+(,121/,1(

Citation: 62 Fed. Reg. 19858 1997 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Wed Apr 18 11:56:07 2012

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Notices

9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.; Veterans Hall,

Seattle Center, from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00

p.m.; and Portland, OR, site to be

determined. The Advisory Committee

will conduct town hall meetings at the

three sites on Tuesday to collect

information from minority veteran

group representatives and individual

minority veterans. All sessions will be

open to the public, up to the seating

capacity of the meeting room. On

Wednesday, May 21, the Committee will

reconvene as a whole at the VA Puget

Sound Health Care System, Seattle

Division, room 104, to discuss findings

from the three Subcommittee town hall

meetings. The Committee will meet

with the Northwest Interagency Policy

Council for American Indian Veterans

and the African American PTSD Group.

Preliminary drafting of the annual

report will begin during this meeting. It

will be necessary for those wishing to

attend to contact either of the following:

Mr. Anthony Hawkins, Department of

Veterans Affairs (phone (202) 273-

6708); Mr. Jim Bouley, VA Regional

Office Seattle, (phone (206) 220-6125);

Ms. Frankie Manning, VA Puget Sound

(phone (206) 764-2626); or Ms. Deborah

Williams, VA Medical Center Portland

(phone (503) 402-2903) prior to May 15,

1997. The Committee will accept

appropriate written comments from

interested parties on issues affecting

minority veterans. Such comments

should be referred to the Committee at

anytime at the following address:

Advisory Committee on Minority

Veterans, Center for Minority Veterans

(00M), U.S. Department of Veterans

Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20420.

Dated: April 11, 1997.

By Direction of the Secretary:

Heyward Bannister,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 97 10441 Filed 4 22 97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320-01-M

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

Persian Gulf Expert Scientific

Committee, Notice of Meeting

The Department of Veterans Affairs

(VA), in accordance with P.L. 92-463,

gives notice that a meeting of the VA

Persian Gulf Expert Scientific

Committee will be held on:

Monday, June 16, 1997, at 8:30 a.m.-

5:00 p.m.

Tuesday, June 17, 1997, at 8:30 a.m.-

1:30 p.m.

The location of the meeting will be

810 Vermont Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C., Room 230.

The Committee's objectives are to

advise the Under Secretary for Health

about medical findings affecting Persian

Gulf era veterans.

At this meeting the Committee will

review all aspects of patient care and

medical diagnoses and will provide

professional consultation as needed.

The Committee may advise on other

areas involving research and

development, veterans benefits and/or

training aspects for patients and staff.

All portions of the meeting will be

open to the public except from 4:00 p.m.

until 5:00 p.m. on June 16 and from

12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. on June 17,

1997. During these executive sessions,

discussions and recommendations will

deal with medical records of specific

patients and individually identifiable

patient medical histories. The

disclosure of this information would

constitute a clearly unwarranted

invasion of personal privacy. Closure of

this portion of the meeting is in

accordance with subsection 10(d) of P.L.

92-463, as amended by P.L. 94-409, and

as cited in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6).

The agenda for June 16 will begin

with a panel discussion on Infectious

Diseases and Persian Gulf Illnesses,

followed by an update on the Spouses

and Children of Persian Gulf Vets

Examination Program. The first day's

agenda will also cover a follow-up on

VA Epidemiological Programs and

another panel discussion on the

Approaches to Unexplained Illnesses.

On June 17 the Committee will hear

updates on the DoD Persian Gulf

Veterans' Illnesses Investigative Team

and on the VA Environmental Hazards

Research Centers as well as the

Committee's statements on Health

Effects of Low-Level Chemical Warfare

Nerve Agent Exposure.

Additional information concerning

these meetings may be obtained from

the Executive Secretary, Office of Public

Health &Environmental Hazards, 810

Vermont Avenue, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20420.

Dated: April 3, 1997.

By Direction of the Secretary.

Heyward Bannister,

Corn m ittee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 97 10442 Filed 4 22 97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320-01-M

19858

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19858 1997
J

m ml

m J

!

! A

w m [

m m m

m

m

m

m

m m mm/ /

m m

m m

L m m

m

/ /!

Y .-

Department of

Housing and Urban

Development

Youthbuild Program (Fiscal Year 1997);

Funding Availability; Notice

19859

Wednesday

April 23, 1997

Part II

i=

AM

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19859 1997
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-4197-N-01]

Notice of Funding Availability for the

Youthbuild Program for Fiscal Year

1997

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Community Planning and

Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice of Funding Availability

for the Fiscal Year 1997.

SUMMARY: Purpose. This Notice of

Funding Availability (NOFA)

announces the availability of Fiscal Year

(FY) 1997 program funds for grant

assistance under the Youthbuild

Program established by the Housing and

Community Development Act of 1992.

These funds will be awarded

competitively. Only implementation

grants will be funded. The body of this

NOFA contains information on the

following: the purpose of the NOFA,

information regarding eligibility,

available funding, the application

process and selection criteria. Persons

not employed by the Department may be

used in reviewing and rating

applications.

Available Funds. Up to $30 million.

Eligible Applicants. Eligible

applicants are public or private nonprofit agencies, state or local housing

agencies or authorities, state or local

units of general local government,

Indian tribes or any entity eligible to

provide education and employment

training under other Federal

employment training programs, as

further defined in 24 CFR 585.4.

DATES: Application Submission. An

original and two copies of the

completed application for grant funds

must be received in HUD Headquarters

prior to 5:00 pm EST on June 23, 1997.

Applications will be accepted at the

following address: Processing and

Control Unit, Office of Community

Planning and Development, Department

of Housing and Urban Development,

451 Seventh St., SW., Room 7255,

Washington, DC 20410. Attn:

Youthbuild. In addition, one copy of the

completed application should be

forwarded to the local HUD CPD field

office. Please refer to the attached list

for the address of the field office serving

your jurisdiction.

Applications which are mailed prior

to the deadline date but not received

until after the deadline will be deemed

to have been received by the date if

postmarked no later than (three days

prior) by the U.S. Postal Service.

Express delivery items received after the

deadline date will be deemed to have

been received on time upon submission

of documentary evidence that they were

placed in transit with the express

delivery service no later than the

previous date. Applications may not be

submitted by facsimile (FAX).

For a copy of the application package,

contact: Community Connections at 1-

800-998-9999, or through the Internet

at gopher://comcon.org:75/11. Requests

for application packages must refer to

the Youthbuild program. The

application package contains the

required forms and instructions for

completing a grant request. Requests for

application packages for the current

competition should be made

immediately. Community Connections

will distribute application packages as

soon as they become available. Grant

requests not made on 1997 application

package forms will not be accepted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Community Connections at 1-800 998-

9999. Hearing- and speech-impaired

persons should call the Federal

Information Relay Service at 1-800-

877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Information Collection Requirements

The information collection

requirements contained in this NOFA

have been approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) in

accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-

3520), and assigned OMB control

number 2506-0142. An agency may not

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not

required to respond to, a collection of

information unless the collection

displays a valid control number.

Promoting Comprehensive Approaches

to Housing and Community

Development

HUD is interested in promoting

comprehensive, coordinated approaches

to housing and community

development. Economic development,

community development, public

housing revitalization, homeownership,

assisted housing for special needs

populations, supportive services, and

welfare-to-work initiatives can work

better if linked at the local level.

Toward this end, HUD in recent years

has developed the Consolidated

Planning process designed to help

communities undertake such

approaches.

In this spirit, it may be helpful for

applicants under this NOFA to be aware

of other related HUD NOFAs that have

recently been published or are expected

to be published in the near future. By

reviewing these NOFAs with respect to

their program purposes and the

eligibility of applicants and activities,

applicants may be able to relate the

activities proposed for funding under

this NOFA to the recent and upcoming

NOFAs and to the community's

Consolidated Plan.

With respect to community and

economic development, the following

related NOFAs have been published: (1)

The NOFA for the HUD-Administered

Small Cities Community Development

Block Grant Program-Development

Grants for Fiscal Year 1997 and the

Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program for

Small Communities in New York State

(December 3, 1996, at 61 FR 64196); and

(2) the NOFA for the Community

Outreach Partnership Centers (March

20, 1997, at 62 FR 13506). The following

related NOFAs are expected to be

published in the next few weeks: (1)

The NOFA for the Tenant Opportunity

Program-Economic Development and

Supportive Services, and (2) the NOFA

for Historically Black Colleges. To foster

comprehensive, coordinated approaches

by communities, HUD intends for the

remainder of FY 1997 to continue to

alert applicants to upcoming and recent

NOFAs as each NOFA is published. In

addition, a complete schedule of NOFAs

to be published during the fiscal year

and those already published appears

under the HUD Homepage on the

Internet, which can be accessed at http:/

/www.hud.gov/nofas.html. Additional

steps on NOFA coordination may be

considered for FY 1998.

For help in obtaining a copy of your

community's Consolidated Plan, please

contact the community development

office of your municipal government.

I. Program Purpose

The purposes of the Youthbuild

program are (1) To provide

economically-disadvantaged young

adults with opportunities to obtain

education, employment skills and

meaningful on-site construction work

experience as a service to their

communities and a means to achieve

self-sufficiency; (2) to foster the

development of leadership skills and

commitment to community; and (3) to

expand the supply of permanent

affordable housing for homeless and

low- and very low-income persons by

providing implementation grants for

carrying out a Youthbuild program.

A. Authority

The Youthbuild program is

authorized under subtitle D of title IV of

the National Affordable Housing Act

(the Act), as added by section 164 of the

Housing and Community Development

19860

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19860 1997
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Notices

Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-550, 106

STAT. 3723, 42 U.S.C. 12899).

Implementing regulations are found in

the Final Rule published in the Federal

Register dated February 21, 1995, and

codified in title 24 of the Code of

Federal Regulations as part 585.

B. Funding Availability

This Notice announces the

availability of up to $30 million in

program funds. $1.5 million (five

percent of the appropriation) of which

is planned for technical assistance

consistent with section 458(d) of the

Act.

C. Objectives

The Youthbuild program is designed

to help disadvantaged young adults who

have dropped out of high school to (1)

Obtain the education and employment

skills necessary to achieve economic

self-sufficiency and (2) develop

leadership skills and a commitment to

community development in low-income

communities. Grant funds can be used

to fund eligible services and activities as

defined by the Act.

Another important objective of the

Youthbuild program is to expand the

supply of permanent affordable housing

for homeless persons and members of

low- and very low-income families.

Providing disadvantaged young adults

with meaningful on-site training

experiences in housing construction and

rehabilitation enables them to provide a

service to their communities by helping

to meet the housing needs of homeless

and low-income families.

An additional purpose of the program

is to give, to the greatest extent feasible,

and consistent with existing Federal,

State and local laws and regulation, job

training, employment, contracting and

other economic opportunities to lowincome persons and business concerns.

To that purpose, section 3 of the

Housing and Urban Development Act of

1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701u) is applicable to

Youthbuild implementation grant

recipients.

II. Overview of Youthbuild

Implementation Grants

A. Type of Grants

HUD will award Youthbuild

implementation grants only to eligible

applicants for the purpose of carrying

out Youthbuild programs in accordance

with subtitle D of title IV of the Act.

Applications will be selected in a

competition in accordance with the

grant selection process described in

section V below.

B. Maximum Awards

Under the competition established by

this NOFA, the maximum award for a

Youthbuild grant is $700,000. HUD

reserves the right to determine the

maximum or minimum of any

Youthbuild award per application,

project, program or budget line item. No

amendments will be made to awards

under this competition that will

increase previously approved grant

amounts. In order to ensure reasonable

geographic diversity, a jurisdiction may

not receive more than $2.1 million.

C. Locational Considerations

Each application for a grant may only

propose activities to carry out one

Youthbuild program, i.e., to start a new

Youthbuild program or to fund new

classes of Youthbuild participants for an

existing program. The same applicant

organization may submit more than one

application in the current competition if

the proposed program's participant

recruitment and housing areas are in

different jurisdictions. HUD will not

approve multiple applications for grants

in the same jurisdiction unless HUD

determines that the jurisdiction is

sufficiently large to justify approval of

more than one application.

D. Eligible Applicants

Eligible applicants are public or

private non-profit agencies, State or

local housing agencies or authorities,

state or local units of general local

government, Indian tribes or any entity

eligible to provide education and

employment training under other

Federal employment training programs,

as further defined in 24 CFR 585.4.

E. Youthbuild Program Components

Youthbuild programs receiving

assistance under this NOFA must

contain the three components described

in items (1), (2) and (4) below. Other

activities described in item (3) are

optional.

(1) Educational and job training services.

(2) Leadership training, counseling and

other support activities.

(3) Special activities such as

entrepreneurial training, drivers' education,

internships, programs for those with learning

disabilities, and in-house staff training.

(Optional)

(4) On-site training through actual housing

rehabilitation and/or construction work. Each

program must be structured so that 50

percent of each participant's time is spent in

on-site training.

Refer to 24 CFR 585.3 for a detailed

description of program components.

F. Eligible Participants

Participants in a Youthbuild program

must be very low-income high school

dropouts between the ages of 16 and 24,

inclusive, at the time of enrollment. Up

to 25 percent of participants may be

above very low-income or high school

graduates (or equivalent), but must have

educational needs that justify their

participation in the program.

G. Activities Used To Conduct a

Youthbuild Program May Include

(1) Work and activities associated with the

acquisition, rehabilitation or construction of

the housing and related facilities to be used

in the program;

(2) Relocation payments and other

assistance required to comply with 24 CFR

585.308.

(3) Costs of ongoing training and technical

assistance needs related to carrying out a

Youthbuild program;

(4) Education, job training, counseling,

employment and leadership development

services and activities;

(5) Wages, benefits and need-based

stipends for participants; and

(6) Administrative costs. Youthbuild funds

for these costs should not exceed 20 percent

of the total amount of Youthbuild assistance.

Refer to 24 CFR 585.305 for further

details on eligible activities.

H. Resources From Other Federal, State,

Local or Private Entities

Applicants are strongly encouraged to

use existing housing and homeless

assistance programs administered by

HUD or other Federal, State, local or

private housing programs as part of their

Youthbuild program. Use of other nonYouthbuild funds available for

vocational, adult and bilingual

education programs or for job training

under the JTPA Act and the Family

Support Act of 1988 is also encouraged.

The selection process described in this

NOFA provides for applicants to receive

points where grant applications contain

firm commitments from Federal, State,

local or private sources to provide

resources to carry out Youthbuild

activities.

I. Environmental Procedures and

Standards

Applicants are strongly encouraged to

select hazard-free and problem-free

properties for their Youthbuild projects.

Environmental procedures apply to

HUD approval of grants when the

applicant proposes to use Youthbuild

funds to cover any costs for the lease,

acquisition, rehabilitation or new

construction of real property proposed

for housing project development.

Environmental procedures do not apply

to HUD approval of applications when

applicants propose to use their

19861

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19861 1997
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Notices

Youthbuild funds solely to cover any

costs for classroom and/or on-the-job

construction training and support

services.

For those applicants that propose to

use their Youthbuild funds to cover any

costs of the lease, acquisition,

rehabilitation, or new construction of

real property, the applicant shall submit

all relevant environmental information

in its application to support HUD

decision-making in accordance with the

environmental procedures and

standards set forth in 24 CFR 585.307.

J Grant Period

Funds awarded should be used within

30 months of the effective date of the

grant agreement.

III. Selection Criteria for Youthbuild

Applications

Due to an order of the U.S. District

Court for the Northern District, Dallas

Division, in Walker v. HUD, with

respect to any application by the City of

Dallas, Texas, HUD's evaluation of the

quality of the application will consider

the extent to which the applicant's

proposed program for the use of

Youthbuild funds will be used to

eradicate the vestiges of racial

segregation in the Dallas Housing

Authority's programs, consistent with

the Court's order (see paragraph 8

below).

HUD will review each application and

assign points in accordance with the

selection criteria described in this

section. Each application may receive

up to 100 points. In addition,

applications may receive up to 5 points

for Americorps participation (see

paragraph 7 below), and 10

Empowerment Zone/Enterprise

Community points (see paragraph 6

below).

(1) Capability: the qualification and

experience of the applicant and

participating parties. (Max. points: 25)

The capability of the applicant and

participating parties to implement a

successful young adult education and

training program within a reasonable

time period and in a cost-effective

manner as demonstrated through past

performance. HUD will review and

evaluate the information provided

documenting Capability. In assigning

points for this criterion, evidence in the

application that demonstrates the

following will be considered:

(a) Experience in implementing a

comprehensive, integrated, multidisciplinary program with the following

components:

(i) Young adult education and training

programs, including programs for lowincome persons from economicallydistressed neighborhoods.

(ii) Young adult leadership development

training and related activities for young

adults.

(iii) Young adult on-site training in

housing construction or rehabilitation for the

production of sound and affordable housing

for the homeless and low-income families.

(b) The extent to which the applicant or

participating parties have been successful in

past education, training and employment

programs and activities, including Federallyfunded Youthbuild programs. Previous

Youthbuild grant recipients must submit a

performance narrative as outlined in the

application package.

(c) The extent to which the applicant,

including program director or principal

person, or participating parties have

demonstrated past ability to leverage other

resources to cover administrative,

educational and training costs and have

demonstrated ability to implement creative

and innovative cost-saving measures.

(d) The extent of prior program quality and

cost-effectiveness.

(2) Need: the need for the proposed

program, as determined by the degree of

distress of the community. (Max. points:

20). In assigning points for this

criterion, HUD will consider the relative

degree of distress of the jurisdiction(s)

from which participants will be

recruited and in which the housing will

be constructed or rehabilitated. HUD

will also assign points by calculating the

degree of need of the jurisdiction(s) in

which the program will be located using

the CDBG formula.

(3) Program Quality and Feasibility:

comprehensiveness and effectiveness of

the proposed Youthbuild program.

(Max. points: 35). HUD will consider the

overall quality and feasibility of the

proposed program as measured by the

principles and goals of the proposed

program; whether proposed program

activities meet the overall objectives of

the Youthbuild program; whether the

proposed program activities will be

accomplished within a reasonable

amount of time and in a cost effective

manner; whether the proposed program

activities are comprehensive and

integrated; and the potential for success

of the proposed program. Areas to be

considered in the evaluation of the

overall quality of proposed program

area:

(a) Outreach, recruitment and

selection activities: a description of the

proposed: (i) outreach, recruitment

(including specific steps to be taken to

attract potential eligible participants

who are unlikely to be aware of this

program because of race, ethnicity, sex

or disability) and selection strategies;

(ii) special outreach efforts to recruit

eligible young women and young

women with dependent children, and

persons receiving public assistance; and

(iii) recruitment arrangements made

with public agencies, courts, homeless

shelters, local school systems,

community-based organizations, etc.;

(b) Educational and job training

services and activities: a description of

the educational component of the

program, including: (i) the types of

instructional services to be provided; (ii)

the number and qualification of program

instructors and ratio of instructors to

participants; (iii) realistic scheduling

plan for classroom and on-the-job

training: and (iv) reasonable payments

of participants' wages, stipends, and

incentives.

(c) Leadership development: a

description of the leadership

development training to be offered to

participants including the strategies,

activities and plans to build group

cohesion and peer support.

(d) Support services: a description

and documentation of counseling and

referral services to be offered to

participants, including the type of

counseling, social services and/or needbased stipends to be provided

(supported by letters of commitments

from providers).

