The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is charged with the enforcement of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA), and the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA). Under these Acts, USDA is responsible for the wholesomeness and safety of meat, poultry, and egg products intended for human consumption. Similarly, the Secretary of HHS is charged with the enforcement of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). Under this Act, HHS is responsible for ensuring the wholesomeness and safety of human foods other than meat, poultry, and egg products, and of animal feeds.

In order to continue to meet the responsibilities of the FMIA, PPIA, EPIA, and FFDCA, the NACMCF is being reestablished. The Committee will be charged with advising and providing recommendations to the Secretaries on the development of microbiological criteria by which the safety and wholesomeness of food can be assessed, including criteria for microorganisms that indicate whether foods have been adequately and appropriately processed.

Reestablishment of this Committee is necessary and in the public interest because the development of a sound public policy in this area can best be accomplished by a free and open exchange of information and ideas among Federal, State, and local agencies, and other interested parties. The complexity of the issues to be addressed requires that more than one meeting per year will be necessary to accomplish the Committee's tasks.

Members will be appointed by the Secretary of USDA after consultation with the Secretary of HHS. Because of their interest in the matters to be addressed by this Committee, advice on membership appointments will be requested from the Department of Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service and the Department of Defense's Veterinary Service Activity.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to better ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it and provide copies of this Federal Register publication in the FSIS Constituent Update. FSIS provides a weekly FSIS Constituent Update, which is communicated via fax to over 300 organizations and individuals. In addition, the update is available on-line through the FSIS web page located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov. The update is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, recalls, and any other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents/stakeholders. The constituent fax list consists of industry, trade, and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals, scientific professionals, and other individuals that have requested to be included. Through these various channels, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. For more information and to be added to the constituent fax list, fax your request to the Congressional and Public Affairs Office, at (202) 720-5704.

The 1200 acres selected for commercial thinning are located along Blowout Creek (Forest Road 10), French Creek (Forest Road 2223), and Piety Island near Detroit Lake. These stands were established primarily through natural seeding following logging or large fires in the early 1900's. Most stands date to a single large fire, which occurred in the Detroit Reservoir Area in 1919. Stands in the French Creek area were logged in the 1930's but have similar characteristics to stands harvested earlier. These stands are predominantly Douglas-fir, and have about 150-300 trees per acre, resulting in greater than 90% canopy closure. The trees range in size from 9 to 21 inches in diameter. Generally, the stands have only one canopy layer with sparse to light ground vegetation as a result of the dense canopy closure. Given this, the stands support a less diverse range of wildlife species (primarily fewer late successional species) and are prone to crown-type fires. Because of the age and density of these stands, future growth projections, and increased mortality due to tree competition, these stands will not attain large diameter trees, open spacing, and structural diversity (multiple canopy layers) for many years.

The Detroit Ranger District, over the past several years, has commercially thinned using helicopters in stands similar to those proposed for treatment in the Shore Nuf Timber Sale project area, including thinning in riparian reserves. The results of these sales have had virtually no effect on scenic quality, water quality, or substantial amounts of slash left from the thinning. The thinning would achieve a 50-70 percent average canopy closure to meet wildlife and hydrologic needs. Thinning would be applied within selected riparian reserves to control stocking, re-establish and manage stands, and acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives. Thinning would take place outside of the wet area of the riparian reserve and outside of the portion contributing to channel bank stability.

Treating the Phellinus weirii and other root rot pockets would result in several small openings varying in size from about one to five acres. The total area affected by the treatment is approximately one to five percent of the thinned area. Reforesting the affected areas would occur with non-susceptible species such as hardwoods. There is a need for this treatment to minimize the spread of the infection by removing the host species in the infection site and/or within its path of spread.

The combination of commercial thinning and creation of small openings along the Blowout Road (Forest Road 10) would improve views of Detroit Reservoir as seen from the road. Thinnings would also occur adjacent to private lands within the project area to reduce the edge effect created by large clearcuts on private lands.

The proposal includes using a helicopter to yard the logs on about two-thirds of 1200 acres of thinning, and to use both skyline and ground-based yarding systems on the remaining one-third of the area. The timber sale would result in the sale of approximately 10 to 15 MMBF of commercial wood products such as saw logs.

The need for the Shure Nuf Timber Sale Project is to reduce the total number of trees per acre to lessen competition for nutrients, sunlight, and growing space. This would improve the growth and vigor of the remaining trees resulting in healthier stands of trees that are more resistant to insects and disease. The trees would also reach larger diameters and exhibit late successional stand characteristics sooner. Thinning the smaller diameter, suppressed trees before they die would reduce the fuel buildup and fire risk, and have the added benefit of utilizing the trees for commercial wood products. The thinning would open the stand canopies, letting sunlight reach the forest floor, thus resulting in increased shrub and hardwood growth, which would enhance diversity for wildlife habitat. The open stands with a diverse understory would also enhance the scenic quality along the forest roads in this heavily used recreation area.

The USDA Forest Service is seeking information and comments from Federal, State and local agencies, as well as, other individuals or organizations that may be interested in, or affected by, the proposed action. Information that would be especially useful would be identification of issues, exploration of additional alternatives based on the issues, and identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposal. Public involvement will include periodic mailings to interested persons as the project progresses, and possibly field trips and public meetings depending on the level of public interest for the project. Information on field trips and meetings will be announced later.

The following is a description of the preliminary issues identified for this project: (1) Noise from helicopters, harvest equipment, log trucks and increased truck traffic could be disturbing to local residents and recreation users, potentially impacting local tourism and the related tourist economy during harvest operations, and (2) There is concern that noxious weeds could spread to areas where mineral soil has been exposed due to road and landing construction.

The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register. The draft environmental impact statement is scheduled for release in January, 2001. It is expected that the final environmental impact statement will be released in April, 2001.

Comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposed action and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR parts 215 or 217. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27 (d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within a specified number of days.

The USDA Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers notice at this early stage as a result of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of a draft EIS must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519,553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft EIS stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final EIS may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir, 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final EIS.

To assist the USDA Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft EIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages of chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft EIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. (Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points).

The lead agency for this project is the USDA Forest Service, Willamette National Forest. The deciding official is Stephanie Phillips, District Ranger, Detroit Ranger District of the Willamette National Forest. The Record of Decision for this project will document the decision and rationale for the decision. That decision is subject to appeal under 36 CFR part 215.

On September 24, 1999, July 21 and 28, and August 4, 2000, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices (64 FR 51736 and 65 FR 45358, 46425 and 47949) of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4. I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government.

2. The action will not have a severe economic impact on current contractors for the services.

3. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.

4. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following services are hereby added to the Procurement List:

This action does not affect current contracts awarded prior to the effective date of this addition or options that may be exercised under those contracts.

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the possible impact of the proposed actions.

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, all entities of the Federal Government (except as otherwise indicated) will be required to procure the services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

The following services have been proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act, by the Uruguay Round Agreement Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the Departments) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (1999).

On May 8, 2000, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the administrative review of the anitidumping duty order on electrolytic manganese dioxide (EMD) from Japan. See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from Japan, 65 FR 265780 (Preliminary Results). Kerr-McGee Chemical LLC and Chemetals, Inc. (collectively “the petitioners”), submitted their case briefs on June 7, 2000. Tosoh Corporation (Tosoh), the sole respondent in this review, submitted its case brief on June 7, 2000. Both the petitioners and Tosoh submitted their rebuttal on June 12, 2000. The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Imports covered by this review are shipments of EMD from Japan. EMD is manganese dioxide (MnO 2 ) that has been refined in an electrolysis process. The subject merchandise is an intermediate product used in the production of dry-cell batteries. EMD is sold in three physical forms, powder, chip or plate, and two grades, alkaline and zinc chloride. EMD is all three forms and both grades is included in the scope of the order. This merchandise is currently classifiable under item number 2820.10.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS number is provided for convenience and customs purposes. It is not determinative of the products subject to the order. The written product description remains dispositive.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by the petitioners and Tosoh are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (Decision Memo) from Richard W. Moreland, Deputy Assistant Secretary to Troy H. Cribb, Acting Secretary, dated September 5, 2000, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memo, is attached to this notice as an appendix. This Decision Memo, which is a public document, is on the file in the Central Records Unit, Main Commerce Building, Room B-099, and is accessible on the Web at www.ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.

On April 20, 2000, the International Trade Commission (ITC), pursurant to section 751(c) of the Act, determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on EMD from Japan would not be likely to lead to continuation of recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. Therefore, because the order will be revoked as a result of the ITC's determination with an effective date of January 1, 2000, no deposit requirements will be effective for shipments entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review

Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made no changes for the final results. Therefore, the final results of review are the same as those we presented in our preliminary results. We have determined that a weighted-average margin of zero percent exists for Tosoh for the period April 1, 1998, through March 31, 1999.

The Department will issue appraisement instruction directly to the Customs Service.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with sections 751(A)(1) and 777(i)(l) of the Act.

On March 29, 2000, Rizhao Riyuan, an exporter of the subject merchandise, requested a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on crawfish from the PRC in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(b). On June 1, 2000, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated a new shipper review of this order for the period September 1, 1999 through February 29, 2000. On July 11, 2000, Rizhao Riyuan withdrew its request for this review.

The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.214(f)(1) provide that a party may withdraw its request for a new shipper review within 60 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Rizhao Riyuan's request for withdrawal was made within the 60 day period. Rescission of this review would not prejudice any party in this proceeding, as Rizhao Riyuan would continue to be included in the PRC-wide rate to which it was subject at the time of its request for this new shipper review. Rizhao Riyuan is the only party that requested a review of its sales for the period September 1, 1999 through February 29, 2000, and no other party has objected to its withdrawal of that request. Therefore, we are rescinding this review. This determination is issued and published in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675) and 19 CFR 351.214(f).

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all references to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (1999).

The Department published an antidumping duty order on certain forged stainless steel flanges from India on February 9, 1994 (59 FR 5994), received a timely request for a new shipper review from Bhansali, and initiated this review on (65 FR 8120; February 10, 2000) pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act and section 351.214(b) of the Department's regulations. The Department extended the deadline for completion of the new shipper review on June 14, 2000 (65 FR 37359). Bhansali provided responses to the Department's questionnaires on March 8, 2000 (Section A), April 5, 2000 (Sections B and C), May 15, 2000, and July 24, 2000 (supplemental questionnaires). The Department's analysis of Bhansali's data is presented in full in a Memorandum from the Case Analyst to the file, dated September 5, 2000, “Analysis of data of Bhansali Ferromet Pvt. Ltd. (Bhansali) for the preliminary results of the new shipper review of certain stainless steel flanges from India, 8/1/98-7/31/99” (Analysis Memo).

The products under review are certain forged stainless steel flanges (hereafter, “flanges”) from India, both finished and not finished, generally manufactured to specification ASTM A-182, and made in alloys such as 304, 304L, 316, and 316L. The scope includes five general types of flanges. They are weld neck, used for butt-weld line connection; threaded, used for threaded line connections; slip-on and lap joint, used with stub-ends/butt-weld line connections; socket weld, used to fit pipe into a machined recession; and blind, used to seal off a line. The sizes of the flanges within the scope range generally from one to six inches; however, all sizes of the above-described merchandise are included in the scope. Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are cast stainless steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges generally are manufactured to specification ASTM A-351. The flanges subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive of whether or not the merchandise is covered by the review.

Bhansali reported as export price (EP) transactions sales of subject merchandise to unaffiliated U.S. customers prior to importation. We calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Tariff Act, because the merchandise was sold to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and constructed export price (CEP) methodology was not otherwise warranted, based on the facts of record. We based EP on the FOB price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We adjusted the starting price by the amount Bhansali reported for early payment discounts, and movement in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act. See the Analysis Memo.

In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared Bhansali's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Tariff Act. Because Bhansali's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable for Bhansali.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP transaction. The LOT in the home market is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on constructed value (CV), that of the sales from which we derive selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. With respect to U.S. price for EP transactions, the LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the importer. For CEP, the LOT is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and home market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act (the CEP-offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).

Bhansali reported one customer category and one channel of distribution ( i.e., sales to unaffiliated distributors) for its home market sales. Bhansali reported EP sales in the U.S. market. For EP sales, Bhansali also reported one customer category and one channel of distribution ( i.e., direct sales to unaffiliated distributors). Bhansali claimed in its response that its EP sales were made at the same LOT as home market sales to unaffiliated distributors. For this reason, Bhansali has not requested a LOT adjustment to NV for comparison to its EP sales.

In determining whether separate LOTs actually existed in the home market and U.S. market, we examined whether Bhansali's sales involved different marketing stages (or their equivalent) based on the channel of distribution, customer categories and selling functions. After reviewing the record evidence, we agree with Bhansali that its home market sales comprise a single LOT.

In analyzing Bhansali's selling activities for its EP sales, we noted that the sales involved the same selling functions associated with the home market LOT described above. Based upon the record evidence, we have determined that there is one LOT for all EP sales and that it is the same LOT as that in the home market. Accordingly, because we find the U.S. sales and home market sales to be at the same LOT, no LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) is warranted.

We calculated NV based on FOB prices to unaffiliated customers. Bhansali reported no movement expenses for home market sales of similar and identical merchandise. We made adjustments to NV for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act. We made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act for differences in circumstances of sale for imputed credit expenses. Bhansali reported having no packing costs in the home market. We added U.S. packing costs to NV in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act. See the Analysis Memo.

Section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act states, in part, that normal value (NV) is “the price at which the foreign like product is first sold (or, in absence of a sale, offered for sale) for consumption in the exporting country, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade.” The purpose of the ordinary-course-of-trade provision “is to prevent dumping margins from being based on sales which are not representative” of the home market. Thai Pineapple Public Co. v. United States, 946 F. Supp. 11, 15 (CIT 1996) (quoting Laclede Steel Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 95-144 at 6 (CIT Aug. 11, 1995)). Congress has not specified any criteria that the agency should use in determining the appropriate “conditions and practices.” Thus, the Department, “in its discretion, chooses how best to analyze the many factors involved in a determination of whether sales are made within the ordinary course of trade.” Id. at 14-17. As an example of sales which would be considered outside the ordinary course of trade, the Department's regulations cite “merchandise sold at aberrational prices.” 19 CFR 351.102.

Concerning whether all of Bhansali's home market sales were made in the ordinary course of trade, the record evidence indicates that in one case, Bhansali purchased merchandise the same week as it made its U.S. sale of the identical model, then re-sold the home market merchandise two months later at a significant loss, to the same party who had supplied it. We preliminarily determine that because of the exceptional circumstances surrounding this transaction, it was made outside the ordinary course of trade, and we therefore have excluded it from comparison with the U.S. merchandise. See the Analysis Memo.

In accordance with section 773(e) of the Tariff Act, we calculated CV based on the sum of Bhansali's cost of materials, SG&A, U.S. packing costs, and profits on home market sales. See the Analysis Memo.

Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Tariff Act, we made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that a dumping margin of 4.08% exists for Bhansali for the period August 1, 1998 through July 31, 1999.

The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). A party may request a hearing within thirty days of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication. The Department will issue the final results of this new shipper review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, within 90 days of issuance of these preliminary results, unless the time limit is extended.

Upon completion of this new shipper review, the Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to Customs. Bhansali did not report entered value; we will calculate Bhansali's duty assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales, calculated as the difference between NV and EP, to the total quantity of examined sales. The rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries made during the POR. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to Customs.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this new shipper review for all shipments of flanges from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this new shipper review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Bhansali will be the rate established in the final results of this new shipper review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review, the cash deposit rate will be 162.14 percent, the “all-others” rate established in the LTFV investigation.

These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative or new shipper review for a subsequent review period.

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402 to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This new shipper review and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.214.

On July, 5 2000, the Department published the final determination of sales at less than fair value of structural steel beams from Korea. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams from Korea, 65 FR 41437 (July 5, 2000) (as amended 65 FR 50501 (August 18, 2000)) (“Final Determination”). On August 18, 2000, the Department published the antidumping duty order on this product. See Structural Steel Beams from Korea: Notice of Antidumping Duty Order 65 FR 50502 (August 18, 2000). In an August 30, 2000 letter to the Department, petitioners requested that the Department conduct a changed circumstances review pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act. Petitioners state that Inchon Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (“Inchon”) and Kangwon Industries, Ltd. (“Kangwon”), respondents in the original investigation in the above-mentioned proceeding, completed a merger of their steel-making operations during the Department's antidumping duty investigation, but subsequent to the period of investigation. Petitioners state that the newly formed company is the successor-in-interest to Inchon and Kangwon, and hence, should be subject to a new duty deposit rate.

The products covered by this investigation are doubly-symmetric shapes, whether hot-or cold-rolled, drawn, extruded, formed or finished, having at least one dimension of at least 80 mm (3.2 inches or more), whether of carbon or alloy (other than stainless) steel, and whether or not drilled, punched, notched, painted, coated or clad. These products include, but are not limited to, wide-flange beams (“W” shapes), bearing piles (“HP” shapes), standard beams (“S” or “I” shapes), and M-shapes.

