11682 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Notices

protection as would the mandatory

standard.

14. Eighty-Four Mining Company

[Docket No. M–95–20–C]

Eighty-Four Mining Company, P.O.

Box 729, Indiana, Pennsylvania 15701

has filed a petition to modify the

application of 30 CFR 75.1002 (location

of trolley wires, trolley feeder wires,

high-voltage cables and transformers) to

its Mine 84 (I.D. No. 36–00958) located

in Washington County, Pennsylvania.

The petitioner proposes to use highvoltage (4,160 volts) cables inby the last

open crosscut to supply power to

longwall face equipment. The petitioner

asserts that the proposed alternative

method would provide at least the same

measure of protection as would the

mandatory standard.

15. Minnesota Ore Operations, USX

Corporation

[Docket No. M–95–03–M]

Minnesota Ore Operations, USX

Corporation, 600 Grant Street, room

1580, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219

has filed a petition to modify the

application of 30 CFR 56.15014 (eye

protection when operating grinding

wheels) to its Minntac Mine (I.D. No.

21–00282); its Minntac Plant (I.D. No.

21–00820); and its Maintenance

Department (I.D. No. 21–00819) all

located in St. Louis County, Minnesota.

The petitioner proposes to continue

using pedestal grinders with safety

shields; to continue providing safety

glasses, including prescription glasses to

all employees for them to wear while

working, except in office areas; and to

discontinue using face shields when

employees are wearing safety glasses

while operating pedestal grinders

equipped with safety shields. The

petitioner asserts that the proposed

alternative method would provide at

least the same measure of protection as

would the mandatory standard.

Request for Comments

Persons interested in these petitions

may furnish written comments. These

comments must be filed with the Office

of Standards, Regulations and

Variances, Mine Safety and Health

Administration, room 627, 4015 Wilson

Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

All comments must be postmarked or

received in that office on or before April

3, 1995. Copies of these petitions are

available for inspection at that address.

Dated: February 24, 1995.

Patricia W. Silvey,

Director, Office of Standards, Regulations and

Variances.

[FR Doc. 95–5141 Filed 3–1–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–43–M

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING

COMMISSION

Master Plan Submission Requirement

AGENCY: National Capital Planning

Commission.

ACTION: Final master plan submission

requirements.

SUMMARY: On November 3, 1994, the

Commission adopted several

amendments to its Master Plan

Submission Requirements, originally

approved on September 6, 1984 and

subsequently amended on November 7,

1985. The Commission’s Master Plan

Submission Requirements are the basic

set of guidelines used by staff to direct

Federal and District of Columbia

agencies in preparing their master plan

submissions to the Commission. The

changes to the requirements are

primarily designed to incorporate

Administration policy directives and

current and emerging planning and

design concerns which the Commission

is now emphasizing in working with

agencies preparing master plan

submissions. Briefly, Sec. 3.A.1.f. has

been changed to emphasize the need for

Federal agencies, as they prepare their

master plans, to take into greater

consideration the Comprehensive Plan

for the National Capital’s employee

parking policies which are designed to

encourage reduced reliance on singleoccupant vehicles. Consequently, the

new requirements include a provision

calling for the preparation of a

Transportation Management Program for

sites of 100 or more employees.

Sections 3.B.2.c and 3.B.3.a are new

sections which are intended to promote

a more consistent treatment and

recognition of design issues in Federal

Master Plans throughout the National

Capital Region. Amendments to Sec. 4.A

provide for the use of metric standards

in master plan maps and drawings in

accordance with Executive Order 12770,

Metric Usage in Federal Government

Programs. A new section, sec. 4.E, is

meant to encourage Federal agencies to

consider providing their master plan

submissions using some of the current

computer-based planning and design

technologies widely available in the

market today, such as Geographic

Information Systems (GIS) and

Computer Aided Design (CAD)

packages. Other technical and clarifying

changes to the requirements are

included as well.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ronald E. Wilson, Director for Planning,

Review & Implementation Division,

National Capital Planning Commission,

801 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite

301, Washington, D.C. 20576 or

(202)724–0191.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section 1—Introduction

Section 5(a) of the National Capital

Planning Act of 1952, as amended,

(hereinafter ‘‘Planning Act’’), provides

that each Federal and District of

Columbia agency prior to the

preparation of construction plans

originated by such agency for proposed

developments and projects or to

commitments for the acquisition of

land, to be paid for in whole or in part

from Federal or District funds, shall

advise and consult with the National

Capital Planning Commission

(hereinafter ‘‘Commission’’) in the

preparation by the agency of plans and

programs in preliminary and successive

stages which affect the Comprehensive

Plan for the National Capital.

