# + 2

(,1 1/,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 ofthe meeting room. On Wednesday, May 21, the Committee will

reconvene as awhole 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 ofthe annual report willbegin during this meeting. It will be necessary for those wishing to attend to contact either ofthe 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, VAMedical 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 forMinority Veterans (00M), U.S. Department ofVeterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420. Dated: April 11, 1997. By Direction ofthe Secretary: Heyward Bannister, CommitteeManagementOfficer. [FR Doc. 97 10441 Filed 4 22 97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M



### DEPARTMENT OFVETERANS AFFAIRS
Persian GulfExpert Scientific Committee, Notice ofMeeting

The Department ofVeterans Affairs (VA),in accordance with P.L. 92-463, gives notice that ameeting ofthe VA Persian GulfExpert Scientific Committee will beheld 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 ofthe meetingwill be 810 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., Room 230.

The Committee's objectives areto advisethe Under Secretary forHealth about medical findings affecting Persian Gulfera veterans.

At this meetingthe Committee will review all aspects ofpatient care and medical diagnoses and will provide professional consultation asneeded. The Committee may advise on other
areas involving research and development, veteransbenefits and/or training aspects for patients and staff.

All portions ofthe meetingwill be open to thepublic 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. Duringthese executive sessions, discussions and recommendations will deal with medical records ofspecific patients and individually identifiable patient medical histories. The disclosure ofthis information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion ofpersonal privacy. Closure of 

### thisportion ofthe meeting isin accordance with subsection 10(d) ofP.L. 92-463, as amended byP.L. 94-409, and

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

The agenda forJune 16 will begin with a panel discussion on Infectious Diseases and Persian GulfIllnesses, followed by an update on the Spouses and Children ofPersian GulfVets Examination Program. The first day's agenda will also cover a follow-up on VAEpidemiological Programs and anotherpanel discussion on the Approaches to Unexplained Illnesses.

On June 17 the Committee will hear updates on the DoDPersian Gulf Veterans' Illnesses Investigative Team and on the VA Environmental Hazards Research Centers as well as the Committee's statements on Health Effects ofLow-Level Chemical Warfare 

### Nerve Agent Exposure.

Additional information concerning these meetings may be obtained from the Executive Secretary, Office ofPublic Health &Environmental Hazards, 810 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20420.

Dated:April 3, 1997. By Direction ofthe Secretary. Heyward Bannister,
Cornm itteeManagementOfficer. [FR Doc. 97 10442 Filed 4 22 97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M 

## 19858

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19858 1997J

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 [DocketNo. FR-4197-N-01]
Noticeof FundingAvailabilityforthe Youthbuild Program for Fiscal Year 1997 AGENCY: OfficeoftheAssistant Secretary forCommunity Planning and Development, HUD. ACTION: Notice ofFunding Availability for theFiscal Year 1997.
SUMMARY: Purpose.This Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)
announces the availability ofFiscal 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 willbe funded. Thebody ofthis NOFA contains information on the following: thepurpose oftheNOFA, 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.

AvailableFunds.Up to $30 million. EligibleApplicants.Eligible applicants are public orprivate nonprofit agencies, state orlocal housing agencies or authorities, state orlocal units ofgeneral localgovernment, Indian tribes or any entity eligible to provide education and employment training under other Federal employment trainingprograms, as further defined in 24 CFR585.4. DATES: Application Submission.An original and two copies ofthe completed application forgrant funds must bereceived in HUDHeadquarters priorto 5:00pm EST on June 23, 1997. Applications will be accepted at the following address: Processing and Control Unit, Office ofCommunity Planning and Development, Department ofHousing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh St., SW., Room 7255, Washington, DC20410. Attn: Youthbuild. In addition, one copy ofthe completed application should be forwarded to the local HUD CPDfield office. Please referto the attached list for the address ofthe field office serving yourjurisdiction.

Applications which are mailed prior to thedeadline datebut notreceived until after the deadline willbe deemed to have beenreceived by the date if postmarked no later than (three days prior)by theU.S. Postal Service. Express delivery items received after the deadline date will be deemed to have been received on time upon submission ofdocumentary 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 ofthe application package, contact: Community Connections at 1- 800-998-9999, or through the Internet atgopher://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 agrant 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 notbe 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 bythe Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44U.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, acollection of information unless the collection displays avalid control number. 

### Promoting Comprehensive Approaches to Housing andCommunity 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 thisNOFA to be aware ofother 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 theirprogram purposes and the eligibility ofapplicants and activities, applicants may be able to relate the activities proposed for funding under thisNOFA 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 forthe remainder ofFY 1997 to continue to alert applicants to upcoming and recent NOFAs as each NOFA is published. In addition, acomplete schedule ofNOFAs 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 maybe considered forFY 1998.

For help in obtaining acopy ofyour community's Consolidated Plan, please contact the community development office ofyour municipal government. 

### I. ProgramPurpose

The purposes ofthe 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 ofleadership skills and commitment to community; and (3) to expand the supply ofpermanent 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 oftitle IVof the National Affordable Housing Act (theAct), as added by section 164 ofthe 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, 42U.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 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations as part 585.

B. Funding Availability

This Notice announces the availability ofup to $30 million in program funds. $1.5 million (five percent ofthe appropriation) ofwhich is planned for technical assistance consistent with section 458(d) ofthe Act.

C.Objectives

The Youthbuild program is designed to help disadvantaged young adults who have dropped out ofhigh 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 beused to fund eligible services and activities as defined by the Act.

Another important objective ofthe Youthbuild program is to expand the supply ofpermanent 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 housingconstruction and rehabilitation enables them to provide a service to their communities by helping to meet the housing needs ofhomeless and low-income families.

An additional purpose ofthe 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 ofthe Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701u) is applicable to Youthbuild implementation grant recipients.

II. Overview ofYouthbuild Implementation Grants

A. Type ofGrants

HUD will award Youthbuild implementation grants only to eligible applicants for the purpose ofcarrying out Youthbuild programs in accordance with subtitle D oftitle IVofthe Act. Applications will be selected in a competition in accordance with the grant selection process described in section V below. B. MaximumAwards

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 ofany 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, ajurisdiction may not receive more than $2.1 million.

C.LocationalConsiderations

Each application for agrant may only propose activities to carry out one Youthbuild program, i.e., to start a new Youthbuild program or to fund new classes ofYouthbuild 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 differentjurisdictions. HUD will not approve multiple applications for grants in the samejurisdiction unless HUD determines that thejurisdiction is sufficiently large tojustify approval of

more than one application.

D.EligibleApplicants

Eligible applicants are public or private non-profit agencies, State or local housing agencies or authorities, state or local units ofgeneral 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. YouthbuildProgram 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 andjob training services. (2)Leadership training, counseling and other support activities.

(3)Special activities such as entrepreneurial training,drivers' education, internships, programs for thosewith learning disabilities, and in-house stafftraining. (Optional)

(4)On-site training through actual housing rehabilitation and/or construction work.Each program must be structured so that50 percent ofeachparticipant's time is spent in on-site training.

Refer to 24 CFR 585.3 for a detailed description ofprogram components. F. EligibleParticipants Participants in a Youthbuild program mustbe very low-income high school dropouts between the ages of 16 and 24, inclusive, atthe time ofenrollment. Up to 25 percent ofparticipants may be above very low-income or high school graduates (or equivalent), but must have educational needs thatjustify their participation in the program. G.Activities Used To Conducta YouthbuildProgramMay Include

(1)Work and activities associated with the acquisition, rehabilitation or construction of thehousing and related facilities to beused inthe program;

(2) Relocation payments and other assistancerequired to comply with 24 CFR 585.308.

(3)Costsofongoingtraining 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 forparticipants; and

(6)Administrative costs. Youthbuild funds forthese costs should not exceed 20 percent ofthe totalamount ofYouthbuild assistance.

Refer to 24 CFR585.305 for further details on eligible activities.

