67320 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

in debate the questioners over the merits of

the proposed action. Cross-examination of

speakers, either those of the Air Force or the

public, is not the purpose of an informal

hearing. If necessary, the hearing officer may

limit questioning or conduct portions of the

hearing to ensure proper lines of inquiry.

However, the hearing officer should include

all questions in the hearing record.

A3.7.5. Statement of Attendees. The

hearing officer must give the persons

attending the hearing a chance to present oral

or written statements. The hearing officer

should be sure the recorder has the name and

address of each person who submits an oral

or written statement. The officer should also

permit the attendees to submit written

statements within a reasonable time, usually

two weeks, following the hearing. The officer

should allot a reasonable length of time at the

hearing for receiving oral statements. The

officer may waive any announced time limit

at his or her discretion. The hearing officer

may allow those who have not previously

indicated a desire to speak to identify

themselves and be recognized only after

those who have previously indicated their

intentions to speak have spoken.

A3.7.6 Ending or Extending a Hearing. The

hearing officer has the power to end the

hearing if the hearing becomes disorderly, if

the speakers become repetitive, or for other

good cause. In any such case, the hearing

officer must make a statement for the record

on the reasons for terminating the hearing.

The hearing officer may also extend the

hearing beyond the originally announced

date and time. The officer should announce

the extension to a later date or time during

the hearing and prior to the hearing if

possible.

A3.8. Adjourning the Hearing. After all

persons have had a chance to speak, when

the hearing has culled a representative view

of public opinion, or when the time set for

the hearing and any reasonable extension of

time has ended, the hearing officer adjourns

the hearing. In certain circumstances (for

example, if the hearing officer believes it is

likely that some participants will introduce

new and relevant information), the hearing

officer may justify scheduling an additional,

separate hearing session. if the hearing officer

makes the decision to hold another hearing

while presiding over the original hearing he

or she should announce that another public

hearing will be scheduled or is under

consideration. The officer gives notice of a

decision to continue these hearings in

essentially the same way he or she

announced the original hearing, time

permitting. The Public Affairs officer

provides the required public notices and

directs notices to interested parties in

coordination with the hearing officer.

Because of lead time constraints, SAF/MIQ

may waive Federal Register notice

requirements or advertisements in local

publications. At the conclusion of the

hearing, the hearing officer should inform the

attendees of the deadline (usually 2 weeks)

to submit additional written remarks in the

hearing record. The officer should also notify

attendees of the deadline for the commenting

period of the Draft EIS.

Barbara A. Carmichael,

Alternate Air Force Federal Register Liaison

Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–33457 Filed 12–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3910–01–M

ARCHITECTURAL AND

TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS

COMPLIANCE BOARD

36 CFR Parts 1190 and 1191

Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor

Developed Areas; Meeting of

Regulatory Negotiation Committee

AGENCY: Architectural and

Transportation Barriers Compliance

Board.

ACTION: Regulatory negotiation

committee meeting.

SUMMARY: The Architectural and

Transportation Barriers Compliance

Board (Access Board) has established a

regulatory negotiation committee to

develop a proposed rule on accessibility

guidelines for newly constructed and

altered outdoor developed areas covered

by the Americans with Disabilities Act

and the Architectural Barriers Act. This

document announces the dates, times,

and location of the next meeting of the

committee, which is open to the public.

DATES: The committee will meet on:

Saturday, January 31, 1998, 2:00 p.m. to

6:00 p.m.; Sunday, February 1, 1998,

8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and Monday,

February 2, 1998, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The committee will meet at

the Princess Hotel, 1404 West Vacation

Road, San Diego, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Greenwell, Office of Technical

and Information Services, Architectural

and Transportation Barriers Compliance

Board, 1331 F Street, NW., suite 1000,

Washington, DC, 20004–1111.

Telephone number (202) 272–5434

extension 34 (Voice); (202) 272–5449

(TTY). This document is available in

alternate formats (cassette tape, braille,

large print, or computer disc) upon

request. This document is also available

on the Board’s web site (http://

www.access-board.gov/rules/

outdoor.htm).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In June

1997, the Access Board established a

regulatory negotiation committee to

develop a proposed rule on accessibility

guidelines for newly constructed and

altered outdoor developed areas covered

by the Americans with Disabilities Act

and the Architectural Barriers Act. (62

FR 30546, June 4, 1997). The committee

will hold its next meeting on the dates

and at the location announced above.