A master plan is an integrated series

of documents which present in graphic,

narrative, and tabular form the present

composition of an installation and the

plan for its orderly and comprehensive

long-range development, generally over

a period of 20 years. The Commission

has determined that an approved master

plan is a required preliminary stage of

planning prior to agency preparation

and submission to the Commission of

site and building plans for individual

projects. Master plans are necessary for

installations on which more than one

principal building, structure, or activity

is located or is proposed to be located.

Ordinarily, the Commission will not

approve, or recommend favorably on,

project plans for an installation for

which there is no approved master plan

unless the agency provides an

explanation satisfactory to the

Commission as to the agency’s reasons

for not submitting a current master plan,

or modification thereto, for the

installation.

In accordance with Section 5(b) of the

Planning Act, these requirements shall

not apply to the Capitol Grounds or to

the planning for structures within

existing military, naval, or Air Force

reservations erected by the Department

of Defense during wartime or national

emergency, except that the appropriate

defense agency shall consult with the

Commission as to any developments

which materially affect traffic or require
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Notices 11683

1 ‘‘Region’’ or ‘‘National Capital Region’’ means

the District of Columbia; Montgomery and Prince

George’s Counties in Maryland; Arlington, Fairfax,

Loudoun, and Prince William Counties in Virginia;

and all cities now or hereafter existing in Maryland

or Virginia within the geographic area bounded by

the outer boundaries.

2The ‘‘Central Area’’ of the District of Columbia

as currently defined is that area contained within

the boundaries of the Downtown and Shaw School

Urban Renewal Areas.

coordinated planning of the

surrounding areas.

These requirements are intended to be

used in connection with proposed

developments of the Federal and

District of Columbia Governments,

including civilian and military

installations within the National Capital

Region1 (hereinafter ‘‘Region’’), except

as provided above. The Commission, as

a policy, limits its review of District of

Columbia plans to matters of Federal

interests.

The Executive Director of the

Commission may extend, modify, or

waive any requirement pertaining to the

scope and content of a master plan on

sites where such requirements cannot be

met because of the unique or special

character or quality of the installation

affect. Where such extension,

modification, or waiver involves

contents of the master plan that may

reasonably be expected to address or

involve potential significant off-site

impacts, the Executive Director shall

provide notice to potentially affected

public agencies and, if appropriate,

provide opportunity for consultation.

Section 2—Use of Master Plan by the

Commission and Other Agencies

A master plan is used by the

Commission as a basic guide in its

review of and action on:

A. Proposed land acquisitions,

changes in land use, and/or preliminary

and final site and building plans for

individual construction and

development projects on an installation

within the region, pursuant to Section 5

of the Planning Act;

B. Preliminary and final site and

building plans for Federal public

buildings on an installation within the

District of Columbia and District of

Columbia Government buildings on an

installation within the central area 2 of

the District of Columbia (as

concurrently defined by the

Commission and the Council of the

District of Columbia), pursuant to D.C.

Code, 1981 edition, sec. 5432;

C. Proposed dispositions of land

pursuant to the Federal Property and

Administrative Services Act of 1949;

D. Annual capital budget proposals of

Federal agencies, pursuant to Office of

Management and Budget Circular A–11;

and

E. Advance programs of capital

improvements of Federal agencies,

pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Planning

Act, and multi-year capital

improvements plans for the District of

Columbia, pursuant to Section 7(b) of

the Planning Act.

A master plan also serves as the basic

planning document for

intergovernmental coordination on

developments and projects within an

installation.

Section 3—Contents of Master Plan

Submission

An installation master plan includes

narrative materials and data, maps and

drawings, and presentation materials

which describe and illustrate existing

conditions and proposed developments

and changes in conditions on the

installation.

