15690 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

PART 235—RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING

235.70 Research and development

streamlined contracting procedures—test.

2. Section 235.7002 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) (2) to read as

follows:

235.7002 Applicability.

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

(2) Navy: Naval Research Laboratory

contracting office; Naval Surface

Warface Center contracting offices when

contracting for the Carderock, Crane,

Dahlgren, Indian Head and Port

Hueneme divisions; Naval Undersea

Warfare Center contracting office.

* * * * *

3. Section 235.7003 is amended by

adding paragraph (d) (9) to read as

follows:

235.7003 Reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(9) At a minimum any request for

modification of the research and

development streamlined contracting

format or procedures, and any request

for one time only use of FAR and

DFARS provisions and clauses and

nonstandard provisions and clauses

approved for agency use, that are not in

the research and development

streamlined contracting format at

235.7006 must include the information

required by 201.402(3) (i) through (ix).

235.7004–1 [Amended]

4. Section 235.7004–1 is amended by

revising in paragraph (b) the reference

‘‘235.7006(c) (A.1)’’ to read

‘‘235.7006(d) (A.1).’’

235.7004–2 [Amended]

5. Section 235.7004–2 is amended by

revising in paragraph (b) the reference

‘‘235.7006(c) (A.1)’’ to read

‘‘235.7006(d) (A.1).’’

235.7004–3 [Amended]

6. Section 235.7004–3 is amended by

revising in paragraph (c) the reference

‘‘235.7006(c)’’ to read ‘‘235.7006(d).’’

7. Section 235.7006 is amended by

revising in the first sentence of

paragraph (a) the reference ‘‘paragraph

(c)’’ to read ‘‘paragraph (d),’’ by revising

in the last sentence of paragraph (a) the

reference ‘‘(See 235.7006(c) (A.1) (v))’’

to read ‘‘(See 235.7006(d) (A.1) (v));’’ by

redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph

(d); and by adding a new paragraph (c)

to read as follows:

235.7006 The research and development

streamlined contracting format.

* * * * *

(c) Test Oversight Committee

members may authorize for their

respective agencies, on a one time only

basis, the use of FAR and DFARS

provisions and clauses, and

nonstandard provisions and clauses

approved for agency use, that are not in

the research and development

streamlined contracting format at

235.7006. Any other modification of the

research and development streamlined

contracting format or procedures

requires approval of the Director of

Defense Procurement. Each Test

Oversight Committee member shall

ensure that the supporting data is

accurate and complete.

* * * * *

8. Section 235.7006, Exhibit-Research

and Development Streamlined

Contracting Format, is amended by

adding two contract clauses at the end

of the listing at Part II, Section I; by

removing and reserving ‘‘K.24’’ in the

listing at Part IV, Section K; by revising

‘‘(L.15)’’, ‘‘(L.18)’’ and by revising

‘‘(L.19)’’ in Part IV, Section L; and by

revising the introductory text at Part IV,

Section M to read as follows:

Exhibit-Research and Development

Streamlined Contracting Format

* * * * *

Part II—Contract Clauses

Section I, Contract Clauses

(1) Federal Acquisition Regulation clauses.

* * * * *

*(I.167) * * *

*(I.168) 252.223–7006 Prohibition on

Disposal of Toxic and Hazardous

Materials

*(I.169) 252.249–7002 Notification of

Program Termination or Reduction

* * * * *

Part IV—Representations and Instructions

Section K, Representations, Certifications

and Other Statements of Offerors or Quoters

* * * * *

*(K.24) [Reserved]

* * * * *

Section L. Instructions, Conditions, and

Notices to Offerors or Quoters

* * * * *

(L.15) 52.216–1 Type of Contract (See

235.7006(d)(B.1))

* * * * *

(L.18) 52.233–2 Service of Protest (See

235.7006(d)(A.1)(xvii))

[*](L.19) 52.237–1 Site Visit

* * * * *

Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award

Use of the standard evaluation factors is

preferred. If the standard evaluation factors

are modified in any way, the modifications

must be clearly expressed so that the result

is unambiguous. Additions to and deletions

from the contents of this Section M must be

clearly annotated in the solicitation summary

(see 235.7006(d)(A.1)(vii).)

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–7429 Filed 3–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 89–26; Notice 06]

RIN 2127–AF31

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard;

Convex Cross View Mirrors on School

Buses

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In this final rule, NHTSA

amends the safety standard on rearview

mirrors to reduce the duplication of the

views provided by System B mirrors,

which provide a view of test cylinders

in the area around the front of a school

bus and near the rear wheels, and

System A mirrors, which provide a view

of the area beneath the System A

mirrors, along both sides of the bus and

to the rear of the bus. The System B

mirrors must also provide a view of the

ground that overlaps with the view of

the ground provided by System A

mirrors. As a result of this final rule, the

System A mirrors will no longer be

required to provide a view of the ground

forward of the rear wheels.