The meeting is open to the public. The

meeting site is accessible to individuals

with disabilities. Individuals with

hearing impairments who require sign

language interpreters should contact

Peggy Greenwell by January 15, 1998, by

calling (202) 272–5434 extension 34

(voice) or (202) 272–5449 (TTY).

Lawrence W. Roffee,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 97–33625 Filed 12–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8150–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA–203–0062; FRL–5940–7]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans; California;

Ventura County Air Pollution Control

District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

a state implementation plan (SIP)

revision submitted by the State of

California relating to control measures

for attaining the ozone national ambient

air quality standards (NAAQS) in the

Ventura County nonattainment area.

The submittal revises control measure

adoption schedules in the 1994 ozone

SIP for Ventura County. EPA is

proposing to approve the SIP revision

under provisions of the Clean Air Act

(CAA or the Act) regarding EPA action

on SIP submittals, SIPs for national

primary and secondary ambient air

quality standards, and plan

requirements for nonattainment areas.

DATES: Written comments on this

proposal must be received by January

23, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to the USEPA contact listed

below.

The rulemaking docket for this notice

may be inspected and copied at the

following location during normal

business hours. A reasonable fee may be

charged for copying parts of the docket.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, Air Division, Air Planning

Office 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901

Copies of the SIP materials are also

available for inspection at the addresses

listed below:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 67321

1The designation and classification of Ventura

County for ozone are codified at 40 CFR 81.305.

2 VCAPCD Board Resolution is part of the docket

for this proposed rulemaking. The VCAPCD plan

update also extends the adoption date for one

additional measure, R–705/N–705 Low Emission

Vehicle Fleets, which was not approved as part of

the 1994 ozone SIP. CARB did not include this

measure in the 1997 SIP submittal. VCAPCD assigns

no emission reduction credit to the measure and

does not propose a specific implementation date.

3EPA adopted the completeness criteria on

February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to

section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

California Air Resources Board, 2020 L

Street, Sacramento, California

Ventura County Air Pollution Control

District, 669 County Square Drive,

Ventura, California

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dave Jesson (415) 744–1288, Air

Planning Office (AIR–2), Air Division,

U.S. EPA, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, California, 94105–

3901.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Clean Air Act Requirements

The Federal CAA was substantially

amended in 1990 to establish new

planning requirements and attainment

deadlines for the NAAQS. Under

section 107(d)(1)(C) of the Act, areas

designated nonattainment prior to

enactment of the 1990 amendments,

including Ventura, were designated

nonattainment by operation of law.

Under section 181(a) of the Act, each

ozone area designated nonattainment

under section 107(d) was also classified

by operation of law, depending on the

area’s air quality problem. Ventura

County was classified as severe, with an

attainment date of November 15, 2005.1

Section 172 of the Act contains

general requirements applicable to SIPs

for nonattainment areas. Section 182 of

the Act sets out additional air quality

planning requirements for ozone

nonattainment areas.

The most fundamental of these

provisions is the requirement that ozone

nonattainment areas classified as

serious, severe, or extreme, submit by

November 15, 1994, a SIP demonstrating

attainment of the ozone NAAQS as

expeditiously as practicable but no later

than the deadline applicable to the

area’s classification. CAA section

182(c)(2)(A). Such a demonstration must

provide enforceable measures to achieve

emission reductions at or below the

level predicted to result in attainment of

the NAAQS throughout the

nonattainment area. Sections 182(b)(1)

and 182(c)(2)(B) also require the SIPs to

achieve specific rates of progress (ROP)

in milestone years leading to the

attainment year. EPA has issued a ‘‘General Preamble’’

describing the Agency’s preliminary

views on how EPA intends to act on

SIPs submitted under Title I of the Act.

See generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16,

1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).

The reader should refer to the General

Preamble for a more detailed discussion

of EPA’s preliminary interpretations of

Title I requirements. In this proposed

rulemaking action, EPA is applying

these policies to the Ventura ozone SIP

submittal, taking into consideration the

specific factual issues presented.

