64544 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 235 / Monday, December 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules

The BAAQMD staff report for Rule 8–

3 states that the rule amendments will

not change any existing VOC limits.

EPA has evaluated the submitted rule

and has determined that it is

enforceable and strengthens the

applicable SIP. Therefore, Bay Area Air

Quality Management District Rule 8–3,

Architectural Coatings is being

proposed for approval under section

110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the

requirements of section 110(a) and

pursuant to EPA’s authority under

section 301(a) to adopt regulations

necessary to further air quality by

strengthening the SIP.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

301 of the Clean Air Act do not create

any new requirements but simply

approve requirements that the State is

already imposing. Therefore, because

the Federal SIP approval does not

impose any new requirements, the

Administrator certifies that it does not

have a significant impact on any small

entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal-State relationship

under the CAA, preparation of a

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action proposed does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compound.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: November 23, 1997.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–32043 Filed 12–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Hearings and Appeals

43 CFR Part 4

RIN 1090–AA63

Department Hearings and Appeals

Procedures

AGENCY: Office of Hearings and Appeals,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of

comment period.

SUMMARY: This action extends the

comment period an additional 60 days

on the Department of the Interior’s

Office of Hearings and Appeals’

proposal to amend its rules to provide

that, except as otherwise provided by

law or other regulation, a decision will

be stayed, if it is appealed, until there

is a dispositive decision on the appeal.

DATES: Comments are due to the agency

on or before February 6, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Director, Office of Hearings and

Appeals, U.S. Department of the

Interior, 4015 Wilson Boulevard,

Arlington, VA 22203. Comments

received will be available for public

inspection during regular business

hours (9 a.m. to 5 p.m.) in the Office of

the Director, Office of Hearings and

Appeals, 11th Floor, 4015 Wilson

Boulevard, Arlington, VA. Persons

wishing to inspect comments are

requested to call in advance at (703)

235–3810 to make an appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bruce Harris, Deputy Chief

Administrative Judge, Interior Board of

Land Appeals, Office of Hearings and

Appeals, U.S. Department of the

Interior, 4015 Wilson Boulevard,

Arlington, VA 22203. Telephone: (703)

235–3750.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August

19, 1997, the Department of the Interior

proposed to amend the regulation

contained at 43 CFR 4.21 (August 28,

1997, 62 FR 45606). Comments to this

proposed rule were to be received on or

before September 29, 1997.

On October 3, 1997, the Department

of the Interior extended the comment

period an additional 60 days until

December 2, 1997, in response to

requests received from the National

Mining Association and the Rocky

Mountain Oil and Gas Association

(RMOGA). (62 FR 51822).

The Director of the Office of Hearings

and Appeals (OHA) received several

letters requesting an additional

extension of the comment period

beyond December 2, 1997. In a letter

dated November 21, 1997, RMOGA

requested an additional 45-day

extension of the comment period, to

allow for receipt of data requested in a

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

request, and full analysis of the data and

preparation of a thoughtful response to

the proposed change. In addition, by

letter dated November 19, 1997, ARCO

Permian, a member of RMOGA,

requested additional time to respond

after review of the response to the

RMOGA’s FOIA request. By letter dated

November 25, 1997, the Natural Gas

Supply Association, the Mid-Continent

Oil and Gas Association, the Domestic

Petroleum Council, the National Ocean
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 235 / Monday, December 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules 64545

Industries Association, the Independent

Petroleum Association of America, and

the American Petroleum Institute

requested a 60-day extension of the

comment period to allow time for a

complete and extensive analysis of the

impact of adoption of this proposal on

normal and planned activities by the oil

and gas industry onshore and offshore,

particularly in light of the Bureau of

Land Management’s (BLM’s) proposed

rulemaking published in the Federal

Register on October 17, 1996. Finally,

by letter dated November 24, 1997,

Senator Frank H. Murkowski, Senator

Larry E. Craig, and Senator Craig

Thomas of the United States Senate

Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources, strongly urged the Director of

OHA to extend the comment period for

an additional 60 days, to allow the

Committee to host a meeting with

constituents to discuss the proposed

change to 43 CFR 4.21 and the material

requested by RMOGA under the

Freedom of Information Act, as well as

BLM’s proposed rule to modify its

appeal regulation.