All products that meet the physical and metallurgical descriptions provided above are within the scope of this investigation unless otherwise excluded. The following products are outside and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation: structural steel beams greater than 400 pounds per linear foot or with a web or section height (also known as depth) over 40 inches.

The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) at subheadings: 7216.32.0000, 7216.33.0030, 7216.33.0060, 7216.33.0090, 7216.50.0000, 7216.61.0000, 7216.69.0000, 7216.91.0000, 7216.99.0000, 7228.70.3040, 7228.70.6000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act, the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party of, an antidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order.

In its request for a changed circumstances review, petitioners indicate that the newly formed corporation is the successor in interest to Inchon and Kangwon due to the merger of their operations. In addition, the Department noted in its Issues and Decision Memorandum that accompanied the Final Determination that “Since the merger between Inchon and Kangwon took place after the POI, and after the preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department has not addressed the issue of successorship at this time * * * however, in light of the information obtained in this investigation regarding the issue of successorship, we would consider a request for a changed circumstances review in the event that an antidumping order is issued in this case.” See the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 29, which accompanied the Final Determination. Because deposit rates established in an investigation are company-specific, and because the merger raises the question of whether the deposit rates set in the investigation are appropriate given the merger of operations between Inchon and Kangwon, we find good cause to conduct a changed circumstances review. See 19 CFR 351.216(c). Therefore, in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(b) and 351.221(b)(1), we are initiating a changed circumstances review based upon the information contained in petitioners' August 30, 2000 request for this review.

In making a successor-in-interest determination, the Department examines several factors including, but not limited to, the following changes: (1) Management; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and (4) customer base. See, e.g., Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460 (May 13, 1992) ( Canadian Brass ). Although petitioners claim that the newly merged company is the successor-in-interest, petitioners have not, at this stage, provided any supporting documentation relevant to the factors described above. Therefore, we will consider additional information concerning Inchon's and Kangwon's merger.

We will publish in the Federal Register a notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty changed circumstances review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4) and 351.221(c)(3)(i), which will set forth the factual and legal conclusions upon which our preliminary results are based and a description of any action proposed based on those results. As per 351.221(b)(4), interested parties will have an opportunity to comment. The Department will issue its final results of review not later than 270 days after publication of this notice of initiation. All written comments must be submitted to the Department and served on all interested parties on the Department's service list in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303.

During the course of this changed circumstances review, the current requirement for a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties on all subject merchandise, including the merchandise subject to this changed-circumstances review, will continue unless and until it is modified pursuant to the final results of this changed circumstances review.

This notice is in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221.

Sadye E. Dunn, Office of the Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20207, (301) 504-0800.

Section 4314(c)(1) through (5) of Title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations, one or more Senior Executive Service performance review boards. The boards shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of senior executives' performance by supervisors and make recommendations to the appointing authority or rating official relative to the performance of these executives.

The members of the Performance Review Board for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are:

1. MG Joseph G. Garrett III, Principal Director, EURNATO Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, International Security Affairs (OASD/ISA);

2. Mr. Alfred Volkman, Director, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics), International Programs;

3. Mr. Leo G. Michel, Director, NATO Policy;

4. Mr. John A. Berry, Director, Regional Affairs, ,Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, International Security Affairs (OASD/ISA); and

5. Mr. Brendt McConnell, Principal Deputy Secretary of Defense, International Security Affairs (ISA).

Section 4314(c)(1) through (5) of Title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations, one or more Senior Executive Service performance review boards. The boards shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of senior executives' performance by supervisors and make recommendations to the appointing authority or rating official relative to the performance of these executives.

The members of the Performance Review Board for the Office of the Surgeon General are:

1. MG John S. Parker, Commander, Medical Research and Materiel Command;

2. Ms. Sandra R. Riley, Deputy Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army, Office of the Administrative Assistant;

3. Mr. Raymond J. Fatz, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Environmental Safety and Occupational Health), Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations & Environment);

4. Ms. Donna L. Shands, Associate Director of Supply and Maintenance, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics; and

5. Mr. Ronald Richards, Assistant Secretary of Defense, Health Affairs, Office of Health Services Operations and Readiness.

1. The study area is the Dents Run watershed, located in Elk County, Pennsylvania. Dents Run is a tributary to the Bennetts Branch of the Sinnemahoning Creek. The Dents Run Preliminary Restoration Plan (PRP) was completed by the Corps in March 1999 and determined that there was both Federal and non-Federal interest in pursuing a feasibility study and implementation of an environmental restoration project to abate acid mine drainage. Previous mining endeavors (both deep and strip mines) as early as the late 1800's have rendered the streams in the area highly acidic, laden with toxic metals (iron, manganese, and aluminum), and created substantial “dead zones” within the watershed. Aquatic life is nearly non-existent. The PRP identified eight site, primarily along Porcupine Run (a tributary to Dents Run) for possible abatement that would restore over 5 miles of trout and other aquatic species habitat and reclaim over 300 acres of scarred mine lands within the Dents Run Watershed.

2. In June 1999, the Corps began this environmental restoration feasibility study to abate acid mine drainage in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection—Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation and Bureau of Forestry, Pennsylvania Game Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bennetts Branch Watershed Association, and other agencies and organizations. Preliminary alternatives have been identified and are being considered in consultation with all interested agencies and stakeholders. To date, the alternatives analysis is not complete and a recommended plan has not been finalized.

3. Environmental issues will focus on, but are not limited to, effects on air quality, wetlands, water quality; fish and wildlife resources (including threatened and endangered species); hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste; aesthetic resources; and cultural resources (including archaeological sites and historical architecture). Environmental benefits, costs, and impacts will be examined in detail to determine what level of restoration is needed and justified. The team will evaluate the environmental impacts (both adverse and beneficial) of the proposed actions.

4. The decision to implement these actions will be based on an evaluation of the probable impact of the proposed activities on the public interest, and will also be based on the national concern for protection and utilization of important resources. The benefit that reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal will be balanced against the project's reasonably foreseeable costs. The Baltimore District is preparing a DEIS that will describe the impacts of the proposed project on environmental and cultural resources in the study area, and the overall public interest. The DEIS will be in accordance with NEPA and will document all factors that may be relevant to the proposal, including the cumulative effects thereof. If applicable, the DEIS will also apply guidelines issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, under the authority of Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-217).

5. The public involvement program will include meetings and other coordination with interested private individuals and organizations, as well as with concerned Federal, state and local agencies as part of the scoping process. Additional information inviting the public to participate will be provided through print media and mailings.

6. Other participants that will be involved in the study and DEIS process in addition to the Corps, Bennetts Branch Watershed Association, and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection include the following: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Natural Resource Conservation Service, U.S. National Park Service, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Pennsylvania Audubon Society, and Canaan Valley Institute. The Baltimore District invites potentially affected Federal, state, and local agencies, and other organizations and entities to participate in this study.

8. The Dents Run Environmental Restoration Report and DEIS are tentatively scheduled for public review in December 2000.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g., new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might be Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: Revision

Title: The Evaluation of Exchange, Language, International and Area Studies (EELIAS), National Resource Centers (NRC), Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) and Institute for International Public Policy (IIPP), Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language (UISFL) Program (JS)

Frequency: Annually

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions; individuals or household

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 60

 Burden Hours: 2,100

Abstract: This fourth program, UISFL, is being added for clearance to the system that already contains the other three. Information collection assists the Office of International Education and Graduate Programs Service (OIEGPS) in meeting program planning and evaluation requirements. Program officers require performance information to justify continuation funding, and grantees use this information for self evaluations and to request continuation funding from ED.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, or should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, D.C. 20202-4651. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_IMG_Issues@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to SCHUBART at (202) 708-9266. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

The ETEC site is within the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) located between the Simi and San Fernando Valley, north of Los Angeles, California. The ETEC site occupies about 90 acres within Area IV of the SSFL. The ETEC site supported DOE projects for nuclear research and energy development. The site includes buildings which house test apparatus for large scale heat transfer and fluid mechanics experiments, mechanical and chemical test facilities, office buildings, and auxiliary support facilities. The ETEC site is surplus to the DOE's current mission and is undergoing closure. The site has numerous facilities, including some where chemical and radioactive substances were used. Contamination may exist in structures and the physical media including soils, surface and groundwater. Deactivation of the site includes divestment of assets, remediation of contaminated areas, waste management and site restoration.

This EA will analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with environmental restoration and closure waste management activities. Waste management activities include operation, maintenance and closure of Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) permitted facilities. The EA will also analyze environmental restoration activities for site-wide soil and groundwater remediation and the decontamination and decommissioning or dismantlement of government buildings and structures. Facilities to be D&D include former radiological facilities, former sodium facilities, and administrative facilities.

This notice announces DOE intent to prepare an EA and hold public scoping meetings for the proposed restoration project. This EA will analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with environmental restoration and closure waste management activities.

The scoping process will include notifying the general public, Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies of the proposed action. The purpose of scoping is to identify public and agency concerns, and alternatives to be considered in the EA. The DOE is preparing this EA to decide whether to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact or whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In consideration of the possibility that the DOE will decide to prepare an EIS, a Notice of Intent will be issued and written comments on the scope of alternatives and impacts will still be accepted at that future time. Presently, in preparation of an EA, comments may be submitted in writing and/or orally at the public scoping meeting or in writing prior to the end of the scoping period as indicated in the DATES section of this notice.

The Medical Applications Program supports directed nuclear medicine research in the areas of radiopharmaceutical development, molecular nuclear medicine and medical imaging to promote the use of radioisotopes for non-invasive diagnosis and therapy. Selective molecular targeting with radioligands will facilitate the analysis of cellular and tissue function and may enable purposeful disruption of specific cellular functions in tissues requiring therapy. The in-vivo distribution of radiopharmaceuticals and other cell-directed ligands may be defined and monitored with a variety of in-vivo imaging methods, such as the use of gamma cameras, positron emission tomographs (PET), fluorescent techniques and a variety of optical techniques. The development of in-vivo imaging techniques based on cell-targeting should assist reliable differentiation between normal and abnormal tissues at the molecular and/or metabolic levels, ideally leading to the development of more effective therapies and useful monitoring techniques for such therapies. Thus, highly selective substrate-binding molecules, when labeled with high energy-emitting radioisotopes or other noxious or pre-sensitizing agents, can become powerful tools for targeted molecular therapy of cancer.

Basic research in molecular biology has provided new insights to the molecular basis of human disease and its potential molecular targets. DOE's current Molecular Nuclear Medicine Program encourages development of new technologies for molecular delivery of radioisotopes to disease target sites with a high degree of molecular precision, recognition, and target selectivity. The availability of new technology for high resolution imaging of small animals should facilitate the evaluation of new molecular ligands for their potential value and subsequent use in human trials of cancer therapy.

This Notice is to solicit grant applications for developing innovative approaches to cell-targeted ablation therapy for tumors with in vivo radiation techniques. A well integrated team effort by scientists from overlapping disciplines of chemistry, radiopharmaceutical chemistry, cellular and molecular biology, and biological and nuclear medicine imaging will be judged important in the evaluation of submitted research applications. Methodological approaches that can be adapted to deliver more than one type of radiation or more than one radioisotope to the target sites are encouraged. It will be important for each application to consider also the following objectives:

(1) Techniques to ensure highly selective tumor targeting by the proposed ligands;

(2) Efficient screening techniques for selecting candidate ligands for in-vivo testing;

(3) Preliminary data indicating reasonable likelihood of success for in-vivo targeting of primary tumors and their metastases in pre-clinical animal trials;

(4) Reliable approaches for dosimetry calculations to normal tissues and to tumor sites based on 3-dimensional modeling;

(5) Measurement techniques for accurately assessing the success of tumor targeting in vivo;

(6) Measurement techniques for assessing therapy effects in vivo at the molecular, cellular and metabolic levels.

It is anticipated that up to $2 million will be available for multiple awards in Fiscal Year 2001 contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds and the scientific merit of the submitted applications. Previous awards have ranged from $200,000 to $400,000 per year (direct plus indirect costs) with terms lasting up to three years. Similar award sizes are anticipated for new grants. Applications may request project support up to three years, with out-year support contingent on the availability of appropriated funds, satisfactory progress in the research proposed, and programmatic needs.

A brief pre-application should be submitted. The cover sheet of the pre-application should list the title of the project, the institution, and the principal investigator's name, address, telephone, fax, and E-mail address. The pre-application should not exceed two pages (in addition to the cover sheet). It should identify and describe the research objectives, the methods proposed for accomplishment of the research, and the key members of the scientific team responsible for this effort. Pre-applications will be evaluated relative to the scope and objectives of this solicitation.

Applications will be subjected to scientific merit review (peer review) and will be evaluated against the following evaluation criteria listed in descending order of importance as codified at 10 CFR 605.10(d):

The evaluation will include program policy factors such as the relevance of the proposed research to the terms of the announcement and the agency's programmatic needs. It should be noted that external peer reviewers are selected on the basis of their scientific expertise and the absence of conflict-of-interest issues. Non-federal reviewers may be used, and submission of an application constitutes agreement that this review process is acceptable to the investigator(s) and the submitting institution.

Information about the development, submission of applications, eligibility, limitations, evaluation, the selection process, and other policies and procedures may be found in 10 CFR Part 605, and in the Application Guide for the Office of Science Financial Assistance Program.

Electronic access to the Guide and required forms is made available via the World Wide Web at: http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/grants/grants.html. DOE is under no obligation to pay for any costs associated with the preparation or submission of applications if an award is not made. In addition, in response to this Notice, the Project Description must be 25 pages or less, exclusive of attachments, and the application must contain a table of contents, an abstract or project summary, letters of intent from collaborators (if any), and short curriculum vitae, consistent with National Institutes of Health guidelines. Block 15 of the SC grant face page (form DOE F4650.2) should list the PI's phone number, fax number, and E-mail address.

DOE policy requires that potential applicants adhere to 10 CFR 745 “Protection of Human Subjects” or such later revision of those guidelines as may be published in the Federal Register .

The Office of Science as part of its grant regulations requires at 10 CFR 605.11(b) that a recipient receiving a grant and performing research involving recombinant DNA molecules and/or organisms and viruses containing recombinant DNA molecules shall comply with NIH “Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules,” which is available via the world wide web at: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/odhsb/biosafe/nih/rdna-apr98.pdf, (59 FR 34496, July 5, 1994,) or such later revision of those guidelines as may be published in the Federal Register .

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number for this program is 81.049, and the solicitation control number is ERFAP 10 CFR Part 605.

The BPA Shelton-Kitsap transmission line rebuild would cross the 100-year floodplains of John's Creek (T20N, R3W, Section 5), Cranberry Creek (T21N, R3W, Section 34), and Sherwood Creek (T22N, R2W, Section 35), and a total of 31 wetlands were identified within the cleared right-of-way.

Maps and further information are available from BPA at the address above.

Southwestern Power Administration (Southwestern) currently has marketing responsibility for 2.2 million kilowatts of power from 24 multiple-purpose reservoir projects, with power facilities constructed and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, generally in all or portions of the states of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas. The Integrated System, comprised of 22 of the projects, is interconnected through a transmission system presently consisting of 138-kV and 161-kV high-voltage transmission lines, 69-kV transmission lines, and numerous bulk power substations and switching stations. In addition, contractual transmission arrangements provide for integration of other projects into the system.

The remaining two projects, Sam Rayburn Dam and Robert Douglas Willis, are isolated hydraulically and electrically from the Southwestern transmission system, and their power is marketed under separate contracts through which the customer purchases the entire power output of the project at the dam. A separate Power Repayment Study (PRS) is prepared for each isolated project.

The existing rate schedule for the Sam Rayburn Dam Project was confirmed and approved on a final basis by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on December 7, 1994, for the period October 1, 1994, through September 30, 1998. The Deputy Secretary of Energy extended the existing rate schedule for a one year period, through September 30, 1999. On September 15, 1999, the Secretary of Energy again extended the existing rate schedule for a one year period, through September 30, 2000. The FY 2000 Sam Rayburn Dam Project PRS indicates the need for a rate adjustment of $28,068 annually, or 1.3 percent.

Pursuant to implementing authority in 10 CFR 903(h) and 903.23(a)(3), the Deputy Secretary of Energy may extend a FERC-approved rate on an interim basis. The Administrator, Southwestern, published notice in the Federal Register on June 26, 2000, 65 FR 39386, announcing a 30-day period for public review and comment concerning the proposed interim rate extension. Written comments were accepted through July 26, 2000. In a facsimile transmission dated July 24, 2000, a Sam Rayburn Dam Electric Cooperative (SRDEC) official stated that SRDEC has no objection to the proposed rate extension. No other comments were received.

The existing Sam Rayburn Dam Project rate is based on the FY 1994 PRS. PRSs have been completed on the Sam Rayburn Dam Project each year since approval of the existing rate. Rate changes identified by the PRSs since that period have indicated the need for minimal rate increases or decreases. Since the revenue changes reflected by the PRSs were within the plus-or-minus two percent Rate Adjustment Threshold established by Southwestern's Administrator on June 23, 1987, these rate adjustments were deferred in the best interest of the government and provided for the next year's PRS to determine the appropriate level of revenues needed for the next rate period.

