32878 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 115 /Tuesday, June 16, 1998 / Notices

Lockheed Martin Information

Technologies Company (LMITCO), the

management and operating contractor of

the Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory, awarded to a construction

company. In its determination, the

Idaho Operations Office (Idaho) stated

that it could not release the responsive

material because the responsive

documents were in LMITCO’s

possession. The DOE found that, even

though in LMITCO’s possession, the

documents in the current request were

nonetheless subject to release under the

DOE regulations. Accordingly, the

Appeal was granted.

Nuclear Control Institute, 4/15/98,

VFA–0395

The DOE issued a decision granting in

part a Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA) Appeal filed by the Nuclear

Control Institute (NCI). NCI sought the

release of information withheld by the

Oak Ridge and Oakland Operations

Offices. In its decision, the DOE found

that the Operations Offices failed to

consider the public interest in

disclosure and had not articulated any

foreseeable harm that would result from

the release of several documents

withheld under FOIA Exemption 5. The

DOE also found that the Operations

Offices had not segregated releasable

information. Accordingly, the Appeal

was remanded to Oak Ridge and

Oakland.

The National Security Archive, 4/16/

98, VFA–0196

The National Security Archive filed

an Appeal from a denial by the

Department of the Air Force of a request

for information that it filed under the

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Because the withheld information was

identified as classified under the

Atomic Energy Act, the Air Force

withheld it at the direction of the DOE

under Exemption 3 of the FOIA. In

considering the information that was

withheld, the DOE determined on

appeal that a small portion of the

document must continue to be withheld

under Exemption 3, but the remainder

could be released. Accordingly, the

Appeal was granted in part and a newly

redacted version of the requested

information was ordered to be released.

Whistleblower Hearing

Timothy E. Barton, 4/13/98 VWA–

0017

A Hearing Officer issued an Initial

Agency Decision concerning a

whistleblower complaint. The decision

found that, while the employee proved

that disclosures he had made were

protected under 10 C.F.R. Part 708 and

contributed to his termination, the

employer demonstrated by clear and

convincing evidence that it would have

terminated the complainant in the

absence of the protected disclosures.

Personnel Security Hearing

Personnel Security Hearing, 4/17/98,

VSO–0179

A Hearing Officer found that an

individual had shown that he is not

currently suffering from the ‘‘mental

illness,’’ dysthymia, or from any

‘‘mental condition’’ that would cause a

defect in his judgment or reliability.

Accordingly, the Hearing Officer

recommended in the Opinion that the

individual be granted an access

authorization.

Refund Application

Enron Corp./Solar Gas, Inc., 4/17/98,

RF340–55

The DOE granted an Application for

Refund submitted by Solar Gas, Inc.

(Solar Gas) in the Enron Corporation

(Enron) special refund proceeding. The

DOE excluded from Solar Gas’ claim the

volume of propane relating to exchange

or buy/sell transactions between Solar

Gas and Enron. With respect to the

firm’s other purchases from Enron, the

DOE found that Solar Gas had

demonstrated that the prices it paid to

Enron for propane resulted in some

economic injury to Solar Gas, but not a

level of injury sufficient to qualify Solar

Gas for a full volumetric refund. The

DOE therefore limited this refund to the

81.5 percent of the firm’s volumetric

refund. Accordingly, the DOE granted

Solar Gas a refund, including interest, of

$521,622.

Refund Applications

The Office of Hearings and Appeals

issued the following Decisions and

Orders concerning refund applications,

which are not summarized. Copies of

the full texts of the Decisions and

Orders are available in the Public

Reference Room of the Office of

Hearings and Appeals.

Imogene R. Owens ............................................................................................................................................... RK272–01777 4/14/98

Two F Company, L.L.C. ET AL ........................................................................................................................... RK272–04788 4/15/98

Union County, NJ ................................................................................................................................................. RC272–00389 4/14/98

Dismissals

The following submissions were dismissed.

Name Case No.