The OHA has determined that an

extension of time to obtain additional

comments on the proposed rule is

warranted and, therefore, the requested

extension is granted. This notice

announces that 60-day extension to the

comment period.

Dated: December 2, 1997.

Barry E. Hill,

Director.

[FR Doc. 97–31963 Filed 12–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–RK–M

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Parts 1843 and 1852

Equitable Adjustments Under

Contracts for Construction,

Dismantling, Demolishing, or

Removing Improvements

AGENCY: Office of Procurement, Contract

Management Division, National

Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This is a proposed rule

amending the NASA Federal

Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(NFS) to set forth a clause that may be

used for equitable adjustments under

contracts for construction, and

dismantling, demolishing, or removing

improvements that are contemplated to

be fixed-price and exceed the simplified

acquisition threshold.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 6, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to Mr.

Joseph Le Cren, NASA Headquarters,

Code HK, Washington, DC 20546.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Joseph Le Cren, Telephone: (202)

358–0444.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Some NASA field installations have

used clauses containing ceilings on

indirect costs and profit as a means for

handling equitable adjustments under

construction contracts. Instead of each

installation using its own clause, there

is a consensus that it would be in both

NASA’s and the contractors’ interests to

have a standard clause to establish

greater consistency throughout the

agency. The proposed clause also would

reduce the administrative burden

associated with the development of an

equitable adjustment clause on an

installation-by-installation or contractby-contract basis.

Neither the use of the proposed clause

nor the language contained in it would

be mandatory. This flexibility is being

provided so that the clause is used only

when it is considered appropriate and to

allow for differences, such as in

terminology, that exist in the

construction industry in different parts

of the United States. The ceiling indirect

cost and profit rates contained in the

clause, although not mandatory, are

benchmarks as to what is generally

considered reasonable. The rates are

considered reasonable based on NASA’s

experience with equitable adjustments

for construction. In addition, the ceiling

rates contained in the proposed clause

are the same as those that have been

used for many years by both the General

Services Administration and the

Department of Veterans Affairs. The

rates used by these agencies have

significance since they have much larger

construction budgets than NASA.

Impact

NASA certifies that this proposed

regulation will not have a significant

economic effect on a substantial number

of small entities under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

This rule does not impose any reporting

or record keeping requirements subject

to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1843

and 1852

Government procurement.

Tom Luedtke,

Deputy Associate Administrator for

Procurement.

Accordingly, 48 CFR Parts 1843 and

1852 are amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR

Parts 1843 and 1852 continues to read

as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1).

PART 1843—CONTRACT

MODIFICATIONS

1843.205–70 [Amended]

2. In section 1843.205–70, the

designated paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)

are redesignated as paragraphs (a)(1), (2)

and (3), and a new paragraph (b) is

added to read as follows:

1843.205–70 NASA contract clause.

* * * * *

(b) the contracting officer may insert

a clause substantially as stated at

1852.243–72, Equitable Adjustments, in

solicitations and contracts for—

(1) Dismantling, demolishing, or

removing improvements; or

(2) Construction, when the contract

amount is expected to exceed the

simplified acquisition threshold and a

fixed-price contract is contemplated.

PART 1852—SOLICITATION

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT

CLAUSES

1852.243–72 [Added]

3. Section 1852.243–72 is added to

read as follows:

1852.243–72 Equitable Adjustments.

As prescribed in 1843.205–70(b),

insert the following clause.

Equitable Adjustments

(a) The provisions of all other clauses

contained in this contract which provide for

an equitable adjustment, including those

clauses incorporated by reference with the

exception of the ‘‘Suspension of Work’’

clause (FAR 52.242–14), are supplemented as

follows:

Upon written request, the Contractor shall

submit a proposal for review by the

Government. The proposal shall be submitted

to the contracting officer within the time

limit indicated in the request or any

extension thereto subsequently granted. The

proposal shall provide an itemized

breakdown of all increases and decreases in

the contract for the Contractor and each

subcontractor in at least the following detail:

material quantities and costs; direct labor

hours and rates for each trade; the associated

FICA, FUTA, SUTA, and Workmen’s

Compensation Insurance; and equipment

hours and rates.