H. ResourcesFrom OtherFederal, State, LocalorPrivateEntities

Applicants are strongly encouraged to

use existing housing and homeless assistance programs administered by HUD orother Federal, State, local or private housingprograms as part oftheir Youthbuild program. Use ofother nonYouthbuild funds available for vocational, adult and bilingual education programs or forjob training under the JTPA Act and the Family Support Actof 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. EnvironmentalProceduresand Standards

Applicants are strongly encouraged to select hazard-free and problem-free properties for their Youthbuild projects. Environmental procedures apply to HUD approval ofgrants when the applicant proposes to use Youthbuild funds to cover any costs for the lease, acquisition, rehabilitation or new construction ofreal property proposed forhousing project development. Environmental procedures do not apply to HUD approval ofapplications 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 ofthe lease, acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of real property, the applicant shall submit allrelevant 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 GrantPeriod

Funds awarded should be used within 30 months ofthe effective date ofthe grant agreement.
III. Selection CriteriaforYouthbuild Applications

Due to an order ofthe U.S. District Court for the Northern District, Dallas Division, in Walkerv. HUD,with respect to any application by the City of Dallas, Texas, HUD's evaluation ofthe quality ofthe 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 ofracial 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 mayreceive up to 100points. 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 ofthe applicant and participating parties. (Max.points: 25) The capability ofthe 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, includingprograms for lowincome personsfrom economicallydistressed neighborhoods.

(ii)Young adultleadership development training and related activities foryoung adults.

(iii)Young adult on-site training in housing construction or rehabilitation for the production ofsound and affordable housing for thehomeless and low-income families.

(b)The extent towhich the applicant or participating parties havebeen successful in past education, training and employment programs and activities, includingFederallyfunded 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, orparticipating parties have demonstrated pastability toleverage other
resources to cover administrative, educational and training costs and have demonstrated ability toimplement creative and innovative cost-saving measures.

(d) The extent ofprior program quality and cost-effectiveness. (2)Need:the need for the proposed program, as determined bythe degree of distress ofthe community. (Max.points: 20). In assigningpoints for this criterion, HUD will consider the relative degree ofdistress ofthejurisdiction(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 ofneed ofthejurisdiction(s) in which the program will be located using the CDBGformula. (3) ProgramQualityandFeasibility: comprehensiveness and effectiveness of the proposed Youthbuild program. (Max.points: 35).HUD will consider the overall quality and feasibility ofthe proposed program as measured bythe principles and goals ofthe proposed program; whether proposed program activities meet the overall objectives of the Youthbuild program; whether the proposed program activities will be accomplished within areasonable amount oftime and in a cost effective manner; whether the proposed program activities are comprehensive and integrated; and the potential for success ofthe proposed program. Areas to be considered in the evaluation ofthe overall quality ofproposed program
area:

(a) Outreach, recruitment and selection activities: adescription ofthe proposed: (i) outreach, recruitment (including specific steps to be taken to attract potential eligible participants who are unlikely to be aware ofthis program because ofrace, 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 andjob training services and activities: a description of the educational component ofthe program, including: (i) the types of instructional services to be provided; (ii) the number and qualification ofprogram instructors and ratio ofinstructors to participants; (iii)realistic scheduling plan for classroom and on-the-job training: and (iv)reasonable payments ofparticipants' wages, stipends, and incentives.

(c) Leadership development: a description ofthe 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 ofcounseling 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 ofcommitments from providers).

(e) Coordination and cost-efficiency: a description and documentation ofhow the Youthbuild program will benefit the maximum number ofyoung adults by makinguse ofotherpublic 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 construction/rehabilitation training; (iii) homeless and housing programs; (iv) apprenticeship programs oflocal building trade unions; and (v) administrative, overhead and salary costs.

(f)On-site training: a description of(i) the housingconstruction or rehabilitation activities to be undertaken by participants at the site(s) to be used for the on-site training component ofthe program, (ii) the qualification and number ofon-site supervisors, (iii)the ratio oftrainers to students, (iv)the ratio ofstudents 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 ofthe 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 leadingto 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 ofa comprehensive evaluation plan that is designed to measure the success of the program.

(4)ProgramResources:firm commitment ofresources obtained from other Federal, State, local and private

sources. (Max.points 10). In assigning points for this criterion, HUD will consider the level ofnon-housing

resources obtained for cash or in-kind contribution to cover the following kinds ofareas:

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

(b)Use ofexisting vocational, adult, bilingual educational courses;

(c) Donation oflabor, resource personnel, supplies, materials, classroom and/or meeting space;

(d) other commitments. (5) HousingProgramPriorityPoints: 10 prioritypoints will be assigned to all applications that contain evidence that housing resources from other Federal, state, local orprivate sources that are available to cover the cost, in full, for the followinghousing activities for the proposed Youthbuild program: acquisition, architectural and engineering fees, construction and rehabilitation. Applications that do not include proper documentation of commitment ofnon-Youthbuild

resources orpropose to use Youthbuild grant funds, in whole or in part, for any
one ofthe housing activities listed above will not be entitled to the ten priority points.

Housing resources will not be used in evaluation ofthe program resources criterion.
Bonus Points

(6)Empowerm entZone/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 fivepoints will be assigned based on documentation that the proposed program will support the Strategic plan for aChampion 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)AmericorpsParticipation Bonus: Up to 5 points maybe assigned to Youthbuild applicants who provide evidence ofapplication and/or selection as an Americorps program sponsor. Application must receive acombined

score ofat least 50 points for selection criteria (1), (2), and (3) under Section III in order to be eligible for Americorps points. (8) Court-orderedConsideration: due to an order ofthe U.S. District Court for the Northern District ofTexas, Dallas Division, with respect to any application bythe City ofDallas, 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 ofracial 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 allthe requirements ofapplicable statutes and regulations. The application package requires a description ofthe applicant's and participating parties' experiences in young adult and housing programs, a description ofthe proposed Youthbuild program, a description and documentation ofother public and private resources to be used for the program, including other housing
resources, a schedule for the program, budgets, identification ofhousing sites(s) and demonstration ofsite 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 CFRpart 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 ofthe selection process, HUD is adopting the following application submission and selection procedures: a.Initialscreening:During the period immediately following the application deadline, HUDwill screen each application to determine eligibility. Applications willbe rejected ifthey (1) Are submitted by ineligible applicants, (2) do not use the FY 1997 application package, (3) propose aprogram for which significant activities are ineligible, (4) there are any outstanding findings ofnoncompliance with civil rights statutes, Executive orders or regulation, as aresult offormal 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 majorunresolved audit ormonitoring findings, or (6) has not submitted information necessary to qualify them for an award, i.e., environmental procedure information.

b. RatingandRanking:Each eligible application will be rated based upon the criteria described in section IIIofthis NOFA, with a maximum of 115 points assigned. Using the scores assigned, the application will be placed in rank order. Applications willbe preliminarily selected for funding in accordance with theirrank order.

Iftwo or more applications have the

same score and there are insufficient funds to fund all ofthem, the application(s) with the highest score for the Program Quality and Feasibility criterion shall be elected. In the event of

aprocedural error that, when corrected, would result in selection ofan otherwise eligible applicant during the fundinground under this NOFA, HUD may selectthat application when sufficient funds become available.

c. Clarification of

Application Information:In accordance with the provisions of24 CFRpart 4, subpart B, HUD may contact an applicant to seek clarification of an item in the application, or to request additional or missinginformation, but the clarification or the request for additional

or missinginformation shall not relate to items that would improve the substantive quality ofthe 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 thatthe applicanthas obtained access to the housing site(s); (5) failure to designate thehousing to beproduced foruse by appropriate population; and (6) failure to identify thehousing tobeused for on-site training.

d. Potential Environmental Disqualification: HUDreserves the right to disqualify an application where one ormore environmental thresholds are exceeded ifitis determined thatthe environmental review cannot be conducted and satisfactorily completed by HUD within theHUD review period. (See24 CFR585.307.)

e. ReductioninRequested Grant Amount:HUDmay approve an application for an amount lower than the amount requested by the applicant. In addition, HUD will adjust lineitems in the proposed grantbudget within the amountrequested ifit determines that:

(1) The amount requested for oneor
more eligible activities isnot supported in the application orisunreasonably related to the service or activity tobe carried out;

(2) An activity proposed for funding does not qualify as an eligible activity and can be separated in thebudget;

(3) The amount requested exceeds the total cost limitation established for a grant; or

(4) Insufficient funds remain for the entire request.

f. Notificationof Approvalor Disapproval: HUDwill notifythe selected applicants and the applicants that have not been selected. HUD's notification to a selected applicant of the amount ofthe grant award based on the approved application will constitute

apreliminary approval byHUD, subject to HUDand recipient execution ofthe grant agreement to initiate program activities. 

