Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 1998 / Proposed Rules 27247

work as planning, analysis, and related

studies, as well as resource activities.

(b) Reimbursements and Bonding.

Agency expenditures for work in

accordance with this section may be

made from Forest Service

appropriations available for similar type

work, with subsequent reimbursement

from the cooperator, when a written

agreement so provides. Reimbursement

from the cooperator must occur in the

same fiscal year as Forest Service

expenditures. When a non-Government

cooperator agrees to contribute $25,000

or more to the Forest Service on a

reimbursable basis, the authorized

officer must require, as part of the

written agreement with the cooperator,

a payment bond to guarantee the

reimbursement payment, thereby

ensuring the public interests are

protected. Acceptable security for the

payment bond includes Department of

the Treasury approved corporate

sureties, Federal Government

obligations, and irrevocable letters of

credit.

(c) Avoiding conflict of interest. Forest

officers shall avoid acceptance of

contributions from cooperators, when

such contributions would reflect

unfavorably upon the ability of the

Forest Service to carry out its

responsibilities and duties. Forest

officers shall be guided by the

provisions of 18 U.S.C. 201–209, 5 CFR

2635, and applicable Department of

Agriculture regulations, in determining

if a conflict of interest or potential

conflict of interest exists in a proposed

cooperative effort. Forest Service ethics

officials or the designated Department of

Agriculture ethics official should be

consulted on conflict of interest issues.

Dated: April 15, 1998.

Robert Lewis, Jr.,

Acting Associate Chief.

[FR Doc. 98–13037 Filed 5–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL–6015–2]

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants; Proposed

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

Emissions for the Portland Cement

Manufacturing Industry

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Extension of public comment

period.

SUMMARY: The EPA is extending the

public comment period on the Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for

hazardous air pollutants emissions for

the portland cement manufacturing

industry, which was published in the

Federal Register on March 24, 1998 (63

FR 14182). The purpose of this notice is

to extend the comment period from May

26, 1998 to June 26, 1998, in order to

provide commenters adequate time to

review the NPRM and extensive

supporting materials.

DATES: The EPA will accept comments

on the NPRM until June 26, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted (in duplicate) to: Air and

Radiation Docket and Information

Center (6102), Attention: Docket No. A–

92–53, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20460. The EPA requests that a

separate copy also be sent to the contact

person listed below (Mr. Joseph Wood).

The docket may be inspected at the

above address between 8:00 a.m. and

5:30 p.m. on weekdays. A reasonable fee

may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information concerning the NPRM,

contact Mr. Joseph Wood, P.E., Minerals

and Inorganic Chemicals Group,

Emission Standards Division (MD–13),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,

telephone number (919) 541–5446;

electronic mail address

wood.joe@epamail.epa.gov.

Dated: May 12, 1998.

Richard D. Wilson,

Acting Assistant Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–13124 Filed 5–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[FRL–6014–3]

Identification of Additional Ozone

Areas Attaining the 1-Hour Standard

and to Which the 1-Hour Standard is

No Longer Applicable

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve

the identification of additional ozone

areas attaining the 1-hour standard and

to which the 1-hour standard is no

longer applicable. Thus, upon

finalization of this proposed action, the

Code of Federal Regulations for ozone

will be amended to reflect such changes.

Today’s action is being proposed in

direct response to the President’s

memorandum of July 16, 1997. The

President’s memorandum directed EPA

to publish an action identifying ozone

areas to which the 1-hour standard will

cease to apply because they have not

measured a current violation of the 1-

hour standard. For all other areas, the 1-

hour standard will continue to apply.

Furthermore, this action is being taken

as indicated in the direct final rule

published on January 16, 1998, which

due to the receipt of adverse comments,

was subsequently converted to a

proposal and was withdrawn on March

16, 1998. According to the direct final

rule, the Agency intended to publish, in

early 1998, a subsequent document

which takes similar action to revoke the

1-hour standard in additional areas that

have air quality that does not violate the

1-hour standard. Today’s proposed

action identifies six additional areas

where the 1-hour standard will no

longer apply. The additional proposed

areas are: Dayton-Springfield, Ohio;

Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan; Warrick

County, Indiana; Grand Rapids,

Michigan; Poughkeepsie, New York, and

Morgan County, Kentucky.

DATES: To be considered, comments

must be received on or before June 17,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to:

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (6101), Attention:

Docket No. A–98–19, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street SW, Room M–1500,

Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202)

260–7548, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding

legal holidays. A reasonable fee may be

charged for copying. Comments and

data may also be submitted

electronically by following the

instructions under

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION OF THIS

DOCUMENT. NO CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

INFORMATION (CBI) SHOULD BE SUBMITTED

THROUGH E-MAIL.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions concerning this notice should

be addressed to Annie Nikbakht (policy)

or Barry Gilbert (air quality data), Office

of Air Quality Planning and Standards,

Air Quality Strategies and Standards

Division, Ozone Policy and Strategies

Group, MD–15, Research Triangle Park,

NC 27711, telephone (919) 541–5246/

5238. In addition, the following

Regional contacts may be called for

individual information regarding

monitoring data and policy matters

specific for each Regional Office’s

geographic area:
27248 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Region I—Richard P. Burkhart, (617)

565–3578

Region II—Ray Werner, (212) 637–3706

Region III—Marcia Spink, (215) 566–

2104

Region IV—Kay Prince, (404) 562–9026

Region V—Todd Nettesheim, (312) 353–

9153

Region VI—Lt. Mick Cote, (214) 665–

7219

Region VII—Royan Teter, (913) 551–

7609

Region VIII—Tim Russ, (303) 312–6479

Region IX—Morris Goldberg, (415) 744–

1296

Region X—William Puckett, (206) 553–

1702.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic

Availability—The official record for this

proposed rule, as well as the public

version, has been established under

docket number A–98–19 (including

comments and data submitted

electronically as described below). A

public version of this record, including

printed, paper versions of electronic

comments, which does not include any

information claimed as CBI, is available

for inspection from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding

legal holidays. The official proposed

rulemaking record is located at the

address in ADDRESSES at the beginning

of this document. Electronic comments

can be sent directly to EPA at: A-andR-Docket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic

comments must be submitted as an

ASCII file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Comments and data will also be

accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1

file format or ASCII file format. All

comments and data in electronic form

must be identified by the docket number

A–98–19. Electronic comments on this

proposed rule may be filed online at

many Federal Depository Libraries.

Table of Contents

I. Background

II. Summary of Today’s Action

III. Analysis of Air Quality Data

IV. Tables

V. Other Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. E.O. 12875 and Unfunded Mandates

D. Children’s Health Protection

I. Background

On July 16, 1997, the President issued

a memorandum (62 FR 38421, July 18,

1997) to the Administrator of the EPA

which indicates that within 90 days of

promulgation of the new 8-hour

standard, the EPA will publish an action

identifying ozone areas to which the 1-

hour standard will cease to apply. The

memorandum states that for areas where

the air quality does not currently attain

the 1-hour standard, the 1-hour standard

will continue in effect. The provisions

of subpart 2 of title I of the Clean Air

Act (CAA) would also apply to currently

designated nonattainment areas until

such time as each area has air quality

meeting the 1-hour standard.

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA

promulgated a regulation replacing the

1-hour ozone standard with an 8-hour

standard at a level of 0.08 parts per

million (ppm). The form of the 8-hour

standard is based on the 3-year average

of the annual fourth-highest daily

maximum 8-hour average ozone

concentrations measured at each

monitor within an area. The new

primary standard, which became

effective on September 16, 1997, will

provide increased protection to the

public, especially children and other atrisk populations. On July 18, 1997, EPA

also announced that revocation of the 1-

hour ozone national ambient air quality

standard (NAAQS) would be delayed

until areas achieved attainment of the 1-

hour NAAQS. This was done in order to

facilitate continuity in public health

protection during the transition to the

new NAAQS.

Therefore, on January 16, 1998,

according to the President’s

memorandum, the Agency issued a

direct final rule (63 FR 2726) which

identified ozone areas to which the 1-

hour standard will cease to apply

because they have not measured a

current violation of the 1-hour standard.

For all other areas, the 1-hour standard

will continue to apply. However, due to

the receipt of adverse comments, the

direct final action was withdrawn on

March 16, 1998 (63 FR 12652) and

converted to a proposed rule that had

previously been published on January

16, 1998 (63 FR 2804). The Agency will

summarize and address all relevant

public comments received in a

subsequent final rule. According to the

initial direct final rule, the Agency

intended to publish, in early 1998, a

subsequent document which takes

similar action to revoke the 1-hour

standard in additional areas that have

air quality that does not violate the 1-

hour standard and to take similar action

each year thereafter.

II. Summary of Today’s Action

The purpose of this document is to

propose the revocation of the 1-hour

standard in six additional areas that

EPA has determined are not violating

the 1-hour standard. The newly

identified areas are: Dayton-Springfield,

Ohio; Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan;

Warrick County, Indiana; Grand Rapids,

Michigan; Poughkeepsie, New York, and

Morgan County, Kentucky.

III. Analysis of Air Quality Data

This action, proposing to revoke the

1-hour standard in additional selected

areas, is based upon analysis of qualityassured, ambient air quality monitoring

data showing no violations of the 1-hour

ozone standard. The method for

determining attainment of the ozone

NAAQS is contained in 40 CFR part

50.9 and Appendix H to that section.

The level of the 1-hour primary and

secondary NAAQS for ozone is 0.12

ppm.

The 1-hour standard no longer applies

to an area once EPA determines that the

area has air quality not violating the 1-

hour standard. Determinations for this

notice were based upon the most recent

data available, i.e., 1995–1997 data.

Detailed air quality data information

used for today’s determinations is

contained in the Technical Support

Document (TSD) to Docket No. A–98–

19.

IV. Tables

The ozone tables proposed in today’s

action are significantly different from

the tables now included in 40 CFR part

81. The current 40 CFR part 81

designation listings (revised as of

November 6, 1991) include, by State and

NAAQS pollutant, a brief description of

areas within the State and their

respective designation. Today’s

proposed action includes completely

new entries for certain ozone areas

indicating where the 1-hour standard no

longer applies.

V. Other Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993)), the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from Executive Order 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 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), unless EPA certifies that the

rule will not have a significant impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000. I hereby certify that
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 1998 / Proposed Rules 27249

this rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

C. E.O. 12875 and Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),

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, or tribal

governments in the aggregate; or to

private sector, of $100 million or more.

Under section 205, 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 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 today’s

action, if finalized, would 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

imposes no new requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

D. Children’s Health Protection

This proposed rule is not subject to

E.O. 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997), because it does not

involve decisions on environmental

health risks or safety risks that may

disproportionately affect children.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Dated: May 12, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40, chapter 1, part 81, of

the Code of Federal Regulations is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 81—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

2. In § 81.315, the table entitled

‘‘Indiana—Ozone’’ is amended by

revising the entry for ‘‘Warrick County’’

and adding footnote 2 to read as follows:

§ 81.315 Indiana.

* * * * *

INDIANA—OZONE

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

* * * * * * *

Warrick County Area:

Warrick County ................................................................................................... .................... 1 hr. std. N.A.2 .................... ....................

* * * * * * *

1This date is the effective date of the final.

2 1 hour standard Not Applicable.

* * * * *

3. In § 81.318, the table entitled ‘‘Kentucky—Ozone’’ is amended by revising the entry for ‘‘Morgan County’’ and

adding footnote 3 to read as follows:

§ 81.318 Kentucky.

* * * * *

KENTUCKY—OZONE

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

* * * * * * *

Morgan County Area:

Morgan County ................................................................................................... .................... 1 hr. std. N.A.3 .................... ....................

* * * * * * *

1This date is the effective date of the final.

3 1 hour standard Not Applicable.

* * * * *

4. In § 81.323, the table entitled ‘‘Michigan-Ozone’’ is amended by revising the entries for ‘‘Detroit-Ann Arbor Area’’

and ‘‘Grand Rapids Area’’ and adding footnote 2 to read as follows:

§ 81.323 Michigan.

* * * * *
27250 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 1998 / Proposed Rules

MICHIGAN—OZONE

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

* * * * * * *

Detroit-Ann Arbor Area:

Livingston County ............................................................................................... .................... 1 hr. std. N.A.2 .................... ....................

Macomb County .................................................................................................. .................... 1 hr. std. N.A.2 .................... ....................

Monroe County ................................................................................................... .................... 1 hr. std. N.A.2 .................... ....................

Oakland County .................................................................................................. .................... 1 hr. std. N.A.2 .................... ....................

St. Clair County ................................................................................................... .................... 1 hr. std. N.A.2 .................... ....................

Washtenaw County ............................................................................................. .................... 1 hr. std. N.A.2 .................... ....................

Wayne County .................................................................................................... .................... 1 hr. std. N.A.2 .................... ....................

* * * * * * *

Grand Rapids Area:

Kent County ........................................................................................................ .................... 1 hr. std. N.A.2 .................... ....................

Ottawa County .................................................................................................... .................... 1 hr. std. N.A.2 .................... ....................

* * * * * * *

1This date is the effective date of the final.

2 1 hour standard Not Applicable.

* * * *

5. In § 81.333, the table entitled ‘‘New York—Ozone’’ is amended by revising the entry for ‘‘Poughkeepsie Area’’

and revising footnote 2 to read as follows:

§ 81.333 New York.

* * * * *

NEW YORK—OZONE

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

* * * * * * *

Poughkeepsie Area:

Dutchess County ................................................................................................. .................... 1 hr.std.N.A.2 ... .................... ....................

Orange County (remainder) ................................................................................ .................... 1 hr.std.N.A.2 ... .................... ....................

Putnam County ................................................................................................... .................... 1 hr.std.N.A.2 ... .................... ....................

* * * * * * *

1This date is the effective date of the final.

2 1 hour standard Not Applicable.

* * * * *

6. In § 81.336, the table entitled ‘‘Ohio—Ozone’’ is amended by revising the entry for ‘‘Dayton-Springfield Area’’

and adding footnote 3 to read as follows:

§ 81.336 Ohio.

* * * * *

Ohio-Ozone

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date1 Type Date1 Type

* * * * * * *

Dayton-Springfield Area:

Clark County ....................................................................................................... .................... 1 hr.std.N.A.3 ... .................... ....................

Greene County .................................................................................................... .................... 1 hr.std.N.A.3 ... .................... ....................

Miami County ...................................................................................................... .................... 1 hr.std.N.A.3 ... .................... ....................

Montgomery County ............................................................................................ .................... 1 hr.std.N.A.3 ... .................... ....................

* * * * * * *

1This date is the effective date of the final.

3 1 hour standard Not Applicable.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 1998 / Proposed Rules 27251

* * * * * * *

[FR Doc. 98–13119 Filed 5–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Health Care Financing Administration

42 CFR Part 413

[HCFA–1876–P]

RIN 0938–AH61

Medicare Program; Revision to Accrual

Basis of Accounting Policy

AGENCY: Health Care Financing

Administration (HCFA), HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: Current policy provides that

payroll taxes a provider becomes

obligated to remit to governmental

agencies are included in allowable costs

under Medicare only in the cost

reporting period in which payment

(upon which the payroll taxes are based)

is actually made to an employee.

Therefore, for payroll accrued in one

year but not paid until the next year, the

associated payroll taxes on the payroll

are not an allowable cost until the next

year. This proposed rule would make

one exception, in the situation where

payment would be made to the

employee in the current year but for the

fact the regularly scheduled payment

date is after the end of the year. In that

case, the rule would require allowance

in the current year of accrued taxes on

payroll that is accrued through the end

of the year but not paid until the

beginning of the next year, thus

allowing accrued taxes on end-of-the

year payroll in the same year that the

accrual of the payroll itself is allowed.

The effect of this proposal is not on the

allowability of cost but rather only on

the timing of payment; that is, the cost

of payroll taxes on end-of-the-year

payroll would be allowable in the

current period rather than in the

following period.

DATES: Written comments will be

considered if we receive them at the

appropriate address, as provided below,

no later than 5 p.m on July 17, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments (one

original and three copies) to the

following address: Health Care

Financing Administration, Department

of Health and Human Services,

Attention: HCFA–1876–P, P.O. Box

7517, Baltimore, MD 21207–0517.

If you prefer, you may deliver your

written comments to one of the

following addresses:

Room 309–G, Hubert H. Humphrey

Building, 200 Independence Avenue,

SW, Washington, DC 20201, or

Room C5–11–17 Central Building, 7500

Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD

21244–1850.

Because of staffing and resource

limitations, we cannot accept comments

by facsimile (FAX) transmission. In

commenting, please refer to file code

HCFA–1876–P. Comments received

timely will be available for public

inspection as they are received,

generally beginning approximately 3

weeks after publication of a document,

in room 309–G of the Department’s

offices at 200 Independence Avenue,

SW, Washington, DC, on Monday

through Friday of each week from 8:30

a.m. to 5 p.m. (Phone: (202) 690–7890).

Copies: To order copies of the Federal

Register containing this document, send

your request to: New Orders,

Superintendent of Documents, PO Box

37194, Pittsburgh, PA 15250–7954.

Specify the date of the issue requested

and enclose a check or money order

payable to the Superintendent of

Documents, or enclose your Visa or

MasterCard number and expiration date.

Credit card numbers can also be placed

by calling the order desk at (202) 512–

1800 or by faxing to (202) 512–2250.

The cost for each copy is $8.00. As an

alternative, you can view and

photocopy the Federal Register

document at most libraries designated

as Federal Deposit Libraries and at

many other public and academic

libraries throughout the country that

receive the Federal Register.

This Federal Register document is

also available from the Federal Register

online database through GPO Access, a

service of the U.S. Government Printing

Office. Free public access is available on

a Wide Area Information Server (WAIS)

through the Internet and via

asynchronous dial-in. Internet users can

access the database by using the World

Wide Web; the Superintendent of

Documents home page address is http:/

/www.access.gpo.gov/suldocs/, by

using local WAIS client software, or by

telnet to swais.access.gpo.gov, then

login as guest (no password required).

Dial-in users should use

communications software and modem

to call (202) 512–1661; type swais, then

login as guest (no password required).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Eppinger, (410) 786–4518.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Generally, under the Medicare

program, health care providers not

subject to prospective payment are paid

for the reasonable costs of covered

services furnished to Medicare

beneficiaries. This policy pertains to all

services furnished by providers other

than inpatient hospital services

furnished in acute care hospitals

(section 1886(d) of the Social Security

Act (the Act)) and certain inpatient

routine services furnished by skilled

nursing facilities choosing to be paid on

a prospective payment basis (section

1888(d) of the Act). Additionally, there

are other limited services not paid on a

reasonable cost basis, to which this

policy will not apply.

Section 1861(v)(1)(A) of the Act

defines reasonable cost and provides

that reasonable cost shall be determined

in accordance with implementing

regulations. Section 413.24 establishes

the methods to be used and the

adequacy of data needed to determine

reasonable costs for various types or

classes of institutions, agencies, and

services. Section 413.24(a) requires

providers receiving payment on the

basis of reasonable cost to maintain

financial records and statistical data

sufficient for the proper determination

of costs payable under the program and

for verification of costs by qualified

auditors. The cost data are required to

be based on an approved method of cost

finding and on the accrual basis of

accounting. Section 413.24(b)(2)

provides that under the accrual basis of

accounting, revenue is reported in the

period in which it is earned, regardless

of when it is collected, and expenses are

reported in the period in which they are

incurred, regardless of when they are

paid. Further, § 413.100 (see 60 FR

33126, June 27, 1995) provides for

special treatment of certain accrued

costs, including Federal Insurance

Contribution Act (FICA) and other

payroll taxes claimed by providers on

their cost reports. Specifically,

§ 413.100(c)(2)(vi) provides that a

provider’s share of FICA and other

payroll taxes that the provider becomes

obligated to remit to governmental

agencies is included in allowable costs

only during the cost reporting period in

which payment (upon which the payroll

taxes are based) is actually made to the

employee.

Prior to publication of § 413.100 on

June 27, 1995, we published a proposed

rule on October 9, 1991 (56 FR 50834).

Following publication of that proposal,

we received several comments that we

should recognize accrued payroll taxes

during the same period that the

employee benefits are earned and

accrued. One commenter asserted that

costs related to the accrual of payroll

taxes should be allowed especially as

they relate to the accrual of year-end