3650 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

EXHIBIT 246.71.—INTERNATIONAL SURFACE AIR LIFT SERVICE NETWORK COUNTRIES AND RATES—Continued

Country City Code Rate group

Nicaragua ....................................................................... Managua ....................................................................... MGA 2

Niger .............................................................................. Niamey .......................................................................... NIM 4

Nigeria ............................................................................ Lagos ............................................................................. LOS 4

Norway ........................................................................... Oslo ............................................................................... OSL 1

Oman ............................................................................. Muscat ........................................................................... MCT 4

Pakistan ......................................................................... Karachi .......................................................................... KHI 4

Panama .......................................................................... Panama City .................................................................. PTY 2

Papua New Guinea ....................................................... Port Moresby ................................................................. POM 3

Paraguay ........................................................................ Asuncion ........................................................................ ASU 2

Peru ............................................................................... Lima ............................................................................... LIM 2

Philippines ...................................................................... Manila ............................................................................ MNL 3

Poland ............................................................................ Warsaw ......................................................................... WAW 1

Portugal .......................................................................... Lisbon ............................................................................ LIS 1

Qatar .............................................................................. Doha .............................................................................. DOH 4

Reunion Island ............................................................... St Denis ......................................................................... RUN 4

Romania ......................................................................... Bucharest ...................................................................... BUH 1

Russia ............................................................................ Moscow ......................................................................... MOW 1

San Marino .................................................................... Rome ............................................................................. ROM 1

Saudi Arabia .................................................................. Dhahran ......................................................................... DHA 4

Senegal .......................................................................... Dakar ............................................................................. DKR 4

Singapore ....................................................................... Singapore ...................................................................... SIN 3

South Africa ................................................................... Johannesburg ................................................................ JNB 4

Spain 3 ............................................................................ Madrid ........................................................................... MAD 1

Sri Lanka ........................................................................ Colombo ........................................................................ CMB 4

Sudan ............................................................................. Khartoum ....................................................................... KRT 4

Suriname ........................................................................ Paramaribo .................................................................... PBM 2

Sweden .......................................................................... Stockholm ...................................................................... STO 1

Switzerland .................................................................... Basel ............................................................................. BSL 1

Syria ............................................................................... Damascus ..................................................................... DAM 4

Taiwan ........................................................................... Taipei ............................................................................. TPE 3

Tanzania ........................................................................ Dar es Salaam .............................................................. DAR 4

Thailand ......................................................................... Bangkok ........................................................................ BKK 3

Togo ............................................................................... Lome ............................................................................. LFW 4

Trinidad and Tobago ..................................................... Port of Spain ................................................................. POS 2

Tunisia ........................................................................... Tunis .............................................................................. TUN 4

Turkey ............................................................................ Istanbul .......................................................................... IST 1

Uganda .......................................................................... Kampala ........................................................................ KLA 4

United Arab Emirates .................................................... Dubai ............................................................................. DXB 4

Uruguay ......................................................................... Montevideo .................................................................... MVD 2

Venezuela ...................................................................... Caracas ......................................................................... CCS 2

Yemen ............................................................................ Sanaa ............................................................................ SAH 4

Zambia ........................................................................... Ndola ............................................................................. NLA 4

Zimbabwe ...................................................................... Harare ........................................................................... HRE 4

Footnotes:

1To expedite service, Japan Post has requested that ISAL shipments to Japan be separated by two destinations delivery zones as follows:

Osaka (OSA) for postal codes 52–79, 91, and Tokyo (TYO) for all other postal codes. 2 Including the Canary Islands.

Stanley F. Mires,

Chief Counsel, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 98–1670 Filed 1–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL160–1a; FRL–5951–6]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Illinois

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Direct Final Rule.

SUMMARY: On August 20, 1997, Illinois

submitted a variance to allow Marathon

Oil to emit particulate matter in

increased quantities from June 14, 1996,

to September 5, 1996, to allow the

company to defer repairs of its control

equipment until a scheduled system

shutdown. The submittal included

modeling to indicate that the temporary

emissions increase would not be

expected to cause a violation of air

quality standards. USEPA is approving

this variance because air quality

standards continue to be protected.

DATES: This action is effective on March

27, 1998 unless USEPA receives written

adverse or critical comments by

February 25, 1998. If the effective date

is delayed, timely notice will be

published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent

to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch (AR–18J), United States

Environmental Protection Agency, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

Copies of the State’s submittal are

available for inspection at the following

address: (It is recommended that you

telephone John Summerhays at (312)

886–6067, before visiting the Region 5

Office.) U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation

Division (AR–18J), 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Summerhays, Regulation Development

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 3651

Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)

886–6067.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The State’s submittal addresses

emissions at the Fluid bed Catalytic

Cracking Unit (FCCU) at Marathon Oil

Company’s refinery in Robinson, in

Crawford County, Illinois. The FCCU

uses catalyst in particle form to convert

heavier petroleum materials into lighter,

more valuable products. At issue are the

quantity of particles that may be emitted

from this unit. The normal emission

limit for this unit, according to an

equation based on the weight of material

input to the process under normal

capacity operation, is about 84 pounds

per hour. The variance requested by the

company and granted by the State

authorizes emissions of 450 pounds per

hour for the relevant 3-month period.