### VI. OtherMatters

a. Environmental Impact.ThisNOFA provides funding under, and does not alterthe environmental provisions of, regulations in 24CFRpart 585, which hasbeen publishedpreviously in the Federal Register. Accordingly, under 24 CFR50.19(c)(5), this NOFA is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42U.S.C. 4321). Grantees must comply with theregulations in 24 CFR part 585, including the environmental review procedures in 24 CFR585.307.

b. FamilyExecutive Order.The General Counsel as the Designated Official under Executive Order 12606, The Family,has determined that some ofthe policies contained in thisNOFA will have apotential significant impact

on the formation, maintenance and general well-being ofthe family. The expected expansion ofthe housing supply for homeless and low- and very low-income persons and the provision ofopportunities to economically disadvantaged young adults to enhance their education and employment skills will provide apositive 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. FederalismExecutive Order.The General Counsel, as the Designated Official under section 7(a) ofthe 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 (includingtheir political subdivisions),

or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities amongthe various levels ofgovernment.

d. Section 102 oftheHUDReform Act-Accountability in theProvisionof HUDAssistance.Section 102 ofthe Department ofHousing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (HUD Reform Act) and the final rule codified at24 CFRpart 4, subpart A, published

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

anumber ofprovisions that are designed to ensure greater accountability and integrity in the provision ofcertain types ofassistance 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 ofsection 102

are applicable to assistance awarded under this NOFA as follows:

Documentationand publicaccess 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 afive-year period beginning not less than 30 days after the award ofthe assistance. Material willbe made available in accordance with the Freedom ofInformation Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and HUD's implementing regulations at 24 CFRpart 15. In addition, HUD will include the recipients ofassistance pursuant to this NOFA in its Federal Register notice of allrecipients ofHUD assistance awarded on acompetitive basis. Disclosures.HUD will make available to the public forfive years all applicant disclosure reports (HUD Form 2880) submitted in connection with this NOFA. Update reports (also Form 2880) willbe made available along with the applicant disclosure reports, but in no
case for aperiod 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 CFRpart 15.

e. Section 103 ofthe HUDReform Act-ProhibitionofAdvance DisclosuresofFundingDecisions. HUD's regulation implementing section 103 ofthe HUD Reform Act, codified as 24 CFRpart 4, applies to the funding competition announced today. The requirements ofthe rule continue to apply until the announcement ofthe selection ofsuccessful applicants.

HUD employees involved in the review ofapplications and in the makingoffunding decisions are restrained by part 4from providing advance information to any person (otherthan 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 HousingandEqual Opportunity.Applications must contain

a certification that the applicant will comply with the requirements ofthe Fair Housing Act, title VI ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, section 504 ofthe Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and will affirmatively further fairhousing.

g. Prohibition AgainstLobbying Activities. The use offunds awarded under this NOFA is subject to the disclosure requirements and prohibition ofsection 319 ofthe Department ofthe Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act forFiscal Year 1990 (31 U.S.C. 1352) and the implementing regulation at 24 CFRpart 87. These authorities prohibit recipients ofFederal 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 ofthe 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 CFRpart 87 and 7 CFRpart 1944, subpart G, applicants, recipients and subrecipients ofassistance exceeding 

### $100,000 must certify that noFederal 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 ofthe exercise ofthe tribe's sovereign power are excluded from coverage ofthe Byrd Amendment, but IHAs established under State law are not excluded from the statute's coverage.

RequiredReporting.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 disclosurewill be made ofpayments 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 lobbyingwith other than federally-appropriated funds at the time ofapplication.

h. Drug-FreeWorkplace. The DrugFree Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. 701) requires grantees ofFederal 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 ofthe DrugFree Workplace Act of 1988 and HUD's implementing regulation at 24 CFRpart 

### 24, subpart F.

i. CatalogofFederalDomestic Assistance.The Catalog ofFederal Domestic Assistance number is 14.243.

Dated: April 16, 1997. Jacquie M.Lawing, ActingAssistantSecretary forComm nity Planning andDevelopment.
CPDField 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, 400North 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 (CPDDivision),

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 CPDDivision Director, Minnesota State

Office, 220 Second St. South, Minneapolis, MN 55401-2195 CPDDivision Director, Mississippi State

Office, Room 910, 100West Capitol Street,Jackson, MS 39269-1096 CPDDivision Director, Nebraska State

Office, 10909 Mill Valley Road, Omaha, NE 68154-3955 CPDDivision Director, New Hampshire

State Office, Norris Cotton Federal Bldg., 275 Chestnut Street, Manchester, NH 03101-2487 CPDDivision Director, New Jersey State

Office, 13th Floor, One Newark Center, Newark, NJ 07102-5260 CPDDivision Director, New Mexico

State Office, 625 Truman Street, N.E., Albuquerque, NM 87110-6443 CPDDivision Director, New York State

Office, 26 Federal Plaza, New York,
NY 07102-5260 CPDDivision Director, North Carolina

Office, Koger Building 2306 West Meadowview Road, Greensboro, NC 27407-3707 CPDDivision Director, Ohio State

Office, 200 North High Street, Columbus, OH 43215-2499 CPDDivision Director, Oklahoma State

Office, Suite400, 500 Main Place, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 CPDDivision Director, Oregon State

Office, Suite700, 400 Southwest Sixth Avenue, Portland, OR 97204- 1632 CPDDivision Director, Pennsylvania

State Office, The Wannamaker Building, 100 Penn Square East, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390 CPDDivision Director, Pittsburgh Area

Office, Sixth Floor 339 Sixth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2515 CPDDivision Director, San Antonio

Area Office, Washington Square, 800 Dolorosa Street, San Antonio, TX 78207 CPDDivision Director, South Carolina

State Office, Building 1835, 45 Assembly Street, Columbia, SC 29201-2480 CPDDivision Director, St. Louis Area

Office, Third Floor 1222 Spruce Street,St.Louis,MO 63103-2836 CPDDivision Director, Texas State

Office, 1600 Throckmorton, Fort Worth, TX 76113-2905 CPDDivision Director, Virginia State

Office, 3600 West Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23230-0331 CPDDivision Director, Washington

State Office, Suite 200,909 1St Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104-1000 CPDDivision 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, 425West Capitol Ave., Ste 900, LittleRock, AR72201- 3488 [FRDoc. 97 10446 Filed 4 22 97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-29-P

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19866 1997AIM 

# 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 OFAGRICULTURE Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
Noticeof Intentto Extend aCurrently Approved Information Collection AGENCY: Cooperative StateResearch, Education, and Extension Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and requestfor 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 ofthe CSREES Buildings and Facilities Grants Program. DATES: Comments on this noticemust be received byJune 27, 1997, tobe assured ofconsideration. 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.

OMBNumber:0524-0029. ExpirationDateofCurrent Approval: August 31, 1997.

Type of Request:Extension ofa currently approved information collection.

Abstract:The enablinglegislation for the Research Facilities Program is contained in Pub.L. No. 88-74 (7 U.S.C. 390 etseq.) and the annual Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act provides funding to the CSREES forthe support of construction grantprojects. Project recipients (and funding levels foreach)

areidentified in the annual House and SenateConference Reports. Due to the high cost ofconstructing facilities, funding foreach project normally is provided by Congress on an incremental basis over a period ofseveral years.

Prior to the actual award offunds, targeted recipients arecontacted and asked to submit information to CSREES relating to theirprojects. In the first year, theinformation collected from each prospective recipient isused by a team ofsubject-matter experts to conduct an on-site visit to determine the need for the proposed facility; results of the study arereported to Congress. Where funding is provided by Congress in subsequent years, applicants are not required to repeat information provided in aprevious 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 ofthe original grant award (orto approve minor changes necessitated by altered circumstances), determine whether the project is on schedule and within budget, and provide a means tojustify further financial support. On a one-time basis, each grantee also is required to submit environmental information and a certificate offacility completion, both of which are included in the Program Guidelines or Forms Package.

The fundamental purposes ofthe 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 ofproposals and to respond to inquiries from Congress, the Department, and the grantee community. However, the forms arenot designed to be statistical surveys or data collection instruments. The completion ofthe forms by potential recipients is a normal part ofapplying 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 ofthree years. Upon approval, the following information will continue to be collected: TableofContents:A table ofcontents is optional; it is requested only for proposals ofunusual length or complexity and provided atthe discretion ofthe institution. Itis used to facilitate the location ofinformation by merit reviewers and CSREES officials.

ProjectSummary:This is a short summary ofthe project that focuses on the broad goals associated with the construction effort. Itis required to enable CSREES to provide projectrelated information to Congress, the Department, and the general public in a timely fashion.

ProjectDescription: Applicants are asked to provide briefinformation on the scope ofthe 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 ofthe physical site upon which it is planned to erect the facility, a description ofany preliminary work that has been performed to date, an outline ofplans to obtain any required licenses or permits, adescription ofthe facility as it is envisioned to be completed, capacity ofexistingutility systems to service the new space, an outline ofany problems that could delay the start orcompletion ofthe 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 ofthe applicant's need forundertaking 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 sitevisits.