The FY 2000 PRS indicates the need for an annual revenue increase of 1.3 percent. As has been the case since the existing rate was approved, the FY 2000 rate adjustment falls within Southwestern's plus-or-minus two percent Rate Adjustment Threshold and would normally be deferred. However, the existing rate expires on September 30, 2000. Consequently, Southwestern proposes to extend the existing rate for a one-year period ending September 30, 2001, on an interim basis under the implementation authorities noted in 10 CFR 903.22(h) and 903.23(a)(3).

Southwestern continues to make significant progress toward repayment of the Federal investment in the Sam Rayburn Dam Project. Through FY 1999, cumulative amortization for the Sam Rayburn Dam Project was $12,795,065, which represents approximately 49 percent of the $25,845,371 Federal investment. The status has increased almost 34 percent since the existing rates were placed in effect.

Information regarding this rate extension, including studies and other supporting material, is available for public review and comment in the offices of Southwestern Power Administration, Suite 1400, One West Third Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103.

In view of the foregoing and pursuant to the authorities granted in 10 CFR Sections 903.22(h) and 903.23(a)(3), I hereby extend on an interim basis, for the period of one year, effective October 1, 2000, the current FERC-approved Sam Rayburn Dam Project Rate for the sale of power and energy.

Pursuant to Sections 302(a) and 301(b) of the Department of Energy Organization Act, Public Law 95-91, the functions of the Secretary of the Interior and the Federal Power Commission under Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, 16 U.S.C. 825s, for the Southwestern Power Administration were transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Energy. By Delegation Order No. 0204-108, effective December 14, 1983, 48 FR 55664, the Secretary of Energy delegated to the Deputy Secretary of Energy on a non-exclusive basis the authority to confirm, approve and place into effect on an interim basis power and transmission rates, and delegated to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on an exclusive basis the authority to confirm, approve and place in effect on a final basis, or to disapprove power and transmission rates. Amendment No. 1 to Delegation Order No. 0204-108, effective May 30, 1986, 51 FR 19744, revised the delegation of authority to confirm, approve and place into effect on an interim basis power and transmission rates by delegating such authority to the Under Secretary of Energy rather than the Deputy Secretary of Energy. This delegation was reassigned to the Deputy Secretary of Energy by Department of Energy (DOE) Notice 1110.29, dated October 27, 1988, and clarified by Secretary of Energy Notice SEN-10-89, dated August 3, 1989, and subsequent revisions.

By Amendment No. 2 to Delegation Order No. 0204-108, effective August 23, 1991, 56 FR 41835, the Secretary of the Department of Energy revised Delegation Order No. 0204-108 to delegate to the Assistant Secretary, Conservation and Renewable Energy, the authority which was previously delegated to the Deputy Secretary in that Delegation Order. By Amendment No. 3 to Delegation Order No. 0204-108, effective November 10, 1993, the Secretary of Energy re-delegated to the Deputy Secretary of Energy, the authority to confirm, approve and place into effect on an interim basis power and transmission rates of the Power Marketing Administrations. Thus, the Deputy Secretary of Energy now exercises interim rate approval authority for Southwestern's rates.

This is an interim rate extension. It is made pursuant to the authorities as implemented in 10 CFR 903.22(h) and 903.23(a)(3).

Southwestern Power Administration (Southwestern) currently has marketing responsibility for 2.2 million kilowatts of power from 24 multiple-purpose reservoir projects, with power facilities constructed and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, generally in all or portions of the states of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas. The Integrated System, comprised of 22 of the projects, is interconnected through a transmission system presently consisting of 138-kV and 161-kV high-voltage transmission lines, 69-kV transmission lines, and numerous bulk power substations and switching stations. In addition, contractual transmission arrangements provide for integration of other projects into the system.

The remaining two projects, Sam Rayburn Dam and Robert Douglas Willis, are isolated hydraulically and electrically from the Southwestern transmission system, and their power is marketed under separate contracts through which the customer purchases the entire power output of the project at the dam. A separate Power Repayment Study (PRS) is prepared for each isolated project.

The existing rate schedule for the Sam Rayburn Dam Project was confirmed and approved on a final basis by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on December 7, 1994, for the period October 1, 1994, through September 30, 1998. The rate was extended on an interim basis by the Deputy Secretary of Energy, who had authority at that time pursuant to Delegation Order 0204-108, for a one year period, October 1, 1998, through September 30, 1999. The rate was again extended on an interim basis by the Secretary of Energy, pursuant to Delegation Order 0204-108, for a one year period, October 1, 1999, through September 30, 2000. The FY 2000 Sam Rayburn Dam Project PRS indicates the need for a rate adjustment of $28,068 annually, or 1.3 percent.

Pursuant to implementing authority in 10 CFR 903.22(h) and 903.23(a)(3), the Deputy Secretary of Energy may extend a FERC-approved rate on an interim basis. The Administrator, Southwestern, published notice in the Federal Register on June 26, 2000, 65 FR 39386, announcing a 30-day period for public review and comment concerning the proposed interim rate extension. In addition, an informal meeting was held with customer representatives in May 2000. Written comments were accepted through July 26, 2000. One comment was received. This comment stated no objection to the proposed interim extension.

The existing Sam Rayburn Dam Project rate is based on the FY 1994 PRS. PRSs have been completed on the Sam Rayburn Dam Project each year since approval of the existing rate. Rate changes identified by the PRSs since that period have indicated the need for minimal rate increases or decreases. Since the revenue changes reflected by the PRSs were within the plus-or-minus two percent Rate Adjustment Threshold established by Southwestern's Administrator on June 23, 1987, these rate adjustments were deferred in the best interest of the government and provided for the next year's PRS to determine the appropriate level of revenues needed for the next rate period.

The FY 2000 PRS indicates the need for an annual revenue increase of $28,068 (1.3 percent). As has been the case since the existing rates were approved, the FY 2000 rate adjustment falls within Southwestern's plus-or-minus two percent Rate Adjustment Threshold and would normally be deferred. However, the existing rate expires on September 30, 2000. Consequently, Southwestern proposes to extend the existing rate for a one-year period ending September 30, 2001, on an interim basis under the implementation authorities noted in 10 CFR 903.22(h) and 903.23(a)(3).

Southwestern continues to make significant progress toward repayment of the Federal investment in the Sam Rayburn Dam Project. Through FY 1999, cumulative amortization for the Sam Rayburn Dam Project was $12,795,065, which represents approximately 49 percent of the $25,845,371 Federal investment for the Sam Rayburn Dam Project. The cumulative amortization has increased almost 34 percent since the existing rate was placed in effect.

Information regarding this rate extension, including studies and other supporting material, is available for public review and comment in the offices of Southwestern Power Administration, One West Third Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101.

In view of the foregoing and pursuant to the authority delegated to me in 10 CFR 903, I hereby extend on an interim basis, for the period of one year, effective October 1, 2000, the current FERC-approved Sam Rayburn Dam Project rate for the sale of power and energy.

The EPA is charged under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, to establish standards of performance for new stationary sources (NSPS). The standards must reflect application of the best technological system of continuous emission reductions. Such reductions should take into consideration the cost of achieving emission reduction, or any non-air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements.

The EPA is charged under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), as amended, to establish national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of hazardous air pollutants and shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction.

In addition, Section 114 of the Clean Air Act allows the Administrator to require inspections, monitoring, and entry into facilities to ensure compliance with any requirement of this Act. Records and reports are necessary to enable the EPA to identify facilities that may not be in compliance with the standards. In the absence of such information enforcement personnel would be unable to determine whether the standards are being met on a continuous basis, as required by the Clean Air Act.

An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection information request unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are displayed in 40 CFR part 9.

Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B—Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR 2; 41 CFR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 1764, March 23, 1979).

The EPA would like to solicit comments to:

(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

The Agency computed the burden for each of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to industry for the currently approved ICRs. Where applicable, the Agency identified specific tasks and made assumptions, while being consistent with the concept of the Paper Work Reduction Act.

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), this notice announces that EPA is planning to submit the following six continuing ICRs to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB):

(1) New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Sewage Treatment Plants, Subpart O; OMB Control No. 2060-0035; EPA ICR No. 1063.08; expiration date is June 30, 2001.

(2) NSPS for Coal Preparation Plants, Subpart Y; OMB Control No. 2060-0122; EPA ICR No. 1062.06; expiration date is August 31, 2001.

(3) NSPS for Phosphate Rock Plants, Subpart NN; OMB Control No. 2060-0111; EPA ICR No. 1078.06; expiration date is August 31, 2001.

(4) NSPS for the Graphic Arts Industry, Subpart QQ; OMB Control No. 2060-0105; EPA ICR No. 0657.07; expiration date is August 31, 2001.

(5) NSPS for the Polymeric Coating of Supporting Substrates Facilities, Subpart VVV; OMB Control No. 2060-0181; EPA ICR No. 1284.05; expiration date is August 31, 2001.

(6) National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Petroleum Refineries, Subpart CC; OMB Control No. 2060-0340; EPA ICR No. 1692.03; expiration date is August 18, 2001.

(1) NSPS for Sewage Treatment Plants, Subpart O; contact Michelle Angelich of the Commercial Services and Municipal Branch, at (202) 564-7033, or via E-mail to angelich.michelle@epa.gov; OMB Control Number 2060-0035; EPA ICR No. 1063.08; expiration date is June 30, 2001.

(2) NSPS for Coal Preparation Plants, Subpart Y; contact Dan Chadwick of the Energy and Transportation Branch at (202) 564-7054 or via E-mail to chadwick.dan@epa.gov.; OMB Control No. 2060-0122; EPA ICR No. 1062.06; expiration date is August 31, 2001.

(3) NSPS for Phosphate Rock Plants, Subpart NN; contact Stephen Howie of the Agriculture Branch, at (202) 564-4146; or via E-mail to howie.stephen@epa.gov; OMB Control Number 2060-0111; ICR No. 1078.06; expiration date is August 31, 2001.

(4) NSPS for the Graphic Arts Industry, Subpart QQ; contact Ginger Gotliffe of the Commercial Services & Municipal Branch, at phone 202-564-7072, or via E-mail to gotliffe.ginger@epa.gov; OMB Control No. 2060-0105; EPA ICR No. 0657.07; expiration date is August 31, 2001.

(5) NSPS for the Polymeric Coating of Supporting Substrates Facilities, Subpart VVV; contact Maria Malave of the Manufacturing Branch, at (202) 564-7027 or via E-mail to malave.maria@epa.gov; OMB Control No. 2060-0181; EPA No. 1284.05; expiration date is August 31, 2001.

(6) NESHAP-MACT for the Petroleum Refineries, Subpart CC; contact Tom Ripp of the Energy and Transportation Branch, at (202) 564-7003 or by E-Mail to ripp.tom@epa.gov; OMB Control No. 2060-0340; EPA ICR No. 1692.03; expiration date is August 18, 2001.

(1) New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Sewage Treatment Plants, Subpart O; OMB Control No. 2060-0035; EPA ICR No. 1063.08; expiration date is June 30, 2001.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are those which incinerate wastes containing more than 10 percent sewage sludge (dry basis) produced by municipal sewage treatment plants or each incinerator which charges more than 1000 kg (2205 lb) per day municipal sewage sludge (dry basis) and which commenced construction or modification after June 11, 1973.

Abstract: This ICR contains recordkeeping and reporting requirements that are mandatory for compliance with 40 CFR Part 60.150, et seq., Subpart O, New Source Performance Standards for sewage sludge treatment plant incinerators.

The control of emissions of particulate matter from sewage treatment plant incinerators requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment. Particulate matter emissions from sewage treatment plant incinerators are the result of the physical and chemical characteristics of the sludge feed and fuel use, the excess air rate, the temperature profile within the incinerator, the pressure drop across the control device, and operating procedures. These standards rely on the reduction of particulate matter emissions by wet scrubbers.

In order to ensure compliance with these standards, adequate recordkeeping is necessary. In the absence of such information, enforcement personnel would be unable to determine whether the standards, that are protective of public health, are being met on a continuous basis, as required by the Clean Air Act.

The standards require initial notification reports with respect to construction, modification, reconstruction, startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. The standards also require reports on initial performance tests and semiannual reports of noncompliance.

Under the standard, the data collected by the affected industry is retained at the facility for a minimum of two (2) years and made available for inspection by the Administrator.

Burden Statement: In the currently approved ICR, the annual public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection is estimated to average 40 hours per response. The respondents are owners or operators of sewage sludge treatment plant incinerators. The estimated number of respondents is 114. The number of respondents is expected to increase by approximately 4 facilities per year. The total annual responses is 228. The estimated total annual burden on respondents is 9,089 hours. The total annualized capital and start-up cost is $700,000 and the total operation and maintenance cost is $3,990,000, associated with continuous emissions monitors. Therefore, the estimated total annualized cost burden is $4,690,000.

(2) NSPS for Coal Preparation Plants, Subpart Y; EPA ICR No. 1062.06; OMB No. 2060-0122; expiration date is August 31, 2001.

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are those coal preparation plants which process more than 200 tons per day for which construction is or was commenced after October 24, 1974.

Abstract: This ICR contains recordkeeping and reporting requirements that are mandatory for compliance with 40 CFR 60.253, NSPS for Coal Preparation Plants, Subpart Y.

Owners and operators of all new facilities subject to this NSPS must provide EPA with the following one-time only reports; notification of the date of construction or reconstruction; notification of the anticipated and actual dates of the start up; and notification of the date for continuous monitoring system (CMS) demonstration. There are no requirements for a semiannual or annual report for this standard.

Owners and operators are also required to report to EPA any physical or operational change to their facility which may result in an increase in the regulated pollutant emission rate. An estimated 18 existing facilities will submit reports of physical or operational changes each year, over the next three years.

All facilities must maintain records on the facility operation that document: the occurrence and duration of any startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions; measurements of particulate matter (PM) emissions; pressure drops across any scrubber system; and the initial performance test results of the CMS demonstration. All subject facilities must maintain records related to compliance for two years.

Burden Statement: In the currently approved ICR, the total annual burden hours for recordkeeping and reporting requirements for facilities subject to this ICR is 14,729. The number of responses is 399. Therefore, the recordkeeping and reporting burden hours per respondent is 37. The EPA estimates the respondent universe to expand at an annual rate of 6 new facilities per year.

The total annualized capital and start-up cost for facilities subject to this ICR is 1 thousand dollars and the total operation and maintenance cost for these facilities is 14 thousand dollars.

(3) NSPS for Phosphate Rock Plants, Subpart NN; OMB Control No. 2060-0111; EPA ICR No. 1078.06; expiration date is August 31, 2001.

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are owners and operators of phosphate rock plants.

Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards for phosphate rock plants were proposed on September 21, 1979 and promulgated on April 16, 1982. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR Part 60 subpart NN. These standards apply to the following facilities in phosphate rock plants with capacities greater than 4 tons/hour: dryers, calciners, grinders, and ground rock handling and storage facilities, (except those facilities producing or preparing phosphate rock solely for consumption in elemental phosphorus production), commencing construction, modification or construction after the date of proposal.

Owners or operators of the affected facilities described must make the following one-time-only reports: Notification of the date of construction or reconstruction; notification of the anticipated and actual dates of startup; notification of any physical or operational change to an existing facility which may increase the regulated pollutant emission rate; notification of demonstration of the continuous monitoring system (CMS); notification of the date of the initial performance test; and the results of the initial performance test. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring is inoperative.

These notifications, reports and records are required, in general, of all sources subject to NSPS. Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records.

Burden Statement: In the currently approved ICR, the average annual burden to the industry over the next three years is estimated to be 94 person hours per response. The estimated number of respondents is 31. The number of respondents is expected to increase by approximately 2 facilities per year. The total annual response is 31. The estimated total annual burden on respondents is 2,914 hours. The total annualized capital and start-up costs are $69,600 based on 2 new plants annually at $34,800 per plant. The annualized operations and maintenance costs are estimated at $232,500 at each of the 31 plants, which are associated with continuous emissions monitors. Therefore, the estimated total annualized cost burden is $4,690,000.

(4) NSPS for the Graphic Arts Industry, Subpart QQ; OMB Control No. 2060-0105; EPA ICR No. 0657.07; expiration date is August 31, 2001.

Affected Facilities: These standards apply to the following facilities in NSPS Subpart QQ, each publication rotogravure printing press (not including proof presses) commencing construction, modification or reconstruction after the date of proposal.

Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for subpart QQ were proposed on October 28, 1980, and promulgated on November 8, 1982. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart QQ.

Owners or operators of the affected facilities described have certain notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements under this rule including: a one-time-only notification of the date of the anticipated and actual dates of startup, the initial performance test, and physical or operational changes; keep records of monthly emissions calculations, records of startup, shutdowns, and malfunctions, and records concerning the conditions of the performance test; and a report of the initial performance test. Any owner or operators subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least two years following the date of such reports and records.