Personnel Security Hearing .............................................................................................................................................................. VSO–0188

[FR Doc. 98–15954 Filed 6–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6111–1]

Revision to Addendum to Mobile

Source Enforcement Memorandum 1A;

Revised Tampering Enforcement

Policy for Alternative Fuel Conversions

A. Purpose

The purpose of this document is to

revise the tampering enforcement policy

for alternative fuel conversions as

currently provided in the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency’s

(EPA) Addendum to Memorandum 1A

in response to comments and

suggestions received by the regulated

community and other stakeholders.

B. Background

EPA issued an Addendum to Mobile

Source Enforcement Memorandum 1A

(Addendum) on September 4, 1997, to

address emissions increases that

resulted from the conversion of gasoline

powered vehicles and engines to operate

on compressed natural gas (CNG) and

liquefied petroleum gasoline (LPG or

propane). The background and basis for

the issuance of the Addendum and the

contents of the new policy are fully

contained in the Addendum. Since

issuance of the Addendum, EPA has

received a number of inquiries and

recommendations that certain revisions

to the policy would be in the public

interest while not jeopardizing the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 115 /Tuesday, June 16, 1998 / Notices 32879

effectiveness of the Addendum. EPA

believes some of those suggestions are

appropriate and is revising the

Addendum as described below.

C. Revised Policy

Effective June 1, 1998, the Addendum

to Memorandum 1A is revised as

follows:

1. In lieu of meeting the testing

requirements under Options 1, 2 or 3 of

the Addendum for model year 1997 and

older motor vehicles and engines,

compliance with the requirements for

demonstrating a ‘‘reasonable basis’’ may

be achieved by completing back-to-back

I/M 240 emissions tests as contained in

40 CFR Part 51, Subpart S, for each

converted vehicle using gasoline in the

vehicle or engine’s original

configuration and with each operational

fuel after conversion provided:

(a) All tests are conducted in

accordance with the specified protocols

under 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart S,

(b) The vehicle as tested in the

original configuration with gasoline

meets the applicable standards under 40

CFR 51.351,

(c) The exhaust emissions of each

regulated pollutant after conversion

using the alternative fuel are no greater

than .90 times the emissions levels for

each pollutant before conversion, except

that no hydrocarbon standard shall

apply for operation exclusively using

CNG,

(d) If dual fuel operation is retained,

the exhaust emissions of each regulated

pollutant after conversion using the

original certification fuel are no greater

than the emissions levels for each

pollutant before conversion, and

(e) No party shall convert more than

25 vehicles or engines of any single

vehicle/engine family combination in

any calendar year under this I/M 240

protocol.

2. The final date for both testing and

installations under Option 3 of the

Addendum is extended from April 24,

1998 and December 31, 1998,

respectively, to June 30, 2000, for up to

and including 1999 model year vehicles

and engines. All alternative fuel

conversions of model years 2000 and

later vehicles and engines and

conversions of model year 1998 and

1999 vehicles and engines after June 30,

2000, may only be performed in

accordance with Options 1 or 2 of the

Addendum.

3. As an alternate to engine

dynamometer testing for heavy duty

engine conversions under Option 3 for

a specific heavy duty engine family, the

manufacturer may demonstrate a

‘‘reasonable basis’’ by performing backto-back chassis dynamometer emission

tests in accordance with the Urban

Dynamometer Driving Schedule for

Heavy Duty Vehicles (UDDS) contained

in 40 CFR Part 86 Appendix I,

Paragraph (d), provided:

(a) The exhaust emissions results for

THC, NOX and CO measured during the

UDDS after conversion and when

operated exclusively or in combination

with the alternative fuel are no greater

than .90 times the baseline emissions for

THC and NOX and no greater than 1.00

times CO before conversion, except that

NMHC after conversion shall be

compared to the baseline THC before

conversion in the case of operation

exclusively with CNG, and

(b) All tests are performed in

accordance with all specified protocols

in 40 CFR Part 86, Subpart M, including

vehicle preparation, dynamometer

loading, emissions measurements and

driving schedule except that

commercially available fuel may be

used for vehicle preconditioning and

baseline testing.