The circumstances leading to the

company’s variance request involved

discovery of evidence that emissions

from the FCCU were exceeding the

unit’s limit and suggesting problems

with the cyclones at the unit. Repair of

the cyclones requires a month-long

shutdown of the FCCU, which would

dramatically reduce production of

gasoline. The company argued that

allowance to defer remedying the

problems was needed to avoid undue

hardship on the company, because

immediate repair would be less efficient

(due to difficulties of working on hot

equipment in hot weather and due to

reduced preparation for repairs) and

would eliminate gasoline production for

much of the peak driving season. The

company sought the variance until the

maintenance shutdown that was already

scheduled for October 1996

(subsequently rescheduled to commence

September 5, 1996).

II. Review of Submittal

Crawford County is designated

unclassifiable for PM10. Consequently,

given that the variance would be a

temporary relaxation of the State

Implementation Plan (SIP), the principal

review criterion is whether the variance

has been demonstrated not to threaten

continued attainment of the national

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).

The company provided limited

modeling to demonstrate the impact of

the variance. This modeling used the

Industrial Source Complex Model to

simulate potential impacts of the FCCU,

using relevant plume release

characteristics and using meteorological

data from Terre Haute, Indiana. This

modeling estimated the impact of 450

pounds per hour of emissions of total

suspended particulate matter, which

was assumed to include 13.5 percent or

60.75 pounds per hour of PM10

emissions. The estimate impact of these

emissions was a peak 24-hour average

PM10 impact of 1.8 micrograms per

cubic meter (μg/m3) and a peak annual

average PM10 impact of 0.13 μg/m3.

These impacts are well below the 24-

hour PM10 standard of 150 μg/m 3 and

the annual PM10 standard of 50 μg/m3.

An important issue not adequately

addressed by the company was whether

the addition of the FCCU impact to the

impacts of other relevant sources would

cause concentrations above the NAAQS.

The State addressed this issue in part by

examining PM10 air quality data at its

nearest monitoring site, approximately

50 miles northwest, in Charleston, Coles

County, Illinois. No exceedances had

been recorded at this site. The State

indicated that no other facilities with

significant emissions were present near

the facility, but the State did not address

the impacts of other emission points

within the Marathon refinery. Also,

unfortunately, neither the company nor

the State provided a copy of the inputs

or outputs of the modeling or otherwise

provided full details of the analysis,

most notably with respect to switches

used (e.g. for stack tip downwash).

Nevertheless, it is reasonable to

presume that any deviations from

recommended approaches to these

unaddressed issues would not change

the general magnitude of FCCU’s

estimated impact.

USEPA in its review considered other

readily available information. USEPA

examined the concentrations observed

at the Coles County monitoring site from

1994 to 1996, which included a peak 24-

hour average of 47 μg/m 3 and a 3-year

average of 18 μg/m 3. USEPA also

examined concentrations in Vigo

County, Indiana, approximately 45

miles to the north-northeast, where the

highest 24-hour average concentration

in 1994 to 1996 among several sites was

75 μg/m 3, and the highest 3-year

average was 29 μg/m 3. USEPA further

examined emissions data submitted by

Illinois to the national emissions data

base. This data base shows estimated

plant total emissions of particulate

matter of about 700 tons per year, or

about 160 pounds per hour. Much of

these emissions are from combustion

sources (e.g. heaters); thus, a high

fraction of the total particulate matter

emissions will be PM10. Also, plumes

for these other units are likely to be

hotter and higher than the FCCU plume.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume

that complete modeling of the emissions

of this facility would show impacts in

the same order of magnitude as those

found for the FCCU. Since the addition

of even ten times the modeled FCCU

impact to concentrations monitored at

available monitoring sites is well below

the air quality standards, it is reasonable

to conclude that the emissions allowed

under the variance requested by

Marathon would not cause violations of

the NAAQS.

Ordinarily, USEPA would expect the

source or the State to provide a more

thorough analysis of whether a

requested variance might cause a

violation of the NAAQS. However,

special circumstances in this case give

USEPA adequate assurances that the

NAAQS will not be violated. First, and

most importantly, a substantial

attainment margin exists, such that

attainment would likely be shown even

if a more complete analysis of various

aspects of this issue were to show

substantially greater concentrations.

Second, although the nearest monitors

are relatively distant, the various

locations are expected to encounter

similar air quality as would be found

near the Marathon facility. Third, the

temporary nature of the variance means

that emissions are potentially elevated

for a much shorter period than the five

years modeled, such that the likelihood

of violations is reduced, which in a

qualitative way supports a conclusion

that the variance will not threaten

attainment.

