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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 3653

maximum, within 6 months of the date

of the audit report.

(c)(1) The identification and tracking

of contract audit reports under NASA

cognizance are accomplished in

cooperation with the DCAA.

(2) Identification and tracking of OMB

Circular No. A–133 audit reports are

accomplished in cooperation with the

NASA Office of the Inspector General

(OIG) by means of a transmittal

memorandum. A transmittal

memorandum is sent by the OIG to the

procurement officer of each NASA

Center having an award (contract, grant,

or other agreement) covered by the audit

report. The transmittal memorandum

will identify any significant audit

findings.

(d)(1) All reportable contract audit

reports are defined by Part 15, Section

6, of the DCAA Contract Audit Manual

(CAM) shall be reported quarterly to the

Headquarters Office of Procurement

(Code HC); and

(2) Only OMB Circular No. A–133

audit reports involving the following

shall be reported quarterly to Code HC:

(i) A significant management control

issue; or

(ii) Questioned costs of $10,000 or

more due to an audit finding (see

Subpart E-Auditor, paragraph 510 of

OMB Circular No. A–133).

(3) NASA contracting officers will

maintain a dialogue with DOD

Administrative Contracting Officers

(ACO) who have been delegated

activities on NASA contracts. A review

will be conducted no less frequently

than semiannually, and the status and

disposition of significant audit findings

will be documented in the contract file.

(e)(1) The terms ‘‘resolution’’ and

‘‘disposition’’ are defined in Appendix

A of NPG 1200.1.

(2) The resolution and disposition of

OMB Circular No. A–133 audits are

handled as follows:

(i) Audit findings pertaining to an

individual NASA award are the

responsibility of the procurement officer

administering that award.

(ii) Audit findings having a

Governmentwide impact are the

responsibility of the cognizant Federal

agency responsible for oversight. For

organizations subject to OMB Circular

No. A–133, there is either a cognizant

agency or an oversight agency. The

cognizant agency is the Federal agency

that provides the predominant amount

of direct funding to the recipient

organization unless OMB makes a

specific cognizant agency for audit

assignment. To provide for the

continuity of cognizance, the

determination of the predominant

amount of direct funding will be based

on the direct Federal awards expended

in the recipient’s fiscal years ending in

1995, 2000, 2005, and every fifth year

thereafter. When there is no direct

funding, the Federal agency with the

predominant indirect funding is to

assume the oversight responsibilities. In

cases where NASA is the cognizant or

oversight Federal agency, audit

resolution and disposition is the

responsibility of the procurement officer

for the Center having the largest amount

of direct funding, or, if there is no direct

funding, the largest amount of indirect

funding for the audited period. A copy

of the memorandum dispositioning the

findings shall be provided by each

Center having resolution responsibility

for the particular report to the

Headquarters OIG office and Code HC.

[FR Doc. 98–1753 Filed 1–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7510–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket No. PS–121; Notice–3]

RIN 2137–AD 05

Pressure Testing Older Hazardous

Liquid and Carbon Dioxide Pipelines

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Confirmation of effective date of

Direct Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document confirms the

effective date of the amendments of the

direct final rule which extends the time

for compliance with the requirements

for pressure testing of older hazardous

liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines.

EFFECTIVE DATES: This document

confirms January 20, 1998 as the

effective date of the direct final rule,

published on October 21, 1997, at 62 FR

54591.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mike Israni, (202) 366–4571, e-mail:

mike.israni@rspa.dot.gov, regarding the

subject matter of this document, or the

Dockets Unit (202) 366–4453, for copies

of this document or other information in

the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On October 21, 1997, RSPA published

a direct final rule (62 FR 54591) titled

‘‘Pressure Testing Older Hazardous

Liquid and Carbon Dioxide Pipelines.’’

In that rule, RSPA stated that if no

adverse comments were received by

December 22, 1997, it would publish a

confirmation notice in the Federal

Register by January 5, 1998, and if an

adverse comment was received, RSPA

would issue a notice to confirm that fact

and would withdraw the direct final

rule in whole or in part. The rule also

stated that RSPA might then incorporate

the adverse comment(s) into a

subsequent direct final rule or might

publish a notice of proposed

rulemaking.

The Technical Hazardous Liquid

Pipeline Safety Standards Committee

(THLPSSC) met on November 18, 1997,

in Houston, TX, to consider the

extension of the time for compliance

discussed in the October direct final

rule. (The THLPSSC was established by

statute to evaluate the technical

feasibility, reasonableness, and

practicability of proposed regulations.)

The consensus of the THLPSSC was to

support the direct final rule.

RSPA received one industry comment

supporting RSPA’s action on extension

of time for compliance. Therefore, this

document confirms new compliance

dates for pressure testing older

hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide

pipelines as amended in the direct final

rule effective January 20, 1998.

The new compliance dates are as

follows:

—Before December 7, 1998, plan and

schedule testing; or establish the

pipeline’s maximum operating

pressure under § 195.406 (a)(5).

—Before December 7, 2000, pressure

test each pipeline containing more

than 50 percent by mileage of electric

resistance welded pipe manufactured

before 1970; and at least 50 percent of

the mileage of all other pipelines; and

—Before December 7, 2003, pressure

test the remainder of the pipeline

mileage.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on January 21,

1998.

Richard B. Felder,

Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.

[FR Doc. 98–1747 Filed 1–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P