Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
This document publishes in the
Effective February 8, 2000, to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency Priority Letter AD 99-26-04, issued on December 8, 1999, which contained the requirements of this amendment.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before March 24, 2000.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, Attention: Rules Docket No. 99-SW-72-AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
Wayne E. Gaulzetti, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803, telephone (781) 238-7156, fax (781) 238-7199.
On December 8, 1999, the FAA issued Emergency Priority Letter AD 99-26-04, applicable to Kaman Model K1200 helicopters, which requires, before the first flight of each day, inspecting for clutch assembly integrity. Replacing any unairworthy clutch assembly with an airworthy clutch assembly is required before further flight. That action was prompted by two incidents of engine adapter flange failure and loss of power to the main rotors. One incident resulted in autorotation into trees with resulting loss of main rotor blades. The second incident resulted in a forced autorotation and damage to the nose landing gear. Subsequent investigation revealed that internal transmission clutch damage caused an engine adapter flange failure. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the engine adapter flange, loss of power to the main rotors, and a subsequent forced landing.
The FAA has reviewed Kaman K-1200 K-MAX Maintenance Manual Temporary Revision (TR) No. 284, dated November 5, 1999, which revises the procedures for engine area daily inspections and TR No. 289, dated November 12, 1999, which describes the method of inspecting the transmission assembly.
Since the unsafe condition described is likely to exist or develop on other Kaman Model K1200 helicopters of the same type design, the FAA issued Emergency Priority Letter AD 99-26-04 to prevent failure of the engine adapter flange, loss of power to the main rotors, and a subsequent forced landing. The AD requires, before the first flight of each day, inspecting for clutch assembly integrity. Replacing any unairworthy clutch assembly with an airworthy clutch assembly is required before further flight. The short compliance time involved is required because the previously described critical unsafe condition can adversely affect the structural integrity of the helicopter. Therefore, inspecting for clutch assembly integrity before the first flight of each day and replacing any unairworthy clutch assembly is required prior to further flight, and this AD must be issued immediately.
Since it was found that immediate corrective action was required, notice and opportunity for prior public comment thereon were impracticable and contrary to the public interest, and good cause existed to make the AD effective immediately by individual letters issued on December 8, 1999 to all known U.S. owners and operators of Kaman Model K1200 helicopters. These conditions still exist, and the AD is hereby published in the
The FAA estimates that 21 helicopters of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per helicopter to inspect the clutch assembly and 5 work hours per helicopter to replace the clutch assembly, if necessary. The average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts, if replacement of a clutch assembly is necessary, will cost approximately $16,000 per helicopter. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $459,500 per year, assuming 300 clutch assembly inspections, per helicopter, per year, and replacement of 5 unairworthy clutch assemblies.
Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. 99-SW-72-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and that it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Applicability: Model K-1200 helicopters, with clutch assembly, part number (P/N) K974002-701, installed, certificated in any category.
This AD applies to each helicopter identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For helicopters that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent failure of the engine adapter flange, loss of power to the main rotors, and a subsequent forced landing, accomplish the following:
(a) Inspect the integrity of the clutch assembly, in a location where background noise would not hinder evaluation, by firmly and uniformly rotating the Kaflex shaft in the anti-rotating direction (counter-clockwise looking forward) while maintaining hand contact. The anti-rotation speed should be approximately one-fourth to one-half revolution per second. An unairworthy clutch will feel rough with a continuous dry “raspy” feel and sound, or it may feel as though the clutch has heavy detents or “catches” on the interior surface that impede the free rotary motion.
(b) Remove any unairworthy clutch assembly, P/N K974002-701, before further flight and replace with an airworthy clutch assembly.
Kaman K-1200 K-MAX Maintenance Manual Temporary Revision (TR) No. 284, dated November 5, 1999, which revises the procedures for engine area daily inspections and TR No. 289, dated November 12, 1999, which describes the method of inspecting the transmission assembly, pertain to the subject of this AD.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may concur or comment and then send it to the Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Boston Aircraft Certification Office.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the helicopter to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(e) This amendment becomes effective on February 8, 2000, to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency Priority Letter AD 99-26-04, issued December 8, 1999, which contained the requirements of this amendment.
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 13, 2000.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Direct final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending certain references in various medical device regulations. The amendments update the references in those regulations to various standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) to reflect the current standards designations. Elsewhere in this issue of the
The rule is effective June 7, 2000. Submit written comments on or before
Submit written comments to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Philip L. Chao, Office of Policy, Planning, and Legislation (HF-23), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-3380.
