Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules 27039

received and supporting information,

please refer to the proposed rule (61 FR

17358 (April 19, 1996)). The RCRA

Information Center is located at Crystal

Gateway One, 1235 Jefferson Davis

Highway, First Floor, Arlington Virginia

and is open for public inspection and

copying of supporting information for

RCRA rules from 9 am to 4 pm Monday

through Friday, except for Federal

holidays. The public must make an

appointment to view docket materials

by calling (703) 603–9230. The public

may copy a maximum of 100 pages from

any regulatory document at no cost.

Additional copies cost $0.15 per page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For general

information, call the RCRA Hotline at 1–

800–424–9346 or TDD 1–800–553–7672

(hearing impaired). Callers within the

Washington, Metropolitan Area must

dial 703–412–9810 or TDD 703–412–

3323 (hearing impaired). The RCRA

Hotline is open Monday-Friday, 9 a.m.

to 6 p.m., Eastern Standard Time. For

other information on this notice, contact

Larry Denyer (5302W), Office of Solid

Waste, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,

DC 20460, phone (703) 308–8770.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April

19, 1996, EPA proposed revised

standards for hazardous waste

combustors (i.e., incinerators and

cement and lightweight aggregate kilns

that burn hazardous waste). See 61 FR

17358. The Agency established a 60-day

comment period and indicated that

comments on the proposal would be

accepted until June 18, 1996.

EPA has received written requests to

extend the comment period from Dow

Chemical Company, Cadence

Environmental Energy, Inc., the

Department of Energy, and Congressman

Harold Volkmer. In addition, the

Agency has received numerous verbal

requests for a time extension from

stakeholders that are members of the

Coalition of Responsible Waste

Incineration (CRWI), the Cement Kiln

Recycling Coalition (CKRC), and the

Chemical Manufacturers Association.

The additional time requested ranged

from 30 to 120 days.

As justification for a time extension,

stakeholders noted: (1) The size of the

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (i.e.,

178 Federal Register pages plus nine

major technical support documents); (2)

the complexity of the proposal

introduced by using joint Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

and Clean Air Act (CAA) authority to

promulgate the rule (e.g., raising issues

pertaining to coordination of RCRA and

CAA permits and enforcement

authorities); (3) the comprehensive,

state-of-the-art, and complicated

compliance procedures; (4) the

significant revisions proposed to

existing RCRA rules; and (5) some of the

background materials needed for review

have been placed in the docket only

recently.

The Agency agrees that a 60-day

comment period may not be adequate to

allow stakeholders time to review the

provisions of the rulemaking and to

formulate comments and

recommendations for the Agency’s

consideration in developing the final

rule. Accordingly, the Agency is

extending the comment period 60 days

to August 19, 1996 to provide for a 120-

day comment period.

Dated: May 20, 1996.

Timothy Fields, Jr.,

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of

Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

[FR Doc. 96–13434 Filed 5–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 96–52; Notice 1]

RIN 2127–AF86

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Controls and Displays

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: In this notice, NHTSA

proposes changes to the Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard on motor

vehicle controls and displays. The

agency seeks public comment on five

proposals for changes, including

rescission of the standard. This

proposed action is undertaken as part of

NHTSA’s efforts to implement the

President’s Regulatory Reinvention

Initiative.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 15, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the

docket and notice numbers cited at the

beginning of this notice and be

submitted to: Docket Section, Room

5109, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20590. It is requested

that 10 copies of the comments be

provided. The Docket Section is open

on weekdays from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Richard Van Iderstine, Office of Vehicle

Safety Standards, NPS–21, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington,

D.C. 20590. Mr. Van Iderstine’s

telephone number is (202) 366–5280

and his FAX number is (202) 366–4329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

President’s Regulatory Reinvention

Initiative

Pursuant to the March 4, 1995

directive ‘‘Regulatory Reinvention

Initiative,’’ from the President to the

heads of departments and agencies,

NHTSA undertook a review of its

regulations and directives. During the

course of this review, NHTSA identified

regulations that it could propose to

eliminate as unnecessary or to amend to

improve their comprehensibility,

application, or appropriateness. Among

these regulations is Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101,

Controls and displays (49 CFR

§ 571.101).

