Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

PART 620-ADDITIONAL STANDARDS

FOR BACTERIAL PRODUCTS

19. The authority citation for 21 CFR

part 620 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 201, 501, 502, 503, 505, 510,

701 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic

Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 351, 352, 353, 355, 360, 371]; secs. 215, 351, 352, 353, 361 of the Public

Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 216, 262 263,

263a, 264).

§ 620.12 [Amended]

20. Section 620.12 U.S. Standard

preparations is amended in the

.introductory text paragraph by removing

the words "Office of Biologics Research

and Review (HFN-890), Center for Drugs

and Biologics" and by adding, in their

place, the words "Center for Biologics

Evaluation and Research (HFB-210)".

§ 620.14 [Amended]

21. Section 620.14 General

requirements is amended in the

introductory text of paragraph (c) by

removing the words "Office of Biologics

Research and Review [HFN-890), Center

for Drugs and Biologics" and by adding,

in their place, the words "Center for

Biologics Evaluation and Research

(HFB-1)".

PART 660-ADDITIONAL STANDARDS

FOR DIAGNOSTIC SUBSTANCES FOR

LABORATORY TESTS

22. The authority citation for 21 CFR

part 660 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 201, 501, 502, 503, 505, 510,

701 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic

Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 351, 352, 353, 355, 360, 371); secs. 215, 351, 352, 353, 361 of the Public

Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 216, 262, 263,

263a, 264).

§ 660.36 [Amended]

23. Section 660.36 Samples and

protocols is amended in the introductory

text of paragraph (a) by removing the

words "Office of Biologics Research and

Review Sample Custodian (ATTN:

HFN-895)" and by adding, in their place,

the words "Office of Biological Product

Review Sample Custodian (ATTN: HFB--

215]".

§ 660.52 [Amended]

24. Section 660.52 Reference

preparations is amended by removing

the words "Center for Drugs and

Biologics (HFN-890)" and by adding, in

their place, the words "Center for

Biologics Evaluation and Research

(HF3-22}".

PART 680-ADDITIONAL STANDARDS

FOR MISCELLANEOUS PRODUCTS

25. The authority citation for 21 CFR

part 680 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 201, 501, 502, 503, 505, 510,

701 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic

Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 351, 352, 353, 355, 360, 371);

seps. 215, 351, 352, 353, 361 of the Public

Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 216, 262, 263,

263a, 264).

26. Section 680.11 is amended by

revising the section heading to read as

follows:

§ 680.11 Pretesting by Center;, sample of

each lot

Dated: March 19, 1990.

Alan L. Hoeting,

Acting Associate Commissioner for

Regulotory Affairs.

IFR Doc. 90-6753 Filed 3-23-90; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL-3749-1]

Idaho; Final and Interim Authorization

of State Hazardous Waste

Management Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of final determination on

Idaho's application for final and interim

authorization.

SUMMARY- Idaho has applied for final

authorization of its hazardous waste

program under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

including a request for interim

authorization for the corrective action

provisions of the Hazardous and Solid

Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).

The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) has reviewed Idaho's application

and made the determination that Idaho's

hazardous waste program satisfies all of

the requirements necessary to qualify

for final and interim authorization. Thus,

EPA is granting final and interim

authorization to Idaho to operate its

program, subject to the authority

retained by EPA in accordance with the

Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments of 1984.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Final and interim

authorization for Idaho shall be effective

at I p.m. on April 9,1990.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CO NTACr:

Nina Kocourek, Waste Management

Branch, HW-112, U.S. EPA, Region 10,

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98101, (206) 442-6502.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

Section 3006 of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

allows the Environmental Protection

Agency [EPA) to authorize State

hazardous waste programs to operate in

the State in lieu of the-Federal

hazardous waste program. To qualify for

final authorization, a State's program

must (1) Be "equivalent" to the Federal

program, (2) be consistent with the

Federal program and other State

programs, and (3) provide for adequate

enforcement (section 3006(b) of RCRA,

42 U.S.C. 6926(b)). States applying for

authorization must demonstrate a

program equivalent to the Federal

program in effect one year prior to the

date the application is submitted.

