Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 45727

Harvest limits Open season

* * * * *

Hunting

* * * * *

Muskox:

Unit 23 South of

Kotzebue Sound and

west of and including

the Buckland River

drainage—1 bull by

Federal registration

permit only. Federal

public lands are closed

to the taking of

muskox except by

Federally-qualified subsistence users. The

hunt will be closed

when 6 bulls have

been taken.

Sept. 1–Jan. 31.

Remainder of Unit 23 ..... No open season.

* * * * *

* * * * *

15. Section ll.25(k)(24)(iii) is

amended in the table under ‘‘Hunting’’

by revising the entry for Sheep to read

as follows:

* * * * *

(k) * * *

(24) * * *

(iii) * * *

Harvest limits Open season

* * * * *

Hunting

* * * * *

Sheep:

Unit 24 (Anaktuvuk Pass

residents only)—that

portion within the

Gates of the Arctic National Park—community harvest quota of

60 sheep, no more

than 10 of which may

be ewes and a daily

possession limit of 3

sheep per person no

more than 1 of which

may be a ewe.

July 15–Dec.

31.

Unit 24 (excluding

Anaktuvuk Pass residents)—that portion

within the Gates of the

Arctic National Park—3

sheep.

Aug. 1–Apr. 30.

Unit 24—that portion

within the Dalton Highway Corridor Management Area; except,

Gates of the Arctic National Park—1 ram

with 7⁄8 curl horn or

larger by Federal registration permit only.

Aug. 10–Sept.

20.

Remainder of Unit 24—1

ram with 7⁄8 curl horn

or larger.

Aug. 10–Sept.

20.

* * * * *

* * * * *

16. Section ll.25(k)(25)(iii) is

amended in the table under ‘‘Trapping’’

by revising the entry for Lynx to read as

follows:

* * * * *

(k) * * *

(25) * * *

(iii) * * *

Harvest limits Open season

* * * * *

Trapping

* * * * *

Lynx:

No limit ........................... Nov. 1–Feb. 28.

* * * * *

* * * * *

17. Section ll.25(k)(26)(iii) is

amended in the table under ‘‘Hunting’’

by revising the entry for Sheep to read

as follows:

* * * * *

(k) * * *

(26) * * *

(iii) * * *

Harvest limits Open season

* * * * *

Hunting

* * * * *

Sheep:

26 (A) and (B)

(Anaktuvuk Pass residents only)—those

portions within the

Gates of the Arctic National Park—community harvest quota of

60 sheep, no more

than 10 of which may

be ewes and a daily

possession limit of 3

sheep per person no

more than 1 of which

may be a ewe.

July 15–Dec.

31.

Unit 26(A) (excluding

Anaktuvuk Pass residents)—that portion

within the Gates of the

Arctic National Park—3

sheep.

Aug. 1–Apr. 30.

Unit 26(A)—that portion

west of Howard Pass

and the Etivluk River.

No open season.

Unit 26(B)—that portion

within the Dalton Highway Corridor Management Area—1 ram with

7⁄8 curl horn or larger

by Federal registration

permit only.

Aug. 10–Sept.

20.

Remainder of Units 26

(A) and (B)—including

the Gates of the Arctic

National Preserve—1

ram with 7⁄8 curl horn

or larger.

Aug. 10–Sept.

20.

Harvest limits Open season

Unit 26(C)—3 sheep per

regulatory year; the

Aug. 10–Sept. 20 season is restricted to 1

ram with 7⁄8 curl horn

or larger. A Federal

registration permit is

required for the Oct.

1–Apr. 30 season.

Aug. 10–Sept.

20.

Oct. 1–Apr. 30.

* * * * *

* * * * *

Dated: August 14, 1997.

Thomas H. Boyd,

Acting Chair, Federal Subsistence Board.

Dated: August 18, 1997.

James A. Caplan,

Acting Regional Forester, USDA—Forest

Service.

[FR Doc. 97–22751 Filed 8–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P, 4310–55–P

POSTAL RATE COMMISSION

39 CFR Part 3001

[Docket No. RM97–2; Order No. 1191]

Amendment to Rules Concerning

Evidence Based on Market Research

AGENCY: Postal Rate Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission amends

Rule 31(k) of its rules of practice by

expanding foundation requirements for

market research and making several

editorial improvements. The

amendment’s purpose is to provide

participants with guidance on the type

of supporting information that must

accompany market research

submissions. The amendment will

improve participants’ ability to review

these submissions.