The ASTM notified FDA that ASTM had been working on a project to help Federal agencies update and maintain the ASTM standards that are referenced in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR's). Use of consensus standards such as those developed by ASTM is consistent with the purposes of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, signed into law on March 7, 1996 (Public Law 104-113). As part of the ASTM project, ASTM informed FDA that many ASTM standards cited in FDA's food additive and device regulations were out-of-date and provided a list of standards with their current year designations. ASTM listed 58 different regulations which, in its opinion, needed to be updated.
FDA examined the ASTM's documentation and, upon closer examination, found that 56 of the 58 different FDA regulations identified by ASTM cited obsolete ASTM standards or that, in some cases, cited ASTM standards that had been withdrawn. Most regulations involved direct and indirect food additives, although two of the affected regulations involved medical devices. Consequently, through this rulemaking, FDA is revising the device regulations identified by ASTM that contain obsolete or withdrawn ASTM standards to reflect the current ASTM standards designations. FDA will update the citations for the food additive regulations in a separate rulemaking.
This direct final rule amends §§ 801.410(d)(2) and 801.430(f)(2) by incorporating by reference into the regulation the updated standard as follows:
• Section 801.410
• Section 801.430
In addition, FDA is updating in § 801.410(d)(2) the address for the American Society for Testing and Materials.
In the
FDA is providing a comment period on the direct final rule of 75 days after January 24, 2000. If the agency receives any significant adverse comments, FDA intends to withdraw this final rule by publication in the
If FDA withdraws the direct final rule, all comments received will be considered under the companion proposed rule in developing a final rule under the usual notice-and-comment procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 552
The agency has determined, under 21 CFR 25.30(i) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
FDA has examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and
Under section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), for any proposed rule for which the agency is required by section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency is required to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant economic impact of a rule on small entities. The agency has published, in the companion proposed rule published elsewhere in this
This direct final rule contains no collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
Interested persons may, on or before April 10, 2000, submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments regarding this final rule. The comment period runs concurrently with the comment period for the companion proposed rule. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the office above between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. All comments received will be considered as comments regarding the proposed rule and this direct final rule. In the event that the direct final rule is withdrawn, all comments received regarding the companion proposed rule and the direct final rule will be considered as comments on the proposed rule.
Hearing aids, Incorporation by reference, Medical devices, Professional and patient labeling.
: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 360i, 360j, 371, 374.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Temporary regulations.
This document contains temporary regulations that provide an election for certain taxpayers engaged in certain exchanges described in section 367(b). These regulations provide guidance for taxpayers that make the specified election in order to determine the extent to which income must be included and certain corresponding adjustments must be made. The text of the temporary regulations also serves as the text of the proposed regulations set forth in the notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the
Mark D. Harris, (202) 622-3860 (not a toll-free number).
These regulations are being issued without prior notice and public procedure pursuant to the
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
For further information concerning this collection of information, and where to submit comments on the collection of information and the accuracy of the estimated burden, and suggestions for reducing this burden, please refer to the preamble to the cross-referencing notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
On December 27, 1977, the IRS and Treasury issued proposed and temporary regulations under section 367(b) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Subsequent guidance updated and amended the 1977 temporary regulations (the 1977 regulations) several times over the next 14 years. On August 26, 1991, the IRS and Treasury issued proposed regulations §§ 1.367(b)-1 through 1.367(b)-6 (the 1991 proposed regulations). Comments to the 1991 proposed regulations were received, and a public hearing was held on November 22, 1991. In June of 1998, the IRS and Treasury issued final regulations under sections 367(a) and (b) (the 1998 regulations). The 1998 regulations addressed transactions under section 367(b) only to the extent the transactions are also subject to the stock transfer rules of section 367(a). Thus, the 1977 regulations have remained in effect to the extent not superseded by the 1998 regulations. The preamble to the 1998 regulations stated that the IRS and Treasury would issue guidance at a later date to address the portions of the 1991 proposed regulations related to section 367(b) that were not addressed in the 1998 regulations.