The effect of this final rule is that

manufacturers will no longer have to

install either an additional convex

mirror, which creates a larger blind spot

for the driver, or replace the existing

convex mirror with a highly curved

convex mirror that produces more

distorted images.

This final rule is issued in response

to a petition for rulemaking from Blue

Bird Body Company.

DATES: This final rule is effective April

26, 1995. Petitions for reconsideration of

this final rule must be received not later

than April 26, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration

of this final rule should refer to the

docket and notice number cited in the

heading of this final rule and be

submitted to: Administrator, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20590. It is requested, but not

required, that 10 copies be submitted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Charles Hott, Office of Vehicle Safety
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15691

Standards, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Mr.

Hott’s phone number is (202) 366–0247.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111,

Rearview mirrors, (Std. No. 111)

specifies requirements for the

performance and location of rearview

mirrors on motor vehicles. Std. No. 111

is intended to reduce the number of

deaths and injuries that would

otherwise occur if the driver of a motor

vehicle did not have a clear and

reasonably unobstructed view of the

area around the vehicle, especially to

the side and rear of the vehicle. With

respect to a school bus, Std. No. 111

seeks to ensure that the driver is

provided with an adequate view of the

area around his or her vehicle,

especially when stopped. This reduces

the risk of the bus striking students as

they board or leave the bus.

Among other requirements, Std. No.

111 specifies that each school bus shall

have two outside rearview mirror

systems on each side. System A consists

of two sets of mirrors mounted adjacent

to the driver, one set on the left side of

the bus and the other on the right side.

Each set includes a flat driving mirror

of unit magnification and typically a

convex driving mirror. The System A

mirror system (the driving mirrors) must

provide, among other things, a view of

the area of ground, beginning with the

ground beneath the System A mirrors

and extending at least 200 feet rearward.

System B consists of convex cross view

mirrors that are mounted ahead of the

driver for spotting students when they

are near the front of the bus and as they

board or leave the bus. To the extent

that a seated driver cannot directly see

test barrels or cylinders in specified

locations around the front of the bus

and 12 feet outboard of the rear wheels,

the System B mirrors must provide

views of the tops of those cylinders. To

ensure that there is no blind spot

between the views provided by the two

mirrors systems, the System B mirrors

must also provide a view of the ground

that overlaps with the view of the

ground provided by the System A

mirror system. As a practical matter,

this requirement results in the System B

mirrors at least partially duplicating the

view provided by the System A mirrors

of the area of ground extending from the

ground beneath the System A mirrors to

the ground adjacent to the rear wheels

of the bus.

Blue Bird Petition for Rulemaking

Blue Bird Body Company (Blue Bird)

petitioned the agency to amend Std. No.

111 by changing the field-of-view

requirements for System A mirrors. Blue

Bird stated that to comply with the

requirement to provide a view beneath

the system A mirrors, the System A

mirrors on each side of the bus must

consist of a flat (unit magnification)

mirror plus either a small radius of

curvature convex mirror or two convex

mirrors. Blue Bird argued that either

approach would be impracticable and

inconsistent with motor vehicle safety.

According to the petitioner, a small

radius of curvature mirror would

provide unreasonably small and

distorted images that would make the

mirror unsafe for a driver to use while

driving. To avoid the problem of small

and distorted images, Blue Bird stated

that any convex mirror that is part of

System A should have a radius of

curvature of at least 35 inches. The

petitioner said that adding a second

convex mirror would create a larger

blind spot in the direct line of sight of

the driver past the location of the

System A mirrors.

Blue Bird stated that the current

requirement for System A mirrors was

inconsistent with previous agency

statements about problems associated

with using highly convex (i.e., small

radius) mirrors for driving. Blue Bird

further stated that nothing in the NPRM

that led to the final rule establishing the

requirements for System A mirrors

implies that there is a need for those

mirrors to provide a view of the area

directly below them. Blue Bird asked

the agency to immediately amend

S9.2(b)(1) and S9.2(b)(2) to specify that

System A mirrors (on each side of the

bus) need only provide views of the area

of the ground that extends rearward

from the test cylinders near the rear

wheels to a distance not less than 200

feet measured rearward from the rear

surface of the mirrors. If the

requirements were so amended, the

System A mirrors would no longer be

required to provide a view of the area

of ground that extends from the ground

below the mirrors to the cylinders by

the rear wheels. This would enable

school bus manufacturers to comply

with the requirements by providing a

flat mirror and a single convex mirror

whose curvature would be large enough

so that it would not distort the images

in the manner described by Blue Bird.