(e) Coordination and cost-efficiency: a

description and documentation of how

the Youthbuild program will benefit the

maximum number of young adults by

making use of other public and private

resources, programs and services (in

addition to those referenced above)

which sufficiently reduce the cost

burden to the Youthbuild program in

the following areas: (i) education, job

training, and child care; (ii) on-site

housing con stru ction/reh abilitation

training; (iii) homeless and housing

programs; (iv) apprenticeship programs

of local building trade unions; and (v)

administrative, overhead and salary

costs.

(f) On-site training: a description of (i)

the housing construction or

rehabilitation activities to be undertaken

by participants at the site(s) to be used

for the on-site training component of the

program, (ii) the qualification and

number of on-site supervisors, (iii) the

ratio of trainers to students, (iv) the ratio

of students per site and (v) the amounts,

reasonable wages and/or stipends to be

paid to participants during on-site work.

(g) Job placement assistance: a

description of the applicant's

commitments, strategies and procedures

for (i) participant placement in

meaningful employment, enrollment in

post-secondary education programs, job

development, starting business

enterprises, or other opportunities

leading to economic independence; and

19862

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19862 1997
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Notices

(ii) follow-up assistance and support

activities to program graduates.

(h) Program evaluation: a description

of a comprehensive evaluation plan that

is designed to measure the success of

the program.

(4) Program Resources: firm

commitment of resources obtained from

other Federal, State, local and private

sources. (Max. points 10). In assigning

points for this criterion, HUD will

consider the level of non-housing

resources obtained for cash or in-kind

contribution to cover the following

kinds of areas:

(a) Social services (i.e., counseling and

training);

(b) Use of existing vocational, adult,

bilingual educational courses;

(c) Donation of labor, resource personnel,

supplies, materials, classroom and/or

meeting space;

(d) other commitments.

(5) Housing Program Priority Points:

10 priority points will be assigned to all

applications that contain evidence that

housing resources from other Federal,

state, local or private sources that are

available to cover the cost, in full, for

the following housing activities for the

proposed Youthbuild program:

acquisition, architectural and

engineering fees, construction and

rehabilitation. Applications that do not

include proper documentation of

commitment of non-Youthbuild

resources or propose to use Youthbuild

grant funds, in whole or in part, for any

one of the housing activities listed

above will not be entitled to the ten

priority points.

Housing resources will not be used in

evaluation of the program resources

criterion.

Bonus Points

(6) Empowerm ent Zone/Enterprise

Community: Up to 10 points will be

assigned based on documentation that

the proposed program will support the

Strategic Plan for a federally designated

urban or rural Empowerment Zone,

Enterprise Community or Supplemental

Empowerment Zone. Up to five points

will be assigned based on

documentation that the proposed

program will support the Strategic plan

for a Champion Community (applied

for, but did not receive a designation).

Application must receive a combined

score of at least 50 points for selection

criteria (1), (2), and (3) under Section III

in order to be eligible for Empowerment

Zone/Enterprise Community or

Champion Community points.

(7)Americorps Participation Bonus:

Up to 5 points may be assigned to

Youthbuild applicants who provide

evidence of application and/or selection

as an Americorps program sponsor.

Application must receive a combined

score of at least 50 points for selection

criteria (1), (2), and (3) under Section III

in order to be eligible for Americorps

points.

(8) Court-ordered Consideration: due

to an order of the U.S. District Court for

the Northern District of Texas, Dallas

Division, with respect to any

application by the City of Dallas, Texas,

for HUD funds, HUD shall consider the

extent to which the Youthbuild strategy

for the Dallas area will be used to

eradicate the vestiges of segregation in

the Dallas Housing Authority's lowincome housing programs. The City of

Dallas should address the effect, if any,

that vestiges of racial segregation in

Dallas Housing Authority's low-income

housing programs have on potential

participants in the Youthbuild program

and identify proposed actions for

remedying those vestiges. HUD may add

up to 2 points to the application score

based on this consideration.

IV. Application Requirements

Applicants must complete and submit

applications for Youthbuild grants in

accordance with instructions contained

in the FY 1997 Youthbuild application

package. The application package will

request information in sufficient detail

for HUD to determine whether the

proposed activities are feasible and meet

all the requirements of applicable

statutes and regulations. The

application package requires a

description of the applicant's and

participating parties' experiences in

young adult and housing programs, a

description of the proposed Youthbuild

program, a description and

documentation of other public and

private resources to be used for the

program, including other housing

resources, a schedule for the program,

budgets, identification of housing

sites(s) and demonstration of site access.

The application package also contains

necessary certifications to Federal

requirements. Applicants must also

certify that the proposed activities are

consistent with the HUD-approved

Consolidated Plan in accordance with

24 CFR part 91. Applicants should refer

to the Youthbuild application package

for further instructions.

V. Selection Process

In order to afford applicants every

opportunity to submit a ratable

application, while at the same time

ensuring the fairness, integrity and

timeliness of the selection process, HUD

is adopting the following application

submission and selection procedures:

a. Initial screening: During the period

immediately following the application

deadline, HUD will screen each

application to determine eligibility.

Applications will be rejected if they (1)

Are submitted by ineligible applicants,

(2) do not use the FY 1997 application

package, (3) propose a program for

which significant activities are

ineligible, (4) there are any outstanding

findings of noncompliance with civil

rights statutes, Executive orders or

regulation, as a result of formal

administrative proceedings or the

Secretary has issued a charge against the

applicant under the Fair Housing Act,

unless the applicant is operating under

a conciliation or compliance agreement

designed to correct the areas of

noncompliance, (5) are submitted by

applicants that have major unresolved

audit or monitoring findings, or (6) has

not submitted information necessary to

qualify them for an award, i.e.,

environmental procedure information.

b. Rating and Ranking: Each eligible

application will be rated based upon the

criteria described in section III of this

NOFA, with a maximum of 115 points

assigned. Using the scores assigned, the

application will be placed in rank order.

Applications will be preliminarily

selected for funding in accordance with

their rank order.

If two or more applications have the

same score and there are insufficient

funds to fund all of them, the

application(s) with the highest score for

the Program Quality and Feasibility

criterion shall be elected. In the event of

a procedural error that, when corrected,

would result in selection of an

otherwise eligible applicant during the

funding round under this NOFA, HUD

may select that application when

sufficient funds become available.

c. Clarification of Application

Information: In accordance with the

provisions of 24 CFR part 4, subpart B,

HUD may contact an applicant to seek

clarification of an item in the

application, or to request additional or

missing information, but the

clarification or the request for additional

or missing information shall not relate

to items that would improve the

substantive quality of the application

pertinent to the funding decision. For

the Youthbuild program, these

clarification items include, but are not

limited to: (1) Missing or unsigned

program certifications or SF424; (2)

failure to target the outreach and

recruitment efforts to be used by the

program to disadvantaged young adults

between the ages of 16 and 24 years; (3)

failure to structure the proposed

program so that 50 percent of

participant's time is devoted to

19863

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19863 1997
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Notices

educational activities and 50 percent to

on-site training; (4) incomplete

documentation showing that the

applicant has obtained access to the

housing site(s); (5) failure to designate

the housing to be produced for use by

appropriate population; and (6) failure

to identify the housing to be used for

on-site training.

d. Potential Environmental

Disqualification: HUD reserves the right

to disqualify an application where one

or more environmental thresholds are

exceeded if it is determined that the

environmental review cannot be

conducted and satisfactorily completed

by HUD within the HUD review period.

(See 24 CFR 585.307.)

e. Reduction in Requested Grant

Amount: HUD may approve an

application for an amount lower than

the amount requested by the applicant.

In addition, HUD will adjust line items

in the proposed grant budget within the

amount requested if it determines that:

(1) The amount requested for one or

more eligible activities is not supported

in the application or is unreasonably

related to the service or activity to be

carried out;

(2) An activity proposed for funding

does not qualify as an eligible activity

and can be separated in the budget;

(3) The amount requested exceeds the

total cost limitation established for a

grant; or

(4) Insufficient funds remain for the

entire request.

f. Notification of Approval or

Disapproval: HUD will notify the

selected applicants and the applicants

that have not been selected. HUD's

notification to a selected applicant of

the amount of the grant award based on

the approved application will constitute

a preliminary approval by HUD, subject

to HUD and recipient execution of the

grant agreement to initiate program

activities.

VI. Other Matters

a. Environmental Impact. This NOFA

provides funding under, and does not

alter the environmental provisions of,

regulations in 24 CFR part 585, which

has been published previously in the

Federal Register. Accordingly, under 24

CFR 50.19(c)(5), this NOFA is

categorically excluded from

environmental review under the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321). Grantees must

comply with the regulations in 24 CFR

part 585, including the environmental

review procedures in 24 CFR 585.307.

b. Family Executive Order. The

General Counsel as the Designated

Official under Executive Order 12606,

The Family, has determined that some

of the policies contained in this NOFA

will have a potential significant impact

on the formation, maintenance and

general well-being of the family. The

expected expansion of the housing

supply for homeless and low- and very

low-income persons and the provision

of opportunities to economically

disadvantaged young adults to enhance

their education and employment skills

will provide a positive impact on the

family maintenance and general wellbeing. However, since the impact on the

family is beneficial and the program

involves very little HUD discretion, no

further review is necessary.

c. Federalism Executive Order. The

General Counsel, as the Designated

Official under section 7(a) of the

Executive Order 12612, Federalism, has

determined that the policies contained

in this NOFA do not have "Federalism"

implications because they do not have

substantial direct effects on the States

(including their political subdivisions),

or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government.

d. Section 102 of the HUD Reform

Act-Accountability in the Provision of

HUDAssistance. Section 102 of the

Department of Housing and Urban

Development Reform Act of 1989 (HUD

Reform Act) and the final rule codified

at 24 CFR part 4, subpart A, published

on April 1, 1996 (61 FR 1448), contain

a number of provisions that are

designed to ensure greater

accountability and integrity in the

provision of certain types of assistance

administered by HUD. On January 14,

1992, HUD published, at 57 FR 1942, a

notice that also provides information on

the implementation of section 102. The

documentation, public access, and

disclosure requirements of section 102

are applicable to assistance awarded

under this NOFA as follows:

Documentation and public access

requirements. HUD will ensure that

documentation and other information

regarding each application submitted

pursuant to this NOFA are sufficient to

indicate the basis upon which

assistance was provided or denied. This

material, including any letters of

support, will be made available for

public inspection for a five-year period

beginning not less than 30 days after the

award of the assistance. Material will be

made available in accordance with the

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C.

552) and HUD's implementing

regulations at 24 CFR part 15. In

addition, HUD will include the

recipients of assistance pursuant to this

NOFA in its Federal Register notice of

all recipients of HUD assistance

awarded on a competitive basis.

Disclosures. HUD will make available

to the public for five years all applicant

disclosure reports (HUD Form 2880)

submitted in connection with this

NOFA. Update reports (also Form 2880)

will be made available along with the

applicant disclosure reports, but in no

case for a period less than three years.

All reports-both applicant disclosures

and updates-will be made available in

accordance with the Freedom of

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and

HUD's implementing regulations at 24

CFR part 15.

e. Section 103 of the HUD Reform

A ct-Prohibition ofAdvance

Disclosures of Funding Decisions.

HUD's regulation implementing section

103 of the HUD Reform Act, codified as

24 CFR part 4, applies to the funding

competition announced today. The

requirements of the rule continue to

apply until the announcement of the

selection of successful applicants.

HUD employees involved in the

review of applications and in the

making of funding decisions are

restrained by part 4 from providing

advance information to any person

(other than persons authorized to

receive such information) concerning

funding decisions, or from otherwise

giving any applicant an unfair

competitive advantage. Persons who

apply for assistance in this competition

should confine their inquiries to the

subject areas permitted under 24 CFR

part 4.

Applicants or employees who have

ethics-related questions should contact

the HUD Ethics Law Division (202) 708-

3815 (voice), (202) 708-1112 (TTY).

(These are not toll-free numbers.) For

HUD employees who have specific

program questions, the employee should

contact the appropriate Field Office

Counsel or Headquarters Counsel for the

program to which the question pertains.

f. Fair Housing and Equal

Opportunity. Applications must contain

a certification that the applicant will

comply with the requirements of the

Fair Housing Act, title VI of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age

Discrimination Act of 1975, and will

affirmatively further fair housing.

g. Prohibition Against Lobbying

Activities. The use of funds awarded

under this NOFA is subject to the

disclosure requirements and prohibition

of section 319 of the Department of the

Interior and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1990

(31 U.S.C. 1352) and the implementing

regulation at 24 CFR part 87. These

authorities prohibit recipients of Federal

contracts, grants, or loans from using

appropriated funds for lobbying the

19864

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19864 1997
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Notices

Executive or Legislative Branches of the

Federal Government in connection with

a specific contract, grant or loan. The

prohibition also covers the awarding of

contracts, grants, cooperative

agreements, or loans unless the

recipient has made an acceptable

certification regarding lobbying. Under

24 CFR part 87 and 7 CFR part 1944,

subpart G, applicants, recipients and

subrecipients of assistance exceeding

$100,000 must certify that no Federal

funds have been or will be spent on

lobbying activities in connection with

the assistance.

Indian Housing Authorities (IHAs)

established by an Indian tribe as a result

of the exercise of the tribe's sovereign

power are excluded from coverage of the

Byrd Amendment, but IHAs established

under State law are not excluded from

the statute's coverage.

Required Reporting. A certification is

required at the time application for

funds is made that federallyappropriated funds are not being or

have not been used in violation of

section 319 and the disclosure will be

made of payments for lobbying with

other than federally-appropriated funds.

Also, there is a standard disclosure

form, SF-LLL, "Disclosure Form to

Report Lobbying", which must be used

to disclose lobbying with other than

federally-appropriated funds at the time

of application.

h. Drug-Free Workplace. The DrugFree Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C.

701) requires grantees of Federal

agencies to certify that they will provide

drug-free workplaces. Each potential

recipient under this NOFA must certify

that it will comply with the drug-free

workplace requirements of the DrugFree Workplace Act of 1988 and HUD's

implementing regulation at 24 CFR part

24, subpart F.

i. Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance. The Catalog of Federal

Domestic Assistance number is 14.243.

Dated: April 16, 1997.

Jacquie M. Lawing,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Comm nity

Planning and Development.

CPD Field Offices

CPD Division Director, Alabama State

Office, Suite 300, 600 Beacon

Parkway West, Birmingham, AL

35209-3144

CPD Division Director, Alaska State

Office, Suite 401, 949 East 36th

Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99508-4399

CPD Division Director, Arizona State

Office, Two Arizona Center, Suite

1600, 400 North Fifth Street, Phoenix,

AZ 85004-2361

CPD Division Director, Buffalo Area

Office, Lafayette Court, 465 Main

Street, Fifth Floor, Buffalo, NY

14203-1780

CPD Division Director, California State

Office, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San

Francisco, CA 94102-3448

CPD Division Director, Caribbean Office,

159 Carlos Chardon Ave., San Juan,

PR 00918-1804

CPD Division Director, Colorado State

Office, First Interstate Tower North,

633 17th Street, Denver, CO 80202-

3607

CPD Division Director, Connecticut

State Office, First Floor, 330 Main

Street, Hartford, CT 06106-1860

CPD Division Director, District of

Columbia Office, Room 300, 820 First

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20002-

4205

CPD Division Director, Florida State

Office, Suite 500, 1320 South Dixie

Hwy., Coral Gables, FL 33164-2911

CPD Division Director, Georgia State

Office, Russell Federal Building, 75

Spring Street, SW., Atlanta, GA

30303-3388

CPD Division Director, Hawaii State

Office, 7 Waterfront Plaza, 500 Ala

Moana Blvd., Honolulu, HI 96813-

4918

CPD Division Director, Illinois State

Office, 77 West Jackson Blvd.,

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

CPD Division Director, Indiana State

Office, 151 North Delaware Street,

Indianapolis, IN 46204-2526

CPD Division Director, Jacksonville

Area Office, Southern Bell Tower, 301

West Bay Street, Jacksonville, FL

32202-5121

CPD Division Director, Kansas/Missouri

State Office, Gateway Tower II, 400

State Avenue, Room 200, Kansas City,

KS 66101-2406

CPD Division Director, Kentucky State

Office, P.O. Box 1044, 601 W.

Broadway, Louisville, KY 40201-1044

CPD Division Director, Knoxville Area

Office, 710 Locust Street, Knoxville,

TN 37902-2526

CPD Division Director, Los Angeles

Area Office, 611 W. Sixth St., STE

800, Los Angeles, CA 90017

CPD Division Director, Louisiana State

Office, 9th Floor, Hale Boggs, 501

Magazine Street, New Orleans, LA

70130-3099

CPD Division Director, Maryland State

Office, City Crescent Building, 10

South Howard Street, Baltimore, MD

21201-2505

CPD Division Director, Massachusetts

State Office, Room 531, 10 Causeway

Street, Boston, MA 02222-1092

Manchester Office (CPD Division),

Massachusetts State Office, Room 531,

10 Causeway Street, Boston, MA

02222-1092

CPD Division Director, Michigan State

Office, Patrick McNamara Building,

477 Michigan Avenue, Detroit, MI

48226-2592

CPD Division Director, Minnesota State

Office, 220 Second St. South,

Minneapolis, MN 55401-2195

CPD Division Director, Mississippi State

Office, Room 910, 100 West Capitol

Street, Jackson, MS 39269-1096

CPD Division Director, Nebraska State

Office, 10909 Mill Valley Road,

Omaha, NE 68154-3955

CPD Division Director, New Hampshire

State Office, Norris Cotton Federal

Bldg., 275 Chestnut Street,

Manchester, NH 03101-2487

CPD Division Director, New Jersey State

Office, 13th Floor, One Newark

Center, Newark, NJ 07102-5260

CPD Division Director, New Mexico

State Office, 625 Truman Street, N.E.,

Albuquerque, NM 87110-6443

CPD Division Director, New York State

Office, 26 Federal Plaza, New York,

NY 07102-5260

CPD Division Director, North Carolina

Office, Koger Building 2306 West

Meadowview Road, Greensboro, NC

27407-3707

CPD Division Director, Ohio State

Office, 200 North High Street,

Columbus, OH 43215-2499

CPD Division Director, Oklahoma State

Office, Suite 400, 500 Main Place,

Oklahoma City, OK 73102

CPD Division Director, Oregon State

Office, Suite 700, 400 Southwest

Sixth Avenue, Portland, OR 97204-

1632

CPD Division Director, Pennsylvania

State Office, The Wannamaker

Building, 100 Penn Square East,

Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390

CPD Division Director, Pittsburgh Area

Office, Sixth Floor 339 Sixth Avenue,

Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2515

CPD Division Director, San Antonio

Area Office, Washington Square, 800

Dolorosa Street, San Antonio, TX

78207

CPD Division Director, South Carolina

State Office, Building 1835, 45

Assembly Street, Columbia, SC

29201-2480

CPD Division Director, St. Louis Area

Office, Third Floor 1222 Spruce

Street, St. Louis, MO 63103-2836

CPD Division Director, Texas State

Office, 1600 Throckmorton, Fort

Worth, TX 76113-2905

CPD Division Director, Virginia State

Office, 3600 West Broad Street,

Richmond, VA 23230-0331

CPD Division Director, Washington

State Office, Suite 200, 909 1St

Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104-1000

CPD Division Director, Wisconsin State

Office, Suite 1380, 310 West

Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI

53203-2289

19865

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19865 1997
19866 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Notices

CPD Division Director, Arkansas State

Office, TCBY Tower, 425 West Capitol

Ave., Ste 900, Little Rock, AR 72201-

3488

[FR Doc. 97 10446 Filed 4 22 97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-29-P

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19866 1997
AIM

Department

Agriculture

of

Cooperative State Research, Education,

and Extension Service

Intent to Extend a Currently Approved

Information Collection; Notice

19867

Wednesday

April 23, 1997

Part III

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19867 1997
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension Service

Notice of Intent to Extend a Currently

Approved Information Collection

AGENCY: Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this

notice announces the Cooperative State

Research, Education, and Extension

Service's (CSREES) intention to request

an extension for three years for a

currently approved information

collection in support of the CSREES

Buildings and Facilities Grants Program.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be

received by June 27, 1997, to be assured

of consideration.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS:

Contact Sally J. Rockey, Deputy

Administrator, Competitive Research

Grants and Awards Management,

CSREES, USDA, STOP 2240, 1400

Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20250-2240, (202)

401-1766. E-mail: OEP@eeusda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: CSREES/Buildings and

Facilities Grants Program, Program

Guidelines and Forms Package.