A. Narrative Materials and Data. (See

Section 4—Form of Submission of

Master Plan for information on

alternative methods of submitting

required narrative materials and data.)

1. Master Plan Report. The master

plan report shall include the following:

a. A description and analysis of

existing conditions, including

employee, visitor, and resident facilities

and needs, with reference to the existing

conditions map;

b. A description of the relationship of

the proposed uses on the installation to

the overall missions or responsibilities,

functions, and facilities of the agency or

agencies that are proposed to occupy the

site;

c. A list of master planning objectives;

d. A description of the master plan

proposals with reference to the master

plan drawings;

e. A summary sheet for easy reference

providing the following information for

both existing conditions and long-range

projections:

(1) Total acreage, including a

breakdown in acreage of land area by

use (for example: office/administrative,

training, service);

(2) Total population, including a

breakdown by employees and visitors

(by shifts), residents, and students,

noting peak arrival and departure times;

(3) Building floor area;

(4) Total number of parking spaces;

and

(5) Any other useful statistics and

facts;

f. A description of the relationship of

the proposed master plan to the

Comprehensive Plan, in particular the

Federal Facilities element’s employee

parking policies, and to the sponsoring

agency’s own agency-wide, long range

plan and program for its installations

within the Region, including the

rationale for any aspect of the master

plan not in conformance with the

Comprehensive Plan;

g. A description of community

participation efforts, including a

description of the efforts of the

sponsoring agency to coordinate with

affected citizen groups in the vicinity of

the installation, and a report of citizen

views and comments on the submission;

h. A report on individuals, families,

and business required to be relocated by

the proposals, if any;

i. An analysis, pursuant to the

implementation proposals of the Federal

Employment element of the

Comprehensive Plan, of the availability

of affordable housing within reasonable

commuting distances from the affected

installation for employees and their

families in cases in which the master

plan proposes to change the location of,

or add, 100 or more Federal employees;

j. The status of the sponsoring

agency’s coordination of its master

planning with the local and state

planning agencies and the Council of

Governments, including reference to

any existing agreements with such

agencies;

k. A report on the consistency of the

proposed master plan or revised master

plan with applicable local, subregional,

regional, and state development plans

and policies, including a description of

the rationale of the sponsoring agency in

making its determination of consistency;

l. A historic preservation report which

includes: an analysis of the effects, if

any, that the master plan will have on

recognized historic resources both on

the installation or in the vicinity; and

the status of compliance with Section

106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, if

applicable (Compliance must be

completed prior to Commission action.);

m. A description of the predominate

design idea, or set of ideas, which (1)

relate the urban design framework and

land use proposals within the master

plan and (2) will guide the general

design, character, materials and other

aspects of buildings, site improvements

and landscaping on the installation in

the future;

n. A Transportation Management

Program (TMP) for installations with

100 or more employees (including

existing and proposed employees). The

TMP should incorporate the following:

(1) A description of existing and

projected peak hour traffic by mode,

with indicated points of entrance and

exit, the number of existing and

proposed bicycle spaces, as well as

transit routes and stops and pedestrian
11684 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Notices

facilities serving the installation, both

on-site and in the nearby area; and a

summary of existing and proposed

parking by type of assignment (official

cars, vanpools, carpools, singleoccupant vehicles, handicapped

persons, visitors, etc.);

(2) A description of the Federal

agency’s existing strategies for assisting

employee’s commute to work;

(3) Stated goals and objectives for the

TMP, such as trip reduction, mode split

changes, or vehicle occupancy rate

increases;

(4) An evaluation of projected

transportation impacts resulting from

master plan development and

description of potential TMP mitigation

measures;

(5) A description of the process for

monitoring and evaluating the

achievement of goals and objectives and

adjusting TMP strategies, as needed; and

(6) A summary of the relationship of

the TMP provisions to transportation

management and air quality

requirements of local, state and regional

agencies, including provisions for

working cooperatively with affected

agencies to address those requirements.