B. EPA Actions on Prior Ventura Ozone

SIP Revisions

The Ventura County Air Pollution

Control District (VCAPCD) adopted an

ozone attainment plan on November 8,

1994. This plan was forwarded to the

California Air Resources Board (CARB),

which submitted the plan as a proposed

revision to the California SIP on

November 15, 1994. On December 19,

1995, VCAPCD adopted an updated

plan, making minor revisions to

adoption and implementation schedules

and estimates of emissions reductions

for some of the control measures. On

July 12, 1996, CARB submitted this

updated plan, with a request that EPA

approve the corrected version of the

control measures.

On January 8, 1997 (62 FR 1150), EPA

issued final approval of the Ventura

1994 ozone SIP, as amended by the

submittal of July 12, 1996. Specifically,

EPA approved the Ventura 1994 ozone

SIP with respect to the Act’s

requirements for emission inventories,

control measures, modeling, and

demonstrations of 15% ROP and post1996 ROP and attainment. As part of

this action, EPA approved, under

sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act,

VCAPCD’s enforceable commitments to

adopt and implement 18 control

measures by express dates to achieve

specific emission reductions for the

ROP milestone years 1999, 2002, and

2005.

EPA’s approval noted that VCAPCD

had adopted on January 9, 1996, minor

further changes to the adoption

schedule and emission reductions for

many of the control measures. Because

the further changes had not yet been

submitted by CARB, however, EPA

explained that the Agency must act on

the adoption schedule as revised by

Ventura on December 19, 1995. EPA

noted that if the January 1996 changes

were to be submitted as a further

revision to the SIP’s rule adoption

schedule, EPA intended to approve

them since the changes did not

adversely affect ROP or attainment (62

FR 1175).

C. Current SIP Revision

On October 21, 1997, the VCAPCD

Board adopted, after proper public

notice and involvement, a 1997 revision

to the ozone plan, updating the

adoption and implementation dates for

8 measures in the 1994 ozone SIP.2

On November 5, 1997, CARB adopted

and submitted this update as a SIP

revision. The docket to this proposed

rulemaking includes CARB Executive

Order G–125–227, dated November 5,

1997, and a SIP transmittal letter from

Michael P. Kenny, CARB Executive

Officer, to Felicia Marcus, EPA Regional

Administrator, Region 9, dated

November 5, 1997. On November 19,

1997, EPA found the revision to be

complete, pursuant to EPA’s

completeness criteria that are set forth

in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V.3 A

technical clarification regarding

emission reductions for each measure is

also part of the docket to this action.

The clarification is in a November 20,

1997 letter from Richard H. Baldwin,

VCAPCD Air Pollution Control Officer,

to Michael Kenny. CARB submitted this

letter to EPA on December 5, 1997

(letter from Michael P. Kenny to David

Howekamp, EPA) as a technical

clarification to the SIP.

The table entitled ‘‘Revised Adoption

and Implementation Dates for Ventura

Measures’’ displays the adoption and

implementation dates for each rule in

the existing SIP and the proposed

revision.

REVISED ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION DATES FOR VENTURA MEASURES

Rule No. Control measure

Adoption Implementation

SIP Rev SIP Rev

R–303 ........... AIM Architectural Coatings .................................................................................... 12/96 12/99 12/97 ................

Phase 1 .......................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ 2000
67322 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

4A copy of the documentation, ‘‘October 21, 1997

Ventura County Air Pollution Control Board

Packet,’’ is included in the docket for this proposed

rulemaking.

REVISED ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION DATES FOR VENTURA MEASURES—Continued

Rule No. Control measure

Adoption Implementation

SIP Rev SIP Rev

Phase 2 .......................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ 2001

Phase 3 .......................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ 2003

R–322 ........... Painter Certification Program ................................................................................ 6/97 12/00 ................ ................

Phase 1 .......................................................................................................... ................ ................ 12/97 12/01

Phase 2 .......................................................................................................... ................ ................ 12/98 12/02

R–327 ........... Electronic Component Manufacturing ................................................................... 6/96 12/99 7/97 12/01

R–410 ........... Marine Tanker Loading ......................................................................................... 9/96 12/01 7/97 12/02

R–420 ........... Pleasure Craft Fuel Transfer ................................................................................. 6/97 12/01 7/98 12/02

R–421 ........... Utility Engine Refueling Operations ...................................................................... 12/96 12/01 9/97 12/02

R–425 ........... Enhanced Fugitive I/M Program ........................................................................... 9/96 12/98 5/97 12/99

N–102 ........... Boilers, Steam Generators, Heaters <1 MMBtu ................................................... 12/96 12/99 1/97 12/00

In a technical clarification to the SIP

submittal, VCAPCD also provided a

table of revised emission reductions for

each measure and ROP milestone,

reflecting improved information on the

measures (primarily corrections to

calculation errors) and the impact of

changes to the adoption schedule.

