William Brach, ‘‘Technical Specifications.’’ The ‘‘Final • Enclosure 1, ‘‘Cross-Reference Director, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Rule’’ (60 FR 36953) codified criteria for Table,’’ provides the cross-reference Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. determining the content of TS. To table connecting each CTS specification [FR Doc. 99–7762 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] facilitate the development of standard (i.e., limiting condition for operation, BILLING CODE 7590±01±P TS for nuclear power reactors, each required action, or surveillance power reactor vendor owners’ group requirement) to the associated ITS (OG) and the NRC staff developed specification, sorted by both CTS and NUCLEAR REGULATORY standard TS. For WCGS, the Improved ITS specifications. COMMISSION Standard Technical Specifications • Enclosures 3A and 3B, ‘‘Description [Docket No. 50±482] (ISTS) are in NUREG–1431. This of Changes to Current TS’’ and document formed the basis for the ‘‘Conversion Comparison Table,’’ Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating WCGS Improved Technical provides the description of the changes Corporation; Wolf Creek Generating Specifications (ITS) conversion. The to the CTS section and the comparison Station; Environmental Assessment NRC Committee to Review Generic table showing which plants (of the four and Finding of No Significant Impact Requirements (CRGR) reviewed the licensees in the joint effort) that each ISTS, made note of its safety merits, and change applies. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory • Enclosure 4, ‘‘No Significant Commission (the Commission) is indicated its support of the conversion by operating plants to the ISTS. Hazards Considerations,’’ provides the considering the issuance of an no significant hazards consideration amendment to Facility Operating Description of the Proposed Change (NHSC) of 10 CFR 50.91 for the changes License No. NPF–42 that was issued to The proposed changes to the CTS are to the CTS. A description of the NSHC Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating based on NUREG–1431 and on guidance organization is provided, followed by Corporation (the licensee) for operation provided by the Commission in its Final generic NHSCs for administrative, more of the Wolf Creek Generating Station Policy Statement. The objective of the restrictive, relocation, and moving-out- (WCGS), located in Coffey County, changes is to completely rewrite, of-CTS changes, and individual NHSCs Kansas. reformat, and streamline the CTS (i.e., to for less restrictive changes. • Environmental Assessment convert the CTS to the ITS). Emphasis Enclosures 6A and 6B, ‘‘Differences is placed on human factors principles to From NUREG–1431’’ and ‘‘Conversion Identification of the Proposed Action improve clarity and understanding of Comparison Table,’’ provides the The proposed amendment will revise the TS. The Bases section of the ITS has descriptions of the differences from the current Technical Specifications been significantly expanded to clarify NUREG–1431 specifications and the (CTS) for WCGS in their entirety based and better explain the purpose and comparison table showing which plants on the guidance provided in NUREG– foundation of each specification. In (of the four licensees in the joint effort) 1431, ‘‘Standard Technical addition to NUREG–1431, portions of that each difference applies. Specifications, Westinghouse Plants,’’ the CTS were also used as the basis for The common methodology includes Revision 1, dated April 1995, and in the the development of the WCGS ITS. the convention that, if the words in a Commission’s ‘‘Final Policy Statement Plant-specific issues (e.g., unique design CTS specification are not the same as on Technical Specifications features, requirements, and operating the words in the ITS specification, but Improvements for Nuclear Power practices) were discussed with the the CTS words have the same meaning Reactors,’’ published on July 22, 1993 licensee, and generic matters with or have the same requirements as the (58 FR 39132). The proposed action is Westinghouse and other OGs. words in the ITS specification, then the in accordance with the licensee’s This conversion is a joint effort in licensees do not have to indicate or amendment request dated May 15, 1997, concert with three other utilities: Pacific describe a change to the CTS. In general, as supplemented by (1) the letters in Gas & Electric Company for Diablo only technical changes have been 1998 dated June 30, August 5, August Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 identified; however, some non-technical 28, September 24, October 16, October (Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323); TU changes have also been identified. The 23, November 24, December 2, Electric for Comanche Peak Steam portion of any specification which is December 17, and December 21, and (2) Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (Docket being deleted is struck through (i.e., the the letters in 1999 dated February 4 and Nos. 50–445 and 50–446); and Union deletion is annotated using the strike- March 5 (3 letters). Electric Company for Callaway Plant, out feature of the word processing Unit 1 (Docket No. 50–483). It was a computer program or crossed out by The Need for the Proposed Action goal of the four utilities to make the ITS hand). Any text being added to a It has been recognized that nuclear for all the plants as similar as possible. specification is shown by shading the safety in all nuclear power plants would This joint effort includes a common text, placing a circle around the new

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.148 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15187 text, or by writing the text in by hand. 3. Less restrictive changes and the temperature overpressurization event The text being struck through or added deletion of requirements involves analysis remain valid. is shown in the marked-up CTS and portions of the CTS (i.e., the licensee’s 2. Change 1–15–M (CTS Section ISTS pages in Enclosures 2 (CTS pages) ‘‘LS’’ and ‘‘TR’’ changes) which (1) 3/4.4). CTS Surveillance Requirements and 5 (ISTS and ISTS Bases pages) for provide information that is descriptive (SRs) 4.4.1.2.2 and 4.4.1.3.2 require each ITS section attachment to the in nature regarding the equipment, steam generator (SG) levels to be application. Another convention of the systems, actions, or surveillances, (2) periodically verified to be greater than common methodology is that the provide little or no safety benefit, and or equal to 10 percent wide range water technical justifications for the less (3) place an unnecessary burden on the level. The proposed change would restrictive changes are in the NHSCs. licensee. This information is proposed revise the SG level value to 6 percent The proposed changes can be grouped to be deleted from the CTS and, in some narrow range water level. This change into the following four categories: instances, moved to the proposed Bases, would help ensure that the SG level is relocated requirements, administrative USAR, or procedures. The removal of sufficient to cover all SG tubes so that changes, less restrictive changes descriptive information to the Bases of the SGs would provide an adequate heat involving deletion of requirements, and the TS, USAR, or procedures is sink for removal for decay heat. The more restrictive changes. These permissible because these documents proposed change would similarly revise categories are as follows: will be controlled through a process that CTS 3.4.1.4.b, which currently requires, 1. Relocated requirements (i.e., the utilizes 10 CFR 50.59 and other NRC- for operational Mode 5, that the SG level licensee’s ‘‘LG’’ or ‘‘R’’ changes) are approved control mechanisms. The be maintained greater than 10 percent items which are in the CTS but do not relaxations of requirements were the wide range level. The change would meet the criteria set forth in the Final result of generic NRC actions or other increase this level value to greater than Policy Statement. The Final Policy analyses. They will be justified on a 66 percent wide range, which again Statement establishes a specific set of case-by-case basis for the WCGS and would help ensure the SG tubes remain objective criteria for determining which described in the safety evaluation to be covered in Mode 5. regulatory requirements and operating issued with the license amendment. 3. Change 7–10–LS–9 (CTS Section restrictions should be included in the 4. More restrictive requirements (i.e., 3/4.6). The proposed change would add TS. Relocation of requirements to the licensee’s ‘‘M’’ changes) are a note to CTS SRs 4.6.1.7.2 and 4.6.1.7.4 documents with an established control proposed to be implemented in some stating that containment purge valves program, controlled by the regulations areas to impose more stringent with resilient seals are not required to or the TS, allows the TS to be reserved requirements than are in the CTS. In be leak rate tested when the penetration only for those conditions or limitations some cases, these more restrictive flow path is isolated by leak-tested upon reactor operation which are requirements are being imposed to be blank flange. necessary to obviate the possibility of an consistent with the ISTS. Such changes 4. Change 2–20–A (2–20–A has two abnormal situation or event giving rise have been made after ensuring the changes associated with it. This is the to an immediate threat to the public previously evaluated safety analysis for first of two.) (CTS Section 3/4.8). The health and safety, thereby focusing the the WCGS was not affected. Also, other proposed change would increase the scope of the TS. In general, the more restrictive technical changes have minimum battery cell float voltages for proposed relocation of items from the been made to achieve consistency, DC sources in CTS Table 4.8–2 by 0.01 CTS to the Updated Safety Analysis correct discrepancies, and remove to 0.02 volts. Report (USAR), appropriate plant- ambiguities from the TS. Examples of 5. Change 2–20–A (Second change specific programs, station procedures, or more restrictive requirements include: associated with 2–20–A) (CTS Section ITS Bases follows the guidance of placing a Limiting Condition for 3/4.8). A change would be made to NUREG–1431. Once these items have Operation (LCO) on station equipment decrease the total required battery been relocated to other licensee- which is not required by the CTS to be terminal voltage for a DC subsystem in controlled documents, the licensee may operable; more restrictive requirements CTS SR 4.8.2.1. These proposed changes revise them under the provisions of 10 to restore inoperable equipment; and in minimum cell float voltage and CFR 50.59 or other NRC-approved more restrictive surveillance corresponding total required battery control mechanisms, which provide requirements. voltage would reflect a recent design appropriate procedural means to control There are twenty-two other proposed modification made by the licensee that changes by the licensee. changes to the CTS that may be replaced the Gould manufactured 2. Administrative changes (i.e., the included in the proposed amendment to square cell batteries with AT&T licensee’s ‘‘A’’ changes) involve the convert the CTS to the ITS. These are manufactured round cell batteries. reformatting and rewording of beyond scope issues (BSIs) in that they 6. Change 2–27–M (CTS Section requirements, consistent with the style are changes to both the CTS and the 3/4.8). The proposed change would of the ISTS in NUREG–1431, to make ISTS. For the WCNGS, these are the revise the battery performance discharge the TS more readily understandable to following: test acceptance criteria in CTS 4.8.2.1.e station operators and other users. These 1. Change 1–05–M (CTS Section to reflect a recent design modification changes are purely editorial in nature, 3/4.4). The change would add a note that replaced the Gould manufactured or involve the movement or reformatting under CTS 3.4.1.2 (ITS 3.4.5) to square cell batteries with AT&T of requirements without affecting the establish secondary side temperature manufactured round cell batteries. technical content. Application of a restrictions on starting an idle reactor The above six BSIs are given in the standardized format and style will also coolant pump when below the low licensee’s application. The remaining help ensure consistency is achieved temperature overpressurization arming sixteen BSIs may have been revised by among specifications in the TS. During temperature of 368 degrees F. The the licensee’s responses to the NRC this reformatting and rewording process, change would also add similar notes to requests for additional information no technical changes (either actual or CTS 3.4.1.3 and 3.4.1.4.1 (ITS 3.4.6 and (RAIs). The format for the sixteen BSIs interpretational) to the TS will be made 3.4.7). The notes would help ensure the listed below is the associated change unless they are identified and justified. assumptions in the WCNGS low number, RAI number, RAI response

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.142 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 15188 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices submittal date, and description of the Program for releases to areas beyond the 3.0.4 which the CTS would require to be change. site boundary would be revised to entered immediately. The new action 7. Change 1–22–M (CTS Section reflect 10 CFR Part 20 requirements. has a longer allowed outage time than 3/4.3), question Q3.3–49, response letter 12. Change 2–22–A (CTS Section 6.0), LCO 3.0.4 which the CTS would require dated November 24, 1998. The proposed question Q5.2–1, response letter dated to be entered immediately. This change change would add quarterly channel September 24, 1998. The proposed recognizes that the ventilation trains operational tests (COTs) to CTS Table change would revise the Radioactive associated with the pressure envelope 4.3–1 for the power range neutron flux- Effluent Controls Program to include would still be operable. low, intermediate range neutron flux, clarification statements denoting that 17. Change 4–8–LS–34 (CTS Section and source range flux trip functions. the provisions of CTS 4.0.2 and 4.0.3, 3/4.4), question Q3.4.11–2, response The CTS only require a COT prior to which allow extensions to surveillance letter dated September 24, 1998. The startup for these functions. A new note frequencies, are applicable to these proposed change would limit the CTS (Note 19) would be added to require that activities. SRs 4.4.4.1 and 4.4.4.2 requirements to the new quarterly COT be performed 13. Change 3–11–A (CTS Section 6.0), perform the 92-day surveillance of the within 12 hours after reducing power question Q5.2–1, response letter dated pressurizer PORV block valves and the below P–10 for the power range and September 24, 1998. CTS provides 18-month surveillance of the pressurizer intermediate range instrumentation if alternative high radiation area access PORVs (i.e., perform one complete cycle not performed within the previous 92 control alternatives pursuant to 10 CFR of each valve) to only Modes 1 and 2. days (P–10 is the dividing point 20.203(c)(2). The proposed change 18. Change 4–9–LS–36 (CTS Section marking the applicability for these trip would revise CTS 6.12 to meet the 3/4.4), question Q3.4.11–4, response functions). A new note (Note 20) would current requirements in 10 CFR Part 20 letter dated September 24, 1998. The also be added requiring the P–6 and P– and the guidance in NRC Regulatory proposed change would add a note to 10 interlocks be verified to be in their Guide 8.38, ‘‘Control of Access to High CTS LCO 3.4.4 Action (d) that would required state during all COTs on the and Very High Radiation Areas in state that the action does not apply power range neutron flux-low and Nuclear Power Plants’’ for such access when the PORV block valves are intermediate range neutron flux trip controls. inoperable as a result of power being functions. 14. Change 3–18–LS–5 (CTS Section removed from the valves in accordance 8. Change 1–7–LS–3 (CTS Section 3/ 6.0), question Q5.2–1, response letter with Actions (b) and (c) for an 4.3), question Q3.3–107, response letter dated September 24, 1998. The inoperable PORV. dated December 2, 1998. The proposed proposed change would delete the CTS 19. Change 1–60–A (CTS Section changes would (1) extend the 6.9.1.8 requirement to provide 3/4.3), question TR3.3–0073.3, response completion time for CTS Action 3.b documentation of all challenges to the letter dated December 21, 1998. The from no time specified to 24 hours for power operated relief valves (PORVs) proposed change would revise the intermediate range channel restoration and safety valves on the reactor coolant frequency for conducting the trip or changing the power level to either system. This proposed change is based actuating device operational test below P–6 or above P–10, (2) reduce the on Generic Letter 97–02, ‘‘Revised (TADOT) for the turbine trip of the applicability of the intermediate range Contents of the Monthly Operating reactor trip instrumentation surveillance neutron flux channels and delete CTS Report,’’ which reduced the requirements in CTS Table 4.3–1 from Action 3.a as being outside the revised requirements for submitting such ‘‘prior to reactor startup’’ to ‘‘prior to applicability, and (3) add a less information to the NRC. GL 97–02 did exceeding the P–9 interlock whenever restrictive new action that requires not include these valves for information the unit has been in Mode 3.’’ immediate suspension of operations to be submitted. 20. Change 1–70–M (CTS Section involving positive reactivity additions 15. Change 9–17–LS–24 (CTS Section 3/4.8), question Q3.8.2–04, response and a power reduction below P–6 3/4.4), question Q3.4.12–5, response letter dated December 17, 1998. The within 2 hours, but no longer requires letter dated September 24, 1998. The proposed change would add shutdown a reduction to Mode 3. proposed change would add four notes requirements (including actions) for the 9. Change 1–9–A (CTS Section 6.0), to CTS 3.4.9.3 to reflect CTS SR 4.5.3.2, load shedder and emergency load question Q5.2–1, response letter dated LCO 3.5.4 actions, LCO 3.5.4 sequencer (LSELS) to CTS LCO 3.8.1.2 September 24, 1998. The proposed applicability notes and the accumulator and surveillance requirements in SR change would revise requirements action proposed under Change 9–10–M 4.8.1.2. These requirements would concerning overtime control by for CTS 3/4.4. Note 1 on centrifugal reflect current practice. replacing CTS 6.2.2.e with a reference to charging pump (CCP) swap operations 21. Change 2–25–LS–23 (CTS Section administrative procedures for the would be a relaxation of the CTS 3/4.8), question Q3.8.4–08, response control of working hours. because it would allow both CCPs to be letter dated December 17, 1998. The 10. Change 1–15–A (CTS Section 6.0), capable of injecting into the RCS for up proposed change would allow question Q5.2–1, response letter dated to 4 hours throughout low temperature substitution of the service test with a September 24, 1998. The proposed protection applicability. performance discharge test in CTS change would revise CTS 6.2.2.G to 16. Change 10–20–LS–39 (CTS 4.8.2.1. eliminate the title of Shift Technical Section 3/4.7), question Q3.7.10–14, 22. Change 14–9–M (CTS Section Advisor. The engineering expertise is response letter dated October 16, 1998. 3/4.7), question Q3.7.16–3, response maintained on shift, but a separate The proposed change would revise and letter dated February 4, 1999. The individual would not be required as add an action to CTS LCOs 3.7.6 and proposed change would provide a new allowed by a Commission Policy 3.7.7 for ventilation system pressure LCO, Actions and SRs based on the Statement. envelope degradation that allows 24 ISTS to impose limitations on the boron 11. Change 2–18–A (CTS Section 6.0), hours to restore the control room concentration in the fuel storage pool. question Q5.2–1, response letter dated pressure envelope through repairs The BSI for the conversion to ITS is that September 24, 1998. The proposed before requiring the unit to perform an a minimum value for boron change would revise the dose rate limits orderly shutdown. The new action has concentration would be added that is in the Radioactive Effluent Controls a longer allowed outage time than LCO currently not in the CTS, and the

VerDate 23-MAR-99 15:48 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 30MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15189

Actions would be revised to reflect Environmental Statement related to the and March 5 (3 letters) which are available additional regions of fuel storage based operation of WCNGS, NUREG–0878, for public inspection at the Commission’s on approval of reracking the spent fuel dated June 1982. Therefore, there are no Public Document Room, The Gelman pool prior to issuance of the ITS. significant radiological impacts Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document rooms associated with the proposed action. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed located at the Emporia State University, Action With regard to potential non- William Allen White Library, 1200 radiological impacts, the proposed Commercial Street, Emporia, Kansas 66801, The Commission has completed its action only involves features located and Washburn University School of Law evaluation of the proposed conversion entirely within the restricted area for the Library, Topeka, Kansas 66621. of the CTS to the ITS for WCGS, station defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day including the beyond scope issues does not involve any historic sites. The of March 1999. discussed above. Changes which are proposed action does not affect non- For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. administrative in nature have been radiological station effluents and has no Jack N. Donohew, found to have no effect on the technical other environmental impact. It does not content of the TS. The increased clarity Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate increase any discharge limit for the IV–1, Division of Licensing Project and understanding these changes bring station. Therefore, there are no Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor to the TS are expected to improve the significant non-radiological Regulation. operators’ control of WCGS in normal environmental impacts associated with [FR Doc. 99–7756 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] and accident conditions. the proposed action. BILLING CODE 7590±01±U Relocation of requirements from the Accordingly, the Commission CTS to other licensee-controlled concludes that there are no significant documents does not change the environmental impacts associated with NUCLEAR REGULATORY requirements themselves. Future the proposed action. COMMISSION changes to these requirements may then be made by the licensee under 10 CFR Alternatives to the Proposed Action Sunshine Act Meeting 50.59 and other NRC-approved control As an alternative to the proposed mechanisms which will ensure action, the staff considered denial of the AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Nuclear continued maintenance of adequate proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’ Regulatory Commission. requirements. All such relocations have alternative). Denial of the licensee’s DATES: Weeks of March 29, April 5, 12, been found consistent with the application would result in no change and 19, 1999. guidelines of NUREG–1431 and the in current environment impacts. The PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference Commission’s Final Policy Statement. environmental impacts of the proposed Changes involving more restrictive Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, action and the alternative action are requirements have been found to Maryland. similar. enhance station safety. STATUS: Public and Closed. Changes involving less restrictive Alternative Use of Resources MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: requirements have been reviewed This action does not involve the use Week of March 29 individually. When requirements have of any resources not previously been shown to provide little or no safety considered in the Final Environmental There are no meetings scheduled for benefit, or to place an unnecessary Statement for the Wolf Creek Generating the Week of March 29. burden on the licensee, their removal Station dated June 1982. from the TS was justified. In most cases, Week of April 5—Tentative relaxations previously granted to Agencies and Persons Consulted There are no meetings scheduled for individual plants on a plant-specific In accordance with its stated policy, the Week of April 5. basis were the result of a generic action, on March 22, 1999, the staff consulted Week of April 12—Tentative or of agreements reached during with the Kansas State official, Mr. Vick discussions with the OG, and found to Cooper, Kansas Department of Health Wednesday, April 14 be acceptable for WCGS. Generic and Environment, regarding the relaxations contained in NUREG–1431 9:00 a.m.—Briefing on Investigative environmental impact of the proposed Matters (Closed—Ex. 5 & 7). have been reviewed by the NRC staff action. The State official had no 11:00 a.m.—Briefing on Remaining and found to be acceptable. comments. In summary, the proposed revisions to Issues Related to Proposed Restart of the TS were found to provide control of Finding of No Significant Impact Millstone Unit 2 (Public Meeting) station operations such that reasonable Based upon the environmental (Contact: William Dean, 301–415– assurance will be provided that the assessment, the Commission concludes 2240). health and safety of the public will be that the proposed action will not have Thursday, April 15 adequately protected. a significant effect on the quality of the 2:00 p.m.—Briefing on Status of The proposed action will not increase human environment. Accordingly, the Uranium Recovery (Public Meeting) the probability or consequences of Commission has determined not to (Contact: King Stablein, 301–415– accidents, will not change the quantity prepare an environmental impact 7238). or types of any effluent that may be statement for the proposed action. released offsite, and will not 3:00 p.m.—Affirmation Session (Public significantly increase the occupational For further details with respect to the Meeting) (If needed). or public exposure. Also, these changes proposed action, see the licensee’s application dated May 15, 1997, as Friday, April 16 do not increase the licensed power and supplemented by (1) the letters in 1998 dated allowable effluents for the station. The June 30, August 5, August 28, September 24, 9:30 a.m.—Briefing on Rulemaking For changes will not create any new or October 16, October 23, November 24, Generally Licensed Devices (Public unreviewed environmental impacts that December 2, December 17, and December 21, Meeting) (Contact: Patricia Holahan, were not considered in the Final and (2) the letters in 1999 dated February 4 301–415–8125).

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.145 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 15190 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices

Week of April 19—Tentative proposed revision of a guide in its Regulatory guides are available for There are no meetings scheduled for Regulatory Guide Series. This series has inspection at the Commission’s Public the Week of April 19. been developed to describe and make Document Room, 2120 L Street NW., The Schedule for Commission available to the public such information Washington, DC. Requests for single meetings is subject to change on short as methods acceptable to the NRC staff copies of draft or final guides (which notice. To verify the status of meetings for implementing specific parts of the may be reproduced) or for placement on call (recording)—(301) 415–1292. NRC’s regulations, techniques used by an automatic distribution list for single Contact person for more information: the staff in evaluating specific problems copies of future draft guides in specific Bill Hill (301) 415–1661. or postulated accidents, and data divisions should be made in writing to ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: By a vote of 5– needed by the staff in its review of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 0 on March 19, the Commission applications for permits and licenses. Commission, Washington, DC 20555, The draft guide, temporarily determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) Attention: Reproduction and identified by its task number, DG–1084 and § 9.107(a) of the Commission’s rules Distribution Services Section; or by fax that ‘‘Briefing on Millstone Independent (which should be mentioned in all to (301)415–2289, or by e-mail to Review Team’’ (Closed—Ex. 2, 5 & 7), be correspondence concerning this draft . held on March 19, and on less than one guide), is the Second Proposed Revision week’s notice to the public. 3 of Regulatory Guide 1.8, Telephone requests cannot be By a vote of 5–0 on March 23, the ‘‘Qualification and Training of accommodated. Regulatory guides are Commission determined pursuant to Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants.’’ not copyrighted, and Commission U.S.C. 552b(e) and § 9.107(a) of the The guide will be in Division 1, ‘‘Power approval is not required to reproduce Commission’s rules that ‘‘Affirmation of Reactors.’’ This proposed revision is them. Hydro Resources, Inc.—ENDAUM’s and being developed to provide current (5 U.S.C. 552(a)) SRIC’s Petition For Interlocutory Review guidance acceptable to the NRC staff of Presiding Officer’s Order Concerning regarding qualifications and training for Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day Technical Qualifications (March 3, nuclear power plant personnel. This of March 1999. 1999)’’ (PUBLIC MEETING) be held on regulatory guide would endorse an For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. March 23, and on less than one week’s American Nuclear Society standard, John W. Craig, notice to the public. ANSI/ANS–3.1–1993, ‘‘Selection, Director, Division of Regulatory Applications, By a vote of 5–0 on March 25, the Qualification, and Training of Personnel Commission determined pursuant to Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. for Nuclear Power Plants,’’ with certain [FR Doc. 99–7755 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] U.S.C. 552b(e) and § 9.107(a) of the clarifications, additions, and exceptions. Commission’s rules that ‘‘Briefing on The draft guide has not received BILLING CODE 7590±01±P Millstone Independent Review Team’’ complete staff approval and does not (Closed—Ex. 2, 5 & 7), be held on March represent an official NRC staff position. 25, and on less than one week’s notice Comments may be accompanied by OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND to the public. relevant information or supporting data. The NRC Commission Meeting BUDGET Written comments may be submitted to Schedule can be found on the Internet the Rules and Directives Branch, Office at: Performance of Commercial Activities of Administration, U.S. Nuclear http://www.nrc.gov/SECY/smj/ Regulatory Commission, Washington, schedule.htm AGENCY: Office of Management and DC 20555. Copies of comments received This notice is distributed by mail to Budget, Executive Office of the may be examined at the NRC Public President. several hundred subscribers; if you no Document Room, 2120 L Street NW., longer wish to receive it, or would like Washington, DC. Comments will be ACTION: Issuance of Transmittal to be added to it, please contact the most helpful if received by May 20, Memorandum No. 19, amending OMB Office of the Secretary, Attn: Operations 1999. Circular No. A–76, ‘‘Performance of Branch, Washington, DC 20555 (301– You may also provide comments via Commercial Activities.’’ 415–1661). In addition, distribution of the NRC’s interactive rulemaking this meeting notice over the Internet website through the NRC home page SUMMARY: This Transmittal system is available. If you are interested (http://ruleforum.llnl.gov/cgi-bin/ Memorandum updates the Federal pay in receiving this Commission meeting library? source=*&library= raise assumptions and inflation factors schedule electronically, please send an rgllib&file=*. This site provides the electronic message to [email protected] or used for computing the Government’s availability to upload comments as files [email protected]. in-house personnel and non-pay costs, (any format), if your web browser as generally provided in the President’s Dated: March 26, 1999. supports that function. For information Budget for Fiscal Year 2000. In addition, William M. Hill, Jr., about the interactive rulemaking the standard retirement cost factors for SECY Tracking Officer, Office of the website, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, the weighted average CSRS/FERS Secretary. (301) 415–5905; e-mail [email protected]. pension and Federal retiree health cost [FR Doc. 99–7872 Filed 3–26–99; 2:27 pm] For information about the draft guide numbers are revised. BILLING CODE 7590±01±M and the related documents, contact Ms. I. Schoenfeld, (301)415–6778; e-mail DATES: All changes in the Transmittal [email protected]. Memorandum are effective immediately NUCLEAR REGULATORY Although a time limit is given for on March 30, 1999, and shall apply to COMMISSION comments on this draft guide, all cost comparisons in process where comments and suggestions in the Government’s in-house cost estimate Draft Regulatory Guide; Issuance, connection with items for inclusion in has not been publicly revealed before Availability guides currently being developed or this date. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission improvements in all published guides has issued for public comment a are encouraged at any time.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 15:37 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 30MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15191

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The FY 1999—1.3% which provided the last three year’s OMB Budget Analysis and Systems Division, FY 2000—2.0% Circular A–76 Federal pay raise and inflation NEOB Room 6002, Office of FY 2001—2.1% factor assumptions are also canceled. Management and Budget, 725 17th FY 2002—2.1% Sincerely, FY 2003—2.1% Jacob J. Lew, Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Tel. FY 2004—2.1% No. (202) 395–6104, FAX No. (202) 395– Geographic pay differentials received in Director. 7230. 1999 shall be included for the development [FR Doc. 99–7666 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] of in-house personnel costs. The above pay BILLING CODE 3110±01±P Availability raise factors shall be applied after Copies of the current OMB Circular consideration is given to the geographic pay A–76 and the March 1996 OMB Circular differentials. The pay raise factors provided for 2000 and beyond shall be applied to all SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE A–76 Revised Supplemental Handbook COMMISSION may be obtained by contacting the employees, with no assumption being made Executive Office of the President, Office as to how they will be distributed between [Release No. IC±23750; File No. 812±11288] possible locality and ECI-based increases. of Administration, Publications Office, In addition, the standard retirement cost Washington, DC 20503, at (202) 395– Security Benefit Life Insurance factors for the weighted average CSRS FERS Company, et al. 7332. These documents are also pension and Federal retiree health cost accessible on the OMB Home page. The numbers are reduced from those published in March 23, 1999. the March 1996 A–76 Supplemental online OMB Home page address (URL) AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Handbook. These numbers are being revised is http:/www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/ Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’). omb. because of downward estimates in actuarial normal cost estimates, which more than ACTION: Notice of Application for Jacob J. Lew, offset the gradual shift toward FERS in the Exemptions under the Investment Director. total. However, the post-retirement health Company Act of 1940 (‘‘1940 Act’’. Executive Office of the President, cost was revised up by a full percentage point. The net result is that the cost factors APPLICANTS: Security Benefit Life Office of Management and Budget, provided at Part II, Chapter 2, paragraph B.6. Insurance Company (‘‘Security Washington, D.C. 20503 f. 1.a., are up by 0.3 to 0.6 percentage points. Benefit’’), T. Rowe Price Variable March 24, 1999. In addition, the current benefit component Annuity Account (‘‘Separate Account’’), for Federal employee insurance and health First Security Benefit Life Insurance and Circular No. A–76 (Revised) benefits at Part II, Chapter 2, paragraph 6. f. Transmittal Memorandum No. 19 1.b is revised up by 0.1 percentage points on Annuity Company of New York To The Heads of Executive Departments and the health side to 5.7 percent. The Medicare (‘‘Security Benefit—NY,’’ together with Agencies factor of 1.45 at Part II, Chapter 2, paragraph Security Benefit, the ‘‘Insurers’’), T. Subject: Performance of Commercial 6. f. 1.b and the cost of miscellaneous fringe Rowe Price Variable Annuity Account Activities benefits of 1.7 percent at Part II, Chapter 2, of First Security Benefit Life Insurance This Transmittal Memorandum paragraph 6. f. 1.c ., are unchanged. and Annuity Company of New York updates the Federal pay raise Current Handbook—as printed in the (‘‘Separate Account—NY,’’ together assumptions and inflation factors used March 1996 Revised Supplemental with Separate Account, the ‘‘Separate for computing the Government’s in- Handbook at Part II, Chapter 2, Paragraph Accounts’’) and T. Rowe Price house personnel and non-pay costs, as 6.f.1.a (page 20): Investment Services, Inc. (‘‘Distributor’’) generally provided in the President’s 23.7% Regular (19.6 pension + 4.1 retiree health) (collectively referred to herein as Budget for Fiscal Year 2000. ‘‘Applicants’’). The non-pay inflation factors are for 32.3% Air Traffic Controllers (28.2 pension + 4.1 retiree health) RELEVANT 1940 ACT SECTIONS: Exemption purposes of A–76 cost comparison 37.7% Law Enforcement (33.6 pension + 4.1 requested under Section 6(c) of the 1940 determinations only. They reflect the retiree health) Act from Sections 2(a)(32), 22(c), generic non-pay inflation assumptions Revised Handbook—as provided by this 27(i)(2)(A) and Rule 22c–1 thereunder used to develop the FY 2000 Budget Transmittal at Part II, Chapter 2, Paragraph and an amendment of an Order of baseline estimates required by law. The 6.f.1.a (page 20): Approval requested under Section 11 of law requires that a specific inflation 24.0% Regular (18.9 pension + 5.1 retiree the 1940 Act. factor (GDP FY/FY chained price index) health) be used for this purpose. These inflation 33.0% Air Traffic Controllers (27.9 pension SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Applicants + 5.1 retiree health) seek an order on behalf of themselves, factors should not be viewed as 38.2% Law Enforcement (33.1 pension + 5.1 estimates of expected inflation rates for on behalf of any other person that may retiree health) become a principal underwriter for major long-term procurement items or Other Current Benefits—as provided at Part as an estimate of inflation for any II, Chapter 2, Paragraph 6.f.1.b (page 20): contracts issued by the Insurers particular agency’s non-pay purchases Current Handbook (March 1996) 5.6% (‘‘Future Underwriters’’) that are similar mix. Revised per this Transmittal 5.7% in all material respects to the flexible These updates are effective as follows: all premium deferred or single premium changes in the Transmittal Memorandum are immediate variable annuity contracts Federal pay raise as- military/civilian sumptions effective (percent) effective immediately and shall apply to all described in the Application (the date cost comparisons in process where the ‘‘Contracts’’), and on behalf of such Government’s in-house cost estimate has not other separate accounts as the Insurers January 2000 ...... 4.4 been publicly revealed before this date. shall establish in the future, which at January 2001 ...... 3.9 Agencies are reminded that OMB Circular January 2002 ...... 3.9 any time may offer variable annuity No. A–76, Transmittal Memoranda 1 through contracts on a basis which is similar in January 2003 ...... 3.9 Transmittal Memorandum 14 are canceled. January 2004 ...... 3.9 Transmittal Memorandum No. 15 provided all material respects to the arrangements the Revised Supplemental Handbook, and is described with respect to the Contracts Non-Pay Categories (Supplies and dated March 27, 1996 (Federal Register, (‘‘Other Separate Accounts’’) (a) Equipment, etc.) April 1, 1996, pages 14338–14346). exempting such persons from the FY 1998—1.2% Transmittal Memoranda No. 16, 17 and 18, provisions of Sections 2(a)(32), 22(c)

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.109 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 15192 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices and 27(i)(2)(A) of the 1940 Act and Rule 450 Fifth St., N.W., Washington, D.C. retirement plans, including plans that 22c–1 thereunder, to the extent 20549–0609 (tel. (202) 942–8090). meet the requirements of Section 408 of necessary to assess a withdrawal charge, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as Applicants’ Representations as described herein, against Contract amended (the ‘‘Code’’). owners and (b) amending an Order of Background for Request for Exemptions 7. The Deferred Contracts provide for Approval, granted on April 4, 1995, From Certain Provisions of the 1940 Act accumulation of values on either a variable basis, a fixed basis or both pursuant to Section 11 of the 1940 Act, 1. Security Benefit is a stock life during the accumulation phase of the to approve, to the extent necessary, the insurance company organized under the Contracts. The Deferred and Immediate terms of a payment arrangement laws of Kansas. Security Benefit is Contracts also provide several options whereby purchasers of Contracts may ultimately controlled by Security apply redemption proceeds from shares for fixed or variable (or a combination Benefit Mutual Holding Company, a of a registered open-end investment of fixed and variable) annuity payments. Kansas mutual holding company. company for which the Distributor Annuity payments are based on the Security Benefit is licensed to conduct serves as principal underwriter (the ‘‘T. annuity rates for the options provided. life insurance business in the District of Rowe Price Public Funds’’) as a Payments made under fixed annuity Columbia and all state except new York. premium payment for a Contract, a options will be guaranteed by Security 2. Security Benefit—NY is a stock life conversely, to apply the proceeds of a Benefit or Security Benefit—NY, as the insurance company organized under the withdrawal or annuity payment under case may be. laws of New York. Security Benefit—NY the Contracts to the purchase of shares 8. The net premium for Deferred and is a wholly owned subsidiary of of a T. Rowe Price Public Funds(s). Immediate Contracts may be allocated to Security Benefit Group, Inc., a financial FILING DATE: The application was filed one or more of the Subaccounts of the services holding company which is Separate Account or Separate on August 27, 1998, amended and wholly owned by Security Benefit. restated on January 20, 1999, and Account—NY, or the Insurer’s general Security Benefit—NY offers the account, where such premium is amended and restated on March 19, Contracts in New York and is admitted 1999. credited with a fixed rate of interest. to do business in that state. Each Subaccount of the Separate HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An 3. Each Separate Account is a unit order granting the application will be Account and Each Subaccount—NY of investment trust and meets the the Separate Account—NY, will invest issued unless the Commission orders a definitions of ‘‘separate account’’ in hearing. Interested persons may request exclusively in shares of the Section 2(a)(37) under the 1940 Act. corresponding Portfolio of one of the a hearing by writing to the Secretary of Each Separate Account is divided into the Commission and serving Applicants Underlying Funds. Shares of each of the subaccounts (‘‘Subaccounts’’) that will Portfolios are purchased by Security with a copy of the request, personally or invest exclusively in shares of the by mail. Hearing requests should be Benefit and Security Benefit—NY for corresponding portfolio (‘‘Portfolio’’) of the corresponding Subaccount or received by the Commission by 5:30 one of the following mutual funds; (1) p.m. on April 16, 1999, and should be Subaccount—NY, respectively, at the T. Rowe Price International Series, Inc.; Portfolio’s net asset value per share, i.e., accompanied by proof of service on (2) T. Rowe Price Equity Series, Inc. and Applicants, in the form of an affidavit without any sales load. All dividends (3) T. Rowe Price Fixed Income Series, and capital gain distributions received or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Inc. (collectively the ‘‘Underlying Hearings requests should state the from a Portfolio will be reinvested Funds’’). Each of the Underlying Funds automatically in such Portfolio at net nature of the writer’s interest, the reason is a Maryland corporation and is for the request, and the issues contested. asset value per share, unless otherwise currently registered under the 1940 Act instructed by Security Benefit or Persons who wish to be notified of a as an open-end management investment hearing may request notification by Security Benefit—NY, as appropriate. company. Other insurance companies may invest writing to the Secretary of the 4. The Distributor, a wholly-owned Commission. in each Underlying Fund and Portfolio. subsidiary of T. Rowe Price Associates, 9. None of the Underlying Funds, the ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and Inc.,, is the principal underwriter for the Portfolios or any investment adviser of Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, Contracts. The Distributor is registered a Portfolio is an affiliated person of N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549–0609. as a broker-dealer under the Securities Security Benefit or Security Benefit— Applicants, c/o Amy J. Lee, Esq., Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the NY, although it is possible that Security Security Benefit Life Insurance ‘‘1934 Act’’), and is a member of the Benefit or Security Benefit—NY may be Company, 700 Harrison Street, Topeka, National Association of Securities deemed to be an affiliated person of a Kansas 66636, and Darrell N. Braman, Dealers, Inc. (the ‘‘NASD’’). Each Future Portfolios and an Underlying Fund at a Esq., T. Rowe Price Investment Services, Underwriter will be registered as a future date by virtue of the Separate Inc., 100 E. Pratt Street, Baltimore, broker-dealer under the 1934 Act and Account or Separate Account—NY’s Maryland 21202. Copies to Keith T. will be a member of the NASD. ownership of shares in Portfolio. Robinson, Esq., Dechert Price & Rhoads, 5. The Contracts consist of flexible 10. If any Owner (or Annuitant, if the 1775 Eye Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. premium deferred variable annuity Owner is not a natural person) dies 20006–2401. contracts currently issued by Security during the accumulation phase under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Benefit and Security Benefit—NY (the the Deferred Contracts, the Insurer will Martha Peterson, Attorney, or Susan ‘‘Deferred Contracts’’) and single pay the death benefit proceeds to the Olson, Branch Chief, Office of Insurance premium immediate variable annuity Designated Beneficiary upon receipt of Products, Division of Investment contracts to be issued by Security due proof of the Owner’s death and Management, at (202) 942–0670. Benefit and Security Benefit—NY (the instruction regarding payment of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ‘‘Immediate Contracts’’). Designated Beneficiary. The death following is a summary of the 6. The Contracts are available for benefit proceeds consist of the death application. The complete application is purchase as non-tax qualified retirement benefit less any uncollected premium available for a fee from the Public plans. The Contracts are also eligible for taxes. Under the Deferred and Reference Branch of the Commission, use in connection with tax qualified Immediate Contracts, in the event of the

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.023 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15193

Owner’s death on or after the Annuity unit for the applicable Subaccount to are allowed at any time during the Payout Date, the death benefit is determine the number of payment units accumulation phase. Under the Deferred determined under the terms of the to be used in calculating subsequent and Immediate Contracts, full and Annuity Option. annuity payments. The number of partial withdrawals of Account Value 11. Under the Deferred Contracts, if payment units will remain constant for are allowed on or after the Annuity the Annuitants dies during the subsequent annuity payments, unless Payout Date under Annuity Option 5, 6, Accumulation Period, the Owner may the Owner exchanges payment units or 7 and during the Liquidity Period designate a new Annuitant within 30 among Subaccounts or makes a under Option 9. If a variable annuity days. If a new Annuitant is not named, withdrawal under Option 8 or during under Annuity Option 8 is selected, the the Issuer will designate the Owner as the Liquidity Period under Option 9. Owner may withdraw the present value Annuitant. 17. Subsequent annuity payments are of future annuity payments commuted 12. The Contracts offer the following calculated by multiplying the number of at the assumed interest rate. nine Annuity Options: Option 1—Life payment units allocated to a Subaccount Withdrawals under Option 9 are subject Income, Option 2—Life Income with by the value of the payment unit as of to a Withdrawal Charge discussed Period Certain; Option 3—Life Income the date of the annuity payment. If the below. with Installment or Unit Refund; Option annuity payment is allocated to more 21. The Insurer will deduct a daily 4—Joint and Last Survivor, Option 5— than one Subaccount, the annuity charge from the assets of the Separate Fixed Period; Option 6—Fixed Payment, payment is equal to the sum of the Account or the Separate Acount–NY for Option 7—Age Recalculation; Option payment amount determined for each mortality and expense risks assumed by 8—Perod Certain; and Option 9—Life Subaccount. Annuity payments under it under the Contracts. The mortality Income with Liquidity; Annuity Options Option 9 are made monthly, but the and expense risk under the Contracts 1 through 4 and 8 are available as either amount is reset only once each year on during the accumulation phase of the a fixed or variable annuity; Option 9 is the 12-month anniversary of the Deferred Contracts and after the available only as a variable annuity; and Annuity Payout Date. Annuity Payout Date for all options, Options 5 through 7 are available as a 18. Option 9, designated the ‘‘Life except Option 9, is equal to an annual fixed annuity, a variable annuity or a Income with Liquidity Option,’’ rate of 0.55% of the average daily net combination fixed and variable annuity. provides monthly annuity payments for assets of each Subaccount or 13. Under the Deferred Contracts, the the life of the annuitant or the lives of Owner may select the Annuity Payout Subaccount–NY that funds the the annuitant and a joint annuitant with Contracts. The mortality and expense Date and Annuity Option at the time of a period certain of 15 years (or a shorter application. If no Annuity Payout Date risk charge for Contracts that have period under certain circumstances).1 annuitized under Option 9 is expected is selected, the Annuity Payout Date Annuity payments under Option 9 are will be the later of the Annuitant’s to be equal to an annual rate of 1.40% guaranteed never to be less than 80 seventieth birthday or the tenth annual of the average daily net assets of each percent of the initial annuity payment Contract anniversary. If no Annuity Subaccount or Subaccount–NY that (the ‘‘Floor Payment’’). The amount of Option is selected, the Insurer will use funds such Contracts. annuity payments under Option 9 will Life Income with 10 years period 22. With respect to Option 9, the remain level for 12-month intervals, certain. The Owner may change the Insurer assumes the risks associated subject to reset on each anniversary of Annuity Payout Date, Annuity Option with guaranteeing that the annuity the initial annuity payment. In the event or Annuitant prior to the Annuity payment will never be less than the of the death of a joint annuitant, annuity Payout Date. Floor Payment. The Insurer is entering 14. Under the Immediate Contracts, payments continue to the surviving joint into a reinsurance arrangement with an the owner selects the Annuity Payout annuitant at the level indicated at the unaffiliated insurance company to time that Option is selected, which may support its guarantee of the Floor Date and Annuity Option at the time of 2 application. The Annuity Payout Date be 100%, 75%, 66 ⁄3%, or 50% of Payment, and the increased mortality must be within 30 days of the issue annuity payments. and expense risk charge for Option 9 19. Under Option 9, the Contract date. The Owner may not change the reflects the costs of such reinsurance. owner may allocate premium only to Annuity Payout Date, Annuity Option The reinsurer will charge the Insurer an certain subaccounts of the relevant or Annuitant under the Immediate asset-based charge equal to a certain separate account, and no portion of the Contracts. percentage of assets allocated to Option 15. If a variable annuity under Option premium may be allocated to the 9 under the Contracts and the 1 through 4, 8 or 9 is selected, annuity Insurer’s general account. The Contract withdrawal charges imposed under the payments are calculated on the basis of owner may withdraw Account Value Contracts will also be paid to the payment units. The number of payment only during the Liquidity Period under reinsurer. The reinsurance cost will be units used to calculate each annuity Option 9. The Liquidity Period for the based upon the reinsurer’s estimate of payment is determined as of the Immediate Contracts is the period from the cost to purchase financial Annuity Payout Date Account Value as the date the Contract begins in force instruments to hedge against the risks of the Annuity Payout Date of the through the date preceding the 61st assumed (‘‘Hedge Costs’’). The reinsurer Deferred contracts, or the initial annuity payment. The Liquidity Period also expects to profit from the premium for the Immediate Contracts, for the Deferred Contracts is the period reinsurance arrangement to the extent less any premium taxes, is divided by from the Annuity Payout Date through that it has accurately estimated the $1,000 and the result is multiplied by the date preceding the 61st annuity ongoing cost of hedging the risks the rate per $1,000 set forth in the payment. assumed with respect to Option 9 under annuity tables specified in the Contracts 20. Under the Deferred Contracts, full the Contracts. The reinsurer will agree to determine the initial annuity or partial withdrawals of Account Value to assume the risks, and not to increase payment for a variable annuity. the charges, during the life of any 1 The period certain may not extend beyond the 16. The initial variable annuity life expectancy of the annuitant(s) for Contracts Contract issued under the arrangement. payment is divided by the value as of issued in connection with tax-qualified retirement The Insurers may elect in the future to the Annuity Payout Date of the payment plans. hedge the risks associated with Option

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.025 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 15194 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices

9 themselves in lieu of entering into the 26. Each of Security Benefit and to conditionally or unconditionally reinsurance arrangement. Security Benefit—NY guarantees that grant an exemption from any provision, 23. Various states and municipalities the charge for mortality and expense rule or regulation of the 1940 Act to the impose a tax on premiums on annuity risk charges and the Withdrawal Charge extent that the exemption is necessary contracts received by insurance will not increase with respect to a or appropriate in the public interest and companies. The Insurer assesses a Contract once it has been issued. The consistent with the protection of premium tax charge to reimburse itself charge may be increased with respect to investors and the purposes fairly for premium taxes that it incurs. This new issues of the Contract intended by the policy and provisions of charge will be deducted upon the 1940 Act. Applicants state that Background For Request for Amended annuitization or upon full or partial because the provisions described below Order withdrawal if premium taxes are may be inconsistent with certain aspects incurred; however, the Insurer reserves 27. An Order of Approval pursuant to of the Withdrawal Charge structure, the right to deduct premium taxes when Section 11 of the 1940 Act was granted Applicants are seeking exemptions from due. Premium tax rates currently range to Applicants on April 4, 1995 Sections 2(a)(32), 27(i)(2)(A) and 22(c) from 0% to 3.5%, but are subject to approving the terms of a payment of the 1940 Act and Rule 22c–1 change by a government entity. arrangement whereby purchasers of thereunder, to the extent necessary 24. The Insurer will deduct a Deferred Contracts would direct the pursuant to Section 6(c) to assess the Withdrawal Charge from full or partial Distributor to redeem shares of a T. Withdrawal Charge against Contracts withdrawals made during the Liquidity Rowe Price Public Fund(s) and forward annuitized under Option 9 in the event Period under Option 9. The Withdrawal redemption proceeds therefore to an of a surrender or partial withdrawal Charge does not apply to any of the Insurer as a premium payment for a from the Contracts prior to expiration of other annuity options under the Deferred Contract, and conversely, to the Liquidity Period. Applicants seek Contracts. The Withdrawal Charge is apply the proceeds of a withdrawal or exemptions therefrom in order to avoid based upon the year in which the an annuity payment from the Deferred any questions concerning the Contracts’ withdrawal is made measured from the Contracts to the purchase of shares of a compliance with the 1940 Act and rules Annuity Payout Date. The Withdrawal T. Rowe Price Public Fund(s). thereunder. Rule 6c–8 under the 1940 Charge is applied to the amount of the 28. The Distributor proposes to make Act exempts a registered separate withdrawal at a rate of 5 percent in the the payment arrangement available to account and its depositor or principal first year from the Annuity Payout Date, owners and purchasers of the Immediate underwriter from certain provisions of decreasing to 0 percent in the sixth year Contracts and any substantially similar the Act to permit imposition of a from the Annuity Payout Date. A partial variable contracts to be offered by deferred sales load on variable annuity withdrawal and any associated Applicants. Use of this arrangement contracts participating in such separate Withdrawal Charge is deducted from the would be entirely elective; no Contract account. Applicants state that Rule 6c– Subaccounts in the same proportion as owner or purchaser would be required 8 was not available with respect to the withdrawal is allocated. A partial to use the payment arrangement to imposition of the Withdrawal Charge withdrawal under Option 9 will result purchase a Contract or shares of a T. because it is a charge for an optional in a reduction of the annuity payment, Rowe Price Public Fund. insurance benefit rather than a deferred Floor Payment and payment units used 29. Because the T. Rowe Price Public sales load. For the reasons discussed to calculate annuity payments in the Funds do not impose sales load charges below, Applicants assert that the same proportion as the withdrawal and the Contracts do not impose any deduction of the Withdrawal Charge is reduces Account Value. sales load charges, Applicants represent 25. The Withdrawal Charges collected in the public interest and consistent that there is no possibility that any sales with the protection of investors and by the Insurers will be paid to the load would be deducted in connection reinsurer each month pursuant to a purposes fairly intended by the 1940 with the application of redemption reinsurance agreement, in whole or in Act. Applicants reserve the right to proceeds from a T. Rowe Price Public part (depending upon the Subaccount assert in any proceeding before the Fund to premium payments on a from which the withdrawal is made), for Commission or in any suit or action in Contract or the application of assuming the risk associated with the any court that the Commission does not withdrawal proceeds or annuity Floor Payment under Option 9. The have authority to regulate such charges. payments from a Contract to the reinsurer purchases financial hedging 2. Section 2(a)(32) of the 1940 Act purchase of shares of T. Rowe Price instruments to hedge against the defines ‘‘redeemable security’’ as any Public Fund. The Withdrawal Charge potential losses resulting from the risk security under the terms of which the applicable to withdrawal under Option assumed. The reinsurer bears the risk holder, upon its presentation to the 9 is designed to recover the Hedge Costs that the amount of the Floor Payment issuer, is entitled to receive of the reinsurer in connection with the will exceed the amount of the annuity approximately his or her proportionate Floor Payment and other guarantees payment based upon the performance of share of the issuer’s current net assets, associated with Option 9. Any the underlying Subaccount(s) and will or the cash equivalent thereof. exchanges deemed to be made in pay any such shortfall to the Insurers. Applicants state that a charge such as connection with the payment The Withdrawal Charge is designed so the Withdrawal Charge may not be arrangement would be effected at net that if a Contract owner surrenders a contemplated by Section 2(a)(32), and asset value, except where the Contract or withdraws from Account thus may be deemed inconsistent with Withdrawal Charge or premium tax may Value under Option 9 prior to the foregoing provision, to the extent be deducted. expiration of the Liquidity Period, the that the charge can be viewed as causing reinsurer may recover the costs incurred Applicants’ Legal Analysis a Contract to be redeemed at a price in purchasing such financial hedging based on less than the current net asset For Exemption From Certain Provisions instruments. value that is next computed after The Withdrawal charge may be more of the 1940 Act surrender or after partial withdrawal or less than the Hedge Costs actually 1. Section 6(c) authorizes the from the Contract. Although Applicants incurred by the reinsurer. Commission, by order upon application, do not concede that relief is necessary,

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.027 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15195

Applicants request relief from Section Contracts are ‘‘redeemable securities.’’ requirements of Rule 22c–1, Applicants 2(a)(32) to permit the deduction of the The Contracts provide for surrender and will determine the net cash surrender Withdrawal Charge. partial withdrawal of Account Value. value under a Contract in accordance 3. As discussed above, Applicants The Contracts and the prospectuses for with Rule 22c–1 on a basis next state that the Withdrawal Charge the Contracts will disclose the computed after receipt of a Contract compensates the Insurers (and contingent nature of the Withdrawal owner’s request for surrender or partial indirectly the reinsurer) for the risks Charge. Accordingly, Applicants state withdrawal. Accordingly, Applicants assumed should a Contract owner who that there will be no restriction on, or submit that they will comply with both selects Option 9 surrender or partially impediment to, surrender or partial the amount payable and timing withdraw from a Contract during the withdrawal that should cause the requirement of Rule 22c–1. Liquidity Period. Applicants assert that Contracts to be considered other than 8. In addition, Applicants assert that the Floor Payment represents an redeemable securities within the the deduction of the Withdrawal Charge optional insurance benefit for which meaning of the 1940 Act and rules is consistent with the policy behind each insurer is entitled to receive thereunder. Upon surrender or partial Rule 22c–1. Applicants note that the compensation. Applicants further assert withdrawal of a Contract for which the Commission’s purpose in adopting Rule that the Withdrawal charge is not Contract owner has annuitized under 22c–1 was to minimize (i) dilution of assessed at redemption for Option 9, Applicants state that Contract the interest of other security holders and administrative expenses,2 and that no owners will receive their ‘‘proportionate (ii) speculative trading practices that are portion of the Withdrawal charge is paid share’’ of the Separate Account or unfair to such holders.4 Applicants state to, or otherwise used to offset the Separate Account—NY; namely, the that the Withdrawal Charge will in no expenses of the Underlying Funds, their amount of the premium reduced by the way have the dilutive effect that Rule advisers or any of their affiliates. amount of all applicable charges and 22c–1 is designed to prohibit, because a Applicants state that the deduction of increased or decreased by the amount of surrendering Contract owner will the Withdrawal Charge is a legitimate investment performance credited to the ‘‘receive’’ no more than an amount charge for an optional insurance benefit Contract. equal to the Account Value determined under the Contracts. In this manner, 6. Section 22(c) of the 1940 Act pursuant to the formula set out in the Applicants argue that the Withdrawal empowers the Commission to ‘‘make Contract after receipt of the Owner’s charge is similar to other charges made rules and regulations applicable to withdrawal request. Furthermore, by insurers, and approved by the registered investment companies and to Applicants state that variable annuities, Commission, at redemption for optional principal underwriters of, and dealers by nature, do not lend themselves to the insurance benefits, such as enhanced in, the redeemable securities of any kind of speculative short-term trading 3 death benefits. registered investment company.’’ Rule that Rule 22c–1 was aimed against and, 4. Moreover, Applicants submit that 22c–1 under the 1940 Act imposes even if they could be so used, the although Section 2(a)(32) does not requirements with respect to both the Withdrawal Charge would discourage, specifically contemplate the imposition amount payable on redemption of a rather than encourage, any such trading. of a charge at the time of redemption, redeemable security and the time as of 9. Applicants assert that the such a charge is not necessarily which such amount is calculated. deduction of the Withdrawal Charge inconsistent with the definition of Specifically, Rule 22c–1, in pertinent upon surrender or partial withdrawal ‘‘redeemable security.’’ Indeed, a part, prohibits a registered investment from Contracts for which the Owner has withdrawal charge is little different, for company issuing a redeemable security annuitized under Option 9 will be this purpose, from the ‘‘redemption’’ and its principal underwriter from advantageous to Contract owners for a charge authorized in Section 10(d)(4) of selling, redeeming, or repurchasing any number of reasons. First, a deferred the 1940 Act. Applicants argue that such security, except at a price based on charge structure has long been accepted Congress obviously intended that such a the current net asset value of such as an appropriate feature of variable redemption charge, which is expressly security which is next computed after annuities. The existence of products described as a ‘‘discount from net asset receipt of a tender of such security for with deferred charges provides investors value,’’ be deemed consistent with the redemption, or of an order to purchaser a valuable choice, and the Commission concept of ‘‘proportionate share’’ under or sell such security. Although and its staff have supported efforts to Section 2(a)(32). Applicants do not concede that relief 5. Consistent with Section 2(a)(32), expand investor choice without from Section 22(c) and Rule 22c–1 is 5 therefore, Applicants submit that the necessary, to the extent that the sacrificing investor protection. In this imposition of the Withdrawal Charge context, Applicants state that a deferred 2 John P. Reilly & Assoc. (pub avail. July 12, 1979) may be viewed as causing a Contract to charge structure also reinforces the (‘‘a mutual fund may make a charge to cover be redeemed at a price that is computed intention that the product be held as a administrative expenses associated with at less than current net asset value, long-term investment. redemption, but if that charge should exceed 2 10. Second, Applicants state that the percent, its shares may not be considered Applicants request relief from Section redeemable’’). 22(c) and Rule 22c–1. amount of the Contract owners’ 3 United Investors Life Ins. Co., Investment 7. Applicants submit that the premiums that will be allocated to the Company Act Release No. 22715 (June 18, 1997) deduction of the Withdrawal Charge Separate Account or Separate (order), Investment Company Act Release No. 22680 Account—NY, and that will be available (May 22, 1997) (notice) (prorated optional death will comply with the requirements of benefit charge assessed at contract surrender); such rule. Regarding the amount to earn a return for the Contract owners, Companion Life Ins. Co., Investment Company Act payable, Applicants submit (as will be greater than it would be if the Release No. 21944 (May 8, 1996) (order), Investment charges were deducted from the Company Act Release No. 21887 (Apr. 10, 1996) discussed above) that the assessment of (notice) (prorated enhanced death benefit charge the Withdrawal Charge upon surrender premiums. Applicants note that the assessed at contract surrender); United of Omaha, or partial withdrawal of a Contract for Investment Company Act Release No. 21205 (July which the Owner has annuitized under 4 Investment Company Act Rel. No. 5519 at 1 15, 1995) (order), Investment Company Act Release (Oct. 16, 1968). No. 21153 (June 20, 1995) (notice) (prorated Option 9 does not alter a Contract 5 See Protecting Investors: A Half Century of enhanced death benefit charge assessed at contract owner’s current net asset value. Investment Company Regulation (May 1992), surrender). Furthermore, consistent with the Introduction of Richard C. Breeden, Chairman.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.030 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 15196 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices

Commission recognized this in intended by the policies and provisions that a Contract would provide valuable authorizing deferred sales charges for of the 1940 Act. benefits should not be forced to delay variable annuity contracts.6 14. Section 11 does not set forth any investment. Applicants argue that the 11. Finally, Applicants state that the specific standards for Commission payment arrangement therefore serves charge structure provides equitable approval of exchange offers. Applicants the public interest because it offers treatment to all Contract owners who submit that the public policy underlying those investors who are so interested a annuitize under Option 9. Applicants Section 11 may be inferred from Section means of minimizing the potential loss state the Option 9 charge structure was 1(b)(1) of the 1940 Act and the of return on the investment of their established so that an Insurer may legislative history of the 1940 Act for assets due to the delay from processing recover its costs over the life of the guidance in determining whether to the liquidation of one investment and Contract. If Contract owners who select grant approval of an exchange offer purchase of another. As indicated Option 9 could surrender or partially pursuant to Section 11 of the 1940 Act. above, the payment arrangement would withdraw from the Contracts prior to the 15. With respect to the concern be wholly elective on the investor’s part. Liquidity Period expiration date without articulated in Section 1(b)(1) that offeres 18. Applicants submit that the the imposition of the Withdrawal of exchange offers may not receive payment arrangement complies with the Charge, the Insurer might not be able to sufficient disclosure, Applicants submit general principles of Section 11(a) and fully recover its costs. Applicants note that investors for the Contracts will Rules 11a–2 and 11a–3. Any exchanges that the Insurers could have elected not receive adequate, accurate and explicit deemed to be made in connection with to impose a Withdrawal Charge and information, fairly presented, the payment arrangement would be simply to have imposed a higher concerning investment in the T. Rowe effected at net asset values, except mortality and expense risk charge. In Price Public Funds and in the Contracts, where the Withdrawal Charge or this event the Insurer could be charging and that the prospectus for the Contracts premium tax may be deducted. In those persisting Contract owners who choose will disclose the principal tax transactions in which Withdrawal Option 9 more than otherwise would be consequences of the exchange offer. Charge or premium tax may be necessary to recover the costs With respect to the concern reflected in deducted, Applicants state that the attributable to such Contract owners. the legislative history that exchange exchange arguably may not be deemed Accordingly, Applicants submit that the offers may be made to collect additional to be made at relative net asset value. Contracts will satisfy the requirements sales loads, Applicants assert that this However, Applicants state that Rule of Rule 22c–1. concern is irrelevant to their 11a–2 and Rule 11a–3 permit 12. Applicants submit that the circumstances. As noted above, the administrative fees to be deducted upon assessment of a Withdrawal Charge payment arrangement does not offer any an exchange and utilization of the should not be construed as a restriction opportunity for the imposition of any payment arrangement would not cause on redemption, and therefore, maintain sales loads or other profits. The a premium tax or Withdrawal Charge to that such contract is a redeemable Withdrawal Charge applicable to be deducted that would not have been security as required by Section withdrawals under Option 9 is designed deducted if the Contract Owner had not 27(i)(2)(A) of the 1940 Act. Applicants to recover the Hedge Costs of the elected to utilize the payment also maintain that the Contracts for reinsurer in connection with the Floor arrangement. which Contract owners choose Option 9 Payment and other guarantees are redeemable securities, and that the associated with Option 9; therefore, the Class Relief Withdrawal Charge upon surrender or Applicants do not derive any benefit or 19. Applicants seek the relief partial withdrawal represents nothing profit from the withdrawal charges. requested in the application not only more than the deduction of an insurance Accordingly, the Withdrawal Charge with respect to themselves and the charge. does not have the potential for abuse Contracts described above, but also with associated with a sales load. respect to Other Separate Accounts and For an Amended Order 16. Moreover, Applicants assert that Future Underwriters. Applicants 13. While Applicants do not concede the payment arrangement is designed represent that the terms of the relief that Commission approval is required for the convenience of investors—not to requested with respect to Other Separate for the payment arrangement described assess sales charges, the principal abuse Accounts and Future Underwriters are in its application, to avoid any at which Section 11 is directed. The consistent with standards set forth in possibility that questions may be raised payment arrangement offers Contract Section 6(c) of the 1940 Act. Applicants as to the potential applicability of purchasers and owners the flexibility to state that the Commission has granted Section 11, the Applicants request that make payments expeditiously with comparable class relief in the past. the Commission issue an amended order funds from any source chosen by them, 20. Applicants state that without the under Section 11, to the extent including proceeds from redemptions of requested relief, the Distributor and the necessary, approving the terms of the T. Rowe Price Public Fund share or Insurer would have to request and payment arrangement summarized under the Contracts. Applicants state obtain Commission approval for any above. Applicants believe such approval that the payment arrangement is Future Underwriters and Other Separate is appropriate, in the public interest and intended solely as an administrative Accounts that may be established in the consistent with the protection of convenience to allow those Contract future to fund the Contracts. Applicants investors and the purposes fairly purchasers and owners who from time assert that these additional requests to time are or become T. Rowe Price would present no issues under the 1940 6 Applicants state that the Commission has noted Public Fund shareholders to implement Act not already addressed in this the argument that ‘‘a deferred sales load is more application. Applicants state that if the advantageous to investors that a front-end sales load their investment decisions in because the amount of investors’ money available accordance with their preferred Distributor and Insurer were to for investment is not reduced as in the case of a methods. repeatedly seek exemptive relief with front-end sales load.’’ Investment Company Act Rel. 17. Absent the payment arrangement, respect to the same issues addressed in NO. 13048 (Feb. 28, 1993) (proposing Rule 6c–8, subsequently adopted to permit contingent deferred Applicants assert that investors would this application, investors would not sales loads in connection with variable annuity experience an investment delay. receive additional protection or benefit, contracts). Investors who have already determined and investors and Insurers could be

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.032 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15197 disadvantaged by increased overhead Dated: February 19, 1999. Metropolitan Transportation Authority costs. Applicants argue that the Strobe Talbott, (MTA) New York City Transit (NYC requested relief and order will promote Deputy Secretary of State. Transit) intend to prepare an competitiveness in the variable annuity [FR Doc. 99–7768 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Alternatives Analysis/Environmental market by obviating the filing of BILLING CODE 4710±10±P Impact Statement (AA/EIS) in redundant exemptive applications, accordance with the National thereby reducing administrative Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for expenses and maximizing efficient use DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION transportation improvements in the of resources and enhancing the corridor between LaGuardia Airport and Applicant’s ability to effectively take Federal Aviation Administration Lower and Midtown Manhattan. MTA advantage of business opportunities as NYC Transit will ensure that the AA/ such arise. Applicants submit, for all the Notice of Intent To Rule on Application EIS also satisfies the requirements of the reasons stated herein, that their request (99±12±C±00±CHO) To Impose a New York State Environmental Quality for approval is necessary or appropriate Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) at Review Act. The work being performed in the public interest and consistent Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, will also satisfy the FTA’s alternatives with the protection of investors and the Charlottesville, VA analysis requirements and guidelines. This effort will be performed in purposes fairly intended by the policy AGENCY: Federal Aviation cooperation with the Federal Aviation and provisions of the 1940 Act, and that Administration (FAA), DOT. an order of the Commission should, Administration (FAA), the Federal ACTION: Correction to notice of intent to therefore, be granted. Highway Administration (FHWA), the rule on application. Port Authority of New York and New Conclusion SUMMARY: This correction revises Jersey, the New York City Departments For the reasons stated above, information from the previously of Transportation and City Planning and Applicants request that the Commission published notice. the New York State Department of issue an order granting the exemptions In notice document 99–6937 Transportation. Other interested agencies and elected officials or bodies and an amended order as described beginning on Page 13841 in the issue of include the New York State Office of the above. Applicants believe that the Monday, March 22, 1999, under Notice Governor, the New York City Office of requested exemptions and the amended of Intent to Rule on Application, the the Mayor, the Office of the Borough order, in accordance with the standards correct number should read ‘‘99–12–00– President of Queens, the New York City of Section 6(c), are appropriate in the CHO’’. Under SUPPLEMENTARY Planning Commission, and the New public interest and consistent with the INFORMATION, second paragraph the York City Council. protection of investors and the purposes second sentence should read ‘‘The FAA will approve or disapprove the Its proximity to Manhattan makes fairly intended by the policy and LaGuardia Airport ideally suited to the provisions of the 1940 Act. application, in whole or in part, no later than April 30, 1999’’. Manhattan-bound business traveler. For the Commission, by the Divisions of However, travelers to LaGuardia must DATES: Comments must be received on Investment Management, pursuant to use frequently congested highways delegated authority. or before April 29, 1999. (Grand Central Parkway, Brooklyn- Margaret H. McFarland, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Art Queens Expressway, Long Island Deputy Secretary. Winder, Project Manager, Washington, Expressway) and river crossings (e.g. [FR Doc. 99–7685 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Airports District Office, 23723 Air Midtown Tunnel, Tri-borough Bridge). Freight Lane 3911 Hartzdale Dr., Suite BILLING CODE 8010±01±M Peak period travel times between 1, Camp Hill, PA 17011. (717) 730– Manhattan and LaGuardia are frequently 2832. an hour or more, and uncertainty Issued in Jamaica, New York on March 23, regarding travel times forces travelers to DEPARTMENT OF STATE 1999. set aside even more time to avoid Thomas Felix, missing flights or appointments in Office of the Secretary Manager, Planning and Programming Branch, Manhattan. Unless corrective actions are AEA–610, Eastern Region. taken, these access limitations will [Public Notice 3017] [FR Doc. 99–7764 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] reduce both the airport’s appeal to BILLING CODE 4910±13±M travelers and the attractiveness of the National Interest Determination and city as a national and international Waiver of Section 620(q) of the Foreign center. Assistance Act of 1961, as Amended, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Many other major cities in this Relating to Assistance to Honduras country and abroad have direct rail Federal Transit Administration rapid transit access to their airports. In Pursuant to the authority vested in me contrast, transit service to LaGuardia is by Section 620(q) of the Foreign Alternatives Analysis/Environmental infrequent or inconvenient, with Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, Impact Statement of the Extension of relatively high fares and lengthy and Executive Order 12163, and the Subway Service From Manhattan to unreliable travel times in peak periods Department of State Delegation of LaGuardia Airport (since the available transit modes Authority No. 145, I hereby determine AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, depend on the same congested that furnishing assistance to Honduras DOT. highways and local streets). However, is in the national interest and that the ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an many LaGuardia passengers have Section’s prohibition on assistance is alternatives analysis/environmental origins or destinations within the waived. This determination shall be impact statement (AA/EIS). Manhattan Central Business District reported to Congress as required by law. (CBD), which has an extensive existing The determination shall also be SUMMARY: The Federal Transit rail rapid transit network with published in the Federal Register. Administration (FTA) and the extensions into Queens. This

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.035 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 15198 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices combination forms an established base location can be accessed by subway meetings by contacting Mr. Thomas from which an attractive transit link to (Astoria ‘‘N’’ line at the Ditmars Jablonski at MTA–NYC Transit as the airport could potentially be built. Boulevard Station), and by the Q19A indicated above. Given these problems, the AA/EIS and Q101 bus lines, which also connect II. Description of Study Area and to the E and F subway lines at the will evaluate public transit Project Need improvements in the corridor between Queens Plaza station, and to the #7 Lower and Midtown Manhattan and subway line at the Queensboro Plaza The study area and travel corridors LaGuardia Airport in Queens, New station. Limited public parking is involved are wholly within New York York. In particular, the focus will be on available near the site. The Manhattan and Queens Counties. They primarily proposed extensions of existing rail location is within several blocks of the include Lower and Midtown Manhattan rapid transit (subway) lines that #4, 5, 6 and 7 subway lines (at the Grand (the Central Business District (CBD) of presently operate in Manhattan and Central station) and the B, D and F lines Manhattan) and those portion of Queens, and which would be extended at 42nd Street at 6th Avenue, and to northern and northwestern Queens along a selected alignment to provide numerous local bus routes on Sixth, through which passengers and service to the airport. Fifth and Madison Avenues and along employees pass on their way to and Scoping of the AA/DEIS will be 42nd Street. from LaGuardia Airport. The Manhattan accomplished through correspondence The meetings will be held in an ‘‘open CBD is one of the largest and most dense with interested persons, organizations, house’’ format, and project employment concentrations in the and federal, state and local agencies, representatives will be available to world, but also includes a major and through public meetings. See discuss the project throughout the time residential population. The involved SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below for period given. Informational displays areas of Queens include numerous details. and written materials will also be commercial and industrial centers as During the initial months of the AA/ available. In addition to written well as major residential areas. Existing transit service between the DEIS process, MTA NYC Transit will comment, which may be made at the Manhattan CBD and LaGuardia Airport work with other agencies and with the meeting or as described below, a includes: (a) Gray Line bus service from general public to identify potentially stenographer will be available at the various CBD locations; (b) ferry service feasible alternatives for providing meetings to record comments. from Lower Manhattan to LaGuardia’s prompt, reliable, dedicated access ADDRESSES: Written comments on the Marine Air Terminal (MAT); and (c) between Lower and Midtown project scope should be sent to Mr. local bus lines connecting existing Manhattan and LaGuardia Airport. Thomas R. Jablonski, Project Manager, subway lines to the airport (e.g., the Q33 These alternatives should take full MTA–NYC Transit, 130 Livingston and Q47 bus routes connecting with the advantage of the city’s existing Street, Room 7068–D, Brooklyn, New ‘‘E,’’ ‘‘F’’ and ‘‘R’’ subway lines at the extensive public transit network, and York 11201. The scoping meetings will Roosevelt Avenue station, the Q48 bus provide travelers with a ‘‘single-seat be held at the following locations: route from the ‘‘7’’ subway service at ride’’ from points throughout the Steinway School (IS 141), 37–11 21st Main Street-Flushing, and the M60 bus Manhattan CBD to the airport. Only Avenue, Astoria, New York 11370, and route from the ‘‘N’’ subway service at those alternatives found to meet the the Metropolitan Transportation the Astoria Boulevard station). The project’s needs, goals and objectives Authority, 5th Floor Board Room, 347 available paratransit services in this would receive detailed consideration in Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017. travel market include medallion taxis, the AA/DEIS. In addition to possible FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: private car and limousine services, and new transit lines or services, the AA/ Brian P. Sterman, Federal Transit private vans and mini-buses operated by DEIS will also evaluate a No-Build Administration, One Bowling Green, hotels and other Manhattan operations. alternative and a Transportation System Room 429, New York, New York 10004– As noted above in the Summary Management (TSM) alternative. See the 1415. (212)–668–2201. section, all transit and paratransit Alternatives discussion under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: modes serving the airport (except the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below for ferry service to the MAT) must use details. I. Scoping combinations of local streets, arterials, DATES: Comment Due Date: Written FTA and MTA–NYC Transit invite highways and bridges and tunnels, comments on the scope of alternatives interested individuals, organizations many of which are highly congested and impacts to be considered should be and federal, state and local agencies to during the travel periods when airport sent to the MTA–NCY Transit offices by participate in defining the alternatives demand is the greatest. In addition to May 28, 1999. See ADDRESSES below. to be evaluated in the EIS and traffic congestion and the associated air Scoping Meetings: The public scoping identifying any significant social, and noise pollution, travel by these meetings will be held on Tuesday, May economic or environmental issues existing highway-dependent modes is 11, 1999 starting at 6PM (sign-in begins related to the alternatives. Scoping often unrealible—a fundamental at 5PM) at the Steinway School (IS141) comments may be made at the public problem for time-sensitive air travelers. at 37–11 21st Avenue in Astoria, New scoping meeting or in writing. See Given the need to address these York, and on Wednesday, May 12, 1999 DATES and ADDRESSES section above for airport access problems, the primary starting at 6PM (sign-in begins at 5PM) locations and times. During scoping, goals for the LaGuardia Airport Subway at the Metropolitan Transportation comments should focus on identifying Access (LASA) project are to (a) provide Authority offices in Manhattan. See specific social, economic or convenient, reliable and safe public ADDRESSES below. People with special environmental impacts to evaluate, and transit access for airport passengers and needs should contact Douglas Sussman suggesting alternatives that are more employees between Lower and Midtown at the Metropolitan Transportation cost effective or have less environmental Manhattan and LaGuardia Airport, (b) Authority offices at the address below or impact while achieving the similar develop public transit options providing by calling (212)–878–7483. Both transportation goals and objectives. a ‘‘one-seat’’ (i.e., transfer-free) trip meeting locations are accessible to Scoping materials will be available at between Lower and Midtown people with disabilities. The Queens the meetings or in advance of those Manhattan and multiple LaGuardia

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.113 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15199

Airport terminals, (c) improve the detailed study in the AA/DEIS. This • Sunnyside Yard Alternative would quality of public transit service and process will insure that all reasonable be a branch of the BMT Broadway- reduce the travel time within the study and feasible alternatives are considered. Astoria Line (‘‘N’’ Train service) starting corridor from LaGuardia Airport to the It is projected that the AA/DEIS will at the Queensboro Plaza Station in Long Manhattan CBD, (d) reduce the use of consider the following alternatives, at a Island City. From that point, the congested highway, river crossings, minimum: alignment would extend as a modern local streets and arterials by LaGuardia (1) No Build Alternative, representing aerial transit guideway structure along Airport passengers and employees, future conditions in the travel corridors the northern side of the Sunnyside thereby reducing areawide traffic between the Manhattan CBD and Yards, and would then pass over and congestion, (e) increase mobility by LaGuardia Airport with no new run along the eastern side of AMTRAK’s better serving the critical Manhattan transportation projects or services, other Northeast Corridor tracks. At CBD-to-LaGuardia Airport travel market, than those already committed to by approximately 30th Avenue, the and by creating improved connections local officials and agencies. alignment would turn east and run within the region to the Manhattan CBD, (2) Transportation Systems along the northern side of 30th Avenue (f) attract new ridership to public transit Management (TSM) Alternative, before turning north along the Brooklyn- through the initiation of additional representing future conditions with the Queens Expressway (BQE). At that service to LaGuardia Airport, (g) implementation of one or more lower- point, the alignment will enter a minimize impacts to airport operations cost measures to improve the efficiency ‘‘depressed section’’ (where the tracks during and after construction, and of existing transportation systems, are below grade but in an ‘‘open cut’’ ensure that proposed alignments do not rather than significantly expanding section rather than enclosed in a tunnel) preclude other planned improvements those systems (e.g., improvements to the as it travels along the southern side of on- or off-airport, (h) promote and existing express bus services, subway- the Grand Central Parkway (GCP). As it reinforce economic development and to-bus connections to the airport, etc.). approaches the airport, the alignment the quality of life in New York, (i) more (3) Build Alternatives, involving would rise and cross over the GCP to efficiently accommodate forecasted construction of facilities and enter the airport. On-airport stations are growth in LaGuardia Airport passenger implementation of associated transit projected to be provided at the CTB and trips, (j) conform to the New York State services between the Manhattan CBD USAir/Delta terminals as noted above Air Quality Implementation Plan (SIP) and LaGuardia Airport. In recent for the 19th Avenue Alternative. (4) Other Alternatives. The FTA and as required by the Clean Air Act decades, the MTA, PANYNJ and other MTA NYC Transit will review other Amendments of 1990, (k) avoid, public agencies have performed possible Build alternatives that may be minimize and mitigate degradation of extensive studies of possible transit the natural environment, and (j) provide raised throughout the scoping process. connections to this airport. Based on reliable transit service that is compatible Any other alternatives found to those studies and on further studies by with existing transit systems in the potentially meet the project’s goals and MTA NYC Transit of possible region. objectives, as outlined above, would Adherence to these goals should help extensions of the BMT Broadway also be analyzed in the AA/DEIS. identify new services that take full Astoria Line (‘‘N’’ Train service), the IV. Probable Effects advantage of the city’s extensive transit following two subway alternatives are network in the Manhattan CBD and scheduled to be considered in the AA/ The FTA and MTA NYC Transit plan Queens, maximize the potential for a DEIS. These are preliminary alignments to evaluate in the AA/DEIS all ‘‘single-seat’’ ride from Lower and for these alternatives, with further potentially significant social, economic Midtown Manhattan to LaGuardia, refinements expected throughout the and environmental impacts of the preserve the city’s quality of life while AA/DEIS process in both the off- and project alternatives. Impacts proposed supporting economic development, and on-airport sections: for analysis include changes in the • minimize the degradation of the natural The 19th Avenue Alternative would physical environment (air quality, noise, environment. be an extension of the BMT Broadway- water quality, geology, visual); changes The objectives to be used to facilitate Astoria Line (‘‘N’’ Train service) beyond in the social environment (land use, the process of selecting a locally its present Ditmars Boulevard Terminus. residential, commercial or industrial preferred alternative are to (a) identify From that point, the line would be displacement or disruption, changes in viable alternatives that address the extended northerly as a modern aerial neighborhood character or cohesion); corridor’s transportation problems while transit guideway structure along the changes in traffic and pedestrian meeting the project’s goals; (b) develop centerline of 31st Street up to 20th circulation (on local streets, highways criteria for screening and evaluating the Avenue. From there, the alignment and arterials, and at the airport) and alternatives based upon the project’s would curve easterly across the Con associated changes in traffic congestion; goals; (c) identify the anticipated Edison property to 19th Avenue, where impacts to parklands or historic sites; impacts for each alternative with it would continue along the avenue. At changes in transit service, mobility and potential mitigation strategies; (d) 45th Street, the alignment would swing patronage; capital, operating and initiate the development of cost/benefit northerly and then enter a tunnel maintenance costs for proposes transit projections that are used for project section, in which the alignment would services; and financial and fiscal considerations; and (e) identify the remain as it crosses onto the airport implication. Impacts will be analyzed locally preferred alternative for study in property. After serving the Marine Air for both construction-period activities, the FEIS. Terminal and passing around the and for long-term operation of the runway at the airport’s western end, the alternatives. III. Alternatives alignment would rise onto an aerial Construction-period impacts The AA/DEIS process will include a section, and extend to two other on- projected to be of importance for this review of proposed alternatives that airport stations—one at the Central project include noise and vibration, could potentially meet the project’s Terminal Building (CTB) and a second traffic diversions due to temporary goals and objectives, and the selection to jointly serve the USAir and Delta roadway closures, temporary loss of on- of those alternatives that warrant terminals. street parking, and short-term

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.116 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 15200 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices disruptions to subway service. Potential PLACE: Hearing Room, Surface interest in the line between milepost long-term impact of likely importance Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, 308.09, at Oil Junction, and milepost include traffic, parking and pedestrian NW, Washington, D.C. 20423. 312.55, at Maltha, a distance of 4.46 flow impacts near stations (including STATUS: The Board will meet to discuss miles in Kern County, CA; (3) on the on-airport locations), visual impacts due among themselves the agenda item Porterville Subdivision, the line to the introduction or extension of listed below. Although the conference is between milepost 38.9, at Exeter, and transit lines into an area, noise impacts, open for public observation, no public milepost 47.2, at Lindsay, a distance of and property acquisitions and participation is permitted. 8.3 miles in Tulare County, CA; (4) on residential or commercial displacement MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED: Finance the Visalia Subdivision, the line to provide space for alternatives’ right- Docket No. 33556, Canadian National between milepost 23.8, at Visalia, and of-way or support facilities. Railway Company, Grand Trunk milepost 20.2, at Loma, a distance of 3.6 Each alternative will be analyzed for Corporation, and Grand Trunk Western miles in Tulare County, CA; (5) on the potential transportation, environmental, Railroad Incorporated— control— Visalia Subdivision, the line between social, economic and financial impacts Illinois Central Corporation, Illinois milepost 51.0, at Lacjac, and milepost as required by current Federal (NEPA) Central Railroad Company, Chicago, 49.8, at Reedley, a distance of 1.2 miles and State (SEQRA) environmental laws Central and Pacific Railroad Company, in Tulare County, CA; (6) on the Cameo and current Council on Environmental and Cedar River Railroad; Finance Rail Spur, the line between milepost Quality (CEQ) and FTA guidelines and Docket No. 33556 (Sub-No. 1), Canadian 0.03+160, at Fresno, and milepost 6.0, will be evaluated for it’s ability to meet National Railway Company, Illinois near Fresno, a distance of about 5.97 the project’s goals. Central Railroad Company, The Kansas miles in Fresno County, CA; and (7) on the Landco Spur, the line between V. FTA Procedures City Southern Railway Company, and Gateway Western Railway Company— milepost 113.70, near Bakersfield, and In accordance with federal Terminal Trackage Rights—Union milepost 111.76, near Bakersfield, a transportation planning regulations 23 Pacific Railroad Company and Norfolk & distance of 1.94 miles in Kern County, CFR part 450, the AA/DEIS will include Western Railway Company; STB CA. a comprehensive alternatives selection Finance Docket No. 33556 (Sub-No. 2), Because the projected revenues of the process, which will assess each possible Responsive Application—Ontario rail lines to be operated will exceed $5 alternative’s ability to meet the project’s Michigan Rail Corporation; and, million, SJVR certified to the Board, on goals and objectives, and determine Finance Docket No. 33556 (Sub-No. 3), March 9, 1999, that the required notice those alternatives that warrant detailed Responsive Application—Canadian of its acquisition had been posted at the analysis. Upon completion of the AA/ Pacific Railway Company and St. workplace of the employees on the DEIS, the MTA NYC Transit, in concert Lawrence & Hudson Railway Company affected lines. On March 10, 1999, SJVR with other agencies and elected officials Limited. certified to the Board that it had served and bodies, will select a locally CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: a copy of the notice on the national preferred alternative. Dennis Watson, Office of Congressional offices of the labor unions with Then the MTA NYC Transit, as the and Public Services, Telephone: (202) employees on the affected lines. See 49 project sponsor, will seek to continue 565–1594, TDD: (202) 565–1695. CFR 1150.42(e). The transaction is the further engineering and preparation Dated: March 22, 1999. scheduled to be consummated on or of the Final EIS. After consideration of after May 10, 1999. Vernon A. Williams, the results of the FEIS, the FTA and If the notice contains false or Secretary. MTA NYC Transit and the FAA will misleading information, the exemption prepare required environmental [FR Doc. 99–7759 Filed 3–26–99; 11:58 am] is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the decisions and Records of Decision BILLING CODE 4915±00±P exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) (RODs). The publication of these RODs may be filed at any time. The filing of will clear the way for the final design DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION a petition to revoke does not and construction of the finally selected automatically stay the transaction. alternative. Surface Transportation Board An original and 10 copies of all Issued on March 25, 1999. pleadings, referring to STB Finance [STB Finance Docket No. 33723] Letitia Thompson, Docket No. 33723, must be filed with Regional Administrator, Federal Transit San Joaquin Valley Railroad the Surface Transportation Board, Office Administration. CompanyÐAcquisition and Operation of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 [FR Doc. 99–7779 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] ExemptionÐTulare Valley Railroad K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20423– BILLING CODE 4910±57±M Company 0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Fritz R. San Joaquin Valley Railroad Company Kahn, Esq., 1100 New York Avenue, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (SJVR), a Class III rail carrier, has filed NW, Suite 750 West, Washington, DC a verified notice of exemption under 49 20005–3934. Surface Transportation Board CFR 1150.41 to acquire from Tulare Board decisions and notices are Valley Railroad Company (TVR) seven available on our website at Sunshine Act Meeting; Corrected railroad line segments. The lines to be 1 ‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’ Notice acquired and operated by SJVR are as Decided: March 23, 1999. TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m. Thursday, follows: (1) on the Arvin Subdivision, TVR’s undivided one-half interest in the By the Board, David M. Konschnik, March 25, 1999. Director, Office of Proceedings. EX PARTE NO. 333: Meetings of the Board. line between milepost 316.78, at Magunden, and milepost 333.83, at Vernon A. Williams, Secretary. 1 This corrects the notice serviced March 19, Arvin, a distance of 17.05 miles in Kern 1999, to include Finance Docket No. 33556 Sub County, CA; (2) on the Oil City [FR Doc. 99–7557 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Nos. 2 and 3. Subdivision, TVR’s undivided one-half BILLING CODE 4915±00±P

VerDate 23-MAR-99 15:37 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 30MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15201

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Estimated Number of Respondents: other Federal agencies to take this 25,000. opportunity to comment on proposed Internal Revenue Service Estimated Time Per Respondent: 2 hr., and/or continuing information 2 min. collections, as required by the Proposed Collection; Comment Estimated Total Annual Burden Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Request for Form 8815 Hours: 50,920. Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), The following paragraph applies to all 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is Treasury. of the collections of information covered soliciting comments concerning Form by this notice: ACTION: 2441, Child and Dependent Care Notice and request for An agency may not conduct or comments. Expenses. sponsor, and a person is not required to DATES: Written comments should be SUMMARY: The Department of the respond to, a collection of information received on or before June 1, 1999 to be Treasury, as part of its continuing effort unless the collection of information assured of consideration. displays a valid OMB control number. to reduce paperwork and respondent ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments Books or records relating to a collection burden, invites the general public and to Garrick R. Shear, Internal Revenue of information must be retained as long other Federal agencies to take this Service, room 5571, 1111 Constitution as their contents may become material opportunity to comment on proposed Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. and/or continuing information in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: collections, as required by the Requests for additional information or Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. copies of the form and instructions Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is Request for Comments (202) 622–3869, Internal Revenue soliciting comments concerning Form Comments submitted in response to Service, room 5571, 1111 Constitution 8815, Exclusion of Interest From Certain Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. U.S. Savings Bonds Issued After 1989. this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DATES: Written comments should be approval. All comments will become a Title: Child and Dependent Care received on or before June 1, 1999 to be matter of public record. Comments are Expenses. assured of consideration. invited on: (a) Whether the collection of OMB Number: 1545–0068. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments information is necessary for the proper Form Number: 2441. to Garrick R. Shear, Internal Revenue performance of the functions of the Abstract: Internal Revenue Code Service, room 5571, 1111 Constitution agency, including whether the section 21 allows a credit for certain Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. information shall have practical utility; child and dependent care expenses to be FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate claimed on Form 1040 (reduced by Requests for additional information or of the burden of the collection of employer-provided day care benefits copies of the form and instructions information; (c) ways to enhance the excluded under Code section 129). Day should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, quality, utility, and clarity of the care provider information must be (202) 622–3869, Internal Revenue information to be collected; (d) ways to reported to the IRS for both the credit Service, room 5571, 1111 Constitution minimize the burden of the collection of and exclusion. Form 2441 is used to Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. information on respondents, including verify that the credit and exclusion are SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: through the use of automated collection properly figured, and that day care Title: Exclusion of Interest From techniques or other forms of information provider information is reported. Certain U.S. Savings Bonds Issued After technology; and (e) estimates of capital Current Actions: There are no changes 1989. or start-up costs and costs of operation, being made to the form at this time. OMB Number: 1545–1173. maintenance, and purchase of services Type of Review: Extension of a Form Number: 8815. to provide information. currently approved collection. Abstract: If an individual redeems Affected Public: Individuals or series I or series EE U.S. savings bonds Approved: March 17, 1999. households. issued after 1989 and pays qualified Garrick R. Shear, Estimated Number of Respondents: higher education expenses during the IRS Reports Clearance Officer. 6,519,859. year, the interest on the bonds may be [FR Doc. 99–7672 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Estimated Time Per Respondent: 2 hr., excludable from income. Form 8815 is BILLING CODE 4830±01±U 19 min. used by the individual to figure the Estimated Total Annual Burden amount of savings bond interest that is Hours: 15,060,874. excludable. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY The following paragraph applies to all Current Actions: The title of Form of the collections of information covered 8815 is being changed to ‘‘Exclusion of Internal Revenue Service by this notice: An agency may not conduct or Interest From Certain U.S. Savings Proposed Collection; Comment sponsor, and a person is not required to Bonds Issued After 1989’’. This change Request for Form 2441 is due to the issuance of the new series respond to, a collection of information I U.S. savings bonds, and is effective for AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), unless the collection of information 1999. Form 8815 will be used to Treasury. displays a valid OMB control number. compute the exclusion of interest for ACTION: Notice and request for Books or records relating to a collection both series EE savings bonds and the comments. of information must be retained as long new series I savings bonds. as their contents may become material Type of Review: Extension of a SUMMARY: The Department of the in the administration of any internal currently approved collection. Treasury, as part of its continuing effort revenue law. Generally, tax returns and Affected Public: Individuals or to reduce paperwork and respondent tax return information are confidential, households. burden, invites the general public and as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.120 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 15202 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices

Request for Comments: Comments should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, technology; and (e) estimates of capital submitted in response to this notice will (202) 622–3869, Internal Revenue or start-up costs and costs of operation, be summarized and/or included in the Service, room 5571, 1111 Constitution maintenance, and purchase of services request for OMB approval. All Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. to provide information. comments will become a matter of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Approved: March 8, 1999. public record. Comments are invited on: Title: Consent To Extend the Time To Garrick R. Shear, (a) Whether the collection of Assess the Branch Profits Tax Under IRS Reports Clearance Officer. information is necessary for the proper Regulations Sections 1.884–2(a) and (c). [FR Doc. 99–7674 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] performance of the functions of the OMB Number: 1545–1407. BILLING CODE 4830±01±P agency, including whether the Form Number: 8848. information shall have practical utility; Abstract: Form 8848 is used by (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate foreign corporations that have (a) DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY of the burden of the collection of completely terminated all of their U.S. information; (c) ways to enhance the trade or business within the meaning of Internal Revenue Service quality, utility, and clarity of the temporary regulations section 1.884– information to be collected; (d) ways to 2T(a) during the tax year or (b) Proposed Collection; Comment minimize the burden of the collection of transferred their U.S. assets to a Request for Forms 8804, 8805, and information on respondents, including domestic corporation in a transaction 8813 through the use of automated collection described in Code section 381(a), if the AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), techniques or other forms of information foreign corporation was engaged in a Treasury. technology; and (e) estimates of capital U.S. trade or business at that time. ACTION: or start-up costs and costs of operation, Notice and request for Current Actions: There are no changes comments. maintenance, and purchase of services being made to the form at this time. to provide information. Type of Review: Extension of a SUMMARY: The Department of the Approved: March 16, 1999. currently approved collection. Treasury, as part of its continuing effort Garrick R. Shear, Affected Public: Business or other for- to reduce paperwork and respondent IRS Reports Clearance Officer. profit organizations. burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this [FR Doc. 99–7673 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Estimated Number of Respondents: 5,000. opportunity to comment on proposed BILLING CODE 4830±01±P Estimated Time Per Respondent: 5 hr., and/or continuing information 46 min. collections, as required by the DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Estimated Total Annual Burden Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Hours: 28,800. Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. Internal Revenue Service The following paragraph applies to all 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is of the collections of information covered soliciting comments concerning Form Proposed Collection; Comment by this notice: 8804, Annual Return for Partnership Request for Form 8848 An agency may not conduct or Withholding Tax (Section 1446), Form sponsor, and a person is not required to 8805, Foreign Partner’s Information AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), respond to, a collection of information Statement of Section 1446 Withholding Treasury. unless the collection of information Tax, and Form 8813, Partnership ACTION: Notice and request for displays a valid OMB control number. Withholding Tax Payment (Section comments. Books or records relating to a collection 1446). of information must be retained as long DATES: Written comments should be SUMMARY: The Department of the received on or before June 1, 1999 to be Treasury, as part of its continuing effort as their contents may become material assured of consideration. to reduce paperwork and respondent in the administration of any internal burden, invites the general public and revenue law. Generally, tax returns and ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments other Federal agencies to take this tax return information are confidential, to Garrick R. Shear, Internal Revenue opportunity to comment on proposed as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. Service, room 5571, 1111 Constitution and/or continuing information Request for Comments: Comments Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. collections, as required by the submitted in response to this notice will FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, be summarized and/or included in the Requests for additional information or Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. request for OMB approval. All copies of the form and instructions 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is comments will become a matter of should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, soliciting comments concerning Form public record. Comments are invited on: (202) 622–3869, Internal Revenue 8848, Consent to Extend the Time To (a) Whether the collection of Service, room 5571, 1111 Constitution Assess the Branch Profits Tax Under information is necessary for the proper Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Regulations Sections 1.884–2(a) and (c). performance of the functions of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: agency, including whether the DATES: Written comments should be Title: Annual Return for Partnership information shall have practical utility; Withholding Tax (Section 1446) (Form received on or before June 1, 1999 to be (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate assured of consideration. 8804), Foreign Partner’s Information of the burden of the collection of Statement of Section 1446 Withholding ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments information; (c) ways to enhance the Tax (Form 8805), and Partnership to Garrick R. Shear, Internal Revenue quality, utility, and clarity of the Withholding Tax Payment (Section Service, room 5571, 1111 Constitution information to be collected; (d) ways to 1446) (Form 8813). Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. minimize the burden of the collection of OMB Number: 1545–1119. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: information on respondents, including Form Number: 8804, 8805, and 8813. Requests for additional information or through the use of automated collection Abstract: Internal Revenue Code copies of the form and instructions techniques or other forms of information section 1446 requires partnerships that

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.126 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15203 are engaged in the conduct of a trade or DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY An agency may not conduct or business in the United States to pay a sponsor, and a person is not required to withholding tax if they have effectively Internal Revenue Service respond to, a collection of information connected taxable income that is unless the collection of information allocable to foreign partners. The Proposed Collection; Comment displays a valid OMB control number. partnerships use Form 8813 to make Request For Form 940±EZ Books or records relating to a collection payments of withholding tax to the IRS. AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), of information must be retained as long They use Forms 8804 and 8805 to make Treasury. as their contents may become material annual reports to provide the IRS and ACTION: Notice and request for in the administration of any internal affected partners with information to comments. revenue law. Generally, tax returns and assure proper withholding, crediting to tax return information are confidential, partners’ accounts and compliance. SUMMARY: The Department of the as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. Current Actions: There are no changes Treasury, as part of its continuing effort Request for Comments: Comments being made to the forms at this time. to reduce paperwork and respondent submitted in response to this notice will Type of Review: Extension of a burden, invites the general public and be summarized and/or included in the currently approved collection. other Federal agencies to take this request for OMB approval. All Affected Public: Business or other for- opportunity to comment on proposed comments will become a matter of profit organizations and individuals. and/or continuing information public record. Estimated Number of Respondents: collections, as required by the Comments are invited on: (a) whether 5,000. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the collection of information is Estimated Time Per Respondent: Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. necessary for the proper performance of 24hr., 14 min. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is Estimated Total Annual Burden the functions of the agency, including soliciting comments concerning Form whether the information shall have Hours: 121,200. 940-EZ, Employer’s Annual Federal The following paragraph applies to all practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Unemployment (FUTA) Tax Return. agency’s estimate of the burden of the of the collections of information covered DATES: Written comments should be by this notice: collection of information; (c) ways to received on or before June 1, 1999 to be enhance the quality, utility, and clarity An agency may not conduct or assured of consideration. sponsor, and a person is not required to of the information to be collected; (d) ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments ways to minimize the burden of the respond to, a collection of information to Garrick R. Shear, Internal Revenue unless the collection of information collection of information on Service, room 5571, 1111 Constitution respondents, including through the use displays a valid OMB control number. Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224. Books or records relating to a collection of automated collection techniques or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of information must be retained as long other forms of information technology; Requests for additional information or as their contents may become material and (e) estimates of capital or start-up copies of the form(s) and instructions in the administration of any internal costs and costs of operation, should be directed to Carol Savage, revenue law. Generally, tax returns and maintenance, and purchase of services (202) 622–3945, Internal Revenue tax return information are confidential, to provide information. Service, room 5569, 1111 Constitution as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. Approved: March 24, 1999. Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Request for Comments: Comments Garrick R. Shear, submitted in response to this notice will SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: Employer’s Annual Federal IRS Reports Clearance Officer. be summarized and/or included in the [FR Doc. 99–7677 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] request for OMB approval. All Unemployment (FUTA) Tax return. OMB Number: 1545–1110. BILLING CODE 4830±01±P comments will become a matter of Form Number: Form 940–EZ. public record. Comments are invited on: Abstract: Form 940–EZ is a simplified (a) Whether the collection of version of Form 940 that most DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY information is necessary for the proper employers with uncomplicated tax performance of the functions of the situations (e.g., only paying Internal Revenue Service agency, including whether the unemployment contributions to one Proposed Collection; Comment information shall have practical utility; state and paying them on time) can use Request For Form CT±1 (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate to pay their FUTA tax. Most small of the burden of the collection of businesses and household employers AGENCY: information; ways to enhance the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), use the form. Treasury. quality, utility, and clarity of the Current Actions: There are no changes information to be collected; (d) ways to being made to the form at this time. ACTION: Notice and request for minimize the burden of the collection of Type of Review: Extension of a comments. information on respondents, including currently approved collection. through the use of automated collection Affected Public: Business or other for- SUMMARY: The Department of the techniques or other forms of information profit organizations, individuals or Treasury, as part of its continuing effort technology; and (e) estimates of capital households, and farms. to reduce paperwork and respondent or start-up costs and costs of operation, Estimated Number of Respondents: burden, invites the general public and maintenance, and purchase of services 4,089,000. other Federal agencies to take this to provide information. Estimated Time Per Respondent: 7 opportunity to comment on proposed hours, 50 minutes. and/or continuing information Approved: March 11, 1999. Estimated Total Annual Burden collections, as required by the Garrick R. Shear, Hours: 32,075,163. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, IRS Reports Clearance Officer. The following paragraph applies to all Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. [FR Doc. 99–7675 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] of the collections of information covered 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is BILLING CODE 4830±01±P by this notice: soliciting comments concerning Form

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.128 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 15204 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices

CT–1, Employer’s Annual Railroad practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Form Number: Forms 941c and Retirement Tax Return. agency’s estimate of the burden of the 941cPR. DATES: Written comments should be collection of information; (c) ways to Abstract: Form 941c (or Form 941cPR received on or before June 1, 1999 to be enhance the quality, utility, and clarity for use in Puerto Rico to correct FICA assured of consideration. of the information to be collected; (d) tax only) is used by employers to correct ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments ways to minimize the burden of the previously reported FICA or income tax to Garrick R. Shear, Internal Revenue collection of information on data. The forms may be used to support Service, room 5571, 1111 Constitution respondents, including through the use a credit or adjustment claimed on a Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. of automated collection techniques or current return for an error in a prior other forms of information technology; FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: return period. The information is used and (e) estimates of capital or start-up Requests for additional information or to reconcile wages and taxes previously costs and costs of operation, copies of the form(s) and instructions reported or used to support a claim for maintenance, and purchase of services should be directed to Carol Savage, refund, credit, or adjustment of FICA or to provide information. (202) 622–3945, Internal Revenue income tax. Service, room 5569, 1111 Constitution Approved: March 23, 1999. Current Actions: There are no changes Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Garrick R. Shear, being made to the forms at this time. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: IRS Reports Clearance Officer. Type of Review: Extension of a Title: Employer’s Annual Railroad [FR Doc. 99–7678 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] currently approved collection. Retirement Tax Return. BILLING CODE 4830±01±P Affected Public: Businesses or other OMB Number: 1545–0001. for-profit organizations, not-for profit Form Number: Form CT–1. institutions, and state, local or tribal Abstract: Railroad employers are DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY governments. required to file an annual return to Estimated Number of Respondents: report employer and employee Railroad Internal Revenue Service 958,050. Retirement Tax Act (RRTA) taxes. Form Estimated Time Per Respondent: 9 CT–1 is used for this purpose. The IRS Proposed Collection; Comment Request For Forms 941c and 941cPR hours, 7 minutes. uses the information to insure that the Estimated Total Annual Burden employer has paid the correct tax. AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Hours: 8,728,727. Current Actions: There are no changes Treasury. The following paragraph applies to all being made to the form at this time. ACTION: Notice and request for of the collections of information covered Type of Review: Extension of a comments. by this notice: currently approved collection. An agency may not conduct or Affected Public: Businesses or other SUMMARY: The Department of the sponsor, and a person is not required to for-profit organizations, not-for-profit Treasury, as part of its continuing effort respond to, a collection of information institutions, and state, local or tribal to reduce paperwork and respondent unless the collection of information governments. burden, invites the general public and displays a valid OMB control number. Estimated Number of Respondents: other Federal agencies to take this Books or records relating to a collection 2,387. opportunity to comment on proposed of information must be retained as long Estimated Time Per Respondent: 21 and/or continuing information as their contents may become material hours, 3 minutes. collections, as required by the in the administration of any internal Estimated Total Annual Burden Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, revenue law. Generally, tax returns and Hours: 50,245. Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. tax return information are confidential, The following paragraph applies to all 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. of the collections of information covered soliciting comments concerning Form by this notice: 941c, Supporting Statement To Correct Request for Comments: Comments An agency may not conduct or Information, and Form 941cPR, Planilla submitted in response to this notice will sponsor, and a person is not required to Para La Correccion De Informacion. be summarized and/or included in the respond to, a collection of information request for OMB approval. All DATES: Written comments should be unless the collection of information comments will become a matter of received on or before June 1, 1999 to be displays a valid OMB control number. public record. Comments are invited on: assured of consideration. Books or records relating to a (a) whether the collection of information collection of information must be ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments is necessary for the proper performance retained as long as their contents may to Garrick R. Shear, Internal Revenue of the functions of the agency, including become material in the administration Service, room 5571, 1111 Constitution whether the information shall have of any internal revenue law. Generally, Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the tax returns and tax return information FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: agency’s estimate of the burden of the are confidential, as required by 26 Requests for additional information or collection of information; (c) ways to U.S.C. 6103. copies of the forms and instructions enhance the quality, utility, and clarity Request for Comments: Comments should be directed to Carol Savage, of the information to be collected; (d) submitted in response to this notice will (202) 622–3945, Internal Revenue ways to minimize the burden of the be summarized and/or included in the Service, room 5569, 1111 Constitution collection of information on request for OMB approval. All Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. respondents, including through the use comments will become a matter of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: of automated collection techniques or public record. Comments are invited on: Title: Form 941c, Supporting other forms of information technology; (a) whether the collection of information Statement To Correct Information, and and (e) estimates of capital or start-up is necessary for the proper performance Form 941cPR, Planilla Para La costs and costs of operation, of the functions of the agency, including Correccion De Informacion. maintenance, and purchase of services whether the information shall have OMB Number: 1545–0256. to provide information.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.130 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15205

Approved: March 22, 1999. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Advocacy Panel will be held in Garrick R. Shear, Portland, Oregon. IRS Reports Clearance Officer. Internal Revenue Service DATES: The meeting will be held Saturday, April 24, 1999. [FR Doc. 99–7682 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Open Meeting of Citizen Adovcacy FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT BILLING CODE 4830±01±P Panel, Midwest District : Deborah A. Diamond at 1–888–912– AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 1227 or 206–220–6099. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Treasury. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is ACTION: Notice of open meeting of hereby given pursuant to section Internal Revenue Service Citizen Advocacy Panel, Midwest 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory District. Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) Open Meeting of Citizen Advocacy that an operational meeting of the SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Panel, Brooklyn District Citizen Advocacy Panel will be held Midwest District Citizen Advocacy Saturday, April 24, 1999, 9 a.m. to 5 Panel will be held in Omaha, Nebraska. AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), p.m. at the Riverside Inn, Columbia DATES: Treasury. The meeting will be held Room, 50 SW Morrison Street, Portland, Thursday, April 22, 1999 and Friday, ACTION: Notice of open meeting of OR 97204. Due to limited conference April 23, 1999. space, notification of intent to attend the Citizen Advocacy Panel, Brooklyn FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: District. meeting must be made with Deborah Sandy McQuin at 1–888–912–1227 or Diamond. Ms. Diamond can be reached 414–297–1604. at 1–888–912–1227 or 206–220–6099. SUMMARY: An open meeting of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is The public is invited to make oral Brooklyn District Citizen Advocacy hereby given pursuant to Section comments from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. on Panel will be held in Brooklyn, New 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Saturday, April 24, 1999. Individual York. Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) comments will be limited to 5 minutes. DATES: The meeting will be held Friday, that an operational meeting of the If you would like to have the CAP April 9, 1999. Citizen Advocacy Panel will be held consider a written statement, please call Thursday, April 22, 1999 12:00 noon to 1–888–912–1227 or 206–220–6099, or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 8:00 p.m. and Friday, April 23, 1999 write Deborah Diamond, CAP Office, Kevin McKeon at 1–888–912–1227 or from 9:00 am to 2:00 p.m., in the, Best 915 2nd Avenue; M/S W–406, Seattle, 718–488–3555. Western Central Executive Center, 3650 WA 98174. South 72nd Street @I–80, Omaha, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Agenda will include the Notice is Nebraska. Due to limited conference hereby given pursuant to section following: initial start up issues and space, notification of intent to attend the various IRS issues. 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory meeting must be made with Sandy Note: Last minute changes to the agenda Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) McQuin. Ms. McQuin can be reached at that an operational meeting of the are possible and could prevent effective 1–888–912–1227 or 414–297–1604. advance notice. Citizen Advocacy Panel will be held The Agenda will include the Dated: March 10, 1999. Friday, April 9, 1999, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. following: Establishing priority on at 10 MetroTech Center, 6th Floor, 625 sources of issues to be considered, M. Cathy VanHorn, Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201. Due discussion of issues presented to panel, CAP Project Manager. to limited conference space, notification and setting parameters for open public [FR Doc. 99–7679 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] of intent to attend the meeting must be meeting to solicit comments from BILLING CODE 4830±01±P made with Kevin McKeon. Mr. McKeon citizens. Can be reached at 1–888–912–1227 or Note: Last minute changes to the agenda 718–488–3555. The public is invited to are possible and could prevent effective UNITED STATES INFORMATION make oral comments from 7 p.m. to 8 advance notice. AGENCY p.m. on Friday April 9, 1999. Individual Dated: March 23, 1999. Culturally Significant Objects Imported M. Cathy VanHorn, comments will be limited to 5 minutes. for Exhibition Determination: ``Degas If you would like to have the CAP CAP Project Manager. and New Orleans: A French consider a written statement, please call [FR Doc. 99–7681 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Impressionist in America'' 1–888–912–1227 or 718–488–3555, or BILLING CODE 4830±01±P AGENCY: write Kevin McKeon, CAP Office, P.O. United States Information Agency. Box R, Brooklyn, NY, 11202. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY ACTION: Notice. The Agenda will include the following: initial start up issues and Internal Revenue Service SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the various IRS issues. following determinations: Pursuant to Open Meeting of Citizen Advocacy the authority vested in me by the Act of Note: Last minute changes to the agenda Panel, Pacific-Northwest District are possible and could prevent effective October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C. advance notice. AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978 (43 FR 13359, March 29, 1978), Dated: March 22, 1999. Treasury. ACTION: and Delegation Order No. 85–5 of June M. Cathy VanHorn, Notice of open meeting of Citizen Advocacy Panel, Pacific- 27, 1985 (50 FR 27393, July 2, 1985), I CAP Project Manager. Northwest District. hereby determine that the objects to be [FR Doc. 99–7680 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] included in the exhibit, ‘‘Degas and BILLING CODE 4830±01±U SUMMARY: An open meeting of the New Orleans: A French Impressionist in Pacific-Northwest District Citizen America,’’ imported from abroad for the

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.131 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 15206 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices temporary exhibition without profit Wednesday, June 9, 1999, at the Any interested person may attend, within the United States, are of cultural Department of Veterans Affairs appear before, or file a statement with significance. These objects are imported Headquarters, Room 230, 810 Vermont the Committee. Individuals wishing to pursuant to a loan agreement with the Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. appear before the Committee should foreign lender. I also determine that the This will be the committee’s second indicate this in a letter to the Acting exhibition or display of the listed meeting of Fiscal Year 1999. Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs, objects at The New Orleans Museum of The purpose of the committee is to National Cemetery Administration (40), Art, New Orleans, LA, from on or about review the administration of VA’s at 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, May 1, 1999, to on or about August 29, cemeteries and burial benefits program. Washington, DC. 20420. In any such 1999, is in the national interest. Public The meeting will convene on Tuesday, letters, the writers must fully identify Notice of these determinations is June 8, at 8:15 a.m. (EDT) and adjourn themselves and state the organization, ordered to be published in the Federal at 5:30 p.m. (EDT). On Wednesday, June association or person(s) they represent. Register. 9, the meeting will reconvene at 8:15 In addition, to the extent practicable, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For a.m. (EDT) and adjourn at 5:00 p.m. letters should indicate the subject a copy of the list of exhibit objects and (EDT). matter to be discussed. Oral for further information, contact Ms. On Tuesday, June 8, the Committee presentations should be limited to 10 Jacqueline Caldwell, Assistant General will be updated on National Cemetery minutes in duration. Individuals Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Administration (NCA) issues. Members wishing to file written statements to be 202/619–6982. The address is Room will be briefed on operations at submitted to the Committee must also 700, U.S. Information Agency, 301 4th Quantico National Cemetery, and the mail, or otherwise deliver, them to the Street, SW, Washington, DC 20547– NCA Operations Support Center, which Acting Under Secretary for Memorial 0001. is the location of the Systems Affairs, National Cemetery Integration Center and the Centralized Administration. Dated: March 24, 1999. Contracting Division. Additionally, Letters and written statements as Les Jin, members will tour the cemetery and the discussed above must be mailed or General Counsel. NCA Operations Support Center. delivered in time to reach the Acting [FR Doc. 99–7738 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] On Wednesday, June 9, the Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs, BILLING CODE 8230±01±M Committee will reconvene for updates National Cemetery Administration, by and reports on military honors, 12 noon (EDT), May 31, 1999. Oral cemetery focus groups, the Visitor statements will be heard between 1:00 Comment Card survey, legislation on DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS p.m. and 1:30 p.m. (EDT), June 9, 1999, doubly marked graves and eligibility, AFFAIRS at Department of Veterans Affairs cremation gardens and construction and Headquarters, Room 230, 810 Vermont Advisory Committee on Cemeteries dedications of new cemeteries. Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. The meeting will be open to the and Memorials, Notice of Meeting Dated: March 23, 1999. public. Individuals wishing to attend The Department of Veterans Affairs the meeting should contact Ms. Paige By Direction of the Secretary. (VA) gives notice that a meeting of the Lowther, National Cemetery Heyward Bannister, Advisory Committee on Cemeteries and Administration, [phone (202) 273–5164] Committee Management Officer. Memorials, authorized by 38 U.S.C. no later than 12 noon (EDT), May 31, [FR Doc. 99–7707 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] 2401, will be held Tuesday, June 8 and 1999. BILLING CODE 8320±01±M

VerDate 23-MAR-99 09:53 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.124 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN1 eDt 3MR9 00 a 9 99Jt134 O000Fm001Ft41 ft41 :F\MA0R.0 fm4PsN:30MRR2 pfrm04 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.001 Sfmt4717 Fmt4717 Frm00001 PO00000 Jkt183247 10:06Mar29, 1999 VerDate 23-MAR-99 federal register March 30,1999 Tuesday Rule Engines AtorBelow19Kilowatts;Final Nonroad Spark-IgnitionNonhandheld Phase 2EmissionStandardsforNew 40 CFRPart90 Protection Agency Environmental Part II 15207 15208 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A. Emission Standards and Related 4. Operating Costs AGENCY Provisions 5. Cost Per Engine and Cost-Effectiveness 1. Class Structure IV. Public Participation 2. HC+NOX Emission Standards 40 CFR Part 90 V. Administrative Requirements 3. NMHC+NOX Standards for Class I and A. Administrative Designation and [FRL±6308±6] II Natural Gas Fueled Engines Regulatory Analysis 4. CO Emission Standards B. Regulatory Flexibility RIN 2060±AE29 5. Useful Life Categories C. Paperwork Reduction Act 6. Selection of Useful Life Category D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Phase 2 Emission Standards for New 7. Emission Standard Feasibility at Longer E. Congressional Review Act Nonroad Spark-Ignition Nonhandheld Useful Life F. National Technology Transfer and Engines At or Below 19 Kilowatts B. Averaging, Banking, and Trading Advancement Act C. Test Procedures G. Executive Order 13045 AGENCY: Environmental Protection D. Compliance Program H. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Agency (EPA). 1. Certification Intergovernmental Partnership ACTION: Final rule. 2. Production Line Testing—Cumulative I. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Summation Procedure Coordination with Indian tribal SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is 3. Selective Enforcement Auditing Governments finalizing a second phase of emission 4. Voluntary In-Use Testing VI. Statutory Authority E. Flexibilities regulations to control emissions from Regulated Entities new nonroad spark-ignition 1. Carry-Over Certification 2. Small Volume Engine Manufacturer Entities potentially regulated by this nonhandheld engines at or below 19 Definition kilowatts (25 horsepower). These 3. Small Volume Engine Family Definition action are those that manufacture or engines are used principally in lawn 4. Flexibilities for Small Volume Engine introduce into commerce new and garden equipment in applications Families and Small Volume Engine nonhandheld small spark-ignition such as lawnmowers and garden Manufacturers nonroad engines or equipment. tractors. The standards will result in an 5. Flexibilities for Small Volume Regulated categories and entities estimated 59 percent reduction of Equipment Manufacturers and Small include: emissions of hydrocarbons plus oxides Volume Equipment Models of nitrogen from those achieved under 6. Small Volume Equipment Manufacturer Category Examples of regulated entities Definition the current Phase 1 standards applicable 7. Small Volume Equipment Model Industry Manufacturers or importers of new to nonhandheld engines. The standards Definition nonroad small (at or below 19 will result in important reductions in 8. Hardship Provision kW) spark-ignition nonhandheld emissions which contribute to F. Nonregulatory Programs engines and equipment. excessively high ozone levels in many 1.Voluntary ‘‘Green’’ Labeling Program areas of the United States. 2.Voluntary Fuel Spillage Reduction This table is not intended to be In compliance with the Paperwork Program exhaustive, but rather provides a guide Reduction Act, this document G. General Provisions for readers regarding entities likely to be announces that the information 1. Model Year and Annual Production Period Flexibilities regulated by this action. This table lists collection requirements contained in 2. Definition of Handheld Engines the types of entities that EPA is now this final rule have not been submitted 3. Small Displacement Nonhandheld aware could potentially be regulated by to the Office of Management and Budget Engine Class this action. Other types of entities not for approval. 4. Liquefied Petroleum Gas Fueled Indoor listed in the table could also be DATES: The amendments to 40 CFR part Power Equipment regulated. To determine whether your 90 are effective June 1, 1999. 5. Dealer Responsibility company is regulated by this action, you 6. Engines Used in Recreational Vehicles ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this should carefully examine the and Applicability of the Small SI applicability criteria in section § 90.1 of final rule, including the Final Regulations to Model Airplanes Regulatory Impact Analysis are 7. Engines Used in Rescue and Emergency title 40 of the Code of Federal contained in Public Docket A–96–55, Equipment Regulations. If you have questions located at room M–1500, Waterside Mall 8. Replacement Engines regarding the applicability of this action (ground floor), U.S. Environmental 9. Record keeping and Information to a particular entity, consult the person Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Requirements listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER Washington, DC 20460. The docket may 10. Engine Labeling INFORMATION CONTACT section. be inspected from 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 11. Emission Warranty 12. Other Obtaining Electronic Copies of the p.m., Monday through Friday. A III. Projected Impacts Regulatory Documents reasonable fee may be charged by EPA A. Environmental Benefit Assessment The preamble, regulatory language for copying docket materials. 1. Roles of HC and NOX in Ozone For further information on electronic Formation and Final Regulatory Impact Analysis availability of this final rulemaking, see 2. Health and Welfare Effects of (Final RIA) are also available SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below. Tropospheric Ozone electronically from the EPA Internet FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 3. Estimated Emissions Impact of Final Web site. This service is free of charge, Robert Larson, U.S. EPA, Engine Regulations except for any cost already incurred for 4. Health and Welfare Effects of CO Programs and Compliance Division, Internet connectivity. The electronic Emissions version of this final rule is made (734) 214–4277, 5. Health and Welfare Effects of Hazardous [email protected]. available on the day of publication on Air Pollutant Emissions the primary Web site listed below. The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 6. Particulate Matter B. Costs and Cost-Effectiveness EPA Office of Mobile Sources also Table of Contents 1. Engine Technologies publishes Federal Register notices and I. Introduction 2. Engine Costs related documents on the secondary II. Content of the Final Rule 3. Equipment Costs Web site listed below.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.001 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 15209

1. http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/ timing for implementing more stringent updated the knowledge of the Agency EPA–AIR/ standards, so as to allow it to establish regarding technological feasibility, (either select desired date or use Search the most appropriate standards in the production lead time estimates for feature) final rule. In particular, EPA requested incorporating improved designs, costs to 2. http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/ comment on the impacts and timing for manufacturers, costs to consumers and (look in What’s New or under the implementing emission standards that similar factors, it is reasonable to expect specific rulemaking topic) would require the same types of that the improved information may Please note that due to differences technology as anticipated by proposed result in changing assessments of how a between the software used to develop rules under consideration at that time pending rule can best achieve regulatory the document and the software into by the California ARB. goals compared to what had been which the document may be After the close of the comment period expected at the time of the NPRM. This downloaded, changes in format, page and upon reviewing the information is especially true in the case of a length, etc., may occur. supplied during the comment period, rulemaking concerning an industry, like EPA determined that it was desirable to small SI engines, that is undergoing I. Introduction get further details regarding the relatively rapid technological A. Background technological feasibility, cost and lead innovation. time implications of meeting standards EPA published a Notice of On January 27, 1998, EPA issued a more stringent than those contained in Availability highlighting the additional Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) the NPRM. EPA’s NPRM already information gathered in response to the proposing a second phase of regulations contained estimates of the costs and NPRM (see 63 FR 66081, December 1, to control emissions from new handheld feasibility of more stringent standards. 1998). After analyzing this information, and nonhandheld nonroad SI engines at Some commenters had charged that, the Agency concluded that more or below 19 kilowatts (25 horsepower) based on these discussions, EPA’s stringent standards for Class I (‘‘small SI engines’’) (63 FR 3950). This proposed standards would not be nonhandheld engines, used in action was preceded by a March 27, stringent enough to satisfy the applications such as residential lawn 1997, Advanced Notice of Proposed stringency requirements of Clean Air mowers, consistent with those adopted Rulemaking (62 FR 14740). EPA Act Section 213(a)(3). For the purpose of by California are indeed achievable on solicited comment on virtually all gaining additional information on the national scale. This final rule for aspects of the NPRM. EPA held a public feasibility, cost and lead time nonhandheld engines adopts emission hearing on February 6, 1998, and the implications of more stringent standards considerably more stringent public comment period for the NPRM standards, EPA had several meetings, than those proposed for Class I closed March 13, 1998. Today’s action phone conversations, and written nonhandheld engines. The technologies finalizes this rulemaking activity for correspondence with specific engine (principally conversion of side-valve nonhandheld engines in adopting a manufacturers, with industry engines to clean overhead valve designs) Phase 2 set of emission standards and associations representing engine and that EPA anticipates will be used in compliance program requirements for equipment manufacturers, with achieving compliance with the Class I Class I and Class II nonhandheld developers of emission control standard are well known and were engines. EPA is not at this time technologies and suppliers of emission discussed in the NPRM. finalizing a Phase 2 program for control hardware, with representatives However, since the publication of the handheld engines, as described in more of state regulatory associations, and NPRM, there have been rapid advances detail below. EPA will further address with members of Congress. EPA also in emission reduction technologies for the Phase 2 program for handheld sought information relating to the handheld engines. EPA has received engines in future Federal Register impact on equipment manufacturers, if information which could potentially notices. any, of changes in technology support handheld standards much more Today’s action is taken in response to potentially required to meet more stringent that those proposed in the Section 213(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act stringent standards than were contained NPRM. In light of this new information, which requires EPA’s standards for in the NPRM. Additionally, EPA and in the interest of providing an nonroad engines and vehicles to achieve received numerous comments on the opportunity for public comment on this the greatest degree of emission NPRM requesting closer harmonization new technology and on more stringent reduction achievable through the with the compliance program provisions levels for handheld engine emission application of technology which the adopted by the State of California. In standards, EPA intends to address Phase Administrator determines will be some cases, EPA also discussed these 2 regulations for handheld engines available, giving appropriate harmonization issues with (such as trimmers, brush cutters, and consideration to cost, lead time, noise, manufacturers and industry association chainsaws) in a separate Supplemental energy and safety factors. The standards representatives to improve the Agency’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and other compliance program understanding of the needs and benefits (SNPRM) in June of 1999, with a final requirements being adopted today to the industry of such harmonization. rule in March of 2000. satisfy this Clean Air Act mandate. As EPA has stated on prior occasions, The reader is referred to the Notice of The NPRM contained lengthy in adopting this final rule EPA wished Availability, the NPRM itself, as well as discussion of the proposed standards, to consider all relevant information that to the docket for this rulemaking, for the the expected costs of their became available during the rule range of additional information upon implementation, and the potential costs development process. This includes which the Agency has relied in adopting and benefits of adopting more stringent information received during the this final program for small SI standards such as those that were then comment period on the NPRM, and, to nonhandheld engines. under consideration by the California the extent possible, important Air Resources Board (ARB). In the information which became available B. Overview of Final Program NPRM, EPA explicitly asked for after the formal NPRM comment period The following provides an overview comment regarding the level of the had concluded. To the extent that post- of the provisions in these Phase 2 rules proposed standards and the impacts and NPRM information has expanded or for nonhandheld engines. Additional

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.002 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 15210 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations detail explaining the program as well as distinguish between engines used in designation. The following table discussion of information and analyses handheld equipment and those used in summarizes the HC+NOX emission which led to the adoption of these nonhandheld equipment. In today’s standards for Class I and Class II requirements is contained in subsequent action, Phase 2 emission standards are nonhandheld engines and when these sections. set for distinct engine size categories standards take effect for each engine As proposed and consistent with referred to as ‘‘engine classes’’ within class. Phase 1 rules, these Phase 2 rules the nonhandheld engine equipment

TABLE 1.ÐPHASE 2 HC +NOX EMISSION STANDARDS FOR CLASS I AND CLASS II

NPRM FRM Engine class HC+NOX (g/ HC+NOX (g/ kW-hr) Time line kW-hr) Time line

Class I ...... 25.0 2001 16.1 August 1, 2007; in addition, any Class I engine family initially produced on or after August 1, 2003 must meet the Phase 2 Class I standards before they may be introduced into commerce. Class II ...... 12.1 2001±2005 12.1 2001±2005.