For installations where future site

tenants are undetermined, TMP

information should be developed to the

extent feasible at the time of the initial

preparation of the Master Plan, with

supplementary information to be

developed when tenants are established.

o. A description of proposed energy

conservation strategies and policies

related to the siting and design of new

buildings, the retrofitting of existing

structures, the use of transportation

facilities, and the consumption of

renewable energy resources for the

purpose of complying with Federal

energy efficiency objectives;

p. Water quality management

strategies and policies for controlling

the impacts of any on-site discharges to

natural drainage ways or to adjacent

streams or wetlands and, in conjunction

with the stormwater management plan

required pursuant to Section 3.B.3.e. for

controlling erosion and sedimentation

and other non-point sources of

pollution; and

q. A staging program reflecting the

graphic staging plan required pursuant

to Section 3.B.3.F., that indicates in

narrative and/or tabular form the

proposed sequence of development over

the period covered by the master plan.

In cases in which information in the

Master Plan Report is fully provided in

the required environmental

documentation, it need not be repeated

in the Master Plan Report.

2. Environmental Document. The

environmental document prepared by

the sponsoring agency pursuant to the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969, as amended, and Council on

Environmental Quality Regulations

shall be a part of the master plan

submission. The document shall be an

environmental impact statement, if

required pursuant to Section 102(2)(C)

of NEPA. If an EIS is not required, an

environmental assessment shall be

submitted. The environmental

document should be prepared in

consultation with the Commission,

pursuant to Section S.C. of these

requirements and the Commission’s

Environmental Policies and Procedures.

B. Maps and Drawings. (See Section

4—Form of Submission of Master Plan

for information on alternative methods

of submitting required maps and

drawings.)

1. Vicinity Map. The vicinity map

shall show the location of the

installation in relation to well-known

features of the surrounding community

within at least one mile from the

installation, such as major

transportation facilities, natural

features, and public facilities. Existing

land uses and zoning shall be shown on

the map for the area surrounding the

installation. Where adopted local and/or

state plans propose changes in

surrounding transportation facilities,

land use, or zoning, the proposed

changes shall be shown on the vicinity

map. If the proposed changes cannot be

clearly depicted on a vicinity map in

combination with existing conditions, a

separate vicinity map showing the

installation in relation to planned

surrounding conditions shall be

provided.

2. Inventory Maps. The following

inventory maps shall be prepared from

a common base map which depicts

existing physical conditions on the

installation, with the coverage of the

map extending beyond the boundaries

of the installation in all directions for at

least one city block in urban areas and

1⁄4 mile in suburban and rural areas:

a. Existing land use map. The existing

land use map shall indicate by

appropriate categories the allocation of

land uses on the installation. This

allocation should also be provided in

tabular form on the existing land use

map. (An itemized list of suggested land

use categories is available from the

Commission staff.)

b. Existing conditions map. The

existing conditions map shall include

the following:

(1) Internal road system, entrance and

exist locations, with existing peak hour

traffic counts, the number of existing

parking spaces for each site, building,

and facility, and public transit routes

and stops. (This information may be

shown on a separate map entitled

‘‘Existing Circulation Map’’, if desired.);

(2) All existing buildings, structures,

and other manmade improvements,

indicating the use and height of

principal buildings and structures;

(3) Properties and districts listed in

the National Register of Historic Places

or on local historical registers;

(4) Existing wooded areas,

watercourses, ultimate 100 year flood

plains, wetlands, and other significant

natural areas and features;

(5) Existing typography of the

installation at a contour interval that

clearly indicates the configuration of the

land (generally at not less than five-foot

intervals);

(6) Major utilities; and

(7) If the installation is located within

the State of Maryland, areas of critical

concern to the State of Maryland as

identified by the Maryland Department

of State Planning, as well as officially

designated coastal zone areas and

‘‘primary management areas’’ and

‘‘woodland buffers’’ along the Patuxent

River within the region, as defined in

the Patuxent River Policy Plan,

Maryland Department of State Planning.

c. Existing Urban Design Framework

Diagram. The existing urban design

framework diagram shall include the

following:

(1) Significant natural and man-made

features, such as distinctive building

groupings or alignments, important

formal or informal landscape

compositions, special views and vistas,

special streets, scenic routes, gateways

or edges, etc., noting the role such

elements serve in either unifying the

installation, manifesting its overall form

or precincts therein, or contributing to

or reinforcing a larger urban design

context such as the National Capital’s

urban design framework or other

Federal interest; and

(2) Intrusions, barriers, gaps or other

disparate conditions affecting the

integrity of the urban design qualities

identified above.

