32026 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 99 / Monday, May 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Parade of Sail. This safety zone will

move with the Parade of Sail as it

transits the Delaware River from

Anchorage 9 (Mantua Creek anchorage)

to the Walt Whitman Bridge.

(2) Parade of Sail—Second Segment:

All waters of the Delaware River, from

shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the

south by the Walt Whitman Bridge and

on the north by the Benjamin Franklin

Bridge with the exception of the

southern portion of Anchorage 12,

defined as that portion of the anchorage

south of latitude 39° 55′ 41′′ N.

(c) Regulations. (1) All persons are

required to comply with the general

regulations governing safety zones in

§ 165.23 of this part.

(2) No person or vessel may enter or

navigate within these regulated areas

unless authorized to do so by the Coast

Guard Patrol Commander. Any person

or vessel authorized to enter the

regulated area must operate in strict

conformance with any directions given

by the Captain of the Port and leave the

regulated area immediately if the Coast

Guard Patrol Commander so orders.

(3) The Coast Guard vessels enforcing

this section can be contacted on VHF

Marine Band Radio, channels 13 and 16.

The Captain of the Port can be contacted

at telephone number (215) 271–4940.

(4) The Coast Guard Patrol

Commander will notify the public of

changes in the status of these zones by

Marine Safety Radio Broadcast on VHF–

FM marine band radio, channel 22

(157.1 MHZ).

(d) Effective dates: This section is

effective from 8 a.m. on June 22, 2000

through 4 p.m. on June 23, 2000.

Dated: May 12, 2000.

Thomas E. Bernard,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting

Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 00–12746 Filed 5–17–00; 12:28 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

POSTAL SERVICE

39 CFR Part 952

Rules of Practice in Proceedings

Relative to False Representation and

Lottery Orders

AGENCY: Postal Service.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the

Rules of Practice in Proceedings

Relative to False Representation and

Lottery Orders to establish

administrative procedures for issuing

subpoenas and imposing the statutorily

authorized civil penalties in

proceedings conducted under 39 U.S.C.

3005(a).

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Diane M. Mego, Esq., (703) 812–1905.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March

14, 2000, the Postal Service published

in the Federal Register a proposed rule

to amend the Rules of Practice in

Proceedings Relative to False

Representation and Lottery Orders (65

FR 13707–13709). The proposed rule

implements The Deceptive Mail

Prevention and Enforcement Act, Pub.

L. 106–168, 113 Stat. 1806, enacted on

December 12, 1999, which grants the

Judicial Officer authority to issue

subpoenas requiring the attendance and

testimony of witnesses and the

production of any records (including

books, papers, documents, and other

tangible things which constitute or

contain evidence) which the Judicial

Officer considers relevant or material in

any statutory proceeding conducted

under 39 U.S.C. 3005(a). The Act also

authorizes new administrative civil

penalties.

Comments on the proposed rule were

due on or before April 13, 2000. Two

comments were received. One

commenter was concerned that the

proposed time limits for requesting a

subpoena do not give the subpoenaed

party a reasonable opportunity to

comply with a document request or to

appear at the hearing. The proposed

time limits are consistent with the time

limits already provided in part 952 and,

therefore, have not been revised in this

final rule. However, the rule recognizes

the possibility that further time may be

needed, and the presiding officer, at his

discretion, may waive the time limits in

the appropriate circumstances.

The other commenter, however,

believed that the language allowing the

presiding officer to exercise his

discretion in granting subpoenas outside

the proposed time limits improperly

created standardless discretion in the

presiding officer that could violate the

subpoenaed individual’s due process

rights. Contrary to the commenter’s

belief, the rule could never be fashioned

to cover every possibility that could

arise throughout a proceeding. Granting

the presiding officer the right to exercise

his discretion protects the parties’ rights

by allowing the presiding officer to

conduct each proceeding fairly.

Therefore, the discretion language has

been adopted as proposed.

The second commenter was also

concerned that the proposed rule

exceeds the authority granted by the Act

by allowing the presiding officer to

issue the subpoena, permitting the

Judicial Officer to seek enforcement of

a subpoena, and not providing sufficient

oversight for the issuance of subpoenas.

Two of the comments concern the

right to delegate authority. The

commenter questions authorizing the

presiding officer to issue subpoenas

when 39 U.S.C. 3016(a)(2) gives that

authority to the Judicial Officer. The

commenter points out that the Act

specifies that the Postmaster General

may delegate the subpoena authority in

investigations, but does not contain

similar provisions applicable to the

Judicial Officer. The language relied on

by the commenter with respect to

investigative subpoenas appears to be a

specific limitation on the right to

delegate, however, rather than a grant of

authority to delegate. By limiting the

authority to approve a subpoena during

an investigation to only the Postmaster

General, the General Counsel or Deputy

General Counsel, the Act assures that

the subpoena authority remains with a

high-level official. Absent a specific,

legislative intent to limit the Judicial

Officer’s ability to delegate his

authority, the subpoena authority is

impliedly delegable to the presiding

officer, a high-level and independent

official under his supervision.

The commenter also questions the

authority of the Judicial Officer to seek

enforcement of a subpoena when 39

U.S.C. 3016(c)(1) gives that authority to

the Postmaster General. However, the

ability of the Postmaster General to

delegate this enforcement authority is

not limited by the statute. Further, the

Postmaster General would be

considered one of the parties to any

proceeding conducted under part 952.

Therefore, it makes sense that the

authority to seek enforcement of a

subpoena should be delegated to the

Judicial Officer absent a specific

limitation on that authority by Congress.

The final comment concerns the form

and issuance of the subpoena. The

commenter was concerned that the

proposed language did not offer

sufficient oversight of the subpoena

process by allowing the presiding officer

to enter the name of the witness and

sign the subpoena, but otherwise allow

the requesting party to complete the

subpoena before service. The proposed

rules provide sufficient oversight by

requiring the requesting party to ‘‘state

the reasonable scope and general

relevance to the case of the testimony

and any records sought,’’ which

provides initial review by the presiding

officer, and by allowing a motion to

quash, which gives the presiding officer

a further review if necessary.

Furthermore, issuing subpoenas signed

but otherwise in blank is a standard

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 99 / Monday, May 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 32027

practice (cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(3)).

After careful review, the Judicial Officer

determined that the proposed language

does not require revision.

With regard to the effective date, the

Postal Service has determined that there

is good cause to make the new

regulations effective upon publication.

The public interest in the enforcement

of consumer protection laws would not

be served by delaying the application of

subpoena requirements to persons who

are subject to false representation or

lottery proceedings under 39 U.S.C.

3005(a).

The Postal Service hereby adopts the

following amendments to 39 CFR part

952.

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 952

Administrative practice and

procedure, False representations, Fraud,

Lotteries, Penalties, Postal Service.

PART 952—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 952

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 39 U.S.C. 204, 401, 3005, 3012,

3016.

§ 952.5 [Amended]

2. Section 952.5 is amended by

adding ‘‘and/or the assessment of civil

penalties’’ to the end of the first

sentence.

§ 952.7 [Amended]

3. Section 952.7(b) is amended by:

A. Adding ‘‘and/or the assessment of

civil penalties authorized by 39 U.S.C.

3012’’ to the end of the first sentence;

and

B. Adding ‘‘tentatively assess such

civil penalties as he considers

appropriate under applicable law;’’ after

the phrase ‘‘release of mail unrelated to

the matter complained of;’’ in the third

sentence.

§ 952.11 [Amended]

4. Section 952.11 is amended by:

A. Adding ‘‘and/or assess civil

penalties’’ after ‘‘orders’’ in the second

sentence of paragraph (a); and

B. Adding ‘‘and/or assess civil

penalties’’ after ‘‘orders’’ in paragraph

(b).

§ 952.17 [Amended]

5. Section 952.17(b)(10) is amended

by adding ‘‘§ 952.19 and’’ before

‘‘§ 952.21’’.

6. Section 952.19 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 952.19 Subpoenas.

(a) General. Upon written request of

either party filed with the Recorder or

on his own initiative, the presiding

officer may issue a subpoena requiring:

(1) Testimony at a deposition. The

deposing of a witness in the city or

county where the witness resides or is

employed or transacts business in

person, or at another location

convenient for the witness that is

specifically determined by the presiding

officer;

(2) Testimony at a hearing. The

attendance of a witness for the purpose

of taking testimony at a hearing; and

(3) Production of records. In addition

to paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this

section, the production by the witness at

the deposition or hearing of records

designated in the subpoena.

(b) Voluntary cooperation. Each party

is expected:

(1) To cooperate and make available

witnesses and evidence under its

control as requested by the other party,

without issuance of a subpoena, and

(2) To secure voluntary production of

desired third-party records whenever

possible.

(c) Requests for subpoenas. (1) A

request for a subpoena shall to the

extent practical be filed:

(i) At the same time a request for

deposition is filed; or

(ii) 15 days before a scheduled

hearing where the attendance of a

witness at a hearing is sought.

(2) A request for a subpoena shall

state the reasonable scope and general

relevance to the case of the testimony

and of any records sought.

(3) The presiding officer, in his

discretion, may honor requests for

subpoenas not made within the time

limitations specified in this paragraph.

(d) Requests to quash or modify. Upon

written request by the person

subpoenaed or by a party, made within

10 days after service but in any event

not later than the time specified in the

subpoena for compliance, the presiding

officer may:

(1) Quash or modify the subpoena if

it is unreasonable and oppressive or for

other good cause shown, or

(2) require the person in whose behalf

the subpoena was issued to advance the

reasonable cost of producing

subpoenaed records. Where

circumstances require, the presiding

officer may act upon such a request at

any time after a copy has been served

upon the opposing party.

(e) Form; issuance. (1) Every

subpoena shall state the title of the

proceeding, shall cite 39 U.S.C.

3016(a)(2) as the authority under which

it is issued, and shall command each

person to whom it is directed to attend

and give testimony, and if appropriate,

to produce specified records at a time

and place therein specified. In issuing a

subpoena to a requesting party, the

presiding officer shall sign the subpoena

and may, in his discretion, enter the

name of the witness and otherwise leave

it blank. The party to whom the

subpoena is issued shall complete the

subpoena before service.

(2) The party at whose instance a

subpoena is issued shall be responsible

for the payment of fees and mileage of

the witness and of the officer who

serves the subpoena. The failure to

make payment of such charges on

demand may be deemed by the

presiding officer as sufficient ground for

striking the testimony of the witness

and the evidence the witness has

produced.

(f) Service. (1) In general. The party

requesting issuance of a subpoena shall

arrange for service.

(2) Service within the United States. A

subpoena issued under this section may

be served by a person designated under

18 U.S.C. 3061 or by a United States

marshal or deputy marshal, or by any

other person who is not a party and not

less than 18 years of age at any place

within the territorial jurisdiction of any

court of the United States.

(3) Foreign Service. Any such

subpoena may be served upon any

person who is not to be found within

the territorial jurisdiction of any court of

the United States, in such manner as the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

prescribe for service in a foreign

country. To the extent that the courts of

the United States may assert jurisdiction

over such person consistent with due

process, the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia shall have

the same jurisdiction to take any action

respecting compliance with this section

by such person that such court would

have if such person were personally

within the jurisdiction of such court.

(4) Service on Business Persons.

Service of any such subpoena may be

made upon a partnership, corporation,

association, or other legal entity by:

(i) Delivering a duly executed copy

thereof to any partner, executive officer,

managing agent, or general agent

thereof, or to any agent thereof

authorized by appointment or by law to

receive service of process on behalf of

such partnership, corporation,

association, or entity;

(ii) Delivering a duly executed copy

thereof to the principal office or place

of business of the partnership,

corporation, association, or entity; or

(iii) Depositing such copy in the

United States mails, by registered or

certified mail, return receipt requested,

duly addressed to such partnership,

32028 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 99 / Monday, May 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

corporation, association, or entity at its

principal office or place of business.

(5) Service on Natural Persons.

Service of any subpoena may be made

upon any natural person by:

(i) delivering a duly executed copy to

the person to be served; or

(ii) depositing such copy in the

United States mails, by registered or

certified mail, return receipt requested,

duly addressed to such person at his

residence or principal office or place of

business.

(6) Verified Return. A verified return

by the individual serving any such

subpoena setting forth the manner of

such service shall be proof of service. In

the case of service by registered or

certified mail, such return shall be

accompanied by the return post office

receipt of delivery of such subpoena.

(g) Contumacy or refusal to obey a

subpoena. In the case of contumacy or

refusal to obey a subpoena, the Judicial

Officer may request the Attorney

General to petition the district court for

any district in which the person

receiving the subpoena resides, is

found, or conducts business (or in the

case of a person outside the territorial

jurisdiction of any district court, the

district court for the District of

Columbia) to issue an appropriate order

for the enforcement of such subpoena.

Any failure to obey such order of the

court may be punishable as contempt.

Stanley F. Mires,

Chief Counsel, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 00–12784 Filed 5–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–12–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MN60–01–7285a; FRL–6604–5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: We are approving a sitespecific revision to the Minnesota

particulate matter (PM) State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for LTV Steel

Mining Company (LTV), formerly

known as Erie Mining Company, located

in St. Louis County, Minnesota. The

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

(MPCA) submitted this SIP revision on

September 29, 1998 in response to a

request from LTV that EPA remove the

Stipulation Agreement for Erie Mining

Company from the State SIP. The

rationale for the approval and other

information are provided in this notice.

DATES: This action is effective on July

21, 2000 without further notice, unless

EPA receives relevant adverse

comments by June 21, 2000. If adverse

comments are received, EPA will

publish a timely withdrawal of the

direct final rule in the Federal Register

informing the public that the rule will

not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be

mailed to: Carlton Nash, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604. Copies of the

documents relevant to this action are

available for inspection during normal

business hours at the above address.

(Please telephone Christos Panos at

(312) 353–8328, before visiting the

Region 5 office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christos Panos, Regulation Development

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),

Air and Radiation Division, United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312) 353–8328.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

supplementary information section is

organized as follows:

A. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

B. Why Was This SIP Revision Submitted?

C. Why Can We Approve This Request?

D. What Is the Background for This

Rulemaking?

A. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

We are approving MPCA’s September

29, 1998 request for a site-specific

revision to the Minnesota PM SIP.

Specifically, we are approving the

removal of the Stipulation Agreement

for LTV Steel Mining Company,

formerly known as Erie Mining

Company, from the State PM SIP.

B. Why Was This SIP Revision

Submitted?

The State requested that EPA remove

the Stipulation Agreement from the SIP

because the Agreement was initially

submitted as a SIP to: (a) Provide a

variance from state SIP rules for three

years; and (b) provide a mechanism to

make the 90 percent control efficiency

federally enforceable. In its submittal,

MPCA concludes that the Stipulation

Agreement was satisfied on LTV’s part

because the source modified their air

pollution control equipment to achieve

90 percent control efficiency, tested the

furnaces, and submitted opacity data to

support a higher opacity limit during

the specified time frame. Further, MPCA

did not act on the adjusted opacity limit

provided for in the Stipulation

Agreement by not issuing a facility

permit which would have finalized a

revised opacity limitation.

C. Why Can We Approve This Request?

At the time of the approval of the

Stipulation Agreement, the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for particulate matter were

based on the total suspended

particulates (TSP) indicator. On July 1,

1987 EPA replaced TSP as the indicator

for the PM ambient standard with a new

indicator that includes only those

particles with an aerodynamic diameter

less than or equal to a nominal 10

micrometers.

We are approving the current SIP

submittal as a Direct Final Federal

Register notice because removing the

Stipulation Agreement from the SIP

would pose no threat to continued

maintenance of the PM NAAQS in the

area. The state rules for particulate and

opacity standards, which would become

applicable to LTV, are contained in the

federally approved PM SIP for

Minnesota and are therefore federally

enforceable.

Further, although section 193 of the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

(November 15, 1990) requires equivalent

or greater emission reductions for

modifications to control requirements in

effect before the date of enactment of the

1990 Amendments, this requirement

does not apply in this case because the

area is designated attainment for PM

and the Stipulation Agreement was not

required for a nonattainment area plan.

Additional information is available in

our November 30, 1999 Technical

Support Document (TSD).

D. What Is the Background for This

Rulemaking?

On February 20, 1981 the State

submitted to EPA a Stipulation

Agreement for LTV as a revision to

Minnesota’s total suspended

particulates (TSP) SIP. Emissions from

27 furnaces at LTV, located in St. Louis

County, Minnesota, (designated a TSP

attainment area), exceeded the State’s

opacity and particulate matter

limitations. Therefore, MPCA and LTV

entered into a Stipulation Agreement

which would allow LTV to exceed the

requirements of the State rules until

December 31, 1983.

The Stipulation Agreement required

LTV to implement a control strategy

which would provide for 90 percent

control, 5 percent more than required by

the State rules, by December 31, 1983.

An opacity limit was also to be