4. As an alternate to engine

dynamometer testing for heavy duty

engine conversions under Option 3 for

a specific heavy duty engine family or

the alternate procedures provided in

paragraph 3. above or the Addendum,

any party may propose an alternate

heavy duty vehicle or engine test

procedure which operates the subject

test engine through a range of engine

speed and load conditions reasonably

representative of both urban and

highway driving, measures the exhaust

emissions specified above on a grams

per mile or grams per brake horsepowerhour basis and specifies appropriate

pass/fail criteria equivalent to paragraph

3. above for the purpose of

demonstrating a ‘‘reasonable basis’’

under EPA’s tampering enforcement

policy. Any such proposed procedures

shall be submitted to the Director, Air

Enforcement Division (2242A), Office of

Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street,

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460 for

consideration and approval, if

appropriate, under this policy prior to

the initiation of any vehicle

procurement, modification or testing.

5. The results of federal emissions

tests conducted under Option 3 for a

specific engine family may be applied as

a ‘‘reasonable basis’’ for up to a

maximum of three additional engine

families to that tested for demonstrating

compliance with the applicable Tier 1

emission standards for that class of

vehicle or engine as specified in 40 CFR

Part 86 provided:

(a) The engine family tested in

accordance with 40 CFR Part 86 meets

the applicable Tier 1 standards for that

vehicle or engine class with the

application of the appropriate

deterioration factor as provided under

Option 3,

(b) The engine family tested above

represents the ‘‘worst case’’ for

emissions of the applicable engine

families as based on engine or vehicle

parameters reasonably expected to

adversely affect the emission results

such as maximum gross vehicle weight,

maximum engine displacement and any

other reasonable engineering judgments,

(c) The determination of ‘‘worst case’’

is confirmed by conducting I/M 240

emissions tests of one vehicle or engine

of each applicable engine family after

conversion,

(d) The results of the I/M 240 tests of

the three additional engine families are

no greater than the I/M 240 emission

results of the original engine family

tested,

(e) The additional engine families

meet the criteria specified in paragraphs

3.(b)(4)B. through D. of the Addendum,

and

(f) The evaporative emission control

system remains as installed by the

original engine manufacturer if gasoline

operation is retained.

6. For both LEV and Tier 1 vehicles

or engines, any additional engine

families for which emission data would

be carried across under paragraph 5.

above or paragraph 3.(b)(4) under

Option 3 of the Addendum must be

produced by the same vehicle or engine

manufacturer as the original engine

family tested.

7. Any party responsible for

demonstrating compliance, installing,

converting, selling or marketing

alternative fuel conversion systems in

accordance with the requirements of the

Addendum and this revised policy shall

retain the results of all tests,

installations and sales of such systems

as specified under Option 3 of the

Addendum or this Revision for

inspection by EPA for five (5) years

following completion of the testing,

installing or marketing of such systems.

8. Any provisions or requirements of

the Addendum not extended or revised

herein remain in effect as provided in

the Addendum.

C. Conclusion

EPA believes the revisions described

above will provide additional flexibility

and streamlining to manufacturers,

installers and marketers of alternative

fuel conversion systems while not

jeopardizing the emission reduction

purposes of the original Addendum.

EPA will continue to review the

progress of the industry in developing

and testing of alternative fuel systems to
32880 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 115 /Tuesday, June 16, 1998 / Notices

ensure the emissions benefits are being

achieved and to determine if any future

revisions are necessary. Any questions

regarding this revised policy should be

directed to the Mobile Source

Enforcement Branch at (202) 564–2255.

Bruce C. Buckheit,

Director, Air Enforcement Division, Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

[FR Doc. 98–15845 Filed 6–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Notice of Public Information

Collection(s) Submitted to OMB for

Review and Approval

June 9, 1998.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications

Commission, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burden

invites the general public and other

Federal agencies to take this

opportunity to comment on the

following information collection(s), as

required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. An

agency may not conduct or sponsor a

collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid control

number. No person shall be subject to

any penalty for failing to comply with

a collection of information subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that

does not display a valid control number.