Standard No. 101

Standard No. 101 was issued in 1967

(32 FR 2408) as one of the initial Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

(FMVSS’s). The standard applies to

passenger cars, multipurpose passenger

vehicles (MPVs), trucks, and buses. Its

purpose is to assure the accessibility

and visibility of motor vehicle controls

and displays under daylight and

nighttime conditions. The standard is

intended to reduce the risk of safety

hazards caused by the diversion of the

driver’s attention from the driving task

in order to locate the desired control or

display, and by mistakes in selecting

controls. The standard also seeks to

ensure that a driver restrained by a seat

belt can reach certain controls.

Standard No. 101 specifies location

requirements (S5.1), identification

requirements (S5.2), and illumination

requirements (S5.3). It specifies that the

controls and displays must be accessible

and visible to a driver restrained in

accordance with Standard No. 208,

Occupant crash protection (S6). In

addition, Table 1 ‘‘Identification and

Illumination of Controls’’ and Table 2

‘‘Identification and Illumination of

Displays’’ further specify which controls

and displays are subject to the

identification requirements, and how

they are to be identified and

illuminated.

NHTSA’s Proposals for Change

NHTSA proposes five alternatives for

changes to the Standard and seeks

public comment on each proposal. The

proposals are: (1) rescinding the

standard; (2) regulating only those

controls and displays related to motor

vehicle safety; (3) regulating only those
27040 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules

controls and displays required by other

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards;

(4) consolidating all control and display

requirements into Standard No. 101 and

(5) permitting International Standards

Organization (ISO) symbols on some or

all controls and displays requiring

identification. If NHTSA decides not to

rescind Standard No. 101, it may decide

to adopt one or more of the other

proposals. Since some of the proposals,

(for example, Proposals Three and Five)

address different matters in Standard

No. 101, they are not mutually

exclusive.

Due to the relative simplicity of the

proposals, the agency is not setting forth

regulatory language for implementing

the proposals.

1. Proposal One—Rescind Standard No.

101

NHTSA’s first proposal is to rescind

Standard No. 101. NHTSA tentatively

concludes that even if Standard No. 101

were rescinded, manufacturers would

continue to provide appropriate means

of identifying and illuminating controls

and displays and place those controls

and displays in accessible locations.

Even if the standard were rescinded, the

agency fully expects manufacturers to

provide drivers the means to distinguish

among various controls and displays.

Further, drivers must be warned of

defective functioning of a device in the

vehicle in order to be able to avoid

potentially hazardous conditions,

including the possibility of a crash.

Except for some required controls and

displays listed in other standards, there

is none specifically required by

Standard No. 101. The standard only

addresses the visibility, access and

illumination of controls and displays if

they are provided. While the initial

premise for the standard was that these

aspects need to be regulated for

minimizing driver distractions, the

controls and displays have in effect

become an industry practice that may

not require continued Federal

regulation. NHTSA believes that market

forces will ensure manufacturers

continue the currently specified

practices.

A good example of how market forces

have responded to customers’ demands

has been the location of the horn

button(s). In the absence of more

specific location requirements, the horn

button was historically located at the

center of the steering wheel. With the

advent of air bag implementation in that

same location, the horn button was

often displaced to the spokes of the

steering wheel. Apparently this location

is contrary to the desires of many

drivers, as evidenced by the increased

number of letters to the agency about

that displacement. This displacement,

however, was only temporary, until

manufacturers found ways to install

horn switches in the cover material over

the air bag mechanism. As a

consequence, as vehicle steering wheels

are updated, the horn control is

returning to the center of the wheel.

NHTSA notes that if Standard No. 101

were rescinded, some States might

adopt regulations requiring controls and

displays or regulating their

identification, illumination or

accessibility, which would subject

manufacturers to multiple, conflicting

rules and increase vehicle production

costs. Were the States to adopt such

regulations, there would not be any

express preemption under 49 U.S.C.

section 30103(b), which preempts State

standards if they conflict with an

existing Federal standard. It also does

not appear likely that a court would find

any implied Federal preemption of State

requirements, regardless of whether

they are similar or dissimilar to those in

the Standard. A State regulation

addressing the same subject as a

rescinded Federal regulation would be

impliedly preempted only if the State

regulation conflicted with or otherwise

frustrated achieving the purposes of the

Federal statute. Even if the agency were

to conclude that no regulation, Federal

or State, of controls and displays is

necessary, it is not readily apparent how

State regulations, even ones differing

from those of another State, on this

subject would conflict with Federal law

or have a deleterious effect on motor

vehicle safety.

2. Proposal Two—Regulate Only Those

Controls and Displays Related to Motor

Vehicle Safety

The second proposal is to update

Standard No. 101 by removing obsolete

provisions and regulating only those

controls and displays related to safety.