3. Master Plan Proposals. The

following maps illustrating the master

plan proposals shall be prepared from a

common base map which depicts future

physical conditions to be achieved on

the installation through the master plan,

with the coverage of the map extending

beyond the boundaries of the

installation as required on the inventory

base map:

a. Urban Design Framework Diagram.

The urban design framework diagram

should precede and be more

diagrammatic than the maps listed

below. The framework diagram shall

graphically indicate the retention,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Notices 11685

enhancement or modification of the

inventoried urban design features and

the broad urban design principles and

development controls which, together,

serve to support and strengthen the

intended form and character of the

installation.

b. Land Use Plan. The land use plan

shall indicate by appropriate categories

the proposed general land use of all

land within the installation.

c. Circulation Plan. The circulation

plan shall indicate at least the

following:

(1) The proposed internal road system

of the installation incorporating

existing-to-remain and proposed roads

and showing the functional

classification of all roads;

(2) Existing-to-remain and proposed

ingress and egress points serving the

installation and their relationship to the

existing, programmed, and planned

roads immediately adjacent to the

facility;

(3) Existing-to-remain and proposed

off-street parking facilities showing the

number of existing or estimated parking

spaces for each separate facility;

(4) The proposed pedestrian

circulation system, incorporating

existing features to remain;

(5) The proposed public

transportation system showing the

routes and stops serving the installation;

and

(6) Proposed bicycle paths, if any,

incorporating existing features to

remain.

d. Site Development Plan. This site

development plan shall indicate the

general location and use of all existing

to-remain and proposed buildings and

structures, the general order magnitude

of building scale and orientation, and

other site improvements such as

landscaping. This site development plan

shall be accompanied by two site

development cross sections. These

sections shall be cut through the center

of the site at approximately 90 percent

to each other to show the topography of

the site, buildings, structures and

landscape elements. On large

installations with low intensity

development, the cross sections may be

limited to areas of major building

concentrations.

e. Landscape Plan. Ideally, the

landscape plan should be presented as

a separate plan. It may be incorporated

in the site development plan if the

combined plan satisfies all content

requirements and is clearly readable.

The landscape plan is not intended to

present precise landscaping proposals

but rather to indicate the general

landscaping concepts to be achieved in

future projects. The landscape plan,

shall indicate at least the following:

(1) Wooded areas, including those to

be retained and cleared, and, in

urbanized sites, the general location of

all existing trees one foot or more in

diameter to be retained or removed;

(2) The general location and extent of

all proposed landscaping within the

installation; and

(3) Existing-to-remain and proposed

topography of the installation at a

contour interval that clearly shows the

relationship of the proposed changes to

the existing topography.

f. Stormwater Management Plan. The

stormwater management plan shall

indicate the location and size of natural

drainage ways, storm sewer line and

outfalls, infiltration devices, retention

and detention ponds, storm drainage

outfalls, and any other mitigation

measures to control storm water runoff

on the installation, including measures

required by state or local law, with

back-up computations.

g. Staging Plan. The staging plan shall

graphically illustrate the proposed

sequence of development over the

projected period covered by the master

plan in five-year development stages.

Projects to be developed in the initial

five-year stage shall accord with the

sponsoring agency’s proposed capital

improvements program submitted

annually to the Commission under

Section 7(a) of the Planning Act and

described in the Commission’s Federal

Capital Improvements Program for the

National Capital Region.

C. Presentation Materials.

1. Models. Models should be

submitted with master plans for sites on

which significant concentrations of new

buildings programs are proposed to

show the topography of the site and

illustrate the site development,

circulation, and landscape proposals. A

joint determination will be made

between the sponsoring agency and

Commission staff regarding the need for

a model. Where a model is needed,

buildings may be shown in massing

forms without depiction of architectural

style or details. Models will be returned

to the sponsoring agencies following

action by the Commission.