OMB Number: 0524-0029.

Expiration Date of Current Approval:

August 31, 1997.

Type of Request: Extension of a

currently approved information

collection.

Abstract: The enabling legislation for

the Research Facilities Program is

contained in Pub. L. No. 88-74 (7 U.S.C.

390 et seq.) and the annual Agriculture,

Rural Development, Food and Drug

Administration, and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act provides funding to

the CSREES for the support of

construction grant projects. Project

recipients (and funding levels for each)

are identified in the annual House and

Senate Conference Reports. Due to the

high cost of constructing facilities,

funding for each project normally is

provided by Congress on an incremental

basis over a period of several years.

Prior to the actual award of funds,

targeted recipients are contacted and

asked to submit information to CSREES

relating to their projects. In the first

year, the information collected from

each prospective recipient is used by a

team of subject-matter experts to

conduct an on-site visit to determine the

need for the proposed facility; results of

the study are reported to Congress.

Where funding is provided by Congress

in subsequent years, applicants are not

required to repeat information provided

in a previous year-instead, CSREES

requests updated information, focusing

on any changes in construction plans,

progress made in completing the

facility, problems encountered, and

current financial data. This information

is used to determine grantee compliance

with the purposes of the original grant

award (or to approve minor changes

necessitated by altered circumstances),

determine whether the project is on

schedule and within budget, and

provide a means to justify further

financial support. On a one-time basis,

each grantee also is required to submit

environmental information and a

certificate of facility completion, both of

which are included in the Program

Guidelines or Forms Package.

The fundamental purposes of the

forms included in the Forms Package

are to facilitate the submission of

proposals by applicant institutions; to

ensure that information is supplied in

an informative manner to enhance

understanding by CSREES officials so

that proposals can be processed more

quickly; and to see that parallel

information is received for each project

to ensure equitable treatment for all

recipients. The information is used by

CSREES officials and outside reviewers

to evaluate the technical, financial, and

administrative merit of proposals and to

respond to inquiries from Congress, the

Department, and the grantee

community. However, the forms are not

designed to be statistical surveys or data

collection instruments. The completion

of the forms by potential recipients is a

normal part of applying to CSREES for

financial support. Without this

information, CSREES would not be able

to award these grant projects. This

information collection is due to expire

on August 31, 1997. CSREES intends to

request an extension of three years.

Upon approval, the following

information will continue to be

collected:

Table of Contents: A table of contents

is optional; it is requested only for

proposals of unusual length or

complexity and provided at the

discretion of the institution. It is used to

facilitate the location of information by

merit reviewers and CSREES officials.

Project Summary: This is a short

summary of the project that focuses on

the broad goals associated with the

construction effort. It is required to

enable CSREES to provide projectrelated information to Congress, the

Department, and the general public in a

timely fashion.

Project Description: Applicants are

asked to provide brief information on

the scope of the proposed project,

factors that led to a need for the

construction, ways in which financial

assistance from CSREES will enhance

programmatic activities to be carried out

in the facility, benefits to be gained from

commencing the project during the

current fiscal year, a general description

of the physical site upon which it is

planned to erect the facility, a

description of any preliminary work

that has been performed to date, an

outline of plans to obtain any required

licenses or permits, a description of the

facility as it is envisioned to be

completed, capacity of existing utility

systems to service the new space, an

outline of any problems that could delay

the start or completion of the project,

procedures to be used in accomplishing

project objectives, and a tentative

schedule for completing major activities

associated with the effort. This

information provides merit reviewers

and agency officials with an

understanding of the applicant's need

for undertaking the project and

establishes a basis for possible Federal

financial support. In addition, it is used

to respond to Congressional requests for

specific project information and to assist

CSREES program officials in

familiarizing themselves with the

project prior to making pre-and postaward site visits.

Program Description: Information is

requested on the programs that are

proposed to be housed in the completed

space, including new or enhanced

programs, and the relevance of these

programs to research and allied work in

the food and agricultural sciences. This

information is required to ensure

compliance with Conference Report

language, which requires that programs

to be carried out in these facilities be

complementary to overall Departmental

programs. This information also is

required to be sure that the proposed

programs do not unnecessarily

duplicate programs being conducted

elsewhere within the institution's State

or region.

Management Structure: This calls for

description of the organizational

management structure that is planned

for the completed facility. The purpose

of requesting such information is to

ensure that viable management,

integrated with the rest of the

institution, will be in place so that the

facility and the programs it is intended

to house will function properly after the

facility becomes operational. It also

demonstrates the level of institutional

19868

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19868 1997
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Notices

thought that has gone into planning the

facility, thereby helping to justify

Federal financial support to assist in

constructing the facility.

Alternative: Applicants are asked to

outline alternatives to the proposed

facility that were considered by the

institution prior to settling upon the one

at hand. This information is used by

merit reviewers and CSREES officials to

determine whether or not the project

being considered for funding is the best

alternative vis-a-vis other options.

Contingency Plan: This is an outline

of the institution's fallback plan to fund

the facility from other sources in the

event Federal funding is delayed, is

reduced significantly, or is not

forthcoming. It provides merit reviewers

and CSREES officials with important

information relating to the priority of

the facility on the institution's master

plan. (Is the facility of such high priority

that the institution is committed to

constructing it regardless of funding

source, or will it abandon the project

unless Federal funds are provided?)

Operating Costs: Applicants are asked

to describe their plans for operating and

maintaining the facility after

construction has been completed,

including the source(s) of operating

funds. This is required in response to

Congressional language requiring that

recipients be willing and able to operate

and maintain the facility with nonFederal funds after occupancy.

Biographical Inform ation: A brief

biographical sketch (or curriculum

vitae) is required for key institutional

personnel who are expected to be

involved in the project. This

information is needed to persuade merit

reviewers and CSREES officials that

institutional personnel assigned to

planning and overseeing completion of

the facility are qualified to do so. This

sketch normally does not have to be

written for the proposal being

submitted-all project leaders develop

and keep curricula vitae on file to be

used as the need arises.

Administrative Certifications:

Applicants are required by law or

regulation to complete administrative

certifications to assist in determining

their eligibility for Federal funds.

Environmental Assessment: This

information is requested, on a one-time

basis, of all grantees prior to their being

authorized to take irreversible action on

a project (e.g., site clearing or

groundbreaking). The information is

necessary to assist CSREES in

complying with the provisions of the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and

implementing regulations promulgated

by the Council on Environmental

Quality at 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, as

adopted and supplemented by USDA at

7 CFR lb and by CSREES at 7 CFR Part

3407. While there is no prescribed

format that must be used in submitting

this information, CSREES developed a

suggested format to assist in focusing

grantees' attention on salient issues that

need to be addressed.

CSREES-850-Grant ApplicationFacilities Project: This form is the cover

sheet of each application and provides

base-line information relating to the

applicant institution and the

construction project for which funding

is targeted. This information serves as

part of CSREES' statistical data base for

the dissemination of information to

Congress, the Department, and other

interested parties. In addition, the

signatures at the bottom of the page

provide legal assurance that the

proposed project is sanctioned by toplevel officials of the institution.

CSREES-851 Budget- Facilities

Project: This form provides a breakdown

of planning and construction funds

requested from CSREES, as well as those

that are intended to be provided from

non-Federal funds. This information

permits CSREES officials to review the

applicant's proposed financial

expenditure plan to evaluate the

reasonableness and allowability of costs

being proposed.

CSREES-852-Current and Pending

Support-Facilities Project: This form

requests a listing of all recent, current,

and/or pending support for the

construction or renovation of program

facilities from a source external to the

applicant institution. This information

allows CSREES officials to determine

whether or not the construction funding

being requested duplicates (or overlaps

with) similar construction projects

funded by one or more other sponsors.

CSREES-853-Program

Certification-Facilities Project: This

form collects minimal information to

ensure applicant compliance with the

Food Disaster Protection Act of 1973,

Pub. L. No. 93-234 (42 U.S.C. 4001-

4128) and implementing regulations

established by the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (44 CFR Part 75);

and the Coastal Barrier Resources Act,

Pub. L. No. 97-348 (16 U.S.C. 3501 et

seq.), as amended. This information is

required by Federal Law. However, this

form is not required for follow-on

applications unless the construction site

has changed.

CSREES-854-Data Sheet-Facilities

Project: This form requests statistical

information about the project (its

purpose, size, cost, level of matching

funds, schedule, and future funding

needs). It is used to provide information

to Congress and the Department, to

facilitate monitoring efforts, and to

determine project growth.

CS REES-8 60 -Ce rtificate of Facility

Completion: This is a two-sided form

that is required on a one-time basis but

it is not submitted as part of the actual

grant application. The first side is a

certificate, prepared and signed by the

design team, attesting to physical

attributes of the facility; and the reverse

of the form, completed by the grantee,

is a certification of occupancy and list

of programs to be housed in the new

space. This information is required to

provide a record of final inspection and

acceptance of the facility by the owner

and also to ensure that the programs for

which the facility was constructed will

actually occupy the facility during the

period of Federal financial interest.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting

burden for: an initial grant proposal is

estimated to average 22 hours per

response; a follow-on application is

estimated to average 10 hours per

response; an environmental assessment

is estimated to average 10 hours per

response; and Form CSREES-860,

Certification of Facility Completion, is

estimated to average 2 hours per

response.

Respondents: Organizations identified

in the annual House and Senate

Conference Reports.

Estimated Number of Responses per

Respondent: The FY 1998 estimate on

the number of responses per respondent

is based on numbers associated with FY

1997 funding. As such, the estimated

number of respondents are one initial

proposal, 19 follow-on applications, 42

environmental assessments, and 14 for

Form CSREES-860.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on

Respondents: 300 hours, broken down

by: 22 hours for the initial proposal (22

hours per one respondent); 190 hours

for follow-on applications (10 hours per

19 respondents); 420 hours for the

environmental assessment (10 hours per

42 respondents); and 28 hours for the

Form CSREES-860 (two hours per 14

respondents).

Copies of this information collection

can be obtained from Melanie

Krizmanich, Policy and Program Liaison

Staff, CSREES, (202) 401-1762. E-mail:

OEP@eeusda.gov.

Comments: Comments are invited on:

(a) 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;

(b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate

of the burden of the proposed collection

of information including the validity of

the methodology and assumptions used;

19869

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19869 1997
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Notices

(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility

and clarity of the information to be

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on those who are to respond, including

through the use of appropriate

automated, electronic, mechanical, or

other technological collection

techniques or other forms of information

technology. Comments may be sent to:

Sally J. Rockey, Deputy Administrator,

Competitive Research Grants and

Awards Management, CSREES, USDA,

STOP 2240, 1400 Independence

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-

2240, (202) 401-1766. E-mail:

OEP@eeusda.gov.

All responses to this notice will be

summarized and included in the request

for OMB approval. All comments also

will become a matter of public record.

Done at Washington, DC, on this 15th day

of April 1997.

B.H. Robinson,

Administrator, Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension Service.

[FR Doc. 97 10448 Filed 4 22 97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-22-P

19870

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19870 1997
AIM

19871

Wednesday

April 23, 1997

Part IV

Environmental

Protection Agency

Regulatory Reinvention (XL) Pilot

Projects; Notice

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19871 1997
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Notices

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL-5811-71

Regulatory Reinvention (XL) Pilot

Projects

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of modifications to

project XL.

SUMMARY: This notice modifies EPA's

existing guidance on Project XL and

solicits new XL proposals. This notice

clarifies EPA's definition of the three

key project elements: superior

environmental performance, regulatory

flexibility and stakeholder involvement.

It also describes changes intended to

bring greater efficiency to the process of

developing XL projects.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 23, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Proposals submitted to

Project XL should be sent to Regulatory

Reinvention Pilot Projects, FRL-5197-9,

Water Docket, Mail Code 4101, US EPA,

401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC,

20460. The docket does not accept

faxes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher Knopes, Office of Policy,

Planning and Evaluation, United States

Environmental Protection Agency, Mall

3202, Mail Code 2129, 401 M Street,

SW., Washington, DC, 20460. The

telephone number for the Office is (202)

260-2220. The facsimile number is

(202)401-6637.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March

16, 1995, President Clinton announced

a portfolio of reinvention initiatives to

be implemented by the Environmental

Protection Agency as a part of its efforts

to achieve greater public health and

environmental protection at more

reasonable cost. One of these

reinvention priorities, Project XL, is a

national pilot program to test new

approaches for meeting environmental

goals and responsibilities. Through a

series of site-specific agreements with

project sponsors, EPA expects to gather

data and experiences that will help the

Agency make sound decisions as we

look for ways to improve the current

regulatory system.

XL projects directly benefit the local

environment, participating facilities and

their communities. But those who do

not participate in XL will also benefit

from its lessons. EPA, working with

state environmental agencies, intends to

transfer successful approaches into the

current system of environmental

protection. Broader implementation of

cleaner, cheaper and smarter ideas is the

ultimate objective of Project XL.

This objective distinguishes XL from

other approaches to regulatory change

discussed in environmental policy

circles, with names such as "alternative

compliance" and "alternative path."

Like XL, these approaches seek to offer

site-specific alternatives to the

traditional system of environmental

protection. But where XL tests ideas

that, if successful, will change our

national system of environmental

protection, these approaches seek to

customize the broader system to meet

the needs of a specific location.

Supporters of customization want their

approach available to a large number of

regulated facilities, and focus

principally on the project's benefits to

the local environment and participating

facility itself. In contrast, the number of

XL experiments is limited to 50, making

it vital that each project creates lessons

with broad application and potential

benefits to the broader environment.

In a May 23, 1995, Federal Register

notice (60 FR 27282, May 23, 1995),

EPA describes Project XL as a program

that offers a balanced set of benefits to

the environment, the regulated

community and the public. In that

notice, the XL program was defined

through eight criteria by which

proposals are selected for participation.

While all of these criteria are still

important, the first three actually define

Project XL: superior environmental

performance, regulatory flexibility

(termed Cost Savings and Paperwork

Reduction in the original notice), and

stakeholder involvement. These criteria

are equal in stature and together provide

the context for the experimental nature

of the program.

Since the inception of Project XL,

there have been requests for clarification

of EPA's definitions of these three

essential program elements. EPA

recognizes the critical need to ensure

that environmental regulatory agencies,

potential project sponsors, and other

interested stakeholders have a clear

understanding of the concepts,

definitions, and boundaries of Project

XL. Today's notice clarifies the

concepts, definitions, and boundaries of

superior environmental performance,

regulatory flexibility, and stakeholder

involvement, and provides guidance on

future program management. With

today's notice, the learning opportunity

afforded by Project XL will proceed

with greater certainty and efficiency.

For projects that have already entered

the program-where final project

agreements (FPAs) are already being

developed or have been approved-the

guidance contained in this notice does

not impose new requirements or

procedures. While the guidance both on

Superior Environmental Performance

and on Flexibility present more fully

developed definitions of these criteria,

they build on approaches already being

applied to projects in development and

will generally be familiar to current XL

participants. The Stakeholder guidance

does recommend additional steps to

ensure that projects garner broad

community support. As these steps are

based on considerable up-front

decision-making within the stakeholder

group, EPA does not expect that

sponsors will be able to retroactively

implement all of these steps into

ongoing projects.

EPA seeks comment on all aspects of

this notice on an ongoing basis. The

guidance as defined in this notice is the

result of Agency experience to date and

ongoing dialogue with states, industry

and various stakeholders. As Project XL

is a continuously evolving program,

EPA intends to continue dialogue, to

receive and to review comments on the

various aspects of the program, and to

update and to revise this guidance as

necessary.

Project XL conducts projects in four

areas: facilities, sectors, federal

facilities, and communities.

Community-based projects differ

substantially from the other types of XL

projects. EPA recognized and addressed

these distinctions by issuing a separate

Federal Register notice to initiate the

XL Communities program (60 FR 55569,

November 11, 1995). In keeping with

the recognition of communities' need

for different approaches, EPA will

clarify in the near future the

applicability of this guidance to

community XL projects.

This notice also includes a general

solicitation for new proposals to Project

XL. This solicitation lays out some areas

that have been identified by the Agency

or others in the environmental

community as important to pursue in

the quest for a more efficient and

results-oriented regulatory system. EPA

intends to pursue the identification of

more specific priority areas for

regulatory reinvention and project ideas

that should help guide potential project

sponsors, and to publish a future notice

with the results. Today's notice also

solicits new ideas from parties outside

of the regulated community. The

Agency is working on a process that will

facilitate the development of ideas that

may originate from these individuals,

and will describe that process in a

future notice.

EPA encourages facility, sector or

federal facility project sponsors to

utilize this opportunity to truly reinvent

the way they conduct environmental

management. While there are many

19872

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19872 1997
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Notices

proposals that may meet the criteria for

inclusion in Project XL, EPA looks to

develop in Project XL those ideas that

introduce fundamentally different ways

of providing environmental protection

and achieving stronger environmental

results. Project XL offers good actorsenvironmental leaders and today's

average performers alike-a tremendous

opportunity to think "outside the box"

of our current system and to find

solutions to obstacles that limit

environmental performance. EPA looks

to leaders in the regulated and

environmental communities to identify

and develop dramatically different

approaches to protecting the

environment. For average performers,

XL presents an opportunity to move into

a position of environmental leadership

and to create a path for others to do the

same.

This notice includes revisions to the

process by which an idea becomes an

XL project. New emphasis is placed on

pre-proposal planning and

communication with stakeholders,

EPA's internal management of projects,

and close partnership with states. Also

outlined are definite points at which

information will be made widely

available to the public during the

project development and negotiation

processes.

Evaluation is not covered in this

notice, though it is an area that the

Agency believes is critical to Project

XL's success. Evaluation will occur at

many levels-project specific (e.g., Did

the project achieve its goals?),

functional (e.g., Did the stakeholder

process work?), process (e.g., How can

we improve the process?), and

programmatic (e.g., How do we take the

lessons learned from these experiments

and transfer the successes to improve

our current system?). Each level of

evaluation will involve collaborative

efforts on the part of the Agency, states,

other affected regulatory agencies,

project sponsors and stakeholders. In

some cases, outside groups may also be

interested in evaluating aspects of

projects or the program. At a minimum,

project agreements will contain clear

performance measures to help EPA and

interested stakeholders verify progress

with project goals, and then use the

results to find better solutions to today's

environmental management challenges.