The IRS and Treasury adopted §§ 1.367(b)-1 through 1.367(b)-6 as final regulations under section 367(b) (see final section 367(b) regulations published elsewhere in this issue of the
These temporary regulations address the elimination of an election available to certain taxpayers under the 1991 proposed regulations that was not adopted in the final section 367(b) regulations (published elsewhere in this issue of the
Section 1.367(b)-3 of the 1991 proposed regulations addressed transactions in which a foreign corporation transfers assets to a domestic corporation pursuant to a Subchapter C nonrecognition provision. These transactions include a section 332 liquidation of a foreign corporation into a domestic parent corporation and an asset reorganization, such as a C, D or F reorganization, of a foreign corporation into a domestic corporation. The 1991 proposed regulations required a U.S. shareholder of a foreign acquired corporation (or, in certain cases, a foreign subsidiary of the U.S. shareholder) to currently include in income the allocable portion of the foreign acquired corporation's earnings and profits accumulated during the U.S. shareholder's holding period (all earnings and profits amount). The final section 367(b) regulations (published elsewhere in this issue of the
Sections 7.367(b)-5(b) and 7.367(b)-7(c)(2)(ii) of the 1977 regulations and § 1.367(b)-3(b)(2)(iii) of the 1991 proposed regulations provided an exception to this rule, which permitted an exchanging shareholder to elect to recognize the gain (but not the loss) that it realizes in the exchange (taxable exchange election), rather than include the all earnings and profits amount in income. To the extent the all earnings and profits amount exceeds a shareholder's stock gain, the 1991 proposed regulations further required the foreign acquired corporation to reduce various tax attributes that would otherwise carryover to the domestic acquiring corporation (attribute reduction regime). The final regulations (published elsewhere in this issue of the
In order to provide taxpayers an opportunity to comment on this change, these temporary regulations provide the taxable exchange election in modified form. The modified election permits an exchanging shareholder to elect to treat a transaction as a taxable exchange, but limits application of the attribute reduction regime to a section 332 liquidation or to an inbound asset reorganization in which the foreign acquired corporation is wholly owned (directly or indirectly) by one U.S. person.
These temporary regulations apply to section 367(b) exchanges that occur between February 23, 2000, and February 23, 2001.
For a more detailed discussion regarding section 367(b), see the final section 367(b) regulations published elsewhere in this issue of the
It has been determined that these Temporary regulations are not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. Further it is hereby certified pursuant to sections 603(a) and 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act that the collection of information in these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based upon the fact that the number of section 367(b) exchanges that require reporting under these regulations is estimated to be only 20 per year. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required.
Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these temporary regulations will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact.
Drafting Information. The principal author of these regulations is Mark Harris of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 1.367(b)-3T also issued under 26 U.S.C. 367(a) and (b). * * *
(a) through (b)(3). [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.367(b)-3(a) through (b)(3).
(4)
(
(
(
(
(
(B)
(
(
(C)
(D)
(ii)
(ii)
(c) and (d) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.367(b)-3(c) through (d).
26 U.S.C. 7805.
1. Removing the following entries from the table:
(b) * * *
2. Adding the following entry in numerical order to the table to read as follows:
(b) * * *
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final and temporary regulations.
This document contains final regulations addressing the application of nonrecognition exchange provisions in Subchapter C of the Internal Revenue Code to transactions that involve one or more foreign corporations. These regulations provide guidance for taxpayers engaging in those transactions in order to determine the extent to which income shall be included and appropriate corresponding adjustments shall be made.
Mark D. Harris, (202) 622-3860 (not a toll-free number).
The collections of information contained in these final regulations have been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507) under control number 1545-1271. Responses to these collections of information are mandatory.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.
The estimated average annual reporting burden in these final regulations is 4 hours.
Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and suggestions for reducing this burden should be sent to the Internal Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, OP:FS:FP, Washington, DC 20224, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503.
Books or records relating to these collections of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law.
Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
On December 27, 1977, the IRS and Treasury issued proposed and temporary regulations under section 367(b) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Subsequent guidance updated and amended the 1977 temporary regulations (the 1977 regulations) several times over the next 14 years. On August 26, 1991, the IRS and Treasury issued proposed regulations §§ 1.367(b)-1 through 1.367(b)-6 (the 1991 proposed regulations). Comments to the 1991 proposed regulations were received, and a public hearing was held on November 22, 1991. In June of 1998, the IRS and Treasury issued final regulations under sections 367(a) and (b) (the 1998 regulations). The 1998 regulations addressed transactions under section 367(b) only to the extent the transactions are also subject to the stock transfer rules of section 367(a). Thus, the 1977 regulations have remained in effect to the extent not superseded by the 1998 regulations. The preamble to the 1998 regulations stated that the IRS and Treasury would issue guidance at a later date to address the portions of the 1991 proposed regulations related to section 367(b) that were not addressed in the 1998 regulations.
After consideration of the 1977 regulations and their updates and amendments, the 1991 proposed regulations and their updates and amendments, the 1998 regulations, and all comments received with respect to such regulations, the IRS and Treasury adopt §§ 1.367(b)-1 through 1.367(b)-6 as final regulations under section 367(b).