As indicated in this table, the time and resources to change the accumulating hours of operation to emission standards being finalized for designs and production tooling to meet ‘‘age’’ an engine in a manner which Class I engines are considerably more the 12.1 g/kW-hr standard on average duplicates the same type of wear and stringent than the base emission levels for all its Class II engines. Similarly, a other deterioration mechanisms included in the proposal. This reflects two-stage schedule has been developed expected under typical consumer use the Agency’s analysis of the information to uniquely meet the industry needs for which could affect emission EPA received in direct response to the converting the Class I engines. For these performance. EPA expects bench testing questions posed in the NPRM nonhandheld classes, EPA has will be used to conduct this aging concerning the desirability and concluded that the phased-in and two- operation because this can save time feasibility of more stringent standards stage implementation schedules are and perhaps money, but actual in-use than the base levels proposed, as well as necessary in order to make the ultimate operation (e.g., cutting grass) will also other information made available to the standards achievable through the be allowed. Emission tests will be Agency before and since the proposal. application of the specific technologies conducted when the engine is new and The level of these standards will result that EPA analyzed for nonhandheld when it has finished accumulating the in an estimated 59 percent annual engines. equivalent of its useful life. The engine reduction in combined hydrocarbon and These standards and the other must pass standards both when it is new oxides of nitrogen (HC+NOX) emissions compliance program elements being and at the end of its designated useful from these small SI nonhandheld adopted today also consider expected life to qualify for certification. engines compared to the Phase 1 in-use deterioration. In contrast to the Additionally, the new engine and fully emission requirements for these engines Phase 1 rules which only regulate the aged engine emission test levels are when the effects of this Phase 2 rule are emission performance of engines when compared to determine the expected fully phased in. new, the Phase 2 standards being deterioration in emission performance Another feature of the Phase 2 adopted today also reflect expected for other engines of this design; such nonhandheld standards is that they are deterioration in emission performance engines may be tested as they come off phased in over a number of years, as an engine is used. Manufacturers will the end of a production line, in which allowing the manufacturers an orderly be required to evaluate the emission case their new engine emission levels and efficient transition of engine deterioration performance of their are adjusted by the deterioration factor designs and technologies from those engine designs and certify their designs determined from the certification engine complying with the existing Phase 1 to meet these standards after anticipated to predict useful life emission standards to those necessary to meet the emission deterioration of a typical in- performance. Phase 2 requirements. Thus, for use engine over its useful life. Different Selection of engines for testing as they example, the manufacturers of Class II useful life ranges have been adopted come off the production line will be engines are required to meet a gradually based on the type of engine and conducted according to the provisions decreasing standard on average for this equipment in which the engine is of the Production Line Testing (PLT) segment of their product line during installed. For example, a Class II program. This program is explained in model years 2001 through 2005. During nonhandheld engine will be certified for more detail in a following section but, this time frame, EPA anticipates that from 250 to 1000 hours of use based on briefly, its intent is to allow a sampling such a manufacturer would continue to design features and the intended use of of engines as produced throughout the change more and more of its Class II the installation (a high priced piece of production period to be tested for engines designs to designs capable of industrial equipment would more likely emission performance to assure that the meeting the final 12.1 g/kW-hr be equipped with an engine with design design intent as certified prior to standards, averaging emission features intended to make it most production has been successfully performance with older designs and durable and thus certified to the transferred by the manufacturer to mass thus meeting on average the declining emission standards assuming 1000 production in a production line setting. standard in effect for that model year hours of in-use operation, for example). The volume of PLT testing required by (see preamble Section II.A.2). Finally, The certification program requires the manufacturer depends on how close by 2005 in this example, the that the manufacturer determine an the test results from the initial engines manufacturer would have had sufficient appropriate methodology for tested are to the standards; if these test

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.003 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 15211 engines indicate the design is compliance program for these classes of II. Content of the Final Rule particularly low emitting, few engines small engines.1 Importantly, the testing The following sections provide need be tested, while those designs with and data requirements, engine family additional detail on the provisions of emission levels very close to the descriptors, compliance statements and the final rule outlined above. standards will need additional tests to similar testing and information make sure the design is being produced requirements of these federal Phase 2 A. Emission Standards and Related with acceptable emission performance. nonhandheld regulations are, to the best Provisions While this compliance program will of EPA’s knowledge, the same general 1. Class Structure not require the manufacturer to conduct compliance program requirements This final rule maintains the same any in-use testing to verify continued adopted by the California ARB. This is satisfactory emission performance in the basic class structure as implemented in advantageous to manufacturers hands of typical consumers, an optional the Phase 1 regulations for these marketing the same product designs in program for such in-use testing is being nonhandheld engines. The Phase 1 rules provided. EPA believes it is important California as in the other states, as they established separate classes based on for manufacturers to conduct in-use need prepare only one set of engine size in recognition of the greater testing to assure the success of their certification application information, difficulty in controlling emissions from designs and to factor back into their supplying one copy to the ARB for smaller displacement engines compared design and/or production process any certification in the State of California to larger displacement engines. That information suggesting emission and one copy to EPA for federal rule also separated engine classes into problems in the field. While not certification. This similar treatment those intended for use in equipment mandating such a program, EPA under the regulations also extends to the typically carried by the operator during encourages such testing by allowing a PLT program and the optional in-use its use such as chain saws or string manufacturer to avoid the cost of the testing program, such that any test data trimmers (referred to as handheld PLT program for a portion of its product and related information developed for equipment) and those engines normally line by instead supplying data from in- the ARB should also satisfy the federal used in equipment which is not carried use engines. Under this voluntary in-use regulatory requirements being adopted by the operator including, for example, testing program, up to twenty percent of today. lawnmowers and generators (this the engine families certified in a year equipment being referred to as In addition to the regulatory nonhandheld). These usage distinctions can be designated for in-use testing by provisions outlined above, this rule the manufacturer. For these families, no seemed appropriate because the small adopts special provisions for small PLT testing will be required for two engine industry is for the most part split volume engine manufacturers, small model years including that model year. between these two categories, with very Instead, the manufacturer will select a volume engine families produced by few manufacturers making both minimum of three engines off the other engine manufacturers, and small handheld engines and nonhandheld assembly line or from another source of volume equipment manufacturers who engines, and because the nature of these new engines and emission test them rely on other manufacturers to supply two industry segments is quite different when aged to at least 75 percent of their them with these small SI nonhandheld with, for example, the handheld engine useful life under typical in-use engines. These special small volume manufacturers for the most part operating conditions for this engine. provisions lessen the demonstration producing engines specifically for use in The information relating to this in-use requirements and in some cases delay their own equipment (i.e., engine and testing program will be shared with the effective dates of the standards so as equipment manufacturers) while EPA. If any information derived from to smooth the transition to these Phase nonhandheld engine manufacturers this program indicates a substantial in- 2 requirements. This is especially typically do not also make equipment use emission performance problem, EPA important for these small volume but rather are suppliers of engines to the anticipates the manufacturer will seek applications since the eligible equipment industry; other to determine the nature of the emission manufacturers involved may not have characteristics important to regulatory performance problem and what the resources to ensure that engines analysis also differ between these two corrective actions might be appropriate. complying with these Phase 2 standards industry segments. Thus, it still seems EPA will offer its assistance in analysis will be available under the time frames appropriate to consider these industries of the reasons for unexpectedly high in- otherwise established under these separately, and thus the class structure use emission performance and what regulations. Since these provisions are adopted today maintains the distinction actions might be appropriate for limited to small volume applications, between handheld and nonhandheld reducing these high emissions. Whether the risk to air quality is negligible. classes, with today’s rule establishing or not a manufacturer chooses to However, without these provisions, the the Phase 2 program for nonhandheld conduct such a voluntary in-use testing economic impacts to small volume Class I and Class II. In addition, as program, EPA may choose to conduct its manufacturers could be increased and discussed above, a Phase 2 program for own in-use compliance program. If EPA the possibility of reduced product handheld engines is not being adopted were to determine that an in-use offering would be great, especially for in today’s action, but will be addressed noncompliance investigation was those products intended to serve niche in future Federal Register notices. appropriate, the Agency expects it markets which satisfy special needs. 2. HC+NOX Emission Standards would conduct its own in-use testing These flexibilities are explained more program, separate from this voluntary More stringent HC+NOX emission manufacturer testing program, to fully in section II.B. and are detailed in standards are being finalized for Class I determine whether a specific class or the regulations. engines than were proposed, and the category of engines is complying with HC+NOX emission standards for Class II applicable in-use standards. 1 While the voluntary in-use test program may not engines are being adopted as proposed. be codified in the California ARB Tier 2 rules for All these general provisions of this these engines, the ARB has agreed to adopt this The Clean Air Act at section 213 (a) (3) compliance program are also expected same voluntary in-use test program and allow for requires the Agency to adopt standards to become part of California’s the same decreased PLT testing. that result in the greatest emission

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.005 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 15212 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations reductions achievable through the stringent than those proposed for Class Air Act. The nation should continue to application of technology which the I engines are feasible during the next benefit from improved emission Administrator determines will be decade. With the adoption of these Class performance for this category of engines available, giving appropriate I and Class II standards, emissions will at least through 2010 as these standards consideration to cost, lead time, noise, be reduced an estimated 59 percent take effect and fleet turnover to cleaner energy and safety factors. As a result of compared to the Phase 1 nonhandheld engines occurs. information now available, much of it in engines. The standards being adopted The following table compares the the form of comments received during today reach the goal of maximum proposed levels of standards and the the NPRM comment period, EPA has achievable reductions for nonhandheld final levels of standards being adopted determined that standards more engines under section 213 of the Clean today.

TABLE 2.ÐPHASE 2 HC +NOX EMISSION STANDARDS FOR CLASS I AND CLASS II

NPRM FRM Engine Class HC+NOX (g/ HC+NOX (g/ kW-hr) Time line kW-hr) Time line

For Class I, the NPRM acknowledged I engines must all meet the 16.1 g/kW- burden of converting production that a standard of the level being hr HC+NOX standard starting with facilities to meet the much larger federal adopted today was technically feasible. engines produced on or after August 1, sales volumes. Nevertheless, this Indeed, one of the technology changes 2007. Additionally, all new engine alignment in standards should assist the available to achieve these standards families first produced on or after industry in targeting production and (adopting an overhead valve August 1, 2003 will also need to comply distribution of engines since, when fully configuration) has already been done on with this standard. This latter provision implemented, an engine meeting some Class I engines and is also recognizes that manufacturers adopting California standards will also meet anticipated to be a primary choice for new engine designs in a time frame so federal standards (and vice versa); such manufacturers of Class II engines to close to the 2007 production an engine can be sold anywhere in the meet their Phase 2 emission levels. The requirement to meet the standard United States. issues impacting a decision on the most should be anticipating meeting that While EPA anticipates manufacturers appropriate Class I standards, rather, standard in their design strategy. may choose to meet the Class I Phase 2 concerned the lead time necessary for Furthermore, sufficient time exists standard by converting their engines to the industry to convert their Class I between now and August 1, 2003 to OHV designs (similar to the case for designs and production facilities to allow for new designs to meet the Phase Class II engines as explained in the meet these standards, the cost of this 2 standard. Finally, EPA expects the NPRM), other options are also available conversion, and the subsequent manufacturers will take advantage of such as the adoption of improved fuel potential adverse impact on sales of any this production window between metering and/or the use of a catalytic such increase in cost passed along to August 2003 and August 2007 to smooth converter. The standards adopted today consumers. Both the industry and EPA the transition to a fully complying do not rely on only one technology, nor now have an improved understanding of product line by August 2007 by phasing do they mandate use of any specific the lead time necessary to convert Class in production of Phase 2 engines during technology. I engines to designs capable of meeting these four years. Thus, the environment As proposed, the final rule adopts these low emission standards and the should benefit by the early introduction standards of 12.1 g/kW-hr HC+NOX for costs that would result. While the of complying engines, and the Class II engines, phased in over the 2001 manufacturers’ uncertainties regarding manufacturers will benefit by the through 2005 model years. Again, when consumer acceptance may not be fully flexibility to introduce engines during coupled with the actions being taken resolved, EPA believes the anticipated this transition period in a manner and with regard to Class I engines, this price increases resulting from this schedule which best fits their individual standard and phase in schedule is action will not have a significant needs. technically feasible and provides adverse impact on sales, principally due This standard for Class I engines is sufficient lead time for changing engine to the fact that once fleet turnover identical to the standard adopted by the designs and production facilities. becomes significant and Class I State of California as part of its Tier 2 3. NMHC+NOX Standards for Class I overhead valve engine products do not regulations for this class of small spark- and II Natural Gas Fueled Engines have to compete with side-valve engine ignition engines. However, these federal products, consumer acceptance of regulations tend to allow additional As proposed, EPA is adopting overhead valve engines should no time in consideration of the need to separate optional standards for small SI longer be an issue. Furthermore, major convert perhaps additional designs not nonhandheld engines fueled by natural manufacturers of Class I engines support targeted, at least initially, for the gas. For typical gasoline-fueled engines, the adoption of these standards in the California market, and of the the methane portion is around 5 to 10 time frame required 2. Specifically, Class significantly greater cost and logistical percent of total hydrocarbons. However, for engines fueled with natural gas, the 2 See docket A–96–55, memorandum IV–E–68, Company, Briggs & Stratton and Latham & methane portion can be around 70 entitled ‘‘Meeting with Tecumseh Products Watkins’’. percent. The methane from these

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.006 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 15213 engines has a very low ozone forming standards for engines fueled with standards, all other aspects of this rule potential compared to the other natural gas. These standards have been pertain equally to engines fueled with hydrocarbons in the engine’s exhaust. adjusted to provide equivalent natural gas as those fueled with Therefore, from an ozone forming stringency to the HC+NOX standards for gasoline. potential perspective, it is appropriate gasoline-fueled engines as are being to provide an alternative set of emission adopted today. Aside from these

TABLE 3.ÐPHASE 2 NMHC +NOX EMISSION STANDARDS FOR CLASS I AND II

NMHC+NOX Engine Class (g/kW-hr) Time line

Class I ...... 14.8 August 1, 2007; in addition, any Class I engine family initially produced on or after August 1, 2003 must meet the Phase 2 Class I standards before they may be introduced into commerce. Class II1 ...... 11.3 2001±2005.

4. CO Emission Standards opportunity to assess emission to fully plan and execute in a timely This final rule adopts the CO deterioration. Additionally, the 125 fashion its product certification emission standards contained in the hour designation is aligned with program. The program being adopted proposal for Class I and Class II engines California’s requirements. Thus, a today rests the responsibility with the (e.g., 610 g/kW-hr), and thereby manufacturer intending to sell Class I industry to make their best, most maintains the same CO emission engines in both the State of California conscientious selection. We expect that standard as in the Phase 1 rules (e.g., and federally (the vast majority of manufacturers of Class I and II engines 519 g/kW-hr), when adjusted for engines) would have to accumulate 125 will have a good idea of the types of deterioration. At this time, it does not hours of service during certification to equipment their engines are typically appear that additional reductions in CO meet the California requirement; in this used in and, from their marketing emissions from these engines will be case, no extra burden is placed on the information, a reasonably accurate needed to allow most areas of the manufacturer by adopting this projection of the relative volumes in country to attain the CO ambient air requirement federally. The minimum such typical applications. Additionally, quality standard. However, it should be certification demonstration useful life based on design features these noted that many of the emission control for Class II engines is 250 hours, as manufacturers build into their engines, techniques likely to be adopted to meet proposed. they have a good idea of the expected useful life in such applications. Relying the Phase 2 HC+NOX standards, in 6. Selection of Useful Life Category particular the conversion from side- on this information, manufacturers valve to clean overhead valve designs, EPA proposed that the engine should be able to make good selections improved fuel metering, and manufacturers would be responsible for of appropriate useful life categories for combustion chamber improvements, assuring that the correct useful life was their engines. While these final rules should also result in lower CO used for certification demonstration and leave that responsibility to the emissions. So, although the final CO labeling purposes (see proposed manufacturer, EPA expects to standard remains the same as the 90.105(a)). Specific criteria were periodically review the manufacturers’ proposed standard, EPA expects some proposed which the manufacturers decisions to assure ourselves that this CO emission reduction will occur as a could use in documenting their regulation is being properly result of the technology adopted to determinations of useful life category implemented and to determine whether comply with the more stringent selection. Comments received suggested modifications to these rules are HC+NOX standards. EPA is not able at such a requirement was overly rigid and appropriate. We note that this approach this time, however, to quantify the unnecessary. EPA remains very results in the same regulatory expected level of CO reductions to a concerned that the manufacturers select requirement as the State of California, sufficiently precise degree that the the most appropriate useful life category eliminating any extra burden in this Agency can confidently set a more for each engine to assure it is properly regard due to federal rules. stringent standard than was proposed. evaluated during certification and to 7. Emission Standards Feasibility at assure that any averaging, banking and Longer Useful Life 5. Useful Life Categories trading program which allows the Along with adopting a more stringent exchange of emission credits across In response to the NPRM, some numerical standard for Class I engines, engine families in different useful life commenters suggested the standard the minimum certification categories is also fair and should be proportionately higher for demonstration useful life has also been environmentally sound. However, so as engines certified to higher useful life extended from 66 hours to 125 hours. not to add potentially unnecessary ages. The reasoning given was that since The higher useful life designation is burden on the industry, these rules engines are expected to have emissions technically appropriate; the lower 66 adopt a less rigid methodology for deterioration with accumulation of hour value was proposed as a means of determining useful life categories. The hours of use, the more the hours of use saving the industry cost during proposal provided for EPA intervention the higher the amount of deterioration certification demonstration (see in the selection of the appropriate useful and thus the higher should be the discussion in the NPRM, at 63 FR 3969). life category for an engine. This standards. However, this presumes no However, the extra cost is relatively potential intervention would have the design difference between an engine small while the higher hours of effect of adding uncertainty for the intended for a useful life of, for operation provide an improved manufacturer, and of limiting its ability example, 250 hours versus one designed

VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:30 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 30MRR2 15214 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations for a useful life of 1000 hours. This is Phase 2 requirements, thus securing standards being adopted for Class I not the case. Engines designed for earlier emission benefits. engines and the one restriction higher useful life markets have superior EPA believes that the new ABT (discussed below) regarding generation design features (such as advance fuel program is consistent with the statutory of credits from Class II engines, EPA is metering designs including fuel requirements of section 213 of the Clean far less concerned that credits from injection) which should result in an Air Act. Although the language of Class I could result in delays in ability to calibrate for lower emissions section 213 is silent on the issue of technology improvement for Class II, when the engine is new and also have averaging, it allows EPA considerable and does not believe that any cross-class a lower rate of emission deterioration discretion in determining what restrictions for nonhandheld engines are during service accumulation. The regulations are most appropriate for necessary. Therefore, all restrictions on combined impact of such trends will implementing section 213. The statute cross-class credit exchanges for small SI allow engines designed for a high useful does not specify that a specific standard nonhandheld engines have been life to meet the same standards as or technology must be implemented, eliminated. engines designed for a shorter useful and it requires EPA to consider costs, As part of the ABT program, EPA is life. Thus, these final rules adopt the lead time, and other factors in making setting upper limits on the FEL values same standard for all engines in a its determination of ‘‘the greatest degree that may be declared by manufacturers nonhandheld class regardless of their of emissions reduction achievable under the Phase 2 standards. (The FEL intended useful life. through the application of technology is established by the manufacturer and which the Administrator determines takes the place of the emission standard B. Averaging, Banking, and Trading will be available.’’ Section 213(a)(3) also for all compliance determinations.) The In this final rule, EPA is establishing indicates that EPA’s regulations may proposed FEL upper limits were based a certification averaging, banking, and apply to nonroad engine classes in the on the previous set of standards (i.e., the trading (ABT) program for Phase 2 aggregate, and need not apply to each Phase 1 standards) for nonhandheld nonroad SI nonhandheld engines at or nonroad engine individually. Finally, engines after accounting for in-use below 19 kW. Averaging means the EPA believes the ABT program is deterioration, which is typically how exchange of emission credits among consistent with the statutory EPA establishes such limits. Therefore, engine families within a given engine requirements of the Clean Air Act. EPA is adopting HC+NOX FEL upper The ABT program being finalized manufacturer’s product line. Averaging limits of 32.2 g/kW-hr for Class I with today’s action is similar in many allows a manufacturer to certify one or engines and 26.8 g/kW-hr for Class II ways to the program proposed for more engine families to Family engines as proposed, even though the nonhandheld engines. Changes to the Emissions Limits (FELs) above the HC+NOX emission standard adopted for proposed program have been made in applicable emission standard. However, Class I engines is more stringent than response to comments received on the the increased emissions would have to originally proposed. proposal and the revised standards for EPA is finalizing one limitation that be offset by one or more engine families Class I engines. The following applies to Class II engines only. As certified to FELs below the same discussion summarizes the main proposed, because of concerns over the emission standard, such that the average provisions of the ABT program being potential to generate significant credits emissions in a given model year from all finalized and explains the main from existing Phase 1 engines against of the manufacturer’s families (weighted differences from the proposed ABT the Phase 2 standards, EPA is requiring by various parameters including engine program. that a manufacturer’s production- power, useful life, and number of As noted above, the ABT program will weighted average of HC+NOX FELs for engines produced) are at or below the apply to Phase 2 small SI nonhandheld Class II engines may not exceed 13.6 g/ level of the emission standard. Banking engines. The ABT program will be kW-hr in model year 2005, 13.1 g/kW- means the retention of emission credits available for HC+NOX emissions but hr in model year 2006, and 12.6 g/kW- by the engine manufacturer generating will not be available for CO emissions. hr in model years 2007 and later. This the credits for use in future model year The ABT program will also apply to calculation is based strictly on the FELs averaging or trading. Trading means the natural gas-fueled engines. All credits and does not allow the manufacturer to exchange of emission credits between for natural gas-fueled engines will be factor in the use of credits, as is done engine manufacturers which then can be determined against the applicable when a manufacturer demonstrates used for averaging purposes, banked for NMHC+NOX standards. In addition, compliance with the HC+NOX standard future use, or traded to another engine manufacturers will be allowed to freely of 12.1 g/kW-hr. EPA believes this manufacturer. exchange NMHC+NOX credits from approach will ensure that Class II The new program would be the first engines fueled by natural gas with engines are converted to OHV or OHV- ABT program for nonroad SI engines, HC+NOX credits from engines fueled by comparable technology in a reasonable since the Phase 1 rule did not include fuels other than natural gas in the ABT time frame while still encouraging the an ABT program. EPA believes this new program. early introduction of cleaner, more program is an important element in Cross-class exchange of ABT credits durable technology and ensuring that making the stringent Phase 2 emissions between nonhandheld engine families manufacturers have the flexibility standards adopted in this final rule will not be restricted. EPA had proposed provided by an ABT program to comply achievable with regard to technological restricting using credits from Class I with the new standards. For Class I, feasibility, lead time, and cost. The new engines in determining compliance of EPA does not have a similar concern ABT program is intended to enhance the Class II engines since the standard since the standards being adopted are flexibility offered to engine proposed for Class I engines was expected to provide only limited manufacturers that will be needed in considerably less stringent than that opportunity to generate large amounts of changing their entire product lines to proposed for Class II engines; it would credits from existing engines. meet the stringent HC+NOX standards have been quite easy to generate credits All credits will be calculated based on being adopted. The ABT program also in Class I and use them to offset FELs the difference between the encourages the early introduction of above the standard for Class II engines. manufacturer-established FEL and the cleaner engines certified under the However, because of the tighter Phase 2 HC+NOX standard for the

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.008 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 15215 applicable model year using the accelerate introduction of cleaner be determined by the difference following equation. technologies into the marketplace. The between the engine family’s FEL and a Credits=(Standard— Agency believes that making bankable HC+NOX level of 20.5 g/kW-hr. The FEL)×Production×Power×Useful credits available prior to the effective manufacturer may continue generating life×Load Factor date of the new standards will reward early credits from such Class I engine At the time of certification, those manufacturers who take on the families for as long as it continues manufacturers must also supply responsibility of complying with the producing the engine family until information to EPA on the terms used in Phase 2 requirements sooner than August 1, 2007 since, at that time, all the above noted equation. ‘‘Production’’ required and will result in early Class I engines families are subject to represents the manufacturer’s U.S. environmental benefits. Under the early the Phase 2 standards. The 20.5 g/kW- production of engines for the given banking provisions for small SI engines, hr level is based on the same engine family, excluding exported manufacturers will be allowed to begin assumption as the initial Class II phase- engines and engines that will be sold in using the averaging and banking in standard that half of the engines are California. ‘‘Power’’ represents the portions of the ABT program beginning at the Phase 1 Class I standard and the other half are at the Phase 2 Class I maximum modal power of the with the 1999 model year for engines standard adopted today. (Any Class I certification test engine over the certified to the Phase 2 requirements engine family for which a manufacturer certification test cycle. ‘‘Useful Life’’ is and produced after the effective date of wishes to start generating credits for the the regulatory useful life established by this action. However, as was the case first time after August 1, 2003, will not the manufacturer for the given engine with certain provisions included in the be eligible for early credits. Such family. ‘‘Load Factor’’ is a constant that proposal, the ability of a manufacturer families will be eligible to generate is dependent on the test cycle over to generate early credits also is being credits under the standard provisions of which the engine is certified. limited by the regulatory provisions the ABT program against the Phase 2 Under the new ABT program for small being adopted today. The protocols standard of 16.1 g/kW-hr.) SI nonhandheld engines, credits will adopted in these regulations assure that a manufacturer will only generate All engines for which the have an unlimited credit life and will manufacturer generates early credits not be discounted in any manner. credits from engines cleaner than those otherwise anticipated to be available. In must comply with all requirements for The equation being adopted for credit Phase 2 engines (e.g., the Production calculation in today’s action has been this way, manufacturers are rewarded for the extra effort of designing and Line Testing program requirements). revised from the proposal in two ways. Manufacturers of nonhandheld engines First, EPA proposed that manufacturers producing lower emitting engines and the environment benefits from this extra will not be allowed to trade their early use the 49-state sales of an engine engine credits to other manufacturers family instead of 49-state production effort. The regulatory provisions adopted today assure that the amount of until the first effective model year of the levels. However, because of the non- Phase 2 standards for the applicable integrated nature of the nonroad small credits received for the early introduction of a low emitting engine engine class. SI market, EPA believes it would be To be eligible for early credits for an are appropriate considering both the very difficult for manufacturers to engine family, EPA had originally current designs of engines and the determine actual sales. EPA believes proposed that a nonhandheld engine changes in emission performance that production levels should provide manufacturer would have to certify and necessary to meet the Phase 2 standards an appropriately accurate estimate of comply with the initial Phase 2 as well as the degree to which the sales. Second, EPA proposed that standards for its entire production line industry and consumers would benefit manufacturers use a sales-weighted in the class containing that family. EPA average maximum modal power for all from the opportunity to generate early proposed this requirement as a means of of the engine configurations within an credits. limiting the ability of the manufacturer engine family as opposed to the For Class I and Class II engines, to generate inappropriately large maximum modal power of the manufacturers may generate early amounts of early credits. However, certification test engine. Because a large credits to be used for averaging or because EPA is adopting significantly fraction of engine families include banking purposes from only those tighter standards for Class I engines than multiple configurations, EPA believes it engine families certified with FELs at or originally proposed, the ability of the would create unnecessary burden on below the final Phase 2 standard (i.e., manufacturer of Class I engines to easily engine manufacturers to determine the 16.1 g/kW-hr HC+NOX for Class I generate large amounts of early credits maximum modal power of every engine engines, and 12.1 g/kW-hr HC+NOX for is greatly diminished. Additionally, configuration. Using a consistent Class II engines (or 14.8 g/kW-hr EPA believes all current manufacturers approach for estimating the maximum NMHC+NOX for Class I and 11.3 g/kW- of Class II engines would meet this modal power based on the certification hr NMHC+NOX for Class II natural gas- requirement with their currently test engine simplifies the program for fueled engines)). As proposed, all early certified Phase 1 engines, in which case manufacturers. At the same time, it credits for Class II engines will be the proposed restriction would have no should not have any significant impact calculated against the initial Phase 2 effect. Therefore, EPA is not adopting on the relative number of credits HC+NOX standard of 18.0 g/kW-hr. For such a requirement in today’s action. generated under the program from Class I engines, because the Phase 2 In establishing the set of declining engines with FELs below the standards standards initially only apply to new standards for Class II engines, EPA versus engines with FELs above the engine family designs produced for the assumed a certain phase-in of OHV or standards. first time on or after August 1, 2003, comparably clean and durable Under the new ABT program, EPA will allow manufacturers to technology during the transition years. manufacturers of small SI nonhandheld generate early credits from any other In order to encourage manufacturers to engines will be allowed to use portions Class I engines (i.e., those produced meet the assumed phase-in schedule, of the ABT program prior to before August 1, 2003) if they are EPA proposed to limit the use of credits implementation of the Phase 2 certified with an FEL at or below 16.1 in two situations that were dependent standards to provide an incentive to g/kW-hr; the amount of the credit will on whether the manufacturer met the

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.009 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 15216 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations assumed OHV phase in schedule. First, flexibility during the 2001 to 2009 an engine speed governor must use the manufacturers would only be allowed to model years would be excluded from governor to control engine speed during trade credits from Class II engines to the ABT program. the test cycle modes with the exception Class I engines if they met the assumed As noted elsewhere in today’s notice, of Mode 1 or Mode 6. Second, the phase-in schedule. Second, EPA is adopting a number of provisions proposed test procedure for NMHC is manufacturers would only be allowed to that address post-certification being adopted. This test procedure will use early banked Class II credits compliance aspects of the new allow proper measurement of methane beginning in 2001 or later if they met standards for nonhandheld engines. In emissions from spark-ignition engines the OHV or comparably clean engine one specific case, EPA is allowing and permit appropriate determination of production phase-in schedule estimates manufacturers to use credits from the the NMHC emission for natural gas- for that model year. Because EPA is certification ABT program to address fueled engines. Additionally, several finalizing significantly tighter Class I excess emissions situations determined cycle operational modifications have standards and because EPA is adopting after the time of certification. As noted also been adopted as recommended by caps on the long term levels of FELs, in the discussion on compliance, EPA EMA (see section 4 of the Summary and EPA does not believe that the proposed does not believe that the typical type of Analysis of Comments). limits on the use of credits which were enforcement action that could be taken Finally, one comment was received in tied to whether a manufacturer was when a substantial nonconformity is regards to special test procedures meeting the assumed OHV technology identified (i.e., an engine family recall accepted by EPA during the Phase 1 phase in are necessary. These aspects of order) would generally be workable for rulemaking and their continued use into the final rule should eliminate EPA’s small SI engines given the nature of the Phase 2. EPA will continue to accept concern that introduction of OHV or market. Instead, for the purposes of special test procedures during Phase 2 comparably clean engine technology implementing the PLT program, EPA is (including those approved under Phase could be delayed. Therefore, EPA is not adopting provisions to allow 1) as long as they continue to result in finalizing the limits on the use of credits manufacturers to use engine emission compliance determinations that were dependent on a manufacturer certification ABT credits to offset expected to be equivalent to those showing compliance with the assumed limited emission performance shortfalls resulting from use of the Phase 2 test OHV phase-in schedule for Class II for past production of engines procedures. Under this approach, engines. determined through the PLT program as manufacturers who test their engines As discussed in section II.E. of today’s described in section II.D. of today’s using fuel satisfying California’s notice, EPA is finalizing several notice. Under the adopted provisions, requirements are allowed, as under compliance flexibility provisions for manufacturers are allowed to use all Phase 1 rules, to adjust their test results engine manufacturers and equipment engine credits available to them to offset in a manner which EPA determines manufacturers that allow the limited use such emission performance shortfalls would yield the same emission levels of Phase 1 engines in the Phase 2 time without any cross-class restrictions. had the engines been tested using the frame. Phase 1 engines sold by engine EPA is not allowing manufacturers to test fuels meeting the specifications in manufacturers under the flexibility automatically use ABT credits to the federal regulations. provisions will be excluded from the remedy a past production D. Compliance Program ABT program. In other words, engine nonconformance situation in the manufacturers will not have to use Selective Enforcement Audit (SEA) The compliance program being credits to certify Phase 1 engines used program. As described in today’s action, adopted today for Phase 2 nonhandheld for the flexibility provisions even EPA expects to primarily rely on the engines is comprised of three parts: a though they would likely exceed the PLT program to monitor the emissions pre-production certification program newly adopted Phase 2 standards. performance of production engines. during which the manufacturer Another flexibility provision However, EPA expects that SEAs may evaluates the expected emission described in section II.E. of today’s be conducted in certain cases. performance of the engine design notice allows engine manufacturers to Therefore, as discussed in section II.D., including the durability of that emission certify Class II side-valve engine if EPA determines that an engine family performance; an assembly line test families with annual sales of 1,000 units is not complying with the standards as program which samples product coming or less to an HC+NOX cap of 24.0 g/kW- the result of an SEA, EPA plans to work off the assembly line to assure the hr starting with the 2010 model year. with the manufacturer on a case-by-case design as certified continues to have For such engine families, the ABT basis to determine an appropriate acceptable emission performance when program allows manufacturers to method for dealing with the put into mass production; and a exclude such engine families for the nonconformity. The option(s) agreed voluntary in-use test program during 2010 model year and later. As noted in upon by EPA and the engine which participating manufacturers section II.E., EPA is dropping the manufacturer may, or may not, include evaluate the in-use emission portion of the proposed flexibility for the use of ABT credits to make up for performance of their product under small volume Class II SV engine any ‘‘lost’’ emission benefits uncovered typical operating conditions. Standards families for model years 2001 through by the SEA. have been set for each class. The 2009 that would have allowed them to manufacturer divides its product C. Test Procedures meet the 24.0 g/kW-hr HC plus NOX offering based upon specific design level and be included in the ABT The test procedure being adopted for criteria which have a potential for program (for model years 2001 through the Phase 2 nonhandheld program is the significantly different emission 2004) if they exceeded this level. In its steady state procedure currently used in performance; these subdivisions are place, the Agency is adopting a Phase 1, with several modifications. called engine families. Each engine flexibility that allows small volume These test procedure modifications were family is required to meet the standard engine families to meet the Phase 1 proposed for the reasons contained in applicable for the class in which that requirements for model years 2001 the proposal (63 FR at 3976–77). No engine resides unless the manufacturer through 2009. Class II SV engine adverse comment was received on these chooses to participate in the ABT families taking advantage of this proposals. First, engines equipped with program also being adopted today.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.010 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 15217

The ABT program has already been bench aging option, the emission results the following significant changes to the described (see section II.B. for would have had to be adjusted using the proposal. These changes, and other less discussion of the ABT program). The field/bench adjustment program. The significant changes, are also discussed other provisions of the compliance field/bench adjustment program was in the Summary and Analysis of program are explained in more detail described in the proposal at 63 FR 3977. Comments document. In today’s final below. In all cases, to the best of EPA’s These results, either the field aged or rule, EPA is adopting a significantly less knowledge, the requirements of this adjusted bench aged, would have been complex certification program that federal compliance program are used to calculate a deterioration factor harmonizes with the certification sufficiently similar to the requirements which would then be applied to the program adopted by the California Air of the California Air Resources Board results of testing done on new engines Resources Board as part of its Tier 2 program for these engines such that for in the certification, PLT or SEA regulations. In this program, engine families sold in both the State of programs. For manufacturers of manufacturers of nonhandheld engines California and federally, the engines nonhandheld engines with overhead of all technologies are required to selected for testing, the test procedures valve technology, the proposal would demonstrate that their regulated engines under which they are tested and the have allowed manufacturers to use an comply with appropriate emission data and other information required to industry-wide assigned deterioration standards throughout the engines’ be supplied by regulations will be the factor for certification. Manufacturers of useful lives. To account for emission same under both programs. Thus, we overhead valve nonhandheld engines deterioration over time, manufacturers expect that a manufacturer will compile would have also been allowed under the must establish deterioration factors for one application for certification proposal to establish their own each regulated pollutant for each engine satisfying the information needs of both deterioration factors by field aging a family. The final rule allows programs and thus saving the minimum of three engines per family to manufacturers to establish deterioration manufacturer time and expense. their full useful lives, provided they factors by using bench aging procedures Similarly, the EPA and California established deterioration factors for all which appropriately predict the in-use compliance programs are expected to of their engine families within a useful emission deterioration expected over share information such that any life category. Manufacturers of overhead the useful life of an engine or an in-use production line testing or in-use testing valve engines would have been required evaluation which directly accounts for conducted for one program will satisfy to participate in an industry-wide Field this deterioration. As is the case with the similar needs of the other program, Durability and In-use Performance many EPA mobile source regulations, again minimizing the burden on the Demonstration Program. This program is multiplicative deterioration factors may manufacturers. described in the proposal at 63 FR 3989 not be less than one. Additionally, and its primary purpose was to verify where appropriate and with suitable 1. Certification whether the industry-wide assigned justification, deterioration factors may This section addresses the deterioration factors were appropriate. be carried over from one model year to certification program finalized today for EPA received a significant number of another and from one engine family to nonhandheld engine manufacturers. comments regarding the complexity of another. The proposed rule discussed the the proposed certification program, the Today’s final rule also provides certification program at 63 FR 3981. inappropriateness of an assigned flexibility for small volume engine Several comments were submitted in deterioration factor for all useful life manufacturers and small volume engine response to the proposal. EPA addresses categories for nonhandheld engines families, allowing manufacturers to these comments and provides detailed with overhead valve technology, the optionally use assigned deterioration explanations of why the Agency prohibitive expense of field aging factors established by the Agency. The retained provisions as proposed or engines, and the advantages of deterioration factors, either assigned or changed the proposed provisions in the harmonizing EPA’s final certification generated, are used to determine Summary and Analysis of Comments program with that of the California Air whether an engine family complies with document at section 5. The certification Resources Board. EPA now believes the each emission standard in the process as required in the Act is an complexity of the proposed program certification program, the production annual process and requires that would make it difficult to manage and line testing program, and the Selective manufacturers demonstrate that organize the certification program for Enforcement Auditing program. regulated engines will meet appropriate both industry and the Agency. EPA also As in Phase 1, manufacturers can standards throughout their useful lives. believes that harmonizing its programs submit certification applications to the The Act prohibits the sale, importation with the California Air Resources Board Agency electronically, either on a or introduction into commerce of will allow the industry to more computer disk or through electronic regulated engines when not covered by efficiently comply with the final mail, making the certification a certificate. emission standards and requirements. application process efficient for both The proposal would have required Additionally, EPA is concerned the manufacturers and the Agency. Also, nonhandheld engine manufacturers to field/bench adjustment program may EPA and the California Air Resources estimate the in-use deterioration of their not be statistically reliable enough to Board will have a common application engine families by different methods establish appropriate deterioration format allowing manufacturers to more depending on the type of engine factors (in an effort to control the cost easily apply for certification. technology (see 63 FR 3981). For of this program, only a minimum manufacturers of nonhandheld side amount of data was proposed to be 2. Production Line Testing—Cumulative valve (SV) engines or engines with required; this small amount of data Summation Procedure aftertreatment (i.e., catalysts), the hurts the statistical reliability of any This section addresses the production proposal would have required that one resulting decision). line testing (PLT) program finalized engine from each engine family be Based on comments received and today for nonhandheld engine either field aged or bench aged to its full EPA’s further evaluation of the manufacturers. The proposed rule useful life to demonstrate compliance. If proposed certification program, EPA is discussed the PLT program at 63 FR a manufacturer were to choose the finalizing the certification program with 3984–89. Several comments were

VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:12 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 30MRR2 15218 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations submitted in response to the proposal. comments in support of the proposal to recertification). In the event a EPA addresses these comments and allow manufacturers to submit manufacturer raises an FEL as a result provides detailed explanations of why alternative test schemes for PLT, but of a PLT failure, it may do so for future the Agency retained provisions as also suggesting that the above criteria production as well as past production. proposed or changed the proposed were too restrictive and would result in EPA expects few instances in which the provisions in the Summary and a program so closely aligned with manufacturer will correct a PLT failure Analysis of Comments document at CumSum that, by implication, the through raising the FEL since that section 5. The PLT program adopted in manufacturer would have no reason to would imply the manufacturer today’s rule requires manufacturers to pursue the alternative. Therefore, these incorrectly set the initial FEL levels for conduct manufacturer-run testing commenters recommended EPA should that family; frequent use of this remedy programs using the Cumulative either make the criteria less restrictive, would suggest the manufacturer was Summation Procedure (CumSum).3 EPA or remove the specific criteria incapable of correctly setting the FELs is finalizing the program as proposed altogether. EPA believes that the for its product, in which case EPA with the following significant proposed criteria would be crucial to would have to reconsider allowing a modifications. These changes, and other developing any alternative production manufacturer to participate in the ABT less significant changes, are also line testing program, and that the program at its option. It should also be discussed in the Summary and Analysis Agency could not approve an alternative noted that, as proposed, compliance document. The proposal would have program with less restrictive criteria. with the standards will be required of required manufacturers of handheld EPA also believes the CumSum every covered engine. Thus, every engine families to participate in the PLT procedure is an accurate and engine that failed a PLT rest would be program while allowing nonhandheld appropriate production line testing considered in noncompliance with the manufacturers the option of program for those manufacturers standards and must be brought into participating in the PLT program or covered by the production line testing compliance. EPA’s rules allowing the electing to remain eligible for traditional requirements. Therefore, in response to use of the average of tests to determine Selective Enforcement Audits. EPA industry comments suggesting that there compliance with the PLT program is received comments both in favor of would be little utility in being able to intended only as a tool to decide when finalizing this option for nonhandheld seek approval of alternate methods it is appropriate to suspend or revoke manufacturers and removing this option under EPA’s proposed criteria, EPA is the certificate of conformity for that and requiring all manufacturers, not adopting the proposed option that engine family, and is not meant to imply handheld and nonhandheld, to would have allowed manufacturers to that not all engines have to comply with participate in the PLT program. Because apply for alternative PLT methods. the standards or applicable FEL. the SEA program can only provide a The CumSum program, as finalized, Under the flexibilities section, we also single snapshot of a manufacturer’s requires manufacturers to conduct note that small volume manufacturers production, while the PLT program has testing on each of their engine families and small volume engine families need the ability to evaluate a manufacturer’s (except where relieved of this not be included in the PLT program at production throughout the model year, requirement under provisions granting the manufacturer’s option. Finally, EPA EPA believes that the PLT program small volume flexibility). The maximum proposed that exceptionally low provides a better evaluation of a sample size that could be required for emitting engines could also be manufacturer’s production than the SEA each engine family is 30 engines or 1 exempted from PLT testing at the program. Further, the PLT program does percent of a family’s projected manufacturer’s option, however, they not disrupt a manufacturer’s normal day production, and the number of tests would also not be able to generate ABT to day activities. Therefore, the ultimately required is determined by the credits. Manufacturers have indicated proposed option for nonhandheld results of the testing. EPA and the that they would much rather have the manufacturers to elect to continue to California ARB have harmonized their credits available from a low emitting rely on Selective Enforcement Audits is PLT programs and both will require engine design than the alternative of not being finalized, and nonhandheld manufacturers to use the CumSum reduced PLT testing. Therefore, this manufacturers are required to conduct procedure for testing production proposed option has not been adopted. engines. Manufacturers will be able to PLT programs using the CumSum 3. Selective Enforcement Auditing approach in today’s final rule. submit PLT reports to the Agency The PLT proposal also included an electronically, either on a computer disk The proposal discussed Selective opportunity for the Agency to approve or through electronic mail, which will Enforcement Auditing (SEA) at 63 FR alternative methods to the CumSum save both the industry and EPA time 3987–88. The SEA program is not the approach if those alternative methods and money. Agency’s preferred production line met certain statistical criteria, including: As mentioned in the discussion on testing program for small nonhandheld the alternative methods produce ABT, above, manufacturers may, for a engines, and the CumSum approach is substantially the same levels of limited amount of production, use ABT being finalized as the PLT program that producer and consumer risk as credits to offset the estimated excess manufacturers will conduct. Specific CumSum, provide for continuous emission of previously produced comments submitted regarding SEA, sampling, and include an appropriate noncomplying engine designs as and EPA’s responses, are discussed in decision mechanism for determining determined in the PLT program. For the Summary and Analysis of noncompliance. EPA received future production, the manufacturer Comments document at section 5. The would be expected to correct the SEA program is included in today’s 3 The CumSum procedure has been promulgated noncompliance problem causing the final rule as a ‘‘backstop’’ to the for marine engines in EPA’s spark-ignition marine emission noncompliance either by CumSum program and would be used in rule at 40 CFR Part 91 (61 FR 52088, October 4, changing the production process, cases where there is evidence of 1996). In this section, ‘‘PLT’’ refers to the changing the design (which would improper testing or of a nonconformity manufacturer-run CumSum procedure. ‘‘PLT’’ does not include Selective Enforcement Auditing (SEA), require recertification) or raising the that is not being addressed by the which is addressed separately in Section II.D.3 of FEL to compensate for the higher CumSum program. The SEA program, as this preamble. emissions (also requiring finalized, will also apply to engine

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.012 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 15219 families optionally certified to the small verify that the industry-wide might be appropriate. EPA will offer its volume manufacturer provisions and deterioration factors predicted for the assistance in analysis of the reasons for the small volume engine family overhead valve engines were unexpectedly high in-use emission provisions, in cases where appropriate. Based on industry performance and what actions might be manufacturers elect not to conduct PLT comments regarding the prohibitive appropriate for reducing these high testing for such families. However, as expense of conducting field aged in-use emissions. Whether or not a for other families, EPA does not expect tests, EPA is not adopting the proposed manufacturer chooses to conduct such a families certified under the small in-use programs in today’s rule. voluntary in-use testing program, EPA volume provisions will be routinely However, EPA still desires may choose to conduct its own in-use tested through an SEA program. meaningful in-use data so that it can compliance program. If EPA were to In contrast to the PLT program, more appropriately assess the actual determine that an in-use noncompliance manufacturers who fail an SEA will not emissions inventory of this industry. investigation was appropriate, the have the automatic option of using ABT Therefore, EPA is adopting a voluntary Agency expects it would conduct its credits to remedy noncomplying in-use testing program. The voluntary own in-use testing program, separate engines already introduced into in-use testing program gives from this voluntary manufacturer testing commerce. The PLT program was nonhandheld engine manufacturers the program, to determine whether a designed to allow a manufacturer to option of using a portion of their PLT specific class or category of engines is continually evaluate its entire resources to generate field aged complying with applicable in-use production and quickly respond to the emissions data. At the start of each standards. results throughout the model year. EPA model year, manufacturers may elect to Although EPA is not finalizing the believes that allowing a manufacturer to place up to 20 percent of their engine mandatory in-use testing programs use credits, for a limited amount of families in this voluntary program. For proposed, the Agency is finalizing the engines, to remedy past production those families in this program, in-use noncompliance provisions as emission failures is consistent with the manufacturers would not be required to proposed (see 63 FR 4026: Subpart I continual evaluation provided by the conduct PLT for two model years, the 90.808). Under these provisions, if the PLT program. The SEA program, in current year and the subsequent year Agency determines that a substantial contrast, is designed to be a one time, (the California Air Resources Board has number of engines within an engine unannounced inspection of a indicated that they would also exempt family, although properly used and manufacturer’s production line with families in this in-use testing program definitive passing or failing results. EPA from their PLT requirements). Instead, maintained, do not conform to the believes that is this type of a compliance manufacturers would place a minimum appropriate emission standards, the program, where at most only a few of three randomly selected production manufacturer will be required to remedy engine families might be tested each engines in existing consumer owned, the problem and conduct a recall of the year, manufacturers must place more independently owned, or manufacturer noncomplying engine family as required emphasis on the transition from owned fleets. Manufacturers would by CAA section 207. However, we also certification to the production line and install the engines in equipment that recognize the practical difficulty in must set initial FELs accurately. To represents at least 50 percent of the implementing an effective recall encourage accurate FEL settings at the production for an engine family and age program as it would likely be time of certification, the SEA program the engine/equipment combination in impossible to properly identify the does not allow manufacturers to actual field conditions to at least 75 owners of equipment using small automatically remedy SEA failures by percent of each engine’s useful life. engines (there is no national retroactively adjusting FELs. Remedies Once an engine in this program has requirement to register the ownership of for the SEA failure are best determined been sufficiently field aged, the such equipment), and it is also highly on a case-by-case basis which might manufacturer would conduct an questionable whether owners or include the use of ABT credits if emissions test on that engine. operators of such equipment would agreeable to both EPA and the Manufacturers would have three respond to an emission-related recall manufacturers. calendar years from the date they notice. Therefore, under the final notified the Agency of their intent to program EPA’s intent is to allow 4. Voluntary In-Use Testing include a family in the program to manufacturers to nominate alternative This section addresses the voluntary complete testing. remedial measures to address potential in-use testing program finalized today While this compliance program will non-compliance situations, as the for nonhandheld engine manufacturers. not require the manufacturer to conduct proposed rulemaking notice discussed The proposed rule discussed the in-use any in-use testing to verify continued (see 63 FR 3992). EPA expects that, if testing program at 63 FR 3989. Several satisfactory emission performance in the successfully implemented, the use of comments were submitted in response hands of typical consumers, an optional these alternatives should obviate the to the proposal. EPA addresses these program for such in-use testing is being need for the Agency to make findings of comments and provides detailed provided. EPA believes it is important substantial nonconformity. In evaluating explanations of why the Agency for manufacturers to conduct in-use these alternatives, EPA would consider retained provisions as proposed or testing to assure the success of their those alternatives which (1) represent a changed the proposed provisions in the designs and to factor back into their new initiative that the manufacturer was Summary and Analysis of Comments design and/or production process any not otherwise planning to perform at document at section 5. The proposal information suggesting emission that time and that has a nexus to the would have required manufacturers of problems in the field. If any information emission problem demonstrated by the nonhandheld engines manufactured derived from this program indicates a subject engine family; (2) cost with overhead valve technology to substantial in-use emission performance substantially more than foregone conduct up to a total of 24 emissions problem, EPA anticipates the compliance costs and consider the time tests on engines that were field aged to manufacturer will seek to determine the value of the foregone compliance costs their full useful lives. The primary nature of the emission performance and the foregone environmental benefit function of these in-use tests was to problem and what corrective actions of the subject family; (3) offset at least

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.013 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 15220 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