Solicitation for New XL Project

Proposals

Today EPA is renewing its invitation,

first issued in the Federal Register on

May 23, 1995, (60 FR 27282, May 23,

1995), for regulated facilities, sectors,

and regulated federal facilities, and

interested stakeholders, to submit XL

pilot project proposals. The goal of

implementing a total of approximately

50 projects remains. To date, EPA has

approved 3 XL projects for

implementation, has proposed approval

of a fourth, and is developing 10

additional XL projects with state and

local governments, project sponsors and

stakeholders.

Potential Project Themes

EPA did not originally identify the

specific types of proposals it hoped or

expected to result from its May 23,

1995, solicitation, preferring instead to

encourage others to respond with their

own ideas. A September 11, 1996,

Federal Register notice supplemented

the general solicitation with an

invitation for projects specifically aimed

at creating innovative environmental

technologies, and EPA retains a strong

interest in proposals in this area. But the

open invitation for all proposals still

exists, and today's notice does not

change EPA's general invitation for all

kinds of ideas. Nevertheless, EPA does

wish to describe several general themes

that have been identified as important to

pursue in the context of testing

innovations for 21st century

environmental protection. Many of

these themes are based on the need to

incorporate more incentives for

pollution prevention in our system of

environmental protection:

9 Regulatory approaches that

encourage source reduction and

recycling of hazardous waste or

materials produced or used during

manufacturing or commercial

operations, and the on-site reuse of

wastes or by-products in production

processes;

* Incentives for greater or continuous

collection of emissions data,

particularly for hazardous air pollutants,

to enable performance-based approaches

and to increase public understanding;

* Approaches that minimize the

generation of wastes containing

persistent, bio-accumulative, and toxic

chemicals;

* Facility-wide emissions limits

under the Clean Air Act that also

incorporate continuous emissions

reduction;

* Enhanced systems for data

collection on employee health and

exposure to environmental pollutants to

aid company efforts to minimize workrelated health problems;

* Regulatory mechanisms to

encourage consideration of the

environment throughout the entire life

cycle of a product;

* Incorporation of environmental

stewardship in the customer and

supplier relationships of regulated

facilities; and

* A multi-media closed-loop

approach to environmental technology

development.

EPA and state environmental agencies

intend to identify more specific priority

areas and additional themes in the near

future, in an effort to inform potential

project sponsors. Efforts will be made to

seek the input of a wide range of

interested parties, including other

regulators, environmental and

environmental justice groups, trade

associations, and academic institutions

with an interest in environmental

policy. The results of these efforts will

be published in the Federal Register

and made available through other

media.

Stakeholder Initiated Projects

Today's notice reaffirms EPA's

interest in having stakeholders not

directly connected with regulated

facilities come forward with XL

proposal ideas or to co-sponsor projects

with companies. While the development

of an XL proposal is more typically

initiated by a regulated firm or cosponsoring organization, it may also be

initiated by EPA, by a state

environmental agency, or by other nonregulated parties. EPA encourages

stakeholders to bring their own ideas

forward. Those stakeholders who wish

to initiate projects may discuss the

proposal concept with EPA or the state

environmental agency; contact firms

directly to discuss proposal concepts; or

engage the assistance of EPA or the state

environmental agency in identifying

potential participants from among the

regulated community. EPA will, upon

the request of stakeholders who wish to

initiate projects, consider using its own

resources (e.g., the Federal Register and

the Agency's Project XL Internet Web

Site, www.epa.gov/ProjectXL) to

identify potential participants from

among regulated firms. Beyond its

openness to stakeholder initiated

proposals, EPA is developing a process

to solicit themes and specific ideas from

groups outside of the regulated

community, and to turn those ideas into

fruitful XL projects.

Superior Environmental Performance

In order to test innovative approaches

to reinvent environmental protection for

the 21st Century, Project XL offers

potential project sponsors and cosponsors the opportunity to develop and

implement alternative strategies that

produce superior environmental

performance, replace specific regulatory

requirements, and promote greater

accountability to stakeholders. The May

19873

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19873 1997
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Notices

23, 1995, Federal Register notice

defining the XL program stated EPA's

intent to approve only those projects

that "achieve superior environmental

performance relative to what would

have been achieved through compliance

with otherwise applicable

requirements." This notice further

refines the definition of superior

environmental performance to assist

future applicants, stakeholders and

those evaluating the program.

EPA is establishing a two tiered

assessment of superior environmental

performance for Project XL proposals.

Tier 1 is a quantitative benchmark of the

project against the environmental

performance that would have occurred

absent the program. It establishes a

baseline of equivalence from which

superior environmental performance

can be measured. A project that is not

at least equivalent, based on the factors

discussed in Tier 1, can not be

considered superior overall. Tier 2 is an

examination of factors, both quantitative

and qualitative, that lead EPA to judge

that a project will produce a superior

level of environmental performance that

merits testing the innovation being

proposed. This two tiered approach

should aid EPA and others in evaluating

proposal merits and deciding what

should or should not be tested. It is not

EPA's intent to suggest a hierarchy. Tier

1 and Tier 2 are both essential in

determining whether a project is likely

to achieve superior environmental

performance.

Parenthetical examples are included

throughout this notice. These are meant

to aid the reader in understanding the

general discussion, but not to signal

EPA's preferences or requirements for

specific XL projects.

These guidelines on superior

environmental performance reflect

EPA's experience with Project XL to

date. Because the guidelines measure

performance levels relative to today's

system of environmental regulation, the

results achieved through the use of

these guidelines will be incremental

improvements over the current system.

EPA recognizes that these guidelines

may be too limited in their definition of

superior environmental performance in

some cases, particularly where a project

involves a radical departure from our

current environmental regulatory

system. In these cases, EPA encourages

the sponsors to propose and provide a

rationale for alternative definitions of

superior environmental performance.

EPA will consider these alternatives, as

appropriate.

Tier 1: Is the Project Equivalent?

Tier 1 establishes an environmental

performance benchmark for an XL

project. This benchmark provides a

reasonable estimate of what would have

happened to the environment absent

Project XL. It quantifies current

performance levels and sets a baseline

against which the project's anticipated

environmental performance can be

compared.

These benchmarks are expressed in

terms of loadings to the environment.

The term loadings is meant by EPA to

incorporate a broad set of stressors to

the environment, such as emissions of

specific pollutants or generation of

waste streams released to the

environment by disposal.

* The project benchmark will be set

at either the current actual

environmental loadings or the future

allowable environmental loadings,

whichever is more protective.

* Where the project includes new

facilities that have not yet been built or

expansion of existing facilities for

additional production of a current

product or for new products that have

not yet been produced, the benchmark

will be set at the level of performance

generally representative of industry

practice, or the future allowable

environmental loadings for such a

facility or production process,

whichever is more protective.

* These benchmarks may be on a perunit of production basis or other

comparable measure (e.g., volume of

liquid hazardous waste generated per

unit of product), as appropriate, to

distinguish real environmental gains

relative to what would happen absent

XL from fluctuations in production.

* Except in outstanding site-specific

circumstances, voluntary measures that

are in place at the time the project is

proposed and remain in place during

the project (e.g., previous installation of

on-site wastewater treatment not for

compliance purposes) should be

included in the benchmark. This

distinction assumes that these voluntary

measures would have been in place

already and remained in place absent

XL (e.g., include in the benchmark the

effect of the pre-existing wastewater

treatment system, as long as that system

continues to operate).

EPA will also seek to benchmark the

project from a pollution prevention

perspective. While other Tier 1

benchmarks are expressed in terms of

loadings to the environment, this

benchmark may be expressed in terms

of inputs to production (e.g., use of toxic

chemicals, fresh water, or other natural

resources). EPA will be most interested

in inputs of specific environmental and/

or stakeholder concern. EPA will

compare the project's use of those

inputs against the volume of the inputs

that would be used absent Project XL.

This attention to pollution prevention is

meant to encourage projects that reduce

the use of materials of environmental or

public health concern, as well as

projects that reduce ultimate loadings to

the environment.

The project will be benchmarked

against each environmental loading in

each environmental medium (e.g., air,

water, land). However, EPA will

consider projects involving tradeoffs

among loadings as part of a test of

innovative environmental management.

These projects may exceed the

appropriate benchmark for one loading

but fall short of it for another. To

address the imprecision inherent in

evaluating tradeoffs among

environmental loadings and

environmental media, projects of this

type should demonstrate, with an

adequate margin of safety, overall

superior environmental performance

over what would be achieved absent XL.

Benefits should be measurable through

an analytic methodology acceptable to

regulatory agencies and to stakeholders.

EPA will not approve projects that

threaten ecological health or risk-based

environmental standards (e.g., Water

Quality Standards).

Tradeoffs may be allowed among

different loadings that contribute to a

single environmental outcome (e.g.,

VOC and NOx emissions contributing to

smog formation). In this case, project

sponsors should evaluate the tradeoff

using the best available analytic

methodology. In these evaluations,

however, project sponsors should

consider the risk or benefits arising from

situations in which one of these

loadings might also contribute to other

environmental outcomes (e.g., VOC

emissions that also contain hazardous

air pollutants).

Tradeoffs may also be allowed among

different loadings that produce different

environmental outcomes (e.g., waste

minimization technology that reduces

hazardous waste incineration but

increases waterborne pollutant

discharge) where there is a

demonstrable net benefit to public

health and the environment. Project

sponsors should clearly define the

various environmental outcomes and

the project's effect on them. A project

involving such tradeoffs may pose

challenges beyond analytics. EPA will

not approve projects that create a

shifting of risk burden (e.g., diversion of

hazardous air pollutant emissions from

stacks to the work area, or lower net

19874

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19874 1997
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Notices

level of remediation at a waste disposal

site in a low income community). To the

contrary, in entertaining projects that

incorporate tradeoffs, it is EPA's intent

to produce clear risk reduction.

Tier 2: Superior Environmental

Performance

Tier 2 is an examination of factors

that lead EPA to judge that a project will

produce truly superior environmental

performance. Although the weighting of

factors in Tier 2 is necessarily

subjective, the factors themselves

should be expressed in quantitative

terms wherever possible. Tier 2 factors

include, but are not limited to:

* The increment by which the project

exceeds the appropriate Tier 1

benchmarks.

* Pollution prevention upstream from

end-of-pipe releases (e.g., a project that

alters production processes to eliminate

the need for toxic ingredients, instead of

just disposing of toxic waste created).

* Environmental performance more

protective than the best performance

practices of facilities with comparable

products or processes (e.g., closed loop

production at a steel mill).

* Incorporation of continuous

improvement towards ambitious

quantitative environmental aspirations

(e.g., project with a zero emissions goal).

* The extent to which the project

produces clear reduction of risk.

* Historic demonstration of

leadership in environmental

performance of the facility (e.g., through

voluntary measures taken prior to XL).

* Improvement in environmental

conditions that are priorities to

stakeholders, including issues not

governed by EPA rules (e.g., habitat

preservation, green space, parks or other

protected areas, odors, noise).

* The extent to which the project

substantially addresses community and

public health priorities of concern to

stakeholders, including issues not

governed by EPA rules (e.g.,

identification of community health

patterns, employee safety issues beyond

those regulated by EPA).

Where projects involve areas

regulated by agencies other than EPA or

state environmental agencies, those

other agencies should be brought into

the process.

Accountability for Environmental

Performance

Project documents should clearly

distinguish among the different ways in

which facilities may be held

accountable for commitments to

superior environmental performance.

There are two broad types of

accountable commitments: enforceable

commitments and voluntary

commitments. These should not be

confused with broader corporate

aspirations, which may be ambitious

and set without prior knowledge of the

means to achieve them.

* Enforceable commitments are those

levels of performance which can be

compelled by government. Failure to

achieve these commitments constitutes

grounds for government or citizen

enforcement action, with all of the

remedies generally available absent

Project XL. XL Projects redefine

compliance on a site-specific basis, and

EPA will ensure a level of enforceability

that is, in its own judgment, at least

equivalent to the level which would be

achieved absent the project. Each

project will have an enforceable

component, described in the final

project agreement (FPA), but also

contained in a legally binding

document, such as a permit, rulemaking, or administrative order.

* Voluntary commitments are those

for which a facility may be held

accountable through means other than

injunctive relief, penalty or other

conventional legal enforcement action.

Failure to achieve these commitments is

an appropriate basis for termination or

modification of the XL project.

Voluntary commitments will be

contained in the FPA, which is not itself

legally binding on the parties.

Accordingly, both the FPA and

associated legal implementing

mechanisms should reserve EPA's

discretion to terminate a project and to

return the facility to compliance with

otherwise applicable requirements

where voluntary commitments have not

been met.

Accountability for commitmentswhether enforceable or voluntary-is

most effective where project goals and

results are transparent. Projects should

include mechanisms to provide

government and stakeholders with

access to data sufficient to verify

whether commitments have been met.

In making decisions related to Project

XL and other matters, EPA relies upon

the statements and representations

made by project sponsors. Federal laws

intended to ensure the accuracy and

truth of such statements apply. Project

sponsors should know that failure to

meet commitments or failure to act in

good faith in reporting related to these

commitments, will draw a strong

response from the Agency.

The type of accountability appropriate

for a particular commitment should be

discussed within a project's stakeholder

process and incorporated into the FPA.

There may be cases, for example, where

stakeholders believe that a particular

commitment is critical to the success of

a project and may wish accountability

for that commitment to reflect this (e.g.,

by more detailed reporting of a

voluntary commitment, or by

incorporating that commitment into the

enforceable component of the project).

Project XL is intended for good actors.

Those companies and facilities with a

history of violations of enforceable

commitments pose additional issues to

be factored into consideration of XL

proposals and projects. EPA generally

will not approve XL projects for

facilities that are the subject of an ongoing enforcement action unless the

facility resolves outstanding compliance

issues (e.g., through payment of

penalties and, where applicable,

completion of all injunctive relief and

obligations under an administrative

order or judicial decree) before

participating in Project XL.

Occasionally, a past or ongoing

violation may be discovered in the

course of project development. Such

violations, if discovered and reported by

the project sponsor during the course of

project development, will be handled in

accordance with EPA's Audit Policy.

Finally, enforceable and voluntary

commitments should not be confused

with corporate aspirations. Corporate

aspirations are not commitments for

which a facility should expect to be

held accountable through government

action or citizen enforcement. However,

ambitious corporate aspirations (e.g.,

zero content of a priority pollutant in a

facility's effluent, 100% reclamation of

a raw material, or elimination of a

potential toxic from use in production)

are important drivers for superior

environmental performance and will be

assessed accordingly by EPA in the

context of Tier 2, as discussed above.

Corporate aspirations will be contained

in the FPA as part of the project

description and as elements that help to

make up the project's superior

environmental performance, but should

be clearly distinguished from

accountable commitments.

Historic Voluntary Controls

These guidelines aim to ensure that

XL projects will achieve a better

environmental outcome in the future

than would have occurred absent the

program. EPA recognizes, however, that

future progress is often built on a

foundation of historic environmental

leadership. Many of the facilities that

will participate in XL have already

taken voluntary measures to achieve a

level of environmental performance far

better than is required by applicable

regulations. EPA wishes here to offer

guidance on the treatment of these pre19875

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19875 1997
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Notices

existing voluntary measures in the

context of evaluating the environmental

performance of an XL project.

In the Tier 1 analysis discussed above,

EPA seeks to benchmark the XL project

against a reasonable estimate of what

would have happened to the

environment in its absence. In general,

pre-existing voluntary measures should

be included in this benchmark. EPA

believes it reasonable to assume that

voluntary measures that are in place at

the time a project is proposed and

remain in place during the project's life

would also have remained in place

without the project. The alternative

assumption-that pre-existing voluntary

measures are creditable to the XL

project itself-could create a bank

account from which a company could

draw, potentially resulting in a lower

level of environmental performance.

However, in outstanding site-specific

circumstances, the potential negative

effects of crediting a pre-existing

voluntary measure to the XL project

may be outweighed by other positive

elements of superior environmental

performance contained in the XL project

(e.g., where a credit provided for

performance in one environmental area

is more than outweighed by superior

performance in another area). In these

cases, EPA would consider crediting the

pre-existing voluntary control to the XL

project.

In the Tier 2 analysis discussed above,

EPA seeks to determine whether the net

environmental performance achieved by

the project beyond its benchmark is

superior. Pre-existing voluntary

measures play an important role in this

determination. For example, facilities

that have not implemented significant

voluntary measures to control pollution

prior to XL should be able to achieve a

far greater environmental improvement

via XL than those facilities that have

implemented such measures. Facilities

in the latter category may not be able to

achieve additional improvements

through end-of-pipe controls and may,

thus, look to innovative, but untested,

pollution prevention and technology

strategies for additional environmental

improvements. EPA recognizes the need

to accommodate the uncertainties

inherent in these strategies in project

design.

Regulatory Flexibility

In order to test innovative approaches

to reinvent environmental protection for

the 21st Century, Project XL offers

project sponsors and co-sponsors the

opportunity to develop and implement

alternative strategies that produce

superior environmental performance,

replace specific regulatory

requirements, and promote greater

accountability to stakeholders. This

notice discusses further the ways in

which the regulatory flexibility

available in XL can enhance operations

at participating facilities, to assist future

applicants, stakeholders and those

evaluating the program.

Regulatory flexibility and its potential

to reduce costs and improve the

operating efficiency of facilities is the

principal reason for firms to voluntarily

participate in Project XL. The success of

Project XL depends on providing to

participating regulated firms incentives

that are significant and tangible. Projects

that test truly innovative alternative

strategies for environmental protection

will in many cases require regulatory

flexibility to overcome barriers to

achieving objectives. Such flexibility

will be necessary to create the

opportunity for superior environmental

performance, stakeholder accountability

and other benefits. Where a project

meets the other XL decision criteria,

EPA will aggressively offer flexibility

needed to produce superior

environmental performance and

promote greater accountability to

stakeholders.

Sponsors should articulate the link in

their project between the flexibility

sought, the superior environmental

performance expected, and other

benefits. Where that link is strong (i.e.,

where flexibility and other benefits are

factually or legally linked) the project's

ideas are more likely to be applicable at

other sites. The closer the factual link

between the requested flexibility and

anticipated environmental benefits, the

more likely EPA is to approve the

project. Recognizing the experimental

nature of Project XL, EPA will use tools

that ensure project sponsors who

operate in good faith a smooth transition

back to the traditional regulatory

system, where projects do not meet

expectations.

Tools for Creating Flexibility

EPA and state regulators have the

tools under existing authority to provide

appropriate flexibility from otherwise

applicable regulatory requirements.

These tools include alternative permits

and existing waiver mechanisms,

generally applicable interpretive

statements, and site-specific rules that

replace otherwise applicable

requirements. Other tools may be

identified as projects are developed.

Ultimately, however, the selection and

development of flexibility tools requires

a case-by-case assessment.

The tools noted above provide a firm

legal foundation for XL projects in cases

where project sponsors, government and

stakeholders construct a project that

produces superior environmental

performance, promotes greater

accountability to stakeholders, and

meets the other XL decision criteria.