2. Photographs. Sponsoring agencies

shall submit photographs to aid in the

review and evaluation of proposed

mater plans. Where possible,

photographs shall include both direct

overhead and oblique aerial views, eye

level panoramic views, and views of

special features of the installation.

Section 4—Form of Submission of

Master Plan

A. Map Scales. Maps should

preferably be at a scale of 1:1000, or

alternatively 1:2000 in the case of large

installations that cannot be depicted on

a single sheet at the larger scale. In the

case of an unusually large Federal

installation, sectionalized maps at either

scale would be preferred together with

an overall composite map of the entire

installation at a scale appropriate to its

size. Sponsoring agencies, in accordance

with Executive Order 12770, ‘‘Metric

Usage in Federal Government

Programs’’, at the earliest feasible time,

should submit their maps and drawings

in metric units.

B. Presentation and record map sheet

sizes. Presentation and record maps

should be at a standardized sheet size,

whenever possible. Individual sheets

should be a maximum of 34 by 44

inches, in order to be compatible with

the Commission’s microfilm program.

C. Reduced size maps. The master

plan maps shall also be reduced to page

size for incorporation in the master plan

submission. The reduced size maps may

be incorporated in the Master Plan

Report required in Section 3.A.l. If

incorporated in the Master Plan Report,

the reduced size maps may be of a size

compatible with the format of the report

selected by the sponsoring agency. If

submitted separately from the Master

Plan Report, the reduced size maps shall

be of a page size no larger than

81⁄2′′×14′′.

D. Numbers of copies of maps and

other documents. The numbers of

copies of maps and other documents to

be submitted vary according to

jurisdiction and the related referral

requirements that must be met by the

Commission. (See Sections 5.F. and 8.).

Copies of full size maps and other

required master plan documents shall

be submitted according to the following

schedule:
11686 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Notices

Jurisdiction Number of sets

For installations within the District of Columbia requiring regional review 13 complete sets of maps and supporting documents.

For installations in Maryland requiring regional review ............................ 16 complete sets of maps and supporting documents.

For installations in Virginia requiring regional review ............................... 16 complete sets of maps and supporting documents.

For installations in the District of Columbia, Maryland or Virginia not requiring regional review.3 complete sets of maps and supporting documents.

E. Electronic Data Submissions.

Sponsoring agencies may provide their

master plan submissions (maps and

narrative) electronically. Agencies are

encouraged to contact the staff to

coordinate the procedures for electronic

submissions.

Section 5—Master Plan Coordination

and Review Process

The following steps are involved in

the coordination and review of a master

plan prior to and during its preparation

by a sponsoring agency and following

its submission to the Commission.

A. Informal consultation with the

Commission staff. An informal

consultation session with the

Commission staff should be held by a

sponsoring agency prior to initiating the

preparation of a proposed master plan

or a significant modification to an

existing master plan.

At such a session, a joint

determination will be made as to

whether there are any unique or special

characteristics of the affected

installation which necessitate

modification of any requirements

respecting the master plan submission.

A joint determination will also be made

as to whether, because of special

characteristics of an installation or

proposed developments to be

accommodated by a master plan, there

is a need for a presentation of any type

to the Commission prior to the

preparation and submission of the

master plan. The session will also be

used to plan for early consultation with

other organizations as part of the

intergovernmental review process.

B. Early consultation and discussion

of proposed master plan with other

affected government agencies. After it

has been contacted by a sponsoring

Federal agency concerning the initiation

of planning for an installation in the

region, the Commission, as appropriate,

will contact the planning agency,

intergovernmental review official, chief

administrative officer, and responsible

elected official of the affected local

government(s) and the affected area and

state clearinghouse(s) about the work

involved and the anticipated schedule

for submission of the proposed master

plan or revised master plan to the

Commission. Where appropriate, the

Commission will arrange a meeting of

concerned agencies and officials with

the agency sponsoring the master

planning work to discuss that work,

prior to any submission to the

Commission.

The purpose of this step is to give

local, regional, and state agencies an

opportunity to learn about proposed

Federal plans being developed in the

region and permit early identification of

possible questions, issues and concerns.