Interim authorization is a temporary

authorization which a State can request

and which is granted if the evidence

submitted shows State requirements are

at least substantially equivalent to the

Federal program requirement. See

section 3006(g)[2), 42 U.S.C. 6926(g)(2).

All interim authorizations pursuant to

section 3006(g)(2) expire on January 1,

1993. Responsibility for that portion of

the program reverts to EPA on that date

if a State has not received final

authorization for those provisions.

On July 7, 1988, Idaho submitted an

official application for final

authorization for those non-HSWA and

HSWA requirements promulgated as of

July 7, 1987. On November 17, 1989, the

State requested interim authorization for

the HSWA corrective action provisions

of section 3004(u), promulgated as of

July 7, 1987. The State has incorporated

by reference all Federal Regulations in

40 CFR parts 124, 260-266, 268, and 270

that were promulgated and codified as

of July 1, 1987. (No changes were made

to the Federal RCRA program between

July 1, 1987 and July 8, 1987.)

The State's application included

aspects of the Land Disposal restrictions

Rule (LDR) "California List", (52 FR

25760), promulgated on July 8, 1987.

However, at this time these rules are not

included in our final authorization

decision. These rules will be addressed

in a forthcoming program revision action

which will give the public an

opportunity to review and comment.

During EPA's review of Idaho's

application a question arose concerning

the scope of Idaho's regulatory

exclusion for farmers. EPA excludes

from all hazardous waste regulation

"farmers" who dispose of waste

pesticides from their own use, provided

that the disposal meets specified

standards. See 40 CFR 264.1(g)(4).

Idaho's exclusion specifies that both

I |1" I 1 I

11015

HeinOnline -- 55 Fed. Reg. 11015 1990
11016 Federal' Register /. Vol. 55, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

'farmers" and "ranchers" are exempt.

EPA solicited public'comment on this

issue and received no comment. Thus,

EPA has determined to interpret

"farmers", as used in EPA's RCRA

regulatory.exclusion, to includeboth

"farmers" and "ranchers" and to

.approve this aspect of Idaho's

application.

'! Further background on the tentative

decision to grant final and interim.

authorization appears at 54 FR 52800,

dated December 22, 1989. Along with the

tentative decision, EPA announced the

availability of the application and other

materials for public comment and

scheduled a public hearing. EPA , cancelled the scheduled public hearing

because there was no significant interest

in such hearing expressed. The public

comment period ended January .26, 1990.

* Six public comment letters were

* received, three of which expressed

concerns about aspects of the State's

program and the other three'expressed

clear support for authorization. Many of

* the concerns and questions raised relate

to issues not within the scope of . decision criteria for authorization. The

following are EPA's responses to

commentor's concerns regarding various

aspects of the State's program. .1. Comment: Timing of authorization

relative to impact of the Bevill mining exclusion rules (54 FR 36592, dated

September 1, 1989, effective March 1.

1990 and 55 FR 2322, dated January 23,

1990, effective July 23, 1990) uponIdaho's mining community. Response: The Bevill mining exclusion

rules cited above are non-HSWA

provisions. Once a State receives

* authorization, all non-HSWA provisions

that the State does not have

authorization for will no longer be

implemented by either EPA or the State.

Only requirements imposed pursuant to

the Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) will

remain in effect and be implemented by

EPA, until the State seeks and is granted authorization for those provisions (see

40 CFR 271.21). : Therefore, the September 1, 1989

Bevill rule effective March 1, 1990, will

be in effect and implemented by EPA

until the effective date of Idaho's

authorization. After Idaho's

authorization these Bevill provisions

and any other non-HSWA provisions promulgated after July 7, 1987, will no

longer be implemented nor applicable in

the State until the State adopts comparable regulations Thus, during

the period of time between Idaho's

authorization and when the State adopts the Bevill rules the regulated community will not be subject to the Bevill rules.'