100 percent of the exceedance of the model year is identical to the engine competitive. In the extreme, either due standard or FEL; and (4) are able to be family previously certified. to pricing pressures or simply due to the implemented effectively and limitations in technical capability, 2. Small Volume Engine Manufacturer expeditiously and completed in a without additional flexibilities, small Definition reasonable time. These criteria would volume engine manufacturers might not function as ground rules for evaluating EPA proposed a number of be able to continue providing engines to projects to determine whether their flexibilities for engine manufacturers their customers. The engine nature and burden is appropriate to defined as small volume engine manufacturers could go out of business remedy the environmental impact of the manufacturers; these flexibilities are and their customers could suffer from a nonconformity while providing identified in section II.E.4, below. While lack of engine supply. This potential for assurance to the manufacturer that EPA supporting these flexibilities, EMA and loss in engine availability would more would not require excessive projects. OPEI, on behalf of their members, likely fall on the shoulders of small In addition to being evaluated commented that revisions to the equipment manufacturers who provide according to the above criteria, definitions of small volume equipment niche products and who are the more alternatives would be subject to a cost manufacturer and small volume engine typical customers of the small volume cap. EPA would apply a cost cap of 75 manufacturer were appropriate to engine manufacturers. percent above and beyond the foregone protect the interests of engine EPA continues to believe flexibilities costs adjusted to present value, manufacturers who would or would not aimed at the small volume engine provided the manufacturer can meet the proposed definition. manufacturer are appropriate and is appropriately itemize and justify these Specifically, EMA and OPEI retaining the definition of small volume costs. EPA believes that this is an recommended eliminating the ‘‘small engine manufacturers as proposed. As appropriate value which is both engine manufacturer’’ definition proposed, to qualify as a small volume ‘‘substantial’’ and sufficient to altogether, and relying instead on an engine manufacturer a nonhandheld encourage manufacturers to produce expanded definition of small volume engine manufacturer may produce no emission durable engines. engine family to meet the goal of more than 10,000 engines annually. Given the important role that assuring an adequate supply of engines alternative remedial measures may play, for niche equipment applications, 3. Small Volume Engine Family EPA intends to develop guidance especially as produced by small volume Definition regarding alternative remedial measures. equipment manufacturers. According to EPA proposed that manufacturers of EPA will seek the input of the regulated EMA and OPEI, providing any small volume nonhandheld engine industry, as well as other concerned additional relief to small volume engine families (those families with annual stakeholders, in developing such manufacturers would put these production of 1000 units or less) be guidance. manufacturers at an unfair competitive provided cost saving flexibilities. These advantage over engine manufacturers flexibilities are described in section E. Flexibilities whose production volumes were too II.E.4. Without such flexibilities, the In the NPRM, EPA proposed a number large to qualify for this relief. cost and other difficulties of modifying of flexibilities to ease the transition from The issue of the small volume engine these small volume engine families to the Phase 1 to the Phase 2 program, to family definition is discussed in the comply with the Phase 2 standards may ensure that the Phase 2 standards are subsequent section. Regarding the be difficult enough that the cost-effective and achievable, and to availability of flexibilities targeted manufacturer might either be unable to reduce the compliance burden while specifically for the small volume engine complete the modification of the engine maintaining the environmental benefits manufacturers, EPA remains convinced design in time or may choose for of the rule. Several comments were that the relatively small technical and economic reasons to discontinue received on the flexibilities proposed, production resources available to the production of the small volume engine some supporting the proposals and smallest engine manufacturers makes family. The impact of such a scenario others offering recommended changes. their job of complying with Phase 2 would of course fall on the engine In addition, the need for modifications emission standards significantly more manufacturer through reduced engine to the proposed set of flexibilities difficult than for larger manufacturers sales, but would also fall perhaps even evolved out of the investigations which with comparably greater technical and more significantly on small volume led to other changes to the proposal financial resources available to apply equipment applications, the most including the adoption of more stringent toward solving this problem. typical use for these small volume Class I standards than were proposed. Consequently, without some additional engine families. Due to the unique The following is a summary of the flexibilities under these regulations, the character of these small volume revised flexibilities for this rulemaking. small volume manufacturer would be equipment applications, it is quite much less likely to produce engines possible the equipment manufacturer 1. Carry-Over Certification complying with the Phase 2 regulations might not be able to find a suitable Consistent with other mobile source or, if able to make the necessary design replacement engine. In such case, the emission certification programs, EPA changes, would only be able to spread equipment manufacturer would also be will allow a manufacturer to use test the cost of such changes over significantly impacted through lost data and other relevant information considerably fewer production engines. sales, and consumers would be harmed from a previous model year certification In such a case, not only would small through the loss in availability of the program to satisfy the same volume engine manufacturers be equipment. requirements for the existing model year financially stressed compared to their As noted in the prior section, EMA certification program as long as the data larger competitors, but they might need and OPEI commented that EPA should and other information are still valid. to pass along to their consumers a redefine the small volume family Such ‘‘carry-over’’ of data and higher per unit price increase in an production volume limit from the 1000 information is common in mobile attempt to recover at least part of their unit maximum proposed for source programs where the engine cost of compliance. Higher price nonhandheld engine families to a level family being certified in the current increases would make their product less of less than 5,000 units. Tecumseh

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.014 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 15221 requested the addition of an option of 1 class. However, since the Class I which a manufacturer may choose to percent of a manufacturer’s total standards being adopted today are redesign and produce a small volume production as the upper limit for significantly more stringent than the engine family with low emissions (e.g., determining small volume engine standards upon which this proposed meeting the Phase 2 standards) but still families. flexibility was based, the number of certify it under these small volume EPA has re-examined the production engine families required to be modified provisions and generate credits all the limits for small volume engine families and, especially, the degree of way up to the Phase 1 standards level. and has determined that the interests of modification necessary has increased. Since this flexibility is intended to preserving the availability of small This adds significantly to the technical provide small volume manufacturers volume families would be better served and resource burden on the engine and manufacturers of small volume by raising the small volume engine manufacturer. As anticipated in the engine families the flexibility to delay family definition to 5,000 for proposal, EPA expects the major engine implementation of the Phase 2 standard nonhandheld engine families. A larger manufacturers will choose to modify if necessary, it would be inappropriate number of niche equipment their small volume engine families last and unfair to other manufacturers to applications will now be served and the as these represent niche markets. also allow them to generate extra credits risk of loss in engine availability Additionally, these niche applications even after redesigning their product. reduced. At the same time, the potential may represent some of the more difficult 5. Flexibilities for Small Volume for adverse emission impacts remains engine applications due to their unique Equipment Manufacturers and Small very small. Given this provision 99 requirements. The experience gained in Volume Equipment Models percent of nonhandheld engines will designing, producing and getting in-use still be covered by the full compliance feedback on their larger engine family EPA proposed flexibilities based upon program and subject to the earliest designs should be helpful in minimizing equipment manufacturer needs aimed at practical implementation of the rule. the cost and assuring the performance of assuring the continued supply under the The recommendation by Tecumseh to the small volume engines. The design Phase 2 regulations of engines for base the small volume definition challenges for the small volume engine unique, typically small volume optionally on a varying scale equal to manufacturer have similarly increased applications. These flexibilities one percent (1 percent) of the engine suggesting more time to accomplish the included allowing the small volume manufacturer’s sales volume is rejected transition to Phase 2 standards would be equipment manufacturer to continue as departing from the basis that absolute warranted. EPA expects manufacturers using Phase 1 compliant engines up size of the family dictates whether it is will take advantage of the extra time until the third year after phase-in of the a niche application. Furthermore, a being adopted today to smooth the final Phase 2 standards for that engine small volume engine definition based transition to Phase 2 standards by class if the equipment manufacturer was on the total production volume of the bringing the small volume engines into unable to find a suitable Phase 2 engine manufacturer would disproportionately compliance throughout this time period. before then. Second, EPA proposed to benefit the largest manufacturers who, Due to the fact that the circumstances allow individual small volume in all other respects, tend to be in the vary greatly from one manufacturer to equipment models to continue using best position to comply with the Phase another, it would be inappropriate to Phase 1 compliant engines throughout 2 regulations. mandate a percent phase-in schedule or the time period the Phase 2 regulation is in effect if no suitable Phase 2 engine 4. Flexibilities for Small Volume Engine some other mandatory rate of phase-in was available and the equipment was in Families and Small Volume Engine for these small volume engine families production at the time these Phase 2 Manufacturers and small volume manufacturers. Therefore, only a final compliance rules were adopted. Finally, EPA The flexibilities proposed for small requirement of model year 2010 is being proposed a hardship provision that volume engine manufacturers and small adopted. EPA has also considered the would allow any equipment volume engine families received general air quality impact of this flexibility and manufacturer for any of its applications support in comments to the NPRM. One determined that one percent of the total to continue using a Phase 1 engine for modification to the proposed small engine production is likely to take up to one more year beyond the last flexibilities is being adopted. To provide advantage of this option to delay phase-in of the final standard for that additional time to convert the many compliance with the Phase 2 standards engine class if the requirement to small volume engine families to designs with a negligible impact on the emission otherwise use a Phase 2 compliant complying with the Phase 2 standards benefits expected from this rule. engine would cause substantial and to provide additional lead time for The following summarizes the financial hardship. small volume manufacturers, EPA is flexibilities available to manufacturers In this final rule, EPA is adopting now adopting a provision that would of small volume engine families and flexibilities which can be exercised by allow the use of Phase 1 engines small volume engine manufacturers for small volume equipment manufacturers. through model year 2009. Therefore, all these engines. These flexibilities were supported by manufacturers will have until 2010 to a. Can certify to Phase 1 standards comments to the proposal and are certify small volume nonhandheld and regulations until 2010 for eligible adopted as proposed except that the engine families to Phase 2 requirements. engine families; these engine families criteria for determining whether Similarly, small volume engine are excluded from ABT; someone is a small volume equipment manufacturers will have until 2010 to b. Can certify using assigned manufacturer has been revised (see certify all of their Class I and Class II deterioration factors; discussion in the following section engine families to Phase 2 requirements. c. Can elect to not participate in PLT; II.E.6). Specifically, as proposed and for EPA proposed allowing small volume SEA is still applicable. the reasons described in the proposal, engine families and small volume Regarding the exclusion from ABT of the small volume equipment engine manufacturers to continue engine families which take advantage of manufacturer will be allowed to use producing Phase 1 engines until the last delaying implementation of the Phase 2 Phase 1 engines for up to three years year of the phase in of the Phase 2 standards, this provision is being beyond the last phase-in year for the standard applicable to the engine’s adopted to protect against a situation in standard applicable to that engine class

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.015 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 15222 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

(or engine class and equipment category modified to accommodate a Phase 2 a significant air quality loss, as up to six combination in the case of Class III and engine, the impact would best be percent of the units sold could be IV engines) if they demonstrate to EPA analyzed as a per unit impact) than to exempt. This is too great of an emissions that no suitable Phase 2 engine is the number of persons employed by a penalty and therefore this option is available. Secondly, small volume firm. Therefore, establishing flexibilities rejected. EPA is adopting as proposed a equipment models will be allowed to under these emission rules should be definition of small volume equipment use Phase 1 compliant engines based on the production volume of the model as 500 or fewer units annual throughout the time the Phase 2 rule is manufacturer, not the number of production for nonhandheld equipment. in effect as long as that piece of employees. However, EPA agrees there 8. Hardship provision equipment is in production as of the would be advantages in expanding the effective date of this rule and the definition of small volume equipment EMA commented that manufacturers manufacturer demonstrates to EPA that manufacturer to include slightly larger should not have to demonstrate a major no suitable Phase 2 engine is available. manufacturers who are still, compared impact on company solvency and that Finally, EPA is adopting the hardship to the rest of the industry, amongst the substantial negative economic impact or provision which will allow equipment smallest. Therefore, EPA is adopting a loss of market share should be enough manufacturers an additional year small volume equipment definition of in order to qualify for relief under the beyond the final phase-in of a standard 5000 or fewer annual production for proposed hardship provision. to start using a Phase 2 compliant equipment using nonhandheld engines. This hardship provision is intended engine if they can demonstrate that This limit covers approximately two to cover those extreme and earlier use would cause a significant percent of the annual sales in each unanticipated circumstances which, financial hardship. category. Providing the flexibilities despite the equipment manufacturer’s outlined above in section II.E.5 allows best efforts, place it in a situation where 6. Small Volume Equipment significant relief to these smallest a lack of Phase 2 complying engines will Manufacturer Definition equipment manufacturers while at the cause such great harm to the company EPA proposed that small volume same time assuring the vast majority of that the ability of the company to stay equipment manufacturers would be equipment uses the lowest emitting in business is at stake. It is not intended defined as those whose annual engines available. to protect an equipment manufacturer production for sale in the U.S. across all against any financial harm or potential models would be 2500 or fewer 7. Small Volume Equipment Model loss of market share. EPA believes the nonhandheld engines. Definition original intent of this provision is EMA and OPEI commented that the The small volume equipment model reasonable and that the proposed Small Business Administration definition proposed would cover criteria are reasonable. Equipment definition of a small manufacturer nonhandheld models of 500 or less manufacturers in less dire situations should be used instead of the definition annual production. As proposed, such may benefit from the other flexibilities proposed by EPA for small volume small volume equipment models can being adopted today. The rules for this equipment manufacturers. Under this use Phase 1 engines throughout Phase 2 hardship provision are being adopted as definition, according to EMA and OPEI, if the manufacturer of these equipment proposed. equipment manufacturers who models can demonstrate no Phase 2 employed fewer than 500 persons compliant engine is available for F. Nonregulatory Programs would all be eligible for the small existing models; if the equipment is EPA discussed a voluntary ‘‘green’’ volume flexibilities. Alternatively, EMA ‘‘significantly modified’’ then this labeling program and a voluntary fuel and OPEI recommended that the small exemption ends, since during this spillage and evaporative emission volume equipment manufacturer modification design accommodations reduction program in the preamble to definition be expanded to include all could be made to accept an engine the NPRM. These programs are equipment manufacturers using meeting Phase 2 standards. This discussed in this section of the nonhandheld engines who produce provision was proposed to permit preamble. The particulate matter (PM) 5000 or fewer units annually. unnecessary equipment redesign when and hazardous air pollutant (HAP) EPA has considered the the emission benefit from such a testing program for handheld engines recommendations received in comments redesign would be negligible. discussed in the NPRM will be to the NPRM and analyzed the Comments were received from EMA addressed in the upcoming SNPRM for production data available to the Agency. and OPEI recommending raising the handheld engines. As explained in the proposal, opting to production limit to 5000 units for use a definition of 500 or fewer nonhandheld applications rather than 1. Voluntary ‘‘Green’’ Labeling Program employees as recommended by EMA the 500 annual production limit EPA discussed the concept of a and OPEI would capture a group of proposed. EPA’s analysis of production voluntary program for labeling engines equipment manufacturers with a wide- data indicates that the 500 cutoff would with superior emission performance as range of equipment production volumes exempt less than approximately one a way of providing public recognition including some who produce up to percent of annual sales from required and also allowing consumers to easily 700,000 units annually. It would also use of Phase 2 engines but determine which engines have include a group of equipment approximately 73 percent of the especially clean emission performance. manufacturers with a wide range of equipment models, thus providing EPA discussed a threshold of around 50 financial capabilities, including some substantial relief to many small volume percent of the proposed standard (e.g., which have much larger revenue applications without compromising the around 12.5 g/kW–hr for Class I streams compared to those that would air quality benefits of this final rule. In engines) as the level below which be covered by the proposed definition. contrast, a level such as 5000 for the engines would qualify for ‘‘green’’ EPA believes the impact of this rule is cutoff of a small volume equipment labeling. EPA requested comment on all more closely tied to the volume of units model definition would benefit more aspects of the program, as well as produced by the manufacturer (for equipment manufacturers (up to 87 indication of interest on the part of example, if the equipment needed to be percent of the equipment models) but at consumer groups, engine and

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.016 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 15223 equipment manufacturers, and others in G. General Provisions and comments from Honda and others, in a working with the Agency to develop Recommendations separate regulatory action, EPA intends and implement the program. In the NPRM for the Phase 2 program, to propose modifications to criteria for EPA received support for the EPA discussed a number of general determining whether an engine could be classified as handheld that, if finalized, voluntary ‘‘green’’ labeling program provisions impacting Phase 2 engines, would be applicable for the remainder concept from several commenters, as including: model year and annual of Phase 1 and also apply for the Phase production period flexibilities, well as suggestions for the design of 2 program. The expected proposed definition of handheld engines, small such a program. Other commenters modification would permit a displacement nonhandheld engine argued that a green labeling program is manufacturer to exceed the weight class, liquefied petroleum gas fueled inconsistent with ABT, and still others limits (14 kg for generators or pumps, or indoor power equipment, dealer supported a mandatory comprehensive 20 kg for one-person augers) in cases responsibility, engines used in labeling program to identify emissions where the manufacturer could recreational equipment, engines used in levels above and below standards. demonstrate that the extra weight was rescue and emergency equipment, and EPA remains committed to promoting the result of using a four stroke engine replacement engines. EPA received or other technology cleaner than the clean technology, and is interested in comments on several of these issues, as developing a green labeling program for otherwise currently allowed two stroke well as recommendations on other engine. small SI engines in a way that does not general issues. These general provisions confuse consumers or undermine and other recommendations and issues 3. Small Displacement Nonhandheld environmental goals of the Phase 2 are discussed in this section of the Engine Class regulations. In the design of a program, preamble. See Section 8 of the Summary EPA is not adopting a small it would be necessary to review and Analysis of Comments for displacement nonhandheld Class in appropriate levels for a green label, additional discussion of these issues. today’s rule. As discussed in the given the increased stringency of Class 1. Model Year Definition and Annual preamble to the NPRM, although EPA I standards in the final program, as well Production Period Flexibilities had considered establishing a new class as to consider the appropriate interface for the smallest nonhandheld engines, between a green labeling program and The final program includes the same such a class and separate standards for the ABT program that is being finalized model year definition as was in effect the class were not proposed. Rather, for nonhandheld engines. EPA will for Phase 1, and annual production EPA requested comment on the need for continue to pursue the development of period flexibilities which were such a class and what size engines voluntary green labeling program for established under Phase 1 only for Class should be included. Comments and II engines. While EPA is finalizing the small SI engines as a nonregulatory additional information were received on model year definition in effect for the program. this issue, some of which supported Phase 1 program for the Phase 2 setting standards equivalent to the 2. Voluntary Fuel Spillage and program, and is also finalizing handheld standards for engines of the Evaporative Emission Reduction flexibilities similar to those in Phase 1 same displacement. EPA believes that Program for the start-up of the Phase 2 program the appropriate standards for these for Class II nonhandheld engines, EPA smallest nonhandheld engine classes In the preamble to the NPRM, EPA is also clarifying in this final rule the should be considered in context with discussed interest in involving standards to which Class II Phase 2 the standards adopted for similar size stakeholders in the design of a voluntary engine would be subject at the start-up engines used in handheld applications. fuel spillage and evaporative emission of the program. Under the final rule, Therefore, EPA is deferring a decision reduction program specifically for the Class II engine families are required to on this issue and will reconsider it as small engine industry and its customers. be certified to the Phase 2 program by part of the previously mentioned EPA requested comment on the September 1, 2001. In addition, engine planned supplementary proposal for proposed voluntary partnership families first certified to the Phase 2 handheld engines. program, and indication of interest in program on or before August 31, 2001, and designated as ‘‘2001 model year’’ 4. Liquefied Petroleum Gas Fueled participating in the partnership. Indoor Power Equipment Comments on this concept included families, are required to meet the 2001 both disappointment that EPA has not emission standards (e.g., 18.0 g/kW–hr As proposed, the final Phase 2 program is applicable to manufacturers done more in these areas, as well as a HC+NOX). These engine families are of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) fueled willingness on the part of several also required to re-certify for the 2002 indoor power equipment. Comments to commenters to work with EPA. EPA model year by January 1, 2002. Engine families first certified to the Phase 2 the NPRM on this issue included a remains committed to developing program on or before August 31, 2001, suggestion that EPA exempt from voluntary programs to address fuel and designated as ‘‘2002 model year’’ regulation small manufacturers of spillage and evaporative emission families, are required to meet the 2002 propane-powered spark-ignited engines reductions, but these programs are not model year standards (e.g., 16.6 g/kW– used solely for indoor applications and part of the regulations being adopted hr HC+NOX). subject to OSHA indoor air quality today. At this time, EPA has not been standards and objections to EPA’s able to determine the technical 2. Definition of Handheld Engine assertion of jurisdiction over such feasibility of substantially controlling EPA is finalizing the same definition equipment. The commenters suggested fuel spillage and evaporative emissions for handheld engine as was in effect for that since OSHA sets permissible from the small engine equipment sector Phase 1. Commenters suggested a exposure limits for indoor air toxins and and therefore has not been able to displacement cutoff to determine which since these particular pieces of determine that a program mandating engines would meet less stringent equipment are designed solely for use such controls would be achievable for ‘‘handheld’’ standards, but EPA is not indoors, EPA has neither the need nor this industry. adopting this suggestion. In response to the right to regulate such equipment. In

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.018 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 15224 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations response, however, OSHA does not set modifications, the modifier also 8. Replacement Engines equipment emission standards; EPA has assumes responsibility for any emission- EPA proposed to continue that responsibility. Additionally, the related problems due to the replacement engine provisions from the emissions from this equipment can be modification; such emission-related August 7, 1997 rulemaking (62 FR effectively controlled through the EPA problems would not be the 42638), which amended the Phase 1 rule regulations being adopted today. While responsibility of the original engine to allow engine manufacturers to sell many of the manufacturers of propane- manufacturer. While sympathetic uncertified engines from replacement powered spark-ignition engines are toward the original engine purposes subject to certain controls small volume manufacturers, the manufacturer’s concern of potentially designed to prevent abuse. In addition, regulations being adopted today also increased warranty burden, EPA is the Phase 2 proposal contained minimize the regulatory burden on retaining the policy of allowing additional safeguards and reporting and these manufacturers. modifications to certified engines so record keeping requirements to further Comments were also received long as the modifier has good reason to requesting EPA regulations allow the ensure against abuse. believe such modifications do not The final Phase 2 program for testing and reporting of emission on a increase emissions. Under such a concentration basis rather than a mass replacement engines goes beyond the policy, no emission increase should August 7, 1997 rule in one area. It basis. Measurement of concentration of occur. Requiring the modifier to re- emissions can be less expensive than includes the amendment which permits certify, in this case, would have no uncontrolled engines to be sold for pre- mass emissions and EPA understands expected emission benefit but would that at least some manufacturers of regulatory equipment, and Phase 1 add greatly to the burden on the engines to be sold for equipment built propane-powered spark-ignition engines modifier. are already using such equipment to with Phase 1 engines, subject to the check the performance of their engines 5. Dealer Responsibility above constraints (90.1003(b)(5)(iv)). after they have been converted to run on The final rule does not include other The preamble to the proposed Phase provisions from the Phase 2 proposal propane. However, while concentration 2 program clarified that the Phase 2 measurements can give an indication of that were added to the August 7, 1997 program adds no additional rule. Based on comments from the emission performance of an engine, responsibilities for dealers. As in the it is a far less adequate test than the manufacturers, and an assessment that NPRM, the final rule contains no new eliminating these provisions will result mass-based emission test adopted with constraints or responsibilities for the Phase 1 rules and being continued in no loss of environmental benefits, dealers and repair facilities beyond EPA has decided to eliminate these with today’s action. those contained in the Phase 1 rule. Another comment came from a other requirements in interest of supplier of gasoline engines whose 6. Engines Used in Recreational reducing the record keeping and engines have been used in propane- Vehicles and Applicability of the Small reporting burden on manufacturers. powered equipment after conversion to SI Regulations to Model Airplanes Note that EPA intends to propose minor run on this alternative fuel. This modifications to the replacement engine manufacturer is concerned that, even EPA is not adopting any revisions to regulations in a separate regulatory though it is not responsible for the the provisions relating to engines used action in order to clarify the changes made to the engine to allow use in recreational vehicles established in responsibilities of importers. of propane, its name nevertheless the Phase 1 program. No revisions were proposed by the Phase 2 NPRM. EPA 9. Record keeping and Information remains on the engine after the Requirements conversion and it may be subject to does intend to address recreational warranty claims which result from the vehicle issues in a separate regulatory The ICRs have been revised for final conversion and are therefore not the action. This separate rulemaking will rule and estimate the average annual fault of the original engine address the applicability of the small SI public reporting burden for the manufacturer. Thus this original engine regulations to engines used in model collection of information required under manufacturer requested EPA mandate airplane applications, and EPA expects the rule for a typical engine that all companies which convert to propose to consider engines that manufacturer (see section V.C. of gasoline-fueled engines to run on serve ‘‘only to propel a flying vehicle preamble). In addition, EPA has propane be required to declare ** * through air’’ to be recreational significantly streamlined the themselves engine manufacturers and engines provided they also meet the compliance program requirements for satisfy the certification and other other existing criteria that apply to that final rule. term. As ‘‘recreational’’ engines they compliance responsibilities of this rule 10. Engine Labeling including emission warranty. Such would be effectively excluded from the persons or companies currently engaged small SI program. EPA proposed two alternatives for in making these conversions have the 7. Engines Used in Rescue and engine labeling. These alternatives option of not declaring themselves a Emergency Equipment differed only in the treatment of useful manufacturer or certifying if they can life hours. As indicated in the preamble assure themselves and EPA that the EPA is finalizing the provision, as to the NPRM, EPA believes inclusion of conversions they are making do not proposed, that for the remainder of the number of hours of emission increase the emissions of the engine 4. Phase 1 as well as for Phase 2, exempts compliance for which the engine is However, in making these engines which are used exclusively in properly certified would provide an emergency and rescue equipment from important tool to consumers in making 4 See EPA publications ‘‘Mobile Source compliance with any standards if the their purchase decisions between Enforcement Memorandum No. 1A’’ (6–25–74); equipment manufacturer can competing engines. EPA anticipates ‘‘Addendum to Mobile Source Enforcement demonstrate that no certified engine is manufacturers will use the useful life Memorandum 1A’’ (9–4–97); and, ‘‘Revision to Addendum to Mobile Source Enforcement available to power the equipment as hours of the engine as a marketing tool. Memorandum 1A’’ (6–1–98), docket A–96–55, items safely and practically. No comments For example a manufacturer might IV–B–02, IV–B–03 and IV–B–04 respectively. were received on this proposal. advertise that an engine family is

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.019 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 15225 certified as emissions durable to 1000 accessible to the consumer prior to nationwide use of the California hours. Thus, inclusion of meaningful purchase. Also, Honda commented labeling system. In evaluating the useful life hours would have the specifically that engine labeling adequacy of an alternative label, EPA potential of providing a market place requirements should be harmonized would consider the extent to which the mechanism regarding manufacturers between California and federal rules to manufacturer’s alternative engine label who design engines for longer useful life allow an engine to be labeled for combined with other readily accessible periods. different standards and different classes. consumer information adequately The two alternatives for designating This recommendation from Honda informs the consumer of the emission useful life on the engine label were to aligns with numerous other general performance of the engine. (1) simply state the useful life hours or comments on the importance of (2) use a designator of useful life hours, harmonization between California and 11. Emission Warranty for example, A, B, or C, and then adding federal rules. As proposed, EPA is not adopting words on the label to direct the EPA remains concerned that an ‘‘A, B, revisions to the base emission consumer to the owner’s label for an C’’ designation of useful life may not be performance warranty period of two explanation of the meaning of A, B and as informative of the expected emission years of engine use from the date of sale C. This latter option was proposed only performance period as a direct listing of for this nonhandheld program. EPA will for nonhandheld engines and was based the certified hours. Especially in light of address comments from handheld on the concern expressed by NAEDA’s comment, EPA is concerned manufacturers that relate specifically to nonhandheld engine manufacturers about the ability of consumers to use whether additional flexibility is needed during the development of the such designations to make informed for some handheld products in the Statement of Principles for these purchase decisions if their only source supplemental proposal for the Phase 2 engines that consumers could be of explanation is the owner’s manual. handheld program. In addition, EPA is confused by the meaning of the useful However, it is also not clear that not adopting the proposed separate life period if the specific number of including the hours listing directly on Phase 1 and Phase 2 provisions which hours was included on the label. the label is the optimum alternative would have required differing warranty However, as indicated in the preamble since, as suggested by EMA and OPEI statements. The final provisions to the NPRM, EPA was concerned that comments, consumers may not fully specifying what manufacturers must an ‘‘A, B, C’’ designation may not understand the meaning of the warrant, therefore, remains unchanged provide the same useful information to emissions performance useful life hours from the existing rule. the consumer as directly including the listing and could instead, for example, useful hours on the label and believe the hours refer to perhaps a 12. Other Issues specifically requested comment on this parts warranty period for the equipment A number of other of issues were issue. in which the engine is installed. EPA is considered in the development of this In their comments on the proposal, also aware of labeling options being final rule, based on comments received EMA and OPEI indicated they remained considered by California that would on the proposal. These include defect concerned that consumers might believe allow removing the actual hours of reporting requirements, aftermarket the emissions compliance period could operation from the engine label and provisions, closed crankcase provisions mean something else, for example, the including additional information on the and exclusion from HC+NOX standards expected life for which the engine product, perhaps not permanently for engines used exclusively in the would provide satisfactory product affixed to the engine, which would wintertime, CO adjustments for open performance to the consumer. EMA and satisfy the need to properly inform crankcase breathers, NOX converter OPEI indicated ‘‘(c)onsumer purchasers consumers. Allowing such labeling placement during testing, usage meters, are not sophisticated enough to would also serve the goal of and metric units. Comments received on understand the difference between the harmonization as supported by Honda. these issues, and EPA’s response to EPA term of art ‘‘useful life’’ and the Therefore, EPA is finalizing those comments, can be found in expected time of ownership of their regulations which, as proposed, allow Section 8 of the Summary and Analysis newly purchased lawnmower. Nor will the manufacturer to use an engine label of Comments document. they understand the difference between which includes the actual emissions emission performance and product period useful life as certified by the III. Projected Impacts performance.’’ Therefore, they engine manufacturer or a label which A. Environmental Benefit Assessment recommended adopting an option includes an ‘‘A, B or C’’ designation and whereby the engine manufacturer could refers to the owners manual for further National Ambient Air Quality indicate A, B, or C on its required information. Based on conversations Standards (NAAQS) have been set for engine label, make reference to the with both EMA and OPEI criteria pollutants which adversely owner’s manual for additional representatives, EPA also expects to affect human health, vegetation, explanation and explain in the owner’s work in partnership with the industry in materials and visibility. Concentrations manual the meaning of A, B, and C developing consumer outreach material of ozone (O3) are impacted by HC and where it would be easier to provide an to better inform consumers of the NOX emissions. Ambient concentrations adequate explanation of the meaning emission improvements available of CO are, of course, impacted by CO behind an emission performance period. through purchase of equipment using emissions. EPA believes that the In contrast, the North American Phase 2 engines. EPA expects such standards set in this rule would reduce Equipment Dealers Association outreach material will better serve the emissions of HC and NOX and help most (NAEDA) commented that a buyer informational needs of consumers than areas of the nation in their progress would not know the meaning of useful the just relying on either of these towards compliance with the NAAQS life designations such as A, B, or C prior labeling options. Additionally, the rules for ozone. The following provides a to the purchase of the equipment since allow other labeling options which the summary of the roles of HC and NOX in the explanation of these designations Administrator determines satisfies the ozone formation, the estimated would only appear in the owner’s information intent of the label. This emissions impact of this rule, and the manual which is not normally option is intended to allow for the health and welfare effects of ozone, CO,

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.020 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 15226 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations hazardous air pollutants, and particulate conditions such as asthma.6 Ozone can and death of ponderosa pine trees in matter. Much of the evaluation of the cause a reduction in performance during these forests since 1962.13 health and environmental effects related exercise even in healthy persons. In Finally, by trapping energy radiated to HC, NOX and CO found in this addition, ozone can also cause from the earth, tropospheric ozone may section is also discussed in the alterations in pulmonary and extra contribute to heating of the earth’s Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). pulmonary (nervous system, blood, surface, thereby contributing to global liver, endocrine) function. warming (that is, the greenhouse 1. Roles of HC and NOX in Ozone effect),14 although tropospheric ozone is Formation The newly revised primary NAAQS 7 also known to reduce levels of UVB for ozone based on an 8-hour standard Both HC and NOX contribute to the radiation reaching the earth’s surface, formation of tropospheric ozone through of 0.08 parts per million (ppm) is set at the increase of which is expected to a complex series of reactions. In a 1991 a level that, with an adequate margin of result from depletion of stratospheric report, researchers emphasize that both safety, is protective of public health. ozone.15 EPA also believes attainment of the new HC and NOX controls are needed in 3. Estimated Emissions Impact of the 5 primary standard will substantially most areas of the United States. EPA’s Final Regulation primary reason for controlling emissions protect vegetation. Ozone effects on The emission standards set by today’s from small SI nonhandheld engines is vegetation include reduction in action should reduce average in-use the role of their HC emissions in agricultural and commercial forest exhaust HC+NOX emissions from small forming ozone. Of the major air yields, reduced growth and decreased SI nonhandheld engines approximately pollutants for which NAAQS have been survivability of tree seedlings, increased 59 percent beyond Phase 1 standards for designated under the CAA, the most tree and plant susceptibility to disease, nonhandheld engines by year 2027, by widespread problem continues to be pests, and other environmental stresses, which time a complete fleet turnover is ozone, which is the most prevalent and potential long-term effects on realized. This translates into an annual photochemical oxidant and an forests and ecosystems. nationwide reduction of roughly important component of smog. The High levels of ozone have been 395,000 tons of exhaust HC+NOX in primary ozone NAAQS represents the recorded even in relatively remote areas, year 2027 over that expected from Phase maximum level considered protective of since ozone and its precursors can travel 1. Reductions in CO beyond Phase 1 public health by the EPA. Ozone is a hundreds of miles and persist for levels, due to improved technology, are product of the atmospheric chemical several days in the lower atmosphere. also to be expected by year 2027. reactions involving oxides of nitrogen Ozone damage to plants, including both Along with the control of all and volatile organic compounds. These natural forest ecosystems and crops, hydrocarbons, these standards should reactions occur as atmospheric oxygen be effective in reducing emissions of and sunlight interact with hydrocarbons occurs at ozone levels between 0.06 and 0.12 ppm.8 Repeated exposure to ozone those hydrocarbons considered to be and oxides of nitrogen from both mobile hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), and stationary sources. levels above 0.04 ppm can cause reductions in the yields of some crops including benzene and 1,3-butadiene. A critical part of this problem is the However, the magnitude of reduction above ten percent.9 While strains of formation of ozone both in and would depend on whether the control some crops are relatively resistant to downwind of large urban areas. Under technology reduces the individual HAPs ozone, many crops experience a loss in certain weather conditions, the in the same proportion as total yield of 30 percent at ozone combination of NOX and HC has hydrocarbons. resulted in urban and rural areas concentrations below the pre-revised These emission reduction estimates 10 exceeding the national ambient ozone primary NAAQS. The value of crops are based on in-use population standard by as much as a factor of three. lost to ozone damage, while difficult to projections using growth estimates, Thus it is important to control HC over estimate precisely, is on the order of $2 engine attrition (scrappage), activity wider regional areas if these areas are to billion per year in the United States.11 indicators and new and in-use engine come into compliance with the ozone The effect of ozone on complex emission factors. Data on activity NAAQS. ecosystems such as forests is even more indicators were based on the Phase 1 difficult to quantify. However, there is small SI regulation. Estimates of engine 2. Health and Welfare Effects of evidence that some forest types are populations were based on population Tropospheric Ozone negatively affected by ambient levels of data available from the PSR databases 16 Ozone is a powerful oxidant causing ozone.12 Specifically, in the San and data provided by Engine and lung damage and reduced respiratory Bernadino Mountains of southern Equipment manufacturers and on a function after relatively short periods of California, ozone is believed to be the study done for the California Air exposure (approximately one hour). The agent responsible for the slow decline Resources Board by Booz Allen & oxidizing effect of ozone can irritate the Hamilton (BAH). Population projections nose, mouth, and throat causing 6 United States Environmental Protection Agency, into the future are based on a linear coughing, choking, and eye irritation. In Review of the National Ambient Air Quality growth assumption. Attrition rates addition, ozone can also impair lung Standards for Ozone—Assessment of Scientific and (based on the probability that an engine Technical Information: OAQPS Staff Paper, EPA– remains in service into a specific function and subsequently reduce the 450/2–92–001, June 1989, pp. VI–11 to 13. respiratory system’s resistance to 7 See 62 FR 38896, Friday, July 18, 1997. calendar year) for all engines included disease, including bronchial infections 8 U.S. EPA, Review of NAAQS for Ozone, p. X– in this analysis are developed on the such as pneumonia. 10. 9 U.S. EPA, Review of NAAQS for Ozone, p. X– 13 U.S. EPA, Review of NAAQS for Ozone, p. X– Elevated ozone levels can also cause 10. 29. aggravation of pre-existing respiratory 10 See 62 FR 38856, Friday, July 18, 1997. 14 NRC, Rethinking the Ozone Problem, p. 22. 11 U.S. EPA, Review of NAAQS for Ozone, p. X– 15 The New York Times, September 15, 1992, p. 5 National Research Council, Rethinking the 22. C4. Ozone Problem in Urban and Regional Air 12 U.S. EPA, Review of NAAQS for Ozone, p. X– 16 Power Systems Research, Engine Data and Parts Pollution, National Academy Press, 1991. 27. Link data bases, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1992.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.021 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 15227 assumption that the equipment attrition two regulated nonhandheld engine For the controlled scenario, EPA function may be represented by a classes as well as for all pieces of assumed all nonhandheld engines cumulative Normal distribution equipment using engines covered by would be converted to overhead valve function. The in-use emission factor is this rule. The total annual nationwide technology. As for deterioration factors, based on a multiplicative deterioration HC, NOX and CO emissions from small they were determined in some cases factor which is a function of the square SI nonhandheld engines included in using manufacturer-supplied root of hours of equipment usage. this rule were estimated for both the confidential in-use emission data and 1992. baseline (that is, with Phase 1 controls for others EPA depended on relevant For the analysis summarized in Table 4, emission inventories were developed applied) and controlled (Phase 2) information from EPA’s certification using EPA’s NONROAD Model for the scenarios. data base.

TABLE 4: PROJECTED ANNUAL NATIONWIDE EXHAUST HC+NOX Emissions [Tons/year]

Without pro- Tons reduced Year posed controls With proposed from Phase 1 Percentage re- (Phase 1) controls baseline duction

2000 ...... 427,063 427,063 2005 ...... 453,129 347,065 106,064 23.4 2010 ...... 499,648 242,370 257,278 51.5 2015 ...... 547,514 226,571 320,943 58.6 2020 ...... 596,343 243,118 353,225 59.2 2025 ...... 651,818 269,871 381,947 59.3

4. Health and Welfare Effects of CO 5. Health and Welfare Effects of Additionally, changes in blood and Emissions Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions bone marrow consistent with hematotoxicity are recognized in Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, The focus of today’s action is reduction of HC emissions as part of the humans and experimental animals. odorless gas which can be emitted or Benzene has also been linked with otherwise enters into ambient air as a solution to the ozone nonattainment problem. However, direct health effects genetic changes in humans and animals. result of both natural processes and are also a reason for concern due to 1,3-butadiene is a colorless, human activity. Although CO exists as direct human exposure to emissions flammable gas at room temperature. a trace element in the troposphere, from small SI nonhandheld engines This suspected human carcinogen is much of human exposure resulting in during operation of equipment using insoluble in water and its two elevated levels of carboxyhemoglobin such engines. Of specific concern is the conjugated double bonds make it highly (COHb) in the blood is due to emission of hazardous air pollutants reactive. 1,3-butadiene is formed in incomplete fossil fuel combustion, as (HAPs). In some applications, the internal combustion engine exhaust by occurs in small SI engines. operator must be adjacent to the exhaust the incomplete combustion of the fuel The concentration and direct health outlet and is in the direct path of the and is assumed not present in effect of CO exposure are especially exhaust as it leaves the engine. Today’s evaporative and refueling emissions. important in small SI nonhandheld regulatory action should be effective in The Health Risk Assessment of 1,3- engines because the operator of a small reducing HAPs such as benzene and 1,3- Butadiene (EPA/600/P–98/001A, SI engine application is typically near butadiene, in so far as these are February 1998), concludes that 1,3- butadiene is a known human the equipment as it functions. In some components of the HC emissions being carcinogen, based on three types of applications, the operator must be reduced by the Phase 2 standards. evidence: (1) Excess leukemia in adjacent to the exhaust outlet and is in Benzene is a clear, colorless, aromatic hydrocarbon which is both volatile and workers occupationally exposed to 1,3- the direct path of the exhaust as it butadiene (by inhalation), (2) leaves the engine. According to numbers flammable. Benzene is present in both exhaust and evaporative emissions. occurrence of a variety of tumors in published in the Nonroad Engine and Health effects caused by benzene mice and rats by inhalation, and (3) Vehicle Emission Study (NEVES), a 4- emissions differ based on concentration evidence in animals and humans that stroke, 2.9 kW lawnmower engine emits and duration of exposure. The 1,3-butadiene is metabolized into 1051.1 g/hr CO. International Agency for Research on genotoxic metabolites. Other health The toxicity of CO effects on blood Cancer (IARC), classified benzene as a effects due to very high levels of and tissues, and how these effects Group I carcinogen, namely an agent exposure include heart, blood and lung manifest themselves as organ function carcinogenic to humans. Occupational diseases. changes, have also been topics of studies continue to provide the bulk of Since air toxic levels generally substantial research efforts. Such evidence of benzene’s carcinogenicity. decrease in proportion to overall studies provided information for Workers are exposed at much higher emissions once emission control establishing the National Ambient Air levels than is the general public. Human technology is applied, the amount of Quality Standard for CO. The current epidemiologic studies of highly exposed benzene and 1,3-butadiene produced by primary and secondary NAAQS for CO occupational cohorts have demonstrated new small SI engines should diminish are 9 parts per million for the one-hour that exposure to benzene can cause after this rule becomes effective. average and 35 parts per million for the acute nonlymphocytic leukemia and Consequently, exposure to HAPs from eight-hour average. other blood disorders, that is, new nonhandheld engines would be preleukemia and aplastic anemia. reduced, as would associated health and

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.022 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 15228 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations environmental effects. Although there is resultant changes to equipment design, California ‘‘Tier 1’’ standards.19 Rather, little data on direct health effects of engine manufacturer compliance for the purpose of this final rule, any small SI engines, the Swedish study program costs and engine fuel savings in Phase 1 engine design that would need concludes benzene emissions from order to assess the expected economic to be modified to meet Phase 2 chain saw engines as being rather high. impact of the Phase 2 emission standards was assumed to incur the full No study has been conducted involving standards. Emission benefits are taken cost of that modification, including the health effects of HAP emissions from the results of the environmental design cost. Similarly, the cost to specifically from nonhandheld engines. benefit assessment (see section III.A, equipment manufacturers was assumed 6. Particulate Matter above). The cost-effectiveness result of to be fully attributed to this federal rule this rule is $852 per ton of HC+NOX even if an equipment manufacturer Particulate matter, a term used for a when fuel savings are not taken into would have to make the same mixture of solid particles and liquid account. When fuel savings are also modifications in response to the droplets found in the air, has been considered, the cost-effectiveness California ARB regulation. The details linked to a range of serious respiratory calculation results in—$507 per ton of of EPA’s cost and cost-effectiveness health problems. These fine particles are HC+NOX. This section describes the analyses can be found in Chapters 4 and of health concern because they easily background and analysis behind these 7 of the Final Regulatory Impact reach the deepest recesses of the lungs. results. Analysis (RIA) for this rule. Batteries of scientific studies have linked particulate matter, especially fine The analysis for this rulemaking is 1. Engine Technologies particles (alone or in combination with based on data from engine families other air pollutants), with a series of certified to EPA’s Phase 1 standards, as Table 5 lists the changes in significant health problems including of September 1998, and information on technology, compared to Phase 1 premature death, aggravated asthma and the latest technology development and engines, that have been considered in chronic bronchitis and increased related emission levels since the the cost estimation for this rulemaking. hospital admissions. EPA has recently publication of the NPRM. The analysis As discussed in section IV.A of this (July 1997) announced new NAAQS does not include any production preamble, the standards would require standards for particulate matter (PM) , volumes that are covered by California different engine improvements amongst by adding two new primary PM2.5 ARB’s standards. California ARB will the nonhandheld and handheld engines standards set at concentrations of 15 implement emission standards for many and engine designs within those classes. micrograms per cubic meter (µ/µ3), of these engines prior to the federal For example, Class I and II side valve annual arithmetic mean, and 65 µ/µ3, 24- Phase 2 regulations. Therefore, this rule (SV) design engines are expected to hour average, to provide increased only accounts for costs for each engine require conversion to clean overhead protection against the PM-related health sold outside California and those valve (OHV) designs to reduce new effects found in community studies. engines sold in California that are not engine out emissions and increase covered by the California ARB rules, emission durability. Some OHV engine B. Cost and Cost-Effectiveness such as those used in farm and families in Class I and II are expected to EPA has calculated the cost- construction equipment. Although EPA decrease emissions through the use of effectiveness of this rule by estimating expects that engines already designed to enleanment, increased cooling and costs and emission benefits for these meet California ARB’s current standards internal redesign such as piston ring engines. EPA made best estimates of the would incur no additional design cost to design improvements. Additional detail combination of technologies that an meet federal standards, no effort was regarding the impact of these engine manufacturer might use to meet made to estimate which models would modifications can be found in Chapters the new standards, best estimates of be sold in California and subject to 3 and 4 for the Final RIA.

TABLE 5.ÐPOTENTIAL TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS PER CLASS AND ENGINE DESIGN

Class Engine design Technologies

I ...... 4 strokeÐSV ...... Clean OHV or other innovative fuel system technologies. I ...... 4 strokeÐOHV ...... Carburetor Improvements. Combustion Chamber Improvements and Intake Sys- tem. Improved Oil Consumption (Piston oil control rings, valve stem seals). I ...... 2 stroke ...... Conversion to 4-stroke and clean OHV. II ...... 4 strokeÐSV ...... Conversion to clean OHV. II ...... 4 strokeÐOHV ...... Carburetor Improvements. Combustion Chamber Improvements and Intake Sys- tem. Improved Oil Consumption (Piston oil control rings, valve stem seals).

19 For purposes of analyzing small engine and are likely to be marketing their engines and effectiveness of EPA’s Phase 2 rules. Therefore, equipment manufacturer impacts of this rule, equipment in California and thus will be directly these industry cost values are slightly overstated including the benefits of the small volume impacted by California’s rules, not EPA’s Phase 2 and the cost effectiveness numbers are slightly flexibilities being adopted, EPA considered that rules; this assumption, however, was not used in overstated. those manufacturers who are located in California the development of the overall cost and cost

VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:30 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 30MRR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 15229

2. Engine Costs characteristics used in establishing FELs Therefore these equipment The engine cost increase is based on for use in averaging emissions across manufacturers will have nearly no incremental purchase prices for new engine families. Some large companies equipment impacts. Second, it is EPA’s engines and is comprised of variable may improve the emission understanding that some larger costs (for hardware, assembly time and characteristics of their large volume equipment manufacturers may have compliance programs), and fixed costs engine families to provide credits for incorporated close packaging around the (for R&D and retooling). Variable costs their smaller volume families. These engine in order to be unique in the were applied on a per engine basis and companies may also improve a few marketplace. However, the conversion fixed costs were amortized at seven engine families notably or all of their from SV to OHV is not required until percent over five years. Engine engine families slightly. The real world August 1, 2007 (except for new engine impact on engine manufacturers will be technology cost estimates were based on models initially produced on or after influenced by many factors including the study by ICF and EF&EE in October August 1, 2003) and therefore it is their ability to reduce the emissions 1996 entitled ‘‘Cost Study for Phase assumed that this long lead time will from their major impact engine family Two Small Engine Emission provide equipment manufacturers the in light of competition with others in Regulations’’ and confidential cost time to incorporate equipment redesigns the marketplace. estimates provided by industry. Details and replace tooling dies prior to this of the assumed costs and analysis can be 3. Equipment Costs date and within the cycle of equipment redesign and/or tooling replacements. found in Chapters 4 and 7 of the RIA. While equipment manufacturers Analysis of the EPA Phase 1 The same assumptions have been made would bear no responsibility for for the applications of generator sets, certification database, as of September meeting emission standards, they may 1998, was conducted to determine a pumps and tillers. need to make changes in the design of The Class II engine change from SV to potential impact of the Phase 2 their equipment models to standards on each manufacturer OHV design will have a large impact on accommodate the Phase 2 engines. equipment changes. Review of the PSR assuming use of the ABT program EPA’s treatment of the impacts of the available to engine manufacturers. database for equipment manufacturers program therefore includes an analysis that utilize Class II SV engines reveals While ABT is permitted across classes, of costs for equipment manufacturers. this analysis considered only ABT that the majority (90 percent) of small The 1996 PSR EOLINK database was engine equipment is produced from 32 within each class since some utilized as the source of information for companies with the remaining 353 manufacturers produce substantially in equipment manufacturers, with models companies representing only 10 percent only one nonhandheld class. The choice and sales estimates covering all classes. of the overall production. EPA’s work of technologies for emission The costs for equipment conversion for analyzing small business impacts, as improvement of these engine families nonhandheld equipment was derived summarized in the work with ICF was based on the engine family that from the ICF/EF&EE cost study 20 and Incorporated,21 indicates that many of would be most influential in reducing a improved through the work by ICF and the small businesses, indicated by the manufacturer’s overall average emission EPA on the small business impact PSR database to use SV Class II engines, level within that class. In addition, costs analyses for this rulemaking. For Class have already converted or are in the in the NPRM for conversion from SV to I EPA conducted its own analysis using OHV were updated based on a letter PSR estimated production data and process of converting to using OHV received from one major engine employment and financial information engine design due to market forces or manufacturer which asserted the NPRM from Dunn and Bradstreet. Full details changes in their engine manufacturer’s cost estimates were incomplete. The of EPA’s cost analysis can be found in offerings. These companies tend to cost analysis was updated with Chapter 4 of the RIA. EPA has assumed produce professional or commercial consideration of confidential cost that capital costs would be amortized at equipment and competition has driven information from several engine seven percent over ten years. the use of OHV engines. The study also manufacturers in order to most This rulemaking assumes that the revealed that at least one equipment accurately reflect expected costs. majority of Class I engines will be manufacturer that produces a large For Class I, review of the September converted from SV to OHV design in volume of equipment has already 1998 EPA Phase 1 database showed that order to meet the emission standards. switched its lines from SV to OHV. For 31 percent of the engine families, 8 SV The major equipment types that use this analysis, EPA assumed that, except engine families and 11 Class I OHV Class I engines are lawnmowers, for this one large manufacturer, all other engine families, will need to incorporate generator sets, pumps, and tillers. For manufacturers will convert their engines at least some of the technologies listed lawnmowers, it is assumed that the to the use of OHV designs in direct in Table 5. For Class II, review of the Class I engine redesign would have a response to this rule with all such cost September 1998 EPA Phase 1 minimal impact on equipment redesign attributable to this rule. EPA has certification database shows that 17 for small volume manufacturers and a assumed that any switch from SV to percent of the engine families, 4 Class potential impact on larger volume OHV engines by equipment II SV engine families and 22 OHV manufacturers. This understanding is manufacturers is a cost incurred due to engine families, will need to incorporate based on several factors. First, it is this rulemaking. The cost estimates emission improvements from amongst EPA’s understanding that the smaller were based on equipment application those listed in Table 5. The volume, and some larger volume, (garden tractor, tiller, commercial turf, incorporation of such technologies will equipment manufacturers for niche etc.) and in the case of the commercial require both variable and fixed markets allow space for a variety of turf equipment, on the power of the expenditures. engines to be used on their equipment. engine within that application. The Phase 2 emission standards for this diverse industry will impact 20 ICF and Engine, Fuel and Emissions 21 ‘‘Small Business Impact Analysis of New companies differently depending on a Engineering, Incorporated; ‘‘Cost Study for Phase Emission Standards for Small Spark-Ignition Two Small Engine Emission Regulations’’, Draft Nonroad Engines and Equipment’’, ICF company’s current product offering and Final Report, October 25, 1996, in EPA Air Docket Incorporated, September 1997, located in EPA Air related deteriorated emission A–93–29, Item #II–A–04. Docket A–96–55, Item#II–A–01 .

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.025 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 15230 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

4. Operating Costs express the cost of this rulemaking over 2001 for Class II. A uniform annualized the years of this analysis. cost was then calculated. Costs per The total life-cycle operating costs for The methodology used for estimating engine are calculated from the uniform this rulemaking include any expected the uniform annualized cost per engine annualized cost for the first full year of decreases in fuel consumption. Life is as follows. Cost estimates from 1995 implementation of the Phase 2 standard, cycle costs have been calculated per to 1997, for technology and compliance 2007, and the last year of this analysis, class using the NONROAD emission programs respectively, were estimated 2027. The average cost per engine is model. The model calculates fuel and calculated to 1998 dollars through calculated from these two values and savings from the years of multiplication of the estimates by the the results are presented in Table 6 in implementation to 2027 and takes into applicable GDP implicit price deflators. 1998 dollars. account factors including equipment The Phase 1 database was then The yearly fuel savings (tons/yr) per scrappage, projected yearly sales analyzed, using ABT per manufacturer, class were calculated using the increase per equipment type and engine to determine (1) the number of engine NONROAD model. The yearly fuel power. Details on the assumptions and families per class, (2) the total number savings (tons/yr) from 2001–2027 were calculations on fuel savings are of engines per engine design, and (3) the converted to savings ($) through included in Chapter 4 and 7 of the RIA. year of technology implementation. The conversion to gallons per year A fuel consumption savings of 15 total estimated variable and capital costs multiplied by $0.794 (a 1995 average percent has been assumed from Class I per year were then calculated by refinery price to end user, without taxes and Class II SV engines as they are multiplying the number of engine adjusted to 1998 dollars). The yearly converted to OHV design. OHV designs families and corresponding production fuel savings were then discounted by 7 are expected to result in improved fuel volume by the fixed and variable costs percent to the first year of Phase 2 economy since data show that OHV per technology grouping, respectively. regulation, for each Class. The yearly engines can run at leaner air-to-fuel For compliance program costs, the costs results were totaled and then divided by ratios than SV engines. for certification bench aging were an annualized factor to yield the estimated based on the number of uniform annualized fuel savings. The 5. Cost Per Engine and Cost- families in the 1998 database and the fuel savings for each engine class was Effectiveness expected certification date in the phase calculated for the production years of a. Cost Per Engine in. The variable costs are marked up to 2010 and 2025. The average of these two estimate cost to the consumer. Markups values was utilized as the average fuel Total costs for this rulemaking vary include 16 percent by the engine savings per engine per class per year as per year as engine families are phased- manufacturer, 5 percent by the is shown in Table 6. in to compliance with the Phase 2 equipment manufacturer and 5 percent The average resultant cost per engine standards over several years, capital by the mass merchandiser. All costs per class is calculated by subtracting the costs are recovered and compliance year were then discounted seven average fuel savings from the average programs are conducted. The term percent to the first year of Phase 2 cost, see Table 6. See Chapter 7 of the ‘‘uniform annualized cost’’ is used to regulation per class, 2007 for Class I and RIA for more details of this analysis.

TABLE 6.ÐENGINE YEARLY FUEL SAVINGS AND RESULTANT COST PER ENGINE, ENGINE COSTS BASED ON UNIFORM ANNUALIZED COSTS [1998$]

Cost per Savings per Resultant cost Class engine engine per engine

I ...... $19.63 $14.22 $5.41 II ...... 12.64 55.72 ($43.08) b. Cost-Effectiveness effectiveness analysis in which the net The overall cost-effectiveness of this EPA has estimated the cost- present value of the cost of compliance rule on HC+NOX emission reductions, effectiveness (i.e., the cost per ton of per year is divided by the fleet turnover. with fuel savings, is shown in Table 7. emission reduction) of the HC+NOX The resultant cost-effectiveness is $852 Table 7 contains the cost effectiveness standard over the typical lifetime of the cost/ton HC+NOX without fuel savings of other nonroad rulemakings, which nonhandheld equipment that would be and ¥$507 with fuel savings. Chapter 7 reflect fuel savings, to which the cost- covered by today’s rule. EPA has of the RIA contains a more detailed effectiveness of this rulemaking can be examined the cost-effectiveness by discussion of the cost-effectiveness compared. performing a nationwide cost- analysis.

TABLE 7.ÐCOST-EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PHASE 2 STANDARDS WITH FUEL SAVINGS COMPARED TO OTHER NONROAD RULES

NPV cost/NPV ton Standard (With fuel sav- Pollutants ings)

Phase 2 Small SI Nonhandheld Engines <19 kW Phase 2 ...... ¥$507 HC+NOX Small SI Engines <19 kW Phase 1 ...... 217 HC+NOX Spark Ignition Marine Engines ...... 1000 HC

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.026 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 15231

TABLE 7.ÐCOST-EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PHASE 2 STANDARDS WITH FUEL SAVINGS COMPARED TO OTHER NONROAD RULESÐContinued

NPV cost/NPV ton Standard (With fuel sav- Pollutants ings)

2 Nonroad CI Tier ¤3 Standards ...... 410±650 HC+NOX Note: Not all in the same year dollars Cost Per Engine and Cost-Effectiveness.