VCAPCD adopted many of these revised

emission reductions as part of the 1995

AQMP revision adopted December 19,

1995. The revised 2005 emission

reductions proposed for approval in this

action were used in the modeling in the

Ventura attainment demonstration,

which was approved by EPA as part of

the Ventura 1994 ozone SIP.

The revised estimates of emission

reductions based upon the December 19,

1995 reanalysis and the revised

implementation schedule appear below

in the table entitled ‘‘Revised Emission

Reductions for Ventura Measures.’’

REVISED EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR VENTURA MEASURES

Rule No. Control measure

1999 2002 2005

SIP Rev SIP Rev SIP Rev

R–303 ........... AIM Architectural Coatings ........................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.89 0.89

R–322 ........... Painter Certification Program ........................................ 0.48 0.00 0.51 0.11 0.53 0.59

R–327 ........... Electronic Component Manufacturing ........................... 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08

R–410 ........... Marine Tanker Loading ................................................. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

R–420 ........... Pleasure Craft Fuel Transfer ........................................ 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.08

R–421 ........... Utility Engine Refueling Operations .............................. 0.19 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20

R–425 ........... Enhanced Fugitive I/M Program ................................... 1.21 0.00 1.07 1.16 0.95 1.03

N–102 ........... Boilers, Steam Generators, Heaters <1 MMBtu ........... 0.05 0.00 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.04

Total

VOC ....................................................................... 2.03 0.00 1.93 2.07 2.73 2.87

NOx ........................................................................ 0.05 0.00 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.04

Sources: The 1994 SIP emission reductions for each control measure for each ROP milestone year are shown in a table entitled ‘‘Ventura

Local Control Measures’’ in EPA’s final approval of the Ventura 1994 ozone SIP. 62 FR 1176. The revised emissions reductions are taken from a

letter from Richard H. Baldwin to Michael Kenny, dated November 20, 1997, table entitled ‘‘Ventura Local Control Measures (tons per day).’’ All

emission reductions are in tons per day of volatile organic compounds (VOC), except for measure N–102, which is tons per day of oxides of nitrogen (NOx).

The SIP revision included

documentation explaining for each

measure why the projected adoption

and implementation dates were not

realistic, considering the level of

analysis required or, for some newtechnology measures, the relatively

small market for control equipment and

devices in Ventura County.4 VCAPCD’s

documentation demonstrated that

postponement of the adoption and

implementation dates for the measures

will not jeopardize ROP because the

area, relying only on regulations that are

now fully adopted, will achieve VOC

and NOX emissions reductions

significantly in excess of the ROP

reductions required under the CAA.

Finally, VCAPCD noted that all

measures would continue to be fully

implemented by the attainment date,

and that the revised estimate of

emission reductions from the measures

in 2005 was used in the ozone modeling

analysis in the 1994 ozone SIP.

II. EPA Action

A. Analysis

Two sections of the CAA constrain

EPA’s authority to approve relaxations

to the SIP. Section 110(l) prohibits EPA

from approving a revision if it would

‘‘interfere with any applicable

requirement concerning attainment and

reasonable further progress (as defined

in section 171), or any other applicable

requirement of this Act.’’ Section 193

prevents modification of control

requirements ‘‘in effect, or required to

be adopted by an order, settlement

agreement, or plan in effect before

November 15, 1990 in any area which

is a nonattainment area for any air

pollutant * * * unless the modification

insures equivalent or greater emission

reductions of such air pollutant.’’

The Ventura 1994 ozone SIP,

including its control measures and

demonstrations of ROP and attainment,

was not required by an order, settlement

agreement, or plan in effect before

November 15, 1990. Therefore, the

provisions of section 193 of the Act do

not apply to this proposed revision.