Any applicable State requirements in

effect prior to authorization and/or

adopted after authorization will remain

in effect. Once Idaho receives authorization the

State will be required to revise their

program to adopt equivalent standards

regulating as hazardous waste nonBevill mineral processingwastes that

exhibit hazardous characteristics by

July 1, 1991, if only regulatory changes

* are necessary, or by July 1, 1992, if

.statutory changes are necessary. See 40

CFR 271.21(e).

2. Comment: Concern was expressed

that Idaho's authorized program

encompasses Federal rules as of July

1987, resulting in a regulatory gap

between EPA's current Federal program

* and the State's authorized program. The

commentor encouraged the State to keep

its program updated in a more timely

manner.

Response: EPA acknowledges that an

inevitable regulatory gap results during

the authorization process. The RCRA

statute and implementing regulations

(see 40 CFR 271.3(fl) specifically provide

for this. States are not required to

include in their applications federal

requirements in effect less than 12

months before submittal of their

application. Idaho submitted their

application on July 7, 1988 which

encompassed and incorporated by

reference all federal provisions through

July 7, 1987.

However, the annual cluster rule (see

40 CFR 271.21) sets forth regulatory

deadlines for a state to revise their

program in order to retain authorization.

This provision ensures that future

program modifications and revisions

will occur in a timely manner.

In order to retain authorization a state

must revise their program to adopt new

federal requirements by the cluster

deadlines and procedures as specified in

40 CFR 271.21. (See 51 FR 33712,

September 22, 1986 for a complete

discussion of all these procedures and

deadlines.) It has been agreed that the

State will initiate a regulatory update

immediately after authorization and the

state will submit a new application

expeditiously. EPA also expects the

state will meet program revision

deadlines in the future.

3. Comment: A commentor requested

clarification of exactly which federal

regulations from RCRA and HSWA

Idaho will be authorized to implement.

Response: EPA acknowledges that the

various references to July 1, 1987 and

July 7, 1987 are confusing. The July 7,

1987 date is relevant as authorization

requires a state to have its program

encompass all federal requirements in

effect 12 months prior to the State's

submission of its -official application.

(See 40 CFR 271.3(f)): The July 1, 1987

date relates to the last federal~rule.

codified in the CFR for Which Idaho will -

receive authorization, as cited and.

published June 10, 1988, in title I chapter

5, Rules, Regulations and.Standards for

Hazardous Waste, section 16.01.5002,.

"Incorporation by Reference". Thus, for

ease of reference, EPA cited Idaho as

receiving authorization for the federal'

program codified as of July 1, 1987,

EPA will also codify in 40 CFR part.

272 subpart N, Idaho's authorized . •

statutes and regulations which are part

of their approyed program. This

identification of Idaho's statutes and

regulations should substantially

enhance the public's ability to discern

the current status of the authorized state

program and clarify the extent of federal

enforcement authority.

4. Comment: Concerns were

expressed about Idaho's ability to

implement an effective program with

respect to funding, recruiting and

retaining a technically qualified

workforce. These concerns were

specifically expressed with respect to

the Department of Energy (DOE) INEL

facility; a concern was also expressed

about the state's commitment to

implement an aggressive enforcement

program at INEL.

Response: EPA recognizesthe

challenges facing Idaho being a'

relatively small state with a limited

resource base, with an exceptionally

large, complex DOE facility among its

regulated community. The major U.S.

DOE facilities present enormous

resource challenges to any State or

EPA region in which they are located.

EPA evaluated the state's capability to

implement the RCRA program and has

determined the State has adequate

resources and capability to warrant

authorization.

A commentor objected to the concept

of U.S. DOE providing agencies with

funds for regulatory oversight and

argued that direct congressional funding

for oversight is more appropriate. The

issue of funding source has been

determined to be not relevant to the

authorization decision.