This step in the process has been

established in accordance with the

Commission’s ‘‘Procedures for

Intergovernmental Cooperation in

Federal Planning in the National Capital

Region.’’ Although this step applies as

a requirement only to sponsoring

Federal agencies, the Commission will,

upon request of an affected District of

Columbia agency preparing a master

plan for an installation outside the

District of Columbia within the region,

arrange similar early consultation with

the affected local, regional, and state

agencies and officials.

C. Determination of appropriate

environmental document for the

proposed master plan. Master plan

submissions must include appropriate

environmental documentation, pursuant

to Section 3.A.2. of these requirements

and the Commission’s Environmental

Policies and Procedures.

The sponsoring agency should consult

with the Commission at the earliest

possible time in its master planning to

determine whether projects covered by

the master plan will require

Commission approval thereby requiring

Commission participation with the

sponsoring agency in determining the

appropriate environmental document

for the master plan.

The environmental determination of

the sponsoring agency must be made,

and the environmental document

submitted, in accordance with the

Commission’s Environmental Policies

and Procedures. The required

consultation regarding environmental

documentation may occur in the initial

informal consultation by the sponsoring

agency with the Commission staff.

D. Submission of the proposed master

plan to the Commission for review and

action. The sponsoring agency shall

submit the master plan in accordance

with established monthly deadlines,

which are available from the

Commission.

E. Commission initiation of

procedures for compliance with Section

106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended,

if applicable. Master plan submissions

must include a historic preservation

report, pursuant to Section 3.A.1.1. of

these requirements. If Section 106 of the

Act is applicable, the sponsoring agency

shall complete compliance therewith

prior to Commission action.

Upon receipt of a master plan

submission from the District of

Columbia Government for one of its

installations within the central area of

the District of Columbia, the Executive

Director of the Commission will

determine whether the master plan is

subject to the provisions of Section 106.

If he so determines, the Executive

Director will initiate procedures for

compliance. Compliance will be

completed prior to Commission action

on the proposed master plan.

F. Referral where appropriate, of the

proposed master plan to the responsible

local, regional and state agencies. Upon

receipt of a master plan, the

Commission will refer the plan to the

affected local planning agency and

regional and state clearinghouse for

review and comment. The master plan

will in turn also be referred by the

regional clearinghouse (the

Metropolitan Washington Council of

Governments) to the designated

intergovernmental review official of the

affected jurisdiction for review and

comment.

G. Resolution of planning issues, if

any, between local and Federal

agencies. Upon the identification of

planning issues raised by a proposed

master plan, the Commission staff in

conjunction with the staff of the Council

of Governments, will work with the

affected local, regional or state agencies

and the Federal agency to resolve such

issues in accordance with ‘‘Procedures

for Resolving Planning Issues That May

Arise Between Local and Federal

Agencies in the National Capital

Region’’ adopted by the Commission on

November 18, 1982, and the

Commission’s Procedures for

Intergovernmental Cooperation in

Federal Planning in the National Capital

Region.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Notices 11687

H. Referral, where appropriate, of the

proposed master plan to the

Commission’s Coordinating Committee.

Upon receipt of a master plan for a

Federal or District of Columbia

installation in the District of Columbia,

the Commission will refer the master

plan to its Coordinating Committee,

pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Planning

Act, for review and coordination. The

committee is composed of

representatives of Federal and District of

Columbia agencies involved in planning

and development activities. The master

plan will also be referred to the Council

of Governments and the designated

intergovernmental review official of the

District of Columbia.

I. Review and preparation of

recommendations by the Commission

staff. Following the receipt of comments

from other organizations and the

Coordinating Committee, where

appropriate, the staff will prepare

recommendations for action by the

Commission on the master plan. The

staff recommendations will be provided

to the Commission and made available

to the sponsoring agency and the

general public approximately one week

in advance of the schedule Commission

review and action on the plan.

