Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 13849

recommendations as described in 40

CFR Part 80, Appendices D, E, and F.

Proposed Action

The EPA is proposing to approve this

revision to the Missouri SIP concerning

Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–2.330. At the

state’s request, the EPA is parallel

processing this action.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors, and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the EPA must

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603

and 604). Alternatively, the EPA may

certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

This Federal action authorizes and

approves into the Missouri SIP

requirements previously adopted by the

state, and imposes no new

requirements. Therefore, the

Administrator certifies that it does not

have a significant impact on any small

entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal-state relationship

under the CAA, preparation of a

regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The CAA forbids the EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds (Union Electric Co. v. U.S.

E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct.

1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 signed

into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact

statement to accompany any proposed

or final rule that includes a Federal

mandate that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, and tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector, of $100 million or more

in any one year. Under section 205, the

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires the

EPA to establish a plan for informing

and advising any small governments

that may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that the

proposed action does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

authorizes and approves into the Kansas

SIP requirements previously adopted by

the state, and imposes no new

requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: March 14, 1997.

William Rice,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–7347 Filed 3–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[KS 019–1019; FRL–5800–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of Kansas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve

the State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision concerning Kansas Air

Regulation (K.A.R.) 28–19–79, Fuel

Volatility, submitted by the Kansas

Department of Health and Environment.

This revision would set a summertime

gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)

limit of 7.2 pounds per square inch

(psi), and 8.2 pounds per square inch for

gasoline containing at least 9.0 percent

by volume but not more than 10.0

percent by volume ethanol, for gasoline

distributed in Wyandotte and Johnson

Counties as part of the state plan to

maintain its clean air quality.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before April 23, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Stan Walker, Environmental Protection

Agency, Air Branch, 726 Minnesota

Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stan

Walker at (913) 551–7494.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Clean Air Act (CAA, or the Act)

requires states which have areas failing

to meet the National Ambient Air

Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone to

develop SIPs with sufficient control

measures to attain and maintain the

standard. The EPA designated the

Kansas City Metropolitan Area (KCMA)

as an area failing to meet the NAAQS on

March 3, 1978. The area designated as

nonattainment included five counties:

Platte, Clay, and Jackson Counties in

Missouri, and Johnson and Wyandotte

Counties in Kansas. In spite of a series

of SIP revisions, the area continued to

experience violations of the ozone

NAAQS throughout the 1980s. Each

time violations occurred beyond an

attainment date, the EPA notified the

Governor and called for a revision to the

Kansas SIP. In response to the last of

these SIP calls, KDHE submitted a SIP

revision which demonstrated attainment

of the ozone NAAQS by December 31,

1987. Although the area experienced a

number of violations in 1988, no

violations were experienced during the

subsequent three-year period.

In an effort to comply with the 1990

Amendments to the CAA, and to ensure

continued attainment of the ozone

NAAQS with an adequate margin of

safety, the state submitted an ozone

maintenance SIP for the Kansas portion

of the KCMA on October 23, 1991.

Accompanying the maintenance SIP

were several new rules to control

volatile organic compound (VOC)

emissions from certain categories, the

state’s request to redesignate the KCMA

as an attainment area with respect to the

ozone NAAQS, and a commitment to

implement certain contingency

measures should the area exceed certain

emission levels or experience additional

violations. The EPA approved the
13850 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

maintenance SIP and redesignated the

KCMA to attainment on June 23, 1992.

During the three-year period

following approval of the maintenance

SIP, a number of exceedances of the

ozone standard were recorded in the

KCMA. As a result, the KCMA was once

again in violation of the ozone NAAQS.

The EPA notified the state of the

violation on January 31, 1996, and

requested that the contingency measures

in the approved plan be implemented.

Due to various problems associated with

implementation of contingency

measures in the approved contingency

plan, the local community undertook an

evaluation of substitute measures which

could be implemented. After an

extensive evaluation of available

options, the Mid-America Regional

Council (MARC), in conjunction with

the Kansas City Air Quality Forum,

recommended a package of measures to

Kansas and Missouri. This

recommendation contained a number of

measures for implementation as

contingency measures, including lower

volatility gasoline. This notice and the

accompanying technical support

document (TSD) provide an analysis of

the lower volatility gasoline portion of

the package of substitute measures.

II. Regulatory Objective

RVP is a measure of a fuel’s volatility

and thereby affects the rate at which

gasoline evaporates and emits VOCs;

RVP is directly proportional to the rate

of evaporation. Consequently, the lower

the RVP, the lower the rate of

evaporation. Lowering the RVP in the

summer months can offset the effect of

summer temperature upon the volatility

of gasoline, which, in turn, lowers

emissions of VOCs. VOC is an important

component in the production of ground

level ozone in the hot summer months.

Reduction of RVP will help the state’s

effort to attain and maintain compliance

with the NAAQS for ozone.

III. State Submittal

On December 5, 1996, KDHE

submitted to the EPA Region VII a SIP

revision to establish new limits on fuel

volatility. These control measures were

submitted as part of several contingency

measures necessary for the KCMA to

maintain clean air quality. Included in

the submittal was a letter from Secretary

James J. O’Connell, KDHE, to Dennis

Grams, EPA Region VII Administrator,

requesting authorization to implement a

lower RVP requirement in the Kansas

City area; Kansas Regulation, K.A.R. 29–

19–79; and a Regulatory Impact

Statement including an Environmental

Impact Statement and an Economic

Impact Statement. In addition, on

December 19, 1996, John C. Irwin,

Director, Bureau of Air and Radiation,

KDHE, also sent a letter requesting the

EPA to parallel process the rule to

provide adequate time for gasoline

facilities to prepare for the change in

fuel volatility. The state held a public

hearing on January 23, 1997. Pursuant to the December 19, 1996,

request from the state, the EPA is

parallel processing this SIP revision

concurrently with the state’s proposal

and adoption procedures for amending

its SIP.

In parallel processing, the EPA

proposes rulemaking action

concurrently with the state’s procedures

for amending its regulations. If the state

substantially changes its proposed

regulatory revision in areas other than

those identified in this notice, the EPA

will evaluate those changes and may

publish another notice of proposed

rulemaking. If no substantial changes

are made other than those areas cited in

this notice, the EPA will publish a final

rulemaking notice on the revisions. The

final rulemaking action by the EPA will

occur only after the SIP revision has

been adopted by Kansas and submitted

formally to the EPA for incorporation

into the SIP.

IV. Analysis of the SIP

A. Necessity Finding

Under sections 211(c) and 211(h) of

the CAA, the EPA has promulgated

nationally applicable Federal standards

for RVP levels in motor vehicle gasoline.

Because a Federal control promulgated

under section 211(c)(1) applies to the

fuel characteristic RVP, nonidentical

state controls are prohibited under

section 211(c)(4). Section 211(c)(4)(A) of

the Act prohibits state regulation

respecting a fuel characteristic or

component for which the EPA has

adopted a control or prohibition, unless

the state control is identical to the

Federal control. Under section

211(c)(4)(C), the EPA may approve a

nonidentical state fuel control as a SIP

provision, if the state demonstrates that

the measure is necessary to achieve the

national primary or secondary ambient

air quality standard that the plan

implements. The EPA can approve a

state fuel requirement as necessary only

if no other measures would bring about

timely attainment, or if other measures

exist but are unreasonable or

impracticable. While the Kansas low

RVP requirement is preempted by the

Federal RVP requirements, the state can

implement the low RVP requirement if

the EPA finds it necessary and approves

it as a revision to the SIP.

In its submittal, Kansas showed that

additional VOC reductions are needed

to address Kansas City’s recent history

of nonattainment problems and to

assure continued attainment of the

ozone NAAQS in the KCMA. While the

area is designated as attainment for the

ozone NAAQS, the KCMA is currently

in danger of violating the standard due

to exceedances occurring in the 1995–

1996 period. Kansas estimates that the

area needs to achieve approximately 8.5

tons per day of VOC reductions to

continue to achieve attainment of the

ozone NAAQS. Because emission trends

continue to increase, the state believes

it is important that control measures

producing a significant portion of the

needed reductions be implemented in

time to reduce emissions beginning in

the 1997 ozone season. Otherwise, there

is a significant risk of exceedances and

violations in 1997, and this risk will

increase over time. The EPA agrees that

an important criteria in evaluating the

reasonableness of each control measure

is whether it will achieve significant

emission reductions in the near term,

beginning in the 1997 and 1998 ozone

seasons.

Kansas evaluated a broad range of

available control measures to determine

whether there are sufficient reasonable

and practicable measures available to

produce the needed emissions

reductions without requiring low RVP

gasoline. In addition to assessing the

quantity of emission reductions

attributable to each control measure, the

state also considered the time needed

for implementation and costeffectiveness of each measure in

evaluating the reasonableness and

practicability of the other control

measures in comparison to low RVP

gasoline requirements. The costeffectiveness ratio is based on the cost

expected to be incurred from 1997

through 2006, resulting from

implementing the control measure,

divided by the 10-year sum of the daily

VOC reductions. Kansas found that a 7.2

psi low RVP requirement could be

implemented in time for the 1997 ozone

season, would produce an estimated 4.1

tons per day of VOC emissions

reductions, and has an estimated costeffectiveness ratio of 1.1. The state also

evaluated the following other measures:

Stage II vapor recovery, reformulated

gasoline, vehicle I/M programs, clean

fueled fleets (CFF) program, light rail

transit, free transit, and parking

surcharge. Based on the state’s

evaluation, the EPA finds that there are

not sufficient other reasonable and

practicable measures available to

produce the quantity of emissions

reductions needed to continue to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 13851

achieve the NAAQS, and thus a low

RVP requirement is necessary.

Kansas found that free transit on red

sky-cast days can be implemented in

time for the 1997 ozone season and has

a very favorable cost-effectiveness ratio,

but would generate only 0.3 tons per

day reductions, which is a very small

fraction of the goal of 8.5 tons per day

total reductions. Free transit throughout

the ozone season could be implemented

on the same time frame, is less costeffective, and would generate an

additional 0.3 tons per day reductions.

A parking surcharge could also be

implemented promptly, but has a very

high cost-effectiveness ratio and would

add only 0.6 tons per day reductions.

Thus, even if the state were to

implement all of these measures they

would not produce a significant

quantity of emissions reductions in the

next few ozone seasons, and hence

would not be sufficient to ensure that

the state will continue to achieve the

ozone NAAQS.

While a number of other measures

would achieve substantially greater

reductions than free transit and a

parking surcharge, the state found that

all of these measures would take

considerably longer to implement than

low RVP, and none would produce

emission reductions beginning in the

1997 and 1998 ozone seasons. One

option the state considered is Stage II

vapor recovery, which would reduce

emissions an estimated 6.9 tons per day.

However, Stage II would take

approximately 18 months to implement,

which means it would not reduce

emissions before the 1999 ozone season.

Moreover, installation of the Stage II

equipment would require additional

underground piping as well as new hose

and nozzle sets at each affected station.

Stage II would require substantial

compliance efforts by a larger number of

entities than would a low RVP

requirement, and it would mainly affect

smaller entities, which may have more

difficulty absorbing compliance costs.

Another potential option is either a

centralized or decentralized I/M

program, with emissions reductions

estimated ranging between 2.4 tons per

day (basic decentralized I/M) and 25

tons per day (the EPA recommended

centralized enhanced I/M), depending

upon the type of I/M program selected.

Kansas estimated that an I/M program

would take four to six years to fully

implement and three to four years

before producing any emissions

reductions benefits. An I/M program

would require legislative as well as

regulatory action in both Missouri and

Kansas. Additionally, an I/M program

would require development of

substantial infrastructure (e.g., testing

facilities) in the Kansas City area, and

would require participation by every

motor vehicle owner.

Kansas also considered light rail

transit as a potential control measure,

with estimated emissions reductions of

0.1 tons per day. The state considers

light rail transit as an option only for the

long term because it would require

substantial lead time for

implementation. Both Kansas and

Missouri would have to pass

authorizing legislation and secure

funding sources. The states would also

have to acquire land and undertake a

large-scale construction project.

Moreover, the state estimated that this

option has a high cost-effectiveness ratio

(compared to low RVP).

Finally, Kansas has been working to

develop a CFF program by forming a

workgroup to help develop an

intrastructure for the program. Currently

this program is in the planning stages

and could take approximately two to

three years to implement. Since this

program is in the planning stages, exact

emission reduction credits have not yet

been identified. The expected

reductions from the CFF program would

produce only a portion of the identified

goal of 8.5 tons per day leaving a need

for additional significant reductions to

continue to achieve attainment.

Given that low RVP is the only option

that would produce substantial

emissions reductions in the near term,

and given its comparative ease of

implementation (as well as superior

cost-effectiveness to some of these

options), the EPA finds that each of the

measures discussed above is

unreasonable in comparison to a low

RVP requirement. This finding does not

imply that these measures would be

unreasonable if additional reductions

were needed beyond those that would

be produced by low RVP, or that these

measures would be unreasonable given

a longer time frame to reduce emissions.

In addition to the measures discussed

above, the state also evaluated opt-in to

Federal reformulated gasoline (RFG) as

another option. The EPA finds that optin to RFG is impracticable at this time

because the area is a designated

attainment area and, under current EPA

regulations, only designated

nonattainment areas can opt in to RFG.

B. Emission Impact of the Fuel Volatility

Control

The fuel volatility control was

identified by MARC as a control

measure that could be implemented by

the 1997 ozone season and will

contribute significantly toward the

established emission control. Reducing

the fuel volatility limit from 7.8 to 7.2

psi will reduce VOC emissions by an

expected 4.1 tons per day. Most of the

emission reductions will occur from

vehicle emissions (4.0 tons per day),

and 0.1 tons per day will come from

nonroad emissions, including storage

and refueling emission.

C. Economic Impacts of the Fuel

Volatility Control

The fuel volatility control will affect

the cost of producing the gasoline. It is

estimated that it will cost refineries an

additional 1.5 cents per gallon to

produce 7.2 psi RVP gasolines. Some

cost will be passed on to the consumer;

therefore, consumers in the KCMA may

experience a gasoline price increase of

about 1.5 cents per gallon.

V. Analysis of the Rule

The Kansas rule specifies that no

person shall dispense, supply, exchange

in trade, offer for sale or supply, and sell

or store gasoline used as a fuel for motor

vehicles and that has an RVP greater

than 7.2 psi, or 8.2 psi for gasoline

containing at least 9.0 percent by

volume but not more than 10.0 percent

by volume ethanol. This rule applies

beginning June 1 through September 15

of each year.

In addition, facilities other than a

gasoline dispensing facility shall keep

and maintain at the facility, for two

years following the date of the RVP test,

records of the information regarding the

RVP of gasoline that is to be used as a

fuel for motor vehicles.

Gasoline used exclusively for fueling

implements of agriculture and gasoline

in any tank, reservoir, storage vessel, or

other stationary container with a

nominal capacity of 500 gallons or less

are exempt from this regulation.

The sampling procedures and test

methods are consistent with the EPA

recommendations as described in 40

CFR part 80, appendices D, E, and F.

Proposed Action

The EPA is proposing to approve this

revision to the Kansas SIP concerning

K.A.R. 28–19–79. At the state’s request,

the EPA is parallel processing this

action.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors, and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.
13852 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5. U.S.C. 600 et seq., the EPAmust

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603

and 604). Alternatively, the EPA may

certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

This Federal action authorizes and

approves into the Kansas SIP

requirements previously adopted by the

state, and imposes no new

requirements. Therefore, the

Administrator certifies that it does not

have a significant impact on any small

entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal-state relationship

under the CAA, preparation of a

regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The CAA forbids the EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds (Union Electric Co. v. U.S.

E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct.

1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 signed

into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact

statement to accompany any proposed

or final rule that includes a Federal

mandate that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, and tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to

private sector, of $100 million or more

in any one year. Under section 205, the

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires the

EPA to establish a plan for informing

and advising any small governments

that may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that the

proposed action does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

authorizes and approves into the Kansas

SIP requirements previously adopted by

the state, and imposes no new

requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: March 14, 1997.

William Rice,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–7348 Filed 3–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Chapter I

[CC Docket No. 96–98; DA 97–557]

Petition of MCI for Declaratory Ruling

That New Entrants Need Not Obtain

Separate License or Right-to-Use

Agreements Before Purchasing

Unbundled Elements

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Petition for declaratory ruling;

request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Commission has released

a Public Notice which establishes a

pleading cycle for comments on a

petition for declaratory ruling filed by

MCI requesting the Commission to issue

a declaratory ruling that new entrants

need not obtain separate license or

right-to-use agreements before

purchasing unbundled network

elements, and that the Communications

Act of 1934, as amended, requires an

incumbent LEC to provide requesting

telecommunications carriers the same

rights to intellectual property that the

incumbent LEC enjoys. The Commission

wishes to build a complete record on

this issue.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

April 15, 1997, and reply comments are

due on or before May 6, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments and reply

comments should be sent to Office of

the Secretary, Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street, NW., Room

222, Washington, DC 20554, with a copy

to Janice Myles of the Common Carrier

Bureau, 1919 M Street, NW., Room 544,

Washington, DC 20554. Parties should

also file one copy of any documents

filed in this docket with the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,

Washington, DC 20037.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kalpak Gude, Common Carrier Bureau,

Policy and Program Planning Division,

(202) 418–1580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Synopsis of Public Notice

On March 11, 1997, MCI filed a

petition for declaratory ruling

requesting the Commission to issue a

declaratory ruling that any requirement

imposed by an incumbent local

exchange carrier (LEC) or by a state or

local government that a requesting

telecommunications carrier obtain

separate license or right-to-use

agreements before the requesting carrier

may purchase access to unbundled

network elements violates sections 251

and 253 of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended (the Act). MCI also

asks the Commission to issue a

declaratory ruling that the Act’s

nondiscrimination requirement requires

an incumbent LEC to provide requesting

telecommunications carriers the same

rights to intellectual property that the

incumbent LEC enjoys.

We are assigning file number CCBPol

97–4 to this proceeding. This issue MCI

raises was also raised in a Petition for

Reconsideration of the First Report and

Order in CC Docket No. 96–98 (61 FR

45476 (August 29, 1996)) that was filed

by Local Exchange Carrier Coalition.

Therefore, commenters must include

both the docket number and the file

number on all pleadings, and should file

copies in both proceedings.

In order to build as complete a record

as possible, we encourage parties to

comment on the following questions: (1)

Does providing access to unbundled

network elements implicate the

intellectual property rights of

equipment vendors or other third

parties? Why or why not? We urge

parties to provide specific supporting

information, including descriptions of

the types of provisions included in

existing contracts between incumbent