The information requested as part of this rule include one-time-only notifications; records about the initial performance test, changes in the operation of the facility, and exceedences of parameters; and semiannual reports of those exceedences.

Notifications are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the standard. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated and the standard is being met. Performance test reports are needed as these are the Agency's record of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard.

Burden Statement: In the currently approved ICR, the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 49.06 hours per response. Approximately 24 facilities are currently subject to the standard, and it is estimated that an additional 3 facilities will become subject to the standard in the next three years. It is further assumed that less than half of the existing facilities will be adding or modifying a press during the three year period. Therefore there are 219 existing presses subject to this standard and an additional 10 affected units will be added each year. The estimated frequency of response is 50 per year. The estimated annual hour burden is 3,075.3 hours for all facilities. The estimated total annualized cost burden is $107,242.91 for all facilities.

(5) NSPS for the Polymeric Coating of Supporting Substrates Facilities, Subpart VVV; OMB Control No. 2060-0181; EPA ICR No. 1284.05; expiration date is August 31, 2001.

Affected Facilities: These standards apply to each coating operation and any on-site coating mix preparation equipment used to prepare coatings for the polymeric coating of supporting substrates for which construction, modification or reconstruction occurs after the date of proposal. Any affected facility for which the amount of VOC used is less than 95 Mg per 12-month period is subject only to the requirements of §§ 60.744(b), 60.747(b) and 60.747(c).

Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards for polymeric coating of supporting substrates facilities were proposed on April 30, 1987 and promulgated on September 11, 1989. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart VVV.

In addition to the monitoring, recordkeeping and notification requirements specified in the General Provisions in § 60.7(a), (b), (d) and (f), and § 60.8(a) and (d), owners or operators are to comply with the requirements specified in the rule.

The owners or operators of polymeric coating of supporting substrates facilities must install and calibrate all monitoring devices required under the provisions of § 60.744, according to the manufacturer's specifications. The parameters to be monitored shall be continuously measured and recorded during each performance test.

The recordkeeping requirements include: records of all measurements of performance test and results including estimates of projected and actual VOC use and monitored operating parameters use in demonstrating compliance, as required by § 60.747. Records must be retained for at least 2 years.

The reporting requirements include: report on the initial compliance report that includes initial performance test results, the monthly schedule to be used in making compliance determinations, design and equipment specifications and compliance method; semiannual reports of compliance and statement of no exceedences; semiannual reports of monitoring exceedance; and, quarterly reports of periods of noncompliance recorded under § 60.744(b) and (c).

In addition, any affected facility for which the amount of VOC used is less than 95 Mg per 12-month period is subject only to the requirements of §§ 60.744(b), 60.747(b) and 60.747(c).

Burden Statement: In the currently approved ICR, the average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated at 14,375.5 person-hours. This is based on approximately 51 existing polymeric coating of supporting substrates plants and the projection that one additional plant per year will become subject to the standard in the next three years.

The estimated capital start-up costs for this regulation are $212,500 dollars. This estimate is based on 4 new solvent-borne coating lines at existing plants and one new solvent-borne coating line at one new plant yielding a total of 5 new solvent-borne coating lines per year. The estimated costs are based on two types of monitoring equipments needed at each plant, temperature monitoring devices to measure gas temperature and VOC monitoring devices to measure inlet and outlet organic concentration level use to calculate control device efficiency. The annual operations and maintenance (O&M) costs are $57,500 dollars. The average annual burden for capital and operations and maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR is estimated to be $270,000.

(6) NESHAP-MACT for the Petroleum Refineries, Subpart CC; OMB Control No. 2060-0340; EPA ICR No. 1692.03; expiration date is August 18, 2001.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are petroleum refineries.

Abstract: This regulation was published in 60 FR 43244, August 18, 1995, and is codified at 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CC.

The reporting requirements include a one-time report of start of construction, anticipated and actual start-up dates, and physical or operational changes to existing facilities; notification of compliance status reports; periodic reports; and event triggered ( e.g., notification of installation of a new control device or reconstruction of an existing control device) reports. The periodic reports provide information on monitored control device parameters when they are outside established ranges and on instances where inspections reveal problems. Records ( e.g., parameter monitor data, records of annual storage vessel inspections) are required to be maintained on-site for a minimum of 5 years.

Monitoring requirements include the use of existing refinery monitoring devices for when combustion sources are used as control devices ( e.g., temperature or flame sensing device), and existing refinery monitoring devices for finding leaking components at process units in organic hazardous air pollutant service. Additionally, sources are required to monitor tanks to ensure that control devices are properly maintained ( e.g., floating roof seals). In general records of the monitored parameters mentioned above are required to be kept for five years.

Effective enforcement of the standards is necessary due to the hazardous nature of benzene (a known human carcinogen) and other HAP's emitted from petroleum refineries. The required records and reports are necessary: to enable EPA to identify new and existing sources subject to the standards; and to assist EPA and State agencies to which enforcement has been delegated in determining compliance with the standards. The EPA uses the reports to identify facilities that may not be in compliance with the standards. Based on reported information, EPA can decide which facilities should be inspected and what records or specific emission sources should be inspected at each facility. The required records also provide an indication as to whether facility personnel are operating and maintaining control equipment properly.

Burden Statement: In the currently approved ICR, the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection is estimated to be 488,000 hours, and average 1,494 hours per respondent. It is estimated that there are 165 respondents (no new sources). It is estimated that the total annual cost for this collection 20.45 million dollars for labor and 570,000 dollars for annualized capital costs.

There are no operating and maintenance costs since the rule does not require any continuous emissions monitoring or electronic data submittal. Sources can comply with the monitoring requirements by using existing parametric or safety monitoring devices.

On April 21, 1993, EPA published final Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993 and Earlier Model Year Urban Buses (58 FR 21359). The retrofit/rebuild program is intended to reduce the ambient levels of PM in urban areas and is limited to 1993 and earlier model year (MY) urban buses operating in metropolitan areas with 1980 populations of 750,000 or more, whose engines are rebuilt or replaced after January 1, 1995. Operators of the affected buses are required to choose between two compliance options: Option 1 sets PM emissions requirements for each urban bus engine in an operator's fleet which is rebuilt or replaced; Option 2 is a fleet averaging program that sets out a specific annual target level for average PM emissions from urban buses in an operator's fleet.

A key aspect of the program is the certification of retrofit/rebuild equipment (also referred to as “kits”). To meet either of the two compliance options, operators of the affected buses must use kits which are certified by EPA. Emissions requirements under either of the two options depend on the availability of retrofit/rebuild kits certified for each engine model. To be used for Option 1, kits must be certified as meeting a 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard or as achieving a 25 percent reduction in PM. Kits used for Option 2 must be certified as providing some level of PM reduction that would in turn be claimed by urban bus operators when calculating their average fleet PM levels attained under the program.

Under Option 1, additional information regarding cost must be submitted in the application for certification, in order for certification of that kit to trigger program requirements for a particular engine model. In order for the kit to serve as a trigger, the certifier must guarantee that the kit will be offered to affected operators for $7,940 or less at the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM level, or for $2,000 or less for the 25 percent or greater reduction in PM. Both of the above amounts are based on 1992 dollars and include life cycle costs incremental to the cost of a standard rebuild.

In an application signed November 17, 1998, Engelhard applied for certification of equipment under the Urban Bus Rebuild Requirements. The application is clarified in letters from Engelhard dated December 14, 1998, and June 30, 2000. The equipment is referred to as the ETX Plus rebuild kit and applies to 1988 through 1993 model year DDC 6V92TA urban bus engines equipped with DDEC II.

The ETX Plus kit is intended to be installed at the time of a standard engine rebuild, and results in one mechanical configuration to update all applicable engines to an ETX Plus configuration of either 253 or 277 horsepower (Hp). The basis of the ETX Plus kit is a 6V92TA DDEC II engine that is rebuilt to a standard 1991 to 1993 DDC specification, but with some changes. When rebuilt with the ETX Plus kit, the engine will utilize an improved CMX( TM )-6 integrated catalytic converter muffler, a coated turbocharger, a specific blower drive gear, and must include other emission-related components identified on the engine specific parts list that is provided in the kit. (Use of parts other than the specific parts listed for the kit will place an engine in an uncertified kit configuration.)

The CMX-6 is designed to replace the existing noise muffler of a bus and incorporates Engelhard's oxidation catalyst technology to reduce PM emissions in the exhaust. The CMX-6 is different from the CMX-5 converter of the Engelhard kit that EPA certified earlier to the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard for the same engines (see 63 FR 50225; September 21, 1998). Therefore, previously-certified CMX converters cannot be used in place of the new CMX-6 converter in the ETX Plus kit. The specific CMX-6 to be used depends on the type of coach as well as the type of engine. Engelhard's application provides a table listing the various catalytic converter kits available for different engine/coach combinations.

Engelhard indicates that the turbocharger of the ETX Plus kit has a coated housing and operates like a typical turbocharger but with improved efficiency and airflow. The improved airflow improves combustion efficiency which reduces engine-out PM.

The 1988 to 1990 model year engines also receive an upgraded software control program for the electronic control module, if necessary. The control program is listed on an updated ETX Plus parts list provided in the letter to EPA dated June 30, 2000, which can be found in the public docket at the address listed above.

The contents of the ETX Plus kit will vary depending upon the model year of the engine to be rebuilt. For the 1988-1990 model year engines, the kit will include components necessary to update the older applicable engines to the 1991-1993 configuration. For 1991-1993 model year engines, the kit does not include the emission-related components that are typically replaced during an engine rebuild of those engines. However, the operator is still responsible for purchasing and using the components on the engine specific parts list of the kit because such components are emissions related and necessary to assure the engine is the certified ETX Plus configuration.

The engine specific parts list of the ETX Plus kit identifies the components that, while not provided with the kit, are necessary to complete an engine rebuild. The engine specific parts list for the 1988-1990 model year engines identifies only the cylinder head and blower (which are common to all model year engines). The components that are necessary to complete the ETX Plus rebuild for 1988-1990 engines, including those original equipment (OE), emission related components necessary to upgrade to the 1991-1993 model year configuration, are provided with the kit because the components would not typically be used for rebuilding 1988-1990 engines.

The engine specific parts list for 1991-1993 model year engines identifies the cylinder head and blower (again, common to all model year engines), cylinder kits, fuel injectors and camshafts. These components are necessary to complete an engine rebuild using the ETX Plus kit but would typically be replaced by an operator during rebuild of the 1991-1993 model year engines. It is an operator's responsibility to assure that all components of the ETX Plus kit, including the components of the engine specific parts list, are acquired and properly installed.

The emissions defect warranty will cover the components which Engelhard supplies in the ETX kit. Engelhard states that the ETX Plus kit will require no additional maintenance compared to a standard engine.

Using engine dynamometer testing conducted in accordance with the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) for heavy-duty diesel engines, Engelhard documented in its November 17, 1998 application, PM emissions complying with the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard. This test data is shown below in Table 1. In Table 1 EPA has also included baseline data from testing conducted in conjunction with the Engelhard kit certified earlier to the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard and described in the Federal Register on September 21, 1998 (63 FR 50225). The PM emissions level of an original engine, prior to installation of the Engelhard kit, may be less relevant because all emissions-related components are required to be replaced upon installation of the kit.

The same engine block (that is, same serial number) was used for all emissions testing. The engine was initially rebuilt to a 1988 California configuration, subsequently rebuilt to a 1991 through 1993 model year DDC DDEC II standard configuration (using a DDC DDEC II upgrade kit), and then finally rebuilt with the ETX Plus rebuild kit. The testing documentation related to each of the rebuilds can be found in the public docket A-93-42, category XXV-A, at the address listed above. Transient testing was performed in accordance with the federal test procedure of 40 CFR Part 86, subparts N and I.

The certification testing documents a PM emissions level that complies with the PM standard of 0.10 g/bhp-hr, and also shows that emissions of hydrocarbon (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NO X ), and smoke opacities comply with the applicable standards.

Based on the testing summarized in Table 1, EPA believes that all ETX Plus equipped engines will meet the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard because installation of the kit upon engine rebuild results in the replacement of all emissions-related components with a specific set of components, the combination of which has been demonstrated to comply with the PM standard of 0.10 g/bhp-hr.

Engelhard's application includes no life cycle cost information. Such information is required, pursuant to 40 CFR 85.1407, only to trigger the program standard of 0.10 g/bhp-hr for applicable engines. That 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard was triggered for both federal ( i.e., 49-State) and California engines with the certification of the Engelhard ETX-2002 rebuild kit described in the Federal Register on September 21, 1998 (63 FR 50225). The effective date is discussed below in section VI, “Urban Bus Operator Responsibilities.”

In accordance with program requirements of 40 CFR 85.1409, Engelhard's application includes emissions defect and emissions performance warranties for the ETX Plus kit.

The ETX Plus kit is certified to a PM emission level of 0.10 g/bhp-hr for all 1988 through 1993 DDC 6V92TA DDEC II urban bus engines using either diesel fuel #1 or #2 (including engines originally certified, or rebuilt, to meet California emissions standards). Table 2 below lists the applicable engine models and certification levels associated with the certification announced in today's Federal Register .

Today's certification of the ETX Plus kit includes certification for engines originally certified, or rebuilt, to meet emissions standards of California. The impact of this on urban bus operators is discussed below in the “Transit Operator Requirements” of section VI below.

Comments were received from three parties in response to the Federal Register document of April 29, 1999 (64 FR 232072): Johnson Matthey, Incorporated (JM), Engine Control Systems, Limited (ECS), and Golden Gate Transit. JM is a company that has several kits certified under the urban bus program, including a kit certified to the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard for the same engines to which the ETX Plus kit is applicable. ECS is a company that has kits certified under the urban bus program, and also provides catalytic converters for a DDC kit that is certified to the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard for the same engines to which the ETX Plus kit is applicable. Golden Gate Transit is an operator of urban buses in an area to which the Urban Bus Rebuild Requirements apply.

Comments and issues generally fell into the following categories:

(A) Components in the ETX Plus kit; (B) Potential safety concern; (C) Durability and in-service concerns related to the ETX Plus kit; (D) Certification test engine; (E) Kit Compliance; and, (F) Other comments. These comments and issues are discussed below. The overwhelming majority of comments were provided by JM.

Copies of the complete comments and other documentation are available in the public docket, which is located at the address stated above.

1. JM notes that Engelhard intends to supply the ETX Plus kit components alone, while bus operators will procure the engine-specific components on their own. JM states that EPA should require Engelhard to clearly state that transits are required to purchase and install all of the components in both the Engelhard-supplied kit and the non-Engelhard-supplied kit.

Engelhard states that it has clearly stated that a transit needs to install all of the specified components to be certified.

EPA notes that the Engelhard application shows that the ETX Plus Installation Instructions states “Ensure that all required parts are used per the Engelhard ETX Plus Parts List.” Additionally, the components list provided by Engelhard in its letter dated June 30, 2000, show unique components lists for 1988-1990 and 1991-1993 6V92TA DDEC II engines, and installation of either list would result in an engine rebuilt to a standard 1991 to 1993 engine specification of either 253 or 277 horsepower.

2. Golden Gate Transit comments that there will be a “wide gap” in warranty coverage, between the components Engelhard plans to put in the kit, and the warranty that DDC provides for other engine components that are not part of the certified kit, but are necessary to complete an engine rebuild when installing a kit. Emissions will be compromised if there is failure of engine components not in the certified kit, when past the DDC warranty period, and places the burden on the bus operator. Components that are not in the certified kit include pistons, cylinder liners, and piston rings. Golden Gate believes that EPA should apply the bus program warranty to all emission-related components of an engine, even if components are not in a certified kit.

EPA notes that the intent of the defect warranty of the regulation (40 CFR 85.1409) is to provide bus operators with the ability to obtain replacement components of a retrofit/rebuild kit that is still under warranty and fails to perform. Engelhard has met this requirement for the parts in its kits. Regarding the potential for a “wide gap” in warranty coverage between kit parts and other engine parts, Golden Gate is correct when referring to the kit applicable to 1991 through 1993 model year engines because certain engine parts are not provided with the kit. However, for kits for those model year engines, the warranty coverage for those standard engine parts when used with the kit (as they must) would be the same as the coverage when used with other standard engine rebuilds (such as rebuilding a 1991 model year engine to a standard 1991 configuration).

EPA notes that the ETX Plus kit for 1988 through 1990 model year engines includes the cylinder kits, fuel injectors, and camshafts and, all components of the kit are covered by the emission warranties required by 40 CFR 85.1409. These engine components are part of the kit because they are not standard rebuild parts for these model years.

EPA has no information that the presence of certified kits will result in the other components failing earlier than would otherwise occur. Therefore, EPA does not believe that there is a need for the kit certifier to warrant such components under the warranty requirements of the bus program. Further, the non-special emissions-related engine components are OEM type components and not unique with regard to the specific engine being rebuilt. In the absence of the bus program, an operator would bear the costs of such components replacement if beyond any manufacturer's warranty period. In summary, EPA does not believe that it is necessary for a kit certifier to warrant components that are not part of its kit, and does believe that Engelhard has met its obligations under the regulatory warranty requirements of 40 CFR 85.1409.