Section 110(l) does not authorize EPA

approval of a revised SIP if the revision
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 67323

5EPA’s final approval of the Ventura 1994 ozone

SIP at one point states that ‘‘the Ventura control

measures are relied upon in meeting the post-1996

ROP and attainment requirements of the Act.’’ 62

FR 1176. This statement is true with respect to

attainment but is in error with respect to ROP

requirements. VCAPCD’s 1994 ozone SIP includes

a Post-96 ROP schedule that meets the minimum

CAA requirement for each milestone year (9%

reduction in emissions for each 3-year period

through the attainment year, i.e., 1999, 2002, 2005),

relying only on fully adopted regulations, with no

credit taken from local control measures. The 1994

ozone SIP uses creditable NOX reductions to

substitute for VOC shortfalls in 2002 and 2005, as

allowed by section 182(c)(2)(C) of the Act.

would interfere with attainment and

reasonable further progress, or any other

applicable CAA requirement.

The cumulative effect of the proposed

extensions of implementation dates is a

decrease in 1999 emission reductions of

2.03 tpd VOC and 0.05 tpd NOX. The

net effect of the revision is considerably

less in 2002 and 2005. For these ROP

milestone years, the delayed NOx

reductions amount to only 0.02 tpd, and

VOC reductions are actually increased

by 0.14 tpd, due to recalculated benefits

from measures R–303 and R–425.

The Ventura 1994 ozone SIP meets

the minimum Federal ROP requirements

without reliance on any local measures

that were not fully adopted in regulatory

form.5 Therefore, the proposed revision

would not interfere with reasonable

further progress, which for ozone areas

is equivalent to the minimum CAA ROP

requirements applicable to the area.

Because the proposed revision simply

delays rather than relaxes or withdraws

control measures in the approved SIP,

because the total amount of postponed

emission reductions is small, because

there is a net increase in the total of

ozone precursor emission reductions in

the attainment year, and because the

VOC/NOX emission reductions reflected

in this submittal were used in the

modeled attainment demonstration in

the Ventura 1994 ozone SIP, EPA

concludes that the proposed revision

would not interfere with any

requirement of the CAA relating to the

1-hour ozone NAAQS, or any other

NAAQS, or any other State obligation

under the Act.

B. Summary of Proposed Action

In this document, EPA is proposing to

approve the 1997 update to the 1994

ozone SIP for Ventura under sections

110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act. The

effect of this approval, if finalized,

would be to amend the federally

enforceable adoption and

implementation dates and emission

reductions for 8 measures in the

Ventura 1994 ozone SIP as shown in the

tables above entitled ‘‘Revised Adoption

and Implementation Dates for Ventura

Measures’’ and ‘‘Revised Emission

Reductions for Ventura Measures.’’

III. Regulatory Process

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

business, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under sections 110 and

301 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA,

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, 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 regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIP’s on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

The OMB has exempted this action

from review under Executive Order

12866.

IV. Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’)

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must undertake various actions in

association with proposed or final rules

that include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to the private sector, or to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate.

Through submission of these SIP

revisions, the State and any affected

local or tribal governments have elected

to adopt the program provided for under

section 110 and 182(b) of the CAA.

These rules may bind State, local, and

tribal governments to perform certain

actions and also require the private

sector to perform certain duties. To the

extent that the rules being approved or

disapproved by this action will impose

any mandate upon the State, local, or

tribal governments either as the owner

or operator of a source or as a regulator,

or would impose any mandate upon the

private sector, EPA’s action will impose

no new requirements; such sources are

already subject to these requirements

under State law. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action. EPA has also

determined that this final action does

not include a mandate that may result

in estimated costs of $100 million or

more to State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate or to the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of

nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Authority: U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: December 16, 1997.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 97–33609 Filed 12–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 441

[FRL–5940–8]

A Public Hearing on the Proposed

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Pretreatment Standards for the

Industrial Laundries (IL) Industry

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public hearing.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency is conducting a second public

hearing, in addition to the public

hearing being conducted in Washington,

D.C. to inform the public of the

proposed effluent limitations guidelines

and standards for the industrial

laundries industry. The hearing is

intended for interested parties to

provide comments to the Agency on

disputed technical, scientific, economic,

or other issues.

DATES: The public hearing will be held

on Wednesday, January 21, 1998, from

9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon.

ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held at

the Henry M. Jackson Federal Building,

South Auditorium, Seattle, Washington.

The building is located at 915 2nd

Avenue. Persons wishing to present

formal comments at the public hearing

should have a written copy for

submittal.

A limited number of rooms are

available at the Westin Seattle Hotel.