These tools are strongest when tailored

to be only as broad as needed for

implementing the project terms.

Flexibility provided in XL projects

establishes new conditions that must be

met by participating facilities. As

discussed above, some, if not all, of

these conditions will be legally binding

and enforceable requirements. EPA and

state environmental agencies will select

tools that ensure that project sponsors,

in exchange for meeting these new

requirements, have protection from

liability for non-compliance with

previously and otherwise applicable

requirements replaced by XL actions.

Specific statutory provisions may

limit the scope of flexibility available to

certain XL projects. To date, however,

this concern generally has not been a

real barrier to implementation of

projects that meet the XL decision

criteria.

Selection of Flexibility Tools for Specific

Projects

The need to select tools to fit the

conditions of a project is secondary to

the creation of the project itself. Project

sponsors and stakeholders, along with

regulators, should first develop a project

that incorporates superior

environmental performance, flexibility

and stakeholder accountability, and

then seek tools that authorize the project

they have created.

EPA has developed a hierarchy for the

selection of flexibility tools to fit the

conditions of a project. Investigation of

tools should begin with exploration of

the full range of discretion and

flexibility available under the

combination of existing federal and state

regulatory and statutory mechanisms.

Options may include use of existing

statutory and regulatory variance and

waiver mechanisms, deviation from

existing practices and policies to the

extent permitted by statute and

regulation, flexible interpretations of

regulatory requirements, and other such

regulatory and statutory mechanisms.

Under these kinds of approaches, some

projects may be implemented, in whole

or in part, through permit modifications

or the issuance of new permits

incorporating the terms of the project.

EPA expects that the flexibility tools

needed for many projects will not be

found within the range of discretion

afforded by existing federal and state

regulatory mechanisms. In these cases,

site specific rule-making, which can

authorize projects that do not fit within

19876

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19876 1997
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Notices

existing regulatory requirements, should

be explored. EPA wishes to emphasize

that the creation of a site-specific rule

need not delay a project or create

additional resource burdens for project

sponsors or stakeholders. The legal

steps required in rule-making (e.g.,

public notice and comment) are already

part of XL project development, whether

or not a site-specific rule is used. The

other formal steps typically encountered

in national rule making (e.g., EPA's

standard regulatory development

process and review by the Office of

Management and Budget) have been

modified or tailored to fit the needs of

Project XL.

EPA recognizes the possibility that

specific statutory provisions may limit

the scope of flexibility available to

certain XL projects by limiting the

authority of EPA or the states to

promulgate site-specific rules. These

situations must be addressed on a caseby-case basis among project sponsors,

stakeholders and regulators. Options

include modification of the project to

avoid these issues and the use of

carefully tailored compliance

mechanisms.

Value of Flexibility

Firms participate in XL for many

reasons. However, in general, firms that

successfully develop and implement XL

projects utilize the flexibility offered by

the program to reap financial,

competitive, and community benefits.

The flexibility available to facilities in

XL creates real cost savings and

opportunities to use environmental

budgets efficiently. By implementing

performance standards in lieu of other

requirements, for example, XL lowers

the cost of pollution control by giving a

facility the ability to choose the most

cost effective means of achieving those

standards. XL performance standards

and other innovations can act in lieu of

pre-construction or other permit

reviews, speeding new products to

market and giving participating firms a

leg up in an increasingly time-driven

business environment. XL projects that

remove the barriers to recycling of

metals or reuse of chemicals allow firms

to recoup their value as useful products,

avoid disposal costs and potential

environmental liabilities. Streamlined

reporting requirements reduce

administrative overhead.

XL also strengthens participating

firms' competitive position in other

ways. XL participants are helping to

define a regulatory system for the 21st

Century, a system designed to meet their

needs as well as those of the

environment and communities. These

firms will be in a better position to

respond as the innovations tested in XL

are implemented more broadly, and to

anticipate or suggest future changes.

The regulatory innovations developed

through XL support and encourage

pollution prevention and technological

innovation at participating facilities by

giving firms greater flexibility to

experiment and reducing barriers to

trying new technology. New

technologies may reduce compliance

costs or create new market opportunities

for their developers. XL may, for

example, remove regulatory barriers to

the marketing of goods created through

pollution prevention or recycling.

Participation in XL strengthens the

community ties of participating firms,

creating a basis in trust for resolution of

other conflicts that may arise in or

outside of the context of environmental

regulation. XL firms typically enter the

program with strong environmental

reputations from which to build.

However, the extensive interaction of

community and facility representatives

in the course of XL project development

may help both groups forge real and

informed trust. The regulatory flexibility

offered in XL creates an opportunity to

make community participation more

meaningful, for example, by allowing

firms to redesign reporting mechanisms

in ways that enhance community

understanding and trust, or by

permitting a new kind of public

involvement that is more substantive

than conventional processes.

Other incentives for participation in

XL are case-specific. For example, firms

may gain favorable tax treatment for

certain environmental control or

pollution prevention expenditures made

in the context of Project XL. In other

cases, firms may reduce their health

care costs by creating an XL project that

better identifies and eliminates

environmentally connected work force

health concerns.

EPA encourages firms to view the

flexibility afforded by XL as an

opportunity to create real incentives for

environmental improvement, whether

they be financial, competitive,

technological, community-related, or

otherwise.

Stakeholder Involvement

In order to test innovative approaches

to reinvent environmental protection for

the 21st Century, Project XL offers

potential project sponsors and cosponsors the opportunity to develop and

implement alternative strategies that

produce superior environmental

performance, replace specific regulatory

requirements, and promote greater

accountability to stakeholders. The May

23, 1995, Federal Register notice

defining the XL program made clear that

an important factor in EPA's approval of

projects is "the extent to which project

proponents have sought and achieved

the support of parties that have a stake

in the environmental impacts of the

project." Stakeholders were defined as

including "communities near the

project, local or state governments,

businesses, environmental and other

public interest groups, or other similar

entities." This definition includes both

those stakeholders in the proximity of

the project and those stakeholders

interested in the broader

implementation of the concepts being

tested in the project, such as state,

regional or national environmental

groups. In today's notice, EPA offers

guidelines on meeting the stakeholder

involvement criterion to assist future

applicants, stakeholders and those

evaluating the program.

Stakeholder involvement is critical to

the success of each XL project.

Stakeholders provide information about

the preferences of the community. They

may identify issues that have escaped

the notice of project sponsors and

regulators. And stakeholder support is

essential if the knowledge gained in

facility-based experiments is to be

transferred to the generally applicable

system of environmental protection. An

effective process for stakeholder

involvement is an acknowledgment that

today's regulators and regulated

community do not have a monopoly on

the best ideas for tomorrow's system of

environmental protection.

In this notice, stakeholders are

grouped into three categories, each with

a distinct role in project development

and implementation. Those

stakeholders interested in the broader

implementation of the concepts being

tested in the project, as well as those

stakeholders in the local community or

directly affected by the project, should

have the opportunity to place

themselves in any one of these three

categories. Direct participants in project

development work intensively with

project sponsors to build a project from

the ground up. The views of direct

participant stakeholders will strongly

influence the details of the project as

well as EPA's ultimate decision to

approve or not to approve the project.

Commentors have an interest in the

project, but not the desire to participate

as intensively in its development. The

project development process should

inform and be informed by commentors

on a periodic basis. The views of

informed commentors are a strong

indicator of the broad potential for

wider applicability of the innovation

being tested in a project. Members of the

19877

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19877 1997
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Notices

generalpublic should have easy access

both to the project development process

and to information about the

environmental results of the project

once it is implemented, and should

have the ability to participate more

actively if they so choose. Actions for

involvement of each of these three

categories of stakeholders at each step in

the process-from pre-proposal to

implementation of an FPA-are

discussed here.

Over and above these three categories

of stakeholder involvement, EPA

strongly encourages firms and

established non-governmental

organizations to partner as co-sponsors

of XL projects. For example, a firm and

a state citizens group may join together

and propose an XL project to EPA and

the state environmental agency. Cosponsors are distinct from the three

categories of stakeholders described

above and discussed in this notice, and

co-sponsorship has many advantages

over individually sponsored projects.

The participation of the non-regulated

partner lends credibility to the broader

stakeholder involvement process

discussed in this notice. It also builds

the capacity of non-governmental

organizations and industry to work

directly with each other. This notice

does not discuss the relationship among

project sponsors in a co-sponsorship

situation, but rather details EPA's

expectations with regard to the

involvement of a broader group of

stakeholders beyond the project

sponsors themselves.

Pre-Proposal Activities

Project sponsors should do as much

groundwork as possible to engage

appropriate stakeholders before formally

proposing an XL project to EPA. There

are four actions project sponsors should

take at this step in the process:

* Gain from EPA, the relevant state,

tribal, local, or other regulatory agencies

their support of the proposal and their

commitment to participate in project

development;

* Develop as part of the proposal

itself a stakeholder involvement plan

consistent with the guidance contained

in this document;

* Identify and contact potential direct

participants to gain their commitment to

participate early in potential project

development; these direct participants

may be stakeholders already known to

the project sponsor or may be identified

through referrals (e.g., through

environmental interest group networks);

and

* Identify and contact potential

comm entors on the proposal.

Stakeholder Initiated Proposals

While the development of an XL

proposal is more typically initiated by a

regulated firm or co-sponsoring nongovernmental organization, it may also

be initiated by stakeholders themselves,

by EPA, or by a state environmental

agency. EPA encourages stakeholders to

bring their ideas forward. Stakeholders

who wish to initiate projects may:

* Discuss the proposal concept with

EPA or the state environmental agency;

* Contact firms directly to discuss

proposal concepts; or

* Engage the assistance of EPA or

state environmental agency in broadly

soliciting potential participants from

among regulated firms.

EPA will, upon the request of

stakeholders who wish to initiate

projects, consider using its own

resources (e.g., the Web site and Federal

Register) to broadly solicit potential

participants from among regulated

firms. However, to be considered by

EPA, a formal XL proposal must

ultimately include the voluntary

participation of the owner or operator of

facilities addressed in the proposal.

Proposal Development

Once received by EPA, XL proposals

enter the proposal development stage.

During this stage, EPA and state

environmental agencies determine

whether a proposal should advance as

an XL project, advance in some other

forum, or not advance at all.

The first step in proposal

development is an intake process, in

which EPA determines whether a

proposal is within the scope of Project

XL based on the eight XL proposal

selection criteria as refined in this

notice. If the answer is yes, EPA

consults with the appropriate state

environmental agency, forms an internal

proposal review team consisting of

regional and headquarters staff, and

immediately places the following

information on EPA's Project XL Web

site to inform stakeholders of the

proposal:

* The full proposal, including the

stakeholder involvement plan; and

* The names and contact information

for the EPA regional and headquarters

project leads and project sponsor leads.

The second step in proposal

development is an effort by the EPA

proposal team to analyze, in

consultation with the state

environmental agency, the merits of the

proposal, including its stakeholder plan.

During this step, EPA will generally

provide feedback to the project

sponsors. Stakeholders aware of the

proposal at this early stage may:

* Contact the project sponsors

directly, or contact EPA project leads

via phone, electronic mail, or the Web

site with pertinent questions or other

feedback for the project sponsors; and

* Contact the project sponsors to

express interest in becoming a direct

participant or a commentor, should the

proposal move forward and become a

project.

EPA will then transmit its own

findings and questions, in addition to

stakeholder feedback, to the project

sponsors and make them available on

the Web site. The project sponsors'

response to feedback may be in the form

of a revised proposal, answers to

questions, or withdrawal of the

proposal. In developing their response,

the project sponsors should confer with

the stakeholders whom they have

identified, particularly direct

participants. EPA will post the project

sponsors' response to feedback on its

Web site.

Based on its assessment of the

information provided up to this point by

the project sponsors, with special

attention given to the issues raised by

stakeholders, and in consultation with

the state environmental agency, EPA

will decide whether a proposal should

advance as an XL project. EPA will

notify the project sponsor and post its

decision on the Web site.

Project Development

A proposal that advances is described

as an XL project, and enters the project

or FPA development stage. FPAs are

developed through a sponsor-led

process of dialogue and negotiation

among states, sponsors, EPA, and

stakeholders who are direct

participants. That process is made

visible and accessible so as to invite

response from commentors while

informing the general public.

Further Identification of Stakeholders

The first step in the FPA development

process is to notify the generalpublic of

the project and more formally invite

stakeholders to become direct

participants or commentors. The project

sponsors should:

9 Notify the general public via local

media of their intent to develop an FPA

and invite direct participants to identify

themselves within a set time period

(e.g., 30 days); (The public notice

should include a brief description of the

project, including the stakeholder plan,

and the name and contact information

for a person in the sponsors'

organization, at the state environmental

agency, and at EPA);

* Make special efforts to recruit:

19878

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19878 1997
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Notices

-Potential direct participants and

commentors from among

economically disadvantaged

stakeholders and among stakeholders

most directly affected by the

environmental and health impacts of

the project;

-Potential direct participants and

commentors who have specific

interest or expertise in the issues

addressed in the project from among

the national environmental and

environmental justice communities

and the industry segment of which

the facility is a part; and

-Potential direct participants and

commentors from among participating

facilities' non-managerial employees.

Stakeholders should be aware that

direct participation in an XL project

involves a substantial personal

commitment of time and energy,

requiring consistent attendance at

meetings, a willingness to abide by the

agreed upon process, and intensive

work over the project development

period. EPA encourages direct

participant stakeholders to seek input

from others in their work on project

development. However, stakeholders are

not expected to represent larger social,

economic or demographic groups except

in cases where they are authorized to do

so.

In general, all stakeholders who

express a timely desire to be direct

participants and understand the

commitment involved should be given

the opportunity to do so. However, there

may be a need for project sponsors to

limit the number of direct participants

(e.g., to maintain a balanced or workable

process). EPA will not determine the

membership of the group of direct

participants, but may advise sponsors of

whether it believes the group as

assembled is consistent with the

guidance contained in this document.

Team Training

Once direct participants have been

identified, EPA encourages project

sponsors to discuss with them the need

for team training at the outset of project

development activities. Where training

has been requested by direct participant

stakeholder groups, the project sponsors

should:

* Provide training to direct

participants on the technical issues

addressed in the project, including the

overall environmental and health

impacts of the test facility; and

* Provide training to sponsors' own

representatives and to direct

participants on meaningful

participation in a collaborative process,

such as XL project development, with

special emphasis on addressing the

issues of concern to the local

community, to members of minority

communities and to non-managerial

employees; and

* Permit EPA and state

environmental agency representatives to

participate in these training

opportunities.

As added assurance that direct

participants have an opportunity for

meaningful participation, EPA will

make its own expertise available for the

purpose of team training in the

technical issues addressed in the project

and in participation in collaborative

processes. EPA strongly encourages

state environmental agencies to do the

same.

Ground Rules

Ground rules are the first order of

business before proceeding with the

project development process. The

project sponsors may propose ground

rules in the stakeholder plan. Before

beginning, direct participant

stakeholders and the project sponsors

should agree on a set of ground rules to

guide project development. All effort

should be made to create ground rules

that are generally acceptable to direct

participant stakeholders.

EPA encourages examination of the

"Model Plan for Public Participation"

developed by its National

Environmental Justice Advisory

Council, as ground rules are developed

that:

* Define the relationship of direct

participant stakeholders, as individuals

and as a group, with respect to the

project sponsors (e.g., advisory,

consultative, or decision-making);

* Clarify how and whether direct

participant stakeholders will decide on

group views (e.g., by consensus,

majority vote, or sub-group consensus);

* Determine whether direct

participant stakeholders, as individuals

or groups, would sign the FPA;

* Agree on time lines for the

development of the project as a whole

and for appropriate short-term

milestones;

* Contain a process for documenting

proceedings and decisions, including

dissenting opinions;

* Contain a process for changes in

membership to the direct participant

group as needed or desired;

* Determine how the project

development process will be managed,

including whether a third-party

facilitator is desirable (EPA encourages

the use of neutral, local third-party

facilitators);

* Decide and document how the

project development process will reach

out to educate commentors and the

generalpublic beyond the means

discussed in this notice (e.g., when and

how to notify these groups of the

significant milestones in project

development, beyond the specific points

for notification discussed in this

document); and

* Establish procedures for

participation and involvement of the

general public in the process.

Because XL projects and the

circumstances that affect them (e.g.,

stakeholder, demographic, geographic,

ecosystem, economic, community

concerns) differ, there can be no single

model stakeholder involvement process

that is appropriate for all projects.

Attention to the ground rules by all

participants is vital to ensuring that the

project development process is

appropriate to the circumstances.

Ground Rules on Authority of Direct

Participants With Respect to the Project

Sponsors

As discussed above, the authority of

direct participant stakeholders should

be determined at the outset by the

stakeholders themselves, along with the

project sponsors. In some cases, the

authority of stakeholders will be

consultative in nature. In others, there

will be a desire to provide direct

participant stakeholders with greater

authority over project sponsor's

decisions. Project sponsors and direct

participant stakeholders should agree at

the outset on whether stakeholders,

individually or as a group, have the

ultimate ability to veto project sponsors'

plans.

Importance of Stakeholder Views in

EPA 's Decision to Approve or

Disapprove a Project

EPA maintains its authority to

ultimately approve or disapprove an XL

project. However, EPA wishes here to

offer guidance on the influence that

final stakeholder decisions on a

project's desirability have on its own

decisions to approve or disapprove an

XL project.

As stated in the May 23, 1995,

Federal Register, an XL final project

agreement must be approved by EPA,

the state environmental agency, and the

project sponsors in order to be

implemented. EPA's own decisions are

very directly affected by the views of

direct participant stakeholder groups.

These individuals, more so than other

members of the general public or even

commentors, will have examined the

project in all its detail. The expression

of support for a project by its direct

participant stakeholder group is among

the strongest possible indicators of

broad community support for that

19879

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19879 1997
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Notices

project. Where a direct participant

stakeholder group has the ability to veto

a project sponsor's plans, and exercises

its veto, EPA will generally conclude

that the project has not achieved broad

community support, and thus will not

approve the project. Even in cases

where the ground rules vest a direct

participant stakeholder group with

strictly consultative authority over the

project sponsor's plans, or where the

views of the group are not expressed in

terms of acceptance or rejection, EPA

will give significant weight to the views

of these direct participants in

determining whether the project has

broad community support.

However, as stated above, EPA will

not delegate its authority to approve or

disapprove an XL FPA. That is to say,

EPA will not approve or disapprove an

FPA based solely on the support of a

direct participant stakeholder group or

other party.

Ground Rules for Communicating to

Commentors and the General Public

EPA encourages project sponsors and

direct participant stakeholders to

develop ground rules that promote an

open and inclusive project development

process. For example, EPA encourages

an approach in which all meetings are

accessible in some form to members of

the general public who express an

interest in observing the process. For its

part, EPA will:

* Make available updated drafts of

the FPA and related documents on its

Web site and in the administrative

record (the comprehensive record

maintained by EPA to document the

history of all input and decisions

impacting the project since it was

submitted as a proposal);

* Make available any other materials

requested by the project sponsors, direct

participants, or state environmental

agency, except confidential business

information, on its Web site and in the

administrative record;

* Notify commentors directly of the

availability of this material;

* Convey to the project sponsors,

direct participants, and the state

environmental agency any comments it

receives during the project development

process, and post pertinent comments

on its Web site and in the administrative

record; and

* Respond, on its own behalf and for

the record, to significant comments

(those comments specifically impacting

EPA management or decision-making).