3. In the preamble to the April 29, 1999 Federal Register document (64 FR 23072) that started the 45-day review of the Engelhard application, EPA stated that during the certification review it would address the issue of the supply method that Engelhard proposed for the ETX Plus kit and, whether the supply method compromises the ability of the kit to achieve the emission reductions in the field.

As noted previously, the ETX Plus kit is expected to be installed at the time of a standard engine rebuild, and the contents of the kit will vary depending upon the model year of the engine to be rebuilt. For rebuilding a 1988-1990 model year engine, the kit includes the original equipment emission related components needed to upgrade the engine to the 1991-1993 configuration. However, for a 1991-1993 model year engine, the kit will not contain those emission related components. This is because operators of 1991-1993 engines typically acquire such standard components when rebuilding 1991-1993 engines, and must do the same when installing the ETX Plus kit on these engines. In other words, urban bus operators are expected to acquire, from their routine supply sources, the standard components that are specified for the kit. EPA does not believe that this supply method will affect the ability of the kit to achieve emission reductions in the field and, therefore, EPA is not requiring that the kit for 1991-1993 engines provide the standard engine components that are typically acquired by the operator for a standard rebuild of the 1991-1993 engines. This supply method will not affect the in-use performance of the ETX Plus kit because EPA believes that operators will continue to procure the proper components as listed on Engelhard's engine specific parts list, which are typically replaced during a routine 1991-1993 engine rebuild. However, because these specific engine components are not common to 1988-1990 model year engines, the components are part of the kit for 1988-1990 engines.

The emissions performance warranty and emissions defect warranty provided by Engelhard as required by 40 CFR 85.1409, cover the components provided in the kit. This supply method is consistent with what has been provided for previous certifications, such as for the JM Cam Converter Technology (CCT  TM ) upgrade kit for these same engines as described on December 3, 1998 at 63 FR 66798, and the Engelhard ETX-2002 kit for the same engines as described on September 21, 1998 at 63 FR 50225.

4. JM notes that Engelhard includes the blower drive gear part number 5122918, which is for a non-hardened gear. However, this is not an appropriate component because DDC standardized the gear train to include hardened gears (JM refers to DDC service information bulletin 18-D-88, but does not provide it). According to JM, DDC has indicated that hardened and non-hardened gears should not be mixed.

Engelhard states that the appropriate blower drive gear will be specified depending on the application.

EPA notes that the blower drive gear, to be supplied with the ETX Plus kit, must be covered by the program warranty per 40 CFR 85.1409, because the blower drive gear specified by Engelhard is not part of a standard rebuild for the engine. In general, EPA believes that an emission-related component should be included in a certified “kit” if the component is not part of a standard rebuild for an engine (subject to the rebuild requirements). 5.A. JM notes that the certification word codes (CWC) on the ETX Plus components list are not compliant with the Consent Decree requirements that were agreed upon by the U.S. Justice Department and the engine manufacturer (DDC).

Engelhard states that the consent decree CWC's were not available when the original application was submitted. However, the appropriate CWC will be used.

EPA notes that Engelhard, in its letter to EPA dated June 30, 2000, has provided applicable CWCs for the engines for which the ETX Plus is applicable. EPA notes that no kits are certified that are to be re-programmed with an original certification word code because such software includes programming that EPA considers a defeat device that is prohibited by the Clean Air Act.

JM has several concerns regarding the use, operation, and durability of the ceramic coated turbocharger that is provided by Engelhard as part of the ETX Plus kit. First, JM states that the ceramic coating will most likely result in higher exhaust temperature in the piping between the turbocharger and the CMX. Higher than normal exhaust temperature could be a fire hazard. EPA should require Engelhard to provide exhaust temperature data for this coated technology to compare to existing engines operating with standard turbochargers, to determine whether there is a safety hazard. JM suggests that additional insulation may be necessary on the piping and CMX catalytic muffler that are in close proximity to fluid lines, body panels, or the customer compartment.

In response, Engelhard states that only a very small portion of the turbocharger is coated and it is insufficient to produce a change in heat loss of the turbocharger. Also, Engelhard has told EPA that the coating is not designed as a thermal barrier, and that the turbocharger does not significantly change the exhaust temperature. Furthermore, the turbocharger is the same unit as used on the original ETX kit certified earlier as described in the Federal Register at 63 FR 50225 on September 21, 1998. In its letter to EPA dated June 30, 2000, Engelhard states that these units have been in-service on urban buses for the last several years without a problem.

EPA believes, as JM also notes, that there may be many different exhaust configurations in the various bus models for the piping between the turbocharger and CMX. Also, regardless of whether the ETX Plus kit is used, the heat radiated from this section of the exhaust system is related to the exhaust pipe configurations, plus other factors that influence engine load, such as passenger loading, terrain, etc. EPA is not convinced that there is a safety concern with the ETX Plus kit, given the description of the coating and the in-service experience to date. Operators with concerns regarding the variations of particular bus models, and the possibility for increased exhaust pipe temperatures, should discuss their concerns with Engelhard. EPA notes that kits are available from other manufacturers if concerns can not be resolved.

1. JM comments that EPA should be concerned about the actual level of PM attained by Engelhard's technology. It is a well-accepted fact that over time and use, both engine performance as well as catalyst performance will show some level of degradation resulting in an increase in emissions. JM says that the ETX Plus kit functions at a PM level of 0.103 to 0.105 g/bhp-hr which allows for no in-use deterioration. Because of the difficulty and impracticality of testing the performance of in-use kits, the industry would never know if this technology would consistently meet the 0.10 PM standard either initially or after any engine and/or catalyst deterioration.

As noted in other discussion on this subject, EPA is concerned about in-use deterioration. However, in its comments, JM has neither substantiated a need to account for deterioration, nor determined what that amount or test margin should be. JM has not supplied any data relevant to deterioration of Engelhard's catalysts or on its own catalysts that might be relevant to the CMX-6. EPA's review of its electronic database of new engine certification applications for diesel-fueled, catalyst-equipped, urban bus engines does not support the need to account for PM deterioration. Of the 23 engine families certified since 1997 (EPA's electronic database goes back to model year 1997), 83 percent have deterioration factors of 1.000. This indicates that the engine manufacturers have determined that the over-whelming majority of their urban bus engine systems that use exhaust catalysts will have no measurable PM emissions deterioration over the useful life of these engines. These new urban bus engine families have a PM standard of 0.05 g/bhp-hr and a useful life of 290,000 miles. For the Urban Bus Rebuild Program, the most rigorous PM standard is 0.10 g/bhp-hr, and the emissions performance warranty period (comparable in concept to useful life for new engines) is 150,000 miles. In summary, the Urban Bus Rebuild Requirements do not burden certifiers with a durability demonstration requirement as part of the certification process, but instead rely on the emissions warranties required pursuant to 40 CFR 85.1409, and EPA authorities to decertify per 40 CFR 85.1413, and recall non-compliant certified kits.

JM is correct that it would be difficult to conduct an in-use testing program using the dynamometer test procedure that is used for kit certification. However, EPA expects that its ability to conduct future in-use testing programs may be facilitated by the availability of on-road testing systems such as the ROVER type of system that EPA has developed. ROVER is a mobile measurement system designed to measure exhaust emissions from vehicles under actual in-use conditions. While ROVER is not currently configured to measure emissions for determining compliance of certified kits with the urban bus program, the system has to date been used successfully in several heavy-duty on-road enforcement actions. This or other systems may be applicable to measuring the emissions associated with certified kits in the future.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 85.1413, EPA has authority to decertify equipment for various reasons, including if use of certified equipment is causing urban bus engine emissions to exceed emission requirements for any regulated pollutant. Further, pursuant to 40 CFR 85.1406(f), Engelhard has agreed in its certification application to notify operators who have installed this equipment and repair the equipment without cost to the operator when EPA determines that a substantial number of the equipment kits, when properly maintained and used, and in actual use throughout the in-use compliance period, do not meet emission requirements.

2. JM has several questions related to durability and the turbocharger of the kit. JM asks how, if it is assumed that the coated turbocharger has a higher than normal exhaust temperature, the temperature will affect durability. JM asks whether the turbocharger will have to be rebuilt prior to 200,000 miles, or lead to quicker degradation of the lubricating oil, or whether the higher temperature will lead to degradation of the turbocharger performance. JM also expresses concerns for the durability of the ceramic coating on the turbocharger. JM suggests that due to the duty cycle of a turbocharger, there are concerns that the coating will not survive. EPA should require Engelhard to demonstrate that the elevated temperature does not affect the durability of the turbocharger, and to provide durability data to demonstrate that the coating will survive over the required 150,000 miles of transit operation.

Engelhard, as noted above in response to an earlier comment, has stated that the turbocharger does not significantly change the temperature of the exhaust.

Additionally, EPA notes that Engelhard, in its letter to EPA dated December 14, 1998, states that the turbocharger in the ETX kit is almost identical to a turbocharger in operation on a revenue-service 6V92 DDEC II bus with over 75,000 miles, and the transit operator is extremely happy with the improved fuel economy and performance due to the installation of the turbocharger. Engelhard also notes that a similar turbocharger operated on a Class 8 tractor trailer test rig utilized by Engelhard for over 150,000 miles with no degradation of performance. While there may be differences in operating cycles, and other factors, EPA believes that this type of in-use durability evaluation is relevant to the general durability of the unit, and therefore supportive of the durability of the turbocharger in the ETX Plus kit.

Moreover, in its letter to EPA dated June 30, 2000, Engelhard notes that the same turbocharger is used in its original ETX kit, which is described in the Federal Register on September 21, 1998 (63 FR 50225). Engelhard notes that this unit has been used on many buses without a problem.

EPA notes that, while the program regulation does not contain specific requirements relating to demonstration of durability, EPA is concerned with equipment durability. This subject is discussed in the preamble to the final rule (at 58 FR 21379; April 21, 1993). Additionally, the regulation at 40 CFR 85.1409 require manufacturers to provide both an emission performance warranty, to extend for a period of 150,000 miles from when kits are installed and, an emission defect warranty, to extend for a period of 100,000 miles. The regulation is clear that EPA maintains the option of performing in-use testing. Based on the information provided by Engelhard, EPA at this point has no reason to request further information regarding durability.

3. JM comments that in the Engelhard letter of December 14, 1998 in response to EPA's question on field data and durability, Engelhard provides inadequate information. Engelhard compares its modified turbocharger to a standard, unmodified DDC turbocharger durability and offers one case for their modified turbocharger with no data to substantiate their claim. Additionally, Engelhard presents durability data from a Cummins B5.9 engine as proof of the durability of the CMX-6 catalytic muffler for transit bus operations. This is not an appropriate comparison for transit operation, because there are significant differences between these two engines and their respective applications. JM states that the information should not be considered evidence of durability for transit operation, and that EPA should require Engelhard to provide similar data from a unit operating on a transit bus before any consideration is given to certifying the ETX kit.

In response, EPA notes (as discussed above) that Engelhard has presented in-use examples relevant to the durability of the turbocharger in the ETX Plus kit. Regarding the CMX-6 catalyst of the ETX-Plus kit, Engelhard states that it is very similar to the current CMX catalysts and standard OEM catalysts. In support of its technology, Engelhard has submitted data from EPA's new engine certification program that indicate no PM deterioration from two 1994 model year engines using Engelhard catalysts. Also submitted are a graphical presentation showing the PM reduction performance over 1,000 hours of an Engelhard catalyst on a 1991 Cummins 5.9 liter engine, and an SAE paper written by Cummins on the durability of Engelhard diesel oxidation catalysts in use. EPA believes that while these engine/vehicle applications may not be identical to an urban bus, such information is supportive of certification of important components of the ETX Plus kit. EPA at this point has no reason to request further information regarding durability.

4. ECS comments that a turbocharger, as a general design feature, has clearance between the intake compressor, exhaust impeller and housing to allow for expansion and contraction of components due to temperature changes. An abrade-able coating to eliminate clearances may initially improve turbocharger efficiency but as components expand and contract and bearings wear, further abrading of the coating must be expected. Therefore, some definite loss in turbocharger efficiency and increase in PM must occur. ECS believes that this bolsters their comment that the zero emissions deterioration position is not defendable in regard to this application given the nature of the coating and the intended operation of a turbocharger.

Engelhard responds that the break-in of a turbocharger and engine operates the engine at a very high temperature, thus the coated turbocharger will achieve its minimum clearance (thus abrading the maximum amount of coating) during break-in. There will not be any additional loss of coating during operation over the life of the kit. Turbochargers are designed to operate in excess of 300,000 miles before needing to be reconditioned. Bearing wear will be minimal and will have no effect at all on the performance of the coated turbocharger.

EPA has no evidence that the Engelhard turbocharger is any less durable that an original equipment unit. Further, the coated Engelhard turbocharger is part of the certified ETX Plus kit and is therefor covered by the emissions warranty requirement of the program regulations (40 CFR 85.1409).

JM states that EPA should require Engelhard to identify the origin of the 1988 DDC 6V92TA DDEC II test engine to determine whether it was an appropriate choice for testing. Also, the list of components used for the rebuild to the 1988 California DDEC II 277 Hp configuration was not provided in the Engelhard application. EPA should require Engelhard to provide the list.

Engelhard responds that a components list for the engine rebuild was provided previously to EPA but is not relevant to the emissions testing, and the components list (for the ETX Plus kit) represents the status of the engine for the certification testing.

EPA notes that JM does not indicate why the origin of the test engine is important to determining whether the test engine is an appropriate choice for testing. Similarly, EPA does not know why the earlier (California) engine configuration is relevant to the configuration used for certification testing with the ETX Plus kit, because of the substantial number of parts replaced to generate the ETX Plus configuration. Finally, EPA notes that the components list for the test engine, in its 1988 model year California configuration, is available. This information was provided by Engelhard in conjunction with the Engelhard kit certified earlier to the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard and described in the Federal Register on September 21, 1998 (63 FR 50225). The same engine block (that is, same serial number) was used for all emissions testing. The engine was initially rebuilt to a 1988 California configuration, subsequently rebuilt to a 1991 through 1993 model year DDC DDEC II standard configuration (using a DDC DDEC II upgrade kit), and then finally rebuilt with the ETX Plus rebuild kit. The testing documentation and lists of components used in each of the rebuilds can be found in the public docket A-93-42, category XXV-A, at the address listed above.

1. Engine Control Systems (ECS) comments that PM emissions actually exceed the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard, and that there is therefore no basis for approval of this application. ECS notes that there must be zero emissions deterioration over the 150,000 miles of the emissions warranty requirement, and absolutely zero emission variance between different rebuilt engines. The Engelhard position on the matter does not allow for any emissions variance between different rebuild engines. ECS believes that this position cannot be defended to the transit industry.

EPA appreciates the concerns expressed by ECS. The program regulations require neither multiple certification tests nor durability demonstration. As discussed above, however, Engelhard has met the requirements of the urban bus program. EPA notes that its ability to conduct future in-use testing may be facilitated by the availability of on-road testing systems such as the ROVER type of system that EPA is currently evaluating.

2. JM states that it is their position that an oxidation catalyst, even in combination with a turbocharger that boosts exhaust temperatures above typical temperatures, will not reduce a large enough portion of both the soluble organic fraction (SOF) and soot particles to reach 0.10 g/bhp-hr over the FTP transient cycle. JM is not convinced that this technology can and will consistently produce emission levels that will meet the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard. EPA should require Engelhard to provide turbocharger exit temperatures across the FTP cycle, baseline FTP data, and a PM analysis for SOF to allow EPA and catalytic technology experts to assess the true likelihood that this technology can consistently meet the 0.10 PM emission standard. JM submits exhaust emission data from DDC indicating a composite PM level of 0.225 g/bhp-hr for a 1991 6V92TA DDEC II.

Engelhard responds that JM's summation is not correct. The ETX Plus kit includes a blower drive gear and improved turbocharger that dramatically affect the engine-out particulate. Additionally, Engelhard's CMX-6 catalyst is substantially more efficient, so that JM's conclusions are not correct. Engelhard's certification engine was not “tuned” as JM suggests and actually emitted 0.277 g/bhp-hr PM when rebuilt to a baseline 1991 277 hp 6V92 50-State DDEC configuration. After baseline testing, the Engelhard turbocharger, new blower drive gear and CMX-6 catalyst were added to achieve the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard.

EPA notes that the certification test engine for the ETX Plus kit and the baseline engine emitting 0.277 g/bhp-hr PM is the same engine serial number used for testing of its original ETX kit (the certification of which is described on September 21, 1998 at 63 FR 50225). The 0.277 g/bhp-hr PM level of Engelhard's baseline test engine is on the high side compared to both the data that JM submitted for a 1991 configuration (0.225 g/bhp-hr), and from data supplied by DDC for new engine certification of the 1991 model year 6V92TA DDEC coach (engine family MDD0552FZL1), which shows a level of 0.25 g/bhp-hr. EPA notes that all the parameter data that JM requests is not required by the bus regulation. As noted above, Engelhard states that after baseline testing, the Engelhard turbocharger, new blower drive gear and CMX-6 catalyst was added to achieve the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard of the urban bus program. In conclusion, Engelhard has demonstrated compliance of the ETX Plus kit with the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard in accordance with the bus program requirements.