At a meeting with NHTSA personnel,

Blue Bird further stated that the

installation and use of a driving mirror

with a small radius of curvature may

result in unsafe driving practices since

it distorts image size and shape. The

distortions makes it difficult for a bus

driver to judge the distance between his

or her bus and following vehicles when

the driver is attempting to change lanes.

Blue Bird alleged that a small radius of

curvature mirror provides images of

oncoming vehicles that are initially very

small and difficult to recognize but then

very quickly become much larger and

greatly distorted as the vehicles

approach the mirror.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

On July 11, 1994 (59 FR 35300),

NHTSA published a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Std. No.

111 so that System A mirrors on school

buses would no longer be required to

provide a view of the area of ground

extending from the ground directly

beneath the System A mirrors to the test

cylinders by the bus’s rear wheels. The

agency issued this NPRM because it was

concerned about the safety effects of the

additional or overly small radius of

curvature convex mirrors used in

System A to provide a view of the

ground beneath the System A mirrors.

NHTSA expressed concern that the

current requirement may compromise

safety because using a small radius of

curvature convex mirror would make it

more difficult for the driver to use the

System A mirrors as driving mirrors

because the distorted image from the

convex mirror could cause confusion

about the actual distance of approaching

vehicles. The agency tentatively

concluded that using two larger radius

of curvature convex mirrors would

reduce the driver’s direct line of sight as

the result of creating a larger blind spot

in the vicinity of the System A mirrors.

The agency tentatively concluded

further that these visual problems

resulting from requiring both systems to

provide a view of the ground directly

beneath the system A mirrors outweigh

the safety benefits of that particular

overlapping view.

The agency also stated its belief that

the proposed amendment would not

adversely affect pedestrian safety

because System B mirrors would still be

required to provide a view of the ground

directly below the System A mirrors, as

well as the areas alongside the bus to

the rear wheels. Further, the two

systems would still be required to

provide overlapping views of the

ground, although not at a location so far

forward as the area beneath the System

A mirrors.

In an attempt to obtain more detailed

information about the extent and

significance of the potential safety

problems, NHTSA posed the following

questions: To what extent does adding

a second convex mirror to either set of

System A mirrors increase the blind

spot created for a driver attempting to

look past the System A mirrors? How
15692 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

significant a safety problem is caused by

the increase in the blind spot? How

significant a safety problem is caused by

the driver’s inability, while driving a

bus, to use all of the mirrors in a set of

System A mirrors that includes a convex

mirror with a radius of curvature less

than 35 inches? If a manufacturer added

a second convex mirror to a System A

mirror system, couldn’t the driver use

the preexisting high radius of curvature

mirror as the driving mirror?

Blue Bird had asked NHTSA to

‘‘immediately issue’’ its requested

change to the standard. In the NPRM,

NHTSA discussed why it was required

to issue a proposal before deciding to

adopt the requested change.

Public Comments and NHTSA

Response

In response to the NPRM, NHTSA

received a total of five comments. Three

comments were from school bus

manufacturers; Blue Bird, Mid Bus, Inc.

and Thomas Built Buses. The Florida

Department of Education and the

National Truck Equipment Association

also submitted comments. All

commenters supported the proposed

changes. None of the commenters

provided any detailed information about

the extent or significance of the

potential safety problems.

In support of the proposed changes,

Mid Bus stated that when the bus is

loading or unloading, the required

System A view of the ground between

the surface of the mirror and the rear

wheels and the System B mirror view

are redundant. Mid Bus noted that

System B mirrors provide the driver

with a view of all the blind spots around

the bus and in front of the rear wheels.

Since there were no opposing

comments, NHTSA adopts, without

changes, the proposed regulatory text

for the reasons stated in the NPRM and

this notice.

Besides supporting the proposed

changes to Std. No. 111, Blue Bird

recommended that the standard be

amended to prohibit convex mirrors

with radii of curvatures less than 35

inches as System A mirrors on school

buses, if use of low radii of curvature

convex mirrors would compromise

safety. In its petition for rulemaking,

Blue Bird had argued that convex

mirrors with radii of curvature less than

35 inches would provide unreasonably

small and distorted images, causing

problems if the school bus driver were

to look at the convex mirror while the

bus was in motion.