III. Today’s Action

USEPA is approving the variance

adopted by the Illinois Pollution Control

Board on November 21, 1996, for the

Marathon Oil Company refinery near

Robinson, Illinois. This variance

provides a temporary emissions limit of

450 pounds per hour for the FCCU at

this facility.

A noteworthy characteristic of this

variance is that the period for which the

variance applies is wholly in the past.

Therefore, aside from judging whether

the variance is approvable, USEPA must

also judge whether the variance

warrants inclusion as a codified element

of the Illinois SIP. USEPA is

undertaking an effort to revise its

presentation of SIPs in a manner that

more clearly identifies the enforceable

elements of each SIP. Part of this effort

is to eliminate referencing of variances

that have expired long ago and thus are

no longer of interest. The variance for

Marathon alters the limitation to be

enforced for approximately three

months in 1996 but has no effect on the

current regulations governing emissions

at this facility. Consequently, USEPA is

not codifying the variance for Marathon

as part of the Illinois SIP. Nevertheless,

for USEPA enforcement purposes, the

emissions limitation that applies to
3652 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Marathon’s FCCU for the June 14 to

September 5, 1996, period is the

limitation given in the State’s variance

rather than the otherwise applicable

limitation in the State’s regulations.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting, 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.

IV. Administrative Requirements

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from Executive Order 12866 review.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA 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, USEPA may

certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. This action

affects a only one source and therefore

does not affect a substantial number of

small entities.

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, USEPA

must undertake various actions in

association with 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 the private sector, of

$100 million or more. This Federal

action approves pre-existing

requirements under state or local law,

and imposes no new requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

state, local, or tribal governments, or the

private sector, result from this action.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by March 27, 1998. Filing a

petition for reconsideration by the

Administrator of this final rule does not

affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See Section

307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Particulate matter,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: January 8, 1998.

Michelle D. Jordan,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region V.

[FR Doc. 98–1763 Filed 1–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Part 1842

Miscellaneous Revisions to the NASA

FAR Supplement Coverage on

Contract Administration

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and

Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This is a final rule amending

the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS)

contract administration policy to update

references to OMB Circulars and NASA

internal guidance documents and to

provide revised guidance on audit

followup procedures.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 26, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jack Horvath, NASA, Office of

Procurement, Analysis Division (Code

HC), (202) 358–0456.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

NFS sections 1842.101 and 1842.7301

reference OMB Circulars A–88 and A–

128. Both of these have been cancelled

and replaced by OMB Circular A–133,

and the NFS references are updated

accordingly. Section 1842.102–70(b)

provides guidance for NASA Centers on

advising NASA Headquarters of changes

in contract administration activity. This

section is further clarified to indicate

that NASA Center reports to

Headquarters are required

semiannually. Finally, changes are

made to section 1842.7301 to include

references to new NASA guidance

documents and to clarify audit followup

activities.

Impact

NASA certifies that this regulation

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

business entities under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

This final rule does not impose any

reporting or recordkeeping requirements

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 1842

Government procurement.

Tom Luedtke,

Deputy Associate Administrator for

Procurement.

Accordingly, 48 CFR part 1842 is

amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR

part 1842 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1).

PART 1842—CONTRACT

ADMINISTRATION

1842.101 [Amended]

2. In paragraph (a)(i) to section

1842.101, the phrase ‘‘OMB Circular No.

88’’ is revised to read ‘‘OMB Circular

No. A–133’’.

3. In paragraph (a)(ii) to section

1842.101, ‘‘(Code HS)’’ is revised to read

‘‘(Code HK)’’.

1842.102–70 [Amended]

4. In section 1842.102–70, paragraph

(b) introductory text is revised to read

as follows:

1842.102–70 Review of administration and

audit services.

* * * * *

(b) A summary, including a negative

summary, of the Center’s assessment

shall be submitted by the procurement

officer to the Headquarters Office of

Procurement (Code HK) by not later

than January 15 and June 15 of the fiscal

year. The summary shall include—

* * * * *

1842.7301 [Amended]

5. Section 1842.7301 is revised to read

as follows:

1842.7301 NASA external audit follow-up

system.

(a) This section implements OMB

Circular No. A–50, NASA Policy

Directive (NPD) 1200.1, and NASA

Procedures and Guidelines (NPG)

1200.1, ‘‘Management Accountability

and Control, Audit Liaison, and Audit

Follow-up’’, which provide more

detailed guidance. Recommendations

for external audits (OMB Circular No.

A–133, Audits of States, Local

Governments, and Non-Profit

Institutions) shall be resolved by formal

review and approval procedures

analogous to those at 1815.406–171.

(b) The external audit followup

system tracks up contract and OMB

Circular No. A–133 audits where NASA

has resolution and disposition

authority. The objective of the tracking

system is to ensure that audit

recommendations are resolved as

expeditiously as possible, but at a