Section 367(b) governs corporate restructurings under sections 332, 351, 354, 355, 356, and 361 (except to the extent described in section 367(a)(1)) in which the status of a foreign corporation as a “corporation” is necessary for application of the relevant nonrecognition provisions. Section 367(b) provides that a foreign corporation that is a party to one of the enumerated nonrecognition transactions shall be respected as a corporation, and thereby the parties involved in the transaction shall obtain the benefits of the applicable nonrecognition exchange provisions and their related provisions (such as section 381) (together, the Subchapter C provisions), except to the extent provided in regulations.
The principal purpose of section 367(b) is to prevent the avoidance of U.S. tax that can arise when the Subchapter C provisions apply to transactions involving foreign corporations. The potential for tax avoidance arises because of differences between the manner in which the United States taxes foreign corporations and their shareholders and the manner in which the United States taxes domestic corporations and their U.S. shareholders.
The Subchapter C provisions generally have been drafted to apply to domestic corporations and U.S. shareholders, and thus do not fully take into account the cross-border aspects of U.S. taxation (such as deferral, foreign tax credits, and section 1248). Section 367(b) was enacted to help ensure that international tax considerations in the Code are adequately addressed when the Subchapter C provisions apply to an exchange involving a foreign corporation. Because determining the proper interaction of the Code's international and Subchapter C provisions is “necessarily highly technical,” Congress granted the Secretary broad regulatory authority to provide the “necessary or appropriate” rules, rather than enacting a complex
Accordingly, as the preamble to the 1991 proposed regulations stated, the section 367(b) regulations require adjustments or inclusions in order to prevent the material distortion of income that can occur when the Subchapter C provisions apply to an exchange involving a foreign corporation. The 1991 proposed regulations simplified the 1977 regulations and were generally favorably received by taxpayers. The final regulations adopt the 1991 proposed regulations with modifications. The modifications are based on further considerations of fairness, simplicity, and administrability.
The final regulations also incorporate the section 367(b) rules contained in the 1998 regulations. The 1998 regulations finalized portions of the 1991 proposed regulations to the extent necessary to address the overlap between section 367(b) and the section 367(a) stock transfer rules. Because the scope of the final regulations is broader than that overlap, the final regulations adopt the 1998 section 367(b) provisions in a manner appropriate to their incorporation into the final regulations.
The IRS and Treasury are also issuing other guidance under section 367(b). Temporary and proposed regulations (published elsewhere in this issue of the
Section 1.367(b)-3 addresses transactions in which a foreign corporation transfers assets to a domestic corporation pursuant to a Subchapter C provision. These transactions include a section 332 liquidation of a foreign corporation into a domestic parent corporation and an asset reorganization, such as a C, D, or F reorganization, of a foreign corporation into a domestic corporation (inbound nonrecognition transactions). Section 381 generally provides rules regarding the extent to which corporate attributes carry over in such transactions.
The principal policy consideration of section 367(b) with respect to inbound nonrecognition transactions is the appropriate carryover of attributes from foreign to domestic corporations. This consideration has interrelated shareholder-level and corporate-level components. At the shareholder level, the section 367(b) regulations are concerned with the proper taxation of previously deferred earnings and profits. At the corporate level, the section 367(b) regulations are concerned with both the extent and manner in which tax attributes carry over in light of the variations between the Code's taxation of foreign and domestic corporations.
The section 367(b) regulations have historically focused on the carryover of earnings and profits and bases of assets, simultaneously addressing the shareholder and corporate level concerns by accounting for any necessary adjustments through an income inclusion by the U.S. shareholders of the foreign acquired corporation (and without limiting the extent to which the domestic acquiring corporation succeeds to the attributes). The 1991 proposed regulations required a U.S. shareholder of the foreign acquired corporation (or, in certain cases, a foreign subsidiary of the U.S. shareholder) to currently include in income the allocable portion of the foreign acquired corporation's earnings and profits accumulated during the U.S. shareholder's holding period (all earnings and profits amount). The requirement to include in income the all earnings and profits amount results in the taxation of previously unrepatriated earnings accumulated during a U.S. shareholder's (direct or indirect) holding period. This income inclusion prevents the conversion of a deferral of tax into a forgiveness of tax and generally ensures that the section 381 carryover basis reflects an after-tax amount. However, the all earnings and profits amount inclusion does not consider tax attributes that accrue during a non-U.S. person's holding period.