Access to Information

All documents provided to EPA in the

context of Project XL, with the

exception of confidential business

information, are in the domain of the

general public. Readers should note in

these guidelines EPA's intent to use its

Project XL Web site on the Internet as

the primary but not sole means of

disseminating information for which it

is responsible. The Web site is not only

a repository of information, but has the

capability to notify interested

stakeholders electronically when new

information of relevance to them is

posted.

These guidelines specifically identify

points where use of local media and/or

the Federal Register is appropriate. For

those who do not have Internet access,

the information maintained on the Web

site is available in several other formats.

As noted above, EPA maintains an

administrative record that includes hard

copies of all materials referenced in

these guidelines. (The record can be

accessed by contacting Lutithia Barbee

of EPA at 202-260-2220). Most

materials referenced in these guidelines

are also available through the Project XL

fax-on-demand line (202 260-8950).

EPA will make every effort within the

constraints of available resources to

provide interested citizens with the

easiest possible means of access to XLrelated documents.

Closure

The final stage in the project

development process is closure. An FPA

is not approved until signed by EPA, the

state environmental agency and the

project sponsor, and by direct

participants where provided for in the

ground rules.

The first step in EPA's own closure

process is an internal concurrence. To

make com mentors and the general

public aware that the project has

reached this stage, EPA will:

* Make the final draft available

through its Web site and in the

administrative record; and

* Indicate on the Web site that this

draft is being circulated within EPA for

formal concurrence; and

* Convene-at the request of a project

sponsor, direct participant stakeholder,

corn mentor, or the state environmental

agency-a meeting of these groups to

discuss the project, hear views of

individual direct participants or

commentors, and provide feedback.

As stated in the May 23, 1995,

Federal Register notice, EPA will not

approve a project that does not have the

support of the relevant state

environmental agency. EPA also

recognizes the possibility that it might

disapprove of a project that has the

support of the state environmental

agency. In either case, EPA and the state

environmental agency will consult with

each other prior to making their final

decision, in an effort to reach consensus

among regulators at all levels of

government.

Where formal concurrence within

EPA has been achieved, and where the

project has gained the support of the

state environmental agency, project

sponsors, and direct participants (as

discussed above), the agreement is

known as a "proposed" FPA. At this

stage, EPA will:

* Make the proposed FPA available

through its Web site and in the

administrative record;

* Notify commentors of the

availability of reviewable material;

* Issue the FPA for a thirty-day local

notice and comment period for the

generalpublic;

* Publish in the Federal Register a

notice of availability, briefly describing

the project, and providing instructions

for receiving a copy of the proposed

FPA; and

* In appropriate situations, publish in

the Federal Register for notice and

comment any proposed site-specific

rulemaking associated with an FPA, or

conduct public notice as appropriate for

any permitting action associated with an

FPA.

As part of its final decision to approve

(or disapprove) an FPA, EPA will

respond for the record to all significant

comments received during the notice

process. In developing its response to

comments, EPA will:

* Share comments received with the

project sponsor, state environmental

agency, and direct participants;

* Discuss with those parties the

changes made to the FPA, permit, sitespecific rule, or other documents to

address public comments;

* Consider fully the public comments

and changes made to the FPA and other

documents to address public comments

in making its final decision to approve

(or disapprove) an FPA; and

* Post on the Web site the changes

made to the FPA and other documents

to address public comments, its own

response to comments, and any

additional responses prepared by the

project sponsors, state environmental

agency, or direct participant

stakeholders.

Implementation and Evaluation

Once approved, a project enters its

implementation stage. During this stage,

the project is monitored for compliance

with the terms of the FPA and

associated documents, and evaluated for

lessons that can be transferred to the

more generally applicable system of

environmental regulation and applied to

improve the XL program itself. While

19880

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19880 1997
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Notices

this notice does not provide substantial

guidance on the role of stakeholders in

project implementation and evaluation,

EPA wishes to emphasize points that

were made on this topic in the Federal

Register notice that originally

announced Project XL.

As stated in the May, 23, 1995,

Federal Register notice,

project proponents should identify [in the

FPA] how to make information about the

project, including performance data,

available to stakeholders in a form that is

easily understandable. Projects should have

clear objectives and requirements that will be

measurable in order to allow EPA and the

public to evaluate the success of the project

and enforce its terms. (60 FR 27282, May 23,

1995)

EPA recommends that the FPA

delineate the intended role of

stakeholders during the implementation

and evaluation of the project. The FPA

may, for example, provide for reexamination or periodic evaluation of

the project by direct participant

stakeholders.

Independent Technical Assistance to

Direct Participant Stakeholder Groups

EPA has recognized its responsibility

to ensure meaningful participation in

the stakeholder process, and, in some

cases, has provided support (e.g., by

making available facilitation services,

and by distributing and making

available information about project

development).

EPA wishes to offer here guidance on

its ability to support technical

assistance. Beyond making available its

own technical expertise, EPA looks to

project sponsors to provide assistance in

understanding and evaluating technical

issues surrounding a specific project.

EPA recognizes that, in some cases,

there will be a need for the Agency to

offer some additional support for

technical assistance to direct participant

stakeholder groups. To that end, the

Agency is committing to provide up to

$25,000 per project in order to assure

that necessary technical assistance is

available to support meaningful

stakeholder involvement. These funds

will be made available on a task-specific

basis and will not be in the form of

grants to direct stakeholder groups.

These funds may be used in project

development, implementation or

evaluation.

Technical assistance needs must be

determined within the direct participant

stakeholder process described in this

notice. Stakeholder needs should be

examined carefully and fully. The best

means of meeting those needs should be

identified by the direct participant

stakeholder group as a whole. Project

sponsors as well as regulators should

participate in these discussions and

have the chance to provide input on

how the necessary technical services

can be provided. Requests for technical

assistance must come from the direct

participant stakeholder group rather

than from individuals. Technical

assistance funds are not available to

address strictly individual needs. In

order to build trust and local capacity,

local resources should always be

explored as both the source of expertise

and the financial means of obtaining

technical services. These options should

be explored before EPA funds are sought

for the provision of technical assistance.

When it is necessary to utilize EPA

funds to obtain assistance, appropriate

financial management controls must be

in place to assure the most focused, cost

effective and accountable use of

taxpayer dollars. Resources for

assistance will not be given directly to

stakeholder groups, but will be made

available to identified experts for a

specific assistance activity. The Agency

may choose to utilize a variety of

approaches to access either local

expertise or experts agreeable to the

direct participant stakeholder group.

These include cooperative agreements

to local and state regulators or other

procurement options available to the

federal government.

As an example of an innovative

approach to providing technical

assistance, EPA is exploring the creation

of a public/private partnership to

handle technical assistance requests

from direct participant stakeholder

groups. In this partnership, EPA, other

regulatory agencies, potential project

sponsors, trade associations, non-profit

organizations and other interested

parties would provide resources to a

neutral third party which would in turn

manage and fulfill technical assistance

requests. This neutral third party would

be guided by a partnership of EPA, state

environmental agencies, national

stakeholder groups, and other parties

that provide resources to the

partnership, in terms of what type of

assistance should be available, who

could provide assistance when no local

experts are known, and at what cost.

Regardless of the mechanism used by

EPA to fund technical assistance

requests, the goal will always be to

ensure that specific, objective expertise

is available, when necessary, and is

provided in a credible fashion that

preserves and fosters the integrity of a

meaningful stakeholder involvement

process.

Proposal and Project Development

Process

The May 23, 1995, Federal Register

notice that announced Project XL

included a brief description of the XL

process. The notice described four

stages: solicitation and selection of XL

proposals, project (or FPA)

development, project implementation,

and evaluation. The notice contained

additional information, including time

frames, for the first two steps. In today's

notice, EPA offers information on

changes to the process of creating XL

proposals and developing XL projects

for implementation, to assist future

applicants, stakeholders and those

evaluating the program.

Pre-Proposal A ctivities

Today's notice encourages project

sponsors to do significantly more to

improve proposal ideas prior to formal

submission of an XL proposal to EPA.

First, EPA and its state partners stand

ready to discuss project ideas at any

time. Second, EPA encourages project

sponsors to have substantive discussion

with stakeholders prior to submission of

a formal proposal. The Agency

encourages the development of cosponsorship relations among facilities

and non-governmental organizations.

Third, this notice envisions that

proposals themselves will be much

more substantive and detailed. While

addressing the eight XL criteria, a

proposal should include a more detailed

analysis of superior environmental

performance consistent with the

principles included in this notice; a

description of pre-proposal stakeholder

activities and fully developed

stakeholder plan; and a discussion of

the specific regulatory flexibility sought

and barriers to providing that flexibility

in otherwise applicable requirements. In

addition, EPA encourages all potential

applicants to meet with EPA and the

affected state prior to submission of any

proposal to clarify the XL program,

principles, expectations, and guidance

provided in this notice.

Proposal Development

After proposals submitted to the XL

program are received in EPA's

Regulatory Reinvention Docket, they

will proceed through a proposal intake

process. EPA will briefly evaluate the

proposal with input from potentially

affected offices and states in order to

determine whether the proposal appears

to consist of environmental and

regulatory concepts worth testing in

Project XL. If EPA determines that the

proposal should continue through the

proposal development process, a cross19881

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19881 1997
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Notices

agency proposal team will be

established. The team-consisting of

representatives from EPA headquarters

XL Staff and each affected headquarters

office, EPA region, and state-will

review the proposal, discuss it

throughout their respective offices as

necessary, and together establish

specific questions or outstanding items

in the proposal that may hinder a

thorough understanding of the proposal.

Along with any feedback received from

interested stakeholders, EPA will

communicate its own feedback to the

project sponsors.

At this stage, responsibility for the

timing of the proposal process shifts to

the project sponsors. The sponsors may

consider EPA's appraisal and determine

the next step: to provide additional

information requested by EPA, to

submit a revised proposal, or to

withdraw the proposal. In responding,

the project sponsors are strongly

encouraged to raise important issues to

any stakeholders who have been

identified at this point.

With complete information, EPA will

develop an assessment of the merits of

the proposal relative to the Project XL

decision criteria. The decision to

advance or reject the proposal will be

made by the Associate Administrator for

Reinvention in consultation with other

members of EPA's senior leadership

team. Such decisions will be made in

close consultation with the relevant

state environmental agency, and no XL

project will proceed without its

approval.

Project Development Process

Proposals that advance are at this

point described as XL projects in

development. This is the stage in which

FPAs are developed. Once a project

enters the project development phase,

the Agency, in consultation with the

state, will expand or modify its staff

team as needed to ensure coordination

and continuity throughout development

of an FPA. Guidance on some of the

details of the project development

process is contained in the stakeholder

involvement portion of this notice.

Closure

Once a draft FPA has been developed,

EPA will conduct a final internal review

of the project and solicit formal notice

and comment. The decision to approve

or disapprove an FPA will be made by

the Associate Administrator for

Reinvention and the relevant EPA

Regional Administrator, in consultation

with other members of EPA's senior

leadership team.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection provisions

in this notice, including the request for

proposals, have been approved by the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An

Information Collection Request

document has been approved (ICR No.

1749.01). Additional copies may be

obtained from Sandy Farmer,

Information Policy Branch, US EPA,

Mail Code 2136, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460, or by calling

(202) 260-2740.

Dated: April 16, 1997.

Fred Hansen,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97 10510 Filed 4 22 97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

19882

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19882 1997
AIM

19883

Wednesday

April 23, 1997

Part V

The President

Executive Order 13045-Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19883 1997
HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19884 1997
19885

Federal Register Presidential Documents

Vol. 62, No. 78

Wednesday, April 23, 1997

Title 3- Executive Order 13045 of April 21, 1997

The President Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and

Safety Risks

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the

laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy.

1-101. A growing body of scientific knowledge demonstrates that children

may suffer disproportionately from environmental health risks and safety

risks. These risks arise because: children's neurological, immunological, digestive, and other bodily systems are still developing; children eat more

food, drink more fluids, and breathe more air in proportion to their body

weight than adults; children's size and weight may diminish their protection

from standard safety features; and children's behavior patterns may make

them more susceptible to accidents because they are less able to protect

themselves. Therefore, to the extent permitted by law and appropriate, and

consistent with the agency's mission, each Federal agency:

(a) shall make it a high priority to identify and assess environmental

health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children;

and

(b) shall ensure that its policies, programs, activities, and standards address

disproportionate risks to children that result from environmental health

risks or safety risks.

1-102. Each independent regulatory agency is encouraged to participate in

the implementation of this order and comply with its provisions.

Sec. 2. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this order.

2-201. "Federal agency" means any authority of the United States that is

an agency under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1) other than those considered to be independent regulatory agencies under 44 U.S.C. 3502(5). For purposes of this

order, "military departments," as defined in 5 U.S.C. 102, are covered under

the auspices of the Department of Defense.

2-202. "Covered regulatory action" means any substantive action in a rulemaking, initiated after the date of this order or for which a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking is published 1 year after the date of this order, that

is likely to result in a rule that may:

(a) be "economically significant" under Executive Order 12866 (a rulemaking that has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more

or would adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health

or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities); and

(b) concern an environmental health risk or safety risk that an agency

has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children.

2-203. "Environmental health risks and safety risks" mean risks to health

or to safety that are attributable to products or substances that the child

is likely to come in contact with or ingest (such as the air we breath,

the food we eat, the water we drink or use for recreation, the soil we

live on, and the products we use or are exposed to).

Sec. 3. Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to

Children.

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19885 1997
62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Presidential Documents

3-301. There is hereby established the Task Force on Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks to Children ("Task Force").

3-302. The Task Force will report to the President in consultation with

the Domestic Policy Council, the National Science and Technology Council,

the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB).

3-303. Membership. The Task Force shall be composed of the:

(a) Secretary of Health and Human Services, who shall serve as a CoChair of the Council;

(b) Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, who shall serve

as a Co-Chair of the Council;

(c) Secretary of Education;

(d) Secretary of Labor;

(e) Attorney General;

(f) Secretary of Energy;

(g) Secretary of Housing and Urban Development;

(h) Secretary of Agriculture;

(i) Secretary of Transportation;

(j) Director of the Office of Management and Budget;

(k) Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality;

(1) Chair of the Consumer Product Safety Commission;

(m) Assistant to the President for Economic Policy;

(n) Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy;

(o) Assistant to the President and Director of the Office of Science and

Technology Policy;

(p) Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers; and

(q) Such other officials of executive departments and agencies as the

President may, from time to time, designate.

Members of the Task Force may delegate their responsibilities under this

order to subordinates.

3-304. Functions. The Task Force shall recommend to the President Federal

strategies for children's environmental health and safety, within the limits

of the Administration's budget, to include the following elements:

(a) statements of principles, general policy, and targeted annual priorities

to guide the Federal approach to achieving the goals of this order;

(b) a coordinated research agenda for the Federal Government, including

steps to implement the review of research databases described in section

4 of this order;

(c) recommendations for appropriate partnerships among Federal, State,

local, and tribal governments and the private, academic, and nonprofit sectors;

(d) proposals to enhance public outreach and communication to assist

families in evaluating risks to children and in making informed consumer

choices;

(e) an identification of high-priority initiatives that the Federal Government

has undertaken or will undertake in advancing protection of children's environmental health and safety; and

(f) a statement regarding the desirability of new legislation to fulfill or

promote the purposes of this order.

3-305. The Task Force shall prepare a biennial report on research, data,

or other information that would enhance our ability to understand, analyze,

19886 Federal Register / Vol.

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19886 1997
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Presidential Documents

and respond to environmental health risks and safety risks to children.

For purposes of this report, cabinet agencies and other agencies identified

by the Task Force shall identify and specifically describe for the Task

Force key data needs related to environmental health risks and safety risks

to children that have arisen in the course of the agency's programs and

activities. The Task Force shall incorporate agency submissions into its

report and ensure that this report is publicly available and widely disseminated. The Office of Science and Technology Policy and the National Science

and Technology Council shall ensure that this report is fully considered

in establishing research priorities.

3-306. The Task Force shall exist for a period of 4 years from the first

meeting. At least 6 months prior to the expiration of that period, the member

agencies shall assess the need for continuation of the Task Force or its

functions, and make appropriate recommendations to the President.

See. 4. Research Coordination and Integration.

4-401. Within 6 months of the date of this order, the Task Force shall

develop or direct to be developed a review of existing and planned data

resources and a proposed plan for ensuring that researchers and Federal

research agencies have access to information on all research conducted

or funded by the Federal Government that is related to adverse health

risks in children resulting from exposure to environmental health risks or

safety risks. The National Science and Technology Council shall review

the plan.

4-402. The plan shall promote the sharing of information on academic and

private research. It shall include recommendations to encourage that such

data, to the extent permitted by law, is available to the public, the scientific

and academic communities, and all Federal agencies.

Sec. 5. Agency Environmental Health Risk or Safety Risk Regulations.

5-501. For each covered regulatory action submitted to OMB's Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review pursuant to Executive

Order 12866, the issuing agency shall provide to OIRA the following information developed as part of the agency's decisionmaking process, unless prohibited by law:

(a) an evaluation of the environmental health or safety effects of the

planned regulation on children; and

(b) an explanation of why the planned regulation is preferable to other

potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the

agency.

5-502. In emergency situations, or when an agency is obligated by law

to act more quickly than normal review procedures allow, the agency shall

comply with the provisions of this section to the extent practicable. For

those covered regulatory actions that are governed by a court-imposed or

statutory deadline, the agency shall, to the extent practicable, schedule any

rulemaking proceedings so as to permit sufficient time for completing the

analysis required by this section.

5-503. The analysis required by this section may be included as part of

any other required analysis, and shall be made part of the administrative

record for the covered regulatory action or otherwise made available to

the public, to the extent permitted by law.

Sec. 6. Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics.

6-601. The Director of the OMB ("Director") shall convene an Interagency

Forum on Child and Family Statistics ("Forum"), which will include representatives from the appropriate Federal statistics and research agencies.

The Forum shall produce an annual compendium ("Report") of the most

important indicators of the well-being of the Nation's children.

6-602. The Forum shall determine the indicators to be included in each

Report and identify the sources of data to be used for each indicator. The

19887

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19887 1997
19888 Federal Register I Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Presidential Documents

Forum shall provide an ongoing review of Federal collection and dissemination of data on children and families, and shall make recommendations

to improve the coverage and coordination of data collection and to reduce

duplication and overlap.

6-603. The Report shall be published by the Forum in collaboration with

the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The Forum

shall present the first annual Report to the President, through the Director,

by July 31, 1997. The Report shall be submitted annually thereafter, using

the most recently available data.

See. 7. General Provisions.

7-701. This order is intended only for internal management of the executive

branch. This order is not intended, and should not be construed to create,

any right, benefit, or trust responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies,

its officers, or its employees. This order shall not be construed to create

any right to judicial review involving the compliance or noncompliance

with this order by the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any other

person.

7-702. Executive Order 12606 of September 2, 1987 is revoked.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

April 21, 1997.