J. Notification to the public and

public participation in Commission

review. In accordance with the

Commission’s ‘‘Revised Procedures for

Public Participation’’, organizations in

the vicinity of an installation will

receive a notice titled ‘‘Tentative

Agenda Items’’ indicating the tentative

schedule for the Commission’s review of

a master plan submission. Organizations

or individuals may submit written

comments for consideration by the

Executive Director of the Commission in

the preparation of staff

recommendations. In addition,

organizations or individuals may appear

before the Commission to comment on

a master plan submission and/or to

comment on the Commission staff’s

recommendations on the submission.

K. Review and action by the

Commission. The Commission will

review the master plan submission at a

scheduled meeting. The sponsoring

agency will be notified by the staff of

the schedule for Commission review,

and the staff will coordinate with the

agency concerning a presentation of the

submission to the Commission.

L. Official notification of Commission

action on the master plan. Notification

of the Commission action on the master

plan will be provided by letter to the

sponsoring agency immediately

following such action.

Section 6—Time Period for Review

Master plans for installations for

which a referral to local, regional, and

state agencies is required will be subject

to a review period of approximately 90

days, whenever possible, 60 days of

which will be devoted to review by the

agencies receiving the referral. A

sponsoring agency may request a

reduction of 30 days of this review

period from the Executive Director of

the Commission is special and unusual

circumstances warrant, but every effort

should be made to comply with the 90-

day review.

Section 7—Presubmission

Requirements

As noted in Section 5.A. at the time

of initial informal consultation on the

proposed preparation of a master plan,

the sponsoring agency and Commission

staff will determine whether, because of

special characteristics of an installation

or the developments being considered

for that installation, there is a need for

any type of presentation to the

Commission prior to the preparation

and submission of the master plan. In

some cases a presentation for

information purposes may be

appropriate to provide an opportunity

for the Commission to become familiar

at an early stage with an evolving

development proposal.

In other cases, the submission of site

boundaries, a development program,

and development concepts may be

required to obtain Commission views

and action on an acquisition proposal

pursuant to Section 5(a) of the Planning

Act prior to the expenditure of funds for

the preparation of a master plan. Where

land is already under the jurisdiction of

the sponsoring agency, the submission

of development concepts to obtain

Commission views on a particular

proposal in advance of the preparation

of a master plan may also be appropriate

under certain circumstances. In cases

where a presubmission of some form or

a presentation is determined to be

required or warranted, the contents will

be determined through consultation by

the sponsoring agency with the

Commission staff.

Section 8—Amendments or

Modifications to Master Plans

The process outlined above also

applies to proposed modifications or

revisions to master plans that have been

previously approved by the

Commission. Once a master plan has

been approved, regional review of

subsequent proposed modifications or

revisions will be required only where

the Executive Director of the

Commission, in consultation with the

sponsoring agency and affected local

jurisdiction(s), determines that: (1) A

major change in the character or

intensity of an existing use is proposed,

or (2) the proposed modifications or

revisions would significantly change the

off-site impact of the Federal activities

and uses carried out within the site.

Section 9—Review and Updating of

Master Plans

Agencies are encouraged to review

master plans on a periodic basis to

insure that both inventory material and

development proposals are current.

Such reviews should be conducted at

least every five years. Sponsoring

agencies should advise the Commission

of the results of such reviews and

provide to the Commission proposed

schedules for the updating of master

plans of a five-year cycle when updating

is determined to be needed.

Robert E. Gresham,

Deputy Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 95–5160 Filed 3–1–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7502–02–M

COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS

Meeting

The Commission of Fine Arts’ next

meeting is scheduled for March 16, 1995

at 10 am in the Commission’s offices in

the Pension Building, Suite 312,

Judiciary Square, 441 F Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20001 to discuss

various projects affecting the

appearance of Washington, DC,

including buildings, memorials, parks,

etc; also matters of design referred by

other agencies of the government.

Inquiries regarding the agenda and

requests to submit written or oral

statements should be addressed to

Charles H. Atherton, Secretary,

Commission of Fine Arts, at the above

address or call the above number.

Dated in Washington, DC, February 22,

1995.

Charles H. Atherton,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–5085 Filed 3–1–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6330–01–M

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Alan T. Waterman Award Committee,

Notice of Meeting

In accordance with the Federal

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–

463, as amended), the National Science

Foundation announces the following

meeting: