25476 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Notices

Canada border at Woodland

(Burleyville) Maine and Westbrook

Maine.

Summary: EPA requested additional

information about the impacts of the

proposed pipeline with regard to

wetlands, eelgrass, drinking water,

groundwater supply, and secondary

impacts in order to fully evaluate the

environmental acceptability of the

proposed project.

ERP No. D–FRC–J02035–00 Rating

EC2, Alliance Natural Gas Pipeline

Project, Construction and Operation,

Funding, NPDES Permit, COE Section

10 and 404 Permit, ND, MN, IA and IL.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns and requested

additional information on the following

areas; Purpose and Need, Alternatives

Evaluation, Resource Surveys

(Threatened and Endangered Species,

Cultural and Historical), Agricultural

Land/Non-Agricultural Land,

Waterbody/Wetland Crossing

Procedures, Wetland/Woodland Loss

Compensation and description of Extra

Work Areas.

ERP No. DS–COE–L36011–00 Rating

EC2, Columbia and Lower Willamette

River Federal Navigation Channel,

Integrated Dredge Material Management

Study, OR and WA.

Summary: EPA’s expressed

environmental concerns that the Corps

should take more effort at advanced

identification and management of instream dredged material disposal sites.

EPA also requested more information

regarding the environmental impacts of

upland disposal of dredged material.

Dated: May 5, 1998.

William D. Dickerson,

Director, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 98–12298 Filed 5–7–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–5491]

Designation of an Ocean Dredged

Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) Off

Wilmington, NC, Intent To Prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Region 4.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

on the final designation of an ODMDS

off Wilmington, North Carolina.

PURPOSE: The U.S. EPA, Region 4, in

accordance with Section 102(2)(c) of the

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) and in cooperation with the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Wilmington District, will prepare a Draft

EIS on the designation of an ODMDS off

Wilmington, North Carolina. An EIS is

needed to provide the information

necessary to designate an ODMDS. This

Notice of Intent is issued Pursuant to

Section 102 of the Marine Protection,

Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972,

and 40 CFR Part 228 (Criteria for the

Management of Disposal Sites for Ocean

Dumping).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION AND TO BE

PLACED ON THE PROJECT MAILING LIST

CONTACT: Mr. Douglas K. Johnson, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4, Coastal Programs Section, 61

Forsyth Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303,

phone 404–562–9386 or Mr. Philip M.

Payonk, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Wilmington District, Environmental

Resources Section, P.O. Box 1890,

Wilmington, North Carolina 28402–

1890, phone 910–251–4589.

SUMMARY: Ongoing needs for ocean

disposal of dredged sediments and

proposed improvements to the

Wilmington Harbor navigation channel

have resulted in the need for

designation of a new ODMDS off

Wilmington, North Carolina. Based on

site surveys and anticipated levels of

site use, the capacity of the existing

Wilmington ODMDS will be reached in

seven to 10 years. The annual volume of

maintenance dredged material taken to

the ocean for disposal from the

Wilmington Harbor area is about two

million cubic yards per year. The

recently authorized Wilmington Harbor

Federal navigation channel

improvements (deepening and other

channel modifications) will produce

approximately 19 million cubic yards of

dredged material for ocean disposal.

The channel improvements will realign

the ocean bar channel directly across

the Wilmington ODMDS rendering the

site obsolete. The channel would be

realigned to avoid rock dredging and

blasting and the environmental

concerns associated with those

activities.

The relocation of the ODMDS would

provide an opportunity to add

separation between the Wilmington

ODMDS and nearby shrimp trawling

bottoms. The shrimpers have

complained that wood debris attributed

to dredged materials placed within the

ODMDS interfere with shrimping.

Need for Action: The Corps of

Engineers, Wilmington District, has

requested that EPA designate a new

ODMDS off Wilmington, North Carolina

for the disposal of dredged material

from the Wilmington Harbor area, when

ocean disposal is the preferred disposal

alternative. An EIS is required to

provide the necessary information to

evaluate alternatives and designate the

preferred ODMDS.

Alternatives:

1. No action. The no action alternative

is defined as not designating an ocean

disposal site.

2. Alternative disposal sites in the

nearshore, mid-shelf, and shelf break

regions.

Scoping: Scoping will be

accomplished by correspondence and

meetings, in late Spring or early

Summer, 1998, with affected Federal,

State and local agencies, and interested

parties.

Estimated Date of Release: The Draft

EIS will be made available in October

1999.

Responsible Official: John H.

Hankinson, Jr., Regional Administrator,

Region 4.

Richard E. Sanderson,

Director, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 98–12299 Filed 5–7–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6010–9]

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian

Community; Tentative Approval of an

Alternative Liner System Design and

Use of Alternative Daily Cover Material

for the Salt River Municipal Solid

Waste Landfill

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Tentative determination on

application of the Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community for

approval of an alternative liner system

design and use of alternative daily cover

material for the Salt River Municipal

Solid Waste Landfill, public hearing and

public comment period.

SUMMARY: Subtitle D of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),

42 U.S.C. 6941–6949a requires EPA to

establish minimum federal criteria to

ensure that municipal solid waste

landfills are designed and operated in a

manner that protects human health and

the environment. These standards are

codified at 40 CFR part 258. Generally,

these criteria are technical standards

and are self-implementing. For many of

these criteria, part 258 also establishes

a flexible performance-based standard

as an alternative to the self

implementing regulations.

The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian

Community submitted applications for

approval to use two of the flexible
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Notices 25477

standards at the Salt River Municipal

Solid Waste Landfill. One application

requests use of a geosynthetic clay liner

in place of a composite liner. The

second application requests use of a tarp

system as cover in place of earthen

material. EPA reviewed the applications

and all supplementary material and

tentatively approves these requests. This

tentative approval applies solely to the

Salt River Municipal Solid Waste

Landfill located on Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Reservation in

Arizona.

Although RCRA does not require EPA

to hold a public hearing on any sitespecific flexibility request, Region 9 has

scheduled a public hearing on these

tentative approvals. Details appear

below in the DATES section of this

notice. The Salt River Pima-Maricopa

Indian Community’s applications and

all supplementary material are available

for public review and comment.

DATES: All comments on the Salt River

Pima-Maricopa Indian Community’s

applications for approval of site-specific

flexibility must be received by the close

of business on June 10, 1998. A public

hearing is scheduled for June 10, 1998

from 5–7 p.m. At the hearing, EPA may

limit oral testimony to five minutes per

speaker, depending on the number of

commenters. Commenters presenting

oral testimony must also submit their

comments in writing at the hearing on

June 10, 1998. The hearing may adjourn

earlier than 7:00 pm if all of the

speakers deliver their comments before

that hour. Representatives of the Salt

River Pima-Maricopa Indian

Community and the Salt River

Municipal Solid Waste Landfill will be

present at the public hearing.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to Ms. Susanna Trujillo, Mail

Code WST–7, US EPA Region 9, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,

California 94105.

The public hearing will be held at Salt

River Pima-Maricopa Indian

Reservation, Community Development

Conference Room, 1005 E. Osborne

Road, Scottsdale, Arizona 85256. For

further information, contact Steve

Parker at (602) 850–8024.

Copies of the Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community’s

applications for site-specific flexibility

are available for inspection and copying

at: Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian

Reservation Administration Building,

1005 E. Osborne Road, Scottsdale,

Arizona 85256. Contact: Lonita Jim,

Tribal Secretary (602) 850–8000 and the

US EPA Region 9 Library, 75 Hawthorne

Street 13th Floor, San Francisco,

California, 94105, telephone (415) 744–

1510, from 9 am to 5 pm Monday

through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: US

EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, California 94105, Attn: Ms.

Susanna Trujillo, Mail Code WST–7

telephone (415) 744–2099.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Regulatory Background

Subtitle D of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),

as amended by the Hazardous and Solid

Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42

U.S.C. 6941–6949a, governs the disposal

of nonhazardous solid waste and of

small-quantity hazardous waste not

regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA.

Subtitle D prohibits ‘‘open dumping’’

and EPA established criteria for

determining which solid waste facilities

classified as ‘‘sanitary landfills’’ which

is ‘‘open dumps.’’ 40 CFR part 257,

subpart A. Pursuant to HSWA, EPA

added revised criteria to establish

minimum federal standards to ensure

that municipal solid waste landfills

(MSWLF) are designed and operated in

a manner that protects human health

and the environment. The Federal

revised criteria are codified at 40 CFR

part 258. RCRA also requires states to

implement permit programs to ensure

that MSWLF facilities comply with the

revised criteria (40 U.S.C. 6945(c)). EPA

determines whether each state has

developed an adequate solid waste

permitting program and ‘‘approves’’

those states. In states that do not

develop an adequate program, the

regulations set forth in part 258 are selfimplementing and apply to owners and

operators of MSWLF units without

additional EPA approval or review (40

CFR 258.1).

For many of the criteria, part 258

establishes a flexible performance

standard as an alternative to the selfimplementing regulation. The flexibility

provided in the MSWLF criteria allows

for the consideration of site-specific

conditions in designing and operating

an MSWLF at the lowest cost possible

while ensuring protection of human

health and the environment. The

flexible standard is not selfimplementing, and use of the alternative

standard is generally approved by the

Director of an approved state. Part 258

does not currently provide owners and

operators of MSWLF units located in

Indian Country with a mechanism for

obtaining approval of the flexible

performance standards.

Indian tribes are defined as

‘‘municipalities’’ under RCRA section

1004(13), 42 U.S.C. 6903. As a

‘‘municipality,’’ the tribe would seek

approval of design flexibility from the

appropriate approved state. However,

states are generally precluded from

enforcing their civil regulatory programs

in Indian Country absent an explicit

Congressional authorization. California

v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians,

480 U.S. 202 (1987). Including tribes as

part of section 1004(13) was a

definitional expedient, to avoid adding

the phrase ‘‘and Indian tribes or tribal

organizations or Alaska Native villages

or organizations’’ wherever the term

‘‘municipality’’ appeared. By this

definition, Congress did not intend to

change the sovereign status of tribes for

purposes of RCRA. In Backcountry

Against Dumps v. EPA, 100 F.3d 147,

151 (D.C.Cir. 1996), the District of

Columbia Circuit Court determined that

the inclusion of Indian Tribes as

‘‘municipalities’’ ‘‘does not strip the

tribe of its sovereign authority to govern

its own affairs * * * [the tribe has the

authority] to create and enforce its own

solid waste management plan.’’ RCRA

does not grant the regulatory authority

to develop and implement solid waste

management plans to municipalities.

Owners and operators of MSWLF

units in Indian Country are not subject

to state authority, they cannot obtain

approval from the state for the

performance standards included in part

258. Yet, the Federal revised criteria are

silent as to the process by which

MSWLF units in Indian Country can

apply for the alternate standards.

EPA proposes this site-specific rule to

allow the Salt River Pima-Maricopa

Indian Community (‘‘Community’’), an

owner/operator of an MSWLF in Indian

Country, the same flexibility as owners

and operators of MSWLF units in

approved states. EPA derives its

authority to promulgate this rule from

sections 4004, 4005, and 4010 of RCRA,

42 US.C. 6944, 6945, and 6949a. These

sections provide the basis on which

EPA developed the criteria

distinguishing open dumps from

landfills and the revised criteria in part

258. Nothing in these provisions limits

EPA’s ability to issue site-specific

criteria. In this instance, where the

existing part 258 regulations do not

contain a process for approval of the

flexible performance standards for

MSWLF units in Indian Country, it is

appropriate to issue a site-specific rule

to supplement part 258 and address this

unique situation. The U.S. District Court

in the District of South Dakota reviewed

this issue directly and upheld EPA’s

authority to issue a site-specific rule to

provide design flexibility under subtitle

D of RCRA. (Yankton Sioux Tribe v. US

EPA), 950 F.Supp. 1471 (D.S.D. 1996).

The Yankton court determined that EPA
25478 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Notices

appropriately created an ‘‘alternative

mechanism’’ to provide flexibility to the

relevant MSWLF in Indian Country. The

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.

Circuit also supports EPA’s authority to

issue such a site-specific rule under

RCRA Subtitle D. (See Backcountry

Against Dumps v. EPA, 100 F.3d at 152

(1996).) For a description of the

suggested process used to apply for and

approve flexibility requests in Indian

Country, see EPA draft guidance

entitled ‘‘Site-Specific Flexibility

Requests for MSWLFs in Indian

Country’’ (August 1997 Document

Number: EPA530–R–97–016).

B. EPA’s Tentative Determination

1. Alternative Liner System Design (40

CFR 258.40)

The Salt River Landfill (Landfill) is

located on 200 acres of property east of

Phoenix, Arizona. It is operated by the

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian

Community and serves as a sanitary

landfill for the tri-city area of Mesa,

Tempe, and Scottsdale, Arizona.

Landfill operations began in October

1993 and are expected to continue until

at least the year 2003. The landfill

currently consists of three lined cells

and three undeveloped cells. The three

operational cells are lined with the

composite liner prescribed by 40 CFR

258.40(b). On May 23, 1997, the

Community submitted an application to

the EPA requesting approval to use a

geosynthetic clay liner in place of a

composite liner for the undeveloped

cells of the Landfill.

The federal revised criteria do not

specifically include a procedure for

EPA’s tentative determination.

However, EPA relied on the

requirements set forth in 40 CFR 258.40

as a guideline for analyzing the

Community’s application.

Generally, 40 CFR 258.40 (a)(1), (c),

and (d) require the following:

• The alternative liner design ensures

that constituent concentrations of the

chemicals listed in Table 1 of the

criteria will not be exceeded in the

uppermost aquifer at the relevant point

of compliance; and

• The alternative liner design

addresses the hydrogeologic

characteristics of the landfill site,

climate, volume, and physical and

chemical characteristics of the leachate,

and models potential contaminant

migration.

EPA reviewed all information

submitted by the Community and

tentatively determined that the

proposed alternative liner meets or

exceeds the performance standards set

forth in 40 CFR 258.40(a)(1), (c), and (d).

2. Alternative Daily Cover Materials (40

CFR 258.21)

The federal revised criteria requires

that MSWLF units must use six inches

of earthen material to cover disposed

solid waste each day. 40 CFR 258.21(b)

provides flexibility by allowing use of

alternative materials and an alternative

thickness if they control disease vectors,

fires, odors, blowing litter, and

scavenging without presenting a threat

to human health and the environment.

On June 2, 1997, the Community

submitted an application to the EPA

requesting approval to use any

alternative daily cover material that

Arizona has approved for that state.

These materials consist of tarps, foams,

chipped green waste, drinking water

treatment residues, and chipped tires.

The Community subsequently restricted

their current application to the use of

tarps as an alternative daily cover

material.

The federal revised criteria does not

specifically include a procedure for

EPA’s tentative determination.

However, EPA relied on the

requirements set forth in 40 CFR 258.21

as a guideline for analyzing the

Community’s application. The

Community proposes to use the

Tarpomatic tarping operation,

consisting of a polypropylene tarp

rolled over the landfill material at the

end of each business day and retrieved

at the beginning of the next business

day.

EPA reviewed all information

submitted by the Community and

tentatively determined that the

proposed alternative daily cover meets

or exceeds the performance standards

set forth in Section 258.21(b)

Public Comment

EPA Region 9 will hold a public

hearing on this tentative determination

from 5:00 to 7:00 pm on June 10, 1998,

at Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian

Reservation, Community Development

Conference Room, 1005 E. Osborne

Road, Scottsdale, Arizona 85256. For

further information, contact Stu Baker at

(602) 941–3427.

The public may submit written

comments on this tentative

determination until June 10, 1998.

Copies of the Community’s applications

and supplementary material are

available for inspection at: Salt River

Pima-Maricopa Indian Reservation

Administration Building, 1005 E.

Osborne Road, Scottsdale, Arizona

85256. Contact: Lonita Jim, Tribal

Secretary (602) 850–8000 and the US

EPA Region 9 Library, 75 Hawthorne

Street 13th Floor, San Francisco,

California, 94105, telephone (415) 744–

1510, from 9 am to 5 p.m. Monday

through Friday.

EPA will consider all public

comments on its tentative determination

received at the hearing or during the

public comment period. Issues raised by

those comments may be the basis for a

decision not to approve one or both of

the Community’s applications. EPA will

make a final determination on whether

or not to approve the Community’s

applications and will give notice of this

decision in the Federal Register. The

notice will include a summary of the

reasons for the final determination and

a response to all major comments.

Executive Order 12866

Executive Order 12866 requires Office

of Management and Budget review of

‘‘significant regulatory actions.’’

Significant regulatory actions are

defined as those that (1) have an annual

effect on the economy $100 Million or

more or adversely affect a sector of the

economy, including state, local or tribal

governments or communities; (2) create

a serious inconsistency or otherwise

interfere with an action taken or

planned by another agency; (3)

materially alter the budgetary impact of

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan

programs or the rights or obligations of

recipients; or (4) raise novel legal or

policy issues. This tentative decision is

a not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

and is not subject to the requirements of

Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 12875

EO 12875 applies to regulations that

create an unfunded mandate upon state,

local or tribal government. As this

tentative determination is site-specific

and applies only to the Community as

owner and operator of the Landfill’s

MSWLF, this tentative determination

does not create an unfunded mandate

for state, local, or tribal government.

Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045 applies to

rulemaking that (1) has an annual effect

on the economy of $100 Million or more

or adversely affects any sector of the

economy and (2) may

disproportionately create an

environmental health or safety risk for

children. This tentative decision to

approve alternate landfill requirements

will not result in such impacts and is

not subject to the requirements of EO

13045.

Executive Order 12898

Executive Order 12898 requires

agencies to consider impacts on the

health and environmental conditions in
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Notices 25479

minority and low-income communities

with the goal of achieving

environmental justice. This tentative

determination to approve the

Community’s requests for use of an

alternative landfill standard is

consistent with EO 12898. By allowing

the Community to use the site-specific

flexibility provided by part 258, the

Community is placed on a parity with

those owners and operators of MSWLF

units regulated by authorized state

Subtitle D programs. This tentative

determination fosters nondiscrimination in implementing Subtitle

D of RCRA.

The National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act (NTTAA)

The NTTAA requires agencies to

consider using suitable voluntary

consensus standards to carry out policy

objectives or activities. As a rule of

particular applicability, this tentative

determination to approve the alternative

landfill requirements is not subject to

the NTTAA.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This tentative decision is not an

information collection request subject to

the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

As a rule of particular applicability,

this tentative determination to approve

the alternative landfill requirements is

not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, as amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This tentative determination is a rule

of particular applicability and does not

include a federal mandate imposing

enforceable duties upon state, local, or

tribal governments. On this basis, this

tentative determination is not subject to

the requirements of the Unfunded

Mandates Act.

Authority: This notice is issued under the

authority of sections 2002, 4004, 4005, and

4010 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as

amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6944, 6945, and

6949a. The Regional Administrator is making

this decision in accordance with EPA

Delegations Manual No. 8–47 (October 8,

1993).

Dated: April 27, 1998.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–12150 Filed 5–7–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY

American Heritage Rivers Initiative

AGENCY: Council on Environmental

Quality.

ACTION: Description of Administration

policy regarding congressional

opposition to designation of American

Heritage Rivers.

Immediately following the 1997 State

of the Union Address, President Clinton

instructed the Cabinet to work with

communities on the design of the

American Heritage Rivers initiative to

support community-led efforts that spur

economic revitalization, protect natural

resources and the environment, and

preserve our historic and cultural

heritage. In response to this initiative,

communities across the country

nominated 126 rivers (or stretches of

rivers) for designation as an American

Heritage River. An advisory committee

of nonfederal experts will review all

nominations and recommend rivers to

the President for designation.

An interagency working group

convened by the White House

developed guidelines for the review of

nominations. As stated in the Federal

Register Notice of September 17, 1997

and President Clinton’s Executive Order

of April 7, 1998, the advisory committee

will provide an assessment of the

following for each nomination:

1. The scope of each nomination’s

application and the adequacy of its

design to achieve the community’s

goals;

2. Whether the natural, economic

(including agricultural), scenic, historic,

cultural, and/or recreational resources

featured in the application are

distinctive or unique;

3. The extent to which the

community’s plan of action is clearly

defined and the extent to which the

plan addresses all three American

Heritage Rivers objectives—natural

resource and environmental protection,

economic revitalization, and historic

and cultural preservation—either

through planned cooperative action or

past accomplishments.

4. The strength and diversity of

support for the nomination and plan of

action as evidenced by letters from local

and State governments, Indian tribes,

elected officials, any and all parties who

participate in the life and health of the

area nominated, or who have an interest

in the economic life and cultural and

environmental vigor of the involved

community.

The Administration believes that

public input into the design of the

initiative and into individual river

nominations is critically important.

Representatives from Federal agencies

traveled around the country to meet

with community organizations, local

governments and industry associations

to learn their views on the initiative and

incorporate them into its design.

On May 19, 1997, the Administration

published a notice in the Federal

Register requesting comment about the

initiative’s structure, the criteria used to

determine eligible rivers, the needs of

communities for technical assistance

and funding, and other items. The

Administration incorporated many of

the more than 1,700 comments received

during the more than 90 days of public

input into the final design of the

initiative that was published on

September 17, 1997 in the Federal

Register. This notice also included how

communities apply for designation,

specifically asking them to demonstrate

strong and diverse public support for

the nomination.

Nominations closed on December 10,

1997. Members of Congress were sent

copies of nominations from their

districts and asked to provide comments

to the Administration by January 23,

1998.

The Administration received more

than 200 responses from Members of

Congress, both in support and

opposition, to particular nominations.

Overall, Members expressed support for

rivers that were nominated in their

districts or State by more than a 4:1

ratio.

The views of Members of Congress on

specific nominations have particular

importance in evaluating applications.

Elected officials such as Members of

Congress represent a diversity of

concerns within a community that need

to be taken into account. Furthermore,

the views of Members of Congress are

especially relevant in this case since

American Heritage Rivers is a Federal

initiative on behalf of those

communities. The Administration

concluded accordingly that, under the

conditions described in this notice, if a

Member of Congress opposes the

nomination of a river in his or her

district, it means that a sufficient

strength and diversity of support were

not demonstrated for such a

designation, and that the nomination

did not satisfy that particular criteria.

In order to respond to the views of

Members of Congress who oppose

specific nominations, the

Administration has agreed that the

nomination of certain rivers or stretches

of river would be excluded from

consideration for designation under this

initiative, if the Member so requested.