NHTSA is not adopting Blue Bird’s

recommendation. NHTSA believes this

final rule’s changes to the System A

mirror system will have the practical

effect that Blue Bird seeks in requesting

an outright prohibition. As a result of

this final rule’s changes to the System

A mirror requirements, it will not be

necessary for school bus manufacturers

to place convex mirrors with small radii

of curvature on System A mirrors.

However, as is presently the case for

drivers of trucks, multipurpose

passenger vehicles and non-school

buses, the decision whether to put on or

use small radii of curvature convex

mirrors will be left up to school bus

manufacturers and school bus drivers.

The agency believes that sufficiently

trained and experienced drivers, such as

those that drive commercial trucks, can

adjust to and safely use the more convex

mirrors.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This final rule was not reviewed

under E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning

and Review.’’ NHTSA has considered

the impact of this rulemaking action

under the Department of

Transportation’s regulatory policies and

procedures. The agency believes that a

full regulatory evaluation is not required

because the rule will have only minimal

economic impacts. The final rule will

not result in any cost savings or cost

increases for manufacturers that have

been complying with the requirements

by providing a flat mirror and a single

small radius of curvature convex mirror

since that convex mirror will be

replaced by a larger radius of curvature

mirror. The final rule will result in

slight cost savings for manufacturers

that have been complying by providing

a flat mirror and two convex mirrors.

Under this final rule, those

manufacturers will now be able to

delete one of the convex mirrors.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has also considered the

impacts of this final rule under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby

certify that this final rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

School bus manufacturers are generally

not small businesses within the

meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act. Small governmental units and

small organizations are generally

affected by amendments to the Federal

motor vehicle safety standards as

purchasers of new school buses.

However, any impact on small entities

from this action will be minimal since

this final rule makes a minimal change

that will not impose additional costs.

Accordingly, the agency has determined

that preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis is unnecessary.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has also analyzed this final

rule under the National Environmental

Policy Act and determined that it will

not have a significant impact on the

human environment.

D. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

NHTSA has analyzed this final rule in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and

has determined that this rule will not

have significant federalism implications

to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

E. Civil Justice Reform

This final rule will not have any

retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C.

section 30103, whenever a Federal

motor vehicle safety standard is in

effect, a State may not adopt or maintain

a safety standard applicable to the same

aspect of performance which is not

identical to the Federal standard, except

to the extent that the State requirement

imposes a higher level of performance

and applies only to vehicles procured

for the State’s use. 49 U.S.C. section

30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial

review of final rules establishing,

amending or revoking Federal motor

vehicle safety standards. That section

does not require submission of a

petition for reconsideration or other

administrative proceedings before

parties may file suit in court.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor

vehicles, Rubber and rubber products,

Tires.

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

In consideration of the foregoing, 49

CFR part 571 is amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for Part 571

of Title 49 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

2. In § 571.111, S9.2 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 571.111 Rearview Mirrors.

* * * * *

S9.2 System A shall be located with

stable supports so that the portion of the

system on the bus’s left side, and the

portion on its right side, each:

(a) Includes at least one mirror of unit

magnification with not less than 322.60

square centimeters (50 square inches) of

reflective surface; and
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15693

(b) Includes one or more mirrors

which together provide, at the driver’s

eye location, a view of:

(1) For the mirror system on the right

side of the bus, the entire top surface of

cylinder N in Figure 2, and that area of

the ground which extends rearward

from cylinder N to a point not less than

60.93 meters (200 feet) from the mirror

surface.

(2) For the mirror system on the left

side of the bus, the entire top surface of

cylinder M in Figure 2, and that area of

the ground which extends rearward

from cylinder M to a point not less than

60.93 meters (200 feet) from the mirror

surface.

* * * * *

Issued on: March 20, 1995.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–7348 Filed 3–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Notice of Determination To

Retain the Threatened Status for the

Coastal California Gnatcatcher Under

the Endangered Species Act

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of determination.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service), announces a determination

affirming its earlier conclusion (March

30, 1993; 58 FR 16742) that the coastal

California gnatcatcher (Polioptila

californica californica), a small,

insectivorous songbird, is a distinct

subspecies and, thus, meets the

definition of a ‘‘species’’ pursuant to the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (Act). In addition, the Service

affirms its earlier conclusion (58 FR

16742) that the southern limit of this

subspecies extends to about 30° north

latitude near the vicinity of El Rosario,

Baja California, Mexico. Based on these

determinations, the Service concludes

that its March 30, 1993, decision that

the coastal California gnatcatcher is a

threatened species was correct. Federal

protection for the coastal California

gnatcatcher is thus continued.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 23, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The complete

administrative records and files for this

determination and all related rule

promulgations and notices are available

for inspection, by appointment, during

normal business hours at the Fish and

Wildlife Service Carlsbad Field Office,

2730 Loker Avenue West, Carlsbad,

California 92008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Gail C. Kobetich, Field Supervisor, at

the above address (telephone 619/431–

9440).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The coastal California gnatcatcher