Standard No. 101 includes references to

vehicles manufactured before

September 1, 1987 and September 1,

1989. NHTSA proposes to remove all

references to vehicles manufactured

before September 1, 1987 and

September 1, 1989.

After references to vehicles

manufactured before September 1, 1989

are removed, S3, Application, of

Standard No. 101 will be shortened to

state: ‘‘This standard applies to

passenger cars, multipurpose passenger

vehicles, trucks, and buses.’’ NHTSA

further proposes to amend S5.(b), and

S5.3.3(d), by removing references to

vehicles manufactured before

September 1, 1987 and September 1,

1989. Finally, NHTSA proposes to

remove Table 1(a) ‘‘Identification and

Illumination of Controls’’ and Table 2(a)

‘‘Identification and Illumination of

Internal Displays,’’ since each table

applies to vehicles manufactured before

September 1, 1987.

Additionally, the standard currently

regulates aspects of controls and

displays not required to be on vehicles,

and that do not have a direct effect on

motor vehicle safety. Under Proposal

Two, Standard No. 101 would regulate

only controls and displays that directly

bear on the need for motor vehicle

safety, whether they are specified in

another Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard or not.

NHTSA proposes to remove the

following controls from Table 1

‘‘Identification and Illumination of

Controls’’: the heating and air

conditioning control; the hand throttle;

the heating and air conditioning fan

control; and the manual choke. It also

proposes to remove the coolant

temperature display from Table 2

‘‘Identification and Illumination of

Displays.’’ Examples of displays that

would continue to be regulated include

the seat belt and turn signal displays

(both specified in other safety

standards) and the fuel level display

and speedometer (if they are provided),

neither of which is specified in a safety

standard.

NHTSA also proposes to remove each

of the above named controls and

displays (proposed for removal from

Tables 1 or 2) if listed in the location

requirements of S5.1 of Standard No.

101. The agency seeks comments on

which controls and displays are

believed to be safety-related.

3. Proposal Three—Regulate Only

Controls and Displays Required by

Other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards

Proposal Three is similar to Proposal

Two, but would limit Standard No. 101

to regulating controls and displays

specified in another safety standard.

Thus, under proposal three, the

following controls presently listed in

Table 1 ‘‘Identification and Illumination

of Controls’’ would be removed: horn;

heating and/or air conditioning fan; rear

window defrosting and defogging

system; manual choke; engine start;

engine stop; hand throttle; automatic

vehicle speed; and heating and air

conditioning system.

The following displays specified in

Table 2 ‘‘Identification and Illumination

of Displays’’ would be removed: fuel

level telltale and gauge; oil pressure

telltale and gauge; coolant temperature

telltale and gauge; electrical charge
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules 27041

telltale and gauge; the speedometer, and

the odometer.

NHTSA also proposes to remove each

of the above named controls and

displays if listed in the location

requirements of S5.1 of Standard No.

101.

The rationale for this proposal is that

it would not affect the placement in

vehicles of controls and displays no

longer specified in Standard No. 101.

Market forces (in the form of customer

demand) would be highly likely to

ensure that vehicle manufacturers

would continue to provide

appropriately identified, illuminated,

and located controls and displays. Auto

consumer media and customers

themselves would be likely to react

negatively to vehicles that do not

adequately identify the vehicle’s

controls and displays, or if the controls

are placed in a location difficult for the

driver to reach while driving.

4. Proposal Four—Consolidate in

Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays

Specified in Other Standards

Under this proposal, NHTSA would

include in Standard No. 101 reference to

the controls and displays specified in

other standards; today only Standard

No. 208, Occupant crash protection, has

such requirements. This reference

would be consistent with the agency’s

practice regarding the identification of

controls and displays for other regulated

vehicle systems. For example, when the

agency published a final rule (60 FR

6411; February 5, 1995) establishing

FMVSS No. 135, Passenger car brake

systems, it also amended Table 2 in

Standard No. 101 to include the two

brake displays, the ‘‘variable brake

proportioning system’’ display and the

‘‘parking brake applied’’ display

specified in Standard No. 135.

Similarly, when NHTSA amended the

standards on hydraulic and air brakes to

specify antilock braking systems, it

amended Standard No. 101 to reference

the antilock braking system displays (60

FR 13216; March 10, 1995).

At present, Standard No. 101 does not

include certain controls or displays

specified in Standard No. 208,

Occupant crash protection. Paragraph

S4.5.2, Readiness indicator, of Standard

No. 208 specifies that an occupant crash

protection system that deploys in the

event of a crash shall have a monitoring

system with a readiness indicator. The

indicator shall monitor its own

readiness and shall be clearly visible

from the driver’s designated seating

position.