IV. Public Participation Summary and Analysis of Comments B. Regulatory Flexibility document which describes the The process for developing this final EPA has determined that it is not comments received since the necessary to prepare a regulatory rule provided several opportunities for publication of the NPRM and presents formal public comment. EPA published flexibility analysis in connection with the Agency’s response to each of these this final rule. The Agency has also an Advance Notice of Proposed comments. The Summary and Analysis determined that this rule will not have Rulemaking (ANPRM) in March 1997 of Comments document is available in a ‘‘significant impact on a substantial (see 62 FR 14740, March 27, 1997) the docket for this rule. number of small entities.’’ which announced the signing of two V. Administrative Requirements EPA has identified industries that are Statements of Principles (SOPs) with the subject to this rule and has contacted small engine industry and several other A. Administrative Designation and small entities and small entity interested parties. The ANPRM and Regulatory Analysis representatives to gain a better included SOPs outlined programs Under Executive Order 12866, the understanding of potential impacts of which would increase the stringency of the Phase 2 program on their businesses. the small engine regulations compared Agency must assess whether this regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and This information was useful in to Phase 1 rules. Comments were estimating potential impacts of this rule received in response to this ANPRM therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review on affected small entities, the details of which, in combination with the which are more fully discussed in programs outlined in the ANPRM, and the requirements of the Executive Order (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993). The Chapter 8 of the Final RIA. Small not- formed the basis of the Notice of for-profit organizations and small Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) which order defines ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as any regulatory action that is governmental jurisdictions are not was published in January 1998 (63 FR expected to be impacted by this 3950, January 27, 1998). A public likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the proposal. Thus EPA’s impact analysis hearing was held on February 11, 1998 focuses on small businesses. For during which oral testimony was economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the purposes of the impact analysis, ‘‘small received on the proposal. Written business’’ is defined by number of economy, a sector of the economy, comments were received during the employees, according to published productivity, competition, jobs, the formal comment period for the proposal Small Business Administration (SBA) environment, public health or safety, or and some additional written comments definitions. were received after the formal comment State, local, or tribal governments or The Agency desires to minimize, to period closed. To expand upon communities; the extent appropriate, impacts on those comments received during the comment (2) create a serious inconsistency or companies which may be adversely period and to address specific questions otherwise interfere with an action taken affected, and to ensure that the EPA had of the industry regarding or planned by another agency; emissions standards are achievable. technical feasibility and cost of some (3) materially alter the budgetary Thus, flexibility provisions for the rule options for the final standards, EPA also impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, (discussed in section II.E.) were solicited and received additional or loan programs or the rights and developed based on analysis of information after the close of the formal obligations of recipients thereof; or, information gained through discussions comment period and participated in a (4) raise novel legal or policy issues with potentially affected small entities number of phone conversations and arising out of legal mandates, the as well as analysis of other sources of meetings with industry representatives President’s priorities, or the principles information, as detailed in Chapter 8 of for this purpose. All of this information set forth in the Executive Order. the Final RIA. Many of the flexibilities including documentation of phone calls Pursuant to the terms of Executive in today’s rule should benefit both and meetings has been included in the Order 12866, EPA has determined that engine and equipment manufacturers docket for this final rule. Since this rulemaking is a ‘‘significant qualifying as small. considerable information was received regulatory action’’ because the new The economic impact of the final rule after the formal comment period closed, standards and other regulatory on small engine and equipment a notice of availability of this provisions, are expected to have an manufacturers was evaluated using a supplemental information was also annual effect on the economy in excess ‘‘sales test’’ approach which calculates published on December 1, 1998 (63 FR of $100 million. A Regulatory Impact annualized compliance costs as a 66081) alerting interested parties to the Analysis has been prepared and is function of sales revenue. The ratio is an availability of this supplemental available in the docket associated with indication of the severity of the information. All information received, this rulemaking. This action was potential impacts. EPA expects that, at regardless of the date of receipt, was, to submitted to OMB for review as worst, four small engine manufacturers the maximum extent possible, required by Executive Order 12866. Any and 70 small equipment manufacturers considered in the development of this written comments from OMB are in the would be impacted by more than one final rule. EPA has prepared a detailed public docket for this rulemaking. percent of their sales revenue. EPA

VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:12 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 30MRR2 15232 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations guidance provides that if fewer than 100 impact assessment on small entities (see be downloaded off the internet at http:/ small entities are affected by more than Chapter 8 of the Final RIA). Those /www.epa.gov/icr. The information one percent of their annual sales flexibilities not considered include a requirements are not effective until income, this does not amount to a hardship relief provision (described in OMB approves them. ‘‘significant impact on a substantial section II.E.), which was developed to The information planned to be number’’ of small entities. This base further ensure the standards can be collected via this final rule is necessary case analysis assumes that no achieved. Although it is difficult to to assure that the engine manufacturers manufacturers take advantage of the project utilization of such a provision, required to seek certification of their flexibilities being offered and that there EPA expects that it could further reduce engines have fulfilled all the essential would be no passthrough of costs in the economic impact of the rule. price increases, and can therefore be The results of the impact analysis requirements of these regulations. In characterized as depicting worst-case show minimal impacts on small particular, this information will impacts. Thus, EPA expects today’s rule businesses. EPA expects that such document the design of the engine for to have a minimal impact on small impacts will be negligible if small which certification is sought, the type(s) business entities. companies take advantage of the above of equipment in which it is intended to However, EPA is finalizing a number mentioned flexibilities, and if be used and the emission performance of flexibilities to further reduce the companies are able to pass through most of these engines based upon testing burden of compliance on small-volume of their costs through to customers, as performed by or on behalf of the engine engine or equipment manufacturers and was considered likely by most small manufacturer. Additional, essential small-volume product lines. The companies contacted. Many of these information is necessary to document Agency received a number of comments entities are involved in filling niche the results of testing performed by the from engine manufacturers which were markets, and are thus in a better manufacturer under a mandated generally supportive of the flexibilities position to pass these costs along to the production line testing program to initially proposed, but which suggested ultimate consumers. Furthermore, EPA’s determine that the engines, as changes in production caps and other outreach activities with small entities manufactured continue to have provisions. EPA has incorporated many indicated that many engine and acceptable emission performance. of these suggested changes to the extent equipment manufacturers have already Finally, if the manufacturer elects to possible, keeping in mind equity and air begun the switch from side-valve engine conduct testing of in-use engines under quality considerations. Given the technology to producing or using a voluntary in-use testing program flexibilities being afforded to the engine overhead valve engine technology for adopted in these final regulations, and equipment manufacturers, the reasons other than today’s rule. They information is necessary to document results of the analysis suggest that of should therefore not incur substantial the results of that in-use testing those small entities analyzed, only three additional costs as a result of this program. small business engine manufacturers program. The ample lead time being and three small business equipment afforded by today’s rule should also Table 8 provides a listing of this manufacturers would likely experience allow for an orderly transition to the rulemaking’s information collection an impact of greater than one percent of more advanced technology. requirements along with the appropriate their sales revenue. These six information collection request (ICR) C. Paperwork Reduction Act companies represent only about three numbers. The cost of this burden has percent of the total number of small The information collection been incorporated into the cost estimate business manufacturers on which the requirements in this rule will be for this rule. The Agency has estimated analysis was based. Other outreach submitted for approval to the Office of that the public reporting burden for the activities have also indicated that the Management and Budget (OMB) under collection of information required under impact of today’s rule can be minimized the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. this rule would average approximately given sufficient lead time to incorporate 3501 et seq. An Information Collection 156,816 hours annually for the industry the new technology with normal model Request (ICR) document has been at an estimated annual cost of changes. Again, the Agency has not prepared by EPA and a copy may be $9,489,386. The hours spent by an attempted to quantify the beneficial obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at individual manufacturer on information impact on small business manufacturers OPPE Regulatory Information Division; collection activities in any given year of the lead time provided (which can U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would be highly dependent upon include delaying the impact of these (2137); 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC manufacturer specific variables, such as rules up until the 2010 model year). 20460, by e-mail at the number of engine families, Some, but not all, of the flexibility farmer.sandyepamail.epa.gov, or by production changes, emission defects provisions were considered in the calling (202) 260–2740. A copy may also etc. Table 8: Public Reporting Burden

Type of information OMB Control No.

Certification ...... 2060±0338 Averaging, banking and trading ...... 2060±0338 Production line testing ...... N/A Pre-certification and testing exemption ...... 2060±0007 Engine exclusion determination ...... 2060±0124 Emission defect information ...... 2060±0048 Importation of nonconforming engines ...... 2060±0294

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.028 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 15233

Burden means the total time, effort, or does not impose enforceable obligations provides that the standards shall be financial resources expended by persons on state, local, and tribal governments, subject to sections 206, 207, 208 and to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose which do not produce small SI 209 of the CAA, with such or provide information to or for a nonhandheld engines or equipment, modifications of the applicable Federal agency. This includes the time EPA has estimated the rule to cost the regulations implementing such sections needed to review instructions; develop, private sector an annualized cost of as the Administrator deems appropriate, acquire, install, and utilize technology $230 million per year. However, the and shall be enforced in the same and systems for the purposes of Agency has appropriately considered manner as standards prescribed under collecting, validating, and verifying cost issues in developing this rule as section 202. Therefore, the statutory information, processing and required by section 213(a)(3) of the authority for this rule is as follows: maintaining information, and disclosing Clean Air Act, and has designed the rule sections 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, and providing information; adjust the such that it will in EPA’s view be a cost- 209, 213, 215, 216, and 301(a) of the existing ways to comply with any effective program. Because small Clean Air Act, as amended. Moreover, previously applicable instructions and governments would not be significantly this rule is being issued pursuant to a requirements; train personnel to be able or uniquely affected by this rule, the court order entered in Sierra Club v. to respond to a collection of Agency is not required to develop a plan Browner, No. 93–0124 and consolidated information; search data sources; with regard to small governments. cases (D.D.C.). complete and review the collection of The unfunded mandates statement 2. Social Costs and Benefits information; and transmit or otherwise under section 202 must include: (1) A disclose the information. citation of the statutory authority under The social costs and benefits of this An Agency may not conduct or which the rule is adopted; (2) an rule are discussed in detail in sections sponsor, and a person is not required to assessment of the costs and benefits of III.A. and III.B. of this notice, and in respond to a collection of information the rule including the effect of the Chapters 3 through 8 of the Final RIA. unless it displays a currently valid OMB mandate on health, safety and the Those discussions are incorporated into control number. The OMB control environment; (3) where feasible, this statement by reference. numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed estimates of future compliance costs and 3. Effects on the National Economy in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter disproportionate impacts upon 15. particular geographic or social segments As stated in the UMRA, of the nation or industry; (4) where macroeconomic effects tend to be D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act relevant, an estimate of the effect on the measurable, in nationwide economic Section 202 of the Unfunded national economy; and (5) a description models, only if the economic effect of Mandates Reform Act of 1995 of the EPA’s consultation with state, the regulation reaches 0.25 to 0.5 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’) requires local, and tribal officials. Since this rule percent of gross domestic product (in that the Agency prepare a budgetary is estimated to impose costs to the the range of $15 billion to $30 billion). impact statement before promulgating a private sector in excess of $100 million A regulation with a smaller aggregate rule that includes a Federal mandate per year, it is considered a significant effect is highly unlikely to have any that may result in expenditure by State, regulatory action. Therefore, EPA has measurable impact in macroeconomic local, and tribal governments, in prepared the following statement with terms unless it is highly focused on a aggregate, or by the private sector, of respect to UMRA sections 202 through particular geographic region or $100 million or more in any one year. 205. economic sector. Because the economic Section 203 requires the Agency to impact of the small SI nonhandheld establish a plan for obtaining input from 1. Statutory Authority engine Phase 2 rule is far less than these and informing, educating, and advising This rule establishes standards for thresholds, no estimate of this rule’s and small governments that may be emissions of HC+NOX and CO from effect on the national economy has been significantly or uniquely affected by the small nonroad SI nonhandheld engines conducted. rule. pursuant to section 213 of the Clean Air Under section 205 of the Unfunded Act. Section 216 defines the terms 4. Consultation with Government Mandates Act, the Agency must identify ‘‘nonroad engine’’ and ‘‘nonroad Officials and consider a reasonable number of vehicle.’’ Section 213(a)(3) requires Today’s rule does not create a regulatory alternatives before these standards to achieve the greatest mandate on state, local or tribal promulgating a rule for which a degree of emission reduction achievable governments, since it does not impose budgetary impact statement must be through the application of technology any enforceable duties on these entities prepared. The Agency must select from which the Administrator determines which do not produce small SI those alternatives the least costly, most will be available for the engines or nonhandheld engines or equipment. cost-effective, or least burdensome vehicles to which such standards apply, Thus, EPA did not consult with state, alternative that achieves the objectives giving appropriate consideration to the local or tribal governments in the of the rule, unless the Agency explains cost of applying such technology within context of discussing mandated costs why this alternative is not selected or the period of time available to that would apply to such governments. the selection of this alternative is manufacturers and to noise, energy, and However, EPA did consult with state inconsistent with law. safety factors associated with the governmental representatives, and with Because this final rule is estimated to application of such technology. Section representatives of associations result in the expenditure by State, local 213(b) requires the standards to take representing state air regulatory and tribal governments or the private effect at the earliest possible date agencies, in the contexts of developing sector of greater than $100 million in considering the lead time necessary to the most stringent achievable any one year, the Agency has prepared permit the development and application regulations and of addressing state a budgetary impact statement and has of the requisite technology, giving ozone attainment needs. The consulted addressed the selection of the least appropriate consideration to the cost of entities include the California ARB, the costly, most cost-effective or least compliance within such period and Wisconsin DNR, and NESCAUM. These burdensome alternative. While this rule energy and safety. Section 213(d) consultations are documented in the

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.029 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 15234 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations record for this rule, and are reflected F. National Technology Transfer and the regulatory action meets all three and discussed in the SOPs, the ANPRM, Advancement Act criteria, the Agency must evaluate the the NPRM, the Notice of Availability, Section 12(d) of the National environmental health or safety effects of and today’s final rulemaking notice. Technology Transfer and Advancement the planned rule on children; and explain why the planned regulation is 5. Regulatory Alternatives Considered Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law No. 104–113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 preferable to other potentially effective The Clean Air Act requires that note), directs EPA to use voluntary and reasonably feasible alternatives standards under section 213(a)(3) result consensus standards in its regulatory considered by the Agency. in the greatest degree of emission activities unless doing so would be This final rule is not subject to reductions achievable from available inconsistent with applicable law or Executive Order 13045, because technology, considering costs, lead time, otherwise impractical. Voluntary substantive actions were initiated before noise, energy and safety factors. While consensus standards are technical April 21, 1997 and EPA published a EPA has substantial discretion to weigh standards (e.g., materials specifications, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking before these different factors in setting test methods, sampling procedures, and April 21, 1998. Moreover, this standards under section 213(a)(3), EPA business practices) that are developed or rulemaking does not involve risk may not simply select the least costly, adopted by voluntary consensus assessments in which EPA would standards bodies. The NTTAA directs most cost-effective, or least burdensome consider risks to infants and children. EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, method of achieving the objectives of This is because today’s rule is intended explanations when the Agency decides the rule if such method does not obtain to result in the greatest achievable not to use available and applicable the greatest achievable emission emissions reductions that are voluntary consensus standards. technically feasible, rather than to reduction. In order to ensure the cost- This final rule involves technical achieve a threshold of protecting public effectiveness of this rule and still fulfill standards. While commenters suggested health and the environment. Therefore, the intent of the Clean Air Act, EPA has the use of ISO 8178 test procedures for EPA does not have reason to believe this adopted numerous flexibility provisions measuring emissions, the Agency has action involves environmental health that reduce the burden of the Phase 2 decided not to rely on the ISO and safety risks that present a program for small volume procedures in this rulemaking. The disproportionate risk to children. manufacturers and manufacturers of Agency has determined that these small volume models and families. procedures would be impractical H. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing These provisions are discussed in because they rely too heavily on the Intergovernmental Partnership section II.E. of today’s notice. Moreover, reference testing conditions. Since the Under Executive Order 12875, EPA the technological options considered for test procedures in these regulations may not issue a regulation that is not the rule’s standards and related need to be used not only for required by statute and that creates a certification, but also for production provisions are discussed in section II.A. mandate upon a State, local or tribal line testing, selective enforcement of the notice. Section II.B. discusses the government, unless the Federal audits, and in-use testing, they must be ABT program adopted for the final rule, government provides the funds broadly based. In-use testing is best and section II.D. discusses the necessary to pay the direct compliance done outside tightly controlled compliance program for Phase 2 costs incurred by those governments, or laboratory conditions so as to be nonhandheld engines. In EPA’s view, EPA consults with those governments. If representative of in-use conditions. EPA these discussions demonstrate that the EPA complies by consulting, Executive has determined that the ISO procedures Agency is adopting the most cost- Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to are not sufficiently broadly usable in effective rule allowed under section the Office of Management and Budget a their current form for this program, and 213(a)(3) for nonhandheld Phase 2 description of the extent of EPA’s prior therefore cannot be adopted by engines, and the Agency incorporates consultation with representatives of reference. EPA has instead chosen to affected State, local and tribal them into this statement. continue to rely on the procedures governments, the nature of their outlined in 40 CFR Part 90. EPA is E. Congressional Review Act concerns, copies of any written hopeful that future ISO test procedures communications from the governments, The Congressional Review Act, 5 will be developed that are usable for the and a statement supporting the need to U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small broad range of testing needed, and that issue the regulation. In addition, Business Regulatory Enforcement such procedures could then be adopted Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides by reference. develop an effective process permitting that before a rule may take effect, the G. Executive Order 13045 elected officials and other agency promulgating the rule must representatives of State, local and tribal submit a rule report, which includes a Executive Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of Children from governments ‘‘to provide meaningful copy of the rule, to each House of the and timely input in the development of Congress and to the Comptroller General Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), regulatory proposals containing of the United States. EPA will submit a significant unfunded mandates.’’ report containing this rule and other applies to any rule that: (1) Was required information to the U.S. Senate, initiated after April 21, 1997 or for Today’s rule does not create a which a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking mandate on State, local or tribal the U.S. House of Representatives, and was published after April 21, 1998; (2) governments. The rule does not impose the Comptroller General of the United is determined to be ‘‘economically any enforceable duties on these entities, States prior to publication of the rule in significant’’ as defined under Executive which do not produce small SI the Federal Register. This rule is a Order 12866; and (3) concerns an nonhandheld engines or equipment. ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. environmental health or safety risk that Accordingly, the requirements of 804(2). This rule will be effective June EPA has reason to believe may have a section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do 1, 1999. disproportionate effect on children. If not apply to this rule.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.030 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 15235

I. Executive Order 13084: Consultation PART 90ÐCONTROL OF EMISSIONS exported and subsequently imported in and Coordination With Indian Tribal FROM NONROAD SPARK-IGNITION a new piece of equipment, but excludes Governments ENGINES any engine introduced into commerce, by itself or in a piece of equipment, for Under Executive Order 13084, EPA 1. The authority citation for part 90 use in a state that has established its may not issue a regulation that is not continues to read as follows: own emission requirements applicable required by statute, that significantly or Authority: Sections 203, 204, 205, 206, to such engines pursuant to a waiver uniquely affects the communities of 207, 208, 209, 213, 215, 216, and 301(a) of granted by EPA under section 209(e) of Indian tribal governments, and that the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. the Clean Air Act. imposes substantial direct compliance 7522, 7523, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, Equipment manufacturer means a costs on those communities, unless the 7547, 7549, 7550, and 7601(a)). manufacturer of equipment using Federal government provides the funds engines covered by the provisions of necessary to pay the direct compliance Subpart AÐGeneral this Part who does not also manufacture costs incurred by the tribal 2. Section 90.1 is amended by engines covered by the provisions of governments, or EPA consults with removing the period at the end of this Part. those governments. If EPA complies by paragraph (b)(5)(iv) and by adding a * * * * * consulting, Executive Order 13084 semicolon in its place and adding Family Emission Limit or FEL means requires EPA to provide to the Office of paragraphs (b)(6) and (d) and by revising an emission level that is declared by the Management and Budget a description paragraph (c) to read as follows: manufacturer to serve in lieu of an of the extent of EPA’s prior consultation emission standard for the purposes of § 90.1 Applicability. with representatives of affected tribal certification, production line testing, governments and a statement supporting * * * * * and Selective Enforcement Auditing for the need to issue the regulation. In (b) * * * engines participating in the averaging, addition, Executive Order 13084 (6) Engines that are used exclusively banking and trading program. A requires EPA to develop an effective in emergency and rescue equipment declared FEL will also serve in lieu of process permitting elected officials and where no certified engines are available an emission standard where the to power the equipment safely and other representatives of Indian tribal manufacturer elects to perform practically, but not including voluntary in-use testing under this part. governments ‘‘to provide meaningful generators, alternators, compressors or An FEL must be expressed to the same and timely input in the development of pumps used to provide remote power to number of decimal places as the regulatory policies on matters that a rescue tool. The equipment applicable emission standard. significantly or uniquely affect their manufacturer bears the responsibility to communities.’’ * * * * * ascertain on an annual basis and HC+NOX means total hydrocarbons Today’s rule does not significantly or maintain documentation available to the plus oxides of nitrogen. Administrator that no appropriate uniquely affect the communities of * * * * * certified engine is available from any Indian tribal governments because it New Class I engine family means any source. imposes no enforceable obligations on group of engines that employ a design (c) Engines subject to the provisions them. Accordingly, the requirements of that is different from engine families of this subpart are also subject to the section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 that the engine manufacturer has provisions found in subparts B through do not apply to this rule. previously certified, and does not M of this part, except that subparts C, include any engine family certified on VI. Statutory Authority H, and M of this part apply only to the basis of carryover data or any engine Phase 2 engines as defined in this Authority for the actions set forth in family that differs from another engine subpart. family solely as a result of a running this rule is granted to EPA by sections (d) Certain text in this part is change. 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, identified as pertaining to Phase 1 or NMHC+NOX means nonmethane 213, 215, 216, and 301(a) of the Clean Phase 2 engines. Such text pertains only hydrocarbons plus oxides of nitrogen. Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7521, to engines of the specified Phase. If no 7522, 7523, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, indication of Phase is given, the text * * * * * 7543, 7547, 7549, 7550, and 7601(a)). pertains to all engines, regardless of Overhead valve engine means an otto- cycle, four stroke engine in which the List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 90 Phase. 3. Section 90.3 is amended by adding intake and exhaust valves are located Environmental protection, the following definitions in alphabetical above the combustion chamber within Administrative practice and procedure, order to read as follows: the cylinder head. Such engines are sometimes referred to as ‘‘valve-in- Air pollution control, Confidential § 90.3 Definitions. business information, Imports, Labeling, head’’ engines. Phase 1 engine means any handheld Nonroad source pollution, Reporting * * * * * Aftertreatment means the passage of or nonhandheld engine, that was and record keeping requirements, exhaust gases through a device or produced under a certificate of Research, Warranties. system such as a catalyst whose purpose conformity issued under the regulations Dated: March 3, 1999. is to chemically alter the gases prior to in this part to the standard levels Carol M. Browner, their release to the atmosphere. defined for Phase 1. Administrator. * * * * * Phase 2 engine means any DF or df means deterioration factor. nonhandheld engine that was produced For the reasons set out in the Eligible production or U.S. production under a certificate of conformity under preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code means Phase 2 engines produced for the regulations in this part to the of Federal Regulations is amended as purposes of being used in the United standards defined for Phase 2 engines. follows: States, and includes any engine * * * * *

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.032 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 15236 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

Round, rounded or rounding means, no more than 10,000 nonhandheld introduction into commerce for use in a unless otherwise specified, that engines. state that has established its own numbers will be rounded according to Small volume equipment emission requirements applicable to ASTM-E29–93a, which is incorporated manufacturer means, for nonhandheld such equipment or engines in such by reference in this part pursuant to equipment, any equipment equipment, pursuant to a waiver granted § 90.7. manufacturer whose production of by EPA under section 209(e) of the nonhandheld equipment subject to * * * * * Clean Air Act. regulation under this part or powered by * * * * * Side valve engine means an otto- engines regulated under this part, does cycle, four stroke engine in which the not exceed 5,000 pieces for a given Subpart BÐEmission Standards and intake and exhaust valves are located to model year or annual production period Certification Provisions the side of the cylinder, not within the excluding that equipment intended for cylinder head. Such engines are introduction into commerce for use in a 4. Section 90.103 is amended by sometimes referred to as ‘‘L-head’’ state that has established its own revising paragraph (a) introductory text, engines. emission requirements applicable to and paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(5) and by Small volume engine family means such equipment or engines in such adding paragraphs (a)(6) through (a)(8) any nonhandheld engine family whose equipment, pursuant to a waiver granted to read as follows: eligible production in a given model by EPA under section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act. § 90.103 Exhaust emission standards. year are projected at the time of Small volume equipment model (a) Exhaust emissions for new Phase certification to be no more than 5,000 means, for nonhandheld equipment, any 1 and Phase 2 nonroad spark ignition engines. unique model of equipment whose engines at or below 19 kilowatts (kW), Small volume engine manufacturer production subject to regulations under shall not exceed the following levels. means, for nonhandheld engines, any this part or powered by engines Throughout this part, NMHC+NOX engine manufacturer whose total regulated under this part, does not standards are applicable only to natural eligible production of nonhandheld exceed 500 pieces for a given model gas fueled engines at the option of the engines are projected at the time of year or annual production period manufacturer, in lieu of HC+NOX certification of a given model year to be excluding that equipment intended for standards.

TABLE 1.ÐPHASE 1 EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS [Grams per kilowatt-hour]

Carbon mon- Oxides of nitro- Engine displacement class Hydrocarbons+oxides Hydrocarbons of nitrogen (HC+NOX) oxide gen (NOX)

I ...... 16.1 ...... 519 ...... II ...... 13.4 ...... 519 ...... III ...... 295 805 5.36 IV ...... 241 805 5.36 V ...... 161 603 5.36

TABLE 2.ÐPHASE 2 CLASS I ENGINE EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS [grams per kilowatt-hour]

Engine class HC+NOX NMHC+NOX CO Effective date

I ...... 16.1 14.8 610 August 1, 2007; in addition, any Class I engine family initially produced on or after August 1, 2003 must meet the Phase 2 Class I standards before they may be introduced into commerce.

TABLE 3.ÐPHASE 2 CLASS II ENGINE EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS BY MODEL YEAR ]grams per kilowatt-hour]

Model Year Emission re- 2005 Engine Class quirement 2001 2002 2003 2004 and later

II ...... HC +NOX 18.0 16.6 15.0 13.6 12.1 NMHC+NOX 16.7 15.3 14.0 12.7 11.3 CO 610 610 610 610 610

* * * * * requirements, as appropriate, through banking, or trading credits or eligible (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(2) model year 2002 subject to the production. of this section, two stroke engines used provisions of § 90.107(e), (f) and (h). * * * * * to power lawnmowers or other Such engines shall not be included in (5) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(2) nonhandheld equipment may meet any computations of Phase 2 averaging, of this section, engines used exclusively Phase 1 Class III, IV or V standards and to power products which are used

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.034 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 15237 exclusively in wintertime, such as averaging, banking and trading program according to procedures in this part, less snowthrowers and ice augers, at the and any related credit calculations. than or equal to each Phase 2 emission option of the engine manufacturer, need Beginning with the 2010 model year, standard (FEL, where applicable) in a not certify to or comply with standards these engines must meet the applicable given engine class and given model regulating emissions of HC, NOX, Phase 2 standards. year, when multiplicatively adjusted by HC+NOX or NMHC+NOX, as applicable. (8) Notwithstanding the standards the deterioration factor determined in If the manufacturer exercises the option shown in Table 3 of this section, the this section, that family complies with to certify to standards regulating such HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX) standard for that class of emission standards for emissions, such engines must meet such Phase 2 Class II side valve engine purposes of certification. If any test standards. If the engine is to be used in families with annual production of 1000 engine representing an engine family any equipment or vehicle other than an or less shall be 24.0 g/kW-hr (22.0 g/kW- has emissions adjusted multiplicatively exclusively wintertime product such as hr) for model years 2010 and later. by the deterioration factor determined a snowthrower or ice auger, it must be Engines produced subject to this in this section, greater than any one certified to the applicable standard provision may not exceed this standard emission standard (FEL, where regulating emissions of HC, NOX, and are excluded from the averaging, applicable) for a given displacement HC+NOX or NMHC+NOX as applicable. banking and trading program and any class, that family does not comply with (6) In lieu of certifying to the related credit calculations. that class of emission standards. applicable Phase 2 standards, small * * * * * (f) Each engine manufacturer must volume engine manufacturers as defined 5. Section 90.104 is amended by comply with all provisions of the in this part may, at their option, certify adding introductory text and adding averaging, banking and trading program their engines families as Phase 1 engines paragraphs (d) through (h) to read as outlined in subpart C of this part for until the 2010 model year. Such engines follows: each engine family participating in that shall not exceed the applicable Phase 1 § 90.104 Compliance with emission program. standards and are excluded from the standards. (g)(1) Small volume engine averaging, banking and trading program Paragraphs (a) through (c) of this manufacturers and small volume engine and any related credit calculations. section apply to Phase 1 engines only. families may, at their option, take Beginning with the 2010 model year, Paragraphs (d) through (h) of this deterioration factors for HC+NOX these engines must meet the applicable section apply only to Phase 2 engines. (NMHC+NOX) and CO from Table 1 of Phase 2 standards. * * * * * this section, or they may calculate (7) In lieu of certifying to the (d) The exhaust emission standards deterioration factors for HC+NOX applicable Phase 2 standards, (FELs, where applicable) for Phase 2 (NMHC+NOX) and CO according to the manufacturers of small volume engine engines set forth in this part apply to the process described in paragraph (h) of families, as defined in this part may, at emissions of the engines for their full this section. For technologies that are their option, certify their small volume useful lives as determined pursuant to not addressed in Table 1 of this section, engine families as Phase 1 engines until § 90.105. the manufacturer may ask the the 2010 model year. Such engines shall (e) For all Phase 2 engines, if all test Administrator to assign a deterioration not exceed the applicable Phase 1 engines representing an engine family factor prior to the time of certification. standards and are excluded from the have emissions, when properly tested (2) Table 1 follows:

TABLE 1: NONHANDHELD ENGINE HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX) AND CO ASSIGNED DETERIORATION FACTORS FOR SMALL VOLUME MANUFACTURERS AND SMALL VOLUME ENGINE FAMILIES

Side valve engines Overhead valve engines Engine class Engines with aftertreatment HC+NOX CO HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX) CO (NMHC+NOX)

Class I ...... 2.1 1.1 1.5 1.1 Dfs must be calculated using the formula in § 90.104(g)(3). Class II ...... 1.6 1.1 1.4 1.1

(3) Formula for calculating F = 0.8 for CO for all classes of engines constructed to be representative of deterioration factors for engines with (h)(1) Manufacturers shall obtain an production engines pursuant to aftertreatment: assigned df or calculate a df, as § 90.117, conduct full Federal test DF = [(NE * EDF) ¥ (CC * F)]/(NE ¥ appropriate, for each regulated pollutant procedure emission testing pursuant to CC) for all Phase 2 engine families. Such dfs the regulations of subpart E of this part Where: shall be used for certification, at the number of hours representing DF = deterioration factor production line testing, and Selective stabilized emissions pursuant to NE = new engine emission levels prior Enforcement Auditing. § 90.118. If more than one engine is to the catalyst (g/kW-hr) (2) For engines not using assigned dfs tested, average the results and round to EDF = deterioration factor for engines from Table 1 of this section, dfs shall be the same number of decimal places without catalyst as shown in Table determined as follows: contained in the applicable standard, 1 (i) On at least one test engine expressed to one additional significant CC = amount converted at 0 hours in g/ representing the configuration chosen to figure; kW-hr be the most likely to exceed HC+NOX (ii) Conduct such emission testing F = 0.8 for HC (NMHC) and 0.0 for NOX (NMHC+NOX) emission standards, again following aging the engine. The for Class I and II engines (FELs where applicable), and aging procedure should be designed to

VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:12 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 30MRR2 15238 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations allow the manufacturer to appropriately running change that the affected engine produced during or after model year predict the in-use emission families can be reasonably expected to 1997 must obtain a certificate of deterioration expected over the useful have similar emission deterioration conformity covering such engines; life of the engine, taking into account characteristics. however, engines manufactured during the type of wear and other deterioration 6. Section 90.105 is revised to read as an annual production period beginning mechanisms expected under typical follows: prior to September 1, 1996 are not consumer use which could affect required to be certified. emissions performance. If more than § 90.105 Useful life periods for Phase 2 (2) Except as required in paragraph engines. one engine is tested, average the results (b)(3) of this section, Class II engines and round to the same number of (a) Manufacturers shall declare the manufactured during an annual decimal places contained in the applicable useful life category for each production period beginning prior to applicable standard, expressed to one engine family at the time of certification September 1, 2000 are not required to additional significant figure; as described in this section. Such meet Phase 2 requirements. (iii) Divide the full useful life category shall be the category which (b) * * * emissions (average emissions, if most closely approximates the expected (3) Manufacturers who commence an applicable) for each regulated pollutant useful lives of the equipment into which annual production period for a Class II by the stabilized emissions (average the engines are anticipated to be engine family between January 1, 2000 emissions, if applicable) and round to installed as determined by the engine and September 1, 2000 must meet Phase two significant figures. The resulting manufacturer. Manufacturers shall 2 requirements for that family only if number shall be the df, unless it is less retain data appropriate to support their that production period will exceed 12 than 1.0, in which case the df shall be choice of useful life category for each months in length. 1.0. engine family. Such data shall be * * * * * (iv) At the manufacturer’s option furnished to the Administrator upon 8. Section 90.107 is amended by additional emission test points can be request. removing the period at the end of scheduled between the stabilized (1) For nonhandheld engines: paragraph (d)(5) and adding a semicolon emission test point and the full useful Manufacturers shall select a useful life in its place, by removing ‘‘and’’ at the life test period. If intermediate tests are category from Table 1 of this section at end of paragraph (d)(9), by removing the scheduled, the test points must be the time of certification. period at the end of paragraph (d)(10) evenly spaced over the full useful life (2) Table 1 follows: and adding a semicolon in its place, and period (plus or minus 2 hours) and one by adding new paragraph (d)(11) to read such test point shall be at one-half of TABLE 1: USEFUL LIFE CATEGORIES as follows: full useful life (plus or minus 2 hours). FOR NONHANDHELD ENGINES [HOURS] For each pollutant HC+NOX § 90.107 Application for certification. (NMHC+NOX) and CO, a line must be Class I ...... 125 250 500 * * * * * fitted to the data points treating the Class II ...... 250 500 1000 (d) * * * initial test as occurring at hour zero, and (11) This paragraph (d)(11) is using the method of least-squares. The (3) [Reserved] applicable only to Phase 2 engines. deterioration factor is the calculated (4) [Reserved] (i) Engine manufacturers participating emissions durability period divided by (5) Data to support a manufacturer’s in the averaging, banking and trading the calculated emissions at zero hours. choice of useful life category, for a given program as described in subpart C of (3) EPA may reject a df if it has engine family, may include but are not this part shall declare the applicable evidence that the df is not appropriate limited to: Family Emission Limit (FEL) for for that family within 30 days of receipt (i) Surveys of the life spans of the HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX). from the manufacturer. The equipment in which the subject engines (ii) Provide the applicable useful life manufacturer must retain actual are installed; as determined under § 90.105. emission test data to support its choice (ii) Engineering evaluations of field * * * * * of df and furnish that data to the aged engines to ascertain when engine 9. Section 90.108 is amended by Administrator upon request. performance deteriorates to the point adding paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as Manufacturers may request approval by where usefulness and/or reliability is follows: the Administrator of alternate impacted to a degree sufficient to procedures for determining necessitate overhaul or replacement; § 90.108 Certification. deterioration. Any submitted df not (iii) Warranty statements and * * * * * rejected by EPA within 30 days shall be warranty periods; (c) For certificates issued for engine deemed to have been approved. (iv) Marketing materials regarding families included in the averaging, (4) Calculated deterioration factors engine life; banking and trading program as may cover families and model years in (v) Failure reports from engine described in subpart C of this part: addition to the one upon which they customers; and (1) Failure to comply with all were generated if the manufacturer (vi) Engineering evaluations of the applicable averaging, banking and submits a justification acceptable to the durability, in hours, of specific engine trading provisions in this part will be Administrator in advance of technologies, engine materials or engine considered to be a failure to comply certification that the affected engine designs. with the terms and conditions upon families can be reasonably expected to (b) [Reserved] which the certificate was issued, and have similar emission deterioration 7. Section 90.106 is amended by the certificate may be determined to be characteristics. revising paragraph (a) and adding new void ab initio. (5) Engine families that undergo paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows: (2) The manufacturer shall bear the running changes need not generate a burden of establishing to the satisfaction new df if the manufacturer submits a § 90.106 Certificate of conformity. of the Administrator that the conditions justification acceptable to the (a)(1) Except as provided in § 90.2(b), upon which the certificate was granted Administrator concurrent with the every manufacturer of new engines were satisfied or waived.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.037 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 15239

(d) The Administrator may, upon displacement, Category C=125 hours, (e) For purposes of establishing request by a manufacturer, waive any B=250 hours and A=500 hours. For whether Phase 2 engines comply with requirement of this part otherwise engines of 225 cc or more, Category applicable exhaust emission standards necessary for the issuance of a C=250 hours, B=500 hours and A=1000 or FELs, the test results for each certificate. The Administrator may set hours. regulated pollutant as measured such conditions in a certificate as he or (2) [Reserved] pursuant to § 90.119 shall be multiplied she deems appropriate to assure that the (3) The manufacturer must provide, in by the applicable df determined under waived requirements are either satisfied the same document as the statement in § 90.104 (g) or (h). The product of the or are demonstrated, for the subject paragraph (f)(1) of this section, a two numbers shall be rounded to the engines, to be inappropriate, irrelevant statement of the engine’s displacement same number of decimal places or met by the application of a different or an explanation of how to readily contained in the applicable standard, requirement under this chapter. The determine the engine’s displacement. and compared against the applicable Administrator may indicate on such The Administrator may approve standard or FEL, as appropriate. conditional certificates that failure to alternate language to the statement in 15. Section 90.120 is amended by meet these conditions may result in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, provided adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: suspension or revocation or the voiding that the alternate language provides the ab initio of the certificate. ultimate purchaser with a clear § 90.120 Certification procedureÐuse of special test procedures. 10. Section 90.113 is amended by description of the number of hours revising the section heading and adding represented by each of the three letter * * * * * two sentences to the beginning of categories for the subject engine’s (c) Optional procedures approved paragraph (a) to read as follows: displacement. during Phase 1 can be carried over to 12. Section 90.116 is amended by Phase 2, following advance approval by § 90.113 In-use testing program for Phase revising paragraph (d)(6) and (d)(7) and the Administrator, to the extent the 1 engines. adding paragraphs (d)(8) through (d)(10) alternate procedure continues to yield (a) This section applies only to Phase to read as follows: results equal to the results from the 1 engines. In-use testing provisions for specified test procedures in subpart E of Phase 2 engines are found in subpart M § 90.116 Certification procedureÐ this part. of this part. * ** determining engine displacement, engine 16. Section 90.122 is amended by class, and engine families. * * * * * revising the first sentence of paragraph 11. Section 90.114 is amended by * * * * * (a) and adding paragraph (d)(4) as removing ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (d) * * * follows: (6) The location of valves, where (c)(9), by removing the period at the end applicable, with respect to the cylinder § 90.122 Amending the application and of paragraph (c)(10) and adding a (e.g. side valves or overhead valves); certificate of conformity. semicolon in its place and by adding (7) The number of catalytic (a) The engine manufacturer must new paragraphs (c)(11) and (f) to read as converters, location, volume and follows: notify the Administrator when either an composition; engine is to be added to a certificate of § 90.114 Requirement of certificationÐ (8) The thermal reactor conformity, an FEL is to be changed, or engine information label. characteristics; changes are to be made to a product line (9) The fuel required (e.g. gasoline, * * * * * covered by a certificate of conformity. (c) * * * natural gas, LPG); and *** (10) The useful life category. (11) For Phase 2 engines, the useful * * * * * * * * * * life category as determined by the (d)* * * manufacturer pursuant to § 90.105. Such 13. Section 90.117 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: (4) If the Administrator determines useful life category shall be shown by that a revised FEL meets the one of the following statements to be § 90.117 Certification procedureÐtest requirements of this subpart and the appended to the statement required engine selection. Act, the appropriate certificate of under paragraph (c)(7) of this section: (a) For Phase 1 engines, the conformity will be amended, or a new (i) ‘‘EMISSIONS COMPLIANCE manufacturer must select, from each certificate will be issued to reflect the PERIOD: [useful life] HOURS’’; or engine family, a test engine that the revised FEL. The certificate of (ii) ‘‘EMISSIONS COMPLIANCE manufacturer determines to be most conformity is revised conditional upon PERIOD: CATEGORY [fill in C, B or A likely to exceed the emission standard. compliance with § 90.207(b). as indicated and appropriate from the For Phase 2 engines, the manufacturer tables in § 90.105], REFER TO * * * * * must select, from each engine family, a 17. Subpart C, which was formerly OWNER’S MANUAL FOR FURTHER test engine of a configuration that the INFORMATION’’; reserved, is added to part 90 to read as manufacturer determines to be most follows: * * * * * likely to exceed the HC+NOX (f) Manufacturers electing to use the (NMHC+NOX) Family Emission Limit Subpart CÐCertification Averaging, labeling language of paragraph (c)(11)(ii) (FEL), or HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX) Banking, and Trading Provisions of this section must provide in the standard if no FEL is applicable. documents intended to be conveyed to Sec. * * * * * the ultimate purchaser, the statement: 90.201 Applicability. 14. Section 90.118 is amended by 90.202 Definitions. (1) For nonhandheld engines: The revising the section heading and adding Emissions Compliance Period referred 90.203 General provisions. a new paragraph (e) to read as follows: 90.204 Averaging. to on the Emissions Compliance label 90.205 Banking. indicates the number of operating hours § 90.118 Certification procedureÐservice 90.206 Trading. for which the engine has been shown to accumulation and usage of deterioration 90.207 Credit calculation and manufacturer meet Federal emission requirements. factors. compliance with emission standards. For engines less than 225 cc * * * * * 90.208 Certification.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:12 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 30MRR2 15240 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

90.209 Maintenance of records. from eligible engines are described in such credits is one component of a 90.210 End-of-year and final reports. this subpart. multi-part remedy for the previously 90.211 Request for hearing. (b) An engine family may use the produced engines and the remedy, averaging, banking and trading Subpart CÐCertification Averaging, including the use of credits and the provisions for HC+NOX and Banking, and Trading Provisions quantity of credits being used, is such NMHC+NOX emissions if it is subject to that the Administrator is satisfied that § 90.201 Applicability. regulation under this part with certain the manufacturer has strong and lasting The requirements of this subpart C are exceptions specified in paragraph (c) of incentive to accurately verify its new applicable to all Phase 2 spark-ignition this section. HC+NOX and NMHC+NOX engine emission levels and will set or engines subject to the provisions of credits shall be interchangeable subject reset its FELs for current and future subpart A of this part except as to the limitations on credit generation, model years so that production line provided in § 90.103(a). These credit usage, and other provisions compliance is assured. provisions are not applicable to any described in this subpart. (5) In the case of a production line Phase 1 engines. Participation in the (c) A manufacturer shall not include testing (PLT) failure pursuant to subpart averaging, banking and trading program in its calculation of credit generation H of this part, a manufacturer may is voluntary, but if a manufacturer elects and may exclude from its calculation of revise the FEL based upon production to participate, it must do so in credit usage, any new engines: line testing results obtained under compliance with the regulations set (1) Which are intended to be subpart H of this part and upon forth in this subpart. The provisions of exported, unless the manufacturer has Administrator approval pursuant to reason or should have reason to believe § 90.122(d). The manufacturer may use this subpart are applicable for HC+NOX that such engines have been or will be credits to cover both past production (NMHC+NOX) emissions but not for CO emissions. imported in a piece of equipment; or and subsequent production of the (2) Which are subject to state engine engines as needed as allowed under § 90.202 Definitions. emission standards pursuant to a waiver § 90.207(c). The definitions in subpart A of this granted by EPA under section 209(e) of (f) No Phase 2 engine family may have part apply to this subpart. The following the Act, unless the manufacturer a HC + NOX FEL that is greater than 32.2 definitions also apply to this subpart: demonstrates to the satisfaction of the g/kW-hr for Class I engines and 26.8 g/ Averaging means the exchange of Administrator that inclusion of these kW-hr for Class II engines. emission credits between engine engines in averaging, banking and (g)(1) Credits generated in a given families within a given manufacturer’s trading is appropriate. model year by an engine family subject product line. (d) For an engine family using credits, to the Phase 2 emission requirements Banking means the retention of a manufacturer may, at its option, may only be used in averaging, banking emission credits by the manufacturer include its entire production of that or trading, as appropriate, for any other generating the emission credits or engine family in its calculation of credit engine family for which the Phase 2 obtaining such credits through trading, usage for a given model year. requirements are applicable. Credits for use in future model year averaging (e)(1) A manufacturer may certify generated in one model year may not be or trading as permitted in this part. engine families at Family Emission used for prior model years, except as Emission credits represent the amount Limits (FELs) above or below the allowed under § 90.207(c). of emission reduction or exceedance, by applicable emission standard subject to (2) For the 2005 model year and for an engine family, below or above the the limitation in paragraph (f) of this each subsequent model year, applicable HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX) section, provided the summation of the manufacturers of Class II engines must emission standard, respectively. FELs manufacturer’s projected balance of provide a demonstration that the below the standard create ‘‘positive credits from all credit transactions for production weighted average FEL for credits,’’ while FELs above the standard all engine classes in a given model year HC+NOX (including NMHC+NOX FELs), create ‘‘negative credits.’’ In addition, is greater than or equal to zero, as for all of the manufacturer’s Class II ‘‘projected credits’’ refer to emission determined under § 90.207. engines, will not exceed 13.6 g/kW-hr credits based on the projected (2) A manufacturer of an engine for the 2005 model year, 13.1 g/kW-hr applicable production volume of the family with an FEL exceeding the for the 2006 model year and 12.6 g/kW- engine family. ‘‘Reserved credits’’ are applicable emission standard must hr for the 2007 and each subsequent emission credits generated within a obtain positive emission credits Phase 2 model year. Such model year waiting to be reported to sufficient to address the associated demonstration shall be subject to the EPA at the end of the model year. credit shortfall via averaging, banking, review and approval of the ‘‘Actual credits’’ refer to emission or trading. Administrator, shall be provided at the credits based on actual applicable (3) An engine family with an FEL time of the first Class II certification of production volume as contained in the below the applicable emission standard that model year and shall be based on end-of-year reports submitted to EPA. may generate positive emission credits projected eligible production for that Some or all of these credits may be for averaging, banking, or trading, or a model year. revoked if EPA review of the end-of-year combination thereof. (h) Manufacturers must demonstrate reports or any subsequent audit (4) In the case of a Selective compliance under the averaging, action(s) reveals problems or errors of Enforcement Audit (SEA) failure, credits banking, and trading provisions for a any nature with credit computations. may be used to cover subsequent particular model year by 270 days after Trading means the exchange of production of engines for the family in the end of the model year. Except as emission credits between question if the manufacturer elects to provided in § 90.207(c), an engine manufacturers. recertify to a higher FEL. Credits may family generating negative credits for not be used to remedy a nonconformity which the manufacturer does not obtain § 90.203 General provisions. determined by an SEA, except that the or generate an adequate number of (a) The certification averaging, Administrator may permit the use of positive credits by that date from the banking, and trading provisions for credits to address a nonconformity same or previous model year engines HC+NOX and NMHC+NOX emissions determined by an SEA where the use of will violate the conditions of the

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.041 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 15241 certificate of conformity. The certificate (5) [Reserved] (c) Traded credits can be used for of conformity may be voided ab initio (6) Negative credits may be banked averaging, banking, or further trading pursuant to § 90.123 for this engine only according to the requirements transactions. family. under § 90.207(c). (d) Traded credits are subject to the (b)(1) For Class I engine families limitations on use for past model years, § 90.204 Averaging. initially produced during the period as set forth in § 90.204(c). (a) Negative credits from engine beginning with the 1999 model year and (e) In the event of a negative credit families with FELs above the applicable prior to August 1, 2003, a manufacturer balance resulting from a transaction, emission standard must be offset by may bank early credits for engines with both the buyer and the seller are liable, positive credits from engine families HC + NOX FELs below 16.1 g/kW-hr. All except in cases involving fraud. having FELs below the applicable early credits for such Class I engines Certificates of all engine families emission standard, as allowed under the shall be calculated against a HC + NOX participating in a negative trade may be provisions of this subpart. Averaging of level of 20.5 g/kW-hr and may continue voided ab initio pursuant to § 90.123. credits in this manner is used to to be calculated against the 20.5 g/kW- determine compliance under hr level until August 1, 2007. § 90.207 Credit calculation and § 90.207(b). manufacturer compliance with emission (2) Beginning with the 1999 model standards. (b) Cross-class averaging of credits is year and prior to the applicable date allowed across all classes of nonroad listed in paragraph (a) of this section for (a) For each engine family, HC+NOX spark-ignition nonhandheld engines at Class II engines, a manufacturer may [NMHC+NOX] certification emission or below 19 kW. bank early credits for all Class II engines credits (positive or negative) are to be (c) Credits used in averaging for a calculated according to the following with HC+NOX FELs below 12.1 g/kW- given model year may be obtained from hr. All early credits for Class II engines equation and rounded to the nearest credits generated in the same model gram. Consistent units are to be used shall be calculated against a HC+NOX year by another engine family, credits level of 18.0 g/kW-hr. throughout the equation. banked in previous model years, or (3) [Reserved] Credits = Production x (Standard—FEL) credits of the same or previous model (4) [Reserved] x Power x Useful life x Load Factor year obtained through trading. The Where: restrictions of this paragraph (5) [Reserved] Production = eligible production as notwithstanding, credits from a given (6) Engines certified under the early defined in this part. Annual model year may be used to address banking provisions of this paragraph are production projections are used to credit needs of previous model year subject to all of the requirements of this project credit availability for initial engines as allowed under § 90.207(c). part applicable to Phase 2 engines. certification. Eligible production (d) The use of credits generated under (c) A manufacturer may bank actual volume is used in determining the early banking provisions of credits only after the end of the model actual credits for end-of-year § 90.205(b) is subject to regulations year and after EPA has reviewed the compliance determination. under this subpart. manufacturer’s end-of-year reports. During the model year and before Standard = the current and applicable § 90.205 Banking. submittal of the end-of-year report, Small SI engine HC+NOX (a)(1) Beginning August 1, 2007, a credits originally designated in the (NMHC+NOX) emission standard in manufacturer of a Class I engine family certification process for banking will be grams per kilowatt hour as with an FEL below the applicable considered reserved and may be determined in § 90.103 or, for early emission standard for a given model redesignated for trading or averaging in credits, the applicable emission year may bank credits in that model the end-of-year report and final report. level as specified in § 90.205(b). year for use in averaging and trading. (d) Credits declared for banking from FEL = the family emission limit for the For new Class I engine families initially the previous model year that have not engine family in grams per kilowatt produced during the period starting been reviewed by EPA may be used in hour. August 1, 2003 through July 31, 2007, a averaging or trading transactions. Power = the maximum modal power of manufacturer of a Class I engine family However, such credits may be revoked the certification test engine, in with an FEL below the applicable at a later time following EPA review of kilowatts, as calculated from the emission standard for a given model the end-of-year report or any subsequent applicable federal test procedure as year may bank credits in that model audit actions. described in this part. year for use in averaging and trading. Useful Life = the useful life in hours (2) [Reserved] § 90.206 Trading. corresponding to the useful life (3) Beginning with the 2001 model (a) An engine manufacturer may category for which the engine year, a manufacturer of a Class II engine exchange emission credits with other family was certified. family with an FEL below the applicable engine manufacturers in trading. Load Factor = 47 percent (i.e., 0.47) for emission standard for a given model (b) Credits for trading can be obtained Test Cycle A and Test Cycle B. For year may bank credits in that model from credits banked in previous model approved alternate test procedures, year for use in averaging and trading. years or credits generated during the the load factor must be calculated (4) [Reserved] model year of the trading transaction. according to the following formula:

n × × ∑()%%MTT modei() MTS mode i() WF mode i S i=1

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.042 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 15242 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

Where: considering all credit calculations and upon which the certificate was issued %MTT modei = percent of the transactions completed by then, the were satisfied or waived. maximum FTP torque for mode i. manufacturer will be in violation of the (e) Projected credits based on %MTS modei = percent of the regulations in this part and EPA may, information supplied in the certification maximum FTP engine rotational pursuant to § 90.123, void ab initio the application may be used to obtain a speed for mode i. certificates of engine families for which certificate of conformity. However, any WF modei = the weighting factor for the manufacturer has not obtained such credits may be revoked based on mode i. sufficient positive emission credits. review of end-of-year reports, follow-up audits, and any other verification steps (b) Manufacturer compliance with the § 90.208 Certification. emission standards is determined on a considered appropriate by the (a) In the application for certification Administrator. corporate average basis at the end of a manufacturer must: each model year. A manufacturer is in (1) Submit a statement that the § 90.209 Maintenance of records. compliance when the sum of positive engines for which certification is (a) The manufacturer must establish, and negative emission credits it holds is requested will not, to the best of the maintain, and retain the following greater than or equal to zero, except that manufacturer’s belief, cause the adequately organized and indexed the sum of positive and negative credits manufacturer to be in noncompliance records for each engine family: may be less than zero as allowed under under § 90.207(b) when all credits are (1) EPA engine family identification paragraph (c) of this section. calculated for the manufacturer’s engine code; (c) If, as a result of production line families. (2) Family Emission Limit (FEL) or testing as required in subpart H of this (2) Declare an FEL for each engine FELs where FEL changes have been part, an engine family is determined to implemented during the model year; family for HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX). The be in noncompliance pursuant to FEL must have the same number of (3) Maximum modal power for the § 90.710, the manufacturer may raise its significant digits as the emission certification test engine; (4) Projected production volume for FEL for past and future production as standard. necessary. Further, a manufacturer may (3) Indicate the projected number of the model year; and (5) Records appropriate to establish carry a negative credit balance (known credits generated/needed for this family; the quantities of engines that constitute also as a credit deficit) for the subject the projected applicable eligible annual eligible production as defined in § 90.3 class and model year and for the next production volume, and the values for each FEL. three model years. The credit deficit required to calculate credits as given in may be no larger than that created by (b) Any manufacturer producing an § 90.207. engine family participating in trading the nonconforming family. If the credit (4) Submit calculations in accordance reserved credits must maintain the deficit still exists after the model year with § 90.207 of projected emission following records on an annual basis for following the model year in which the credits (positive or negative) based on each such engine family: nonconformity occurred, the annual production projections for each manufacturer must obtain and apply (1) The engine family; family. (2) The actual applicable production credits to offset the remaining credit (5) (i) If the engine family is projected deficit at a rate of 1.2 grams for each volume; to have negative emission credits, state (3) The values required to calculate gram of deficit within the next two specifically the source (manufacturer/ credits as given in § 90.207; model years. The provisions of this engine family or reserved) of the credits (4) The resulting type and number of paragraph are subject to the limitations necessary to offset the credit deficit credits generated/required; in paragraph (d) of this section. according to projected annual (5) How and where credit surpluses (d) Regulations elsewhere in this part production. are dispersed; and notwithstanding, if an engine (ii) If the engine family is projected to (6) How and through what means manufacturer experiences two or more generate credits, state specifically credit deficits are met. production line testing failures pursuant (manufacturer/engine family or (c) The manufacturer must retain all to the regulations in subpart H of this reserved) where the projected annual records required to be maintained under part in a given model year, the credits will be applied. this section for a period of eight years manufacturer may raise the FEL of (iii) The manufacturer may supply the from the due date for the end-of-model previously produced engines only to the information required by this section in year report. Records may be retained as extent that such engines represent no the form of a spreadsheet detailing the hard copy or reduced to microfilm, ADP more than 10 percent of the manufacturer’s annual production plans diskettes, and so forth, depending on manufacturer’s total eligible production and the credits generated or consumed the manufacturer’s record retention for that model year, as determined on by each engine family. procedure; provided, that in every case the date when the FEL is adjusted. For (b) All certificates issued are all information contained in the hard any additional engine families conditional upon manufacturer copy is retained. determined to be in noncompliance, the compliance with the provisions of this (d) Nothing in this section limits the manufacturer must conduct offsetting subpart both during and after the model Administrator’s discretion in requiring projects approved in advance by the year of production. the manufacturer to retain additional Administrator. (c) Failure to comply with all records, or submit information not (e) If, as a result of production line provisions of this subpart will be specifically required by this section, if testing under this subpart, a considered to be a failure to satisfy the otherwise permitted by law. manufacturer desires to lower its FEL it conditions upon which the certificate (e) Pursuant to a request made by the may do so subject to § 90.708(c). was issued, and the certificate may be Administrator, the manufacturer must (f) Except as allowed at paragraph (c) determined to be void ab initio pursuant submit to the Administrator the of this section, when a manufacturer is to § 90.123. information that the manufacturer is not in compliance with the applicable (d) The manufacturer bears the required to retain. emission standard by the date 270 days burden of establishing to the satisfaction (f) EPA may, pursuant to § 90.123, after the end of the model year, of the Administrator that the conditions void ab initio a certificate of conformity

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.043 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 15243 for an engine family for which the specified time period (90 days after the be followed when determining the manufacturer fails to retain the records end of the model year) may not use the NMHC exhaust emissions from Phase 2 required in this section or to provide credits until such reports are received Class I, and Phase 2 Class II natural gas such information to the Administrator and reviewed by EPA. Use of projected fueled engines. Those sections are: 40 upon request. credits pending EPA review is not CFR 86.1306–90 Equipment required permitted in these circumstances. and specifications; overview, 40 CFR § 90.210 End-of-year and final reports. (f) Errors discovered by EPA or the 86.1309–90 Exhaust gas sampling (a) End-of-year and final reports must manufacturer in the end-of-year report, system; otto-cycle engines, 40 CFR indicate the engine family, the engine including errors in credit calculation, 86.1311–94 Exhaust gas analytical class, the actual production volume, the may be corrected in the final report. system; CVS bag sampling, 40 CFR values required to calculate credits as (g) If EPA or the manufacturer 86.1313–94(e) Fuel Specification— given in § 90.207, and the number of determines that a reporting error Natural gas-fuel, 40 CFR 86.1314–94 credits generated/required. occurred on an end-of-year or final Analytical gases, 40 CFR 86.1316–94 Manufacturers must also submit how report previously submitted to EPA Calibrations; frequency and overview, and where credit surpluses were under this section, the manufacturer’s 40 CFR 86.1321–94 Hydrocarbon dispersed (or are to be banked) and/or credits and credit calculations must be analyzer calibration, 40 CFR 86.1325–94 how and through what means credit recalculated. Erroneous positive credits Methane analyzer calibration, 40 CFR deficits were met. Copies of contracts will be void except as provided in 86.1327–94 Engine dynamometer test related to credit trading must be paragraph (h) of this section. Erroneous procedures, overview, 40 CFR 86.1340– included or supplied by the broker, if negative credit balances may be 94 Exhaust sample analysis, 40 CFR applicable. The report must include a adjusted by EPA. 86.1342–94 Calculations; exhaust calculation of credit balances to show (h) If EPA review determines a emissions, 40 CFR 86.1344–94(d) that the credit summation for all engines reporting error in the manufacturer’s Required information—Pre-test data, 40 is equal to or greater than zero (or less favor (that is, resulting in an increased CFR 86.1344–94(e) Required than zero in cases of negative credit credit balance) or if the manufacturer information—Test data. balances as permitted in § 90.207(c)). discovers such an error within 270 days For model year 2005 and later, the 19. Section 90.302 is revised to read of the end of the model year, EPA shall as follows: report must include a calculation of the restore the credits for use by the production weighted average HC+NOX manufacturer. § 90.302 Definitions. (including NMHC+NOX) FEL for Class II engine families to show compliance § 90.211 Request for hearing. The definitions in § 90.3 apply to this with the provisions of § 90.203(g)(2). An engine manufacturer may request subpart. The following definitions also (b) The calculation of eligible a hearing on the Administrator’s voiding apply to this subpart. production for end-of-year and final of the certificate under §§ 90.203(h), Intermediate speed means the engine reports must be based on engines 90.206(e), 90.207(f), 90.208(c), or speed which is 85 percent of the rated produced for the United States market, 90.209(f), pursuant to § 90.124. The speed. excluding engines which are subject to procedures of § 90.125 shall apply to Natural gas means a fuel whose state emission standards pursuant to a any such hearing. primary constituent is methane. waiver granted by EPA under section 209(e) of the Act. Upon advance written Subpart DÐEmission Test Equipment Rated speed means the speed at request, the Administrator will consider Provisions which the manufacturer specifies the other methods to track engines for credit maximum rated power of an engine. 18. Section 90.301 is amended by calculation purposes that provide high 20. Section 90.308 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding levels of confidence that eligible revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: production or sales are accurately paragraph (d) to read as follows: § 90.308 Lubricating oil and test fuels. counted. § 90.301 Applicability. (c)(1)End-of-year reports must be * * * * * submitted within 90 days of the end of (a) This subpart describes the equipment required in order to perform (c) Test fuels—service accumulation the model year to: Manager, Engine and aging. Unleaded gasoline Compliance Programs Group (6403–J), exhaust emission tests on new nonroad spark-ignition engines and vehicles representative of commercial gasoline U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, generally available through retail outlets Washington, DC 20460. subject to the provisions of subpart A of this part. Certain text in this subpart is must be used in service accumulation (2) Unless otherwise approved by the and aging for gasoline-fueled spark- Administrator, final reports must be identified as pertaining to Phase 1 or Phase 2 engines. Such text pertains only ignition engines. As an alternative, the submitted within 270 days of the end of certification test fuels specified under the model year to: Manager, Engine to engines of the specified Phase. If no indication of Phase is given, the text paragraph (b) of this section may be Compliance Programs Group (6403–J), used for engine service accumulation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, pertains to all engines, regardless of Phase. and aging. Leaded fuel may not be used Washington, DC 20460. during service accumulation or aging. (d) Failure by a manufacturer to * * * * * submit any end-of-year or final reports (d) For Phase 2 Class I, and Phase 2 21. Section 90.329 is amended by in the specified time for any engines Class II natural gas fueled engines, the adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: following sections from 40 CFR Part 86 subject to regulation under this part is § 90.329 Catalyst thermal stress test. a violation of § 90.1003(a)(2) and section are applicable to this subpart. The 213(d) of the Clean Air Act for each requirements of these sections which * * * * * engine. pertain specifically to the measurement (c) Phase 2 engines. The catalyst (e) A manufacturer generating credits and calculation of non-methane thermal stress test is not required for for banking only who fails to submit hydrocarbon (NMHC) exhaust emissions engine families certified to the Phase 2 end-of-year reports in the applicable from otto cycle heavy-duty engines must standards.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.044 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 15244 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

Subpart EÐGaseous Exhaust Test throttle control may be used that Subpart FÐSelective Enforcement Procedures interferes with the function of the Auditing engine’s governor; a controller may be 27. Section 90.503 is amended by 22. Section 90.401 is amended by used to adjust the governor setting for adding paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as revising paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(4) to the desired engine speed in Modes 2–5 follows: read as follows: or Modes 7–10; and during Mode 1 or § 90.401 Applicability. Mode 6 fixed throttle operation may be § 90.503 Test orders. * * * * * used to determine the 100 percent * * * * * (c) Certain text in this subpart is torque value. (f) * * * identified as pertaining to Phase 1 or * * * * * (3) Any SEA test order for which the Phase 2 engines. Such text pertains only family or configuration, as appropriate, 25. Section 90.410 is amended by to engines of the specified Phase. If no fails under § 90.510 or for which testing revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: indication of Phase is given, the text is not completed will not be counted pertains to all engines, regardless of § 90.410 Engine test cycle. against the annual limit. Phase. (4) When the annual limit has been * * * * * (d) For Phase 2 Class I, and Phase 2 met, the Administrator may issue Class II natural gas fueled engines, the (b) For Phase 1 engines and Phase 2 additional test orders to test those following sections from 40 CFR part 86 Class I and II engines not equipped with families or configurations for which are applicable to this subpart. The an engine speed governor, during each evidence exists indicating requirements of these sections which non-idle mode, hold both the specified nonconformity, or for which the pertain specifically to the measurement speed and load within ≤ five percent of Administrator has reason to believe are and calculation of non-methane point. During the idle mode, hold speed not being appropriately represented or hydrocarbon (NMHC) exhaust emissions within ≤ ten percent of the tested in Production Line Testing from otto cycle heavy-duty engines must manufacturer’s specified idle engine conducted under subpart H of this part, be followed when determining the speed. For Phase 2 Class I and II engines if applicable. An SEA test order issued pursuant to this provision will include NMHC exhaust emissions from Phase 2 equipped with an engine speed a statement as to the reason for its Class I, and Phase 2 Class II natural gas governor, during Mode 1 or Mode 6 issuance. fueled engines. Those sections are: 40 hold both the specified speed and load CFR 86.1327–94 Engine dynamometer 28. Section 90.509 is amended by within ≤ five percent of point, during revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: test procedures, overview, 40 CFR Modes 2–3, or Modes 7–8 hold the 86.1340–94 Exhaust sample analysis, 40 specified load with ≤ five percent of § 90.509 Calculation and reporting of test CFR 86.1342–94 Calculations; exhaust point, during Modes 4–5 or Modes 9–10, results. emissions, 40 CFR 86.1344–94(d) hold the specified load within the larger * * * * * Required information—Pre-test data, range provided by +/¥0.27Nm (+/¥0.2 (b)(1) Final test results are calculated and 40 CFR 86.1344–94(e) Required lb-ft), or +/¥ten (10) percent of point, by summing the initial test results information—Test data. and during the idle mode hold the derived in paragraph (a) of this section 23. Section 90.404 is amended by for each test engine, dividing by the adding a sentence after the first sentence specified speed within ≤ ten percent of the manufacturer’s specified idle engine number of tests conducted on the of paragraph (b) to read as follows: engine, and rounding to the same speed (see Table 1 in Appendix A to number of decimal places contained in § 90.404 Test procedure overview. subpart E of this part for a description the applicable standard. For Phase 2 of test Modes). The use of alternative * * * * * engines only, this result shall be (b) * * * For Phase 2 Class I and Phase test procedures is allowed if approved expressed to one additional significant 2 Class II natural gas fueled engines the in advance by the Administrator. figure. test is also designed to determine the * * * * * (2) Final deteriorated test results (for brake-specific emissions of non- Phase 2 test engines only) are calculated methane hydrocarbons. * * * 26. Section 90.427 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: by applying the appropriate * * * * * deterioration factors, from the 24. Section 90.409 is amended by § 90.427 Catalyst thermal stress resistance certification process for the engine revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as evaluation. family, to the final test results, and follows: rounding to the same number of decimal (a) The purpose of the evaluation places contained in the applicable § 90.409 Engine dynamometer test run. procedure specified in this section is to standard. (a) * * * determine the effect of thermal stress on (3) For Phase 1 engines, at the catalyst conversion efficiency for Phase * * * * * 29. Section 90.510 is amended by manufacturer’s option, the engine can 1 engines. The thermal stress is imposed revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: be run with the throttle in a fixed on the test catalyst by exposing it to position or by using the engine’s quiescent heated air in an oven. The § 90.510 Compliance with acceptable governor (if the engine is manufactured evaluation of the effect of such stress on quality level and passing and failing criteria with a governor). In either case, the catalyst performance is based on the for selective enforcement audits. engine speed and load must meet the resultant degradation of the efficiency * * * * * requirements specified in paragraph with which the conversions of specific (b) For Phase I engines, a failed engine (b)(12) of this section. For Phase 2 Class pollutants are promoted. The is an engine whose final test results I and Phase 2 Class II engines equipped application of this evaluation procedure pursuant to § 90.509(b), for one or more with an engine speed governor, the involves the several steps that are of the applicable pollutants exceed the governor must be used to control engine described in the following paragraphs. emission standard. For Phase 2 engines, speed during all test cycle modes except a failed engine is an engine whose final for Mode 1 or Mode 6, and no external * * * * * deteriorated test results pursuant to

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.045 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 15245

§ 90.509(b), for one or more of the 90.711 Suspension and revocation of unless otherwise specified by the applicable pollutants exceed the certificates of conformity. Administrator. The Administrator may emission standard (FEL, if applicable). 90.712 Request for public hearing. specify values within or without the 90.713 Administrative procedures for range recommended to the ultimate * * * * * public hearing. 30. Section 90.512 is amended by purchaser. revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: Subpart HÐManufacturer Production § 90.704 Maintenance of records; § 90.512 Request for public hearing. Line Testing Program submission of information. * * * * * § 90.701 Applicability. (a) The manufacturer of any new (b)The manufacturer’s request shall be (a) The requirements of this subpart small SI engine subject to any of the filed with the Administrator not later are applicable to all Phase 2 nonroad provisions of this subpart must than 15 days after the Administrator’s nonhandheld engines families subject to establish, maintain, and retain the notification of his or her decision to the provisions of subpart A of this part following adequately organized and suspend, revoke or void, unless unless otherwise exempted in this indexed records: otherwise specified by the subpart. (1) General records. A description of Administrator. The manufacturer shall (b) The procedures described in this all equipment used to test engines in simultaneously serve two copies of this subpart are optional for small volume accordance with § 90.703. Subpart D of request upon the Director of the Engine engine manufacturers and small volume this part sets forth relevant equipment Programs and Compliance Division and engine families as defined in this part. requirements in §§ 90.304, 90.305, file two copies with the Hearing Clerk Small volume engine manufacturers and 90.306, 90.307, 90.308, 90.309, 90.310 of the Agency. Failure of the small volume engine families for which and 90.313. manufacturer to request a hearing the manufacturer opts not to conduct (2) Individual records. These records within the time provided constitutes a testing under this subpart pursuant to pertain to each production line test waiver of the right to a hearing. this paragraph shall remain subject to conducted pursuant to this subpart and Subsequent to the expiration of the the Selective Enforcement Auditing include: period for requesting a hearing as of procedures of subpart F of this part. (i) The date, time, and location of right, the Administrator may, in his or (c) Engine families for which the each test; her discretion and for good cause manufacturer opts to conduct in-use (ii) The number of hours of service shown, grant the manufacturer a hearing testing pursuant to subpart M of this accumulated on the test engine when to contest the suspension, revocation or part are exempt from this subpart, but the test began and ended; voiding. shall remain subject to the Selective (iii) The names of all supervisory * * * * * Enforcement Auditing procedures of personnel involved in the conduct of subpart F of this part. the production line test; Subpart GÐImportation of (iv) A record and description of any Nonconforming Engines § 90.702 Definitions. adjustment, repair, preparation or 31. Section 90.612 is amended by The definitions in subpart A of this modification performed prior to and/or revising paragraph (g) to read as follows: part apply to this subpart. The following subsequent to approval by the definitions also apply to this subpart. Administrator pursuant to § 90.612 Exemptions and exclusions. Configuration means any § 90.707(b)(1), giving the date, * * * * * subclassification of an engine family associated time, justification, name(s) of (g) Applications for exemptions and which can be described on the basis of the authorizing personnel, and names of exclusions provided for in paragraphs gross power, emission control system, all supervisory personnel responsible (b), (c), and (e) of this section are to be governed speed, injector size, engine for the conduct of the repair; mailed to: U.S. Environmental calibration, and other parameters as (v) If applicable, the date the engine Protection Agency, Office of Mobile designated by the Administrator. was shipped from the assembly plant, Sources, Engine Compliance Programs Test sample means the collection of associated storage facility or port Group (6403–J), Washington, D.C. engines selected from the population of facility, and the date the engine was 20460, Attention: Imports. an engine family for emission testing. received at the testing facility; 32. Subpart H, which was previously ‘‘reserved’’, is added to part 90 to read § 90.703 Production line testing by the (vi) A complete record of all emission manufacturer. as follows: tests performed pursuant to this subpart (a) Manufacturers of small SI engines (except tests performed directly by Subpart HÐManufacturer Production shall test production line engines from EPA), including all individual Line Testing Program each engine family according to the worksheets and/or other documentation provisions of this subpart. relating to each test, or exact copies Sec. (b) Production line engines must be thereof, in accordance with the record 90.701 Applicability. tested using the test procedure specified requirements specified in §§ 90.405 and 90.702 Definitions. 90.703 Production line testing by the in subpart E of this part except that the 90.406; and manufacturer. Administrator may approve minor (vii) A brief description of any 90.704 Maintenance of records; submission variations that the Administrator deems significant events during testing not of information. necessary to facilitate efficient and otherwise described under paragraph 90.705 Right of entry and access. economical testing where the (a)(2) of this section, commencing with 90.706 Engine sample selection. manufacturer demonstrates to the the test engine selection process and 90.707 Test procedures. satisfaction of the Administrator that including such extraordinary events as 90.708 Cumulative Sum (CumSum) such variations will not significantly engine damage during shipment. Procedure. 90.709 Calculation and reporting of test impact the test results. Any adjustable (3) The manufacturer must establish, results. engine parameter must be set to values maintain and retain general records, 90.710 Compliance with criteria for or positions that are within the range pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this production line testing. recommended to the ultimate purchaser, section, for each test cell that can be

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.047 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 15246 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations used to perform emission testing under (3) Any facility where any test engine accompanied, represented, and advised this subpart. is present; and by counsel. (b) The manufacturer must retain all (4) Any facility where any record (d) EPA enforcement officers are records required to be maintained under required under § 90.704 or other authorized to seek a warrant or court this subpart for a period of one year document relating to this subpart or any order authorizing the EPA enforcement after completion of all testing required other subpart of this part is located. officers to conduct the activities for the engine family in a model year. (b) Upon admission to any facility authorized in this section, as Records may be retained as hard copy referred to in paragraph (a) of this appropriate, to execute the functions (i.e., on paper) or reduced to microfilm, section, EPA enforcement officers are specified in this section. EPA floppy disk, or some other method of authorized to perform the following enforcement officers may proceed ex data storage, depending upon the inspection-related activities: parte to obtain a warrant or court order manufacturer’s record retention (1) To inspect and monitor any aspect whether or not the EPA enforcement procedure; provided, that in every case, of engine manufacture, assembly, officers first attempted to seek all the information contained in the storage, testing and other procedures, permission from the manufacturer or the hard copy is retained. and to inspect and monitor the facilities party in charge of the facility(ies) in (c) The manufacturer must, upon in which these procedures are question to conduct the activities request by the Administrator, submit the conducted; authorized in this section. following information with regard to (2) To inspect and monitor any aspect (e) A manufacturer must permit an engine production: of engine test procedures or activities, EPA enforcement officer(s) who (1) Projected production or actual including test engine selection, presents a warrant or court order to production for each engine preparation and service accumulation, conduct the activities authorized in this configuration within each engine family emission test cycles, and maintenance section as described in the warrant or for which certification has been and verification of test equipment court order. The manufacturer must also requested and/or approved; calibration; cause those in charge of its facility or a (2) Number of engines, by (3) To inspect and make copies of any facility operated for its benefit to permit configuration and assembly plant, records or documents related to the entry and access as authorized in this scheduled for production or actually assembly, storage, selection, and testing section pursuant to a warrant or court produced. of an engine; and order whether or not the manufacturer (d) Nothing in this section limits the (4) To inspect and photograph any controls the facility. In the absence of a Administrator’s discretion to require a part or aspect of any engine and any warrant or court order, an EPA manufacturer to establish, maintain, component used in the assembly thereof enforcement officer(s) may conduct the retain or submit to EPA information not that is reasonably related to the purpose activities authorized in this section only specified by this section and otherwise of the entry. upon the consent of the manufacturer or permitted by law. (c) EPA enforcement officers are the party in charge of the facility(ies) in (e) All reports, submissions, authorized to obtain reasonable question. notifications, and requests for approval assistance without cost from those in (f) It is not a violation of this part or made under this subpart must be charge of a facility to help the officers the Clean Air Act for any person to addressed to: Manager, Engine perform any function listed in this refuse to permit an EPA enforcement Compliance Programs Group (6403J), subpart and they are authorized to officer(s) to conduct the activities U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, request the manufacturer to make authorized in this section if the Washington, DC 20460. arrangements with those in charge of a officer(s) appears without a warrant or (f) The manufacturer must facility operated for the manufacturer’s court order. electronically submit the results of its benefit to furnish reasonable assistance (g) A manufacturer is responsible for production line testing using EPA’s without cost to EPA. locating its foreign testing and standardized format. The Administrator (1) Reasonable assistance includes, manufacturing facilities in jurisdictions may exempt manufacturers from this but is not limited to, clerical, copying, where local law does not prohibit an requirement upon written request with interpretation and translation services; EPA enforcement officer(s) from supporting justification. the making available on an EPA conducting the entry and access enforcement officer’s request of activities specified in this section. EPA § 90.705 Right of entry and access. personnel of the facility being inspected will not attempt to make any (a) To allow the Administrator to during their working hours to inform inspections which it has been informed determine whether a manufacturer is the EPA enforcement officer of how the local foreign law prohibits. complying with the provisions of this facility operates and to answer the subpart or other subparts of this part, officer’s questions; and the performance § 90.706 Engine sample selection. one or more EPA enforcement officers on request of emission tests on any (a) At the start of each model year, the may enter during operating hours and engine which is being, has been, or will small SI engine manufacturer will begin upon presentation of credentials any of be used for production line or other to randomly select engines from each the following places: testing. engine family for production line testing (1) Any facility, including ports of (2) By written request, signed by the at a rate of one percent of the projected entry, where any engine to be Assistant Administrator for Air and production of that family. Each engine introduced into commerce or any Radiation, and served on the will be selected from the end of the emission-related component is manufacturer, a manufacturer may be assembly line. manufactured, assembled, or stored; compelled to cause the personal (1) For newly certified engine families: (2) Any facility where any test appearance of any employee at such a After two engines are tested, the conducted pursuant to this or any other facility before an EPA enforcement manufacturer will calculate the required subpart or any procedure or activity officer. Any such employee who has sample size for the model year for each connected with such test is or was been instructed by the manufacturer to pollutant (HC+NOX(NMHC+NOX) and performed; appear will be entitled to be CO) according to the Sample Size

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.049 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 15247

Equation in paragraph (b) of this N is recalculated for each pollutant after σ = actual test sample standard section. each test. Test results used to calculate deviation calculated from the (2) For carry-over engine families: the variables in the following Sample following equation: After one engine is tested, the Size Equation must be final deteriorated manufacturer will combine the test with test results as specified in § 90.709(c). 2 the last test result from the previous ∑()X− x model year and then calculate the  ∗σ 2  i ()t 95 σ = required sample size for the model year N =   +1 ()− − for each pollutant according to the  x FEL  n 1 Sample Size Equation in paragraph (b) xi = emission test result for an of this section. Where: individual engine. (b)(1) Manufacturers will calculate the N = required sample size for the model x = mean of emission test results of the required sample size for the model year year. actual sample. for each pollutant for each engine family FEL = Family Emission Limit or using the Sample Size Equation in this t95 = 95% confidence coefficient. It is standard if no FEL. paragraph. N is calculated for each dependent on the actual number of n = The actual number of tests pollutant from each test result. The tests completed, n, as specified in completed in an engine family. higher of the two values for the number the table in paragraph (b)(2) of this (2) The following table specifies the N indicates the number of tests required section. It defines one-tail, 95% Actual Number of Tests (n) & 1-tail for the model year for an engine family. confidence intervals. Confidence Coefficients (t95):

n t95 n t95 n t95

2 ...... 6.31 12 1.80 22 1.72 3 ...... 2.92 13 1.78 23 1.72 4 ...... 2.35 14 1.77 24 1.71 5 ...... 2.13 15 1.76 25 1.71 6 ...... 2.02 16 1.75 26 1.71 7 ...... 1.94 17 1.75 27 1.71 8 ...... 1.90 18 1.74 28 1.70 9 ...... 1.86 19 1.73 29 1.70 10 ...... 1.83 20 1.73 30 1.70 11 ...... 1.81 21 1.72 ∞ 1.645

(3) A manufacturer must distribute engine family at the appropriate any test engine or any portion thereof, the testing of the remaining number of maximum sampling rate. including parts and subassemblies, that engines needed to meet the required (8) The maximum required sample have not been or will not be used during sample size N, evenly throughout the size for an engine family (regardless of the production and assembly of all other remainder of the model year. the required sample size, N, as engines of that family, unless the (4) After each new test, the required calculated in paragraph (b)(1) of this Administrator approves the sample size, N, is recalculated using section) is the lesser of thirty tests per modification in production or assembly updated sample means, sample standard model year or one percent of projected procedures in advance. annual production for that engine deviations and the appropriate 95% § 90.707 Test procedures. confidence coefficient. family for that model year. (9) Manufacturers may elect to test (a)(1) For small SI engines subject to (5) A manufacturer must continue additional engines. Additional engines, the provisions of this subpart, the testing and updating each engine whether tested in accordance with the prescribed test procedures are specified family’s sample size calculations testing procedures specified in § 90.707 in subpart E of this part. according to paragraphs (b)(1) through or not, may not be included in the (2) The Administrator may, on the (b)(4) of this section until a decision is Sample Size and Cumulative Sum basis of a written application by a made to stop testing as described in equation calculations as defined in manufacturer, prescribe test procedures paragraph (b)(6) of this section or a paragraph (b)(1) of this section and other than those specified in paragraph noncompliance decision is made § 90.708(a), respectively. However, such (a)(1) of this section for any small SI pursuant to § 90.710(b). additional test results may be used as engine the Administrator determines is (6) If, at any time throughout the appropriate to ‘‘bracket’’ or define the not susceptible to satisfactory testing model year, the calculated required boundaries of the production duration using procedures specified in paragraph sample size, N, for an engine family is of any emission nonconformity (a)(1) of this section. less than or equal to the actual sample determined under this subpart. Such (b)(1) The manufacturer may not size, n, and the sample mean, x, for HC additional test data must be identified adjust, repair, prepare, or modify any + NOX (NMHC+NOX) and CO is less and provided to EPA with the submittal test engine and may not perform any than or equal to the FEL or standard if of the official CumSum results. emission test on any test engine unless no FEL, the manufacturer may stop (c) The manufacturer must produce this adjustment, repair, preparation, testing that engine family. and assemble the test engines using its modification and/or test is documented (7) If, at any time throughout the normal production and assembly in the manufacturer’s engine assembly model year, the sample mean, x, for HC process for engines to be distributed and inspection procedures and is + NOX (NMHC+NOX) or CO is greater into commerce. actually performed by the manufacturer than the FEL or standard if no FEL, the (d) No quality control, testing, or on every production line engine or manufacturer must continue testing that assembly procedures shall be used on unless this adjustment, repair,

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.050 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 15248 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations preparation, modification and/or test is because of shipment, the engine defined in § 90.709(c). The CumSum required or permitted under this subpart manufacturer must perform the Equation is constructed as follows: or is approved in advance by the necessary adjustment or repair only Ci=max[0 0R (Ci-1+Xi¥(FEL+F))] Administrator. after the initial test of the engine, except Where: (2) The Administrator may adjust or in cases where the Administrator has cause to be adjusted any engine determined that the test would be Ci=The current CumSum statistic. parameter which the Administrator has impossible or unsafe to perform or Ci-1=The previous CumSum statistic. determined to be subject to adjustment would permanently damage the engine. Prior to any testing, the CumSum for certification, Production Line Engine manufacturers must report to the statistic=0 (i.e. C0=0). Testing and Selective Enforcement Administrator, in the quarterly report Xi=The current emission test result for Audit testing, to any setting within the required by § 90.709(e), all adjustments an individual engine. physically adjustable range of that or repairs performed on test engines FEL=Family Emission Limit (the standard if no FEL). parameter, as determined by the prior to each test. ×σ. Administrator, prior to the performance (f) If an engine cannot complete the F=.25 of any test. However, if the idle speed service accumulation or an emission test (2) After each test pursuant to parameter is one which the because of a malfunction, the paragraph (a)(1) of this section, Ci is Administrator has determined to be manufacturer may request that the compared to the action limit, H, the subject to adjustment, the Administrator Administrator authorize either the quantity which the CumSum statistic may not adjust it or require that it be repair of that engine or its deletion from must exceed, in two consecutive tests, adjusted to any setting which causes a the test sequence. before the engine family may be lower engine idle speed than would (g) Testing. A manufacturer must test determined to be in noncompliance for have been possible within the engines with the test procedure a regulated pollutant for purposes of physically adjustable range of the idle specified in subpart E of this part to § 90.710. speed parameter if the manufacturer had demonstrate compliance with the Where: accumulated 12 hours of service on the applicable FEL (or standard where there H=The Action Limit. It is 5.0×σ, and is engine under paragraph (c) of this is no FEL). If alternate or special test a function of the standard section, all other parameters being procedures pursuant to regulations at deviation, σ. identically adjusted for the purpose of § 90.120 are used in certification, then σ=is the sample standard deviation and the comparison. The manufacturer may those alternate procedures must be used is recalculated after each test. be requested to supply information in production line testing. (b) After each engine is tested, the necessary to establish an alternate (h) Retesting. (1) If an engine CumSum statistic shall be promptly minimum idle speed. The manufacturer reasonably determines updated according to the CumSum Administrator, in making or specifying that an emission test of an engine is Equation in paragraph (a) of this section. these adjustments, may consider the invalid because of a procedural error, (c)(1) If, at any time during the model effect of the deviation from the test equipment problem, or engine year, a manufacturer amends the manufacturer’s recommended setting on performance problem that causes the application for certification for an emission performance characteristics as engine to be unable to safely perform a engine family as specified in § 90.122(a) well as the likelihood that similar valid test, the engine may be retested. A by performing an engine family settings will occur on in-use engines. In test is not invalid simply because the modification (i.e. a change such as a determining likelihood, the emission results are high relative to running change involving a physical Administrator may consider factors other engines of the family. Emission modification to an engine, a change in such as, but not limited to, the effect of results from all tests must be reported to specification or setting, the addition of the adjustment on engine performance EPA. The engine manufacturer must a new configuration, or the use of a characteristics and information from also include a detailed explanation of different deterioration factor) with no similar in-use engines. the reasons for invalidating any test in changes to the FEL (where applicable), (c) Service accumulation. (1) Unless the quarterly report required in all previous sample size and CumSum otherwise approved by the § 90.709(e). If a test is invalidated statistic calculations for the model year Administrator, prior to performing because of an engine performance will remain unchanged. exhaust emission production line problem, the manufacturer must (2) If, at any time during the model testing, the manufacturer may document in detail the nature of the year, a manufacturer amends the accumulate up to 12 hours of service on problem and the repairs performed in application for certification for an each test engine. For catalyst-equipped order to use the after-repair test results engine family as specified in § 90.122 (a) engines, the manufacturer must for the original test results. accumulate a number of hours equal to (2) Routine retests may be conducted by modifying its FEL (where applicable) the number of hours accumulated to if the manufacturer conducts the same for future production, as a result of an represent stabilized emissions on the number of tests on all engines in the engine family modification, the engine used to obtain certification. family. The results of these tests must be manufacturer must continue its (2) Service accumulation must be averaged according to procedures of calculations by inserting the new FEL performed in a manner using good § 90.709. into the sample size equation as engineering judgment to obtain specified in § 90.706(b)(1) and into the emission results representative of § 90.708 Cumulative Sum (CumSum) CumSum equation in paragraph (a) of production line engines. procedure. this section. All previous calculations (d) Unless otherwise approved by the (a) (1) Manufacturers must construct remain unchanged. If the sample size Administrator, the manufacturer may separate CumSum Equations for each calculation indicates that additional not perform any maintenance on test regulated pollutant (HC+NOX tests are required, then those tests must engines after selection for testing. (NMHC+NOX) and CO) for each engine be performed. CumSum statistic (e) If an engine is shipped to a remote family. Test results used to calculate the calculations must not indicate that the facility for production line testing, and variables in the CumSum Equations family has exceeded the action limit for an adjustment or repair is necessary must be final deteriorated test results as two consecutive tests. Where applicable,

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.052 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 15249 the manufacturer’s final credit report as of such exceedance by the CumSum This production line testing program was required by § 90.210 must break out the statistic. conducted in complete conformance with all credits that result from each FEL and (e) Within 45 calendar days of the end applicable regulations under 40 CFR Part 90. corresponding CumSum analysis for the of each quarter, each engine No emission-related changes to production processes or quality control procedures for set of engines built to each FEL. manufacturer must submit to the the engine family tested have been made (3) If, at any time during the model Administrator a report which includes during this production line testing program year, a manufacturer amends the the following information: that affect engines from the production line. application for certification for an (1) The location and description of the All data and information reported herein is, engine family as specified in § 90.122 (a) manufacturer’s or other’s exhaust to the best of (Company Name) knowledge, (or for an affected part of the year’s emission test facilities which were true and accurate. I am aware of the penalties production in cases where there were utilized to conduct testing reported associated with violations of the Clean Air one or more mid-year engine family pursuant to this section; Act and the regulations thereunder. (Authorized Company Representative.) modifications), by modifying its FEL (2) Total production and sample sizes, (where applicable) for past and/or future N and n, for each engine family; § 90.710 Compliance with criteria for production, without performing an (3) The FEL (standard, if no FEL) production line testing. engine modification, all previous against which each engine family was (a) A failed engine is one whose final sample size and CumSum statistic tested; deteriorated test results pursuant to (4) A description of the process to calculations for the model year must be § 90.709(c), for HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX) recalculated using the new FEL. If the obtain engines on a random basis; or CO exceeds the applicable Family (5) A description of the test engines; sample size calculation indicates that (6) For each test conducted: Emission Limit (FEL) or standard if no additional tests are required, then those (i) A description of the test engine, FEL. tests must be performed. The CumSum including: (b) An engine family shall be statistic recalculation must not indicate (A) Configuration and engine family determined to be in noncompliance, if that the family has exceeded the action identification; at any time throughout the model year, limit for two consecutive tests. Where (B) Year, make, and build date; the CumSum statistic, Ci, for HC+NOX applicable, the manufacturer’s final (C) Engine identification number; and (NMHC+NOX) or CO, is greater than the credit report as required by § 90.210 (D) Number of hours of service action limit, H, for that pollutant, for must break out the credits that result accumulated on engine prior to testing; two consecutive tests. from each FEL and corresponding (ii) Location where service § 90.711 Suspension and revocation of CumSum analysis for the set of engines accumulation was conducted and certificates of conformity. built to each FEL. description of accumulation procedure and schedule; (a) The certificate of conformity is § 90.709 Calculation and reporting of test (iii) Test number, date, test procedure suspended with respect to any engine results. used, initial test results before and after failing pursuant to § 90.710(a) effective (a) Initial test results are calculated rounding, final test results before and from the time that testing of that engine following the applicable test procedure after rounding and final deteriorated test is completed. specified in § 90.707 (a). The results for all exhaust emission tests, (b) The Administrator may suspend manufacturer rounds these results to the whether valid or invalid, and the reason the certificate of conformity for an number of decimal places contained in for invalidation, if applicable; engine family which is determined to be the applicable emission standard (iv) A complete description of any in noncompliance pursuant to expressed to one additional significant adjustment, modification, repair, § 90.710(b). This suspension will not figure. preparation, maintenance, and/or occur before thirty days after the engine (b) Final test results are calculated by testing which was performed on the test family is determined to be in summing the initial test results derived engine, was not reported pursuant to noncompliance and the Administrator in paragraph (a) of this section for each any other paragraph of this subpart, and has notified the manufacturer of its test engine, dividing by the number of will not be performed on all other intent to suspend. During this thirty day tests conducted on the engine, and production engines; period the Administrator will work with rounding to the same number of decimal (v) A CumSum analysis, as required the manufacturer to achieve appropriate places contained in the applicable in § 90.708, of the production line test production line changes to avoid the standard expressed to one additional results for each engine family; and need to halt engine production, if significant figure. (vi) Any other information the possible. The Administrator will (c) The final deteriorated test results Administrator may request relevant to approve or disapprove any such for each test engine are calculated by the determination whether the new production line changes proposed to applying the appropriate deterioration engines being manufactured by the address a family that has been factors, derived in the certification manufacturer do in fact conform with determined to be in noncompliance process for the engine to the final test the regulations with respect to which under this subpart within 15 days of results, and rounding to the same the certificate of conformity was issued; receipt. If the Administrator does not number of decimal places contained in (7) For each failed engine as defined approve or disapprove such a proposed the applicable standard. in § 90.710(a), a description of the change within such time period, the (d) If, at any time during the model remedy and test results for all retests as proposed change shall be considered year, the CumSum statistic exceeds the required by § 90.711(g); approved. applicable action limit, H, in two (8) The date of the end of the engine (c) If the results of testing pursuant to consecutive tests for any regulated manufacturer’s model year production the regulations in this subpart indicate pollutant, (HC+NOX (NMHC+NOX) or for each engine family; and that engines of a particular family CO) the engine family may be (9) The following signed statement produced at one plant of a manufacturer determined to be in noncompliance and and endorsement by an authorized do not conform to the regulations in this the manufacturer must notify EPA by representative of the manufacturer: part with respect to which the certificate contacting its official EPA certification This report is submitted pursuant to of conformity was issued, the representative within ten working days Sections 213 and 208 of the Clean Air Act. Administrator may suspend the

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.053 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 15250 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations certificate of conformity with respect to completion of testing on the failed many engines as needed from the that family for engines manufactured by engine, which contains a description of modified engine family so that the the manufacturer at all other plants. the remedy and test results for each CumSum statistic, as calculated in (d) Notwithstanding the fact that engine in addition to other information § 90.708(a) using the newly assigned engines described in the application for that may be required by this part. FEL if applicable, falls below the action certification may be covered by a (h) Once a certificate for a failed limit; and certificate of conformity, the engine family has been suspended (3) When the requirements of Administrator may suspend such pursuant to paragraph (b) or (c) of this paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this certificate immediately in whole or in section, the manufacturer must take the section are met, the Administrator shall part if the Administrator finds any one following actions before the reissue the certificate or issue a new of the following infractions to be Administrator will consider reinstating certificate, as the case may be, to substantial: the certificate: include that family. As long as the (1) The manufacturer refuses to (1) Submit a written report to the CumSum statistic remains above the comply with any of the requirements of Administrator which identifies the action limit, the revocation remains in this subpart. reason for the noncompliance of the effect. (2) The manufacturer submits false or engines, describes the proposed remedy, (j) At any time subsequent to a incomplete information in any report or including a description of any proposed suspension of a certificate of conformity information provided to the quality control and/or quality assurance for a test engine pursuant to paragraph Administrator under this subpart. measures to be taken by the (a) of this section, but not later than 15 (3) The manufacturer renders manufacturer to prevent future days (or such other period as may be inaccurate any test data submitted occurrences of the problem, and states allowed by the Administrator) after under this subpart. the date on which the remedies will be notification of the Administrator’s (4) An EPA enforcement officer is implemented; and decision to suspend or revoke a denied the opportunity to conduct (2) Demonstrate that the engine family certificate of conformity in whole or in activities authorized in this subpart and for which the certificate of conformity part pursuant to paragraph (b), (c), or (f) a warrant or court order is presented to has been suspended does in fact comply of this section, a manufacturer may the manufacturer or the party in charge with the regulations of this part by request a hearing as to whether the tests of the facility in question. testing as many engines as needed so have been properly conducted or any (5) An EPA enforcement officer is that the CumSum statistic, as calculated sampling methods have been properly unable to conduct activities authorized in § 90.708(a), falls below the action applied. in § 90.705 because a manufacturer has limit. Such testing must comply with (k) Any suspension of a certificate of located its facility in a foreign the provisions of this part. If the conformity under paragraph (d) of this jurisdiction where local law prohibits manufacturer elects to continue testing section shall: those activities. individual engines after suspension of a (1) Be made only after the (e) The Administrator shall notify the certificate, the certificate is reinstated manufacturer concerned has been manufacturer in writing of any for any engine actually determined to be offered an opportunity for a hearing suspension or revocation of a certificate in conformance with the Family conducted in accordance with §§ 90.712 of conformity in whole or in part, except Emission Limits (or standards if no FEL) and 90.713; and that the certificate is immediately through testing in accordance with the (2) Not apply to engines no longer in suspended with respect to any failed applicable test procedures, provided the possession of the manufacturer. engines as provided for in paragraph (a) that the Administrator has not revoked (l) After the Administrator suspends of this section. the certificate pursuant to paragraph (f) or revokes a certificate of conformity (f) The Administrator may revoke a of this section. pursuant to this section and prior to the certificate of conformity for an engine (i) Once the certificate has been commencement of a hearing under family after the certificate has been revoked for an engine family, if the § 90.712, if the manufacturer suspended pursuant to paragraph (b) or manufacturer desires to continue demonstrates to the Administrator’s (c) of this section if the proposed introduction into commerce of a satisfaction that the decision to suspend remedy for the nonconformity, as modified version of that family, the or revoke the certificate was based on reported by the manufacturer to the following actions must be taken before erroneous information, the Administrator, is one requiring a design the Administrator may issue a certificate Administrator shall reinstate the change or changes to the engine and/or for that modified family: certificate. emission control system as described in (1) If the Administrator determines (m) To permit a manufacturer to avoid the application for certification of the that the proposed change(s) in engine storing non-test engines while affected engine family. design may have an effect on emission conducting subsequent testing of the (g) Once a certificate has been performance deterioration, the noncomplying family, a manufacturer suspended for a failed engine, as Administrator shall notify the may request that the Administrator provided for in paragraph (a) of this manufacturer within five working days conditionally reinstate the certificate for section, the manufacturer must take the after receipt of the report in paragraph that family. The Administrator may following actions before the certificate is (h)(1) of this section whether reinstate the certificate subject to the reinstated for that failed engine: subsequent testing under this subpart following condition: the manufacturer (1) Remedy the nonconformity; will be sufficient to evaluate the must commit to performing offsetting (2) Demonstrate that the engine proposed change or changes or whether measures that remedy the conforms to the applicable standards additional testing will be required; nonconformity at no expense to the (FELs, where applicable) by retesting (2) After implementing the change or owners, and which are approved in the engine in accordance with these changes intended to remedy the advance by the Administrator for all regulations; and nonconformity, the manufacturer must engines of that family produced from (3) Submit a written report to the demonstrate that the modified engine the time the certificate is conditionally Administrator, described in family does in fact conform with the reinstated if the CumSum statistic does § 90.709(e)(7), after successful regulations of this part by testing as not fall below the action limit.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.054 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 15251

§ 90.712 Request for public hearing. § 90.713 Administrative procedures for 36. Section 90.803 is amended by (a) If the manufacturer disagrees with public hearing. revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: the Administrator’s decision to suspend The administrative procedures for a public hearing requested under this § 90.803 Emission defect information or revoke a certificate or disputes the report. basis for an automatic suspension subpart shall be those procedures set pursuant to § 90.711(a), the forth in the regulations found at * * * * * (c) The manufacturer must submit manufacturer may request a public §§ 90.513 through 90.516. References in defect information reports to EPA’s hearing. § 90.513 to § 90.511(j), § 90.512(c)(2), Engine Compliance Programs Group not (b) The manufacturer’s request shall § 90.511(e), § 90.512, § 90.511(d), more than 15 working days after an be filed with the Administrator not later § 90.503, § 90.512(c) and § 90.512(b) emission-related defect is found to affect than 15 days after the Administrator’s shall be deemed to mean § 90.711(j), 25 or more engines manufactured in the notification of his or her decision to § 90.712(c)(2), § 90.711(e), § 90.712, same certificate or model year. suspend or revoke, unless otherwise § 90.711(d), § 90.703, and § 90.712(c) Information required by paragraph (d) of specified by the Administrator. The and § 90.712(b), respectively. References this section that is either not available manufacturer shall simultaneously serve to ‘‘test orders’’ in § 90.513 are not within 15 working days or is two copies of this request upon the applicable. significantly revised must be submitted Manager of the Engine Compliance 33. Subpart I is amended by revising to EPA’s Engine Compliance Programs Programs Group and file two copies the subpart heading to read as follows: Group as it becomes available. with the Hearing Clerk for the Agency. Failure of the manufacturer to request a Subpart IÐEmission-related Defect * * * * * hearing within the time provided Reporting Requirements, Voluntary 37. Section 90.805 is amended by constitutes a waiver of the right to a Emission Recall Program, Ordered revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: Recalls hearing. Subsequent to the expiration of § 90.805 Reports, voluntary recall plan the period for requesting a hearing as of 34. Section 90.801 is amended by filing, record retention. right, the Administrator may, in his or designating the existing text as (a) Send the defect report, voluntary her discretion and for good cause paragraph (a) and adding paragraphs (b), recall plan, and the voluntary recall shown, grant the manufacturer a hearing (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) to read as follows: progress report to: Group Manager, to contest the suspension or revocation. Engine Compliance Programs Group, § 90.801 Applicability. (c) A manufacturer shall include in (6403–J), Environmental Protection the request for a public hearing: * * * * * Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460. (1) A statement as to which engine (b) Phase 2 engines subject to * * * * * configuration(s) within a family is to be provisions of subpart B of this part are 38. A new § 90.808 is added to the subject of the hearing; and subject to recall regulations specified in subpart I read as follows (2) A concise statement of the issues 40 CFR part 85, subpart S, except as to be raised by the manufacturer at the otherwise provided in this section. § 90.808 Ordered recall provisions. hearing, except that in the case of the (c) Reference to section 214 of the (a) Effective with respect to Phase 2 hearing requested under § 90.711(j), the Clean Air Act in 40 CFR 85.1801(a) is small SI engines: hearing is restricted to the following deemed to mean section 216 of the (1) If the Administrator determines issues: Clean Air Act. that a substantial number of any class or (i) Whether tests have been properly (d) Reference to section 202 of the Act category of engines, although properly conducted (specifically, whether the in 40 CFR 85.1802(a) is deemed to mean maintained and used, do not conform to tests were conducted in accordance section 213 of the Act. the regulations prescribed under section with applicable regulations under this (e) Reference to ‘‘family particulate 213 of the Act when in actual use part and whether test equipment was emission limits’’ as defined in part 86 throughout their useful life (as defined properly calibrated and functioning); promulgated under section 202 of the under § 90.105), the Administrator shall (ii) Whether sampling plans and Act’’ in 40 CFR 85.1803(a) and immediately notify the manufacturer of statistical analyses have been properly 85.1805(a)(1) is deemed to mean ‘‘family such nonconformity and require the applied (specifically, whether sampling emission limits’’ as defined in subpart C manufacturer to submit a plan for procedures and statistical analyses of this part 90 promulgated under remedying the nonconformity of the specified in this subpart were followed section 213 of the Act’’. engines with respect to which such and whether there exists a basis for (f) Reference to ‘‘vehicles or engines’’ notification is given. distinguishing engines produced at throughout 40 CFR part 85, subpart S is (i) The manufacturer’s plan shall plants other than the one from which deemed to mean ‘‘Phase 2 nonroad provide that the nonconformity of any engines were selected for testing which small SI engines at or below 19 kW.’’ such engines which are properly used would invalidate the Administrator’s (g) In addition to the requirements in and maintained will be remedied at the decision under § 90.711(c)); 40 CFR 85.1805(a)(9) for Phase 2 expense of the manufacturer. (3) A statement specifying reasons engines include a telephone number (ii) If the manufacturer disagrees with why the manufacturer believes it will provided by the manufacturer, which such determination of nonconformity prevail on the merits of each of the may be used to report difficulty in and so advises the Administrator, the issues raised; and obtaining recall repairs. Administrator shall afford the (4) A summary of the evidence which 35. Section 90.802 is amended by manufacturer and other interested supports the manufacturer’s position on adding a sentence at the end of the persons an opportunity to present their each of the issues raised. introductory text to read as follows: views and evidence in support thereof (d) A copy of all requests for public at a public hearing. Unless, as a result hearings will be kept on file in the § 90.802 Definitions. of such hearing, the Administrator Office of the Hearing Clerk and will be ** * The definitions of 40 CFR withdraws such determination of made available to the public during 85.1801 also apply to this part. nonconformity, the Administrator shall, Agency business hours. * * * * * within 60 days after the completion of

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.056 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 15252 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations such hearing, order the manufacturer to 40. Section 90.906 is amended by § 90.1003 Prohibited acts. provide prompt notification of such revising paragraphs (a) introductory text (a) * * * nonconformity in accordance with and (a)(3) introductory text to read as (2) (i) For a person to fail or refuse to paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The follows: permit access to or copying of records manufacturer shall comply in all or to fail to make reports or provide respects with the requirements of this § 90.906 Manufacturer-owned exemption information required under § 90.1004. and precertification exemption. subpart. (ii) For a person to fail or refuse to (2) Any notification required to be (a) Any manufacturer owned nonroad permit entry, testing or inspection given by the manufacturer under engine, as defined by § 90.902, is authorized under §§ 90.126, 90.506, paragraph (a)(1) of this section with exempt from § 90.1003, without 90.705, 90.1004, or 90.1207. respect to any class or category of application, if the manufacturer (iii) For a person to fail or refuse to engines shall be given to dealers, complies with the following terms and perform tests or to have tests performed ultimate purchasers, and subsequent conditions: as required under §§ 90.119, 90.504, purchasers (if known) in such manner * * * * * 90.703, 90.1004, 90.1204. and containing such information as (3) Unless the requirement is waived (iv) For a person to fail to establish or required in subparts I and M of this part. or an alternative procedure is approved maintain records as required under (3)(i) Prior to an EPA ordered recall, by the Director, Engine Programs and §§ 90.209, 90.704, 90.805, or 90.1004. the manufacturer may perform a Compliance Division, the manufacturer (v) For a person to fail to submit a voluntary emissions recall pursuant to must permanently affix a label to each remedial plan as required under regulations at § 90.804. Such nonroad engine on exempt status. This § 90.808. manufacturer is subject to the reporting label should: * * * * * and recordkeeping requirements of * * * * * (4)* * * § 90.805. (i) To sell, offer for sale, or introduce (ii) Once EPA determines that a 41. Section 90.909 is amended by or deliver into commerce, a nonroad substantial number of engines fail to revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: engine unless the manufacturer has conform with the requirements of § 90.909 Export exemptions. complied with the requirements of section 213 of the Act or this part, the § 90.1103. manufacturer will not have the option of * * * * * a voluntary recall. (c) EPA will maintain a list of foreign * * * * * (b) The manufacturer bears all cost countries that have in force nonroad (iii) To fail or refuse to comply with obligation a dealer incurs as a result of emission standards identical to U.S. the requirements of § 90.808. a requirement imposed by paragraph (a) EPA standards and have so notified * * * * * of this section. The transfer of any such EPA. This list may be obtained by (b)* * * cost obligation from a manufacturer to a writing to the following address: Group (4) Certified nonroad engines shall be dealer through franchise or other Manager, Engine Compliance Programs used in all equipment or vehicles that agreement is prohibited. Group, Engine Programs and are self-propelled, portable, (c) Any inspection of an engine for Compliance Division (6403–J), transportable, or are intended to be purposes of paragraph (a)(1) of this Environmental Protection Agency, propelled while performing their section, after its sale to the ultimate Washington, D.C. 20460. New nonroad function, unless the manufacturer of the purchaser, is to be made only if the engines exported to such countries must equipment or vehicle can prove that the owner of such vehicle or engine comply with U.S. EPA certification vehicle or equipment will be used in a voluntarily permits such inspection to regulations. manner consistent with paragraph (2) of be made, except as may be provided by * * * * * the definition of Nonroad engine in any state or local inspection program. § 90.3. Nonroad vehicle and equipment 42. Section 90.911 is revised to read manufacturers may continue to use Subpart JÐExclusion and Exemption as follows: noncertified nonroad engines built prior of Nonroad Engines From Regulations § 90.911 Submission of exemption to the applicable implementation date of 39. Section 90.905 is amended by requests. the Phase 1 rule until noncertified revising paragraph (f) to read as follows: Requests for exemption or further engine inventories are depleted; further after the applicable implementation of § 90.905 Testing exemption. information concerning exemptions and/or the exemption request review the Phase 2 regulations in this part, * * * * * procedure should be addressed to: nonroad vehicle and equipment (f) A manufacturer of new nonroad Group Manager, Engine Compliance manufacturers may continue to use engines may request a testing exemption Programs Group, Engine Programs and Phase 1 engines until Phase 1 engine to cover nonroad engines intended for Compliance Division (6403J), inventories are depleted. Stockpiling use in test programs planned or Environmental Protection Agency, (i.e., build up of an inventory of anticipated over the course of a Washington, D.C. 20460. uncertified engines or Phase 1 engines subsequent one-year period. Unless beyond normal business practices to otherwise required by the Director, Subpart KÐProhibited Acts and avoid or delay compliance with the Engine Programs and Compliance General Enforcement Provisions Phase 1 or Phase 2 regulations in this Division, a manufacturer requesting part, respectively) will be considered a such an exemption need only furnish 43. Section 90.1003 is amended by violation of this section. the information required by paragraphs revising paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(4)(i), (5) A new nonroad engine, intended (a)(1) and (d)(2) of this section along (b)(4), and (b)(5) and by redesignating solely to replace an engine in a piece of with a description of the recordkeeping paragraphs (a)(4)(iii) and (a)(4) (iv) as nonroad equipment that was originally and control procedures that will be paragraphs (a)(4) (iv) and (a)(4)(v) produced with an engine manufactured employed to assure that the engines are respectively, and by adding new prior to the applicable implementation used for purposes consistent with paragraphs (a)(4)(iii) and (b)(6) to read date as described in §§ 90.2, 90.103 and § 90.1004(b). as follows: 90.106, or with an engine that was

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.057 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 15253 originally produced in a model year in with suitable physical or performance substantial economic hardship to the which less stringent standards under characteristics to power a piece of equipment manufacturer resulting in a this part were in effect, shall not be equipment in production prior to the major impact on the equipment subject to the requirements of § 90.106 initial effective date of Phase 2 manufacturer’s solvency. or prohibitions and provisions of standards, as indicated in 90.103(a). The (iv) The written permission from the paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(4) of this equipment manufacturer must also Administrator to the equipment section provided that: certify to the Administrator that the manufacturer shall serve as permission (i) The engine manufacturer has equipment model has not undergone for the engine manufacturer to provide ascertained that no engine produced by any redesign which could have such Phase 1 engines required by the itself or the manufacturer of the engine facilitated conversion of the equipment equipment manufacturers under this that is being replaced, if different, and to accommodate a Phase 2 engine. paragraph (b)(6) of this section. As certified to the requirements of this (ii) Regulations elsewhere in this part Phase 1 engines, these engines are subpart, is available with the notwithstanding, for the duration of the exempt from Production Line Testing appropriate physical or performance Phase 2 rule in this part, equipment requirements under subpart H of this characteristics to repower the manufacturers who certify to the part and in-use testing provisions under equipment; and Administrator that annual eligible subpart M of this part, and are excluded (ii) The engine manufacturer or its production of a particular model of from the certification averaging, banking agent takes ownership and possession of equipment will not exceed 500 for a and trading program of subpart C of this the old engine in partial exchange for Class I model in production prior to part. the replacement engine; and August 1, 2007 or a Class II model in (iii) The replacement engine is clearly production prior to the 2001 model Subpart LÐEmission Warranty and labeled with the following language, or year, may continue to use in that model, Maintenance Instructions similar alternate language approved in and engine manufacturers may continue advance by the Administrator: THIS to supply, engines certified to Phase 1 44. Section 90.1103 is amended by ENGINE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH requirements, (or identified and labeled revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read FEDERAL NONROAD OR ON- by their manufacturer to be identical to as follows: HIGHWAY EMISSION engines previously certified under § 90.1103 Emission warranty, warranty REQUIREMENTS. SALE OR Phase 1 standards). To be eligible for period. INSTALLATION OF THIS ENGINE FOR this provision, the equipment ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN AS A manufacturer must have demonstrated (a) Warranties imposed by this REPLACEMENT ENGINE IN A to the satisfaction of the Administrator subpart shall be for the first two years NONROAD VEHICLE OR PIECE OF that no certified Phase 2 engine is of engine use from the date of sale to the NONROAD EQUIPMENT WHOSE available with suitable physical or ultimate purchaser. ORIGINAL ENGINE WAS NOT performance characteristics to power (b) The manufacturer of each new CERTIFIED, OR WAS CERTIFIED TO the equipment. The equipment nonroad engine must warrant to the LESS STRINGENT EMISSION manufacturer must also certify to the ultimate purchaser and each subsequent STANDARDS THAN THOSE THAT Administrator that the equipment model purchaser that the engine is designed, APPLY TO THE YEAR OF has not undergone any redesign which built and equipped so as to conform at MANUFACTURE OF THIS ENGINE, IS could have facilitated conversion of the the time of sale with applicable A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW equipment to accommodate a Phase 2 regulations under section 213 of the Act, SUBJECT TO CIVIL PENALTY; and engine. and the engine is free from defects in (iv) Where the replacement engine is (iii) An equipment manufacturer materials and workmanship which intended to replace an engine built after which is unable to obtain suitable Phase cause such engine to fail to conform the applicable implementation date of 2 engines and which can not obtain with applicable regulations for its regulations under this part, but built to relief under any other provision of this warranty period. less stringent emission standards than part, may, prior to the date on which the * * * * * are currently applicable, the manufacturer would become in 45. Section 90.1104 is amended by replacement engine shall be identical in noncompliance with the requirement to adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: all material respects to a certified use Phase 2 engines, apply to the configuration of the same or later model Administrator to be allowed to continue § 90.1104 Furnishing of maintenance year as the engine being replaced. using Phase 1 engines, through August instructions to ultimate purchaser. (6)(i) Regulations elsewhere in this 1, 2008 for Class 1 engines and through * * * * * part notwithstanding, for three model the 2006 model year for Class II engines, (e) If a manufacturer includes in an years after the phase-in of Class I and subject to the following criteria: advertisement a statement respecting Class II Phase 2 standards; i.e. through (A) The inability to obtain Phase 2 the cost or value of emission control August 1, 2010 for Class I engines and engines is despite the manufacturer’s devices or systems, the manufacturer through model year 2008 for Class II best efforts and is the result of an shall set forth in the statement the cost engines, small volume equipment extraordinary action on the part of the or value attributed to these devices or manufacturers as defined in this part engine manufacturer that was outside systems by the Secretary of Labor may continue to use, and engine the control of and could not be (through the Bureau of Labor Statistics). manufacturers may continue to supply, reasonably foreseen by the equipment The Secretary of Labor, and his or her engines certified to Phase 1 standards manufacturer; such as canceled representatives, has the same access for (or identified and labeled by their production or shipment, last minute this purpose to the books, documents, manufacturer to be identical to engines certification failure, unforeseen engine papers, and records of a manufacturer as previously certified under Phase 1 cancellation, plant closing, work the Comptroller General has to those of standards), provided the equipment stoppage or other such circumstance; a recipient of assistance for purposes of manufacturer has demonstrated to the and section 311 of the Act. satisfaction of the Administrator that no (B) the inability to market the 46. A new subpart, Subpart M is certified Phase 2 engine is available particular equipment will bring added to part 90 to read as follows:

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.059 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 15254 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

Subpart MÐVoluntary In-Use Testing (d) The manufacturer or the by the Administrator, maintenance to manufacturer’s designee must: any test engine may include only that Sec. (1) Age the selected engines in which is listed in the owner’s 90.1201 Applicability. equipment representing the top 50 instructions for engines with the 90.1202 Definitions. percent, by production, of available 90.1203 Voluntary Manufacturer In-use amount of service and age of the test testing program. equipment for the engine family. engine. 90.1204 Maintenance, aging and testing of (2) Age the selected engines to at least (d) After aging each engine to at least engines. 75 percent of each engines’ useful life as 75 percent of the engine’s useful life as 90.1205 In-use test program reporting determined pursuant to § 90.105. determined pursuant to § 90.105, at least requirements. (3) Age the engine/equipment one valid emission test, according to the 90.1206 Reserved. combination in actual field conditions test procedure outlined in subpart E of 90.1207 Entry and access. encountered with typical use of the this part, is required for each test 90.1208—90.1249 [Reserved] equipment as described in the owner’s engine. Data from other emission testing manual or other literature sold with the Subpart MÐVoluntary In-Use Testing or performance testing performed on a equipment or engine. test engine must be supplied to EPA, § 90.1201 Applicability. (e) Documents obtained in the and may not be used for the purpose of procurement or aging process must be The provisions of this subpart from determining the need for maintenance maintained as required in § 90.121. § 90.1201 through § 90.1249 are on an engine. (f) The manufacturer must complete applicable to all nonhandheld Phase 2 (e) Documents obtained in the testing within three calendar years from engines subject to the provisions of procurement, aging, maintenance, or the time they notified the Administrator subpart A of this part. testing process must be maintained as of their intent to participate in the required in § 90.121. § 90.1202 Definitions. voluntary in-use testing program, unless otherwise approved by the § 90.1205 In-use test program reporting For the purposes of this subpart, requirements. except as otherwise provided, the Administrator; the Administrator will give such approval upon acceptance of (a) The manufacturer shall submit to definitions in subparts A and C of this the Administrator within ninety (90) part apply to this subpart. documentation demonstrating that appropriate in-use testing will take a days of completion of testing for a given § 90.1203 Voluntary Manufacturer In-Use longer period of time. model year’s engines, all emission Testing Program. testing results generated from the § 90.1204 Maintenance, aging and testing voluntary in-use testing program. The (a) Manufacturers may elect to of engines. participate in the voluntary in-use following information must be reported (a) Prior to aging the engines and after testing program by notifying the for each test engine: appropriate stabilization, manufacturers Administrator in writing of their intent (1) Engine family; may optionally conduct emissions (2) Model; to conduct emissions testing on in-use testing on the engines, according to the (3) Application; engines prior to the beginning of each test procedures described in subpart E (4) Engine serial number; model year. The notification must of this part. These tests to serve as (5) Date of manufacture; include a list of engine families the baseline references. (6) Hours of use; manufacturer has selected to include in (b) Manufacturers must obtain (7) Date and time of each test attempt; the testing program. information regarding the accumulated (8) Results (if any) of each test (b) Each engine family included in the usage, maintenance, operating attempt; voluntary in-use testing program is conditions, and storage of the test (9) Schedules, descriptions and exempted from the Production Line engines. justifications of all maintenance and/or Testing requirements according to (1) The manufacturer may take adjustments performed; § 90.701(c) for two model years, the reasonable measures to assure that the (10) Schedules, descriptions and current model year and the subsequent engines and equipment were properly justifications of all modifications and/or model year. Manufacturers may only used and maintained during the field repairs; and include up to twenty percent of their aging process, but additional (11) A listing of any test engines that eligible engine families in this in-use maintenance to that indicated in the were deleted from the aging process or testing program each model year. owners manual or other literature sold testing process and technical (c) The manufacturer must randomly with the equipment or engine is justifications to support the deletion. (b) All testing reports and requests for select or procure a minimum of three prohibited. engines, from each family included in (2) Unless otherwise approved by the approvals made under this subpart shall the voluntary program, for emissions Administrator, once a manufacturer be addressed to: Manager, Engine testing. These three engines may be begins aging and/or testing an engine, Compliance Programs Group (6403–J), selected or procured from: the manufacturer may not remove that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (1) Existing consumer or engine from the selected sample unless Washington, D.C. 20460. independently owned fleets, that engine experiences catastrophic § 90.1206 [Reserved] (2) Existing manufacturer owned mechanical failure or safety concerns fleets, or requiring major engine repair. § 90.1207 Entry and access. (3) The production line and placed (c) The manufacturer may perform (a) To allow the Administrator to into either manufacturer or consumer minimal set-to-spec maintenance on determine whether a manufacturer is owned fleets. Although a minimum of components of a test engine that are not complying with the provisions under three engines must be emissions tested subject to parameter adjustment. this subpart, EPA enforcement officers from each engine family in this testing Components subject to parameter or their authorized representatives, program, a manufacturer may elect to adjustment must be sealed and upon presentation of credentials, shall emissions test more than three engines tamperproof and may not be adjusted be permitted entry, during operating per family. for testing. Unless otherwise approved hours, into any of the following places:

VerDate 23-MAR-99 10:06 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A30MR0.060 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 15255

(1) Any facility where engines (3) Any facility where any engine that related to engine aging (service undergo or are undergoing aging, is being tested or aged, was tested or accumulation) and maintenance. maintenance, repair, preparation for aged or will be tested or aged is present. (c) The provisions of § 90.705(c), (d), (b) Upon admission to any facility aging, selection for aging or emission (e), (f) and (g) also apply to entry and testing. referred to in paragraph (a) of this section, EPA enforcement officers or access under this subpart. (2) Any facility where records or EPA authorized representatives are §§ 90.1208Ð90.1249 [Reserved] documents related to any of activities authorized to perform those activities [FR Doc. 99–6175 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] described in paragraph (a)(1) of this set forth in § 90.705 (b) and also to section are kept. inspect and make copies of records BILLING CODE 6560±50±P

VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:12 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30MRR2.XXX pfrm07 PsN: 30MRR2 eDt 3MR9 10 a 9 99Jt134 O000Fm001Ft41 ft41 :F\MA0R.6 fm4PsN:30MRN2 pfrm04 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.064 Sfmt4717 Fmt4717 Frm00001 PO00000 Jkt183247 11:08Mar29, 1999 VerDate 23-MAR-99 federal register March 30,1999 Tuesday Research; Notice Research GrantsProgram,Potato Request forProposals(RFP):Special and ExtensionService Cooperative StateResearch,Education, Agriculture Department of Part III 15257 15258 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Table of Contents to grants solicited and awarded under Part I—General Information this RFP. Cooperative State Research, In accordance with the statutory Education, and Extension Service A. Legislative Authority B. Definitions authority, grants awarded under this C. Eligibility program will be for the purpose of Request for Proposals (RFP): Special facilitating or expanding ongoing State- Research Grants Program, Potato Part II—Program Description Federal food and agricultural research Research A. Purpose of the Program programs that—(i) promote excellence B. Available Funds and Award Limitations in research on a regional and national AGENCY: Cooperative State Research, C. Applicant Peer Review Requirements level; (ii) promote the development of Education, and Extension Service, Part III—Content of a Proposal regional research centers; (iii) promote USDA. A. Application for Funding (Form CSREES– the research partnership between the ACTION: Notice of Request for Proposals 661) Department of Agriculture, colleges and and Request for Input. B. Table of Contents universities, research foundations, and C. Objectives State agricultural experiment stations SUMMARY: The Cooperative State D. Progress Report for regional research efforts; and (iv) Research, Education, and Extension E. Procedures facilitate coordination and cooperation Service (CSREES) announces the F. Justification G. Cooperation and Institutional Units of research among States through availability of grant funds and requests regional research grants. proposals for the Special Research Involved H. Literature Review B. Definitions Grants Program, Potato Research for I. Current Work fiscal year (FY) 1999. Subject to the J. Facilities and Equipment For the purpose of awarding grants availability of funds, the anticipated K. Project Timetable under this program, the following amount available for support of this L. Personnel Support definitions are applicable: program in FY 1999 is $1,216,279. M. Collaborative and/or Subcontractual (1) Administrator means the This notice sets out the objectives for Arrangements Administrator of the Cooperative State N. Budget (Form CSREES–55) Research, Education, and Extension these projects, the eligibility criteria for O. Current and Pending Support (Form projects and applicants, the application CSREES–663) Service (CSREES) and any other officer procedures, and the set of instructions P. Assurance Statement(s) (Form CSREES– or employee of the Department to whom needed to apply for a Potato Research 662) the authority involved may be Project grant. Q. Certifications delegated. By this notice, the Cooperative State R. Compliance with the National (2) Authorized departmental officer Research, Education, and Extension Environmental Policy Act means the Secretary or any employee of S. Additions to Project Description Service additionally solicits stakeholder the Department who has the authority to input from any interested party Part IV—How to Obtain Application issue or modify grant instruments on regarding the FY 1999 request for Materials behalf of the Secretary. (3) Authorized organizational proposals for the Special Research Part V—Submission of a Proposal Grants Program, Potato Research, for use representative means the president, A. What to Submit chief executive officer or functional in the development of the next request B. Where and When to Submit for proposals for this program. C. Acknowledgment of Proposals equivalent of the applicant organization or the official, designated by the DATES: Applications must be received Part VI—CSREES Selection Process and president, chief executive officer or on or before May 14, 1999. Proposals Evaluation Criteria functional equivalent of the applicant received after May 14, 1999, will not be A. Selection Process organization, who has the authority to considered for funding. B. Evaluation Criteria commit the resources of the ADDRESSES: Written comments Part VII—Supplementary Information organization. regarding stakeholder input should be A. Access to CSREES Peer Review (4) Budget period means the interval submitted by first-class mail to: Policy Information of time (usually 12 months) into which and Program Liaison Staff; Office of B. Grant Awards the project period is divided for Extramural Programs; Competitive C. Use of Funds; Changes budgetary and reporting purposes. Research Grants and Awards D. Other Federal Statutes and Regulations (5) Department or USDA means the Management; USDA–CSREES; STOP that Apply United States Department of 2299; 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.; E. Confidential Aspects of Proposals and Agriculture. Washington, D.C. 20250–2299; or via e- Awards (6) Grantee means the entity F. Regulatory Information designated in the grant award document mail to: RFP–[email protected]. In your G. Stakeholder Input comments, please include the name of as the responsible legal entity to which the program and the fiscal year request Part I—General Information a grant is awarded. (7) Peer review panel means an for proposals to which you are A. Legislative Authority responding. assembled group of experts or The authority for this program is consultants qualified by training and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. contained in section (c)(1)(B) of the experience in particular scientific or James Parochetti; Cooperative State Competitive, Special, and Facilities technical fields to give expert advice on Research, Education, and Extension Research Grant Act, in section 2 of Pub. the scientific and technical merit of Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; L. No. 89–106, as amended (7 U.S.C. grant applications in those fields. STOP 2220; 1400 Independence 450i(c)(1)(B)). The administrative (8) Principal Investigator/Project Avenue, S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20250– regulations at 7 CFR part 3400 for Director means the single individual 2220; telephone: (202) 401–4354; Special Grants Programs awarded under designated by the grantee in the grant Internet: [email protected]. the authority of section 2(c)(1)(A) of this application and approved by the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)(1)(A)) do not apply Secretary who is responsible for the

VerDate 23-MAR-99 11:08 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.064 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15259 direction and management of the support or complement the employees, but should not be conducted project. Note that a proposal may have development of improved varieties. This solely by USDA employees. multiple secondary co-principal program is administered by CSREES of 2. Notice of completion and retention investigators/project directors but only USDA. of records. A notice of completion of the one principal investigator/project B. Available Funds and Award review shall be conveyed in writing to director. Limitations CSREES either as part of the submitted (9) Prior approval means written proposal or prior to the issuance of an approval evidencing prior consent by an Funds will be awarded on a award, at the option of CSREES. The authorized departmental officer as competitive basis to support regional written notice constitutes certification defined in (2) above. research projects that are composed of by the applicant that a review in (10) Project means the particular potato research that focuses on varietal compliance with these regulations has activity within the scope of the program development/testing. For purposes of occurred. Applicants are not required to supported by a grant award. this program, regional research means submit results of the review to CSREES; (11) Project period means the total research having application beyond the however, proper documentation of the length of time that is approved by the immediate State in which the awardee review process and results should be Administrator for conducting the resides and performs the project. The retained by the applicant. research project, as stated in the award total amount of funds available in FY 3. Renewal and supplemental grants. document and modifications thereto, if 1999 for support of this program is Review by the grantee is not any, during which Federal sponsorship approximately $1,216,279. Each automatically required for renewal or begins and ends. proposal submitted in FY 1999 shall supplemental grants as defined in 7 CFR (12) Scientific peer review means an request funding for a period not to 3400.6. A subsequent grant award will evaluation of a proposed project for exceed one year. Funding for additional require a new review if, according to technical quality and relevance to years will depend upon the availability CSREES, either the funded project has regional or national goals performed by of funds and progress toward objectives. changed significantly, other scientific experts with the scientific knowledge FY 1999 awardees would need to discoveries have affected the project, or and technical skills to conduct the recompete in future years for additional the need for the project has changed. proposed research work. funding. (13) Secretary means the Secretary of Note that a new review is necessary Under this program, and subject to the when applying for another standard or Agriculture and any other officer or availability of funds, the Secretary may employee of the Department to whom continuation grant after expiration of make grant awards for the support of the grant term. the authority involved may be research projects available for up to delegated. three years to further the program. 4. Scientific Peer Review. Scientific peer review is an evaluation of a C. Eligibility C. Applicant Peer Review Requirements proposed project for technical quality Proposals may be submitted by State Subsection (c)(5) of the Competitive, and relevance to regional or national agricultural experiment stations, land- Special, and Facilities Research Grant goals performed by experts with the grant colleges and universities, research Act (7 U.S.C. § 450i(c)), as amended by scientific knowledge and technical foundations established by land-grant section 212 of the Agricultural Research, skills to conduct the proposed research colleges and universities, colleges and Extension, and Education Reform Act of work. Peer reviewers may be selected universities receiving funds under the 1998 (‘‘1998 Act’’), Pub. L. No. 105–185, from an applicant organization or from Act of October 10, 1962, as amended (16 requires applicants to conduct a outside the organization, but shall not U.S.C. 582a et seq.), and accredited scientific peer review of a proposed include principal or co-principal schools or colleges of veterinary research project in accordance with investigators, collaborators or others medicine. The proposals must be regulations promulgated by the involved in the preparation of the directly related to potato varietal Secretary prior to the Secretary making application under review. development/testing. Although an a grant award under this authority. Because of the nature of the rule applicant may be eligible based on its Regulations implementing this making process, these requirements are status as one of these entities, other requirement currently are the subject of subject to change based upon the factors may exclude an applicant from a proposed rule making (64 FR 14347, comments received. Applicants whose receiving Federal assistance under this March 24, 1999). The statute requires proposals are recommended for funding program (e.g., debarment or suspension, promulgation of a final rule prior to must comply with the review a determination of non-responsibility award of a grant under this program. requirements as promulgated in the based on submitted organizational The proposed rule would impose the final rule as a condition precedent to management information). following requirements for scientific receiving an award under this RFP. Part II—Program Description peer review by applicants of proposed Part III—Content of a Proposal research projects: A. Purpose of the Program 1. Credible and independent. Review All applications should be typed on 8 Proposals are invited for competitive arranged by the grantee must provide for 1/2’’ x 11’’ white paper, single-spaced, grant awards under the Special Research a credible and independent assessment and on one side of the page only. It Grants Program, Potato Research for FY of the proposed project. A credible would be helpful if the name of the 1999. The purpose of this grant program review is one that provides an appraisal submitting institution were typed at the is to support potato research that of technical quality and relevance top of each page for easy identification focuses on varietal development/testing. sufficient for an organizational in the event the proposal becomes As used herein, varietal development/ representative to make an informed disassembled while being reviewed. All testing is research using traditional and judgment as to whether the proposal is proposals must contain the following biotechnological genetics to develop appropriate for submission for Federal forms and narrative information to assist improved potato variety(ies). Aspects of support. To provide for an independent CSREES personnel during the review evaluation, screening and testing must review, such review may include USDA and award processes:

VerDate 23-MAR-99 11:08 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.065 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN2 15260 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices

A. Application for Funding (Form the box beside the type of organization 1. A description of the proposed CSREES–661) which actually will carry out the effort. investigations and/or experiments in the Each copy of each grant proposal For example, if the proposal is being sequence in which it is planned to carry must contain an Application for submitted by an 1862 Land-Grant them out; Funding, (Form CSREES–661). One institution but the work will be 2. Techniques to be employed, copy of the application, preferably the performed in a department, laboratory, including their feasibility; original, must contain the pen-and-ink or other organizational unit of an 3. Kinds of results expected; 4. Means by which data will be signature(s) of the proposing principal agricultural experiment station, box analyzed or interpreted; investigator(s)/project director(s) and ‘‘03’’ should be checked. If portions of 5. Pitfalls which might be the authorized organizational the effort are to be performed in several encountered; and representative who possesses the departments, check the box that applies # 6. Limitations to proposed necessary authority to commit the to the individual listed as PI/PD 1 in procedures. organization’s time and other relevant Block 15.a. resources to the project. Any proposed 7. Other Possible Sponsors (Block 22). F. Justification List the names or acronyms of all other principal investigator or co-principal This section should include in-depth investigator whose signature does not public or private sponsors including other agencies within USDA and other information on the following, when appear on Form CSREES–661 will not applicable: be listed on any resulting grant award. programs funded by CSREES to whom your application has been or might be 1. Estimates of the magnitude of the Complete both signature blocks located problem and its relevance to ongoing at the bottom of the Application for sent. In the event you decide to send your application to another organization State-Federal food and agricultural Funding form. research programs; Form CSREES–661 serves as a source or agency at a later date, you must inform the identified CSREES program 2. Importance of starting the work document for the CSREES grant during the current fiscal year; and database; it is therefore important that it manager as soon as practicable. Submitting your proposal to other 3. Reasons for having the work be completed accurately. The following performed by the proposing institution. items are highlighted as having a high potential sponsors will not prejudice its potential for errors or misinterpretations: review by CSREES; however, duplicate G. Cooperation and Institutional Units 1. Title of Project (Block 6). The title support for the same project will not be Involved provided. of the project must be brief (80-character Cooperative and multi-state maximum), yet represent the major B. Table of Contents applications are encouraged. Identify thrust of the effort being proposed. For consistency and ease of locating each institutional unit contributing to Project titles are read by a variety of information, each proposal submitted the project. Identify each State in a nonscientific people; therefore, highly should contain a Table of Contents. multiple-state proposal and designate technical words or phraseology should the lead State. When appropriate, the be avoided where possible. In addition, C. Objectives project should be coordinated with the introductory phrases such as Clear, concise, complete, and logically efforts of other State and/or national ‘‘investigation of’’ or ‘‘research on’’ arranged statement(s) of the specific programs. Clearly define the roles and should not be used. aims of the proposed effort must be responsibilities of each institutional 2. Program to Which You Are included in all proposals. For renewal unit of the project team, if applicable. Applying (Block 7). ‘‘Special Research applications, a restatement of the H. Literature Review Grants Program, Potato Research’’ objectives outlined in the active grant should be inserted in this block. You also should be provided. A summary of pertinent publications may ignore the reference to a Federal with emphasis on their relationship to Register announcement. D. Progress Report the effort being proposed should be 3. Program Area and Number (Block If the proposal is a renewal of an provided and should include all 8). The name of the program area, existing project supported under the important and recent publications from ‘‘Potato Research,’’ should be inserted in same program, include a clearly other institutions, as well as those from this block. You should ignore references identified summary progress report the applicant institution. The citations to the program number and the Federal describing the results to date. The themselves should be accurate, Register announcement. progress report should contain the complete, and written in an acceptable 4. Type of Award Request (Block 13). following information: journal format. If the project being proposed is a 1. A comparison of actual I. Current Work renewal of a grant that has been accomplishments with the goals supported under the same program at established for the active grant; Current unpublished institutional any time during the previous five fiscal 2. The reasons for slippage if activities to date in the program area years, it is important that you show the established goals were not met; under which the proposal is being latest grant number assigned to the 3. Other pertinent information, submitted should be described. project by CSREES. including, when appropriate, cost J. Facilities and Equipment 5. Principal Investigator(s) (Block 15). analysis and explanation of cost The designation of excessive numbers of overruns or unexpectedly high unit All facilities which are available for co-principal investigators creates costs. use or assignment to the project during problems during final review and award the requested period of support should processes. Listing multiple co-principal E. Procedures be reported and described briefly. Any investigators, beyond those required for The procedures or methodology to be potentially hazardous materials, genuine collaboration, is therefore applied to the proposed effort should be procedures, situations, or activities, discouraged. explicitly stated. This section should whether or not directly related to a 6. Type of Performing Organization include but not necessarily be limited particular phase of the effort, must be (Block 18). A check should be placed in to: explained fully, along with an outline of

VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:05 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30MRN2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 30MRN2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15261 precautions to be exercised. Examples involving the transfer of substantive below.) However, if requested under include work with toxic chemicals and programmatic work or the providing of A.2.e., they must be fully justified. experiments that may put human financial assistance to a third party must Note: In accordance with Section 1473 of subjects or animals at risk. be provided. Agreements between the National Agricultural Research, All items of major instrumentation departments or other units of your own Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, available for use or assignment to the institution and minor arrangements as amended, 7 U.S.C. 3319, tuition remission proposed project also should be with entities outside of your institution is not an allowable cost under Section itemized. In addition, items of (e.g., requests for outside laboratory 2(c)(1)(B) projects, and no funds will be nonexpendable equipment needed to analyses) are excluded from this approved for this purpose. conduct and bring the project to a requirement. 2. Fringe Benefits. Funds may be successful conclusion should be listed, If you expect to enter into requested for fringe benefit costs if the including dollar amounts and, if funds subcontractual arrangements, please usual accounting practices of your are requested for their acquisition, note that the provisions contained in 7 institution provide that institutional justified. CFR Part 3019—USDA Uniform contributions to employee benefits Administrative Requirements for Grants (social security, retirement, etc.) be K. Project Timetable and Agreements With Institutions of treated as direct costs. Fringe benefit The proposal should outline all Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other costs may be included only for those important phases as a function of time, Non-Profit Organizations, and the personnel whose salaries are charged as year by year, for the entire project, general provisions contained in 7 CFR a direct cost to the project. See OMB including periods beyond the grant Part 3015.205, USDA Uniform Federal Circular No. A–21, Cost Principles for funding period. Assistance Regulations, flow down to Educational Institutions, for further subrecipients. In addition, required guidance in this area. L. Personnel Support clauses from 7 CFR Part 3019 Sections 3. Nonexpendable Equipment. All senior personnel who are 40–48 (Procurement Standards) and Nonexpendable equipment means expected to be involved in the effort Appendix A (Contract Provisions) tangible nonexpendable personal must be clearly identified. For each should be included in final contractual property including exempt property person, the following should be documents, and it is necessary for the charged directly to the award having a included: subawardee to make a certification useful life of more than one year and an 1. An estimate of the time relating to debarment/suspension. This acquisition cost of $5,000 or more per commitment involved; latter requirement is explained further unit. As such, items of necessary 2. Vitae of the principal under subsection Q of these guidelines. instrumentation or other nonexpendable investigator(s), senior associate(s), and equipment should be listed individually N. Budget (Form CSREES–55) other professional personnel. This by description and estimated cost. This section should include vitae of all key Each proposal must contain a detailed applies to revised budgets as well, as the persons who are expected to work on budget (Form CSREES–55) for up to 12 equipment item(s) and amount(s) may the project, whether or not CSREES months of support. Funds may be change. requested under any of the categories funds are sought for their support. The Note: For projects awarded under the vitae should be limited to two (2) pages listed on the budget form, provided that authority of Sec. 2(c)(1)(B) of Pub. L. No. 89– each in length, excluding publications the item or service for which support is 106, no funds will be awarded for the listings; and sought is allowable under the enabling renovation or refurbishment of research 3. A chronological listing of the most legislation and the applicable Federal spaces; the purchase or installation of fixed representative publications during the cost principles and can be identified as equipment in such spaces; or for the past five years. This listing must be necessary and reasonable for the planning, repair, rehabilitation, acquisition, provided for each professional project successful conduct of the project. or construction of a building or facility. member for whom a vita appears. The following guidelines should be 4. Materials and Supplies. The types Authors should be listed in the same used in developing your proposal of expendable materials and supplies order as they appear on each paper budget: which are required to carry out the cited, along with the title and complete 1. Salaries and Wages. Salaries and project should be indicated in general reference as these usually appear in wages are allowable charges and may be terms with estimated costs. journals. requested for personnel who will be 5. Travel. The type and extent of working on the project in proportion to travel and its relationship to project M. Collaborative and/or Subcontractual the time such personnel will devote to objectives should be specified. Funds Arrangements the project. If salary funds are requested, may be requested for field work or for If it will be necessary to enter into the number of Senior and Other travel to professional meetings. In the formal consulting or collaborative Personnel and the number of CSREES budget narrative, for both domestic and arrangements with other individuals or Funded Work Months must be shown in foreign travel, provide the purpose, the organizations, such arrangements the spaces provided. Grant funds may destination, method of travel, number of should be fully explained and justified. not be used to augment the total salary persons traveling, number of days, and For purposes of proposal development, or rate of salary of project personnel or estimated cost for each trip. If details of informal day-to-day contacts between to reimburse them for time in addition each trip are not known at the time of key project personnel and outside to a regular full-time salary covering the proposal submission, provide the basis experts are not considered to be same general period of employment. for determining the amount requested. collaborative arrangements and thus do Salary funds requested must be Travel and subsistence should be in not need to be detailed. consistent with the normal policies of accordance with organizational policy. All anticipated subcontractual the institution and with OMB Circular Irrespective of the organizational policy, arrangements should be explained and No. A–21, Cost Principles for allowances for airfare will not normally justified in this section. A proposed Educational Institutions. Administrative exceed round trip jet economy air statement of work, a curriculum vitae and Clerical salaries are normally accommodations. Please note that 7 CFR and a budget for each arrangement classified as indirect costs. (See Item 9. Part 3015.205 is applicable to air travel.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 11:08 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.068 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN2 15262 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices

6. Publication Costs/Page Charges. P. Assurance Statement(s) (Form the National Research Act, Pub. L. No. Anticipated costs of preparing and CSREES–662) 93–348, as amended, and implementing publishing results of the research being A number of situations encountered regulations established by the proposed (including page charges, in the conduct of projects require Department under 7 CFR Part 1c. If you necessary illustrations, and the cost of a special assurance, supporting propose to use human subjects for reasonable number of coverless reprints) documentation, etc., before funding can experimental purposes in your project, may be estimated and charged against be approved for the project. In addition you should check the ‘‘yes’’ box in the grant. to any other situation that may exist Block 21 of Form CSREES–661 and complete Section C of Form CSREES– 7. Computer (ADPE) Costs. with regard to a particular project, it is expected that some applications 662. In the event a project involving Reimbursement for the costs of using human subjects results in a grant award, submitted in response to these specialized facilities (such as a funds will be released only after the university- or department-controlled guidelines will include the following: 1. Recombinant DNA or RNA appropriate Institutional Review Board computer mainframe or data processing has approved the project. center) may be requested if such Research. As stated in 7 CFR Part services are required for completion of 3015.205(b)(3), all key personnel Q. Certifications the work. identified in the proposal and all Note that by signing the Application signatory officials of the proposing for Funding form the applicant is 8. All Other Direct Costs. Anticipated organization are required to comply direct project charges not included in providing the required certifications set with the guidelines established by the forth in 7 CFR Part 3017, regarding other budget categories must be National Institutes of Health entitled, Debarment and Suspension and Drug- itemized with estimated costs and ‘‘Guidelines for Research Involving Free Workplace, and 7 CFR Part 3018, justified on a separate sheet of paper Recombinant DNA Molecules,’’ as regarding Lobbying. The certification attached to Form CSREES–55. This revised. If your project proposes to use forms are included in this application applies to revised budgets as well, as the recombinant DNA or RNA techniques, package for informational purposes item(s) and dollar amount(s) may the application must so indicate by only. These forms should not be change. Examples may include space checking the ‘‘yes’’ box in Block 19 of submitted with your proposal since by rental at remote locations, Form CSREES–661 (Application for signing the Form CSREES–661 your subcontractual costs, charges for Funding) and by completing Section A organization is providing the required consulting services, telephone, of Form CSREES–662 (Assurance certifications. facsimile, e-mail, shipping costs, and Statement(s)). For applicable proposals If the project will involve a fees for necessary laboratory analyses. recommended for funding, Institutional subcontractor or consultant, the You are encouraged to consult the Biosafety Committee approval is subcontractor/consultant should submit ‘‘Instructions for Completing Form required before CSREES funds will be a Form AD–1048 to the grantee CSREES–55, Budget,’’ of the released. organization for retention in their Application Kit for detailed guidance 2. Animal Care. Responsibility for the records. This form should not be relating to this budget category. humane care and treatment of live submitted to USDA. vertebrate animals used in any grant 9. Indirect Costs. Pursuant to Section project supported with funds provided R. Compliance With the National 1473 of the National Agriculture by CSREES rests with the performing Environmental Policy Act Research, Extension, and Teaching organization. Where a project involves As outlined in 7 CFR Part 3407 Policy Act of 1977, as amended, 7 the use of living vertebrate animals for (CSREES’s implementing regulations of U.S.C. 3319, indirect costs are not experimental purposes, all key project the National Environmental Policy Act allowable costs under Section 2(c)(1)(B) personnel and all signatory officials of of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. projects, and no funds will be approved the proposing organization are required 4321 et seq.)), environmental data or for this purpose. Further, costs that are to comply with the applicable documentation for the proposed project a part of an institution’s indirect cost provisions of the Animal Welfare Act of is to be provided to CSREES in order to pool (e.g., administrative or clerical 1996, as amended (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) assist CSREES in carrying out its salaries) may not be reclassified as and the regulations promulgated responsibilities under NEPA, which direct costs for the purpose of making thereunder by the Secretary in 9 CFR includes determining whether the them allowable. Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 pertaining to the care, project requires an Environmental 10. Cost-sharing. Cost-sharing is handling, and treatment of these Assessment or an Environmental Impact encouraged; however, cost-sharing is animals. If your project will involve Statement or whether it can be excluded not required nor will it be a direct factor these animals or activities, you must from this requirement on the basis of in the awarding of any grant. check the ‘‘yes’’ box in Block 20 of Form several categorical exclusions. To assist CSREES–661 and complete Section B of CSREES in this determination, the O. Current and Pending Support (Form Form CSREES–662. In the event a applicant should review the categories CSREES–663) project involving the use of live defined for exclusion to ascertain vertebrate animals results in a grant whether the proposed project may fall All proposals must contain Form award, funds will be released only after within one of the exclusions. CSREES–663 listing this proposal and the Institutional Animal Care and Use Form CSREES–1234, NEPA any other current or pending support to Committee has approved the project. Exclusions Form (copy in Application which key project personnel have 3. Protection of Human Subjects. Kit), indicating the applicant’s opinion committed or are expected to commit Responsibility for safeguarding the of whether or not the project falls within portions of their time, whether or not rights and welfare of human subjects one or more categorical exclusions, salary support for the person(s) involved used in any grant project supported along with supporting documentation, is included in the budget. This proposal with funds provided by CSREES rests must be included in the proposal. The should be identified in the pending with the performing organization. information submitted in association section of this form. Guidance on this issue is contained in with NEPA compliance should be

VerDate 23-MAR-99 11:08 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.069 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15263 identified in the Table of Contents as a categorical exclusion, CSREES may the text of the proposal should be ‘‘NEPA Considerations’’ and Form determine that an Environmental prepared using no type smaller than 12 CSREES–1234 and supporting Assessment or an Environmental Impact point font size and one-inch margins. documentation should be placed after Statement is necessary for a proposed Staple each copy of the proposal in the the Form CSREES–661, Application for project if substantial controversy on upper left-hand corner. Please do not Funding, in the proposal. environmental grounds exists or if other bind copies of the proposal. The following Categorical Exclusions extraordinary conditions or B. Where and When To Submit apply: circumstances are present that may (1) USDA Categorical Exclusions (7 cause such activity to have a significant Proposals must be received on or CFR 1b.3) environmental effect. before May 14, 1999, and submitted to (i) Policy development, planning and the following mailing address: Special implementation which are related to S. Additions to Project Description Research Grants Program, Potato routine activities such as personnel, Each project description is expected Research; c/o Proposal Services Unit; organizational changes, or similar to be complete in itself. However, in Office of Extramural Programs; administrative functions; those instances in which the inclusion Cooperative State Research, Education, (ii) Activities which deal solely with of additional information is necessary, and Extension Service; U.S. Department the funding of programs, such as the number of copies submitted should of Agriculture; STOP 2245; 1400 program budget proposals, match the number of copies of the Independence Ave., SW.; Washington, disbursements, and transfer or application requested in Part V(A) DC 20250–2245; Telephone: (202) 401– reprogramming of funds; below. Each set of such materials must 5048. (iii) Inventories, research activities, be identified with the title of the project and studies, such as resource Note: Hand-delivered proposals or those and the name(s) of the principal inventories and routine data collection delivered by overnight express service investigator(s)/project director(s) as they should be brought to the following address: when such actions are clearly limited in appear on the ‘‘Application for Special Research Grants Program, Potato context and intensity; Funding.’’ Examples of additional Research; c/o Proposal Services Unit, Office (iv) Educational and informational of Extramural Programs; CSREES/USDA; programs and activities; materials include photographs that do not reproduce well, reprints, and other Room 303, Aerospace Center; 901 D Street, (v) Civil and criminal law SW.; Washington, DC 20024. The telephone enforcement and investigative activities; pertinent materials which are deemed to number is (202) 401–5048. (vi) Activities which are advisory and be unsuitable for inclusion in the body consultative to other agencies and of the proposal. C. Acknowledgment of Proposals public and private entities; and Part IV—How To Obtain Application The receipt of all proposals will be (vii) Activities related to trade Materials acknowledged in writing and this representation and market development acknowledgment will contain a activities abroad. Copies of this solicitation and the proposal identification number. Once (2) CSREES Categorical Exclusions (7 Application Kit may be obtained by your proposal has been assigned an CFR 3407.6(a)(2)) writing to the address or calling the identification number, please cite that Based on previous experience, the telephone number which follows: number in future correspondence. following categories of CSREES actions Proposal Services Unit, Office of are excluded because they have been Extramural Programs; Cooperative State Part VI—CSREES Selection Process and found to have limited scope and Research, Education, and Extension Evaluation Criteria intensity and to have no significant Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; A. Selection Process individual or cumulative impacts on the STOP 2245; 1400 Independence Ave., quality of the human environment: S.W.; Washington D.C. 20250–2245; Applicants should submit fully (i) The following categories of Telephone: (202) 401–5048. When developed proposals that meet all the research programs or projects of limited contacting the Proposal Services Unit, requirements set forth in this request for size and magnitude or with only short- please indicate that you are requesting proposals. term effects on the environment: forms for the Special Research Grants Each proposal will be evaluated in a (A) Research conducted within any Program, Potato Research. two-part process. First, each proposal laboratory, greenhouse, or other These materials may also be requested will be screened to ensure that it meets contained facility where research via Internet by sending a message with the requirements as set forth in this practices and safeguards prevent your name, mailing address (not e-mail) request for proposals. Second, proposals environmental impacts; and phone number to [email protected] that meet these requirements will be (B) Surveys, inventories, and similar which states that you want a copy of the technically evaluated by a scientific studies that have limited context and application materials for the FY 1999 peer review panel. The individual panel members will be minimal intensity in terms of changes in Special Research Grants Program, Potato selected from among those persons the environment; and Research. The materials will then be recognized as specialists who are (C) Testing outside of the laboratory, mailed to you (not e-mailed) as quickly uniquely qualified by training and such as in small isolated field plots, as possible. which involves the routine use of experience in their respective fields to familiar chemicals or biological Part V—Submission of a Proposal render expert advice on the merit of the proposals being reviewed. The materials. A. What To Submit (ii) Routine renovation, rehabilitation, individual views of the panel members or revitalization of physical facilities, An original and three copies of each will be used to determine which including the acquisition and grant proposal must be submitted. proposals should be recommended to installation of equipment, where such Proposals should contain all requested the Administrator (or his designee) for activity is limited in scope and information when submitted. Each final funding decisions. intensity. proposal should be typed on 81⁄2′′ x 11′′ There is no commitment by CSREES Even though the applicant considers white paper, single-spaced, and on one to fund any particular proposal or to that a proposed project may fall within side of the page only. Please note that make a specific number of awards. Care

VerDate 23-MAR-99 11:08 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.070 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN2 15264 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices will be taken to avoid actual and as part of the responsibility other key project personnel in the potential conflicts of interest among determination prior to the award of a approved research project grant shall be reviewers. Evaluations will be grant if such information has not been limited to changes in methodology, confidential to CSREES staff members, provided previously under this or techniques, or other aspects of the peer reviewers, and the proposed another program for which the project to expedite achievement of the principal investigator(s), to the extent sponsoring agency, CSREES, is project’s approved goals. If the grantee permitted by law. responsible. Copies of forms and/or the principal investigator(s) are recommended for use in fulfilling the uncertain as to whether a change B. Evaluation Criteria requirements contained in this section complies with this provision, the 1. Overall scientific and technical will be provided by CSREES as part of question must be referred to the quality of the proposal—10 points. the pre-award process. Authorized Departmental Officer for a 2. Scientific and technical quality of 3. Grant Award Document: The grant final determination. the approach—10 points. award document shall include at a b. Changes in approved goals, or 3. Relevance and importance of minimum the following: objectives, shall be requested by the proposed research to solution of specific a. Legal name and address of grantee and approved in writing by the areas of inquiry, and application of performing organization or institution to Authorized Departmental Officer prior expected results for States beyond the whom the Administrator has awarded a to effecting such changes. In no event State in which the grantee resides and grant under this program; shall requests for such changes be will perform the work—30 points. b. Title of Project; approved which are outside the scope of 4. Feasibility of attaining objectives; c. Name(s) and address(es) of the original approved project. adequacy of professional training and principal investigator(s) chosen to direct c. Changes in approved project experience, facilities and equipment; and control approved activities; leadership or the replacement or the cooperation and involvement of d. Grant identification number reassignment of other key project multiple institutions or states—50 assigned by the Department; personnel shall be requested by the points. e. Project period, specifying the grantee and approved in writing by the amount of time the Department intends Part VII—Supplementary Information awarding official of CSREES prior to to support the project without requiring effecting such changes. A. Access to CSREES Scientific Peer recompetition for funds; d. Transfers of actual performance of f. Total amount of Departmental Review Information the substantive programmatic work in financial assistance approved by the whole or in part and provisions for After final decisions have been Administrator during the project period; payment of funds, whether or not announced, CSREES will, upon request, g. Legal authority(ies) under which Federal funds are involved, shall be inform the principal investigator of the the grant is awarded; reasons for its decision on a proposal. h. Approved budget plan for requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the Authorized B. Grant Awards categorizing project funds to accomplish the stated purpose of the grant award; Departmental Officer prior to effecting 1. General: Within the limit of funds and such transfers. available for such purpose, the awarding i. Other information or provisions e. Changes in Project Period: The official of CSREES shall make grants to deemed necessary by CSREES to carry project period may be extended by those responsible, eligible applicants out its respective granting activities or CSREES without additional financial whose proposals are judged most to accomplish the purpose of a support, for such additional period(s) as meritorious in the announced program particular grant. the Authorized Departmental Officer area and procedures set forth in this 4. Notice of Grant Award: The notice determines may be necessary to request for proposals. The date specified of grant award, in the form of a letter, complete or fulfill the purposes of an by the Administrator as the effective will be prepared and will provide approved project. Any extension of time date of the grant shall be no later than pertinent instructions or information to shall be conditioned upon prior request September 30 of the Federal fiscal year the grantee that is not included in the by the grantee and approval in writing in which the project is approved for grant award document. by the Authorized Departmental Officer, support and funds are appropriated for 5. CSREES will award standard grants unless prescribed otherwise in the terms such purpose, unless otherwise to carry out this program. A standard and conditions of a grant. permitted by law. It should be noted grant is a funding mechanism whereby f. Changes in Approved Budget: that the project need not be initiated on CSREES agrees to support a specified Changes in an approved budget must be the grant effective date, but as soon level of effort for a predetermined time requested by the grantee and approved thereafter as practicable so that project period without any guarantee of in writing by the authorized goals may be attained within the funded additional support at a future date. departmental officer prior to instituting project period. All funds granted by such changes if the revision will involve CSREES under this request for proposals C. Use of Funds; Changes transfers or expenditures of amounts shall be expended solely for the purpose Unless otherwise stipulated in the requiring prior approval as set forth in for which the funds are granted in terms and conditions of the grant award, the applicable Federal costs principles, accordance with the approved the following provisions apply: Departmental regulations, or in the grant application and budget, the terms and 1. Delegation of Fiscal Responsibility: award document. conditions of the award, the applicable The grantee may not in whole or in part D. Other Federal Statutes and Federal cost principles, and the delegate or transfer to another person, Regulations That Apply Department’s assistance regulations institution, or organization the (Parts 3015, and 3019, of 7 CFR). responsibility for use or expenditure of Several other Federal statutes and 2. Organizational Management grant funds. regulations apply to grant proposals Information: Specific management 2. Changes in Project Plans: considered for review and to project information relating to an applicant a. The permissible changes by the grants awarded under this program. shall be submitted on a one-time basis grantee, principal investigator(s), or These include but are not limited to:

VerDate 23-MAR-99 11:08 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.071 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15265

7 CFR 1.1—USDA implementation of Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as of the Executive Order 12372 which the Freedom of Information Act. amended. requires intergovernmental consultation 7 CFR Part 3, implementation of OMB 29 U.S.C. 794, section 504 of the with State and local officials. Under the Circular No. A–129 regarding debt Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and 7 CFR provisions of the Paperwork Reduction collection. Part 15B (USDA implementation of Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the 7 CFR Part 15, Subpart A—USDA statute)—prohibiting discrimination collection of information requirements implementation of Title VI of the Civil based upon physical or mental handicap contained in this Notice have been Rights Act of 1964, as amended. in Federally assisted programs. approved under OMB Document No. 7 CFR Part 3015—Uniform Federal 35 U.S.C. 200 et seq.—Bayh-Dole Act, 0524–0022. Assistance Regulations, implementing controlling allocation of rights to G. Stakeholder Input OMB directives (i.e., Circular Nos. A– inventions made by employees of small business firms and domestic nonprofit 21, and A–122) and incorporating CSREES is soliciting comments organizations, including universities, in provisions of 31 U.S.C. 6301–6308 regarding this request for proposals from Federally assisted programs (formerly the Federal Grant and any interested party. These comments (implementing regulations are contained Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977, will be considered in the development in 37 CFR Part 401). Pub. L. No. 95–224), as well as general of the next request for proposals for the policy requirements applicable to E. Confidential Aspects of Proposals program as needed. Such comments will recipients of Departmental financial and Awards be forwarded to the Secretary or his assistance. When a proposal results in a grant, it designee for use in meeting the 7 CFR Part 3017—USDA becomes a part of the record of requirements of section 103(c)(2) of the implementation of Governmentwide CSREES’s transactions, available to the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Debarment and Suspension public upon specific request. Education Reform Act of 1998 (Pub. L. (Nonprocurement) and Information that the Secretary 105–185). This section requires the Governmentwide Requirements for determines to be of a privileged nature Secretary to solicit and consider input Drug-Free Workplace (Grants). will be held in confidence to the extent on a current request for proposals from 7 CFR Part 3018—USDA permitted by law. Therefore, any persons who conduct or use agricultural implementation of New Restrictions on information that the applicant wishes to research, education, or extension for use Lobbying. Imposes prohibitions and have considered as privileged should be in formulating the next year’s request requirements for disclosure and clearly marked as such and sent in a for proposals for an agricultural research certification related to lobbying on separate statement, two copies of which program funded on a competitive basis. recipients of Federal contracts, grants, should accompany the proposal. In your comments, please include the cooperative agreements, and loans. The original copy of a proposal that name of the program and the fiscal year 7 CFR Part 3019—USDA does not result in a grant will be request for proposals to which you are implementation of OMB Circular A– retained by CSREES for a period of one responding. Comments are requested 110, Uniform Administrative year. Other copies will be destroyed. within six months from the issuance of Requirements for Grants and Other Such a proposal will be released only the request for proposals. Comments Agreements With Institutions of Higher with the consent of the applicant or to received after that date will be Education, Hospitals, and Other the extent required by law. A proposal considered to the extent practicable. Nonprofit Organizations. may be withdrawn at any time prior to 7 CFR Part 3052, 62 FR 45947—USDA the final action thereon. Done at Washington, D.C., this 19th day of implementation of OMB Circular No. A– March, 1999. 133, Audits of States, Local F. Regulatory Information Colien Hefferan, Governments, and Nonprofit For the reasons set forth in the final Acting Administrator, Cooperative State Organizations. Rule-related Notice to 7 CFR part 3015, Research, Education, and Extension Service. 7 CFR Part 3407—CSREES procedures subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), [FR Doc. 99–7686 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] to implement the National this program is excluded from the scope BILLING CODE 3410±22±P

VerDate 23-MAR-99 11:08 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.072 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN2 eDt 3MR9 11 a 9 99Jt134 O000Fm001Ft41 ft41 :F\MA0R.7 fm4PsN:30MRN3 pfrm04 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.073 Sfmt4717 Fmt4717 Frm00001 PO00000 Jkt183247 11:10Mar29, 1999 VerDate 23-MAR-99 federal register March 30,1999 Tuesday 1999; RequestforProposals;Notice Protection ActIssuesforFiscalYear Special ProgramAddressingFoodQuality Management AlternativesResearch: Special ResearchGrantsProgramÐPest and ExtensionService Cooperative StateResearch,Education, Agriculture Department of Part IV 15267 15268 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Mail Stop 2220; 1400 Independence pursuant to the Memorandum of Avenue, SW; Washington, D.C. 20250– Understanding (MOU) between USDA Cooperative State Research, 2220. Telephone: (202) 401–6702; fax and EPA signed August 15, 1994, and Education, and Extension Service number: (202) 401-6869; e-mail address: amended April 18, 1996, which [email protected]. establishes a coordinated framework for Special Research Grants ProgramÐ SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: these two agencies to support programs Pest Management Alternatives that make alternative pest management Table of Contents Research: Special Program materials available to agricultural Addressing Food Quality Protection Authority and Eligibility producers. In this MOU, USDA and EPA Applicant Peer Review Requirements Act Issues for Fiscal Year 1999; agreed to cooperate in conducting the Request for Proposals Available Funding Applicable Regulations research, technology transfer, and AGENCY: Cooperative State Research, Program Description registration activities necessary to Education, and Extension Service, Proposal Format address pest management alternatives USDA. Compliance with the National Environmental needed in agriculture. Because of the Policy Act importance of FQPA, USDA created the ACTION: Notice of availability of grant CSREES Proposal Evaluation funds, request for proposals and request Office of Pest Management Policy Confidentiality (OPMP) in 1997 to coordinate FQPA for input. How to Obtain Application Materials Proposal Submission activities within the Department. OPMP SUMMARY: Proposals are invited for Stakeholder Input found significant gaps in the competitive grant awards under the Additional Information information available on pesticide use/ Special Research Grants Program titled Appendix I usage and requested help in developing ‘‘Pest Management Alternatives Appendix II crop profiles. This program responded Program: Addressing Food Quality Appendix III in 1998 by linking up with the National Protection Act Issues for Fiscal Year Authority and Eligibility Agricultural Pesticide Impact 1999.’’ This program addresses Assessment Program (NAPIAP) to help This program is administered by anticipated changes in pest management develop urgently needed crop profiles CSREES, United States Department of on food, feed, livestock, and ornamental while continuing the development of Agriculture (USDA). The authority is commodities resulting from critical mitigation strategies. This effort contained in section (c)(1)(A) of the implementation of the Food Quality continues in 1999, but will be phased Competitive, Special, and Facilities Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). out in the future as the urgency declines Research Grant Act, in section 2 of Pub. The goals of this program are to: (1) and NAPIAP assumes primary L. No. 89–106, as amended (7 U.S.C. Develop and demonstrate alternatives responsibility for the profiles. 450i(c)(1)(A)). Under this authority, and possible mitigation strategies to subject to the availability of funds, the ensure that crop producers have reliable Applicant Peer Review Requirements Secretary may make grants, for periods methods of managing pests; and (2) not to exceed three years, to State Subsection (c)(5) of the Competitive, Develop crop profiles that summarize agricultural experiment stations, all Special, and Facilities Research Grant production practices, pesticide use/ colleges and universities, other research Act (7 U.S.C. § 450i(c)), as amended by usage data, and available pest institutions and organizations, Federal section 212 of the Agricultural Research, management alternatives for pesticides agencies, private organizations or Extension, and Education Reform Act of considered a high priority for tolerance corporations, and individuals for the 1998 (‘‘1998 Act’’), Pub. L. No. 105–185, reassessment under FQPA. purpose of conducting research to requires applicants to conduct a By this notice, the Cooperative State facilitate or expand promising scientific peer review of a proposed Research, Education, and Extension breakthroughs in areas of the food and research project in accordance with Service (CSREES) additionally solicits agricultural sciences of importance to regulations promulgated by the stakeholder input from any interested the United States. Secretary prior to the Secretary making party regarding the FY 1999 solicitation Proposals from scientists affiliated a grant award under this authority. of applications for use in the with non-United States organizations Regulations implementing this development of the next request for are not eligible for funding nor are requirement currently are the subject of proposals for this program. scientists who are directly or indirectly a proposed rule making (64 FR 14347, DATES: Proposals are due June 1, 1999. engaged in the development of pest March 24, 1999). The statute requires ADDRESSES: Written comments management tactics for profit; however, promulgation of a final rule prior to regarding stakeholder input should be their collaboration with funded projects award of a grant under this program. submitted by first-class mail to: Policy is encouraged. The proposed rule would impose the and Program Liaison Staff; Office of The Pest Management Alternatives following requirements for scientific Extramural Programs; Competitive Program was established to support the peer review by applicants of proposed Research Grants and Awards development and implementation of research projects: Management; USDA–CSREES; STOP pest management alternatives when 1. Credible and independent. Review 2299; 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.; regulatory action by the Environmental arranged by the grantee must provide for Washington, D.C. 20250–2299; or via e- Protection Agency (EPA) or voluntary a credible and independent assessment mail to: RFP–[email protected]. In your cancellation by the registrant results in of the proposed project. A credible comments, please include the name of the unavailability of certain agricultural review is one that provides an appraisal the program and the fiscal year request pesticides or pesticide uses. These of technical quality and relevance for proposals to which you are activities pertain to pesticides identified sufficient for an organizational responding. for possible regulatory action under representative to make an informed FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: section 210 of the FQPA, Pub. L. No. judgment as to whether the proposal is Steve Yaninek, Cooperative State 104–170, which amends the Federal appropriate for submission for Federal Research, Education, and Extension Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide support. To provide for an independent Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Act. The program has been developed review, such review may include USDA

VerDate 23-MAR-99 11:10 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.073 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN3 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15269 employees, but should not be conducted Applicable Regulations compelling evidence otherwise as to the solely by USDA employees. This program is subject to the importance of their proposed research. 2. Notice of completion and retention Proposals will show evidence that administrative provisions for the of records. A notice of completion of the producers, commodity groups, and Special Research Grants Program found review shall be conveyed in writing to other affected user groups are involved in 7 CFR Part 3400, which set forth CSREES either as part of the submitted in project design and will be supportive procedures to be followed when proposal or prior to the issuance of an of the project if funded. Public-private submitting grant proposals, rules award, at the option of CSREES. The partnerships and matching resources governing the evaluation of proposals, written notice constitutes certification from non-Federal sources, including the processes regarding the awarding of by the applicant that a review in producer or commodity groups, are grants, and regulations relating to the compliance with these regulations has encouraged. Proposals should show post-award administration of such occurred. Applicants are not required to potential for commercialization submit results of the review to CSREES; grants. However, where there are (including product registration if however, proper documentation of the differences between this RFP and the necessary) of any new technologies that review process and results should be administrative provisions, this RFP are developed. Applicants are strongly retained by the applicant. shall take precedence to the extent that encouraged to collaborate with staff 3. Renewal and supplemental grants. the administrative provisions authorize involved in university Pesticide Impact Review by the grantee is not such deviations. Other Federal statutes Assessment Programs (PIAP) and automatically required for renewal or and regulations apply to grant proposals Integrated Pest Management programs to supplemental grants as defined in 7 CFR considered for review or to grants develop crop profiles. The two 3400.6. A subsequent grant award will awarded under this program. These objectives are described below. require a new review if, according to include, but are not limited to: CSREES, either the funded project has 7 CFR Part 3019—USDA Uniform I. Replacement or Mitigation changed significantly, other scientific Administrative Requirements for Grants Technologies discoveries have affected the project, or and Other Agreements with Institutions The focus should be on modification the need for the project has changed. of Higher Education, Hospitals, and of existing approaches or introduction Note that a new review is necessary Other Non-Profit Organizations; and 7 of new methods, especially biologically when applying for another standard or CFR Part 3052—Audits of States, Local based methods, that can be rapidly continuation grant after expiration of Governments, and Non-Profit brought to bear on pest management the grant term. Organizations. challenges resulting from 4. Scientific Peer Review. Scientific Program Description implementation of FQPA. Durability peer review is an evaluation of a and practicality of the proposed pest proposed project for technical quality This competitive grants program management option(s) or mitigation and relevance to regional or national supports efforts to modify existing pest procedure(s), and compatibility with goals performed by experts with the management approaches or develop integrated pest management systems, scientific knowledge and technical new methods that address needs created are critical. Both technological and skills to conduct the proposed research by the implementation of FQPA. The economic feasibility should be work. Peer reviewers may be selected program also addresses the need for considered. Pest management from an applicant organization or from collection of information for regulatory alternatives or risk mitigation options outside the organization, but shall not decision making and for prioritization of identified should address various risk include principal or co-principal research and education needs. This concerns including dietary, investigators, collaborators or others information includes crop profiles, occupational and non-occupational involved in the preparation of the pesticide use and usage on commodities exposure, ground and surface water, and application under review. (including livestock and ornamentals), other ecological risks. Applicants must Because of the nature of the rule potential alternatives for pesticides on document that a crop profile has been making process, these requirements are EPA’s priority list (see Appendix I), or is being developed for the crop subject to change based upon the integrated pest management programs, targeted in the proposal, or provide comments received. Applicants whose pesticide resistance management compelling evidence otherwise as to the proposals are recommended for funding strategies, and potential mitigation importance of their proposed research. must comply with the review strategies for reducing dietary risk. II. Crop Profiles requirements as promulgated in the In FY 1999, CSREES will provide final rule as a condition precedent to funding for projects that: (1) Identify Profiles are needed for commodities receiving an award under this RFP. and develop replacement or mitigation (see Appendix II) that depend heavily technologies for pesticides included on on pesticides included on EPA’s priority Available Funding EPA’s priority list (Appendix I) and/or list (see Appendix I). Profiles should The amount available for support of (2) Develop crop profiles summarizing document the importance of priority this program in fiscal year (FY) 1999 is practices for specific commodities pesticides to pest management on the approximately $1,500,000. It is (including livestock and ornamentals) commodities addressed by the proposal. anticipated that EPA will also provide (see Appendix II). Proposals may Profiles should describe the production support to the program. Section 711 of develop replacement or mitigation process and provide data on pesticide the Agriculture, Rural Development, technologies (Objective 1), develop crop use (how, why, what, when and where Food and Drug Administration, and profiles (Objective 2), or develop both pesticides are used) and usage (how Related Agencies Appropriations Act for replacement or mitigation technologies much is used, e.g., percentage crop fiscal year 1999, section 101(a) of Pub. and crop profiles. Applicants that treated) patterns, pest management L. No. 105–277, prohibits CSREES from address only replacement or mitigation practices used by growers, and pest paying indirect costs on competitively technologies are not restricted to the management practices ready for awarded research grants that exceed 14 crops listed in Appendix II, but must implementation but not yet widely percent of total Federal funds provided document that a crop profile has been used. Profiles should also indicate for each award under this program. or is being developed, or provide whether pesticides on the priority list

VerDate 23-MAR-99 11:10 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.074 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN3 15270 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices

(Appendix I) are important to integrated necessary authority to commit the (6) Research, Education, and pest management programs or to applicant’s time and other relevant Technology Transfer Plan. This section strategies to manage resistance to other resources. Principal investigators who is only needed if the proposed project pesticides, and whether there are any do not sign the proposal cover sheet will includes development of replacement or potential labeled or unlabeled not be listed on the grant document in mitigation technologies (Objective 1). alternatives (chemical or nonchemical) the event an award is made. The title of Proposals should provide a detailed to replace priority list pesticides on a the proposal must be brief (80-character plan for the research, education, and specific commodity. Alternatives can maximum), yet represent the major technology transfer required to include other pesticides, biological emphasis of the project. Because this implement the alternative solution in controls, pest resistant varieties, or title will be used to provide information the field, and should identify cultural practices. In addition, practices to those who may not be familiar with milestones. or procedures that have the potential to the proposed project, highly technical (7) Literature Cited. A concise list of mitigate dietary risk from priority list words or phraseology should be avoided key references cited in the proposal pesticides should be described. Crop where possible. In addition, phrases should be included in this section. profiles should follow the format such as ‘‘investigation of’’ or ‘‘research (8) User Involvement. Describe role of presented in Appendix III. Potentially on’’ should not be used. producers, commodity groups, and affected growers or commodity groups (2) Table of Contents. For ease in other end-users in identifying the need must be involved in the development of locating information, each proposal for the work being proposed, and their crop profiles. While priority will be must contain a detailed table of contents anticipated involvement in the project if given to proposals addressing one or just after the proposal cover page. The funded. Competitive proposals will more commodities (see Appendix II) Table of Contents should include page demonstrate involvement of affected that depend heavily on pesticides numbers for each component of the user groups in project design, included on EPA’s priority list (see proposal. Pagination should begin implementation, and funding. (9) Facilities and Equipment. All Appendix I), proposals addressing immediately following the Table of facilities and major items of equipment commodities not included in the list Contents. that are available for use or assignment will be considered. Consult the website (3) Executive Summary. Describe the to the proposed research project during listed at the end of either Appendix II project in terms that can be understood the requested period of support should & III for a current list of crop profiles by a diverse audience of university be described. In addition, items of that are either completed or in progress personnel, producers, various public nonexpendable equipment necessary to to avoid duplicate efforts. Profiles must and private groups, budget staff, and the conduct and successfully complete the be completed within twelve months general public. This should be on a proposed project should be listed with after receipt of funding. separate page, no more than one page in the amount and justification for each Note: The development of replacements for length and have the following format: item. methyl bromide is being supported by other Name(s) of principal investigator(s) and (10) Collaborative Arrangements. If agencies (e.g. see the USDA/ARS website: institutional affiliation, project title, key the nature of the proposed project http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/cgi-bin/ffp.pl/is/ words, and project summary. np/mba/oct96/epa.htm?methyl bromide requires collaboration or subcontractual # l (4) Problem Statement. Identify the arrangements with other research alternatives grants first hit’’) and will not pest management problem addressed, its be supported by the Pest Management scientists, corporations, organizations, Alternatives Program. significance, and options for solution. agencies, or entities, the applicant must Identify the commodity(ies) (from the identify the collaborator(s) and provide Proposal Format commodity list for crop profiles, a full explanation of the nature of the Each project description shall be Appendix II) and the pesticides (from collaboration. Funding contributions by complete in itself. The administrative the priority list, Appendix I) that will be collaborators that will be used to provisions governing the Special addressed by the proposed project. accomplish the stated objectives should Research Grants Program, 7 CFR Part Proposals can address commodities not be identified. Evidence (i.e., letters of 3400, set forth instructions for the listed in Appendix II as long as priority intent) should be provided to assure preparation of grant proposals. The pesticides are used in the production peer reviewers that the collaborators following requirements deviate from system. Describe the production area involved have agreed to render this those contained in section 3400.4(c). addressed (including acreage), service. In addition, the proposal must The following provisions of this frequency and severity of losses to pests indicate whether or not such a solicitation shall apply. Proposals controlled with priority pesticides collaborative arrangement(s) has the should adhere to the format (Appendix I), and the potential potential for conflict(s) of interest. requirements for the specific objective applicability to other production regions (11) Personnel Support. To assist peer addressed by the proposal format below. (if the proposal addresses Objective 1). reviewers in assessing the competence Items three through six should be no For crop profiles, provide sources of and experience of the proposed project more than 12 pages in length, data and other information on pesticide staff, key personnel who will be numbered, and single-spaced with text use, usage patterns, and pest involved in the proposed project must on one side of the page using a 12 point management practices. As appropriate, be clearly identified. For each principal (10 cpi) type font size and one-inch proposals should address issues as they investigator involved, and for all senior margins. relate to current integrated pest associates and other professional (1) Application for Funding (Form management and crop production personnel who are expected to work on CSREES–661). All proposals must practices, technologic and economic the project, whether or not funds are contain an Application for Funding feasibility of potential new practices, sought for their support, the following (Form CSREES–661), which must be and their potential durability. should be included: signed by the proposed principal (5) Objectives. Provide clear, concise, (i) An estimate of the time investigator(s) and by the cognizant complete, and logically arranged commitments necessary. Authorized Organizational statements of the specific aims of the (ii) Curriculum vitae. The curriculum Representative who possesses the proposed effort. vitae should be limited to a presentation

VerDate 23-MAR-99 11:10 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.075 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN3 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15271 of academic and research credentials, or proposal. Please note that grant funds Compliance With the National commodity production knowledge or will not be released until CSREES Environmental Policy Act experience with that commodity (e.g., receives and approves documentation As outlined in 7 CFR Part 3407 educational, employment and indicating approval by the appropriate (CSREES’s implementation of the professional history, and honors and institutional committee(s) regarding National Environmental Policy Act of awards). Unless pertinent to the project, DNA or RNA research, animal care, or 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. to personal status, or to the status of the the protection of human subjects, as 4321 et seq.)), the environmental data or organization, meetings attended, applicable. documentation for any proposed project seminars given, or personal data such as (14) Current and Pending Support. All is to be provided to CSREES in order to birth date, marital status, or community proposals must contain Form CSREES– assist CSREES in carrying out its activities should not be included. Each 663 listing this proposal and any other responsibilities under NEPA. In some vitae shall be no more than two pages current public or private research cases, however, the preparation of in length, excluding the publication support (including in-house support) to environmental data or documentation lists. which key personnel identified in the (iii) Publication list(s). A may not be required. Certain categories proposal have committed portions of of actions are excluded from the chronological list of all publications in their time, whether or not salary support refereed journals during the past four requirements of NEPA. The USDA and for the person(s) involved is included in CSREES exclusions are listed in 7 CFR years, including those in press, must be the budget. Analogous information must provided for each professional project 1b.3 and 7 CFR 3407.6, respectively. be provided for any pending proposals In order for CSREES to determine member for whom a curriculum vitae is that are being considered by, or that will provided. Authors should be listed in whether any further action is needed be submitted in the near future to, other with respect to NEPA (e.g., preparation the same order as they appear on each possible sponsors, including other paper cited, along with the title and of an environmental assessment (EA) or USDA programs or agencies. Concurrent environmental impact statement (EIS)), complete reference as these items submission of identical or similar usually appear in journals. pertinent information regarding the proposals to other possible sponsors possible environmental impacts of a (12) Budget. A detailed budget is will not prejudice proposal review or required for each year of requested proposed project is necessary; therefore, evaluation by the Administrator of the National Environmental Policy Act support. In addition, a summary budget CSREES for this purpose. However, a is required detailing requested support Exclusions Form (Form CSREES–1234) proposal that duplicates or overlaps provided in the Application Kit must be for the overall project period. A copy of substantially with a proposal already the form which must be used for this included in the proposal indicating reviewed and funded (or that will be whether the applicant is of the opinion purpose (Form CSREES–55), along with funded) by another organization or instructions for completion, is included that the project falls within one or more agency will not be funded under this of the categorical exclusions. Form in the Application Kit and may be program. reproduced as needed by applicants. CSREES–1234 should follow Form (15) Additions to Project Description. CSREES–661, Application for Funding, Funds may be requested under any of The Administrator of CSREES, the the categories listed, provided that the in the proposal. members of peer review groups, and the Even though a project may fall within item or service for which support is relevant program staff expect each requested may be identified as the categorical exclusions, CSREES may project description to be complete given determine that an EA or an EIS is necessary for successful conduct of the the page limit established in this section proposed project, is allowable under necessary for an activity, if substantial (Proposal Format). However, if the controversy on environmental grounds applicable Federal cost principles, and inclusion of additional information is is not prohibited under any applicable exists or if other extraordinary necessary to ensure the equitable Federal statute. However, the recovery conditions or circumstances are present evaluation of the proposal (e.g., of indirect costs under this program may that may cause such activity to have a photographs that do not reproduce well, not exceed the lesser of the grantee significant environmental effect. reprints, and other pertinent materials institution’s official negotiated indirect that are deemed to be unsuitable for CSREES Proposal Evaluation cost rate or the equivalent of 14 percent inclusion in the text of the proposal), of total Federal funds awarded. This Priority will be given to proposals that then 20 copies of the materials should limitation also applies to the recovery of address one or more of the commodities be submitted. Each set of such materials indirect costs by any sub-awardee or listed in Appendix II; however, must be identified with the name of the subcontractor, and should be reflected proposals addressing commodities not submitting organization, and the in the sub-recipient budget. included in this list will be considered. name(s) of the principal investigator(s). Proposals will be evaluated for Note: For projects awarded under the Information may not be appended to a authority of Sec. 2(c)(1)(A) of Pub. L. No. 89– relevancy (Criterion 1, 25 points) by proposal to circumvent page limitations representatives from USDA, EPA, 106, no funds will be awarded for the prescribed for the project description. renovation or refurbishment of research appropriate farm and commodity spaces; the purchase or installation of fixed Extraneous materials will not be used organizations, and consumer groups. equipment in such spaces; or for the during the peer review process. Methodology and scientific rigor planning, repair, rehabilitation, acquisition, Note: Specific organizational management (Criteria 2–6, 75 points) will be or construction of a building or facility. information relating to an applicant shall be evaluated by a panel with appropriate (13) Research Involving Special submitted on a one-time basis prior to the expertise. Panel members will include Considerations. If it is anticipated that award of a grant for this program if such representatives with appropriate science the research project will involve information has not been provided backgrounds from land-grant previously under this or another program for recombinant DNA or RNA research, which the sponsoring agency is responsible. universities (including IPM, IR–4, and experimental vertebrate animals, or If necessary, USDA will contact an applicant NAPIAP), USDA, EPA, and other human subjects, an Assurance to request organizational management organizations as needed. Funding Statement, Form CSREES–662, must be information once a proposal has been determinations will come from a rank- completed and included in the recommended for funding. ordered list of projects based on the

VerDate 23-MAR-99 11:10 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.076 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN3 15272 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices combined relevancy and scientific merit Department of Agriculture, Mail Stop 103(c)(2) of the Agricultural Research, scores. 2245; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW; Extension, and Education Reform Act of Proposals that will only develop Crop Washington, DC 20250–2245; telephone: 1998 (Pub. L. 105–185). This section Profiles (Objective 2) will be evaluated (202) 401–5048. When contacting the requires the Secretary to solicit and as a separate group, and will not be Proposal Services Unit, please indicate consider input on a current request for scored on potential to reduce reliance that you are requesting forms for the proposals from persons who conduct or (Criterion 4). Special Research Grants Program—Pest use agricultural research, education, or The following criteria will be used in Management Alternatives Research: extension for use in formulating the evaluating proposals: Special Program Addressing Food next request for proposals for an 1. Relevance to Program Objectives Quality Protection Act Issues. agricultural research program funded on (25 points). Factors that will be Application materials may also be a competitive basis. considered include: number of crops requested via Internet by sending a In your comments, please include the and pesticides addressed (particularly message with your name, mailing name of the program and the fiscal year those listed in Appendices I and II), user address (not e-mail) and telephone solicitation of applications to which you involvement in planning and number to [email protected] that states are responding. Comments are requested implementation, potential for rapid that you wish to receive a copy of the within six months from the issuance of integration (within 2–3 years) into application materials for the FY 1999 the solicitation of applications. production practices, and Special Research Grants Program—Pest Comments received after that date will demonstration of consideration of Management Alternatives Research: be considered to the extent practicable. existing IPM programs. Special Program Addressing Food Additional Information 2. Importance of the Problem Quality Protection Act Issues. The (Problem Statement) (15 points). materials will then be mailed to you For reasons set forth in the final rule- 3. Appropriateness of Methods in (not e-mailed) as quickly as possible. related Notice to 7 CFR Part 3015, Meeting Objectives (20 points). Subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), 4. Potential to Reduce Reliance (20 Proposal Submission this program is excluded from the scope points). What To Submit of Executive Order No. 12372 which 5. Level of User Involvement (10 requires intergovernmental consultation points). An original and 20 copies of a with State and local officials. Under the 6. Appropriateness of the Budget (10 proposal must be submitted. Each copy provisions of the Paperwork Reduction points). must be stapled securely in the upper Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the left-hand corner (DO NOT BIND). All Confidentiality collection of information requirements copies of the proposal must be contained in this Notice have been CSREES receives grant proposals in submitted in one package. approved under OMB Document No. confidence and will protect the Where and When To Submit 0524–0022. confidentiality of their contents to the maximum extent permitted by law. Proposals must be postmarked by Appendix I Information contained in unfunded June 1, 1999. Proposals submitted by Pesticides—Priority List of Pesticides: proposals will remain the property of First Class mail must be sent to the pesticides that will be first to undergo review the applicant. However, CSREES will following address: Special Research of tolerances by EPA, as required the Food Grants—Pest Management Alternatives; Quality Protection Act of 1996. retain one copy of all proposals received Abbreviations: AM = antimicrobial, I = for a one year period; extra copies will c/o Proposal Services Unit; Office of insecticide, F = fungicide, IGR = insect be destroyed. Extramural Programs; Cooperative State growth regulator, H = herbicide, N = When a proposal results in a grant, it Research, Education, and Extension nematicide. becomes a part of the public record, Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Organophosphates available to the public upon specific Mail Stop 2245; 1400 Independence request under the Freedom of Avenue, SW; Washington, DC 20250– Acephate—I Information Act (FOIA). Information 2245; telephone: (202) 401–5048. Azinphos-methyl—I Proposals to be delivered by Express Bensulide—H that the Secretary of Agriculture Chlorethoxyfos—I determines to be of a privileged nature mail, courier service, or by hand must Chlorpyrifos—I will be held in confidence to the extent be sent to the following address: Special Chlorpyrifos methyl—I permitted by law. Therefore, any Research Grants—Pest Management Coumaphos—I information that the applicant wishes to Alternatives; c/o Proposal Services Unit; DEF—Defoliant have considered as privileged should be Office of Extramural Programs; Diazinon—I clearly marked by the applicant with the Cooperative State Research, Education, Dichlorvos -I term ‘‘confidential proprietary and Extension Service; U.S. Department Dicrotophos—I of Agriculture; Room 303; 901 D Street, Dimethoate—I information.’’ Disulfoton—I SW; Washington, DC 20024; telephone: How To Obtain Application Materials Ethion—I (202) 401–5048. Ethoprop -I, N Copies of this solicitation, the Stakeholder Input Ethyl parathion—I administrative provisions for the Fenamiphos—I, N Program (7 CFR Part 3400), and the CSREES is soliciting comments Fenitrothion—I Application Kit, which contains regarding this solicitation of Fenthion—I required forms, certifications, and applications from any interested party. Fonofos -I instructions for preparing and These comments will be considered in Isofenphos—I submitting applications for funding, the development of the next request for Malathion -I Methamidophos—I may be obtained by contacting: Proposal proposals for the program. Such Methidathion—I Services Unit; Office of Extramural comments will be forwarded to the Methyl parathion—I Programs; Cooperative State Research, Secretary or his designee for use in Naled—I Education, and Extension Service; U.S. meeting the requirements of section Oxydemeton methyl—I

VerDate 23-MAR-99 11:10 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.078 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN3 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices 15273

Phorate—I pesticides included on the priority list Appendix III Phosmet—I (Appendix I). The possible regulatory Crop Profiles—FQPA instructs USDA and Phostebupirim—I impacts of FQPA for these commodities are EPA to obtain pesticide use and usage data Pirimiphos methyl -I not known. To answer questions that may on major and minor crops. Of particular Profenofos—I arise during FQPA implementation, crop importance at this time are use and usage Propetamphos—I profiles are critical for these commodities. data for the organo-phosphates, carbamates, Sulfotepp—I Priority will be given to proposals that and possible carcinogens (B1’s and B2’s). Sulprofos—I address one or more of the commodities on These classes of pesticides have been Temephos—I this list. identified as top priority at EPA for the Terbufos—I alfalfa (seed, forage) tolerance reassessment process. These same Tetrachlorvinphos—I artichoke pesticides are also vital to the production of Trichlorfon—I asparagus many of our crops. Because some of these Carbamates: avocado uses may be canceled it is important to identify where we stand now, where we need 2EEEBC—F barley to be in the future, and what research efforts Aldicarb—I, N beans (dry, lima, snap) are needed to get us there as far as pest Asulam—H beets management practices are concerned. In Bendiocarb—I blackberry order to better understand where future Benomyl—F blueberry research efforts should lead it is necessary Carbaryl—I broccoli first to identify areas of critical need (i.e. Carbendazim—F brussels sprouts those crops or situations where few if any Carbofuran—I, N canola alternative control measures are available to Chlorpropham—H carrot producers). To help USDA and EPA obtain Desmidipham—H cauliflower this information ‘‘Crop Profiles’’ are being Fenoxycarb—I celery requested. It is the intent that ‘‘profiles’’ Formetanate HC—I citrus provide the complete production story for a Methiocarb—I clover seed commodity, including current pest Methomyl—I cole crops management practices, and look at current Oxamyl—I, N collards research activities directed at finding Phenmedipham—H cranberry replacement strategies for the pesticides of Propamocarb hydrochloride—F cucumber concern. Propoxur—I date Crop profiles should include typical Thiodicarb—I eggplant pesticide use information (not simply what Thiophanate methyl—F endive appears on pesticide labels) and for Troysan KK—AM, F fig consistency and ease of use should be Potential Carcinogens (B1’s and B2’s) filberts presented in the following format: garlic Acetochlor—H green onions Crop Profile for Commodity in State Aciflourfen sodium—H greens Production Facts Alachlor—H hazelnuts • Amitrol—H hops State’s ranking in national production of Cacodylic acid—H kale the commodity. • States contribution to total US Captan—F kiwi production of that commodity (percent). Chlorothalonil—F lettuce • Yearly production numbers (total acres Creosote—wood preservative livestock grown; total acres harvested; cash value). Cyproconazole—F mango • Production costs on a yearly basis. Daminozide (Alar)—growth retardant melons • Identify percent of crop destined for: ETO—fumigant, sterilant mint fresh market, processing, feed, etc. Fenoxycarb—IGR okra Folpet—F onion Production Regions Formaldehyde—fumigant, germicide ornamentals (nursery, greenhouse) • Heptachlor—I Define the production regions for the parsley commodity within your state. Iprodione—F peach Cultural Practices Lactofen—H peanut Lindane—I pear • Describe the cultural practices used for Mancozeb—F peas (dry, green, processed) producing this commodity within your state Maneb—F peppers (bell, sweet, hot) (e.g. Soil types, irrigation practices, land Metam sodium—F, I, H, N, soil fumigant pineapple preparation, planting times, thinning Metiram—F pistachio practices, etc.). MGK repellent—repellent, synergist potato • Highlight intrastate or regional Orthophenylphenol—AM, F, virucide pumpkin differences if they exist. Oxythioquinox—I radish Pentachlorophenol—F Insect/Mite Control spinach Pronamide—H • Identify and discuss the insect/mite squash Propargite—I pests on this commodity, include: frequency stonefruit Propoxur—I of occurrence (yearly, sporadic, weather sugarbeet Propylene oxide—AM, I, F related), the damage they do, percentage of sweet potato Telone—N, soil fumigant acres infested with the pest (for each growing tomato Terrazole—F season or crop cycle), critical timing of turnip Thiodicarb—I control measures, yield losses attributed to watermelon TPTH—F each pest. Vinclozolin—F Note: Applicants should refer to the • Note any regional differences that may National Agricultural Pesticide Impact occur within your state. Appendix II Assessment Program (NAPIAP) website at: Commodities—USDA and EPA have http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/opmppiap for the Chemical Controls determined that production of the following latest update of completed and planned crop • For each pest discussed above identify commodities may depend heavily on the profiles. the active ingredients that are used to manage

VerDate 23-MAR-99 11:10 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.079 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN3 15274 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices that pest, include: chemical name, trade Post Harvest Control Practices Cite References name, formulations, percent crop treated, • Discuss post harvest management • Provide the sources for information used type of application (aerial, ground, practices that are relevant for the pest/ in preparing crop profiles. chemigation, banded, broadcast, in-furrow commodity; include preharvest and/or post etc.), typical application rates, timing (pre- The Pesticide Impact Assessment Program harvest practices that are used for post (PIAP) State Liaison Representative (SLR) plant, foliar, 5-leaf stage, etc.), typical harvest pest management. number of applications per growing season or will review the draft crop profiles before the crop cycle, typical pre-harvest interval, Other issues final reports are submitted. typical reentry intervals, etc. • Discuss any export or food processor Send to: Wilfred Burr (202/720–8647 or • Identify any use of the chemical in IPM restrictions that may limit the use of a given [email protected]), USDA Office of Pest programs. active ingredient or management practice. Management Policy, Rm 0110 South Ag. • Identify any use of the chemical in • Describe on-going research activities that Bldg., 1400 Independence Ave., Washington, resistance management programs. address a possible replacement strategy for DC 20250–0315. • Discuss efficacy issues for each active the chemical under discussion. If possible ingredient. discuss time-frame for implementation. Note: Applicants should refer to the Alternatives • Discuss any other relevant issues National Agricultural Pesticide Impact involving pest management practices used on Assessment Program (NAPIAP) website at: • Discuss availability and efficacy issues this commodity. associated with the alternatives for the pest/ http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/opmppiap for pesticide combinations discussed above. Weed Control examples and the latest update of completed and planned crop profiles. Cultural Control Practices • Follow same format as for insects/mites. Done at Washington, DC, on this 19th day • Identify and discuss any cultural Disease Control of March, 1999. practices (e.g. planting dates, resistant • Follow same format as for insects/mites. varieties, row spacing) used to manage the Colien Hefferan, Nematode Control pests. Acting Administrator, Cooperative State • Biological Controls Follow same format as for insects/mites. Research, Education, and Extension Service. • Discuss any biological control programs Key Contacts [FR Doc. 99–7687 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] that are relevant for the pest/commodity, • Identify commodity experts within your BILLING CODE 3410±22±P include pheromone use if applicable. state.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 11:10 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.080 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN3 eDt 3MR9 11 a 9 99Jt134 O000Fm001Ft41 ft41 :F\MA0R.1 fm4PsN:30MRP2 pfrm04 E:\FR\FM\A30MR2.018 Sfmt4717 Fmt4717 Frm00001 PO00000 Jkt183247 11:16Mar29, 1999 VerDate 23-MAR-99 federal register March 30,1999 Tuesday Proposed Rule Act forthe21stCentury(TEA21); Authorized bytheTransportationEquity Guidelines toCarryOutNewPrograms Amendment toSection5333(b) 29 CFRPart215 Office ofLabor-ManagementStandards Department ofLabor Part V 15275 15276 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR assistance, as a condition of release of populations under 200,000 are similar assistance by the Federal Transit to the small urban and rural program Office of Labor-Management Administration (FTA). These rights under section 5311. Although Standards include the preservation of rights, traditional transportation providers are privileges, and benefits under existing eligible recipients under the program, it 29 CFR Part 215 collective bargaining agreements, the will probably have the most impact on RIN 1215±AB25 continuation of collective bargaining existing transit employees where rights, the protection of individual applicants are serving populations of Amendment to Section 5333(b) employees against a worsening of their 200,000 or more. See Federal Transit Guidelines To Carry Out New positions related to employment, Administration, Job Access and Reverse Programs Authorized by the assurances of employment to employees Commute Competitive Grants; Notice, Transportation Equity Act for the 21st of acquired mass transportation systems, 63 FR 60168 (November 6, 1998). Century (TEA 21) priority of reemployment, and paid Accordingly, DOL intends to establish training or retraining. procedures similar to those for section AGENCY: Office of Labor-Management For most programs funded by the Standards, Labor. 5311(f) for applicants serving FTA, DOL currently processes the populations under 200,000, and to ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. employee protection certifications apply the existing Guidelines required under section 5333(b) in procedures for applicants serving SUMMARY: The Department of Labor accordance with procedural Guidelines (DOL) is providing notice of an populations of 200,000 or more. This published at 29 CFR 215.3. DOL applies necessitates that DOL amend the amendment to its procedural Guidelines these procedures to the processing of all Guidelines to exclude Job Access and for certification of certain Federal grants except section 5310, Elderly and Reverse Commute grants for applicants Transit Administration (FTA) projects Handicapped grants which do not serving populations under 200,000 from in satisfaction of the requirements of require section 5333(b) certification, and coverage under the Guidelines. Title 49 U.S.C., Chapter 53, Section section 5311 Non-Urban formula grants 5333(b) (commonly referred to as which are specifically exempted from The Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility ‘‘Section 13(c)’’). This notice is processing under the Guidelines. Grants Program provides funding to assist in necessitated by the introduction of three under section 5311 are automatically financing the incremental capital and new programs under the Transportation certified through the application of a training costs associated with the Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA– warranty, while other grants are Department of Transportation’s 21), and the need to identify appropriate certified following referral procedures implementation of its Final Rule on procedures for DOL’s required which afford the interested parties an accessibility requirements for Over-The- certification of employee protections in opportunity to provide their views on Road-Buses (OTRB). DOL intends to connection with these projects. substantive protections. The purpose of follow existing referral procedures DATES: Comments must be submitted by this notice is to amend the Guidelines under the Guidelines for processing April 29, 1999. to identify the certification processes employee protection certifications for ADDRESSES: Comments should be which will be applicable for the Job this program. Thus, amendment of the submitted to Kelley Andrews, Director, Access and Reverse Commute Program, Guidelines is not necessary to address Statutory Programs, U.S. Department of the Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility grants. Program, and the State Infrastructure Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, The State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) Bank Program. To accomplish this, DOL Room N–5603, Washington, DC 20210. Program provides for a revised pilot proposes to insert a new paragraph at Comments may also be submitted by program without limitation on the § 215.3(a)(4) to identify programs and facsimile to (202) 693–1342 or by e-mail amount of funds that may be used to activities within programs which will to: [email protected]–esa.gov. capitalize the bank. SIBs do not make not be subject to processing under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Guidelines. In addition, the last grants, but can provide assistance in a Kelley Andrews, Director, Statutory sentence of § 215.3(a)(3) will be omitted variety of ways, including loans and Programs, (202) 693–0126. as extraneous. Finally, § 215.8 will be advances for projects with a repayment SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: modified to update the room number provision, subsidizing interest rates, and providing bond or other debt financing I. Background and phone number of the Statutory Programs office. security. DOL will certify initial The Transportation Equity Act for the capitalization grants made by FTA to 21st Century (TEA–21), signed into law II. Processing of Grants for New the SIBs by applying standard by President Clinton on June 9, 1998, Programs protections and specifying that the SIB provides for three new transportation The Job Access and Reverse Commute may not release funds absent programs which require employee Program provides funding to establish a subsequent certifications for specific protection under section 5333(b). These regional approach to job access projects. When specific projects are are the Job Access and Reverse challenges and supports the identified, certification of labor Commute Program (section 3037), the implementation of a variety of protections for each project funded by Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility transportation services that may be the SIB transit account will be Program (section 3038), and the State needed to connect welfare recipients to processed in accordance with DOL’s Infrastructure Bank Program (section jobs and related employment activities. Guidelines, thus permitting the 1511). Pursuant to section 5333(b), DOL Metropolitan Planning Organizations interested parties an opportunity to must certify, when Federal funds are will select applicants in areas serving provide their views on the protective used to acquire, improve, or operate a populations of 200,000 or greater, and arrangements proposed for application transit system, that the requisite transit the states will select applicants in areas to the specific projects. This necessitates employee protective arrangements are in with populations under 200,000. The that DOL amend the Guidelines to place protecting certain rights of mass nature of recipients and the types of exclude from coverage grants for the transit employees affected by such grants anticipated for applicants serving initial capitalization of SIBS.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 11:16 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A30MR2.018 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Proposed Rules 15277

III. Public Consultation mandate upon any State, local or tribal PART 215ÐGUIDELINES, SECTION government. 5333(b), FEDERAL TRANSIT LAW In establishing the process for Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of certification of protections applicable 1995—This rule will not include any 1. The authority citation for Part 215 for the Job Access and Reverse Federal mandate that may result in continues to read as follows: Commute Program, the Over-the-Road increased expenditures by State, local, Bus Accessibility Program, and the State Authority: Secretary’s Order 5–96, 62 FR and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 107, January 2, 1997. Infrastructure Bank Program, DOL of $100 million or more, or in increased herein seeks the views of stakeholders expenditures by the private sector of 2. Section 215.3 is amended by in the transportation industry including $100 million or more. removing the last sentence in paragraph transportation providers, transit (a)(3) and by adding new paragraph employee unions, and potentially Paperwork Reduction Act (a)(4) to read as follows: affected transit employees. Although we These guidelines contain no will not be able to respond directly to information collection requirements for § 215.3 Employees represented by a labor organization. individual comments, we will address purposes of the Paperwork Reduction comments collectively when we issue Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). * * * * * the final rule with respect to this (a) * * * Small Business Regulatory Enforcement proposed amendment to the Guidelines. Fairness Act of 1996 (4) These procedures are not IV. Regulatory Procedures: applicable to grants under section 5311; This rule is not a major rule as grants to applicants serving populations Regulatory Flexibility Act defined by section 804 of the Small under 200,000 under the Job Access and Business Regulatory Enforcement Reverse Commute Program; or grants to This proposed rule addresses the Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not capitalize SIB accounts under the State procedural steps for obtaining the result in an annual effect on the Infrastructure Bank Program. Department’s certification that economy of $100,000,000 or more; a employee protection arrangements 3. Section 215.8 is revised to read as major increase in costs or prices; or follows: under the Federal Transit law are in significant adverse effects on place as required for three new competition, employment, investment, § 215.8 Department of Labor contact. programs funded under TEA–21. The productivity, innovation, or on the amendment will not have a significant Questions concerning the subject ability of the United States-based matter covered by this part should be economic impact on a substantial companies to compete with foreign- number of small entities. Therefore, a addressed to Director, Statutory based companies in domestic and Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, regulatory flexibility analysis under the export markets. Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Suite N5603, 200 Constitution Avenue, 605(b)) is not required. The Assistant List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 215 NW, Washington, DC 20210; phone Secretary for Employment Standards Grant administration; Grants— number 202–693–0126. has certified to this effect to the Chief transportation; Labor-management Signed at Washington, DC this 24th day of Counsel for Advocacy of the Small relations; Labor unions; Mass March, 1999. Business Administration. transportation. Bernard E. Anderson, Assistant Secretary for Employment Unfunded Mandates Reform Accordingly, it is proposed that Chapter II of Title 29 of the Code of Standards. Executive Order 12875—This rule Federal Regulations be amended as [FR Doc. 99–7708 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] will not create an unfunded Federal follows. BILLING CODE 4510±27±P

VerDate 23-MAR-99 16:02 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30MRP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 30MRP2 eDt 3MR9 55 a 9 99Jt134 O000Fm001Ft41 ft41 :F\M3MN.X fm7PsN:30MRN4 pfrm07 E:\FR\FM\30MRN4.XXX Sfmt4717 Fmt4717 Frm00001 PO00000 Jkt183247 15:57Mar29, 1999 VerDate 23-MAR-99 federal register March 30,1999 Tuesday Notice New AwardsforFiscalYear(FY)1999; Program; NoticeInvitingApplicationsfor Institute forInternationalPublicPolicy Education Department of Part VI 15279 15280 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Note: The Department is not bound by any format, also, by contacting that person. estimates in this notice. However, the Department is not able to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION [CFDA No.84.269] : The reproduce in an alternate format the applicant’s share of the total cost of standard forms included in the Institute for International Public Policy carrying out a program supported by a application package. grant under this section must be at least Program; Notice Inviting Applications Electronic Access to this Document for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) one-half of the amount of the grant. The 1999 non-Federal share of the cost may be Anyone may view this document, as provided either in-kind or in cash, and well as all other Department of Purpose of Program: To provide a may include contributions from private Education documents published in the grant that establishes an Institute for sector corporations or foundations. Federal Register, in text or portable International Public Policy that will Applicable Regulations: The document format (pdf) on the World conduct a program to significantly Education Department General Wide Web at either of the following increase the number of African Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in sites: Americans and other underrepresented 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm minorities in the international service, 85, and 86. http://www.ed.gov/news.html including private international Note: Because there are no program To use the pdf you must have the Adobe voluntary organizations and the foreign specific regulations for the Institute for Acrobat Reader Program with Search, service of the United States. International Public Policy Program, which is available free at either of the Eligible Applicants: Consortia applicants are encouraged to read the previous sites. If you have any questions consisting of one or more of the authorizing statute in sections 621–628 of about using the pdf, call the U.S. following entities: (1) An institution part C, Title VI, of the HEA. Government Printing Office at (202) eligible for assistance under Part B of FOR APPLICATIONS OR INFORMATION 512–1530 or, toll free, at 1–888–293– Title III of the Higher Education Act of CONTACT: Ralph Hines, International 6498. 1965, as amended (HEA); (2) an Education and Graduate Programs Anyone may also view these institution of higher education that Service, U.S. Department of Education, documents in text copy only on an serves substantial numbers of African 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Suite 600, electronic bulletin board of the American or other underrepresented Portals Building, Washington, DC Department. Telephone: (202) 219–1511 minority students; (3) an institution of 20202–5332. Telephone:(202) 401–9789. or, toll free, 1–800–222–4922. The higher education with programs in Individuals who use a documents are located under Option training foreign service professionals. telecommunications device for the deaf G—Files/Announcements, Bulletins, (‘‘Institution of higher education’’ is (TDD) may call the Federal Information and Press Releases. defined in section 101 of the HEA.) Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339 Applications Available: March 31, between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time, Note: The official version of a document is 1999. Monday through Friday. the document published in the Federal Register. Deadline for Transmittal of Individuals with disabilities may Applications: May 7, 1999. obtain this document in an alternate Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1131–1131f. Deadline for Intergovernmental format (e.g., Braille, large print, Dated: March 24, 1999. Review: July 7, 1999. audiotape, or computer diskette) on David A. Longanecker, Estimated Amount of Awards: request to the contact person listed in Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary $1,000,000. the preceding paragraph. Individuals Education. Estimated Number of Awards: 1. with disabilities may obtain a copy of [FR Doc. 99–7748 Filed 3–29–99; 8:45 am] Project Period: Up to 60 months. the application package in an alternate BILLING CODE 4000±01±P

VerDate 23-MAR-99 11:18 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A30MR3.038 pfrm04 PsN: 30MRN4 eDt 3MR9 22 a 9 99Jt134 O000Fm001Ft41 ft41 :F\M3ME.X fm4PsN:30MRE0 pfrm04 E:\FR\FM\30MRE0.XXX Sfmt4717 Fmt4717 Frm00001 PO00000 Jkt183247 12:27Mar29, 1999 VerDate 23-MAR-99 federal register March 30,1999 Tuesday United StatesCoastGuard Force ontheRolesandMissionsof Executive Order13115ÐInteragencyTask The President Part VII 15281 VerDate 23-MAR-99 12:27 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\30MRE0.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 30MRE0 15283

Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 64, No. 60

Tuesday, March 30, 1999

Title 3— Executive Order 13115 of March 25, 1999

The President Interagency Task Force on the Roles and Missions of the United States Coast Guard

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. (a) The Interagency Task Force on the Roles and Missions of the United States Coast Guard is established. (b) The Task Force shall be composed of one representative from the: (1) Department of State; (2) Department of Defense; (3) Department of Justice; (4) Department of Commerce; (5) Department of Labor; (6) Department of Transportation; (7) Environmental Protection Agency; (8) Office of Management and Budget; (9) National Security Council; (10) Council on Environmental Quality; (11) Office of Cabinet Affairs; (12) National Economic Council; (13) Domestic Policy Council; and (14) United States Coast Guard. The Secretary of Transportation shall select from among the Task Force members a Chair and Vice Chair for the Task Force. (c) The members of the Task Force shall be officials or employees of the Federal Government. Sec. 2. Functions. (a) The Task Force shall report to the President through the Secretary of Transportation, and shall provide advice and recommendations regarding the appropriate roles and missions for the United States Coast Guard through the Year 2020. While the Task Force will comprehen- sively review all Coast Guard roles and missions, it will give special attention to the deepwater missions, which are those that generally occur beyond 50 nautical miles from U.S. shores. (b) The Chair shall consult with the Secretary of Transportation, Com- mandant of the Coast Guard, and, as appropriate, other heads of departments and agencies. The Chair may invite experts to submit information to the Task Force and hold field briefings or visits. (c) The Chair may acquire services or form teams to carry out the functions of the Task Force. The Task Force and/or the Task Force staff may travel as necessary to carry out the Task Force’s functions. Sec. 3. Methodology. (a) The Task Force will seek to identify and distinguish which Coast Guard roles, missions, and functions might be added or enhanced; might be maintained at current levels of performance; or might be reduced, eliminated, or moved to other private organizations or Govern- ment agencies. The Task Force also will consider whether current Coast

VerDate 23-MAR-99 12:27 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4705 E:\FR\FM\30MRE0.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 30MRE0 15284 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Presidential Documents

Guard roles, missions, and functions might be better performed by private organizations (by contract or otherwise), public authorities, local or State governments, or other Federal agencies. The Task Force will provide explicit reasons for its recommendations. (b) The Task Force will establish explicit criteria for screening roles, missions, and functions to determine how and by whom they would be best performed. (c) For those roles, missions, and functions that the Task Force recommends be performed by the Coast Guard, the Task Force will advise as to how they might be performed most effectively and efficiently. (d) The Task Force will consider the impact on Coast Guard roles, missions, and functions of future prospects in various areas, including technology, demographics, the law of the sea, marine pollution, and national security. (e) The Task Force shall review each of the Coast Guard’s law enforcement and national security missions and functions according to the methodology described in this section. However, in conducting that review, the Task Force shall assume that the Coast Guard will remain a law enforcement agency and an armed force of the United States. Sec. 4. Administration. (a) The heads of executive departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide the Task Force such information with respect to the roles and missions of the Coast Guard as it may require to carry out its functions. (b) The Coast Guard shall support the Task Force administratively and financially. (c) The Secretary of Transportation shall appoint a Staff Director for the Task Force. (d) Assigned staff shall possess a balanced and broad base of experience to include persons of experience in national security, military operations, foreign and domestic policy, international affairs, economic policy, environmental protection, and law enforcement. Staff members may include military members on active duty, Reserve members of any component, and Federal civilian employees. Sec. 5. General. (a) The Task Force shall exist for a period of 6 months from its first meeting unless extended by the Secretary of Transportation and, at the conclusion, submit a written report as discussed in section 2 of this order. (b) The recommendations of the Task Force will be considered in determining the appropriate level of investment in the Coast Guard’s Deepwater Capability Replacement Project, a system of cutters and aircraft with an integrated command, control, communications, and sensor infrastructure. The Task Force may provide an interim report for use in preparation of the Federal budget for Fiscal Year 2001. œ–

THE WHITE HOUSE, March 25, 1999. [FR Doc. 99–7999 Filed 3–29–99; 11:01 am] Billing code 3195–01–P

VerDate 23-MAR-99 12:27 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4705 E:\FR\FM\30MRE0.XXX pfrm04 PsN: 30MRE0 i

Reader Aids Federal Register Vol. 64, No. 60 Tuesday, March 30, 1999

CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING MARCH

Federal Register/Code of Federal Regulations At the end of each month, the Office of the Federal Register General Information, indexes and other finding 202±523±5227 publishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), which aids lists parts and sections affected by documents published since the revision date of each title. Laws 523±5227 3 CFR 1728...... 14813 Presidential Documents 100...... 12881 Proposed Rules: 301...... 11392 Executive orders and proclamations 523±5227 Proclamations: 915...... 13123 The United States Government Manual 523±5227 7168...... 10101 916...... 11346 7169...... 10379 917...... 11346 Other Services 7170...... 10383 944...... 14642 7171...... 10385 Electronic and on-line services (voice) 523±4534 1065...... 13125 Privacy Act Compilation 523±3187 7172...... 11373 7173...... 12879 1301...... 12769 Public Laws Update Service (numbers, dates, etc.) 523±6641 1703...... 14401 TTY for the deaf-and-hard-of-hearing 523±5229 7174...... 14353 7175...... 14807 1823...... 10235 7176...... 15123 1956...... 10235 ELECTRONIC RESEARCH 3400...... 14348 Executive Orders: World Wide Web 12170 (See Notice of 8 CFR March 10, 1999)...... 12239 Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other 3...... 13663, 13881 publications: 12852 (Amended by EO 13114)...... 10099 103...... 13881 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara 12957 (See Notice of 208...... 13881 Federal Register information and research tools, including Public March 10, 1999)...... 12239 235...... 13881 Inspection List, indexes, and links to GPO Access: 12959 (See Notice of 238...... 13881 http://www.nara.gov/fedreg March 10, 1999)...... 12239 240...... 13881 241...... 13881 E-mail 13059 (See Notice of March 10, 1999)...... 12239 253...... 13881 PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an E-mail 13114...... 10099 274a...... 11533 service that delivers information about recently enacted Public 13115...... 15283 507...... 13881 Laws. To subscribe, send E-mail to Administrative Orders: 9 CFR [email protected] Notice of March 10, 52...... 13064 with the text message: 1999 ...... 12239 Proposed Rules: subscribe publaws-l Memorandum: March 23, 1999 ...... 14809 1...... 10400 Use [email protected] only to subscribe or unsubscribe to 3...... 10400 PENS. We cannot respond to specific inquiries at that address. Presidential Determinations: 71...... 13726 No. 99±15 of February 80...... 13726 Reference questions. Send questions and comments about the 26, 1999 ...... 11319 112...... 13365 Federal Register system to: No. 99±16 of March 4, 113...... 10400, 14156 [email protected] 1999 ...... 13495 391...... 10402 The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents or 4 CFR regulations. 10 CFR 27...... 15125 28...... 15125 50...... 14814 FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATES, MARCH 73...... 14814 9905±10100...... 1 5 CFR 708...... 12862 10101±10204...... 2 532...... 9905, 9906 Proposed Rules: 10205±10386...... 3 2635...... 13063 21...... 12117 10387±10554...... 4 Proposed Rules: 50...... 12117 10555±10918...... 5 300...... 14842 54...... 12117 10919±11372...... 8 1620...... 13924 63...... 10405 11373±11754...... 9 1650...... 13725 70...... 13368 11755±12078...... 10 707...... 11819 12079±12238...... 11 7 CFR 12239±12742...... 12 3...... 11755 11 CFR 12743±12880...... 15 51...... 14575 Proposed Rules: 12881±13062...... 16 246...... 13311 2...... 10405 13063±13310...... 17 360...... 12881 4...... 10405 13311±13496...... 18 361...... 12881 5...... 10405 13497±13662...... 19 782...... 12884 13663±13880...... 22 932...... 14811 12 CFR 13881±14096...... 23 989...... 10919 3...... 10194 14097±14354...... 24 1381...... 11755 208...... 10194 14355±14574...... 25 1434...... 10923 225...... 10201 14575±14808...... 26 1439...... 13497 229...... 14577 14809±15122...... 29 1469...... 10929 325...... 10194 15123±15284...... 30 1703...... 14355 404...... 14373

VerDate 23-MAR-99 17:29 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\30MRCU.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 30MRCU ii Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Reader Aids

405...... 14373 241...... 13368 812...... 10942 Proposed Rules: 567...... 10194 256...... 13369 874...... 10947, 14830 25...... 10262 960...... 12079 1213...... 10245, 14158 Proposed Rules: 302...... 11821 Proposed Rules: 1500...... 10245, 14158 101...... 14178 549...... 10095 1513...... 10245, 14158 21...... 15137 864...... 12774 29 CFR 326...... 14845 1615...... 10963, 13126 866...... 12774 563...... 14845 1616...... 10963, 13126 868...... 12774 96...... 14538 602...... 10954 1630...... 13132 870...... 12774 99...... 14538 1631...... 13132 872...... 12774 1910...... 13700, 13897 13 CFR 1632...... 13137 874...... 12774 4044...... 12745 123...... 13667 876...... 12774 Proposed Rules: 17 CFR 215...... 15276 14 CFR 878...... 12774 202...... 13065 884...... 12774 2510...... 15143 21...... 13501 228...... 11103 886...... 12774 30 CFR 25...... 10740, 14818 229...... 11103 888...... 12774 39 ...... 9906, 9908, 9910, 9911, 230 ...... 11090, 11095, 11103 1010...... 14180 256...... 13343 9912, 10205, 10208, 10209, 239...... 11103, 11118 1040...... 14180 914...... 12890 10211, 10213, 10216, 10555, 240...... 10564, 13065 934...... 12896 10557, 10560, 10935, 11375, 242...... 13065 22 CFR 938...... 14610 11533, 11757, 11759, 11761, 249...... 13065 41...... 13510 Proposed Rules: 11764, 12241, 12242, 12244, Proposed Rules: 121...... 13679 56...... 15144 12247, 12249, 12252, 12743, 1...... 14159 124...... 13679 57...... 14200, 15144 13325, 13326, 13328, 13330, 30...... 14159 171...... 10949 77...... 15144 13502, 13504, 13667, 13669, 200...... 15143 120...... 15144 13882, 13884, 13886, 13889, 202...... 15143 24 CFR 204...... 13734 206...... 12267 13890, 13892, 14097, 14578, 210...... 10579, 15143 5...... 13056 250...... 13535 14580, 14583, 14585, 14588, 228...... 10579, 15143 35...... 14381 914...... 14412 14820, 14822, 14824, 15126 229...... 15143 203...... 14568, 14572 71 ...... 10387, 10562, 10563, 938...... 12269 230 ...... 12908, 14648, 15143 234...... 14572 10740, 10937, 10938, 10939, 232...... 12908, 15143 882...... 14831 10940, 12084, 12254, 12255, 32 CFR 239 ...... 11118, 12908, 15143 887...... 13056 13333, 13504, 13671, 13672, 199...... 11765, 13912 240 ...... 9948, 10579, 11124, 941...... 13510 14306, 14589, 14590, 14591, 556...... 14619 12127, 12908, 14648, 15143 982...... 13056 14592, 14593, 14594, 14595, 249...... 15143 984...... 13056 33 CFR 14596, 14597, 14598, 14599, 270...... 12908, 14648 3500...... 10080 14600, 14601, 14602 274...... 12908 62...... 10104 73 ...... 12743, 13334, 13506, Proposed Rules: 100 ...... 13913, 13914, 14382, 14603, 14604 19 CFR Ch. IX ...... 13531, 13533 14384 990...... 12920 91...... 15120 Ch. I ...... 13673 117...... 10104, 13514 165 ...... 11771, 12746, 13915, 93...... 14972 133...... 11376 25 CFR 97 ...9912, 9914, 13334, 13336, 14306 Proposed Rules: 31...... 13894 14826, 14828 4...... 13370 320...... 11708 39...... 13894 204...... 12084 24...... 13141 326...... 11708 111...... 13894 255...... 15127 146...... 13142 331...... 11708 257...... 12838 112...... 13894 Proposed Rules: 258...... 12854 20 CFR 115...... 13894 110...... 14414 140...... 13894 399...... 12838 10...... 12684 117...... 12795, 12797 151...... 13894 Proposed Rules: 404 ...... 10103, 13677, 14606 155...... 13734 152...... 13894 23...... 14401 416...... 13677 162...... 14414 25...... 14408 160...... 13894 165...... 14414 39 ...... 9939, 10237, 10578, 21 CFR 162...... 13894 167...... 12139 10959, 11401, 12770, 12772, 5...... 14098 226...... 13894 34 CFR 13530, 13732, 13932, 13934, 26...... 11376 256...... 13894 13936, 15137 50...... 10942 273...... 13894 300...... 12406 71 ...... 9940, 10238, 10239, 101...... 12886, 12887 275...... 13894 303...... 12406 10241, 10242, 10243, 10410, 173...... 14608 276...... 13894 648...... 13486 694...... 10184 10411, 10962, 11533, 11819, 177...... 10943 26 CFR 11820, 12126, 12404, 13938, 178...... 13506 Proposed Rules: 14410, 15139, 15140, 15142 201...... 13066, 13254 1...... 10218, 11378 303...... 12674 129...... 13880 216...... 10944 54...... 14382 330...... 13254 602...... 10218 36 CFR 15 CFR 331...... 13254 Proposed Rules: 61...... 11736 734...... 13338 341...... 13254 1 ...... 10262, 13939, 13940, Proposed Rules: 740...... 13338 346...... 13254 14306, 14412, 14846 1091...... 13752 742...... 13338 355...... 13254 20...... 10964, 13940 1190...... 13752 744...... 14605 358...... 13254 25...... 13940 752...... 13338 369...... 13254 31...... 13940 37 CFR 772...... 13338 520 ...... 10103, 10389, 13068, 40...... 13940 1...... 12900 774 ...... 10852, 12744, 13338 13340, 13341, 13508, 13678 201...... 12902 806...... 10387 522...... 13508, 13509 27 CFR 202...... 12902 902...... 14052 556 ...... 10103, 13068, 13341, 9...... 13511 39 CFR 13679 13...... 10949 16 CFR 558 ...... 13068, 13069, 13341, 24...... 13682 20...... 9915, 10219 4...... 14829 13342, 13679 111 ...... 10950, 12072, 14385 Proposed Rules: 701...... 13254 28 CFR Proposed Rules: Ch. I ...... 14156 806...... 14098 79...... 13686 111...... 11402

VerDate 23-MAR-99 17:29 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\30MRCU.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 30MRCU Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Reader Aids iii

40 CFR Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 176...... 10742 52 ...... 9916, 11773, 11775, 428...... 12141 381...... 14676 177...... 10742 3100...... 14666 12002, 12005, 12015, 12019, 178...... 10742 3110...... 14666 47 CFR 12085, 12087, 12256, 12257, 180...... 10742 3120...... 14666 0...... 14834 12749, 12751, 12759, 13070, 531...... 12090 3130...... 14666 25...... 14394 13343, 13346, 13348, 13351, 571...... 10786, 11724 3140...... 14666 41...... 13916 13514, 13916, 14391, 14620, 575...... 11724 3150...... 14666 51...... 14141 14624, 14832, 15129 596...... 10786 61...... 14394 58...... 10389 3160...... 14666 1000±1199...... 10234 64...... 13701, 14141 60 ...... 10105, 11536, 14393 3170...... 14666 1420...... 13916 73 ...... 9923, 12767, 12902, 62...... 13075, 13517 3180...... 14666 12903, 13719, 13720, 13721, Proposed Rules: 63...... 11536, 12762 3400...... 12142 13722, 13729, 14397 17...... 14676 80...... 10366 3420...... 12142 90...... 10395 171...... 13856, 13943 81 ...... 11775, 12002, 12005, 3800...... 9960 95...... 14639 173...... 13856 12257, 13146 44 CFR 177...... 13856 82...... 10374 Proposed Rules: 61...... 13115 1...... 9960 178...... 13856 90...... 15208 180...... 13856 93...... 13476 64...... 9919 2...... 10266 192...... 12147 136...... 10391, 13053 65 ...... 11378, 11380, 11382, 51...... 14203 350...... 11414 147...... 14800 11384 73 ...... 12922, 12923, 12924, 571 ...... 9961, 10604, 13947, 180 ...... 10227, 10233, 10567, 67...... 11386, 11388 13756, 13757, 14419, 14420, 14207 11782, 11789, 11792, 11799, Proposed Rules: 14421, 14422, 14423 13078, 13086, 13088, 13094, 67...... 11403, 11409 95...... 10266 572...... 10965 77...... 10181 585...... 13947 13097, 13103, 13106, 14098, 48 CFR 14099, 14101, 14104, 14106, 80...... 10181 587...... 13947 14626, 14632 81...... 10181 Ch. 1...... 10530, 10552 591...... 13757 271...... 10111 82...... 10181 1...... 10531, 10548 595...... 13947 300...... 11801 83...... 10181 4...... 10531 1420...... 13948 302...... 13113 152...... 10181 5...... 10535 207...... 10181 8...... 10535 355...... 13113 50 CFR 439...... 10391, 13053 220...... 10181 11...... 10538 17...... 13116 Proposed Rules: 221...... 10181 12...... 10531, 10535 Ch. 1 ...... 10066 222...... 10181 13...... 10538 25...... 14149 52 ...9951, 9952, 10118, 10265, 301...... 10181 14...... 10531 36...... 14149, 14151 10342, 11822, 12025, 12141, 303...... 10181 15...... 10544 216...... 9925 12798, 12799, 13143, 13146, 306...... 10181 16...... 10538 217...... 14052 13372, 13375, 13378, 13379, 308...... 10181 19...... 10535 220...... 14052 13382, 13538, 13753, 14416, 320...... 10181 22...... 10545 221...... 14052 14659, 14665, 15148 324...... 10181 25...... 10548 222...... 14052 60...... 10119, 11555 325...... 10181 26...... 10531 223 ...... 14052, 14308, 14508, 62...... 13539 328...... 10181 27...... 10531 14517, 14528 63...... 11555, 11560 333...... 10181 31...... 10547 224...... 14052, 14308 81 ...... 11822, 12025, 13383, 336...... 10181 32...... 10531, 10548 225...... 14052 41...... 10531 13384 45 CFR 226...... 14052 82...... 14417 52 ...... 10531, 10535, 10538, 227...... 14052 94...... 10596 60...... 9921 10545, 10548 285...... 10576 97...... 10118 302...... 11802 53 ...... 10548, 10913, 12862 300...... 13519 303 ...... 11802, 11810, 15132 203...... 14397 136...... 10596 600...... 9932 304...... 11802 211...... 14398 194...... 14418 622 ...... 13120, 13363, 13528 1207...... 14113 217...... 14399 271...... 10121, 14201 630...... 12903 1208...... 14123 252...... 14397, 14398 372...... 9957, 10597 648...... 14052, 14835 1209...... 14133 913...... 12862 435...... 10266 660...... 9932, 12092 2551...... 14113 915...... 12220 41 CFR 2552...... 14123 922...... 12862 678...... 14154 2553...... 14133 970...... 12220, 12862 679 ...... 9937, 10397, 10398, 101±49...... 13700 10952, 11390, 12093, 12094, Proposed Rules: 1804...... 14640 12103, 12265, 12767, 12768, 42 CFR 5...... 14668 1806...... 10571 13121, 13122, 13723, 14052, Proposed Rules: 92...... 10412 1807...... 14640 14155, 14840 36...... 14560 95...... 10412 1815...... 10573 697...... 14052 405...... 14666 1224...... 10872 1819...... 10571 409...... 12277 1302...... 14202 1822...... 14148 Proposed Rules: 410...... 12277 2508...... 10872 1835...... 14640 17 ...... 12924, 14209, 14424, 411...... 12277 1842...... 10573 14676 412...... 12277 46 CFR 1852...... 10571, 10573 216...... 9965 413...... 12277 502...... 9922 1872...... 14640 223...... 14329 416...... 12278 510...... 11156 Proposed Rules: 224...... 14329 419...... 12277 514...... 11186 204...... 14424 285...... 10438 447...... 10412 515...... 11156 252...... 14424 600...... 10438, 12925 457...... 10412 520...... 11218 970...... 14206 622...... 10612, 10613 488...... 12278, 13354 530...... 11186 630...... 10438 489...... 12277 535...... 11236 49 CFR 635...... 10438 498...... 12277 545...... 9922 171...... 9923, 10742 644...... 10438 1003...... 12277 565...... 10395 172...... 10742 648 ...... 11431, 13392, 13952, 571...... 9922 173...... 10742 14846 43 CFR 572...... 11236 174...... 10742 660 ...... 10439, 12279, 14211 4...... 13362 583...... 11156 175...... 10742 678...... 10438

VerDate 23-MAR-99 17:29 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\30MRCU.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 30MRCU iv Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Reader Aids

REMINDERS Onions; comments due by (OASIS) and standards of Mercury; measurement The items in this list were 4-5-99; published 2-18-99 conduct; implementation method; comments due editorially compiled as an aid AGRICULTURE Uniform business by 4-5-99; published 3- to Federal Register users. DEPARTMENT practices; comments 5-99 Inclusion or exclusion from Food Safety and Inspection due by 4-5-99; FARM CREDIT this list has no legal Service published 2-3-99 ADMINISTRATION significance. Meat and poultry inspection: ENVIRONMENTAL Freedom of Information Act; Inspection services; fee PROTECTION AGENCY implementation; comments RULES GOING INTO increase; comments due Air pollutants, hazardous; due by 4-7-99; published 3- EFFECT MARCH 30, 1999 by 4-5-99; published 3-4- national emission standards: 8-99 99 Polymer and resin FEDERAL AGRICULTURE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT production facilities COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT Economic Development (Groups I and IV) and COMMISSION Agricultural Marketing Administration volatile organic compound Radio services, special: (VOC) emissions from Service Economic Development Personal radio servicesÐ polymer manufacturing Olives grown inÐ Reform Act of 1998; Medical implant industry; comments due California; published 3-29-99 implementation; comments communications service by 4-8-99; published 3-9- ENVIRONMENTAL due by 4-5-99; published 2- in 402-405 MHz band; 99 PROTECTION AGENCY 3-99 establishment; Polymer and resin comments due by 4-9- Air quality implementation COMMERCE DEPARTMENT √ √ plans; approval and 2 production facilities 99; published 3-3-99 Export Administration (Groups I and IV) and promulgation; various Radio stations; table of Bureau volatile organic compound States: assignments: Export licensing: (VOC) emissions from Georgia; published 1-29-99 Commerce control listÐ polymer manufacturing California; comments due by Hazardous waste program 4-5-99; published 2-23-99 Missile technology industry; comments due authorizations: by 4-8-99; published 3-9- Colorado; comments due by Nevada; published 1-29-99 controls changes; comments due by 4-9- 99 4-5-99; published 2-23-99 GENERAL ACCOUNTING 99; published 2-8-99 Air pollution control; new Illinois; comments due by 4- OFFICE motor vehicles and engines: 5-99; published 2-23-99 Procedural rules: COMMERCE DEPARTMENT International Trade New nonroad spark-ignition Iowa; comments due by 4- Personnel Appeals Board; engines at or below 19 5-99; published 2-23-99 published 3-30-99 Administration North American Free Trade kilowatts; phase 2 Kansas; comments due by TRANSPORTATION emission standards; 4-5-99; published 2-23-99 DEPARTMENT Agreement (NAFTA); binational panel reviews: comments due by 4-5-99; Kentucky; comments due by Coast Guard published 2-3-99 4-5-99; published 2-23-99 Tank vessels: Circular welded non-alloy Air quality implementation Montana; comments due by Tank barges; emergency steel pipe and tube fromÐ plans; approval and 4-5-99; published 2-23-99 control measures; promulgation; various Mexico; comments due by Pennsylvania; comments published 12-30-98 States: due by 4-5-99; published TRANSPORTATION 4-5-99; published 1-6-99 Connecticut; comments due 2-23-99 DEPARTMENT COMMERCE DEPARTMENT by 4-9-99; published 3-10- Texas; comments due by 4- National Highway Traffic National Oceanic and 99 5-99; published 2-23-99 Safety Administration Atmospheric Administration Air quality implementation West Virginia; comments Motor vehicle safety Fishery conservation and plans; √A√approval and due by 4-5-99; published standards: management: promulgation; various 2-23-99 Occupant crash protectionÐ West Coast States and States; air quality planning Child restraint systems; Western Pacific purposes; designation of Wyoming; comments due by air bag warning label fisheriesÐ areas: 4-5-99; published 2-23-99 on rear-facing child West Coast salmon; Colorado; comments due by FEDERAL ELECTION seats; modification; comments due by 4-5- 4-9-99; published 3-10-99 COMMISSION correction; published 99; published 3-4-99 Connecticut; comments due Freedom of Information Act; 10-1-98 COMMODITY FUTURES by 4-9-99; published 3-10- implementation; comments TRADING COMMISSION 99 due by 4-5-99; published 3- COMMENTS DUE NEXT Reporting requirements: Hazardous waste: 4-99 WEEK Large trader reports; Identification and listingÐ HEALTH AND HUMAN reporting levels changes; SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGRICULTURE Exclusions; comments due comments due by 4-5-99; by 4-5-99; published 2- Children and Families DEPARTMENT published 2-3-99 Administration Animal and Plant Health 19-99 Head Start Program: Inspection Service CORPORATION FOR Superfund program: NATIONAL AND Plant-related quarantine, Toxic chemical release Authorization of use of grant COMMUNITY SERVICE domestic: reporting; community-right- funds to finance construction and major Karnal bunt diseaseÐ Privacy Act; implementation; to-knowÐ comments due by 4-5-99; renovation of facilities; Regulated areas Persistent bioaccumulative published 3-5-99 comments due by 4-9-99; reclassification; toxic (PBT) chemicals; published 2-8-99 comments due by 4-8- ENERGY DEPARTMENT reporting thresholds 99; published 3-9-99 Federal Energy Regulatory lowered, etc.; comments HEALTH AND HUMAN AGRICULTURE Commission due by 4-7-99; SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT Electric utilities (Federal Power published 3-1-99 Food and Drug Federal Crop Insurance Act): Water programs: Administration Corporation Open access same-time Pollutants analysis test Food for human consumption: Crop insurance regulations: information systems procedures; guidelinesÐ Food labelingÐ

VerDate 23-MAR-99 17:29 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\30MRCU.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 30MRCU Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 / Reader Aids v

Dietary supplements; use Publication or submission of foreign parts content session of Congress which of health claims based quotations without information; comments have become Federal laws. It on authoritative specified information; due by 4-9-99; published may be used in conjunction statements; comments comments due by 4-7-99; 2-8-99 with ``P L U S'' (Public Laws due by 4-6-99; published 3-8-99 Motor vehicle safety Update Service) on 202±523± published 1-21-99 Securities offerings, standards: 6641. This list is also Medical devices: regulatory structure; Air brake systemsÐ available online at http:// www.nara.gov/fedreg. External penile rigidity modernization and Air brake standard devices; proposed clarification; comments rulemaking petition; The text of laws is not classification; comments due by 4-5-99; published partial grant/partial published in the Federal due by 4-5-99; published 12-4-98 denial; comments due Register but may be ordered 1-4-99 Takeovers and security by 4-5-99; published 2- in ``slip law'' (individual INTERIOR DEPARTMENT holder communications; 3-99 pamphlet) form from the Land Management Bureau regulation modernization; TREASURY DEPARTMENT Superintendent of Documents, comments due by 4-5-99; Fiscal Service U.S. Government Printing Minerals management: published 12-4-98 Oil and gas leasingÐ Financial management Office, Washington, DC 20402 TRANSPORTATION (phone, 202±512±1808). The Federal oil and gas services: DEPARTMENT text will also be made resources; protection Federal payments by available on the Internet from against drainage by Disadvantaged business electronic funds transfer; GPO Access at http:// operations on nearby enterprise participation in access to accounts at www.access.gpo.gov/nara/ lands resulting in lower DOT financial assistance financial institutions index.html. Some laws may royalties from Federal programs; comments due by through payment service not yet be available. leases; correction; 4-5-99; published 2-2-99 providers; comments due TRANSPORTATION by 4-8-99; published 1-8- comments due by 4-5- H.R. 540/P.L. 106±4 99; published 1-13-99 DEPARTMENT 99 Nursing Home Resident INTERIOR DEPARTMENT Federal Aviation TREASURY DEPARTMENT Administration Protection Amendments of Surface Mining Reclamation Internal Revenue Service 1999 (Mar. 25, 1999; 113 Airworthiness directives: and Enforcement Office Income taxes: Stat. 7) Permanent program and Allison Engine Co., Inc.; Education tax credits; Hope Last List March 26, 1998 abandoned mine land comments due by 4-5-99; scholarship credit and reclamation plan published 2-4-99 lifetime learning credit; submissions: Boeing; comments due by guidance; comments due Indiana; comments due by 4-5-99; published 2-4-99 by 4-6-99; published 1-6- Public Laws Electronic 4-9-99; published 2-8-99 McDonnell Douglas; 99 Notification Service LEGAL SERVICES comments due by 4-8-99; Fast-pay stock; (PENS) CORPORATION published 2-22-99 recharacterizing financing Audit services: Raytheon; comments due by arrangements; comments due by 4-6-99; published Debarment, suspension, and 4-8-99; published 2-5-99 PENS is a free electronic mail 1-6-99 removal of recipient Textron Lycoming; notification service of newly auditors; comments due comments due by 4-5-99; TREASURY DEPARTMENT enacted public laws. To by 4-6-99; published 2-5- published 2-3-99 Thrift Supervision Office subscribe, send E-mail to 99 Class E airspace; comments Regulated activities: [email protected] with the text message: POSTAL SERVICE due by 4-9-99; published 3- Exempt savings and loan Domestic Mail Manual: 10-99 holding companies and subscribe PUBLAWS-L Your Flat-size periodicals and TRANSPORTATION grandfathered activities; Name. standard mail; packaging DEPARTMENT comments due by 4-9-99; Note: This service is strictly material standards; published 2-8-99 National Highway Traffic for E-mail notification of new comments due by 4-8-99; Safety Administration public laws. The text of laws published 3-9-99 American Automobile Labeling LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS is not available through this SECURITIES AND Act; implementation: service. PENS cannot respond EXCHANGE COMMISSION Motor vehicle content This is a continuing list of to specific inquiries sent to Securities: labeling; domestic and public bills from the current this address.

VerDate 23-MAR-99 17:29 Mar 29, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\30MRCU.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 30MRCU