ProgramDescription: Information is requested on the programs that are proposed to be housed in the completed space, including new or enhanced programs, and the relevance ofthese 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 outin these facilities be complementary to overall Departmental programs. This information also is required to be sure that the proposed programs do notunnecessarily duplicate programs being conducted elsewhere within the institution's State

orregion.

ManagementStructure:This calls for description ofthe organizational management structure that is planned for the completed facility. The purpose ofrequesting such information is to

ensure that viable management, integrated with the rest ofthe institution, will be in place so that the facility and the programs it is intended to house will function properly afterthe facility becomes operational. It also demonstrates the level ofinstitutional 

## 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 tojustify 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 settlingupon the one athand. 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.

ContingencyPlan:This is an outline ofthe institution's fallbackplan 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 ofsuch high priority that the institution is committed to constructing it regardless offunding source, or will it abandon the project unless Federal funds are provided?)

OperatingCosts:Applicants are asked to describe theirplans for operating and maintaining the facility after construction has been completed, including the source(s) ofoperating funds. This is required inresponse 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 nothave 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.

AdministrativeCertifications: Applicants are required by law or regulation to complete administrative certifications to assist in determining their eligibility forFederal funds.

Environmental Assessment:This information is requested, on a one-time basis, ofall grantees prior to their being authorized to take irreversible action on
aproject (e.g., site clearing or groundbreaking). The information is necessary to assist CSREES in complying with the provisions ofthe National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42U.S.C. 4321 etseq.) and implementing regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality at 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, as adopted and supplemented byUSDA at 7 CFR lb and by CSREES at7 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-GrantApplicationFacilities Project:This form is the cover 

### sheetofeach 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 ofCSREES' statistical data base for the dissemination ofinformation to Congress, the Department, and other interested parties. In addition, the signatures at the bottom ofthe page provide legal assurance that the proposed project is sanctioned by toplevel officials ofthe institution.

CSREES-851 Budget- Facilities Project:This form provides abreakdown ofplanning 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 ofcosts being proposed.

CSREES-852-CurrentandPending Support-Facilities Project:This form 

### requests a listingofall recent, current, and/orpending support for the construction or renovation ofprogram 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 (oroverlaps 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 (42U.S.C. 4001- 4128) and implementing regulations established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (44CFR 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 byFederal Law. However, this form is not required for follow-on applications unless the construction site has changed.

CSREES-854-DataSheet-Facilities Project:This form requests statistical information about the project (its purpose, size, cost, level ofmatching 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.

CSREES-860-Ce rtificateofFacility Completion:This is a two-sided form that is required on a one-time basis but it is not submitted aspart ofthe actual grant application. The first side is a certificate, prepared and signed by the design team, attesting to physical attributes ofthe facility; and the reverse ofthe form, completed by the grantee, is a certification ofoccupancy and list ofprograms to be housed in the new space. This information is required to provide a record offinal inspection and acceptance ofthe facility bythe owner and also to ensure that the programs for which the facility was constructed will actually occupy the facility during the period ofFederal financial interest.

EstimateofBurden:Public reporting burden for: an initial grant proposal is estimated to average 22 hours per response; a follow-on application is estimated to average 10hours per response; an environmental assessment is estimated to average 10 hours per response; and Form CSREES-860, Certification ofFacility Completion, is estimated to average 2 hours per response.

Respondents:Organizations identified in the annual House and Senate Conference Reports.

EstimatedNumberofResponsesper Respondent:The FY 1998 estimate on the number ofresponses per respondent is based on numbers associated with FY 1997 funding. As such, the estimated number ofrespondents are one initial proposal, 19 follow-on applications, 42 environmental assessments, and 14 for Form CSREES-860.

EstimatedTotalAnnualBurden 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 (twohours per 14 respondents).

Copies ofthis 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 ofthe functions ofthe agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy ofthe agency's estimate ofthe burden ofthe proposed collection ofinformation 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 ofthe information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden ofthe collection ofinformation

on those who are to respond, including through the use ofappropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms ofinformation technology. Comments may be sent to: Sally J.Rockey, Deputy Administrator, Competitive Research Grants and Awards Management, CSREES, USDA, STOP 2240, 1400Independence 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 willbecome a matter ofpublic record.

Done at Washington, DC, on this 15th day ofApril 1997.
B.H. Robinson, Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education,andExtensionService. [FR Doc. 97 10448 Filed 4 22 97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-22-P 

## 19870

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19870 1997AIM

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 ofmodifications to project XL.

SUMMARY: This notice modifies EPA's existing guidance on Project XL and solicits new XLproposals. This notice clarifies EPA's definition ofthe 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 XLprojects. 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 ofPolicy, 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

aportfolio ofreinvention initiatives to be implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency as apart ofits efforts to achieve greater public health and environmental protection at more reasonable cost. One ofthese reinvention priorities, Project XL, is a national pilotprogram to test new approaches for meeting environmental goals and responsibilities. Through a series ofsite-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.

XLprojects 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 ofenvironmental protection. Broader implementation of cleaner, cheaper and smarter ideas is the ultimate objective ofProject 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 ofenvironmental protection. But where XLtests ideas that, if successful, will change our national system ofenvironmental protection, these approaches seek to customize the broader system to meet the needs of a specific location. Supporters ofcustomization want their approach available to alarge 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 aMay 23, 1995, Federal Register notice (60 FR27282, May 23, 1995), EPA describes Project XL as aprogram that offers abalanced set ofbenefits to the environment, the regulated community and the public. In that notice, the XLprogram was defined through eight criteria by which proposals are selected for participation. While all ofthese 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 ofthe program. Since the inception ofProject XL, there have been requests for clarification ofEPA's definitions ofthese three essential program elements. EPA recognizes the critical need to ensure that environmental regulatory agencies, potential project sponsors, and other interested stakeholders have aclear understanding ofthe concepts, definitions, and boundaries ofProject 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 XLwill 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 ofthese 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 ofthese steps into ongoingprojects.

EPA seeks comment on all aspects of this notice on an ongoingbasis. The guidance as defined in this notice is the result ofAgency 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 ofthe 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 ofXL projects. EPA recognized and addressed these distinctions byissuing a separate Federal Register notice to initiate the XL Communities program (60 FR 55569, November 11, 1995). In keeping with the recognition ofcommunities' need for different approaches, EPA will clarify in the near future the applicability ofthis guidance to community XL projects.

This notice also includes a general solicitation fornew proposals to Project XL. This solicitation lays out some areas that have been identified bythe 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 afuture notice with the results. Today's notice also solicits new ideas from parties outside ofthe regulated community. The Agency is working on a process that will facilitate the development ofideas 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 ProjectXL, EPA looks to develop in ProjectXL those ideas that introduce fundamentally different ways ofproviding 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" ofourcurrent 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

aposition ofenvironmental 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 ofprojects, and close partnership with states. Also outlined are definite points at which information willbe 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 ofthe 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 FR27282, 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 ofapproximately 50 projects remains. To date, EPA has approved 3 XL projects for implementation, has proposed approval ofa fourth, and is developing 10 additional XL projects with state and local governments, project sponsors and stakeholders.
PotentialProjectThemes

EPA did not originally identify the specific types ofproposals 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 atcreating innovative environmental technologies, and EPA retains a strong interest in proposals in this area. But the open invitation for allproposals still exists, and today's notice does not change EPA's general invitation for all kinds ofideas. Nevertheless, EPA does wish to describe several general themes that have been identified as important to pursue in the context oftesting innovations for 21st century environmental protection. Many of these themes arebased 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 ofhazardous 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 ofemissions data, particularly for hazardous air pollutants, to enable performance-based approaches and to increase public understanding;

* Approaches that minimize the generation ofwastes 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 ofthe environment throughout the entire life cycle ofa product; * Incorporation ofenvironmental stewardship in the customer and supplier relationships ofregulated 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 willbe made to seek the input ofa wide range of interested parties, including other regulators, environmental and environmentaljustice groups, trade associations, and academic institutions with an interest in environmental policy. The results ofthese efforts will be published in the Federal Register and made available through other media.
StakeholderInitiated Projects Today's noticereaffirms 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 ofan XL proposal is more typically initiated by aregulated firm or cosponsoring organization, itmay also be initiated byEPA, 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 ofEPA or the state environmental agency in identifying potential participants from among the regulated community. EPA will, upon the request ofstakeholders who wish to initiateprojects, consider using its own
resources (e.g., the Federal Register and the Agency's Project XLInternet Web Site, www.epa.gov/ProjectXL) to identify potential participants from amongregulated firms. Beyond its openness to stakeholder initiated proposals, EPA is developing a process to solicit themes and specific ideas from groups outside ofthe regulated community, and to turn those ideas into fruitfulXL projects. SuperiorEnvironmental Performance

In order to testinnovative 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 ofsuperior environmental performance to assist future applicants, stakeholders and those evaluating the program.

EPA is establishing atwo tiered assessment ofsuperior environmental performance for Project XL proposals. Tier 1is a quantitative benchmark ofthe project against the environmental performance that would have occurred absent the program. It establishes a baseline ofequivalence 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 notbe considered superior overall. Tier 2 is an examination offactors, both quantitative and qualitative, that lead EPA tojudge that a project willproduce a superior level ofenvironmental 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 areboth essential in determining whether aproject 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 specificXL 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 ofenvironmental regulation, the results achieved through the use of these guidelines willbe 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 aproject 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. Tier1:IstheProjectEquivalent?
Tier 1establishes an environmental performance benchmark for an XL project. This benchmark provides a reasonable estimate ofwhat would have happened to the environment absent Project XL. It quantifies current performance levels and sets abaseline against which the project's anticipated environmental performance can be compared.

These benchmarks are expressed in terms ofloadings to the environment. The term loadings is meant byEPA to incorporate abroad setof stressors to the environment, such as emissions of specific pollutants or generation of waste streams released to the environment by disposal. * The project benchmark willbe set ateither the currentactual environmental loadings or the future allowableenvironmental loadings, whichever is more protective. * Where the project includes new facilities that have not yetbeen built or expansion ofexisting facilities for additional production ofacurrent product orfor new products that have not yet been produced, the benchmark will be set atthe level ofperformance generally representative ofindustry 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 ofproduction basis or other comparable measure (e.g., volume of liquid hazardous waste generated per unit ofproduct), 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 ofthe pre-existing wastewater treatment system, as long as that system continues to operate).

EPA will also seek to benchmark the project from apollution prevention perspective. While other Tier 1 benchmarks are expressed in terms of loadings to the environment, this benchmark may be expressed in terms ofinputs to production (e.g., use oftoxic chemicals, fresh water, or other natural resources). EPA will be most interested in inputs ofspecific environmental and/

or stakeholder concern. EPA will compare the project's use ofthose inputs against the volume ofthe inputs that would be used absent Project XL. This attention to pollution prevention is meantto encourage projects that reduce the use ofmaterials ofenvironmental 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 ofatest of innovative environmental management. These projects may exceed the appropriate benchmark for one loading but fall short ofit for another. To address the imprecision inherent in evaluating tradeoffs among environmental loadings and environmental media, projects ofthis type should demonstrate, with an adequate margin ofsafety, 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 orrisk-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 ofthese 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 shiftingofrisk burden (e.g., diversion of hazardous airpollutant emissions from stacks to the work area, or lowernet 

## 19874

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19874 1997

### Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Notices

level ofremediation 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.

Tier2: Superior Environmental Performance

Tier 2 is an examination offactors that lead EPA tojudge 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., aproject that alters production processes to eliminate the need for toxic ingredients, instead of just disposing oftoxic waste created). * Environmental performance more protective than the bestperformance practices offacilities with comparable products or processes (e.g., closed loop production at a steel mill).

* Incorporation ofcontinuous improvement towards ambitious quantitative environmental aspirations (e.g., project with a zero emissions goal).

* The extent to which the project produces clear reduction ofrisk.

* Historic demonstration of leadership in environmental performance ofthe 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 ofconcern to stakeholders, including issues not governed by EPA rules (e.g., identification ofcommunity 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 forEnvironmental Performance

Project documents should clearly distinguish amongthe different ways in which facilities may be held accountable for commitments to superior environmental performance. There are twobroad 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 ofthe

means to achieve them. * Enforceablecommitments are those levels ofperformance which can be compelled by government. Failure to achieve these commitments constitutes grounds for government or citizen enforcement action, with all ofthe remedies generally available absent Project XL. XL Projects redefine compliance on a site-specific basis, and EPA will ensure a level ofenforceability 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 ofthe XLproject. 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 ofsuch 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 aparticular commitment should be discussed within aproject's stakeholder process and incorporated into the FPA. There may be cases, for example, where stakeholders believe that aparticular 

### commitment is critical to the success of

aproject and maywish accountability for that commitment to reflect this (e.g., by more detailed reporting ofa voluntary commitment, or by incorporating that commitment into the enforceable component ofthe project).

Project XL is intended for good actors. Those companies and facilities with a history ofviolations ofenforceable commitments pose additional issues to be factored into consideration ofXL proposals and projects. EPA generally will not approve XL projects for facilities that are the subject ofan ongoing enforcement action unless the facility resolves outstanding compliance issues (e.g., through payment of penalties and, where applicable, completion ofall injunctive reliefand obligations under an administrative order orjudicial decree) before participating in Project XL. Occasionally, a past orongoing violation may be discovered in the

course ofproject development. Such violations, if discovered and reported by the project sponsor during the course of project development, willbe handled in accordance with EPA's Audit Policy.

Finally, enforceable and voluntary commitments should notbe 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 apriority pollutant in a facility's effluent, 100% reclamation of

araw material, or elimination ofa potential toxic from use in production)

are important drivers for superior environmental performance and will be assessed accordingly byEPA in the context ofTier 2, as discussed above. Corporate aspirations willbe contained in the FPA aspart ofthe project description and as elements that help to make up the project's superior environmental performance, but should be clearly distinguished from accountable commitments.

HistoricVoluntary 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 ofhistoric environmental leadership. Many ofthe facilities that willparticipate in XL have already taken voluntary measures to achieve a level ofenvironmental performance far better than is required by applicable regulations. EPA wishes here to offer guidance on the treatment ofthese pre

## 19875

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19875 1997

### Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Notices

existing voluntary measures in the context ofevaluating the environmental performance ofan XL project.

In the Tier 1 analysis discussed above, EPA seeks to benchmark the XL project against a reasonable estimate ofwhat 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 abank account from which a company could draw, potentially resulting in a lower level ofenvironmental performance.

However, in outstanding site-specific circumstances, the potential negative effects ofcrediting a pre-existing voluntary measure to the XL project may be outweighed by otherpositive elements ofsuperior environmental performance contained in the XL project (e.g., where acredit 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 notbe 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 inproject 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 XLcan enhance operations atparticipating facilities, to assist future applicants, stakeholders and those evaluating the program.

Regulatory flexibility and its potential to reduce costs and improve the operating efficiency offacilities 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 aproject 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 ofProject 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 forCreatingFlexibility
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 asprojects are developed. Ultimately, however, the selection and development offlexibility tools requires

acase-by-case assessment.

The tools noted above provide afirm 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 otherXL decision criteria. These tools are strongest when tailored to be only as broad as needed for implementing the project terms.

Flexibility provided in XLprojects establishes new conditions that must be metby participating facilities. As discussed above, some, ifnot 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 offlexibility available to certain XL projects. To date, however, this concern generally has not been a real barrier to implementation of projects that meet the XLdecision criteria.
SelectionofFlexibilityTools forSpecific Projects

The need to select tools to fit the conditions of aproject is secondary to the creation ofthe 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 offlexibility tools to fit the conditions of aproject. Investigation of tools should begin with exploration of the full range ofdiscretion and flexibility available under the combination ofexistingfederal and state regulatory and statutory mechanisms. Options may include use ofexisting statutory and regulatory variance and waiver mechanisms, deviation from existingpractices and policies to the extentpermitted by statute and regulation, flexible interpretations of regulatory requirements, and other such regulatory and statutory mechanisms. Under these kinds ofapproaches, some projects maybe implemented, in whole

or in part, through permit modifications

or the issuance ofnew permits incorporating the terms ofthe project.

EPA expects that the flexibility tools needed for many projects will not be found within the range ofdiscretion 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 ofa site-specific rule need not delay aproject or create additional resource burdens forproject sponsors or stakeholders. The legal stepsrequired in rule-making (e.g., public notice and comment) are already part ofXL 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 offlexibility available to certain XLprojects bylimiting the authority ofEPA or the states to promulgate site-specific rules. These situations must be addressed on a caseby-case basis amongproject sponsors, stakeholders and regulators. Options include modification ofthe project to avoid these issues and the use of carefully tailored compliance mechanisms.
Value ofFlexibility

Firms participate inXL 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 ofother requirements, for example, XL lowers the cost ofpollution control by giving a facility the ability to choose the most cost effective means ofachieving those standards. XLperformance 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 orreuse ofchemicals allow firms to recoup their value asuseful products, avoid disposal costs and potential environmental liabilities. Streamlined reportingrequirements reduce administrative overhead.

XL also strengthens participating firms' competitive position in other ways. XLparticipants are helping to define aregulatory system for the 21st Century, a system designed to meet their needs as well as those ofthe 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 ofgoods created through pollution prevention or recycling.

Participation in XL strengthens the community ties ofparticipating firms, creating a basis in trust for resolution of other conflicts that may arise in or outside ofthe context ofenvironmental 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 ofXL project development may help both groups forge real and informed trust. The regulatory flexibility offered in XLcreates 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 anew kind ofpublic 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 ofProject 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 XLprogram made clear that

an important factorin EPA's approval of projects is "the extent to which project proponents have sought and achieved the support ofparties that have a stake in the environmental impacts ofthe 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 ofthe concepts being tested in the project, such as state, regional ornational 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 ofeach XL project. Stakeholders provide information about the preferences ofthe community. They may identify issues that have escaped the notice ofproject sponsors and regulators. And stakeholder support is essential ifthe knowledge gained in facility-based experiments is to be transferred to the generally applicable system ofenvironmental protection. An effective process for stakeholder involvement is an acknowledgment that today's regulators and regulated community donot have amonopoly on the best ideas for tomorrow's system of environmental protection.

In this notice, stakeholders are grouped into three categories, each with

a distinctrole in project development and implementation. Those stakeholders interested in the broader implementation ofthe concepts being tested in the project, as well as those stakeholders in the local community or directly affected bythe project, should have the opportunity to place themselves in any one ofthese three categories. Direct participants in project development work intensively with project sponsors to build aproject from the ground up. The views ofdirect participant stakeholders will strongly influence the details ofthe project as well as EPA's ultimate decision to approve or notto approve the project. Commentorshave 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 aperiodic basis. The views of informed commentors are a strong indicatorofthe broad potential for wider applicability ofthe innovation being tested in aproject. Members ofthe 

## 19877

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19877 1997

### Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Notices

generalpublicshould have easy access both to the project development process and to information about the environmental results ofthe project

once it is implemented, and should have the ability to participate more actively if they so choose. Actions for involvement ofeach ofthese three categories ofstakeholders at each step in the process-from pre-proposal to implementation ofan FPA-are discussed here.

Over and above these three categories ofstakeholder involvement, EPA strongly encourages firms and established non-governmental organizations to partner as co-sponsors ofXL projects. Forexample, a firm and

a state citizens group mayjoin together and propose an XL project to EPA and the state environmental agency. Cosponsorsare distinct from the three categories ofstakeholders described above and discussed in this notice, and co-sponsorship has many advantages

over individually sponsored projects. The participation ofthe non-regulated partner lends credibility to the broader stakeholder involvement process discussed in this notice. It also builds the capacity ofnon-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 ofa 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 XLproject 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 ofthe proposal and their commitment to participate inproject development;

* Develop as part ofthe proposal itselfa 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 maybe identified through referrals (e.g., through environmental interest group networks); and

* Identify and contact potential

comm entorson the proposal. StakeholderInitiated Proposals
While the development of an XL proposal is more typically initiated by a regulated firm or co-sponsoring nongovernmental organization, itmay 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 ofEPA or state environmental agency in broadly solicitingpotential participants from amongregulated 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 amongregulated firms. However, to be considered by EPA, aformal XLproposal must ultimately include the voluntary participation ofthe owner or operator of facilities addressed in the proposal. ProposalDevelopment

Once received byEPA, XLproposals enter the proposal development stage. During this stage, EPA and state environmental agencies determine whether a proposal should advance as
an XLproject, 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 ofProject XL based on the eight XL proposal selection criteria as refined in this notice. Ifthe 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 XLWeb site to inform stakeholders ofthe 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 ofthe proposal, including its stakeholder plan. During this step, EPA will generally provide feedback to the project sponsors. Stakeholders aware ofthe proposal at this early stage may: * Contact the project sponsors directly, or contact EPA project leads viaphone, electronic mail, or the Web site with pertinent questions orother 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 ofa revised proposal, answers to questions, or withdrawal ofthe 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 ofthe 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 notifythe project sponsor and post its decision on the Web site. ProjectDevelopment

A proposal that advances is described

as an XLproject, and enters the project

orFPA development stage. FPAs are developed through a sponsor-led process ofdialogue 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 commentorswhile informing the general public.
Further Identification ofStakeholders

The first step in the FPA development process is to notify the generalpublicof 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 oftheir 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 abrief description ofthe project, including the stakeholder plan, and the name and contact information for aperson 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
commentorsfrom among economically disadvantaged stakeholders and among stakeholders most directly affected by the environmental and health impacts of the project; -Potential direct participants and
commentorswho have specific interest or expertise in the issues addressed in the project from among the national environmental and environmentaljustice communities and the industry segment ofwhich the facility is apart; and -Potential direct participants and
commentorsfrom among participating facilities' non-managerial employees. Stakeholders should be aware that direct participation in an XLproject involves a substantial personal commitment oftime and energy, requiring consistent attendance at meetings, awillingness to abide by the agreed upon process, and intensive work over the project development period. EPA encourages direct participantstakeholders 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 participantsand understand the commitment involved should be given the opportunity to do so. However, there may be aneed forproject sponsors to limit the number ofdirectparticipants (e.g., to maintain a balanced or workable process). EPA will not determine the membership ofthe group ofdirect participants, but may advise sponsors of whether itbelieves the group as assembled is consistent with the guidance contained in this document.
Team Training

Once directparticipants have been identified, EPA encourages project sponsors to discuss with them the need for team training at the outset ofproject development activities. Where training has been requested by direct participant stakeholder groups, the project sponsors should:

* Provide training to direct participantson the technical issues addressed in the project, including the overall environmental and health impacts ofthe test facility; and

* Provide training to sponsors' own representatives and to direct participantson meaningful participation in acollaborative process, such as XLproject development, with special emphasis on addressing the 

### issues ofconcern to the local community, to members ofminority 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 ofteam 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, directparticipant stakeholders and the project sponsors should agree on a set ofground 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 ofthe "Model Plan for Public Participation" developed byits National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, as ground rules are developed that: * Define the relationship ofdirect participant stakeholders, as individuals and as agroup, 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 forthe development ofthe project as a whole and for appropriate short-term milestones; * Contain aprocess for documenting proceedings and decisions, including dissenting opinions; * Contain aprocess for changes in membership to the directparticipant group as needed or desired; * Determine how the project development process will be managed, including whether athird-party facilitator is desirable (EPA encourages the use ofneutral, local third-party facilitators); * Decide and document how the project development process will reach out to educate commentorsand the generalpublicbeyond the means discussed in thisnotice (e.g., when and how to notifythese groups ofthe significant milestones in project development, beyond the specific points for notification discussed in this document); and

* Establish procedures for participation and involvement ofthe 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.
GroundRules onAuthority ofDirect ParticipantsWithRespect to theProject Sponsors

As discussed above, the authority of direct participantstakeholders 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 willbe a desire to provide direct participantstakeholders with greater authority over project sponsor's decisions. Project sponsors and direct participantstakeholders should agree at the outset on whether stakeholders, individually or as agroup, have the ultimate ability to veto project sponsors' plans. ImportanceofStakeholderViews in EPA 'sDecision toApprove or DisapproveaProject

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 byEPA, 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 participantstakeholder groups. These individuals, more so than other members ofthe general publicor even commentors,willhave examined the project in all its detail. The expression ofsupport for aproject by its direct participantstakeholder 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 directparticipant stakeholder group has the ability to veto

aproject 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 participantstakeholder group with strictly consultative authority over the project sponsor's plans, or where the views ofthe group are not expressed in terms ofacceptance or rejection, EPA will give significant weight to the views ofthese 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 XLFPA. That is to say, EPA will not approve or disapprove an FPA based solely on the support ofa directparticipant stakeholder group or other party.
Ground Rules for Communicating to Commentors and the General Public

EPA encourages project sponsors and directparticipant 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 byEPA to document the history ofall input and decisions impacting the project since itwas submitted as aproposal);

* Make available any other materials requested bythe project sponsors, direct participants,or state environmental agency, except confidential business information, on its Web site and in the administrative record;

* Notify commentorsdirectly ofthe availability ofthis material;

* Convey to the project sponsors, directparticipants, 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 toInformation

All documents provided to EPA in the context ofProject XL, with the exception ofconfidential business information, are in the domain ofthe 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 solemeans of disseminating information for which it is responsible. The Web site is not only

arepository ofinformation, but has the capability to notify interested stakeholders electronically when new information ofrelevance to them is posted.

These guidelines specifically identify points where use oflocal 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 ofall materials referenced in these guidelines. (The record can be accessed by contacting Lutithia Barbee ofEPA 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 ofavailable resources to provide interested citizens with the easiest possible means ofaccess 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 commentors and the general publicaware 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 ofa project sponsor, direct participantstakeholder,

cornmentor,or the state environmental agency-a meeting ofthese 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 aproject that does not have the support ofthe relevant state environmental agency. EPA also recognizes the possibility that it might disapprove ofaproject that has the support ofthe state environmental agency. In either case, EPA and the state environmental agency will consult with each other prior to makingtheir final decision, in an effort to reach consensus amongregulators at all levels of government.

Where formal concurrence within EPA has been achieved, and where the project has gained the support ofthe 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 commentorsofthe availability ofreviewable material;

* Issue the FPA for a thirty-day local notice and comment period for the generalpublic; * Publish in the Federal Register a notice ofavailability, briefly describing the project, and providing instructions forreceiving a copy ofthe 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 ofits 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. ImplementationandEvaluation

Once approved, aproject enters its implementation stage. During this stage, the project is monitored for compliance with the terms ofthe 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 XLprogram itself.While 

## 19880

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19880 1997

### Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 1997 / Notices

this notice does notprovide substantial guidance on the role ofstakeholders 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, projectproponents should identify [in the FPA] how to makeinformation about the project, including performance data, available to stakeholders in aform thatis easily understandable. Projects should have clear objectives and requirements thatwill be measurable in order toallow EPA and the public to evaluate the success ofthe project and enforce its terms. (60FR 27282,May 23, 1995)
EPA recommends that the FPA delineate the intended role of stakeholders during the implementation and evaluation ofthe project. The FPA may, for example, provide for reexamination or periodic evaluation of the project by directparticipant stakeholders. Independent Technical Assistance to DirectParticipant StakeholderGroups
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 willbe a need for the Agency to offer some additional support for technical assistance to directparticipant 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 ofmeeting those needs should be identified by the directparticipant 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 asboth the source ofexpertise and the financial means ofobtaining technical services. These options should be explored before EPA funds are sought for the provision oftechnical 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 useof 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 directparticipantstakeholder group. These include cooperative agreements to local and stateregulators 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 ofa public/private partnership to handle technical assistance requests from directparticipantstakeholder 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 ofEPA, state environmental agencies, national stakeholder groups, and other parties that provide resources to the partnership, in terms ofwhat type of assistance should be available, who could provide assistance when no local experts are known, and atwhat cost.

Regardless ofthe 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 acredible fashion that preserves and fosters the integrity ofa meaningful stakeholder involvement process. Proposal andProject Development Process

The May 23, 1995, Federal Register notice that announced Project XL included a briefdescription ofthe XL process. The notice described four stages: solicitation and selection ofXL proposals, project (orFPA) development, project implementation, and evaluation. The notice contained additional information, including time frames, for the firsttwo steps. In today's notice, EPA offers information on changes to the process ofcreating 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 ofan XLproposal 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 ofcosponsorship relations among facilities and non-governmental organizations. Third, this notice envisions that proposals themselves willbe much

more substantive and detailed. While addressing the eight XLcriteria, a proposal should include a more detailed analysis ofsuperior environmental performance consistent with the principles included in this notice; a description ofpre-proposal stakeholder activities and fully developed stakeholder plan; and adiscussion of the specific regulatory flexibility sought and barriers to providing that flexibility in otherwise applicable requirements. In addition, EPA encourages allpotential applicants to meet with EPA and the affected state prior to submission of any proposal to clarify the XLprogram, 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 willproceed 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 ofenvironmental and regulatory concepts worth testing in Project XL. IfEPA determines that the proposal should continue through the proposal development process, a cross

## 19881

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 Staffand each affected headquarters office, EPA region, and state-will review the proposal, discuss it throughout theirrespective offices as necessary, and together establish specific questions or outstanding items in the proposal that mayhinder a thorough understanding ofthe proposal. Along with any feedbackreceived from interested stakeholders, EPA will communicate its own feedback to the project sponsors.

At this stage, responsibility for the timing ofthe proposal process shifts to the project sponsors. The sponsors may consider EPA's appraisal and determine the next step: to provide additional information requested byEPA, to submit arevised proposal, or to withdraw the proposal. In responding, the project sponsors are strongly encouraged to raise important issues to any stakeholders who havebeen identified at this point.

With complete information, EPA will develop an assessment ofthe merits of the proposal relative to the Project XL decision criteria. The decision to advance or reject the proposal willbe made by the Associate Administrator for Reinvention in consultation with other members ofEPA'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. ProjectDevelopmentProcess



### Proposals that advance are at this point described asXL projects in development. This is the stagein 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 ofan FPA. Guidance on some ofthe details ofthe project development process is contained in the stakeholder involvement portion ofthis notice.
Closure

Once adraft FPA has been developed, EPA will conduct a final internal review ofthe project and solicitformal 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 ofEPA's senior leadership team. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection provisions in this notice, including the request for proposals, have been approved bythe Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB)under the PaperworkReduction Act, 44U.S.C. 3501 etseq. An Information Collection Request document has been approved (ICRNo. 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. FredHansen, DeputyAdministrator. [FR Doc. 97 10510 Filed 4 22 97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 

## 19882

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19882 1997AIM

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 1997HeinOnline -- 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 thatits 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 ofthis order and comply with itsprovisions. Sec. 2. Definitions.The followingdefinitions 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 ofthis order, "military departments," as defined in 5 U.S.C. 102, are covered under the auspices ofthe Department ofDefense. 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 toresult in arulethat 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, ortribal governments or communities); and (b) concern an environmental health risk or safety risk that an agency hasreason 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 areexposed 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 shallbe composed ofthe: (a) Secretary of Health and Human Services, who shall serve as a CoChair ofthe Council; (b) Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, who shall serve
as aCo-Chair ofthe Council; (c) Secretary ofEducation; (d) Secretary ofLabor; (e) Attorney General; (f) Secretary ofEnergy; (g) Secretary ofHousing and Urban Development; (h) Secretary ofAgriculture; (i) Secretary ofTransportation; (j) Director ofthe Office ofManagement and Budget; (k)Chair ofthe Council on Environmental Quality; (1)Chair ofthe Consumer Product Safety Commission; (m) Assistant to the President forEconomic Policy; (n) Assistant tothe President forDomestic Policy; (o) Assistant to the President and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy; (p) Chair ofthe Council ofEconomic 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 ofthe Administration's budget, toinclude the following elements: (a) statements of principles, general policy, and targeted annual priorities to guide the Federal approach to achieving the goals ofthis order; (b) a coordinated research agenda for the Federal Government, including steps to implement the review of research databases described in section 4 ofthis 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 ofhigh-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 ofthis 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 ofScience and Technology Policy and the National Science and Technology Council shall ensure that this report is fully considered in establishingresearch 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 ofthat 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. ResearchCoordinationandIntegration. 

### 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 theplan. 4-402. The plan shall promote the sharing ofinformation 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 allFederal agencies.
Sec. 5. Agency EnvironmentalHealthRisk orSafety 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 ofthe 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 bythis 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 thepublic, tothe extent permitted by law.
Sec. 6. InteragencyForum on ChildandFamilyStatistics. 

### 6-601. The Director ofthe 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 ofthe well-being ofthe 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 ofFederal 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 ofChild 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 mostrecently available data.
See. 7. GeneralProvisions.
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 ofSeptember 2, 1987 isrevoked.

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 1997Z 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 1997HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 19890 1997

## 19891

Federal Register 

# Presidential Documents

Vol. 62, No. 78
Wednesday, April 23, 1997



### Title 3- Proclamation 6992 ofApril 19, 1997


## The President National Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week, 1997

By the President of the United States ofAmerica

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 offulfillment 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 tochoose tobecome 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 ofpeople awaiting transplants become reality. Many Americans are unaware of the national shortage of organ donors, and all ofus 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 ourreligious communities and community organizations to spread this important message. The Federal Government has already established partnerships with the Union ofHebrew Congregations and the Congress ofNational Black Churches in an effort to educate congregations and clergy across our Nation through sermons, Sunday school programs, and community events. We should domore. 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 oflife. NOW, THEREFORE, I,WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofApril 19, 1997


## National Wildlife Week, 1997

By the President of the United States ofAmerica

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 oflife, and from cities, suburbs, and the rural heartland, to learn about and participate in the effort to preserve the places and wildlife that contribute somuch to ourNation'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 therole 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 ofnature's abundant gifts. NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President ofthe 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 ofour 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 ofEducation Supreme Court decision.

In addition to the parks themselves, the national park spirit thrives in thousands ofcommunities 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 ofthese 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 ofus. 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 StatesGovernment 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 PublicLaw ni Federal Register finding aids, and list ofdocuments 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 ofcontents 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 ACTUALDOCUMENT. Document public inspection may be viewed and copied in our offi at 800North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 700. TheFax-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 ofeach month, the Office ofthe Federal Register publishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA),which lists parts and sections affected by documents published since therevision date ofeach title.

523-5227 3CFR Proclamations: 6980
................................. 16033 523-5227 6981
................................. 16035 523-5227 6982
................................. 16039 6983
................................. 17681 6984
................................. 18015 6985
................................. 18497 523-4534 6986
................................. 18501 523-3187 6987
................................. 18501 523-5229 6988
................................. 19017 6989
................................. 19021 6990
................................. 19471 6991
................................. 19663
umbers, 6992
................................. 19891 public 6993
................................. 19893 -275-0920 6994
................................. 19895 Executive Orders: February 21, 1913 need a fax (Revoked inpart by

r long PLO 7252)

.................... 17633 of 12566 (revoked by EO egister's 13043)
........................... 19217 cument 12606 (revoked by EO of 13045)
.......................... 19885 12752 (amendedby

EO 13044)

.................... 19665 INTS ON 13010 (amendedby

son EO13041)

.................... 17039

ce located 13041

............................... 17039 n-Demand 13042

............................... 18017 -713-6905 13043

............................... 19217 13044

............................... 19665 13045

............................... 19885 AdministrativeOrders: Memorandum ofApril

1,1997

......................... 18261

5CFR
2 13
................................... 18505 532

................................... 16465 591

................................... 16218 1201
................................. 17041 1209
................................. 17047 1620
................................. 18234 1655

................................. 18019 Proposed Rules: 2 51
................................... 1952 5
7CFR 56

..................................... 18019 70

..................................... 18019 301

................................... 15809 600

................................... 16659 601

................................... 16659 723

................................... 15599 916

................................... 15355 917

................................... 15355 946

................................... 18021 956

................................... 18023 959

................................... 19667 982

................................... 18026 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

430

................................... 16739 490

................................... 19701
11 CFR 111

................................... 1 81

67
12 CFR 208

................................... 15600 213

....................... 15364,16053 303
................................... 16662 560
................................... 15819 600
................................... 18037 603
................................... 18037 611
................................... 18037 614
....................... 18037,19219 619
................................... 18037 1805
................................. 16444 Proposed Rules: 226
................................... 15624 361
................................... 180 59 516
................................... 1

7 110 543
....................... 17110,17115 545
....................... 15626,17110 55

2
................................... 1

7 110 556
....................... 15626,17110 557................................... 15626 561
................................... 156 26 563
....................... 15626,17110 563g
................................. 15626 614

................................... 18167 627

................................... 18167 Ch.VII

.............................. 19702 701
................................... 19702 7 12
................................... 19702 740
................................... 19702 Ch

. IX

............................... 17108 13 CFR
120
................................... 15601
14 CFR
1
....................................... 16

2 20 21
..................................... 1

5 570 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 73
..................................... 1

7699 91
......................... 15570,17480 97
........... 17061,17063,17539, 17541 107................................... 157 51 108
................................... 157 51 109
................................... 157 51 1 19
................................... 15570 121
................................... 15570 125................................... 15570 129
................................... 157 51 135................................... 15570 141
................................... 162 20 143
................................... 162 20 191
................................... 1

5

7 51 Ch

. II
................................ 19473 Proposed Rules: 25
..................................... 1

71

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
26CFR 54
......................... 16894,17004 Proposed Rules: 1
.............. 17572,18730,19072 25
..................................... 19072 54
..................................... 17004
27CFR
4
....................................... 16479 178
................................... 19442 Proposed Rules: 9
....................................... 16502 178
................................... 19442
28CFR 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 9505 4
....................................... 1 851 8 357

................................... 18694 Ch.V

....... 19499,19500,19672 500
................................... 17548 560
................................... 19670 585
................................... 19672
32CFR
2
....................................... 1

7 548 310
................................... 18518 701
................................... 15614 706
.......... 18272,18274,19673 806b
................................. 17070 Proposed Rules: 199
................................... 16510 216
................................... 16691 552
................................... 15639
33CFR
5....................................... 1669 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
35CFR
103
................................... 18275 104
................................... 18275
36CFR Proposed Rules: 13
..................................... 18547 327
................................... 18307 1190
................................. 19084 1191
................................. 19084 1193
................................. 19178 1258
................................. 15867
37CFR
201
................................... 18705
38CFR
1
....................................... 1

5 400 3
....................................... 1

77

0 6 17
..................................... 17072 21
..................................... 17706
39CFR
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 6492 52
........... 15751,15844,16704, 17081,17083,17084,17087, 17093,17095,18046,18047, 18520,18521,18710,18712, 18716,19047,19049,19051, 19055,19224,19674,19676 58
..................................... 185 23 60
......................... 18277,19679 61
..................................... 19679 63
......................... 15402,15404 80
..................................... 16082 81
............ 15751,18521,18526 91
..................................... 1

5806 180
......... 15615,17096,17710, 17717,17720,17723,17730, 17735,17742,18528,19682 185
......... 17723,17730,17735, 17742,18528 186
......... 17723,17730,17735, 17742,18528 271
................................... 15407 300
......... 15411,15572,16706, 16707 700

................................... 1 7910 720

................................... 1 7910 721

................................... 1 7910 723

................................... 1 7910 725

................................... 1 7910 Proposed Rules: 52
........... 15867,16746,17136, 17137,17572,17768,18070, 18071,18556,18730,19085, 19086,19087,19246,19659, 19719 58
..................................... 185 57 60
..................................... 18308 63
............ 15452,15453,15754 70
..................................... 16124 71
..................................... 19087 80
......................... 17771,18696 81
......................... 18556,18557 92
..................................... 185 57 247................................... 18072 261
....................... 16747,19087 268
................................... 16753 300
................................... 15572

41 CFR Proposed Rules: 101-40
............................. 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

7 008 47CFR
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

07

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

48CFR
235
................................... 16099 807
................................... 18300 852
................................... 18300 1401
................................. 18053 Proposed Rules: 4
....................................... 19

46

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
....................................... 19

233 7....................................... 19

51

5 29
..................................... 15620 40
..................................... 19057 171
................................... 16107 214

................................... 19234 Ch

. III

............................... 16370 367
................................... 15417 368

................................... 15417 371

................................... 15417 372

................................... 15417 373

................................... 15417 374

................................... 15417 376

................................... 15417 377
................................... 15417 378

................................... 15417 387
................................... 16707 390

................................... 16707 395

................................... 16707 531

................................... 17100 533

................................... 15859 571

......... 16707,16718,18723, 19523 589
................................... 167 18 1312
................................. 19058 Proposed Rules: 19

2
................................... 16131 19

5................................... 16131 390
................................... 18170 39

2
................................... 18170 393
....................... 18170,19252 571
.......... 15353,16131,19253

50CFR
2 29
................................... 16108 6 00
................................... 18300 6 22
................................... 18536 648
.......... 15381,15425,18300 6 74
................................... 19686 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 29
................................... 16519 28

5................................... 16132 6 00
................................... 19723 622
.......... 17776,19732,19733 630
....................... 16132,19296 6 4 4
................................... 16132 648
.......... 16753,17576,18309 660
....................... 15874,18572 6 78
................................... 16132

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 EconomicZoneBering 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 StatesfisheriesNortheast multispecies;

comments due by 5-1- 97; published 4-1-97 West Coast States and

Western PacificfisheriesPacific 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 IIopt 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 Bairspace; comments

due by 5-2-97; published 4- 2-97 Class Dairspace; comments

due by 5-2-97; published 3- 18-97 Class Dand Eairspace;

comments due by 5-1-97; published 3-26-97 Class Eairspace; 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 1997HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. vi 1997