(Polioptila californica californica), a

subspecies of the California gnatcatcher,

is a small, long-tailed member of the

thrush family Muscicapidae. The

subspecies is restricted to California and

Baja California, Mexico, and is an

obligate resident of coastal sage scrub,

which is one of the most depleted

habitat types in the United States (58 FR

16742). The plumage color of the

species is dark blue-gray above and

grayish-white below. The tail is mostly

black above and below. This subspecies

is distinguished from the other

subspecies by its darker body plumage,

less extensive white on tail feathers

(rectrices 5 and 6), and longer tail

(Atwood 1991). The male has a

distinctive black cap that is absent

during the winter. Both sexes have a

distinctive white eye-ring. Vocalizations

of this species include a call consisting

of a rising and falling series of three

kitten-like mew notes (National

Geographic Society 1983).

The California gnatcatcher was

originally described as a distinct species

(Polioptila californica) by Brewster

(1881) based on specimens collected by

Stephens in 1878. Later taxonomic

treatments (e.g., Coues 1903 and

Chapman 1903) reflected Brewster’s

(1881) conclusions. Grinnell (1926),

however, later concluded that the

species was a form of the black-tailed

gnatcatcher (Polioptila melanura),

which inhabits the Sonoran and

Chihuahuan Deserts of the southwestern

United States and northwestern Mexico.

Subsequent scientific publications

(American Ornithologists’ Union 1931,

Grinnell and Miller 1944, Friedmann

1957, American Ornithologists’ Union

1957) adhered to the species limits as

defined by Grinnell (1926). Three

subspecies of the black-tailed

gnatcatcher were recognized for

southwestern California and western

Baja California, Mexico: P. m.

californica (ranging from Los Angeles

County, California (formerly northward

to Ventura County), south to about 30°

north latitude in Baja California,

Mexico), P. m. pontilis (resident in

central Baja California), and P. m.

margaritae (ranging from about 27°

north latitude south to the Cape region

of Baja California) (American

Ornithologists’ Union 1957).

Based on identified differences in

ecology and behavior that were

elucidated as a result of specimen study

and statistical analysis, Atwood (1988)

proposed that Polioptila californica was

specifically distinct from P. melanura.

This finding was subsequently formally

adopted by the American

Ornithologists’ Union Committee on

Classification and Nomenclature

(American Ornithologists’ Union 1989),

thus affirming Brewster’s (1881) original

taxonomic placement with respect to

species. The American Ornithologists’

Union 1989 publication did not address

subspecies other than to refer the reader

to the American Ornithologists’ Union

1957 checklist of North American birds.

The coastal California gnatcatcher,

Polioptila californica (=melanura)

californica, has been recognized as a

distinct race or subspecies since

Grinnell’s (1926) publication (e.g.,

American Ornithologists’ Union 1931,

Grinnell and Miller 1944, Friedmann

1957, American Ornithologists’ Union

1957, Garrett and Dunn 1981, Unitt

1984, Phillips 1991, Atwood 1991). As

indicated above, this subspecies occurs

from Los Angeles County (and,

formerly, Ventura County) south to

about 30° north latitude in Baja

California, Mexico. Although Atwood

(1988) proposed merging P. californica

californica with a more southerly

subspecies of P. californica, he later

(1991) retracted this conclusion.

On March 30, 1993, the Service

published a final rule determining the

coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila

californica californica) to be a

threatened species (58 FR 16741). In

making this determination, the Service

relied, in part, on taxonomic studies

conducted by Dr. Jonathan Atwood of

the Manomet Bird Observatory. As is

standard practice in the scientific

community, the Service did not request,

nor was it offered, the data collected

and utilized by Atwood in reaching his

conclusions. Instead, the Service cited

the conclusions presented by Atwood in

a peer reviewed, published scientific

article pertaining to the subspecific

taxonomy of the California gnatcatcher

(Atwood 1991).

The Endangered Species Committee

of the Building Industry Association of

Southern California and other plaintiffs

subsequently filed a suit challenging the

listing on several grounds. In a

Memorandum Opinion and Order filed

in the United States District Court for

the District of Columbia on May 2, 1994,

the Court vacated the listing

determination, holding that the