DATES: This rule is effective August 29,

1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel,

Postal Rate Commission, 1333 H Street

NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20268–

0001, (202) 789–6820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 2,

1997, the Commission issued a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

proposing three substantive changes in

rule 31(k) (39 CFR 3001.31(k)). The

changes addressed market research

submitted (or relied upon) in

Commission proceedings. The NPRM

also proposed several minor editorial

improvements in the rule, including

limited restructuring. See Docket No.

RM97–2, Rule 31(k) Revisions

Concerning Market Research, 62 FR

25578 (May 9, 1997). One substantive
45728 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

change reworded some of the existing

foundation requirements for market

research and added several new ones.

Id. at 25582. Another recognized

statistical disclosure limitation (SDL)

methods as a means of protecting

confidential survey data and

information. Id. at 25580. A third

change clarified reviewers’ rights to

obtain survey data. This included

defining ‘‘edited data file’’ as raw data

after appropriate coding, editing for

consistency checks and application of

SDL methodology. Id. at 25581. The

proposed editorial improvements

eliminated citations to outdated

software standards, updated or revised

several terms and headings, and

separated market research rules from

rules for other sample surveys. Id. at

25581.

Commenters’ positions. The

Commission received comments on the

NPRM from United Parcel Service

(UPS), the Commission’s Office of the

Consumer Advocate (OCA), and the

United States Postal Service (Postal

Service or Service). See generally

Comments of UPS in Response to

NPRM, Comments of the OCA to the

Postal Rate Commission, and Comments

of the Postal Service (all filed June 9,

1997). The Newspaper Association of

America (NAA) filed reply comments,

along with a motion for late acceptance,

on July 29, 1997.

The commenters generally support

the Commission’s effort to address

issues related to the growing use of

market research, but differ on the

procedure and conditions under which

data confidentiality should be assured

and on the advisability of proposed

changes relating to reviewers’ access to

microdata. Opposition to contested

elements of the proposal is based

primarily on due process concerns.

In brief, the Postal Service’s position

is that the Commission’s substantive

changes reflect appropriate standards,

and should be adopted with only minor

revision. Postal Service Comments at 1–

2. UPS supports most of the proposed

changes affecting foundation

requirements, with minor modification.

UPS Comments at 2 and 7. However,

UPS urges that SDL techniques be

authorized as an optional, rather than

standard practice. It also asserts that the

availability of SDL should not be used

to deny full access to unedited raw data.

Id. at 3–7.

The OCA also generally supports the

foundation requirements; however, it

opposes the use of SDL methods and the

proposed changes affecting reviewers’

access to data. OCA Comments at 5.

Moreover, the OCA urges that the

Commission reissue the rulemaking and

include all statistical studies within its

scope. Id.

NAA generally agrees with the OCA’s

position. NAA Reply Comments at 1.

Among other things, it specifically notes

that given the size and scope of the

Service’s activities, the potential harm

to private interests, and the Service’s

legal duty to operate in a nondiscriminatory manner, it agrees with

the OCA’s conclusions that due process

concerns require disclosure of Postal

Service market research data, including

access to data files necessary to permit

replication of survey results. Id. at 2.

Commission response. The

Commission is issuing a final rule that

includes, with only minor changes,

revisions to the foundation

requirements for market research and

the editorial improvements. The final

rule does not adopt SDL methods or

define edited data file. The comments

from NAA, UPS and the OCA indicate

that further consideration of these

matters is needed before uniform

standards can be developed for use in

our proceedings. The Commission

considered inviting a further round of

comments, but has determined that the

workload associated with the recent

filing of an omnibus rate case forecloses

pursuing these matters in an

independent docket at this time.

However, the Commission continues to

believe that SDL methods may provide

a useful avenue for resolving concerns

about confidentiality and access. It also

believes that recognizing distinctions

between raw data and edited data files

for market research purposes is a

potentially useful means of addressing

certain access issues.

Part I. Disposition of Proposed

Substantive Changes

A. Revised and Expanded Support for

Market Research in Proposed Rule

31(k)(2)(i)(a)(1)–(7) (39 CFR

3001.31(k)(2)(i)(a)(1)–(7))

Commenters addressing proposed

changes affecting the foundation for

market research submissions generally

support the Commission’s approach.

They also offer several observations and

specific suggestions for improvements.

For example, the Service contends there

is a potential for uneven application of

foundation item 4 (39 CFR

31(k)(2)(i)(a)(4)). Specifically, it claims

that the reference to ‘‘the effects of

benchmarking’’ may not reflect current

industry practice. Postal Service

Comments at 4. It also notes that item

4’s reference to ‘‘data comparability over

time’’ is appropriate only for surveys

repeated on a regular basis, and not for

one-time surveys. Id.