Commentators criticized the scope of the 1991 proposed regulations, arguing that the all earnings and profits amount should be limited to the amount that a shareholder would include in income as a deemed dividend under section 1248. The scope of the all earnings and profits amount is broader than the section 1248 amount because, for example, the all earnings and profits amount is calculated without regard to whether the foreign corporation is a CFC and without regard to a shareholder's gain in the stock. However, this view too narrowly construes the role of section 367(b) by focusing on potential shareholder-level consequences without adequately considering the section 367(b) policy of determining the appropriate carryover of corporate-level attributes in inbound nonrecognition transactions. Thus, the final regulations retain the 1991 proposed regulations' definition of all earnings and profits amount. The final regulations also generally retain (subject to a new de minimis exception) the taxation of all exchanging U.S. shareholders in inbound nonrecognition transactions.
In finalizing these regulations, the IRS and Treasury considered whether future section 367(b) regulations should limit the extent to which tax attributes carry over from foreign to domestic corporations. Such a limitation would more directly implement the section 367(b) policy related to the carryover of attributes and, as a result, reduce the class of U.S. persons required to have an income inclusion in connection with an inbound nonrecognition transaction. Such a limitation would also enable the section 367(b) regulations to address the carryover of attributes attributable to a non-U.S. person's holding period. The IRS and Treasury request comments as to the merits of an attribute carryover limitation, as well as other approaches that could address the carryover of tax attributes related to a non-U.S. person's holding period under section 367(b).
Section 1.367(b)-4 addresses transactions in which a foreign corporation acquires the stock or assets of another foreign corporation in an exchange described in section 351 or a section 368(a)(1)(B), (C), (D), (E), (F) or (G) reorganization (foreign-to-foreign nonrecognition transactions). Section 1.367(b)-5 provides rules regarding a distribution by a foreign corporation of the stock or securities of a domestic or foreign corporation described in section 355. The historic policy objective of section 367(b) in both of these contexts has been to preserve the potential application of section 1248. Thus, the amount that would have been recharacterized as a dividend under section 1248 upon a disposition of the stock (section 1248 amount) generally must be included in income as a dividend at the time of the section 367(b) exchange to the extent such section 1248 amount would not be preserved immediately following the section 367(b) exchange.
The final regulations do not address all of the policy considerations raised by the application of the Subchapter C provisions to transactions described in §§ 1.367(b)-4 and 1.367(b)-5. For
The IRS received numerous comments on the 1991 proposed regulations. The following discussion summarizes the comments and changes to the 1991 proposed regulations.
Section 1.367(b)-1(c) of the 1991 proposed regulations required any person that realizes income in a section 367(b) exchange to file a notice with respect to the exchange, regardless of such person's status as a U.S. person and its percentage ownership in the corporation that is a party to the section 367(b) exchange. Commentators criticized this notice requirement as overly broad. The 1998 regulations limited the notice requirement to shareholders that realize income and file a tax return under section 6012. The final regulations further revise the notice requirement and generally narrow its scope by requiring notice only with respect to persons and transactions that may be subject to an inclusion under the final regulations' operative provisions.
Section 1.367(b)-2(d) of the 1991 proposed regulations generally defined “all earnings and profits amount” as the allocable share of net positive earnings and profits accrued by a foreign corporation during a shareholder's holding period. The 1991 proposed regulations provided that the all earnings and profits amount is determined according to the attribution principles of section 1248. Because the section 1248 attribution rules incorporate the section 1223 holding period rules, commentators were concerned that the definition of all earnings and profits amount inappropriately included earnings and profits attributable to the holding period of non-U.S. persons by virtue of the rules of section 1223(2).
In response, the final regulations amend the definition of all earnings and profits amount to exclude amounts attributable to the holding period of non-U.S. persons. This modification applies to the extent the non-U.S. person was not directly or indirectly owned by U.S. persons with a 10 percent or greater interest when the earnings and profits accumulated. An example in the final regulations illustrates this new rule.
When applying the attribution principles of section 1248 for purposes of determining the all earnings and profits amount, the requirements of section 1248 unrelated to computing the amount of earnings and profits attributable to a shareholder's block of stock should not apply. The final regulations explicitly state this principle. The 1991 proposed regulations applied this principle, for example, when they provided that the all earnings and profits amount is calculated without regard to whether the foreign corporation is a controlled foreign corporation (CFC). The final regulations further specify that the all earnings and profits amount includes earnings attributable to an exchanging shareholder's stock, without regard to whether the exchanging shareholder owned 10 percent of the stock of the foreign acquired corporation. A new example in the final regulations illustrates these rules.
Section 1.367(b)-2(e) of the 1991 proposed regulations provided that a deemed dividend shall be treated as an actual dividend. Thus, a deemed dividend was considered as paid out of the earnings and profits of a foreign corporation and was considered as having been paid through intermediate owners (when appropriate). One commentator noted that an inclusion under the 1991 proposed regulations could yield a different result from an inclusion under section 1248 because section 1248 treats a corporation as having paid the section 1248 amount directly to an exchanging shareholder despite any intermediate owners.
A deemed dividend under section 367(b) is distinguishable from a section 1248 inclusion because a section 1248 inclusion is not treated as a dividend at the corporate level. Thus, a corporation does not reduce its earnings and profits with regard to an inclusion under section 1248. Instead, the shareholder-level inclusion is considered eligible to be treated as previously taxed earnings and profits (PTI) upon a subsequent distribution. In light of this distinction between section 367(b) and section 1248, the final regulations retain the rule in § 1.367(b)-2(e) of the 1991 proposed regulations.
Section 1.367(b)-2(k) of the 1991 proposed regulations provided rules regarding currency exchange inclusions or adjustments that result from a section 367(b) exchange. The final regulations apply the principles of the 1991 proposed regulations, but provide the following modifications.
The 1991 proposed regulations required an acquired corporation that participates in a transaction described in section 381(a) to change its functional currency if the acquiring corporation has a different functional currency. The rule was intended to ensure that taxpayers use the correct functional currency after a section 367(b) exchange. However, functional currency is determined separately for each qualified business unit (QBU). In addition, the functional currency of a QBU of either the acquired or acquiring corporation may change as a result of a section 367(b) exchange. Accordingly, the final regulations provide that a QBU is deemed to have automatically changed its functional currency when its functional currency, as determined after a section 367(b) exchange, is different than before the exchange. Thus, the QBU is required to make appropriate adjustments under § 1.985-5.
The 1991 proposed regulations provided that, if an exchanging shareholder is required to include in income either the all earnings and profits amount or the section 1248 amount, then immediately before the exchange and solely for purposes of computing exchange gain or loss under section 986(c), the shareholder is treated as receiving a distribution of PTI from the appropriate foreign corporation. The purpose of this provision was to ensure that exchange gain or loss under section 986(c) is subject to current inclusion when the earnings of the foreign corporation are no longer deferred or to the extent a taxpayer does not retain its interest in PTI.
Section 1.367(b)-2(j)(2) of the final regulations expands the rules regarding the treatment of exchange gain or loss on PTI under section 986(c). An exchanging shareholder that is a U.S. person is required to recognize its section 986(c) gain or loss to the extent that deferral has ended with respect to
Other rules under sections 985 through 989, such as the branch termination rules, may also apply to the transaction.
Section 1.367(b)-3 provides rules with respect to inbound nonrecognition transactions.
Section 1.367(b)-3(b) of the 1991 proposed regulations generally provided that if an exchanging shareholder is either (i) a 10 percent U.S. shareholder of the foreign acquired corporation or (ii) a foreign corporation with respect to which a U.S. person is either a section 1248 shareholder or a domestic corporation that meets the stock ownership requirements of section 902, the shareholder must include in income as a deemed dividend the all earnings and profits amount attributable to its stock in the foreign acquired corporation. The final regulations generally retain this rule. However, in order to provide greater consistency among its various ownership thresholds, the final regulations revise § 1.367(b)-3(b)(ii) so that § 1.367(b)-3(b) applies to a foreign corporation with respect to which there is, in general, a 10 percent U.S. shareholder.
The 1991 proposed regulations provided that the same country dividend exception in section 954(c)(3)(A)(i) does not apply to an exchanging shareholder that is a CFC. Commentators criticized this rule, stating that a deemed dividend under section 367(b) should not be treated more harshly than an actual dividend and that taxpayers can circumvent this rule by having a lower-tier foreign corporation distribute a dividend before an asset transfer. However, unlike a dividend distribution that qualifies for the same country dividend exception, an inbound asset transfer represents a current repatriation of earnings into the United States. Accordingly, the final regulations retain the rule in the 1991 proposed regulations that the same country dividend exception does not apply to an exchanging shareholder that is a CFC.
