15452 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 1997 / Proposed Rules

(b) Any real or personal property

received as a donation or a gift on or

after October 30, 1990, to the extent of

its fair market value as determined by

the Secretary.

§ 41.77 How is the value of donated real or

personal property established?

(a) The fair market value of donated

real or personal property must be

established by a qualified appraiser. The

Secretary or his/her authorized

representative must review and approve

the appraisal.

(b) The fair market value of property

at the time it is presented to the Federal

appraiser will be the amount that will

be used for matching purposes

regardless of future changes in value.

§ 41.78 What happens if real or personal

property that the TCCC uses to comply with

the matching requirement is sold or

disposed of?

If any real or personal property that

the TCCC uses to comply with the

matching requirement is sold or

otherwise disposed of, the proceeds

must be deposited in the established

endowment trust account. The

deposited proceeds and will not again

be considered for Federal capital

contribution purposes.

§ 41.79 How will BIA match the value of

property or capital contributions?

(a) From the amount appropriated, the

Secretary will allocate to each eligible

TCCC:

(1) An amount for a Federal capital

contribution equal to twice the value of

the property or the amount that the

TCCC demonstrates is committed as a

capital contribution; except,

(2) The maximum amount allocated to

any TCCC for any fiscal year cannot

exceed $750,000.

(b) If in any fiscal year the

appropriated amount is insufficient to

allocate to each TCCC an amount equal

to twice the value, then the allocated

amount to each TCCC will be reduced

pro rata.

§ 41.80 What procedures will BIA follow

when there are additional funds for the

endowment program?

(a) The Director, after satifying the

unmet endowment, will notify all

eligible TCCCs of the amount of the

remaining funds.

(b) Within 60 days of the date of

notification of extra funds, an eligible

TCCC may submit an application.

(c) After Congress appropriates funds,

the Director must notify eligible TCCCs

of the amount available under this part.

Appeals

§ 41.90 What appeal rights do TCCCs have

under this part?

(a) A TCCC has the right to appeal any

adverse decision made by the Director

to the Assistant Secretary by filing a

written notice of appeal with the

Assistant Secretary within 30 days of

receipt of the adverse decision.

(b) Within 30 days of receiving a

notice of appeal, the Assistant Secretary,

or designated representative, must

conduct a hearing at which the TCCC

may present evidence and offer

arguments in support of its appeal.

(c) Within 30 days after the hearing,

the Assistant Secretary must issue a

written ruling on the appeal including

the reasons for that ruling that confirms,

modifies, or reverses the Director’s

decision. The ruling of the Assistant

Secretary is final.

Required Reports

§ 41.95 What reports are required?

(a) Each Title I TCCC must conduct an

ISC report at the conclusion of the third

week, or equivalent, of each academic

term and then submit the report to the

Director by the designated due date.

(b) Each college receiving grants

under this part must submit an annual

report to the Director by January 1 in

accordance with the reporting

procedures of OMB approved Form No.

1076–0105, Annual Report.

(c) The Director must conduct an

evaluation of each new TCCC during the

second year of funding. Periodic

evaluations of established TCCCs will

be conducted. The evaluation will take

the form of:

(1) A review of the TCCC’s continued

adherence to the elements of the

eligibility study,

(2) A review of Indian student

enrollment,

(3) A review of its CPA audit report

to determine compliance with

recommendations; and,

(4) A review of the accreditation

status.

§ 41.96 Are there requirements for

information collection?

The Standard Form 424 and

attachments prescribed by that circular

are approved by OMB under 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq. These sections describe

types of information that would satisfy

the application requirements of Circular

A–110 for this grant program. The

information collection requirement

contained in this part has been

approved by the Office of Management

and Budget under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C.

3507(d), and assigned clearance number

1076–0018.

Dated: March 20, 1997.

Ada E. Deer,

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 97–8062 Filed 3–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–02–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[WI73–01–7302b; FRL–5691–6]

Approval of Section 112(l) Program of

Delegation; Wisconsin

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) proposes to approve

Wisconsin’s request for delegation of the

Federal air toxic program pursuant to

Section 112(l) of the Clean Air Act of

1990. In the Final Rules section of this

Federal Register, EPA is fully approving

the State’s request for delegation as a

direct final rule without prior proposal,

because the EPA views this as a

noncontroversial revision and

anticipates no adverse comments. A

detailed rationale for the approval is set

forth in the direct final rule. If no

adverse comments are received in

response to these actions, no further

activity is contemplated in relation to

this proposed rule. If EPA receives

timely comments adverse to or critical

to the approval, which have not been

addressed by the State or EPA, the

direct final rule will be withdrawn and

all public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this proposed rule. Any parties

interested in commenting on this action

should do so at this time.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Comments must be

received on or before May 1, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State

submittal and EPA’s analysis of it are

available for inspection at: United States

Environmental Protection Agency, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Constantine Blathras, AR–18J, United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)

886–0671.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental Protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15453

Air pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Intergovernmental relations.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Dated: February 7, 1997.

Michelle D. Jordan,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–8184 Filed 3–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 63

[IN74–1(b); FRL–5687–9]

Approval of Section 112(l) Program of

Delegation; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve

the request for delegation of the Federal

air toxics program contained within 40

CFR Parts 61 and 63 pursuant to section

112(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) of

1990. The USEPA made a finding of

completeness in a letter dated February

29, 1996. This request for approval of a

mechanism of delegation encompasses

all sources not covered by the Part 70

program. In the final rules section of

this Federal Register, the EPA is

approving these actions as a direct final

rule without prior proposal because

EPA views these as noncontroversial

actions and anticipates no adverse

comments. A detailed rationale for the

approval is set forth in the direct final

rule. If no adverse comments are

received in response to that direct final

rule, no further activity is contemplated

in relation to this proposed rule. If EPA

receives adverse comments, the direct

final rule will be withdrawn and all

public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on the proposed rule. The EPA

will not institute a second comment

period on this document. Any parties

interested in commenting on this

document should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received on or before May 1,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be mailed to: Sam Portanova,

Environmental Engineer, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,

Air Programs Branch, Permits and

Grants Section, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard (AR–18J), Chicago, Illinois

60604.

Copies of the State submittal and

USEPA’s analysis of it are available for

inspection at: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and

Radiation Division, Air Programs

Branch (AR–18J), Permits and Grants

Section, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sam

Portanova, Environmental Engineer, 77

West Jackson Boulevard (AR–18J),

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–3189.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information see the direct

final rule published in the rules section

of this Federal Register.

Dated: January 28, 1997.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–8182 Filed 3–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 74–14; Notice 115]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Extension of comment period

for a request for comments.

SUMMARY: This document extends the

comment period on a request for

comments concerning a petition from

U.S. Senator Dirk Kempthorne to amend

the agency’s automatic occupant

protection standard. The standard

includes provisions specifying the use

of unbelted as well as belted dummies

in testing air bag-equipped vehicles. The

petition asks that the agency impose a

moratorium on testing with unbelted

dummies. In its request for comments,

the agency sought public comments on

the benefits and disbenefits of

eliminating the unbelted test. In

response to a petition from the

Association of International Automobile

Manufacturers, Inc., the agency is

extending the comment period from

March 31, 1997 to June 2, 1997.

DATES: Comments on Docket 74–14,

Notice 113 must be received by June 2,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

Docket 74–14, Notice 113 and be

submitted to: Docket Section, Room

5109, National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590. (Docket Room

hours are: 9:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m., Monday

through Friday.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information about air bags and related

rulemakings: Visit the NHTSA web site

at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov and select

AIR BAGS: Information about air bags.

For non-legal issues: Clarke Harper,

Chief, Light Duty Vehicle Division,

NPS–11, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.

Telephone: (202) 366–2264. Fax: (202)

366–4329.

For legal issues: J. Edward Glancy,

Office of Chief Counsel, NCC–20,

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:

(202) 366–2992. Fax: (202) 366–3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

February 27, 1997, NHTSA published in

the Federal Register (62 FR 8917) a

request for comments concerning a

petition from U.S. Senator Dirk

Kempthorne. The petitioner requested

the agency to amend Standard No. 208,

Occupant Crash Protection, to impose a

moratorium on testing with unbelted

dummies. The petition was submitted in

response to the deaths of young children

and of drivers, primarily short-statured

women, as a result of air bag

deployments in low speed crashes. The

petitioner believes that the necessity of

meeting the unbelted test requirement is

adversely affecting current air bag

designs and causing these deaths. The

petitioner also believes that the

requirement is preventing vehicle

manufacturers from optimizing air bag

designs for belted occupants.

The agency noted in the request for

comments that it has concluded that

section 2508 of the Intermodal Surface

Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991

precludes it from eliminating the

unbelted test requirement. However,

since the agency is interested in all

potential solutions to the air bag deaths

and since the agency can recommend

legislative changes to Congress, the

agency sought public comment on the

benefits and disbenefits of eliminating

the unbelted test. The agency provided

a 30-day comment period.

On March 19, 1997, the Association of

International Automobile

Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM) petitioned

for an extension in the comment period.

AIAM noted that it has stated a

preference for eliminating the unbelted

dummy test, but stated that it cannot

generate a thorough and quantitative

response in the time allotted. AIAM

stated that it believes the questions

raised in the request for comments

should be addressed thoroughly because

they are fundamental to the long-term

direction of occupant protection and

related regulatory requirements.