The Commission considers

benchmarking an acceptable survey

practice, but also recognizes that it may

have limited relevance to the market

research submitted in our proceedings.

Since the added burden of submitting

this material may outweigh its benefits,

the phrase ‘‘and the effects of

benchmarking and revisions’’ is not

included in the final rule. In response

to the Service’s observation about the

applicability of a data comparability

requirement to a one-time survey, the

Commission has decided against

amending the rule to account for this

distinction. Instead, the sponsor of a

one-time survey can simply

affirmatively indicate, when

appropriate, that the requirement does

not pertain.

The Postal Service also observes that

the phrase ‘‘other potential sources of

error’’ in item 5 is ‘‘perhaps necessarily,

rather open-ended and vague,’’ and

acknowledges that consideration of

other sources of error is appropriate at

some level. However, it suggests that the

phrase might foster motions to strike for

failure to address a borderline ‘‘other

source.’’ Id at 3. In response to the

Service’s comments, the Commission is

deleting the reference to ‘‘other

potential sources of error’’ in item 5, but

revising item 3 to cover the same point.

As a conforming change, item 5 in the

final rule now ends after ‘‘imputation;’.

UPS, consistent with its suggestion

that SDL methods be available as an

option, also suggests that proposed

(a)(5) be revised to read: ‘‘An

assessment and supporting explanation

of the effects of the application of any

statistical disclosure limitation methods

used pursuant to section 31(k)(2)(i)(c)

and of editing and imputation and other

potential sources of error on the quality

of the survey estimates.’’ UPS

Comments at 7 (UPS’s changes

italicized).

The Commission is not including SDL

provisions in the final rule, nor is it

formally adopting them as an option.

Thus, there appears no need to amend

the rule in the manner suggested by

UPS. However, if SDL methods or other

means of protecting confidentiality are

used, the Commission expects, at a

minimum, that the type of supporting

information and data UPS suggests

would be produced under existing rules

without the need for motion practice.

B. Recognition of SDL Methods as a

Means of Balancing Sponsors’ Interests

in Confidentiality and Reviewers’

Interests in Access to Survey Data

As indicated earlier, positions on the

use of SDL techniques vary: the Postal

Service strongly supports a central role
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 45729

for them; UPS contends they should be

used only on an optional basis; and the

OCA sees little, if any, place for them in

Commission proceedings. NAA

indicates that it generally endorses the

OCA’s position. The Commission

continues to believe that these

techniques may provide a viable means

of resolving concerns about

confidentiality and survey reliability,

without unduly interfering with

participants’ rights. However,

commenters’ widely-divergent positions

on a rule that adequately provides for

recognizing and preserving these rights

indicates that a consensus is unlikely to

be achieved without considerably more

exploration of this technique and its

ramifications. Thus, the Commission

has determined to issue a final rule on

those aspects of the NPRM that have

broad support, and to exclude the SDL

provisions (and related references) from

the final rule. This does not reflect a

decision on the merits of SDL

procedures, but a conclusion related to

efficient administration of the

Commission’s workload and

management of its resources. Although

SDL methods are not being formally

adopted as a standard, the Commission

encourages participants to familiarize

themselves with these techniques, as

they may provide, on occasion, an

effective means of accommodating

participants’ requests. Moreover,

additional experience with the use of

these techniques on an ad hoc basis may

facilitate the development of a

satisfactory standard in some future

rulemaking.

C. Clarification of Reviewers’ Rights to

Survey Data and Computer Files

Although the Postal Service supports

the proposed revisions clarifying access

to survey data, both UPS and the OCA

oppose them. Consistent with its

position on SDL methods, UPS proposes

adding a provision specifically stating

that a party is not precluded from

obtaining unedited raw data. UPS

Comments at 5. The OCA also suggests

several revisions, including replacing

the ‘‘upon request’’ language with a

provision requiring the Service to

produce all data at the time it files its

request.

Although the Commission is not

formally adopting the proposed

definition, it recently has stated that the

efforts of market research reviewers

should be directed, in the first instance,

at probing the overall reliability of the

survey effort, instead of relying on

techniques designed for microdata

analysis. 62 FR 25581 (citing Docket No.

RM81–1 Final Notice at 13 and PRC Op.

MC95–1, Appendix C). The decision

against adopting a definition of input

data at this time does not alter that

position.