[FR Doc. 97 10695

Filed 4 22 97; 8:49 am]

Billing code 3195 01 P

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19888 1997
Z iL

AIM

Proclamation

Week, 1997

Proclamation

1997

6993-National Wildlife

6994-National Park Week,

19889

Wednesday

April 23, 1997

Part VI

The President

Proclamation 6992-National Organ and

Tissue Donor Awareness Week, 1997

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19889 1997
HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19890 1997
19891

Federal Register Presidential Documents

Vol. 62, No. 78

Wednesday, April 23, 1997

Title 3- Proclamation 6992 of April 19, 1997

The President National Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week, 1997

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

Giving life to another through an organ or tissue transplant is one of the

most selfless human acts. The person choosing to become a donor usually

receives no tangible thanks and gains no fame or glory from the gesture.

And yet the decision to sign a donor card does give the donor a quiet,

inner fulfillment in the knowledge that he or she may one day help save

a life, bringing new joy to another person and their family. Often, for

many Americans, this sense of fulfillment is sufficient thanks.

Today, more than 50,000 Americans are on the national transplant waiting

list and about 2,000 more people need transplants every month. Unfortunately, even though this country has an adequate supply of individuals

who qualify as organ donors, many people have still not chosen to become

one. Patients in truly desperate circumstances are depending on their fellow

Americans to choose to become organ and tissue donors.

Stunning advances in transplant research and technology have made miracles

possible, but we must do our part to make the dreams of people awaiting

transplants become reality. Many Americans are unaware of the national

shortage of organ donors, and all of us must work together to spread the

word.

Let us take advantage of our enormous power to save a life or to enrich

the quality of life for those who otherwise face endless pain, torment,

or death. I urge every American to respond to the urgent call for organ

and tissue donors by signing a donor card immediately. Let us also reach

out to educate our fellow Americans about the importance of organ and

tissue donations. We must work with our religious communities and community organizations to spread this important message. The Federal Government

has already established partnerships with the Union of Hebrew Congregations

and the Congress of National Black Churches in an effort to educate congregations and clergy across our Nation through sermons, Sunday school programs,

and community events. We should do more.

We should recognize that our greatest ambassadors for organ and tissue

donation are donors, donor families and recipients. Their personal stories

have motivated and inspired others, and we should take better advantage

of these great resources. Taken together, these and other efforts will save

the lives of countless loved ones. And we should take the opportunity

to recognize and celebrate Americans who donate these gifts of life.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States

of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution

and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim April 20 through April

26, 1997, as National Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week. I call

upon health care professionals, educators, the media, public and private

organizations concerned with organ donation and transplantation, and all

the people of the United States to observe this week with appropriate activities and programs that promote organ donation and invite new donors to

become involved.

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19891 1997
19892 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Presidential Documents

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this nineteenth day

of April, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-seven, and

of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred

and twenty-first.

[FR Doc. 97 10711

Filed 4 22 97; 10:58 am]

Billing code 3195 01 P

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19892 1997
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Presidential Documents

Presidential Documents

Proclamation 6993 of April 19, 1997

National Wildlife Week, 1997

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

Our Nation is blessed with a wealth of wildlife, wild places, and natural

resources that enrich the lives of all Americans. Conserving our wildlifewhether antelope or grizzly bear, salmon or serpent, or plumed bird-is

of urgent importance. Our vast system of wildlife refuges has played a

vital role in this endeavor. Helping to ensure greater harmony between

people and nature, more than 92 million acres of land and waters are

dedicated to wildlife conservation, encompassing 500 refuges, with at least

one in every State and within a short drive of most major cities. These

wonderful resources provide opportunities for people of all ages and from

all walks of life, and from cities, suburbs, and the rural heartland, to learn

about and participate in the effort to preserve the places and wildlife that

contribute so much to our Nation's heritage and natural wealth.

The appreciation and protection of wildlife, particularly of endangered or

threatened species, is both the right and responsibility of all Americans.

Indeed, countless individuals and private volunteer organizations across

the United States have already made a significant contribution to wildlife

protection. Only by engaging communities in conservation, by taking note

of and rewarding community service efforts, and by maintaining diverse

approaches to wildlife protection, can we preserve our wildlife today and

for future generations.

We set aside this week to celebrate the role that citizens and private volunteer

organizations play in engaging in service activities, and in advancing the

knowledge, appreciation, and protection of wildlife and the environment.

Let us also work to spread this message to broader audiences and encourage

all individuals and groups to contribute to this national goal. I urge all

Americans, private organizations, businesses, community leaders, elected

officials and governmental agencies to do all they can to preserve and

value the role of wildlife resources in our lives. This tradition of nature

education will continue to teach our children how to be lifelong stewards

of the environment and help to build the knowledge and understanding

essential to the protection of nature's abundant gifts.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States

of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution

and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim April 20 through April

26, 1997, as National Wildlife Week. I ask all Americans to find ways

to promote the conservation and protection of our wildlife and wild places.

19893

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19893 1997
19894 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Presidential Documents

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this nineteenth day

of April, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-seven, and

of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred

and twenty-first.

[FR Doc. 97 10712

Filed 4 22 97; 10:59 am]

Billing code 3195 01 P

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19894 1997
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Presidential Documents

Presidential Documents

Proclamation 6994 of April 19, 1997

National Park Week, 1997

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

One hundred and twenty-five years ago, America made a momentous decision: to set aside and protect in perpetuity an extraordinary part of our

young Nation. With the signing of the Yellowstone National Park Act on

March 1, 1872, President Ulysses S. Grant created the world's first national

park, and the succeeding years have proved beyond all doubt the wisdom

and foresight of that decision. Known throughout the world for its beauty

and the natural wonders that lie within its boundaries, Yellowstone has

inspired the creation of a multitude of other national parks, both here

and in other countries, preserving for future generations the rich natural

and cultural legacy of our world.

Today, our 374 national parks protect America's unparalleled wonders and

the history of those who have helped shape our land. Our national parks

preserve both where we live and who we are. In America's national parks,

we see Americans through their experiences-war and peace, tragedy and

triumph, struggle and liberty. Our national park sites invite us not only

to marvel at the grand geography of Yellowstone or the Great Smokies,

but also to explore the innovative genius of Thomas Edison at the Edison

National Historic Site in New Jersey, to visit the remains of an ancient

civilization at Mesa Verde in Colorado, or to walk the hallways of the

Kansas school where the struggle for civil rights ultimately led to the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court decision.

In addition to the parks themselves, the national park spirit thrives in

thousands of communities across the country where the National Park Service

provides support and technical advice to create close-to-home recreational

opportunities and to honor local history through programs such as Rivers,

Trails, and Conservation Assistance, the National Register of Historic Places,

and National Historic Landmarks. The National Park Service, in partnership

with organizations and individuals dedicated to conservation and historic

preservation, is ensuring that our national parks touch the lives of as many

people as possible, while sparking an interest among our Nation's children

in archaeology, ethnography, history, historic landscapes, and historic structures.

Indeed, the national parks remain a magnet for the American public. Every

year millions of visitors flock to them-270 million in 1996. Surveying

our history and heritage, our national parks let us reach out and touch

the past.

As we observe this week, let us remember with gratitude all those who

are and have been entrusted with the stewardship of these treasured places.

As the parks and the mandate of the National Park Service have evolved,

the demands on those who manage these resources have become more

complex and the skills required of the National Park Service work force

have become more sophisticated. These men and women are the guardians

of our cultural and natural treasures, and, on behalf of all Americans, I

express my deepest thanks.

19895

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19895 1997
19896 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Presidential Documents

This year, National Park Week celebrates the strength of our unique and

diverse system of national parks, and I urge all Americans to share in

the wonderful experiences these places offer all of us.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States

of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution

and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim April 21 through April

27, 1997, as National Park Week.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this nineteenth day

of April, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-seven, and

of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred

and twenty-first.

[FR Doc. 97 10713

Filed 4 22 97; 11:00 am]

Billing code 3195 01 P

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19896 1997
Reader Aids Federal Register

Vol. 62, No. 78

Wednesday, April 23, 1997

CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION

Federal Register/Code of Federal Regulations

General Information, indexes and other finding 202-

aids

Laws

For additional information

Presidential Documents

Executive orders and proclamations

The United States Government Manual

Other Services

Electronic and on-line services (voice)

Privacy Act Compilation

TDD for the hearing impaired

ELECTRONIC BULLETIN BOARD

Free Electronic Bulletin Board service for Public Law ni

Federal Register finding aids, and list of documents on

inspection. 202-

FAX-ON-DEMAND

You may access our Fax-On-Demand service. You only

machine and there is no charge for the service except fo

distance telephone charges the user may incur. The list

documents on public inspection and the daily Federal R

table of contents are available using this service. The do

numbers are 7050-Public Inspection list and 7051-Table

Contents list. The public inspection list will be updated

immediately for documents filed on an emergency basis

NOTE: YOU WILL ONLY GET A LISTING OF DOCUME

FILE AND NOT THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT. Document

public inspection may be viewed and copied in our offi

at 800 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 700. The Fax-O

telephone number is: 301-

FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATES, APF

15355-15598 ....................... 1

15599-15808 ....................... 2

15809-16052 ....................... 3

16053-16464 ....................... 4

16465-16658 ...................... 7

16659-17040 ...................... 8

17041-17530 ...................... 9

17531-17682 ..................... 10

17683-18014 ..................... 11

18015-18260 ..................... 14

18261-18504 ..................... 15

18505-18704 ..................... 16

18705-19022 ..................... 17

19023-19218 ..................... 18

19219-19472 .................... 21

19473-19666 .................... 22

19667-19896 .................... 23

-523-5227

CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING APRIL

At the end of each month, the Office of the Federal Register

publishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), which

lists parts and sections affected by documents published since

the revision date of each title.

523-5227 3 CFR

Proclamations:

6980 ................................. 16033

523-5227 6981 ................................. 16035

523-5227 6982 ................................. 16039

6983 ................................. 1768 1

6984 ................................. 180 15

6985 ................................. 1849 7

523-4534 6986 ................................. 18501

523-3187 6987 ................................. 18501

523-5229 6988 ................................. 19017

6989 ................................. 1902 1

6990 ................................. 1947 1

699 1 ................................. 19663

um bers, 6992 ................................. 19891

public 6993 ................................. 19893

-275-0920 6994 ................................. 19895

Executive Orders:

February 21, 1913

need a fax (Revoked in part by

r long PLO 7252) .................... 17633

of 12566 (revoked by EO

egister's 13043) ........................... 19217

cument 12606 (revoked by EO

of 13045) .......................... 19885

12752 (amended by

EO 13044) .................... 19665

INTS ON 13010 (amended by

s on EO13041) .................... 17039

ce located 13041 ............................... 17039

n-Dem and 13042 ............................... 18017

-713-6905 13043 ............................... 19217

13044 ............................... 19665

13045 ............................... 19885

Administrative Orders:

Memorandum of April

1, 1997 ......................... 1826 1

5 CFR

2 13 ................................... 18 5 0 5

53 2 ................................... 16 46 5

5 9 1 ................................... 16 2 18

12 0 1 ................................. 17 0 4 1

1209 ................................. 1704 7

1620 ................................. 18234

16 5 5 ................................. 18 0 19

Proposed Rules:

2 5 1 ................................... 19 5 2 5

7 CFR

5 6 ..................................... 18 0 1 9

7 0 ..................................... 18 0 1 9

3 0 1 ................................... 15 8 0 9

60 0 ................................... 16 65 9

6 0 1 ................................... 16 6 5 9

72 3 ................................... 15 59 9

9 16 ................................... 15 3 5 5

9 1 7 ................................... 15 3 5 5

9 4 6 ................................... 18 0 2 1

95 6 ................................... 18 02 3

95 9 ................................... 19 66 7

98 2 ................................... 18 02 6

989 ..............................18029

1208 .............................18033

1427 .............................19023

1710 .............................18037

1901 .............................16465

1940 .............................16465

1951 .............................16465

2003 .............................

16465

3570 .............................16465

Proposed Rules:

300 ..............................16218

319 ....................... 16218,16737

401 ..............................17758

422 ..............................19691

447 ..............................17103

455 ..............................19063

456 ..............................19068

457 ......... 17103,17758,19063,

19067,19691

981 ..............................17569

1137 .............................16737

1435 .............................15622

1703 .............................18544

1730 .............................18678

4279 .............................17107

4287 .............................17107

8 CFR

3 ........................... 15362,17048

208 ..............................15362

212 ..............................18506

214 ..............................18508

236 ..............................15362

245 ..............................18506

248 ..............................18506

274a .............................18508

287 ..............................19024

299 ..............................19024

312 ..............................15751

9 CFR

94 ......................... 18263,19032

101 ..............................19033

113 ..............................19033

156 ..............................19039

205 ..............................15363

Proposed Rules:

94 ...............................18055

10 CFR

0 ................................16053

25 ...............................17683

50 ...................................17683

54 ...............................17683

95 ...............................17683

Proposed Rules:

20 ...............................19071

30 ...............................19071

40 ...............................19071

50 ...................................19071

51 ...............................19071

70 ...............................

19071

72 ...............................19071

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. i 1997
ii Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Reader Aids

43 0 ................................... 16 73 9

4 9 0 ................................... 19 7 0 1

11 CFR

1 1 1 ................................... 1 8 1 6 7

12 CFR

20 8 ................................... 156 0 0

213 ....................... 15364,16053

30 3 ................................... 166 6 2

5 6 0 ................................... 15 8 19

60 0 ................................... 180 3 7

60 3 ................................... 180 3 7

6 1 1 ................................... 18 0 3 7

614 ....................... 18037,19219

6 19 ................................... 18 0 3 7

1805 ................................. 16444

Proposed Rules:

22 6 ................................... 156 2 4

3 6 1 ................................... 18 0 5 9

5 1 6 ................................... 1 7 1 1 0

543 ....................... 17110,17115

545 ....................... 15626,17110

5 5 2 ................................... 1 7 1 10

556 ....................... 15626,17110

55 7 ................................... 156 2 6

5 6 1 ................................... 15 6 2 6

563 ....................... 15626,17110

563g ................................. 15626

6 14 ................................... 18 16 7

6 2 7 ................................... 18 16 7

C h. V II .............................. 19702

70 1 ................................... 19 7 0 2

7 12 ................................... 19 7 0 2

74 0 ................................... 19 70 2

C h . IX ............................... 17 10 8

13 CFR

12 0 ................................... 15 6 0 1

14 CFR

1 ....................................... 1 6 2 2 0

2 1 ..................................... 1 5 5 7 0

25 ............ 15570,17048,17531

39 ........... 15373, 15375, 15378,

16064,16066,16067,16069,

16070,16072,16073,16473,

16474,16475,16477,16664,

16667,17532,17534,17536,

17537,19477,19480,19482,

19483

61 ......................... 16220,16892

71 ........... 15602, 15603, 15751,

15825,15826,15827,16075,

16076,16668,17052,17053,

17054,17055,17056,17057,

17058,17059,17060,17698,

18038,18039,18040,18264,

19484,19485,19486,19487

7 3 ..................................... 1 7 6 9 9

91 ......................... 15570,17480

97 ........... 17061,17063,17539,

17541

10 7 ................................... 15 7 5 1

10 8 ................................... 15 7 5 1

10 9 ................................... 15 7 5 1

1 19 ................................... 15 5 7 0

12 1 ................................... 15 5 7 0

12 5 ................................... 15 5 7 0

12 9 ................................... 15 7 5 1

13 5 ................................... 15 5 7 0

14 1 ................................... 16 2 2 0

14 3 ................................... 16 2 2 0

19 1 ................................... 1 5 7 5 1

C h . II ................................ 19 4 7 3

Proposed Rules:

2 5 ..................................... 1 7 1 1 7

39 ........... 15429, 15431, 15433,

15435,15437,15439,15441,

15443,15861,16113,16115,

17128,17127,17129,17131,

18062,18063,18302,18304,

18726,19526

71 ........... 15635, 15863,15864,

17134,17135,18065,18066,

18067,18068,18167,19238,

19527,19529

107 ................................... 16892

108 ................................... 16892

198 ....................... 19008,19530

15 CFR

15 ..................................... 19668

15a ................................... 19668

15b ................................... 19668

280 ................................... 19041

902 ....................... 15381,19042

16 CFR

23 ..................................... 16669

Proposed Rules:

254 ................................... 19703

432 ................................... 16500

456 ................................... 15865

703 ................................... 15636

17 CFR

1 ....................................... 17700

4 ....................................... 18265

11 ..................................... 17702

30 ..................................... 16687

145 ................................... 17068

202 ....................... 15604,16076

232 ................................... 16690

240 ................................... 18514

270 ................................... 17512

Proposed Rules:

190 ................................... 19530

18 CFR

2 ....................................... 15827

19 CFR

12 ..................................... 19488

19 ..................................... 15831

113 ................................... 15831

133 ................................... 19492

144 ................................... 15831

Proposed Rules:

24 ..................................... 19704

111 ................................... 19704

142 ................................... 19534

143 ................................... 19704

162 ................................... 19704

163 ................................... 19704

351 ................................... 19719

20 CFR

367 ................................... 19219

404 ................................... 15607

Proposed Rules:

335 ................................... 19072

21 CFR

5 ....................................... 19493

74 ..................................... 15389

101 ................................... 15390

178 ................................... 19220

211 ................................... 19493

510 ................................... 15751

556 ................................... 15391

558 ....................... 15391,15751

1300 ................................. 15391

1309 ................................. 15391

1310 ................................. 15391

Proposed Rules:

170 ................................... 18938

184 ................................... 18938

186 ................................... 18938

570 ................................... 18938

589 ................................... 18728

22 CFR

514 ................................... 19221

23 CFR

625 ................................... 15392

24 CFR

50 ..................................... 15800

55 ..................................... 15800

103 ................................... 15794

570 ................................... 17492

Proposed Rules:

Ch.I ................................. 18306

25 CFR

12 ..................................... 15610

142 ................................... 18515

Proposed Rules:

41 ..................................... 15446

26 CFR

54 ......................... 16894,17004

Proposed Rules:

1 .............. 17572,18730,19072

25 ..................................... 19072

54 ..................................... 17004

27 CFR

4 ....................................... 16479

178 ................................... 19442

Proposed Rules:

9 ....................................... 16502

178 ................................... 19442

28 CFR

Proposed Rules:

524 ................................... 19430

29 CFR

1603 ................................. 17542

2520 ................................. 16979

2590 ..................... 16894,17004

2703 ................................. 18705

4044 ................................. 18268

Proposed Rules:

2570 ................................. 19078

30 CFR

218 ................................... 19497

254 ................................... 18040

756 ................................... 18269

773 ................................... 19450

778 ................................... 19450

843 ................................... 19450

915 ....................... 16490,19394

943 ................................... 19394

Proposed Rules:

202 ....................... 16121,19536

206 ................................... 19532

211 ................................... 19532

216 ................................... 16121

243 ................................... 16116

250 ................................... 18070

253 ................................... 15639

926 ................................... 16506

944 ..............................16507

946 ..............................16509

31 CFR

1 ................................

1 9 5 0 5

4 ................................1 8 5 1 8

357 ..............................

18694

Ch. V ....... 19499,19500,19672

500 ..............................17548

560 ..............................19670

585 ..............................19672

32 CFR

2 ................................1 7 5 4 8

310 ..............................18518

701 ..............................15614

706 .......... 18272,18274,19673

806b .............................17070

Proposed Rules:

199 ..............................16510

216 ..............................16691

552 ..............................15639

33 CFR

5 ................................1 6 6 9 5

26 ...............................16695

27 ...............................