The 1991 proposed regulations generally required the recognition of exchange gain (or loss) to the extent that an exchanging shareholder's capital account in a foreign acquired corporation appreciated (or depreciated) as a result of changes in currency exchange rates. Such gain (or loss) is reflected in the basis of assets when translated at the spot rate. The preamble to the 1991 proposed regulations invited comments regarding the calculation of such exchange gain (or loss), particularly in cases when a shareholder acquired the foreign corporate stock by purchase rather than in connection with the corporation's formation. None of the comments suggested a method for determining and tracking shareholder capital accounts. Most comments focused on the potential complexity and compliance burdens created by the rule. After considering the administrability issues associated with the exchange gain (or loss) calculation, the final regulations do not adopt the provision requiring the recognition of exchange gain (or loss) on a shareholder's capital account. However, the final regulations reserve the issue for further consideration.
Sections 7.367(b)-5(b) and 7.367(b)-7(c)(2)(ii) of the 1977 regulations, and § 1.367(b)-3(b)(2)(iii) of the 1991 proposed regulations provided an exchanging shareholder with an opportunity to recognize the gain (but not the loss) that it realizes in the exchange (taxable exchange election), rather than including the all earnings and profits amount in income as a deemed dividend. This taxable exchange election, however, is inconsistent with the policies of section 367(b) that apply to inbound transactions. These policies, as previously discussed, are unrelated to an exchanging shareholder's outside gain on its stock.
Moreover, when the all earnings and profits amount exceeds a shareholder's gain on its stock, merely limiting the shareholder's inclusion to its outside stock gain creates the potential for the duplication and importation of losses. See TAM 9003005 (September 28, 1989) (interpreting the 1977 regulations) (available at IRS Freedom of Information Act Reading Room, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224). The 1991 proposed regulations attempted to address this aspect of the taxable exchange election by requiring various attributes of the foreign acquired corporation (such as basis in its assets) to be reduced (attribute reduction regime) to the extent the all earnings and profits amount exceeds an exchanging shareholder's stock gain.
However, the taxable exchange election in the 1991 proposed regulations had other shortcomings. The election added substantial complexity to the regulations by requiring timely coordination between electing shareholders and the acquiring corporation to carry out the required attribute reductions. In addition, the attribute reduction regime can be unfair in situations involving more than one exchanging U.S. shareholder. For example, consider an inbound C, D, or F reorganization involving two U.S. shareholders of the foreign acquired corporation, one that makes the taxable exchange election (because its gain on the stock is less than its all earnings and profits amount) and one that does not. In connection with the electing shareholder's taxable exchange election, the 1991 proposed regulations required a proportionate reduction in certain tax attributes of the foreign acquired corporation. This reduction effectively allowed the electing shareholder to transfer to the acquiring corporation the burden created by its decision not to include in income its full all earnings and profits amount and, thereby, to effectively shift a portion of this burden to the non-electing shareholder (that has already paid U.S. tax on its full share of the foreign corporation's earnings and profits).
Finally, a taxable exchange election is not required by the statute. Section 367(b) directs the Secretary to prescribe regulations that provide the necessary or appropriate tax consequences that should accompany the application of the Subchapter C provisions to transactions involving foreign corporations. Section 367(b)(2) specifically provides that the section 367(b) regulations may include the circumstances under which “gain shall be recognized currently or amounts included in gross income currently as a dividend, or both * * *.” Thus, the statute authorizes the IRS and Treasury to require an inclusion of amounts, as distinct from gain. As previously discussed, the all earnings and profits amount appropriately measures an exchanging shareholder's income
After balancing the above considerations against the benefits of the taxable exchange election, the final regulations do not adopt the taxable exchange election. However, in order to provide taxpayers an opportunity to comment on this change to the 1977 regulations and the 1991 proposed regulations, the IRS and Treasury are concurrently issuing temporary and proposed regulations that provide the taxable exchange election in modified form. This election permits an exchanging shareholder to elect to treat a transaction as a taxable exchange, but modifies the attribute reduction regime by limiting its application to a section 332 liquidation or to an inbound asset reorganization in which the foreign acquired corporation is wholly owned (directly or indirectly) by one U.S. person. This limited application of the attribute reduction regime eliminates the potentially unfair results that can arise when attributes are reduced in a transaction involving multiple exchanging shareholders. This also reduces (although does not eliminate) the potential for the duplication and importation of losses that can arise in the absence of attribute reduction. The temporary regulation is effective for one year from the effective date of the final regulations.
Section 1.367(b)-3(c) of the 1991 proposed regulations provided a special rule for U.S. persons that are not subject to the § 1.367(b)-3(b) requirement to include in income the all earnings and profits amount (generally, shareholders owning less than 10 percent of the foreign acquired corporation, hereinafter small shareholders). The 1991 proposed regulations required these small shareholders to recognize the gain on their stock in the foreign acquired corporation. This rule was included because of administrative concerns, since small shareholders may not have sufficient information to calculate their all earnings and profits amounts. In addition, a foreign acquired corporation may not have adequate information about its small shareholders' inclusions to properly adjust its earnings and profits for the deemed dividends that would arise in these situations.