In a related comment, a commentor

suggested that the state program include

an element for periodic (e.g., semiannual) comment by the regulated

community, on the adequacy of state

program implementation. The

commentor noted such comments should

be reviewed by EPA if program . withdrawal proceedings were initiated,

in accordance with RCRA Section

3006(e).

EPA has evaluated the state's

capability and has determined that the

HeinOnline -- 55 Fed. Reg. 11016 1990
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

state has adequate resources and

capability to warrant authorization.

At any time, any member of the

public; including the regulated

community; may raise such concerns to

EPA. In accordance with provisions in

the State/EPA Memorandum of

Agreement (MOA), EPA will consider

such comments as part of its on-going

assessment of the State's program.

Other scheduled opportunities for public

review of the state's program include the

opportunity for comment on the annual

State/EPA Agreement (which specifies

annual priorities and activities for

federal grant funding) and opportunity

for comment on subsequent state

authorized program revisions. Due to

interim authorization for the HSWA

corrective action provisions there will-,

be another EPA authorization action to

determine if Idaho will receive final

authorization, therefore giving the public

another opportunity to comment on.

Idaho's hazardous waste program..

Finally, any such comments that are

related to an EPA program -evaluation in

the context of withdrawal proceedings

would be considered by EPA.

Thus, EPA concludes there are

sufficient opportunities for the regulated

community to bring concerns to EPA's

attention without specifically creating a

formal, periodic process envisioned by

the commentor.

5. Comment: A commentor requested

specific MOA provisions addressing

State protection of "classified'

information, as such information relates

to national security considerations.-

The issue of protection of "1classified"

national security information/

documents will be addressed within the

context of the.State/EPA

intergovernmental agreement with INEL

(JAG), under Section 120(j)(1),(2) of

CERCLA.

6. Comment: One commentor raised

questions'about the consistency and

stringency of the Idaho program. This

commentor noted the state has a

comprehensive site. licensing statute

which is broader in scope than RCRA

permitting requirements. Concern was

expressed that this aspect of the state's

program is not consistent with EPA's. In

addition, because. the state Hazardous

Waste Management Act prohibits the

state from adopting provisions more

stringent than RCRA, the commentor

expressed concern that the state's

regulations might be rendered more

stringent if EPA changes its regilations

to be less stringent.

Response: EPA has reviewed' the

siting requirements and does not believe

they render the state program .

inconsistent with the RCRA program

pursuant to 40 CFR- 271.4. EPA is placing

in the docket a memorandum which

provides a more detailed rationale for

this conclusion.

With respect to the state statutory

provisions regarding adoption of more

stringent regulations, the State explains

in its application that the State is not

precluded from implementing a

requirement which is rendered more

stringent because of a change in the

Federal regulations.

Concern was also expressed about the

effect of authorization on the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

regulations and whether the State has

similar requirements. EPA's decision on

authorization has no effect on

applicability of NEPA, nor are there any

authorization requirements for the State

to have NEPA-like processes.,

B. Decision

:. 'After reviewing the public comments I

conclude that Idaho's application for

final and interim authorization meets all

of the statutory and regulatory

requirements established by RCRA.

Accordingly, Idaho is granted final

authorization for RCRA'base program

and HSWA provisions promulgated as

of July 1, 1987 (except for HSWA

corrective action), and interim

authorization of HSWA corrective

action provisions section 3004(u) to

operate its hazardous waste program,

subject to the limitations on its authority

retained by EPA in accordance with the

HSWA.

Under interim authorization for

corrective action,'the State has

responsibility to implement the'

requirements and its provisions operate

in'lieu of the Federal requirements as is

the case with final authorization. The

difference between interim

authorization and final authorization is

that interim authorization expires on

January 1, 1993, and responsibility for

that portion of the EPA if the State has

not received final authorization by the

expiration date.

The State hazardous waste program

has statutes and regulations

promulgated concerning routing of

hazardous waste shipments that are

broader in scope than the Fedeial'

program and will not be part of'the

Idaho authorized program. However,

these rules will remain in effect as State

law.

Idaho now has the responsibility for

permitting treatment, storage and

disposal facilities Within its borders and

carrying out the other'aspects of the

RCRA'program. Idaho also has primary

enforcement responsibility, although,

EPA retains the7 right to conduct

inspections under section 3007 of RCRA

and to-take enforcement actions under

sections 3008, 3013, and- 7003 of RCRA.

Upon authorization, all previous EPA

RCRA permits issued before the State

was authorized Will be administered by

the State.

The State of Idaho is not being

authorized to operate the RCRA

program over any Indian lands; this

authority will remain with EPA.

As stated above, Idaho's authority to

operate a hazardous waste program

under subtitle C of RCRA is limited by

HSWA. Prior to HSWA, a State with

final authorization administered its

hazardous waste program entirely in

lieu of the EPA. The Federal

requirements no longer apply in the

authorizaed State, and EPA could not

issue permits for any facilities the State

was authorized to permit. When new,

more stringent Federal requirements

were promulgated or enacted, the State

was obligated to enact equivalent

authority within specified time frames.

New Federal requirements did not take

effect in an authorized State until the

State adopted the requirements as State

law.

In contrast, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

6926(g), new requirements and

prohibitions imposed by HSWA take

effect in authorized States at the same

time as they take effect in nonauthorized States. EPA is directed to

carry out those requirements and

prohibitions in authorized States,

including the issuance of full or partial

permits, until the State is granted

authorization to do so. While States

must still adopt HSWA-related

provisions as State law to retain final

authorization, HSWA applies in

authorized States in' the interim.

As a result of HSWA, there will be'a

dual State/Federal regulatory program

in Idaho. While this authorization does

cover certain HSWA provisions it does

not cover those promulgated after July 7,

1987, e.g. HSWA Land Disposal

Restrictions-First Third "California

List", Second Third, or Third Third. To

the extent the authorized State program

is unaffected by HSWA, the State

program will-operate in lieu of the

Federal program. Where yet to be

authorized HSWA requirements apply,

EPA will administer and enforce these

requirements in Idaho until the State

receives authorization to do so. Among

other things, this may entail the issuance

of Federal RCRA permits concerning

HSWA piovisions for which the State is

not yet authorized. Once the State is

authorized to implement a HSWA

requirementor prohibiti6n, the State

11017

HeinOnline -- 55 Fed. Reg. 11017 1990
11018 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 58 / Monday March 26, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

program in that area will operate in lieu

of the Federal program. Until that time,

the State will assist EPA's

implementation of the HSWA under a

Cooperative Agreement.

Any State.requirement that is more

stringent than a HSWA provision

remains in effect; thus, the universe of

the more stringent provisions in the

HSWA and the approved State program

define the applicable subtitle C

requirements in Idaho.

EPA has published a Federal Register

notice that explains in detail the HSWA

and its effect on authorized States. That

notice was.published at 50 FR 28702-

28755, July 15, 1985.

Compliance With Executive Order 12291

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule from the

requirements of section 3 of Executive

Order 12291.

Certification Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.

605(b), I hereby certify that this

authorization will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. This

authorization effectively suspends the

applicability of certain Federal

regulations in favor of Idaho's program,

thereby eliminating duplicative : requirements for handlers of hazardous

waste in the State. It does not impose

any new burdens on small entiiies. This

rule, therefore, does not requie a

regulatory flexibility analysis.

List of Subjects In 40 CFR Part 271

Administrative practice and

procedure, Confidential business

information, Hazardous materials'

transportation, Hazardous waste, Indian

lands, Intergovernmental relations,'

Penalties, Reporting and'recordkeeping

requirements, Water pollution control,'

Water supply.

Authority

This notice is issued under the

authority of sections 2002(a), 3Q06, and

7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act

as amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926,

6974(b).

Dated: March 8, 1990.

Thomas P. Dunne,

Acting Regional Administ rtor.

(FR Doc. 90-.778 Filed 3-23-90 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560--'

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

41 CFR Ch. 101

[FPMR Temp. Reg. A-34, Supp. 21

Limiting Travel Advances to Manage

Cash More Effectively

AGENCY: Federal Supply Service, GSA.

ACTION: Temporary regulation.

SUMMARY: FPMR Temp. Reg. A-34

implemented Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) Bulletin 88-17, July 22,

1988, "Limiting Travel Advances to

Manage Cash More Effectively."

Because the provisions of this regulation

have been permanently codified in the

Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) at 41

CFR part 301-10, this regulation and

supplement 1 (55 FR 3740, February 5,

1990) thereto are removed from the

Appendix at the end of subchapter A to

title 41 of the Code of Federal

Regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 26, 1990.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:.

Larry Tucker, Travel Management

Division, Regulations Branch (FBTR),

Washington, DC 20406, telephone FTS

557-1253 or commercial 703-557-1253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

General Services Administration has

deteimined that this rule is not a major

rule for the purposes of Executive Order

12291 of February 17, 1981, because it Is

not likely to result in an annual effect on

the economy of $100 million or more; a

major increase in costs to consumers or

others; or significant adverse effects.

The General Services Administration

has based all administrative decisions

underlying this rule on adequate

information concerning the need for and

consequences of this rule has

determined that the potential benefits to

society from this rule outweigh the

potential costs and has maximized the

net benefits; and has chosen the

alternative approach involving the least.

net cost to society.

By the Administrator's authority (5 U.S.C.

5701-5709; EO 11609, July 22, 1971), the

Appendix at the end of subchapter A in 41

'CFR chapter 101 is amended by removing FPMR Temp. Reg. A-34 and FPMR Temp.

Reg. A-34, Supplement 1.

Richard G. Austin, Actihg Administratorof General Services.

[FR Doc. 90-6668 Filed 3-23-90 8:45 am]

BILUNG CODE 6820-24-

41 CFR Ch. 101

[FPMR Temp. Reg. A-32, Supp. 21

First Duty Station Allowances for

Relocated Presidential Transition

Team Personnel Subsequently

Appointed to Government Service

AGENCY:. Federal Supply Service, GSA.

ACTION: Temporary regulation.

SUMMARY: FPMR Temporary Regulation

A-32 implemented authority to pay first

duty station relocation allowances to

eligible members of the Presidential

Transition Team who relocate prior to

selection for, or appointment to, certain

Federal Government positions. Because

the provisions of this'regulation have

been made permanent and incorporated

in the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR)

under 41 CFR part 302-1, this regulation

and supplement 1 (54 FR 47522,

November 15, 1989) thereto are removed

from the Appendix at'the end of

subchapter A to title 41, Code of Federal

Regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 26, 1990."

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:.

Larry Tucker,'Travel Management

Division. Regulations Branch (FBTR),

Washington, DC 20406, telephone FTS

557-1253 or commercial 703-557-1253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

General Services Administration has

determined that this rule is not a major

rule 'for'the purposes of Executive Order

12291 of February 17, 1981, because It is

not likely to result in an annual effect on. the econorhy of $100 million or more; a

major increase in costs to consumers or

others; or significant adverse effects.

The General Services Administration

has based all administrative decisions

underlying this rule on adequate

information concerning the need for and

consequences of this'rule; has

determined that the potential benefits to

society from this rule outweigh the

potential costs and has maximized the

net benefits; and has chosen the

alternative approach invo0lving the least

net cost to, society.

By the Administrator's authority (5 U.S.C.

5721--5734; 20 U.S.C. 905(a): and EO 11609,

July 22, 1971); the A lpendix at the end of'

subchapter A in 41 CFR chapter 101 is

amended by removing FPMR Temporary

Regulation A-32 and FPMR Temporary

Regulation A-32, Supplement.1.

Richard G. Austin,

Acting Administlator of Gen eral Services.

[FR Doc. 90-4667. Filed 3-23-90;, 8:45 am]

BILUNo CODE 6820-24-U

HeinOnline -- 55 Fed. Reg. 11018 1990