16695

95 ...............................16695

100 ......... 16695,17702,18041,

18042

110 ..............................16695

117 .......... 15842,17071,19222

130 ..............................16695

136 ..............................16695

138 ..............................16695

140 ..............................

16695

151 ....................... 16695,18043

153 ..............................16695

155 ..............................

16492

165 ......... 15398,16080,16081,

17704

177 ..............................16695

334 ..............................17549

Proposed Rules:

100 .......... 16513,19239,19240

117 ......... 16122,17762,19082,

19243,19245

165 ..............................17764

35 CFR

103 ..............................18275

104 ..............................18275

36 CFR

Proposed Rules:

13 ...............................18547

327 ..............................18307

1190 .............................19084

1191 .............................19084

1193 .............................19178

1258 .............................15867

37 CFR

201 ..............................18705

38 CFR

1 ................................

1 5 4 0 0

3 ................................1 7 7 0 6

17 ...............................17072

21 ...............................17706

39 CFR

3 ................................18519

4 ................................18519

20 ......................... 17072,19223

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. ii 1997
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Reader Aids iii

40 CFR

9 ....................................... 1 6 4 9 2

52 ........... 15751,15844,16704,

17081,17083,17084,17087,

17093,17095,18046,18047,

18520,18521,18710,18712,

18716,19047,19049,19051,

19055,19224,19674,19676

5 8 ..................................... 18 5 2 3

60 ......................... 18277,19679

6 1 ..................................... 1 9 6 7 9

63 ......................... 15402,15404

8 0 ..................................... 16 0 8 2

81 ............ 15751,18521,18526

9 1 ..................................... 1 5 8 0 6

180 ......... 15615, 17096, 17710,

17717,17720,17723,17730,

17735,17742,18528,19682

185 ......... 17723,17730,17735,

17742,18528

186 ......... 17723, 17730,17735,

17742,18528

2 7 1 ................................... 15 4 0 7

300 ......... 15411,15572,16706,

16707

70 0 ................................... 1 79 10

72 0 ................................... 1 79 10

72 1 ................................... 1 79 10

72 3 ................................... 1 79 10

72 5 ................................... 1 79 10

Proposed Rules:

52 ........... 15867,16746,17136,

17137,17572,17768,18070,

18071,18556,18730,19085,

19086,19087,19246,19659,

19719

5 8 ..................................... 18 5 5 7

6 0 ..................................... 18 3 0 8

63 ............ 15452,15453,15754

7 0 ..................................... 1 6 12 4

7 1 ..................................... 1 9 0 8 7

80 ......................... 17771,18696

81 ......................... 18556,18557

9 2 ..................................... 18 5 5 7

24 7 ................................... 180 72

261 ....................... 16747,19087

26 8 ................................... 16 75 3

30 0 ................................... 155 72

41 CFR

Proposed Rules:

10 1-40 ............................. 19720

43 CFR

Proposed Rules:

2800 ................................. 19247

2920 ................................. 19247

4100 ................................. 19247

3190 ................................. 17138

3400 ................................. 17141

3410 ................................. 17141

3420 ................................. 17141

3440 ................................. 17141

3450 ................................. 17141

3460 ................................. 17141

3470 ................................. 17141

3480 ................................. 17141

4300 ................................. 19247

4700 ................................. 19247

5460 ................................. 19247

5510 ................................. 19247

8200 ................................. 19247

8340 ................................. 19247

8350 ................................. 19247

9370 ................................. 19247

8370 ................................. 19247

8560 ................................. 19247

9210 ................................. 19247

9260 ................................. 19247

44 CFR

64 ......................... 16084,19505

65 ............ 16087,17560,17561

67 ......................... 16089,17562

Proposed Rules:

67 ......................... 16125,17562

45 CFR

144 ................................... 16894

146 ................................... 16894

148 ................................... 17004

1609 ................................. 19399

1612 ................................. 19399

1620 ................................. 19399

1626 ................................. 19399

1627 ................................. 19399

1636 ................................. 19399

1637 ................................. 19399

1638 ................................. 19399

1640 ................................. 19399

46 CFR

2 .............. 16695,17748,19229

586 ....................... 18532,18533

Proposed Rules:

8 ....................................... 1 7 0 0 8

47 CFR

0 .............. 15852,17566,19247

Ch.I ................................. 16093

1 .............. 15852,18834,19247

2 ........................... 15978,19509

20 ..................................... 18834

27 ......................... 16099,16493

36 ..................................... 15412

52 ......................... 18280,19056

64 ......................... 19056,19685

68 ..................................... 19685

73 ............ 15858,17749,18535

74 ..................................... 18834

90 ............ 15978,18536,18834

97 ..................................... 17566

101 ................................... 18834

Proposed Rules:

1 ....................................... 1 8 0 7 4

2 .............. 16004,16129,19538

25 ............ 16129,18308,19095

63 ..................................... 15868

73 ........... 15869,15870,15871,

15872,17772,17773,17774,

18558

74 ..................................... 19538

78 ..................................... 19538

90 ..................................... 16004

101 ................................... 16514

48 CFR

235 ................................... 16099

807 ................................... 18300

852 ................................... 18300

1401 ................................. 18053

Proposed Rules:

4 ....................................... 1 9 4 6 5

12 ..................................... 19200

14 ..................................... 19200

15 ..................................... 19200

22 ..................................... 19465

26 ..................................... 19200

35 ..................................... 19465

36 ......................... 19200,19465

44 ..................................... 19465

52 ......................... 19200,19465

49 CFR

1 ........................... 16498,17100

6 ....................................... 1 9 2 3 3

7 ....................................... 1 9 5 1 5

29 ..................................... 15620

40 ..................................... 19057

171 ................................... 16107

2 14 ..............................19 2 3 4

C h . III ............................16 3 70

3 6 7 ..............................15 4 1 7

3 6 8 ..............................15 4 1 7

3 7 1 ..............................15 4 1 7

3 72 ................................... 15 4 1 7

3 73 ................................... 15 4 1 7

3 74 ................................... 15 4 1 7

3 76 ................................... 15 4 1 7

3 7 7 ..............................15 4 1 7

3 78 ..............................15 4 1 7

3 8 7 ..............................16 70 7

3 90 ..............................

16 70 7

3 95 ..............................16 70 7

5 3 1 ..............................17 10 0

5 33 ..............................

15 85 9

571 ......... 16707,16718,18723,

19523

5 8 9 ..............................16 7 18

13 12 .............................

19 05 8

Proposed Rules:

1 9 2 ..............................16 13 1

1 9 5 ..............................16 13 1

3 9 0 ..............................18 17 0

3 9 2 ..............................18 17 0

393 ....................... 18170,19252

571 .......... 15353,16131,19253

50 CFR

2 2 9 ..............................16 10 8

6 00 ..............................18 30 0

6 22 ..............................18 53 6

648 .......... 15381,15425,18300

6 74 ..............................19 68 6

678 ....................... 16648,16656

679 ......... 16112,16736,17568,

17749,17753,18167,18542,

18725,19061,19062,19394,

19659,19686

Proposed Rules:

17 ........... 15640,15646,15872,

15873,16518

23 ......................... 18559,18731

216 ....................... 17774,17774

2 2 9 ..............................16 5 19

2 8 5 ..............................16 13 2

6 00 ..............................19 72 3

622 .......... 17776,19732,19733

630 ....................... 16132,19296

6 4 4 ..............................16 13 2

648 .......... 16753,17576,18309

660 ....................... 15874,18572

6 78 ..............................

16 13 2

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. iii 1997
iv Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Reader Aids

REMINDERS

The items in this list were

editorially compiled as an aid

to Federal Register users.

Inclusion or exclusion from

this list has no legal

significance.

RULES GOING INTO

EFFECT APRIL 23, 1997

COMMERCE DEPARTMENT

National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration

Fishery conservation and

management:

Alaska; fisheries of

Exculsive Economic

ZoneBering Sea and Aleutian

Islands groundfish;

published 3-24-97

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

Clean Air Act:

State operating permits

programsConnecticut; published 3-

24-97

Pesticides; tolerances in food,

animal feeds, and raw

agricultural commodities:

Kaolin; published 4-23-97

COMMENTS DUE NEXT

WEEK

AGRICULTURE

DEPARTMENT

Agricultural Marketing

Service

Nectarines and peaches

grown in California;

comments due by 5-1-97;

published 4-1-97

Perishable Agricultural

Commodities Act;

implmentation:

Retailers and grocery

wholesalers; phase-out of

license fee payments,

etc.; comments due by 4-

30-97; published 3-31-97

AGRICULTURE

DEPARTMENT

Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service

Plant-related quarantine,

foreign:

Cotton and cottom products;

pest introduction

prevention; comments due

by 4-30-97; published 4-8-

97

AGRICULTURE

DEPARTMENT

Farm Service Agency

Federal Agriculture

Improvement and Reform

Act of 1996; implementation:

Direct and guaranteed loan

making provisions;

comments due by 5-2-97;

published 3-3-97

AGRICULTURE

DEPARTMENT

Rural Business-Cooperative

Service

Federal Agriculture

Improvement and Reform

Act of 1996; implementation:

Direct and guaranteed loan

making provisions;

comments due by 5-2-97;

published 3-3-97

AGRICULTURE

DEPARTMENT

Rural Housing Service

Federal Agriculture

Improvement and Reform

Act of 1996; implementation:

Direct and guaranteed loan

making provisions;

comments due by 5-2-97;

published 3-3-97

AGRICULTURE

DEPARTMENT

Rural Utilities Service

Electric loans:

Debt settlement; policies

and standards; comments

due by 5-2-97; published

3-3-97

Federal Agriculture

Improvement and Reform

Act of 1996; implementation:

Direct and guaranteed loan

making provisions;

comments due by 5-2-97;

published 3-3-97

COMMERCE DEPARTMENT

International Trade

Administration

Uruguay Round Agreements

Act (URAA); conformance:

Antidumping and

countervailing duties;

Federal regulatory review;

comments due by 4-28-

97; published 2-26-97

COMMERCE DEPARTMENT

National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration

Fishery conservation and

management:

Atlantic shark; comments

due by 4-28-97; published

2-26-97

Atlantic swordfish;

comments due by 4-28-

97; published 2-26-97

Atlantic swordfish and shark;

comments due by 4-28-

97; published 3-10-97

Caribbean, Gulf, and South

Atlantic fisheriesGulf of Mexico Fishery

Management Council;

public hearings;

comments due by 5-2-

97; published 4-11-97

Northeastern United States

fisheriesNortheast multispecies;

comments due by 5-1-

97; published 4-1-97

West Coast States and

Western Pacific

fisheriesPacific salmon; comments

due by 4-28-97;

published 2-27-97

Pacific whiting; comments

due by 4-30-97;

published 4-16-97

International Code of Conduct

for Responsible Fisheries

inplementation plan;

availability; comments due

by 4-28-97; published 3-12-

97

DEFENSE DEPARTMENT

Army Department

Military reservations and

national cemeteries:

Aberdeen Proving Ground,

MD; protests, picketing,

and other similar

demonstrations; comments

due by 5-2-97; published

4-2-97

DEFENSE DEPARTMENT

Acquisition regulations:

Automatic data processing

equipment leasing costs;

comments due by 5-2-97;

published 3-3-97

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

Air pollutants, hazardous;

national emission standards:

Nonroad phase 2 small

spark-ignition engines;

statements of principles;

comments due by 4-28-

97; published 3-27-97

Air programs:

Fuel and fuel additives;

reformulated and

conventional gasoline;

phase II opt out

procedures; comments

due by 4-28-97; published

3-28-97

Project XL program; sitespecific projectsMerck & Co., Inc.;

comments due by 4-30-

97; published 3-31-97

Air quality implementation

plans; approval and

promulgation; various

States:

California; comments due by

4-28-97; published 3-27-

97

Michigan; comments due by

4-28-97; published 3-28-

97

Air quality implementation

plans; A approval and

promulgation; various

States; air quality planning

purposes; designation of

areas:

New Hampshire

Correction; comments due

by 4-28-97; published

3-27-97

Clean Air Act:

Federal air toxics program

delegation approvalsIndiana; comments due by

5-1-97; published 4-1-97

Wisconsin; comments due

by 5-1-97; published 4-

1-97

Wisconsin; comments due

by 5-1-97; published 4-

1-97

Federal toxics program

delegation approvalsIndiana; comments due by

5-1-97; published 4-1-97

Fuel and fuel additives;

reformulated and

conventional gasoline;

comments due by 4-28-

97; published 3-28-97

Hazardous waste program

authorizations:

Florida; comments due by

5-1-97; published 4-1-97

Michigan; comments due by

4-28-97; published 3-28-

97

Toxic substances:

Testing requirementsBiphenyl, etc.; comments

due by 4-30-97;

published 2-28-97

Water pollution control:

Clean Water ActState permitting programs;

comments due by 4-28-

97; published 3-28-97

National pollutant discharge

elimination system

(NPDES)-

Permitting procedures;

clarification and

streamlining; comments

due by 4-28-97;

published 3-28-97

FEDERAL

COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Common carrier services:

Satellite communicationsDigital audio radio service

terrestrial repeaters or

gap-fillers; deployment;

comments due by 5-2-

97; published 4-18-97

Radio services, special:

Private land mobile

servicesModification of policies

governing use of bands

below 800 MHz;

comments due by 5-2-

97; published 4-16-97

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. iv 1997
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Reader Aids v

Radio stations; table of

assignments:

Michigan; comments due by

4-28-97; published 3-14-

97

Wyoming; comments due by

4-28-97; published 3-14-

97

FEDERAL DEPOSIT

INSURANCE CORPORATION

Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking

and Branching Efficiency

Act; implementation:

Interstate branches used

primarily for deposit

production; prohibition;

comments due by 5-2-97;

published 3-17-97

FEDERAL RESERVE

SYSTEM

Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking

and Branching Efficiency

Act; implementation:

Interstate branches used

primarily for deposit

production; prohibition;

comments due by 5-2-97;

published 3-17-97

FEDERAL TRADE

COMMISSION

Trade regulation rules:

Franchising and business

opportunity ventures;

disclosure requirements

and prohibitions;

comments due by 4-30-

97; published 2-28-97

HEALTH AND HUMAN

SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Food and Drug

Administration

Animal drugs, feeds, and

related products:

Ruminant feed; animal

proteins prohibited;

comments due by 4-28-

97; published 4-17-97

Biologics:

Biological establishments;

responsible head or

designated qualified

person; requirements

revision; comments due

by 4-29-97; published 1-

29-97

Food for human consumption:

Food labelingNutrient content claims;

definition of term

healthy; comments due

by 5-1-97; published 4-

1-97

Medical foods regulation;

comments due by 4-28-97;

published 2-19-97

INTERIOR DEPARTMENT

Fish and Wildlife Service

Endangered and threatened

species:

Bog turtle; comments due

by 4-29-97; published 4-3-

97

Bog turtle (northern

population); comments

due by 4-29-97; published

1-29-97

Coastal dunes milkvetch,

etc. (five plants and lizard

from Monterey County,

CA); comments due by 5-

2-97; published 4-2-97

INTERIOR DEPARTMENT

Minerals Management

Service

Royalty management:

Oil valuation; Federal leases

and Federal royalty oil

sale; comments due by 4-

28-97; published 2-18-97

LEGAL SERVICES

CORPORATION

Welfare reform; comments due

by 4-28-97; published 3-26-

97

POSTAL SERVICE

Domestic Mail Manual:

Information based indicia;

comments due by 4-28-

97; published 3-28-97

SECURITIES AND

EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Securities:

Offshore offers and sales;

comments due by 4-29-

97; published 2-28-97

Small business and small

organization; definitions

for purposes of

Regulatory Flexibility Act;

comments due by 4-30-

97; published 3-20-97

Smaller reporting

companies; delayed

pricing for certain

registrants; comments due

by 4-29-97; published 2-

28-97

Underwriter definition, etc.;

comments due by 4-29-

97; published 2-28-97

SMALL BUSINESS

ADMINISTRATION

Business loan policy:

Depository and nondepository lenders;

financing and

securitization of

unguaranteed portions of

Small Business Act

guaranteed loans;

comments due by 5-2-97;

published 4-2-97

TRANSPORTATION

DEPARTMENT

Coast Guard

Drawbridge operations:

Mississippi; comments due

by 5-2-97; published 3-3-

97

Ports and waterways safety:

Port of New York and New

Jersey; safety zone;

comments due by 5-2-97;

published 4-11-97

TRANSPORTATION

DEPARTMENT

Federal Aviation

Administration

Airplane operator security:

Screening companies (other

than air carriers);

certification; comments

due by 5-1-97; published

3-17-97

Airworthiness directives:

I.A.M. Rinaldo Piaggio,

S.p.A.; comments due by

4-30-97; published 2-24-

97

Pratt & Whitney; comments

due by 5-1-97; published

4-1-97

Teledyne Continental

Motors; comments due by

4-30-97; published 3-31-

97

Airworthiness standards:

Special conditionsJetstream Aircraft Ltd.

model 4101 airplane;

comments due by 4-28-

97; published 3-14-97

McDonnell Douglas

Helicopter systems

model MD-600N

helicopter; comments

due by 4-29-97;

published 1-29-97

Class B airspace; comments

due by 5-2-97; published 4-

2-97

Class D airspace; comments

due by 5-2-97; published 3-

18-97

Class D and E airspace;

comments due by 5-1-97;

published 3-26-97

Class E airspace; comments

due by 4-30-97; published

3-11-97

TRANSPORTATION

DEPARTMENT

Federal Highway

Administration

Engineering and traffic

operations:

Uniform Traffic Control

Devices ManualCenter and edge line

markings; standards;

comments due by 5-2-

97; published 8-2-96

TRANSPORTATION

DEPARTMENT

Maritime Administration

U.S.-flag commercial vessels:

Carriage of bulk and

packaged preference

cargoes; fair and

reasonable guideline

rates; determination;

comments due by 4-29-

97; published 2-28-97

TRANSPORTATION

DEPARTMENT

National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration

Motor vehicle safety

standards:

Roof crush resistance;

comments due by 4-28-

97; published 2-27-97

TRANSPORTATION

DEPARTMENT

Research and Special

Programs Administration

Pipeline safety:

Liquefied natural gas

regulations; miscellaneous

amendments; comments

due by 4-28-97; published

2-25-97

TRANSPORTATION

DEPARTMENT

Transportation Statistics

Bureau

Motor Carrier Financial and

Operating Data Collection

Program Negotiated

Rulemaking Committee:

Intent to establish;

comments due by 4-30-

97; published 2-7-97

TREASURY DEPARTMENT

Comptroller of the Currency

Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking

and Branching Efficiency

Act; implementation:

Interstate branches used

primarily for deposit

production; prohibition;

comments due by 5-2-97;

published 3-17-97

TREASURY DEPARTMENT

Customs Service

Customs bonds:

Softwood lumber shipments;

entry from Canada;

comments due by 4-28-

97; published 2-26-97

TREASURY DEPARTMENT

Internal Revenue Service

Income taxes:

Low-income housing tax

credit; Federal grants;

cross reference;

comments due by 4-28-

97; published 1-27-97

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. v 1997
HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. vi 1997