In this notice of proposed rulemaking,

NHTSA proposes to incorporate the

readiness indicator specified in

Standard No. 208 into Standard No. 101

and to specify the means of identifying

the indicator and whether it must be

illuminated. To keep Standard No. 101

consistent with requirements in other

Federal motor vehicle safety standards,

NHTSA proposes to amend Table 2

‘‘Identification and Illumination of

Displays’’ by specifying the air bag

readiness indicator. NHTSA proposes to

amend Column 3 (‘‘Identifying Words or

Abbreviation’’) to indicate that the air

bag readiness indicator must be

identified with the words ‘‘AIR BAG’’,

and to amend Column 4 to indicate that

the air bag readiness indicator display

must be illuminated. The agency is not

proposing to specify a color (Column 2)

or an identifying symbol (Column 4) for

the air bag readiness indicator.

In a final rule published May 23, 1995

(60 Federal Register 27233), Standard

No. 208 was amended to permit

manufacturers the option of installing a

key-operated air bag manual cutoff

device that motorists could use to

deactivate the front passenger-side air

bag in vehicles that cannot

accommodate infant restraints in the

rear seat. The deactivation device is

needed because when rear-facing infant

restraints are used in the front seat of

dual air bag vehicles, they extend

forward to a point near the dashboard

where they can be struck by a deploying

air bag.

The air bag manual cutoff device is

specified in Standard No. 208 at S4.5.4,

Passenger Air Bag Manual Cutoff

Device. Paragraph S4.5.4.2 describes the

device as being separate from the

vehicle ignition switch and operable by

means of the ignition key for the

vehicle. Paragraph S4.5.4.3 specifies

that a telltale light on the dashboard

shall be clearly visible from all front

seating positions and shall be

illuminated whenever the passenger air

bag is deactivated. Paragraph S4.5.4.3

further requires the air bag manual cut

off device’s telltale to be yellow,

identified with ‘‘AIR BAG OFF,’’ and

illuminated the entire time that the

passenger air bag is deactivated. The air

bag manual cutoff device telltale is

further not to be combined with the air

bag readiness indicator.

NHTSA proposes to transfer the

specifications for the air bag manual

cutoff device telltale from Standard No.

208 to Standard No. 101. The language

describing the eligibility criteria for

vehicles permitted to have an air bag

manual cutoff device will remain in

Standard No. 208.

NHTSA proposes to include the air

bag manual cutoff telltale in Table 2

(‘‘Identification and Illumination of

Displays’’) of Standard No. 101. NHTSA

is not proposing to specify a symbol for

the device in Table 2. The agency

proposes to amend the column on

illumination to indicate, by stating

‘‘yes’’, that illumination is required.

NHTSA would add a footnote indicating

the telltale is to be illuminated only

when the air bag manual cutoff device

is activated.

NHTSA further proposes that the air

bag manual cutoff device be described

in Table 1 (‘‘Identification and

Illumination of Controls’’) of Standard

No. 101. NHTSA proposes that the

device be identified in Column 2

(‘‘Identifying Words or Abbreviation’’)

with the words ‘‘Air Bag Cutoff.’’

NHTSA is not proposing to specify an

identifying symbol or to specify

illumination for the air bag manual

cutoff device.

5. Proposal Five—Permit ISO Symbols

to Identify Controls and Displays

Many of the symbols specified in

Tables 1 and 2 of Standard No. 101 are

based on symbols developed by the

International Standards Organization

(ISO). In the interests of international

harmonization of vehicle safety

standards, under Proposal Five, NHTSA

would permit any ISO symbol to be

used to identify a control or display.

NHTSA would require that each ISO

symbol used be described in the owner’s

manual. Identification is necessary to

ensure that the driver understands the

meaning of the symbol. It has been

NHTSA’s experience that the meaning

of certain ISO symbols may not be

intuitively evident to a driver.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

1. Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This notice of proposed rulemaking

was not reviewed under Executive

Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and

Review). NHTSA has analyzed the

impact of this rulemaking action and

determined that it is not ‘‘significant’’

within the meaning of the Department

of Transportation’s regulatory policies

and procedures. The agency anticipates

if a final rule should result from this

notice of proposed rulemaking, it would

not have more than a minimal effect on

the costs associated with controls and

displays. If Proposal Four were adopted,

vehicle manufacturers would incur

minimal additional costs. All

manufacturers already provide some

type of identification for the air bag

readiness indicator and many provide

illumination of it. NHTSA estimates that

the additional costs resulting from

adopting Proposal Four would be so

minimal that preparation of a full

regulatory evaluation is not warranted.
27042 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules

None of the other proposals would

impose new requirements or have any

effect on costs which can be estimated

at this time. Proposal Two would delete

requirements for motor vehicles

manufactured before September 1, 1987

and September 1, 1989. If the standard

were rescinded pursuant to Proposal

One, NHTSA anticipates no changes in

costs resulting from manufacturers’

actions, because manufacturers are not

expected to respond to the rescission by

making any significant changes in the

location, identification, and

illumination of motor vehicle controls

and displays. Further, many of the

controls and displays specified in

Standard No. 101 are also specified in

other Federal motor vehicle safety

standards.

To the extent that individual States

might choose to establish their own

requirements for controls and displays,

which would be permitted if the agency

rescinded the standard, as discussed

above, vehicle production costs would

increase. However, the agency has no

way of foretelling the extent to which

States might opt to do this or of

estimating the increase in production

cost that would result.

If Proposals Two or Three were

adopted, NHTSA also anticipates no

changes in costs since it does not

believe manufacturers will make any

significant changes in the location,

identification, and illumination of

motor vehicle controls and displays.

2. Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has also considered the

impacts of this rule under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. For the

reasons explained above, I hereby

certify that this rule would not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, there would not be any

significant effect on small organizations,

jurisdictions or other entities which

purchase new motor vehicles. For this

reason, an initial regulatory flexibility

analysis has not been prepared.

3. National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has also analyzed this

proposed rule under the National

Environmental Policy Act and

determined that it would not have any

significant impact on the quality of the

environment.

4. Executive Order 12612

(FEDERALISM)

NHTSA has analyzed this proposed

rule in accordance with the principles

and criteria contained in E.O. 12612,

and has determined that it would not

have significant federalism implications

to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

5. Civil Justice Reform

This proposed rule would not have

any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C.

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. 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.

Procedures for Filing Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on the proposal. It is

requested but not required that 10

copies be submitted.

All comments must not exceed 15

pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).

Necessary attachments may be

appended to these submissions without

regard to the 15-page limit. This

limitation is intended to encourage

commenters to detail their primary

arguments in a concise fashion.

If a commenter wishes to submit

certain information under a claim of

confidentiality, three copies of the

complete submission, including

purportedly confidential business

information, should be submitted to the

Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street

address given above, and seven copies

from which the purportedly confidential

information has been deleted should be

submitted to the Docket Section. A

request for confidentiality should be

accompanied by a cover letter setting

forth the information specified in the

agency’s confidential business

information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.

All comments received before the

close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above for the

proposal will be considered, and will be

available for examination in the docket

at the above address both before and

after that date. To the extent possible,

comments filed after the closing date

will also be considered. Comments

received too late for consideration in

regard to the final rule will be

considered as suggestions for further

rulemaking action. Comments on the

proposal will be available for inspection

in the docket. NHTSA will continue to

file relevant information as it becomes

available in the docket after the closing

date, and it is recommended that

interested persons continue to examine

the docket for new material.

Those persons desiring to be notified

upon receipt of their comments in the

rules docket should enclose a selfaddressed, stamped postcard in the

envelope with their comments. Upon

receiving the comments, the docket

supervisor will return the postcard by

mail.

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

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

Issued on: May 23, 1996.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 96–13528 Filed 5–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 229

[I.D. 051396B]

Pacific Offshore Fisheries Take

Reduction Plan; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Public scoping meeting; request

for comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces its

intention to prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) or

Environmental Assessment (EA) for

anticipated proposed rulemaking under

the Take Reduction Plan (TRP)

provisions of the Marine Mammal

Protection Act (MMPA). A draft TRP

will be developed by the Pacific

Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team

(TRT) and will be forwarded to NMFS

by August 12, 1996. NMFS then has 60

days to publish a proposed TRP, along

with any proposed implementing

regulations, as necessary.

DATES: The scoping meeting will be held

on June 25, 1996 at 7 p.m. until 10 p.m.

Written comments on the scope of the

EIS must be submitted on or before

August 12, 1996.

ADDRESSES: The scoping meeting will be

held at the JAMS/Endispute offices in

the Santa Monica Business Park, 3340

Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 1050,

Santa Monica, CA 90405. Scoping

comments, requests for additional

information, and requests for special