The Commission believes that the

OCA’s suggestion that relevant data be

produced earlier than now required

under the rule is an idea that warrants

additional consideration. However, the

NPRM indicated that the Commission

chose a narrow focus for this

rulemaking. A timing change affecting

production deadlines falls outside the

current docket’s boundaries.

Part II. Editorial Improvements

The Postal Service is the only

commenter specifically addressing the

editorial improvements identified in the

NPRM. 62 FR 25581. The Service agrees

that specific references to software

standards are no longer necessary, and

supports omitting the footnote in which

they now appear. However, instead of

the Commission’s proposed replacement

of ‘‘magnetic tape’’ with ‘‘a compact

disk’’ (which appears in the first

sentence of the concluding paragraph

(k)(3)(i)(i) (39 CFR 3001.31(k)(3)(i)(i)),

the Service suggests the following

alternative:

Paragraphs (k)(3)(i) (d) and (f) of this

section shall be provided in the form of a

compact disk or other media or method

approved in advance by the Administrative

Office of the Postal Rate Commission.

Postal Service Comments at 8.

As the NPRM indicates, the

Commission had considered a more

general reference. Since the Service’s

proposal preserves various options for

complying with the rule, the

Commission is including it in the final

rule. The Commission further notes that

it welcomes the Service’s continued

cooperation in this area.

No commenter objects to the minor

restructuring of the rule or changing the

heading of rule (k)(2)(ii) from ‘‘Sample

surveys’’ to ‘‘Other sample surveys.’’

Accordingly, the final rule is unchanged

in these respects.

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 3001

Administrative practice and

procedure, Confidential business

information, Freedom of information,

Postal Service, Sunshine Act.

For reasons set forth in the preamble,

39 CFR part 3001 is amended as follows:

PART 3001—RULES OF PRACTICE

AND PROCEDURE

1. The authority citation for part 3001

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 39 U.S.C. 404(b), 3603, 3622–

3624, 3661, 3662.

2. 39 CFR 3001.31(k) is amended as

follows:

3. Redesignate paragraphs (k)(2) (i)

through (iv) as (k)(2) (ii) through (v).

4. Amend redesignated paragraph

(k)(2)(ii) by changing the title from

Sample surveys to Other sample

surveys.

5. Add paragraph (k)(2)(i) to read as

follows:

§ 3001.31 Evidence.

* * * * *

(k) Introduction and reliance upon

studies and analyses—(1) * * *

(2) * * *

(i) Market research. (a) The following

data and information shall be provided:

(1) A clear and detailed description of

the sample, observational, and data

preparation designs, including

definitions of the target population,

sampling frame, units of analysis, and

survey variables;

(2) an explanation of methodology for

the production and analysis of the major

survey estimates and associated

sampling errors;

(3) a presentation of response,

coverage and editing rates, and any

other potential sources of error

associated with the survey’s quality

assurance procedures;

(4) a discussion of data comparability

over time and with other data sources;

(5) an assessment of the effects of

editing and imputation;

(6) identification of applicable

statistical models, when model-based

procedures are employed; and

(7) an explanation of all statistical

tests performed and an appropriate set

of summary statistics summarizing the

results of each test.

* * * * *

6. Revise paragraph (k)(3)(i)(e) to read

as follows:

* * * * *

(k) * * *

(3) * * *

(i) * * *

(e) For all source codes,

documentation sufficiently

comprehensive and detailed to satisfy

generally accepted sofitard

documentation standards appropriate to

the type of program and its intended use

in the proceeding.

7. Revise the first sentence of the

concluding text after paragraph

(k)(3)(i)(i) to read as follows:

* * * * *

(k) * * *

(3) * * *

(i) * * *

(i) * * *

Paragraphs (k)(3)(i)(d) and (f) of this

section shall be provided in the form of

a compact disk or other media or

method approved in advance by the
45730 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Administrative Office of the Postal Rate

Commission. * * *

Dated: August 26, 1997.

Margaret P. Crenshaw,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–23066 Filed 8–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[LA–39–1–7332a; FRL–5876–3]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Air Quality Plans for Designated

Facilities and Pollutants, Louisiana;

Control of Landfill Gas Emissions

From Existing Municipal Solid Waste

Landfills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: This document approves the

Louisiana State Plan for controlling

landfill gas emissions from existing

municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills.

The plan was submitted to fulfill the

requirements of the Clean Air Act (the

Act). The State Plan establishes

emission limits for existing MSW

landfills, and provides for the

implementation and enforcement of

those limits.