3. JM states that EPA should require Engelhard to provide baseline exhaust emission FTP data on the test engines so that the initial PM emissions can be part of the overall assessment of the technology. This includes the baseline exhaust emissions for the 1988 California, and the 1991 model year federal engine. JM's concern is whether the baseline emissions are truly representative. JM asks, “Or was exceptional care taken in selection of components and in rebuilding the engine that the actual PM emissions were much lower, so that use of only an oxidation catalyst would reduce PM to 0.103 g/bhp-hr?” EPA should require Engelhard to provide this data to ensure that the test engine is representative.

Engelhard states that such information is not required for certifications because Engelhard is certifying the kit to a certain standard rather than a specific amount of reduction versus a baseline engine.

EPA notes that the emissions data that Engelhard presents in its certification application (signed November 17, 1998) demonstrates compliance with the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard in accordance with section 85.1406(a). Additional hot start test data complying with the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard is provided in Engelhard's letter to EPA dated December 14, 1998 (supporting documentation for this test is provided in the June 30, 2000 letter to EPA). While multiple tests, including testing of different stages of engine rebuild or different engine configurations, might provide additional comfort regarding the ability of a kit to meet standards, the regulations do not require this level of scrutiny. Indeed, it might be edifying to EPA and others to know the emissions reduction associated with each component of a kit. However, the program regulations are not intended to impose such a burden on a kit certifier. Additionally, as noted previously, EPA has made “baseline” engine emissions data available in Table 1 above.

4. JM states that Engelhard should submit baseline data for the 1988 California engine because it is essential to determine whether an oxidation catalyst can theoretically reduce emission on this engine below 0.10 g/bhp-hr level. Also, the selection of a California engine is inappropriate for comparison of fuel economy penalties for Federal engines because the 1988 California NO X standard (6.0 g/bhp-hr) is lower than the standard (10.7 g/bhp-hr) for federal engines. An engine operating with lower NO X has higher fuel consumption. By using a baseline engine with high fuel consumption, Engelhard would be able to show a lower fuel penalty when comparing the performance of the ETX kit. EPA should require Engelhard to provide a baseline test of a federal engine for both the 1988—1990 model configuration as well as the 1991—1993 configuration in addition to the California baseline.

Engelhard responds that the baseline is not relevant because Engelhard is certifying a complete rebuild kit that essentially creates a new engine.

EPA notes that there is no specific regulatory requirement to submit data for fuel consumption comparison because Engelhard is not certifying the ETX Plus kit to life cycle cost requirements. However, this information is available for the certification test engine and when the (same serial number) engine was tested as a 1991 model year and 1988 model year California configurations. This data is provided in Table 1 above.

5. JM notes that the calculated PM level, when rounded to three places past the decimal, is 0.103 g/bhp-hr. JM argues that, while rounding is an acceptable practice, rounding off a number that is higher than the specific emissions standard is unacceptable because the standard was not achieved. EPA notes that the relevant PM standard for the Urban Bus Rebuild Program, as stated at 40 CFR 85.1403(b), is 0.10 g/bhp-hr. It is EPA's practice, in the context of its programs measuring exhaust emissions, to use the “rounding-off method” stated in American Standards and Testing and Materials (ASTM) Practice E29 entitled “Using Significant Digits in Test Data to Determine Conformance with Specifications.” According to this method, the numeric value of the bus program PM standard (0.10) expresses an implied level of precision (that is, two places beyond the decimal point) to which emission calculations are rounded in order to compare to the standard to determine compliance. Therefore, the calculated value of the test data produced for Engelhard's ETX Plus kit (0.103 g/bhp-hr) rounds to 0.10 g/bhp-hr, and this rounded test result complies with the urban bus program standard of 0.10 g/bhp-hr.

6. JM notes that the Engelhard certification testing completed in May 1998 was done on an engine having piston ring set 23522064 (DDC part number). This ring set was superseded by DDC in January 1999 with a piston ring set with DDC part number 23524349. In a telefax to EPA dated September 15, 1998, DDC indicated that this new ring set includes a grooved fire control ring for improved lubrication and states that the new ring carries more oil to the cylinder walls resulting in an increase in oil consumption of 21 percent. (This telefax from DDC to EPA is attached to JM's comments to EPA dated June 14, 1999.) In the telefax, DDC calculates that the increase in oil consumption will cause an increase in PM by an average of 0.002 g/bhp-hr. JM estimates that the PM increase will be higher from the increased oil consumption than is presented because the Engelhard engine is a 1991 model year and its base emissions are higher than that used in the DDC calculations. JM calculates that with the minimum increase of 0.002 g/bhp-hr, the ETX Plus kit with the new ring set will emit at a PM level of 0.105 g/bhp-hr. JM rounds this to 0.11 g/bhp-hr, and states this clearly does not meet the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard.

Engelhard responds with a calculation, concluding that the increase in PM due to additional oil consumption would be impossible to measure. However, EPA believes that Engelhard has incorrectly assumed that the 0.002 g/bhp-hr is an engine-out increase. Instead, the 0.002 g/bhp-hr value was calculated in an engineering analysis performed by DDC as an average increase in catalyst-out total PM, for the catalysts of three different manufacturers.

EPA notes that DDC's revised cylinder kit (part number 23524343) is for use in the DDC rebuild kits for both DDEC and MUI engines, and expects that the cylinder kits will be also be used in engines rebuilt with the ETX Plus kit. Therefore, EPA believes that the calculations of the DDC engineering analysis that JM references, are relevant to the ETX Plus kit. In its analysis, DDC calculates the increase in catalyst-out PM from its 0.10 kit, due to the increased oil consumption with the new cylinder kit. DDC assumes that the additional oil consumption results in an increase only in the soluble organic fraction (SOF) of the total PM, that the exhaust catalyst will oxidize most of this additional SOF, and that the fuel-derived and soot components of the total PM are not affected by the revised cylinder kit changes. Therefore, EPA knows of no reason why the magnitudes calculated in the DDC analysis would not apply to the Engelhard engine, even though it is configured basically to a 1991 model year. The DDC analysis calculates the total catalyst-out PM increases associated with the catalytic converters of three different manufacturers that might be used with the DDC kit. When the highest catalyst-out PM increase (that is, that associated with the catalyst having the lowest PM conversion efficiency—22 percent) is added to the total PM of the ETX Plus kit (0.103 g/bhp-hr from the Engelhard certification testing), the total PM for the ETX Plus kit is estimated to be 0.105 g/bhp-hr. While EPA does not know the conversion efficiency of the CMX-6 catalytic muffler unit of the ETX Plus kit, EPA expects it to be greater than the 22 percent conversion efficiency used in the DDC analysis for the catalyst with the lowest efficiency. In accordance with the ASTM E29 rounding practice referenced above, the rounded value of 0.105 g/bhp-hr for the ETX Plus kit complies with the urban bus program standard of 0.10 g/bhp-hr. Therefore, the ETX Plus kit when used in conjunction with an engine rebuild using the DDC's new piston ring set, will still meet the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard.

7. JM notes that Engelhard submitted exhaust emission data for a hot-start test that showed a total PM measurement of 0.098 g/bhp-hr. JM states that EPA should require Engelhard to submit the formal data sheet from the test lab before it is used as part of any assessment of the technology. Also, JM notes that it results in a composite FTP PM level of 0.101 g/bhp-hr (presumedly when combined with the cold-start test data from the certification test) to which the minimum value of 0.002 g/bhp-hr PM (the increase from the piston ring set change) must be added. JM states that this results in a final PM level of 0.103 g/bhp-hr that clearly does not meet the requirement for a 0.1 PM standard.

EPA notes that Engelhard, in its letter to EPA dated June 30, 2000, has submitted the formal data sheet from the test laboratory, for the additional hot-start test data. This hot-start data is submitted by Engelhard in support of its previously-submitted certification test data (which consists of cold and hot-start test data). Additionally, while Engelhard has not provided any cold start test data associated with the additional hot-start test, EPA notes that the “final PM level” of 0.103 g/bhp-hr mentioned by JM, if rounded per ASTM Practice E29 as has been discussed above, would be in compliance with the urban bus program standard for PM of 0.10 g/bhp-hr.

ECS comments that Engelhard has told EPA of Engelhard's intent to withdraw their original 0.10 DDEC II kit (the certification of which is described in the Federal Register on September 21, 1998 at 63 FR 50225) from the Urban Bus Program. ECS asks whether Engelhard will guarantee to offer the ETX Plus kit for actual sale to the transit industry. ECS suggests that applicants who have no intention to offer products for sale to the transit industry obviously have other commercial reasons for the application, and that EPA should deny certification to applicants that have no intention to offer the products for sale to the transit industry. Applications for kits that will not be offered for sale are a misuse of the Urban Bus Program. Such applications dilute the EPA's ability to expedite other certification applications. Also, such dilution can result in undue financial hardship to other serious applicants and an unnecessary delay of competitive products to the marketplace.

EPA notes that the program regulations require, for kits certified to life cycle cost requirements, that a certifier guarantee to offer the kit for sale to all operators for less that the applicable life cycle cost. Such information is required, pursuant to 40 CFR 85.1407, only to trigger the program standard of 0.10 g/bhp-hr for applicable engines. Providing life cycle cost information is optional and the related guarantee is not specifically required from certifiers that do not intend their kit to trigger an emission standard. Engelhard has not provided this information for the ETX Plus kit, but EPA has no reason to suspect that Engelhard will not offer the ETX Plus kit to the transit industry. However, EPA agrees with ECS that the urban bus program is intended to certify kits that are to be sold to the transit industry for use on urban bus engines.

The NO X emission standard for new engine certification applicable to 1988 through 1990 model year engines sold in the State of California is 6.0 g/bhp-hr. For 1991 through 1993, the standard is 5.0 g/bhp-hr. The emissions testing presented by Engelhard demonstrate a NO X emissions level that complies with the 5.0 g/bhp-hr standard. Therefore, today's certification of the ETX Plus kit for DDEC II engines applies to DDEC II engines certified to meet California emissions standards.

The kit certified today may require additional review by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) before use in the State of California. EPA recognizes that special situations may exist in California that are reflected in the unique emissions standards, engine calibrations, and fuel specifications of the State. While requirements of the federal urban bus program apply to several metropolitan areas in California, EPA understands the view of CARB that a kit certified under the urban bus program, to be used in California, must be provided with an executive order exempting it from the anti-tampering prohibitions of that State. Parties interested in additional information should contact the Aftermarket Part Section of CARB, at (818) 575-6848.

EPA has reviewed this application, along with comments received from interested parties, and finds the ETX Plus kit described in the Engelhard application and other relevant documents:

(1) Complies with a PM emissions standard of 0.10 g/bhp-hr, without causing the applicable engine families to exceed other applicable emission requirements;

(2) Will not cause an unreasonable risk to the public health, welfare or safety;

(3) Will not result in any additional range of parameter adjustability; and

(4) Meets other requirements necessary for certification under the Urban Bus Rebuild Requirements (40 CFR Sections 85.1401 through 85.1415).

EPA hereby certifies this kit for use in the Urban Bus Retrofit/Rebuild Program. The equipment, the ETX Plus TM Emissions Rebuild Kit, may be used immediately by urban bus operators subject to the Urban Bus Rebuild Requirements.

Today's Federal Register document announces certification of the above-described Engelhard kit, when properly applied, as meeting the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard of the Urban Bus Rebuild Requirements, for urban bus engines certified as meeting either federal and California emissions standards. Affected urban bus operators that choose to comply with compliance program 1 are required to use this or another kit that is certified to meet the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard, for any engines listed in Table 2 which are rebuilt or replaced after the applicable deadline, as discussed below.

The 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard was triggered on September 21, 1998. As described in a Federal Register notice on September 21, 1998 (63 FR 50225), EPA certified the ETX-2002 TM Emissions Rebuild Kit supplied by the Engelhard Corporation. The ETX kit applies to 1988 through 1993 model year Detroit Diesel Corporation 6V92TA DDEC II engines having electronic fuel control and rated at either 253 or 277 horsepower (hp). That certification means that transit operators using compliance program 1 must use rebuild kits certified to the 0.10 standard when rebuilding or replacing the applicable engines after March 22, 1999 (that is, 6 months after September 21, 1998).

The September 21, 1998 Federal Register notice states that certification of Engelhard's ETX kit, as it applies to engines of model years 1988 through 1990, is conditional pending demonstration by Engelhard that any replacement engine control module (ECM) or any replacement ECM program used in conjunction with the kit would not adversely impact the emissions of NO X . In a letter dated March 2, 1999, to Engelhard, EPA stated that the conditional status was removed and that the ETX kit can be used by transit operators in compliance with the requirement of the rebuild program. In a letter dated March 29, 1999 from EPA's Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance to Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, EPA stated that due to confusion surrounding the conditional certification, it will not take action against an operator who does not install 0.10 kits between March 22, 1999 and May 21, 1999. Further, EPA stated in the letter that it will extend this period of no action past May 21, 1999, if the general counsel for a bus operator certifies in writing to EPA that it has exercised due diligence since September 21, 1998, to procure the necessary 0.10 kits, but could not obtain them in time to begin installing 0.10 kits by May 22, 1999. In no event will the period of no action be longer than September 1, 1999. A copy of this letter is located in docket XXV-A located at the above address.

Urban bus operators who choose to comply with compliance program 2 may use the certified Engelhard kit, and those who use this kit may claim the respective PM certification level from Table 2 when calculating their Fleet Level Attained (FLA).

Urban bus operators must be aware of their responsibility for maintenance of records pursuant to 40 CFR Sections 85.1403 through 85.1404. The ETX Plus kit may not include, depending upon model year of the applicable engine, fuel injectors, engine camshafts, cylinder kits, or ECM software. As stated in the Urban Bus Rebuild Requirements (40 CFR 85.1401 through 85.1415), operators should maintain records for each engine in their fleet to demonstrate that they are in compliance with the Urban Bus Rebuild Requirements beginning on January 1, 1995. These records include purchase records, receipts, and part numbers for the parts and components used in the rebuilding of urban bus engines. Urban bus operators must be able to demonstrate that all components used in the rebuilding of engines are in compliance with program requirements. In other words, urban bus operators must be able to demonstrate that all required components of the kit certified in today's Federal Register document are installed on applicable engines.

On April 21, 1993, EPA published final Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993 and Earlier Model Year Urban Buses (58 FR 21359). The retrofit/rebuild program is intended to reduce the ambient levels of particulate matter (PM) in urban areas and is limited to 1993 and earlier model year (MY) urban buses operating in metropolitan areas with 1980 populations of 750,000 or more, whose engines are rebuilt or replaced after January 1, 1995. Operators of the affected buses are required to choose between two compliance options: Program 1 sets particulate matter emissions requirements for each urban bus engine in an operator's fleet which is rebuilt or replaced; Program 2 is a fleet averaging program that establishes specific annual target levels for average PM emissions from urban buses in an operator's fleet. In general, to meet either of the two compliance options, operators of the affected buses must use equipment that has been certified by EPA.

A key aspect of the program is the certification of retrofit/rebuild equipment. Emissions requirements under either of the two compliance options depend on the availability of retrofit/rebuild equipment certified for each engine model. To be used for Program 1, equipment must be certified as meeting a 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard or, if equipment is not certified as meeting the 0.10 standard, as achieving a 25 percent reduction in PM. Equipment used for Program 2 must be certified as providing some level of PM reduction that would in turn be claimed by urban bus operators when calculating their average fleet PM levels attained under the program. For Program 1, information on life cycle costs must be submitted in the notification of intent to certify in order for certification of the equipment to initiate (that is, to “trigger”) program requirements. To trigger program requirements, the certifier must guarantee that the equipment will be available to all affected operators for a life cycle cost of $7,940 or less at the 0.10 PM level, or for a life cycle cost of $2,000 or less for the 25 percent or greater reduction in PM emissions. Both of these values are based on 1992 dollars and are increments above costs associated with a standard rebuild. If EPA determines that the life cycle cost limit is met, then certification is based on “life cycle cost” in addition to reducing PM emissions.

Under program 2, operators calculate their average fleet emissions using specified engine PM emission levels (as well as other factors).

The 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard was triggered on September 21, 1998. As described in a Federal Register notice on September 21, 1998 (63 FR 50225), EPA certified the ETX-2002 TM Emissions Rebuild Kit supplied by the Engelhard Corporation. The ETX kit applies to 1988 through 1993 model year Detroit Diesel Corporation 6V92TA DDEC II engines having electronic fuel control and rated at either 253 or 277 horsepower (hp). That certification means that transit operators using compliance program 1 must use rebuild kits certified to the 0.10 standard when rebuilding or replacing the applicable engines after March 22, 1999 (that is, 6 months after September 21, 1998).

The September 21, 1998 Federal Register notice states that certification of Engelhard's ETX kit, as it applies to engines of model years 1988 through 1990, is conditional pending demonstration by Engelhard that any replacement engine control module (ECM) or any replacement ECM program used in conjunction with the kit would not adversely impact the emissions of NO X . In a letter dated March 2, 1999, to Engelhard, EPA stated that the conditional status was removed and that the ETX kit can be used by transit operators in compliance with the requirement of the rebuild program. In a letter dated March 29, 1999, EPA stated that due to confusion surrounding the conditional certification, it will not take action against an operator who does not install 0.10 kits between March 22, 1999 and May 21, 1999. Further, EPA stated in the letter that it will extend this period of no action past May 21, 1999, if the general counsel for a bus operator certifies in writing to EPA that it has exercised due diligence since September 21, 1998, to procure the necessary 0.10 kits, but could not obtain them in time to begin installing 0.10 kits by May 22, 1999.

Certification of the JM CCT kit as complying with the life cycle cost criteria will not establish new requirements for operators. This is discussed further in Section V below.

EPA announced certification of the JM CCT Upgrade Kit in the Federal Register on December 3, 1998 (63 FR 66798). That certification is based on compliance with the 0.10 standard, but without determination of compliance with the optional life cycle cost criteria. That certification was described as “conditional” for some engine applications, pending a demonstration that any replacement ECM or ECM program used in conjunction with the certified kit would not adversely impact the emissions of NO X in comparison to the ECM or ECM program that is replaced. DDC provided information that allowed EPA to remove the conditional status of the certification. Therefore, in a letter to JM dated March 2, 1999, EPA removed the conditional status and stated that the CCT Kit can be used by bus operators in compliance with requirements of the Urban Bus Rebuild Program.

In documents signed January 26, 1999, JM provided life cycle cost information in a revised section 6 of their notification of intent to certify the CCT Upgrade Kit. JM presents data in support of their claim that the life cycle cost of the CCT kit is less than $7,940 (in 1992 dollars) incremental to the cost of a standard rebuild. A Federal Register notice (64 FR 11864) dated March 10, 1999, announced that EPA had received the cost information and was making it available for public review and public comment.

Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC), the original manufacturer of the bus engines to which the CCT kit applies, was the only party to provide comments. The following summarizes DDC's comments, JM's responses to the comments, and EPA's position on the issues raised by the comments.

a. DDC notes that JM states that the cost of the reprogramming, if ECM reprogramming is necessary, would be included in the price of the kit. However, JM does not explain how DDC distributors and dealers, who would be doing the reprogramming, would be compensated for the reprogramming if the reprogramming fee is paid to JM as part of the kit price. The reprogramming fee is typically collected by the distributor when the service is performed.

In response, JM states that it intends to reprogram ECMs at its facilities at Stewart & Stevenson (a DDC distributor as well as JM distributor). JM's payment for reprogramming will be by JM to Stewart & Stevenson and will remain imbedded in the price of those kits that require the ECM program (that is, the certification word code, CWC) to be changed.

Regarding DDC's point, EPA requested JM to include the price of the reprogramming in the purchase price of the kit to insure that the price of the kit includes all components that are not part of a standard rebuild (it is thereby accounted for in the life cycle cost analysis). In this way, bus operators will not be faced with the potential for additional costs above the purchase price of the kit, for an emission-related component.

b. DDC also states that JM should identify those engines that will receive ECM reprogramming. Further, DDC believes that the ECM reprogramming costs should be shown separately from the CCT hardware costs.

JM states that all 1985 through 1990 model year engines, and any 1991 through 1993 model year engine with a CWC other than 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, or 264, will be required to upgrade its CWC. Also, as noted previously, EPA requested JM to include the price of the reprogramming in the purchase price of the kit.

c. DDC notes that JM's test of the CCT kit consisted of a cold-start test followed by two hot-start tests. To calculate the fuel consumption (that is, brake specific fuel consumption, BSFC, measured in units of pounds of fuel per brake-horsepower-hour) of the CCT kit, JM combined the cold-start test with the second hot-start test, and completely ignored the first hot-start test, even though it is valid. DDC states that it sees no justification for ignoring the valid first hot-start test. DDC states that the first hot-start test should be used (in conjunction with the cold-start test), unless JM provides some sound rationale for bypassing it.

In reply, JM states that after a cold-start test, the test laboratory routinely conducts two hot-start tests in the event that the first is invalid. JM contends that, because the second hot-start is a valid test, it can be used to calculate the fuel consumption.

EPA notes that it is not improper to use the second hot-start test if the first test is not valid. However, in this situation, the first test has been presented as valid and, was used by JM to demonstrate compliance with the 0.10 standard in its certification application dated March 6, 1998. EPA notes that it is consistent with the regulations governing the transient test procedure to use the first hot-start test. 40 CFR 86.1327-90 (“Engine dynamometer test procedures; overview”) establishes the basic sequence for the transient engine test, and 86.1330-90 shows a diagram of the overall test sequence. Section 86.1336-84 (“Engine starting, restarting, and shutdown”) provides direction for re-running the hot-cycle when the test sequence is impacted by engine stalls and malfunctions in the required test equipment. In no case are there provisions in the Part 86 test procedures for the arbitrary selection of hot-start cycles. Use of a valid first hot-start test is consistent with EPA's procedures in other, new engine, test programs (for example, during selective enforcement audits). Therefore, EPA is using the first hot-start with the cold start test to determine the composite fuel consumption of engines equipped with the CCT kit. For the purposes of the analysis discussed below, the fuel consumption value of engines equipped with the CCT kit is 0.489 lb/bhp-hr.

d. DDC notes that JM presents baseline fuel consumption data for 1991 through 1993 model year engines. After comparing this to the fuel consumption for the CCT kit, JM notes a 0.4 percent difference, but dismisses the difference as being “within accepted experimental error.” DDC notes that the urban bus regulation (40 CFR 85.1404) does not include provisions for “rounding off” or ignoring differences that may be the result of testing uncertainty. DDC states that the BSFC difference reflected by the actual test data is the best estimate of the fuel consumption impact of the CCT kit, and must be used in computing the life cycle cost.

In response, JM states that a fuel consumption difference of 0.4 percent is within the “experimental” error of the test cells at the laboratory. JM also states that it is following the customary practice of EPA in rounding down numbers.

EPA has no customary practice of “rounding down” test data. Additionally, DDC is correct in that the program regulation does not address rounding of numbers or ignoring differences when assigned to “experimental” (that is, test-to-test) error. However, the issue specifically related to the 0.4 percent is no longer relevant because the fuel consumption value determined by EPA for the CCT kit, as discussed previously, is not the value based on the second hot-start test as JM presents in its analysis. The impact of any difference in fuel consumption, of course, remains relevant with regard to determining the life cycle cost of the kit. EPA is not familiar with any analyses of the test-to-test error of the laboratory at which the testing was conducted.

EPA believes that it is reasonable to determine (and apply) the fuel consumption impact to one-tenth of a percentage point. This is consistent with the practice used during the certification process of the Engelhard ETX kit. The impact of fuel consumption is discussed below in the section titled “EPA Determination of Life Cycle Cost”.

e. JM separately evaluates the fuel consumption impact of its kit on 1990 model year engines because the NO X standard for the 1990 model year dropped from 10.7 to 6.0 g/bhp-hr. JM states that it is accepted in industry that reductions in NO X are achieved at the expense of fuel consumption. For evaluating the impact, JM cites original DDC new engine certification data to establish a baseline fuel consumption for 1990 model year engines, and compares this data with the fuel consumption of the CCT kit to determine the impact of the CCT on these engines. DDC notes that in 1990, it only produced engines configured to operate on diesel fuel #1, and to compare this data with data run with the CCT using diesel fuel #2, as JM has done, results in a biased and inappropriate comparison because the energy content of diesel #1 is about 1 percent higher than diesel #2. Therefore, DDC states that it is appropriate to correct the 1990 baseline fuel consumption upward by 1 percent to correct for fuel type differences before making the fuel consumption evaluation.

In response, JM recognizes the accuracy of DDC's statement and concurs that the 1990 model year engine's baseline fuel consumption should be increased by 1 percent.

EPA notes that the comment and response by JM are no longer specifically relevant. While in general it appears to be reasonable to determine the impact of fuel consumption based on grouping together those engines having the same NO X standard (such as the 1988 California engines and 1990 federal engines), EPA does not rely on the specific test data from the original DDC new engine certification. The impact of fuel consumption is discussed below in the section titled “EPA Determination of Life Cycle Cost”.

f. JM also separately evaluates the fuel consumption impact of its kit on 1988 and 1989 model year California engines because the NO X standard in California for those years is 6.0 g/bhp-hr, and JM states that it is a widely accepted fact in the industry that there is a trade off between NO X and fuel consumption. JM notes that the fuel consumption of the 1988 and 1989 model year California engines would have been comparable to the 1990 model year federal engine because all had the same 6.0 g/bhp-hr NO X standard. For evaluating the impact, JM did not develop baseline data, but instead cites data supplied by Engelhard Corporation in its application for certification of its ETX kit. Engelhard tested a 1988 6V92TA DDEC II California configuration to establish a baseline fuel consumption for the 1988-1989 California engines of 0.481 lb/bhp-hr. JM compares this data with the fuel consumption of the CCT kit to determine the impact of the CCT kit on these engines. DDC notes that the original DDC certification testing of the 1988 California 6V92 DDEC engine rated at 277 horsepower yielded fuel consumption of 0.462 lb/bhp-hr.

In response, JM argues that the fuel consumption of 0.481 lb/bhp-hr, developed for Engelhard using a 1988 California engine, is more “real life” than DDC's value of 0.462 lb/bhp-hr for the same engine, and therefore appropriate for evaluating the impact of its CCT kit.

While DDC has not provided any background information on its test of the 1988 California certification engine, EPA expects that it was conducted in a DDC test cell in 1987. However, EPA believes that it is reasonable to compare data that is developed at the same laboratory. Therefore, to determine the fuel consumption impact, EPA is relying on the 0.481 lb/bhp-hr (developed for Engelhard) because it was conducted at the same test laboratory (Southwest Research Institute, SwRI) as the CCT test. The impact of fuel consumption is discussed below in the section titled “EPA Determination of Life Cycle Cost”.

g. DDC notes that for the urban bus rebuild certification of their own 25 percent reduction kit for 6V92 DDEC engines, they provided fuel consumption values of 0.449 and 0.470 lb/bhp-hr for 1988 and 1991 model year engines, respectively. While both of these values are lower than the corresponding values developed by JM, the fuel consumption penalty (from the 1988 to 1991 model year) is about 5 percent in both cases (actually 4.7 percent based on EPA calculation). DDC states that the fuel consumption penalty that JM develops for the impact of the CCT kit on 1988 and 1989 model year federal engines appears appropriate, but when additional differences between the CCT kit and the 1991 baseline are accounted for, DDC believes that the actual fuel consumption penalty is approximately 6.5 percent.

JM responded that it stands by its analysis that shows there is no fuel consumption penalty associated with upgrading a 1991 model year DDEC engine to a CCT Upgrade Kit configuration, and would agree to use DDC's 5 percent penalty for upgrading 1988 and 1989 model year engines to the CCT kit configuration.

EPA notes that the specific fuel consumption penalty of 4.7 percent (to which DDC and JM refer as 5 percent), is based on comparing data from 1988 and 1991 model year engines that DDC developed for its original new engine certification. However, the data do not represent engine configurations of the same horsepowers, and neither test represents actual use of the CCT kit. To calculate the fuel consumption penalty for the CCT kit, EPA believes that it is reasonable to compare data from the testing conducted for JM on the CCT kit and the engine rebuilt to a 1991 model year configuration. Both tests were conducted for JM using engines of the same horsepower (277 Hp) in the same test cell of the same laboratory. As discussed later in the section titled “EPA Determination of Life Cycle Cost,” our analysis shows that a 6.5 percent fuel consumption penalty is appropriate.

Section 85.1403(b)(1)(ii) describes the elements that must be considered when analyzing life cycle cost of equipment, including equipment purchase price, incremental fuel cost, installation costs, maintenance costs, and costs of any fuel additives required. To trigger the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard, the life cycle cost of equipment can be no more than the limit of $7,940 (in 1992 dollars), incremental to the cost of a standard rebuild.

In this section, EPA analyzes the life cycle costs using a methodology similar to that described in both the Federal Register notice of March 14, 1997 (62 FR 12166), which describes the certification of Engelhard's ETX kit applicable to DDC's 6V92TA engines with mechanical unit injectors (MUI), and the Federal Register notice of September 21, 1998 (63 FR 50225), which describes the certification of Engelhard's ETX kit applicable to DDC's 6V92TA engines with electronic unit injectors (DDEC).

The analysis first determines the cost of a “weighted” rebuild because the kit is used in conjunction with a standard rebuild and contains parts that are typically replaced during a standard rebuild. The weighted rebuild considers that all operators do not rebuild engines the same way, and therefor reflects, on a weighted basis, that some operators rebuild using non-original equipment parts and some operators rebuild certain components in-house. For the weighted rebuild, cost information is “corrected” to a 1992 time-frame, which is the time period for which the life cycle cost limit of $7,940 of the regulation is based. EPA then uses the cost of a weighted rebuild for determining an offset for the parts supplied in the CCT kit (that is, JM's first supply option) that are typically replaced during a standard rebuild. The offset is then added to any additional installation costs and fuel penalty, to determine a maximum purchase price such that the life cycle cost of the equipment meets the life cycle cost limit. In other words, in order to comply with the life cycle cost criteria, the maximum purchase price, when added to the fuel consumption penalty and additional installation cost, and offset for parts in the CCT kit, can be no more than $7,940 (in 1992 dollars), incremental to the cost of a standard rebuild. In the final step, the maximum purchase price in 1992 dollars is converted to current value using the appropriate consumer price indices.

The life cycle cost analysis is based on JM's first supply option, as described in the December 3, 1998 Federal Register notice, because only one supply option needs to comply with the life cycle cost criteria and, the first supply option provides virtually all emissions-related components typically replaced during a standard rebuild. In the first supply option, JM is to provide the following parts: CEM II catalytic muffler, patented engine camshafts, CCT cylinder kits, 0.015 offset key, fuel injectors, 40T blower gear, turbo charger, blower assembly, blower bypass valve, and if necessary, the ECM program. The cylinder heads and gasket kit are not included with the CCT kit because these parts, although typically replaced during a standard rebuild, are the same regardless of model year.

JM notes that the CCT kit is sold to complement a standard engine rebuild. The balance of the specified parts for the standard rebuild (excluding standard cams) can be acquired from traditional DDC parts sources. A cost offset is provided in the analysis for the parts in the CCT kit that are normally replaced during a standard engine rebuild. The costs for the parts normally replaced during a standard engine rebuild has been previously determined for certification of the Engelhard's ETX kit (63 FR 50225; September 21, 1998).

As explained in the September 21, 1998 Federal Register , for the determination of the cost of a weighted rebuild, EPA assumes that some parts used in the rebuild of some engines are original equipment (OE) parts, others are non-OE parts, and that some transits re-manufacture certain components in-house. Table 1 below summarizes the cost of a weighted rebuild as presented in the September Federal Register , and indicates the parts costs that are offset because they are provided in the CCT kit for the first supply option.

EPA received no comments regarding the costs related to the standard or weighted rebuild. Therefore, EPA continues to use the costs from the Federal Register notice developed for the Engelhard certifications indicated above. There may be uncertainties and assumptions involved with this “weighted” approach, but EPA believes that, based on the available information, the cost of a standard rebuild of a DDC 6V92TA DDEC engine is best approximated by the weighted rebuild costs shown above in Table 1, for the purposes of determining the maximum purchase price for the CCT Upgrade Kit.

Life cycle costs can be impacted by the fuel consumption associated with the use of retrofit equipment using diesel fuel. A review of test data is used to determine any fuel consumption penalty. As noted above, EPA gives preference to data developed for JM, based on engines of 277 horsepower, and tested at the same laboratory. Table 2 below lists the test data that is used to make the determination of incremental fuel cost for the CCT kit.

EPA determines the fuel consumption impact of the CCT kit on three test engines, each complying with a distinct NO X exhaust emission standard. The NO X standard for all 1991 through 1993 model year engines is 5.0 g/bhp-hr. The standard for 1988 through 1990 California engines and 1990 federal engines is 6.0 g/bhp-hr. The standard for 1988 and 1989 federal engines is 10.7 g/bhp-hr. Data provided by JM with its application for certification dated March 6, 1998, indicate that CCT-equipped engines comply with the 5.0 g/bhp-hr NO X standard and therefore the CCT kit can be used on engines originally certified to comply with any of the noted standards. EPA recognizes that the available fuel consumption data is limited, but believes it adequate for the purpose of determining the life cycle cost analysis.

As discussed above, EPA is using the first hot-start in conjunction with the cold-start test, to determine the fuel consumption of the engine equipped with the CCT kit. Therefore, the purposes of this analysis, the fuel consumption of CCT-equipped engines is taken as 0.489 lb/bhp-hr.

The test of the engine configured to a 1991 model year configuration indicates a baseline fuel consumption of 0.483 lb/ bhp-hr. Therefore, EPA calculates that the CCT kit, on 1991 through 1993 model year engines, increases fuel consumption by 1.2 percent.

EPA believes that it is reasonable to determine the impact of fuel consumption on all engines meeting the same 6.0 g/hp-hr NO X standard, which includes the 1988 through 1990 California engines and the 1990 federal engines. JM did not conduct a baseline test on an engine that was designed to 6.0 g/bhp-hr NO X standard. However, data available from testing a 1988 model year California engine at Southwest Research Institute for Engelhard, indicates a baseline value of 0.481 lb/bhp-hr for engines designed to the 6.0 g/bhp-hr standard. Therefore, EPA calculates that the CCT kit, on 1988 through 1990 California engines and 1990 federal engines, increases fuel consumption by 1.7 percent.

The test conducted for JM on the 1988 model year federal engine indicate a baseline fuel consumption of 0.459 lb/bhp-hr. Comparing this value with the CCT fuel consumption of 0.489 lb/bhp-hr, indicates a fuel consumption penalty of 6.5 percent when upgrading a 1988 model year engine to the CCT kit.

The impacts on fuel consumption are summarized below in Table 3 along with the increased life cycle fuel costs calculated pursuant to the formula prescribed at 40 CFR 85.1403(b)(1). The impact of the fuel consumption penalty on life cycle costs is included in the summary below.

As defined at 40 CFR 85.1403 (b)(1)(ii)(B), the installation cost of certified equipment is “the labor cost of installing the equipment on an urban bus engine, incremental to a standard rebuild, based on a labor rate of $35 per hour” (in 1992 dollars). JM states that the labor required to rebuild an engine will be the same for a standard rebuild and the CCT kit, with the exception of the additional labor required for installation of the CEM II catalytic muffler. The CEM II installation is essentially identical to the replacement of an OE muffler, and will not exceed 2 hours labor. Using the labor rate of $35.00 per hour, as specified at 40 CFR 85.1403, the two hours is valued at $70 (in 1992 dollars) and is incremental to the cost of a standard rebuild.

JM states that the CCT kit requires no maintenance for the CEM II and no additional maintenance above and beyond normal DDC maintenance requirements for a standard rebuild. EPA has no information to conclude that any additional maintenance is necessary for the CEM II catalyst muffler, or would increase life cycle costs. Therefore, no additional maintenance costs are listed for the CCT kit.

No fuel additives are required for the CCT kit.

As noted previously, the regulation at 40 CFR 85.1403 requires that the life cycle cost be no more than $7,940 (in 1992 dollars) incremental to the cost of a standard rebuild, for equipment that triggers the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard. Table 4 below itemizes the life cycle cost elements determined above for the CCT kit for each of the following groups of applicable engines: 1991 through 1993 model year 50-state engines, 1988-1990 model year California and 1990 model year federal engines, and 1988-1989 model year federal (49-state) engines. The maximum purchase price shown in Table 4 is determined by adjusting the life cycle cost ceiling for the parts offset, installation cost, and fuel penalty.

Table 4 displays the maximum purchase prices for the CCT kits, in 1992 dollars. The total life cycle cost is the sum of the listed items. An “offset” (that is, a credit) is provided to the life cycle cost of the CCT kit because certain components provided in the kit offset costs for parts which otherwise are replaced during a standard engine rebuild. The values for the individual rebuild parts that are offset by the CCT kit parts, are listed previously in conjunction with the determination of a weighted rebuild and itemized in Table 1. To determine the incremental life cycle cost, these “offset” costs are subtracted, as shown in Table 4. As shown in the table, the total incremental life cycle cost is no more than the ceiling specified in the program regulations, $7,940 in 1992 dollars. Current values of the maximum purchase prices are discussed below.

Table 6 below shows the maximum purchase price (in 1992 dollars) as determined above. The current (August 1999) maximum purchase prices are also shown in Table 6, and are calculated using a multiplicative ratio of Consumer Price Indices (CPI). Table 5 below lists the relevant CPIs. The average CPI for 1992 is 140.3, as specified by the program regulation. The August 1999 CPI, for all items and all urban consumers, is 167.1. These CPI values are provided by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

JM, in a letter to EPA dated October 22, 1999, guarantees to make CCT Upgrade kits available to all affected urban bus operators for no more than the maximum August 1999 purchase prices shown in Table 6.

Today's Federal Register notice announces that the JM CCT Upgrade Kit is certified to comply with the optional life cycle cost criteria of the Urban Bus Rebuild Program. EPA has reviewed the available information and comments received to determine that there is adequate demonstration of compliance with the life cycle cost criteria of 40 CFR 85.1403(b) and 85.1407(a).

Affected urban bus operators who choose to comply with compliance program 1 are currently required to use equipment certified to meet the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard. As discussed above, this current requirement has been previously triggered by certification of equipment supplied by the Engelhard Corporation.

The Johnson Matthey CCT kit has already been certified to comply with the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard and can be used by all operators towards compliance with the current urban bus program requirements. Operators that choose to comply with compliance program 2 and use this equipment would claim the PM certification level for the CCT kit (0.10 g/bhp-hr) when calculating their Fleet Level Attained (FLA).

If the current trigger of the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard becomes ineffective, then certification of JM's CCT Upgrade Kit on the basis of life cycle cost would trigger program requirements for bus operators that have chosen to comply with program 1, to use equipment certified to the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard when applicable engines are rebuilt or replaced. The requirement would be effective for any applicable engine rebuilt or replaced six months after September 15, 2000.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to “those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).” Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Electronically . You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations”, “Regulations and Proposed Rules,” and then look up the entry for this document under the “ Federal Register —Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

Under contract number 68-W-00-104, contractor SecTek, Incorporated of 208 Eden St., Suite 201, Herndon, VA, will assist the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPTS) by maintaining the day-to-day operations of all security hardware, access controls, and alarm equipment.

In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under EPA contract number 68-W-00-104, SecTek will require access to CBI submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA to perform successfully the duties specified under the contract.

SecTek personnel will be given access to information submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be CBI.

EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information under all sections of TSCA that EPA may provide SecTek access to these CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under this contract will take place at EPA Headquarters.

SecTek will be authorized access to TSCA CBI at EPA Headquarters only, in accordance with the EPA TSCA Confidential Business Information Security Manual .

Clearance for access to TSCA CBI under this contract may continue until June 30, 2005.

SecTek personnel will be required to sign nondisclosure agreements and will be briefed on appropriate security procedures before they are permitted access to TSCA CBI.

OMB Approval No.: 3060-0757.

Title: FCC Auctions Customer Survey.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or households; Business or other for profit.

Number of Respondents: 2,000.

Estimate Hour Per Response: .25 hours per response (2,000 x .25 hrs = 500 hrs.).

Total Annual Burden: 500 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Costs: None.

Frequency of Response: Reporting; On occasion.

Needs and Uses: The information will be used by the Commission to evaluate the competitive bidding methodologies and other operational processes used to date and to improve these techniques for use in future auctions.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0774.

Title: Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45 (47 CFR Part 54)

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension.

Respondents: Business or Other for Profit; Not for Profit Institutions, State, Local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents: 5,735,638.

Estimated Time Per Response: .34 hrs (avg.).

Total Annual Burden: 1,984,119 Hours.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0.

Frequency of Response: On occasion; Quarterly, Annually, Every five years, Third Party Disclosure, Recordkeeping .

Needs and Uses: Congress directed the Commission to implement a new set of universal service support mechanisms that are explicit and sufficient to advance the universal service principles enumerated in 47 U.S.C. Section 254 and other such principles as the Commission believes are necessary and appropriate for the protection of the public interest, convenience and necessity, and are consistent with the Act. Part 54 promulgates the rules and requirements to preserve and advance universal service. The collections are necessary to implement Section 254.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0810.

Title: Procedures for Designation of Eligible Telecommunications Carriers Pursuant to Section 214(e)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension.

Respondents: Business or Other for Profit.

Number of Respondents: 110.

Estimated Time Per Response: 56.3 Hour (avg.).

Total Annual Burden: 6200 Hours.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0.

Frequency of Response: On occasion; Third Party Disclosure.

Needs and Uses: 47 U.S.C. Section 214(e)(6) states that a telecommunications carrier that is not subject to the jurisdiction of a state may request that the Commission determine whether it is eligible. The Commission must evaluate whether such telecommunications carriers meet the eligibility criteria set forth in the Act, specified in the Public Notice, and also the Order issued in CC Docket 96-45 (FCC 00-208). Carriers seeking designation for service provided on non-tribal lands must provide an affirmative statement from a court of competent jurisdiction or the state commission that the state lacks jurisdiction over the carrier.

You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting.

In the Federal Register of July 21, 2000 (65 FR 45384), FDA published a notice of a public workshop to review the criteria used to determine whether specific laboratory tests are waived from certain requirements of the CLIA. FDA is soliciting comments from interested persons concerning the review of criteria and the process that the agency should use to determine when a particular test is waived. CLIA specifies that laboratory requirements be based on the complexity of the tests performed and establishes criteria for categorizing a test as waived. Responsibility for determining whether a particular test is waived was transferred from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to FDA on January 31, 2000.

FDA received several requests to extend the comment period for an additional month to allow adequate time to respond. In response to the requests, FDA is extending the comment period until October 16, 2000.

Interested persons may submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments regarding this notice by October 16, 2000. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the office above between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Mortgagee's Application for Partial Settlement (Multifamily Mortgage).

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2502-0427.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: When the mortgage goes into default, the lender may elect to file with the Department a claim for insurance benefits. Statute 12 USC 1713(g) and Title II, Section 207(g) of the National Housing Act provides that, “* * * the mortgagee shall be entitled to receive the benefits of the insurance as hereinafter provided, upon assignment, transfer, and delivery to the Secretary, within a period and in accordance with rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of all rights and interest arising under the mortgage so in default: * * * at its options and in accordance with regulations of, and in a period to be determined by the Secretary, proceed to foreclose on and obtain possession of or otherwise acquire sure property after default and receive the benefits of the insurance as herein provided upon the prompt conveyance of the Secretary the title of the property * * *” The mortgagee may receive a portion of the benefits immediately after the assignment or conveyance. The partial amount is computed in accordance with the foregoing statutory provisions and regulations promulgated under 24 CFR 207.251 Subpart B.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: HUD-2537.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: The estimated number of respondents is 215, frequency of response is one claim per submission, the total annual burden hours requested are 54.

Status of the proposed information collection: Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved information collection.

The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Mortgage Insurance Termination—HUD-27050-A; Application for Premium Refund or Distributive Share Payment—HUD-27050-B.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2502-0414.

Description of the need of the information and proposed use: The information collection for the Mortgage Insurance Termination, form HUD-27050-A, is used by servicing mortgages to comply with HUD requirements for reporting the termination of FHA mortgage insurance. This information is used whenever FHA mortgage insurance is terminated and no claim for insurance benefits will be filed. Due to technological advances this information is now submitted electronically to HUD from lenders via Electronic Date Interchange (EDI) and via the Internet through FHA Connection. The information collection is still needed although the hardcopy form is not used. Under the new streamline III program, when the information is submitted it can be used to directly pay eligible homeowners. This condition occurs when the data passes the criteria of certain system edits. As a result, the system generates a disbursement to the eligible homeowners for a refund consisting of the unused portion of the paid premium. The information collection required is used to update HUD's Single Family Insurance System. The billing of mortgage insurance premiums is discontinued as a result of the transaction. Without this information the premium collection/monitoring function would be severely impeded and program data would be unreliable. Under streamline III, when the information is processed but does not pass the series of edits, the system generates a form HUD-27050-B to the homeowners to be completed and returned to HUD for further processing for a premium refund or distributive share. In general, a premium refund is the difference between the amount of prepaid premium and the amount of the premium that has been earned by HUD up to the time the mortgage is terminated. A distributive share payment is a dividend of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund operated by HUD/FHA and may be payable when FHA insurance is terminated depending on the age of the mortgage and other eligibility conditions.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: HUD-27050-A, HUD-27050-B.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: The public reporting burden for this collection of information for the HUD-27050-A is estimated to average 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing the instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, completing and reviewing the collection of information, and transmitting the information electronically via EDI or FHA Connection. The number of respondents is 9,500, the frequency of response is on occasion, and the volume per respondents is 1 to 40,000 depending on the size of their FHA portfolio. The public reporting burden for this collection of information for the HUD-27050-B is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing the instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The number of respondents is 382,000, the frequency of response is one time, and the volume per respondents is 1.

Status of the proposed information collection: Reinstatement, without change, or a previously approved information collection.

The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Mortgagee's Application for Insurance Benefits (Multifamily Mortgage).

OMB Control Number, if applicable 2520-0419.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: A lender with an insured multifamily mortgage may pay an annual insurance premium to the Department. When the mortgage goes into default, the lender may elect to file with the Department a claim for insurance benefits. A requirement of the claims filing process is the submission of an application for insurance benefits. Regulation 12 USC 1713(g) and Title II, Section 207(g) of the National Housing Act provides that, “Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, upon receipt, after September 2, 1964, of an application for insurance benefits on a mortgage insured under this chapter, the Secretary may terminate the lender's obligation to pay premium charges on the mortgage.” This provision is further spelled out under 24 CFR Part 207—Subpart B—Contract Rights and Obligations at 207.252(d) and 207.258(c)(6). This information collection satisfied the preceding requirements.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: HUD-2747.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: The estimated number of respondents is 215, frequency of response is one claim per submission, the total annual burden hours requested are 18.

Status of the proposed information collection: Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved information collection.

The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).

The Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Community Development Block Grants: States Program.

OMB Control Number: 2506-0085.

Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use: The information is needed to assist HUD in determining whether States are carrying out the CDBG program in accordance with the applicable laws. In addition, States must maintain records at the state level to facilitate review and audit by HUD of each state's administration of its grant pursuant to section 104 (e) of the statute and section 570.490 of the State CDBG rule.

Agency Form Numbers, if applicable: The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, requires states that administer the CDBG program to submit: (1) A Final Statement that contains the community development objectives, a method of distribution, and the certification by the Governor or a duly authorized state official (Section 104(a)(1); (2) an annual performance and evaluation report (PER) (Section 104(e)); and such records as may be necessary to facilitate review and audit by HUD of the state's administration of CDBG funds (Section 104(e)(2)).

Members of Affected Public: State Governments participating in the State administered CDBG program.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response:

Status of the Proposed Information Collection: Reinstatement, with minor change, of a previously approved collection for which approval is near expiration and request for OMB renewal for three years. The current OMB approval expires in November, 2000.

This report does not include hours spent on Consolidated Plan preparation and reporting. Those hours are reported with 2506-0117.

In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 14411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.).

Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.

Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to Brian Rooney, Division of Property Management, Program Support Center, HHS, room 5B-41, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (301) 443-2265. (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for competing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.

For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, by made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.

For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.

Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Clifford Taffet at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be he property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the Federal Register , the landholding agency, and the property number.

For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice ( i.e., acreage, floor plan, existing sanitary facilities, exact street address), providers should contact the appropriate landholding agencies at the following addresses: Army: Mr. Jeff Holste, Army Corps of Engineers, Military Programs, Installation Support Division, Planning Branch, ATTN: CEMP-IP, 441 G Street, NW, Washington, DC 20314-1000; (202) 761-5737; GSA: Mr. Brian K. Polly, Assistant Commissioner, General Services Administration, Office of Property Disposal, 18th and F Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20405; (202) 501-0052; Interior: Ms. Linda Tribby, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., Mail Stop 5512-MIB, Washington, DC 20240; (202) 219-0728; Navy: Mr. Charles C. Cocks, Director, Department of the Navy, Real Estate Policy Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington Navy Yard, 1322 Patterson Ave., SE., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20374-5065; (202) 685-9200; (These are not toll-free numbers).

Title of Forms: Summary Information for Ranking National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program Proposal.

Description and Use: The Service administers the National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant program authorized by the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act. The Service uses the information collected to evaluate proposals under this program. This includes summarized information on habitat, coastal barriers, levels of conservation, watershed management, threatened and/or endangered species potentially involved, benefits of the restoration proposed, partners, cost sharing, education/outreach impact, impact on wildlife-oriented recreation and other benefits and determining if the estimated cost is reasonable.

Service Form Numbers: 3-2179 (Summary Information for Ranking National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program Porposals).

Supplemental Information: The Service plans to submit the following informatioin collection requirements to OMB for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are invited on (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of burden of the collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on respondents, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Frequency: Generally annually.

Description of Respondents: States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa.

Completion Time and Annual Response and Burden Estimate:

While the summary form is five pages long the 1/2 hour estimated burden is accurate. Agencies applying for grants will have all of the information readily available in the proposals they have prepared.