Comments are requested concerning: (a)

whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s

burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected; and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on the respondents,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology.

DATES: Written comments should be

submitted on or before July 16, 1998. If

you anticipate that you will be

submitting comments, but find it

difficult to do so within the period of

time allowed by this notice, you should

advise the contact listed below as soon

as possible.

ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to Les

Smith, Federal Communications, Room

234, 1919 M St., NW., Washington, DC

20554 or via internet to lesmith@fcc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

additional information or copies of the

information collections contact Les

Smith at 202–418–0214 or via internet

at lesmith@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Approval Number: 3060–0128.

Title: Application for General Mobile

Radio Service and Interactive Video

Data Service.

Form Number: FCC 574.

Type of Review: Revision of a

currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or

households; Business and other forprofit entities; Not-for-profit

Institutions; State, Local or Tribal

Government.

Number of Respondents: 1,826.

Estimated Time Per Response: 0.5

hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion

reporting requirements.

Cost to Respondents: $124,000.

Total Annual Burden: 913 hours

(GMRS and IVDS filing fees and postage

costs).

Needs and Uses: This form is used by

General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS)

and some Interactive Video Data Service

(IVDS) applicants for a new or modified

license. (IVDS Auction applicants use

FCC 600.) Applicants my also file this

form for renewal when they do not

receive the automated renewal notice,

FCC Form 574R, sent to them by the

Commission. This form is required by

the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended; International Radio

Regulations, General Secretariat of

International Telecommunications

Union and FCC Rules - 47 CFR 1.922,

1.924, 95.71, and 95.73. FCC 574 is also

being used by some Interactive Video

Data Service licensees until the

Universal Licensing System (ULS) is

implemented. FCC Rules 47 CFR 95.811,

95.815, 95.817 and 95.833 identify the

collection of the data for IVDS purposes.

The Wireless Telecommunications

Bureau staff will use the data to

determine eligibility of the applicant to

hold a radio station authorization and

for rulemaking proceedings. Compliance

personnel will use the data in

conjunction with field engineers for

enforcement purposes. The data

obtained from the collection is vital to

maintaining an acceptable database.

This form is being revised to delete

the fee payment blocks. FCC Form 159,

Fee Remittance Advice, is required with

any payment to the FCC. The fee

payment blocks duplicated the

collection of this information. A space

has been added for the applicant to

provide an Internet/e-mail address. The

collection of ‘‘FCC Tower Number’’ has

been changed to ‘‘Antenna Structure

Registration Number’’ due to the FCC

revising the way antennas are registered

with the FCC.

When the Universal Licensing System

(ULS) is implemented, GMRS applicants

will use the proposed FCC form 605 and

IVDS applicants will file the proposed

FCC 601. At the time of implementation,

the FCC will notify OMB of any change

in the status of this collection of

information.

Federal Communications Commission.

Willima F. Caton,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–15997 Filed 6–15–98; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

[Report No. 2281]

Petitions for Reconsideration and

Clarification of Action in Rulemaking

Proceeding

Petitions for reconsideration and

clarification have been filed in the

Commission’s rulemaking proceedings

listed in this Public Notice and

published pursuant to 47 CFR Section

1.429(e). The full text of these

documents are available for viewing and

copying in Room 239, 1919 M Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. or may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, ITS, Inc., (202) 857–3800.

Oppositions to these petitions must be

filed July 1, 1998. See Section 1.4(b)(1)

of the Commission’s rule (47 CFR

1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must

be filed within 10 days after the time for

filing oppositions has expired.

Subject: Electronic Filing of Documents

in Rulemaking Proceedings (GC

Docket No. 97–113).

Number of Petitions filed: 1.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–15940 Filed 6–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Ocean Freight Forwarder License

Applicants

Notice is hereby given that the

following applicants have filed with the

Federal Maritime Commission

applications for licenses as ocean freight

forwarders pursuant to section 19 of the

Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app.

1718 and 46 CFR 510).

Persons knowing of any reason why

any of the following applicants should

not receive a license are requested to

contact the Office of Freight Forwarders,