DATES: This action is effective on

October 28, 1997, unless notice is

postmarked by September 29, 1997, that

someone wishes to submit adverse or

critical comments. If the effective date is

delayed, timely notice will be published

in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

mailed to Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air

Planning Section (6PD–L), EPA Region

6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas

75202–2733. Copies of the State Plan

and other information relevant to this

action are available for inspection

during normal hours at the following

locations:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD–

L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460.

Louisiana Department of Environmental

Quality, Air Quality Program, 7290

Bluebonnet Blvd., Baton Rouge,

Louisiana 70810.

Anyone wishing to review this State

Plan at the EPA office is asked to

contact the person below to schedule an

appointment 24 hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lt.

Mick Cote, Air Planning Section (6PD–

L), Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,

Texas 75202–2733, telephone (214)

665–7219.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Act requires that States submit

plans to EPA to implement and enforce

the Emission Guidelines (EG)

promulgated for MSW landfills

pursuant to Section 111(d) of the Act.

Section 111(d) requires that the State

submit the State Plan not later than 9

months after EPA promulgates the EG.

On March 12, 1996, EPA promulgated

the EG as 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc.

Thus, the State Plans were due no later

than December 12, 1996. The State of

Louisiana submitted its State Plan to

EPA on December 20, 1996.

Under section 111(d) of the Act, the

EPA established procedures whereby

States submit plans to control existing

sources of designated pollutants.

Designated pollutants are defined as

pollutants which are not included on a

list published under section 108(a) of

the Act (i.e., National Ambient Air

Quality Standard pollutants), but to

which a standard of performance for

new sources applies under section 111.

Under section 111(d), emission

standards are to be adopted by the

States and submitted to EPA for

approval. The standards limit the

emissions of designated pollutants from

existing facilities which, if new, would

be subject to the New Source

Performance Standards (NSPS). Such

facilities are called designated facilities.

The procedures under which States

submit these plans to control existing

sources are defined in 40 CFR part 60,

subpart B. According to subpart B, the

States are required to develop plans

within Federal guidelines for the control

of designated pollutants. The EPA

publishes guideline documents for

development of State emission

standards along with the promulgation

of any NSPS for a designated pollutant.

These guidelines apply to designated

pollutants and include information such

as a discussion of the pollutant’s effects,

description of control techniques and

their effectiveness, costs and potential

impacts. Also as guidance for the States,

recommended emission limits and times

for compliance are set forth, and control

equipment which will achieve these

emission limits are identified. The

emission guidelines for landfill gas are

promulgated in 40 CFR part 60. The

final section 111(d) emission standards

and guidelines for landfill gas were

promulgated on March 12, 1995 (61 FR

9905), and codified in the CFR at 40

CFR subparts WWW and Cc,

respectively. The emission guideline’s

specified limits for landfill gas requires

affected facilities to operate a control

system designed to reduce collected

non-methane organic compounds

(NMOC) concentrations by 98 weightpercent, or reduce the outlet NMOC

concentration to 20 parts per million or

less, using the test methods specified

under § 60.754(d).

II. Analysis of State Submittal

The official procedures for adoption

and submittal of State Plans are codified

in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. The EPA

promulgated the original provisions on

November 17, 1975, and then amended

them on December 19, 1995, to

incorporate changes specific to solid

waste incineration. These changes,

which were necessary to conform with

the solid waste incineration

requirements under section 129 of the

Act, are not relevant to MSW landfills.

Thus, the procedures described in the

original provisions for adopting and

submitting State Plans still apply to

MSW landfills and are reflected in 40

CFR part 60, subpart B, §§ 60.23 through

60.26. Subpart B addresses public

participation, legal authority, emission

standards and other emission

limitations, compliance schedules,

emission inventories, source

surveillance, compliance assurance, and

enforcement requirements, and crossreferences to the MSW landfill EG.

The Louisiana State Plan includes

documentation that all applicable

subpart B requirements have been met.

Please see the evaluation report for a

detailed description of EPA’s analysis of

the Plan’s compliance with the subpart

B requirements.

The Louisiana Department of

Environmental Quality (LDEQ) crossreferenced both the NSPS and EG to

adopt the requirements of the Federal

rule. The State has ensured, through this

cross-reference process, that all the

applicable requirements of the Federal

rule have been adopted into the State

Plan. The emission limits, reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, and other

aspects of the Federal rule have been

adopted into LAC 33.III.3003B, Table 2,

as part of the AQ 145 State

Implementation Plan revision.

Subpart Cc requires affected existing

landfills to be capable of attaining the

specified level of emissions within 30

months after the State Plan is federally

approved. For compliance schedules for

MSW landfills extending more than 12