Commentators requested that the final regulations provide small shareholders the option of including in income the all earnings and profits amount, rather than recognizing the gain on their stock. In response, the final regulations include such an election, provided that a small shareholder has sufficient information to substantiate its all earnings and profits amount and provided that the small shareholder furnishes proper certification to the foreign acquired corporation (or its successor in interest) so that the corporation can properly reduce its earnings and profits. Electing small shareholders must also comply with the section 367(b) notice requirement. A less extensive section 367(b) notice procedure is available if the foreign acquired corporation has never had earnings and profits that would result in any shareholder having an all earnings and profits amount.
Commentators also requested an election that would permit a domestic acquiring corporation to include in income the all earnings and profits amounts on behalf of the foreign acquired corporation's small shareholders. The final regulations do not adopt this suggestion because of its substantial administrative difficulties. For example, it is unlikely that a publicly traded foreign corporation (or its domestic acquirer) could ascertain each small shareholder's correct holding period in the stock of the foreign acquired corporation, which would be necessary to properly determine such a cumulative all earnings and profits amount inclusion.
The final regulations also include a new de minimis exception, which applies to small shareholders whose stock in the foreign acquired corporation has a fair market value below $50,000 on the date of the exchange. These shareholders are not required to include gain or a deemed dividend under the section 367(b) regulations.
Section 1.367(b)-3(d) of the 1991 proposed regulations clarified that a domestic acquiring corporation may succeed to foreign taxes paid or accrued by a foreign acquired corporation that are eligible for credit under section 906. A domestic acquiring corporation may not succeed to any other foreign taxes paid or accrued by a foreign acquired corporation because the earnings that carry over to a domestic acquiring corporation (other than earnings related to the taxes eligible for credit under section 906) are not subject to double taxation at the corporate level. This rule is consistent with the general policy of section 367(b) to permit the carryover of corporate tax attributes only when appropriate. The final regulations retain the rules of § 1.367(b)-3(d), and add an example that illustrates their application.
Section 1.367(b)-4 of the 1991 proposed regulations addressed foreign-to-foreign nonrecognition transactions. In general, if the exchange in such a transaction results in a section 1248 shareholder of the foreign acquired corporation losing its section 1248 shareholder status, § 1.367(b)-4(b) required the exchanging shareholder to currently include its section 1248 amount in income as a deemed dividend. The 1991 proposed regulations generally did not require an income inclusion in circumstances when a section 1248 shareholder retains its status. In the case of a lower-tier transaction (where the exchanging shareholder is a foreign corporation), the section 1248 amount was not included as foreign personal holding company income (FPHCI) under section 954(c). This provision permitted deferral of the section 1248 amount by preserving such earnings and profits as earnings of the foreign corporation that is the exchanging shareholder. The final regulations retain these general rules.
Section 1.367(b)-4(b) of the 1991 proposed regulations provided an exception to its general rule if an exchanging shareholder receives stock of a domestic corporation. This provision, which the 1991 proposed regulations included in response to a criticism of the 1977 regulations, was intended to provide relief in cases when a domestic acquiring corporation issues its own stock in exchange for CFC stock and succeeds to the section 1248 amount allocable to the transferor U.S. shareholder. Because § 1.367(b)-4(a) of the 1991 proposed regulations already limited the application of § 1.367(b)-4 to an acquisition by a foreign corporation, such relief was unnecessary.
Moreover, the provision inadvertently did not require an inclusion of a section 1248 amount that may not be preserved immediately after the exchange. This could occur, for example, if a foreign acquiring corporation uses the stock of its domestic parent corporation to acquire the stock or assets of a foreign target corporation from a section 1248 shareholder. Accordingly, the final regulations do not adopt the 1991 proposed regulations' provision regarding receipt of stock of a domestic corporation in a transaction described in § 1.367(b)-4.
The 1998 regulations revised the rules of the 1991 proposed regulations regarding the application of section 367(b) and section 1248 to exchanges that follow a § 1.367(b)-4 exchange in which an exchanging shareholder is not required to include a section 1248 amount in income. Because of the limited scope of the 1998 regulations, its rule only addressed the application of section 367(b) and section 1248 following a stock transfer by a direct U.S. shareholder. The final regulations incorporate the principles of the 1998 regulations and expand their application to the class of transactions subject to § 1.367(b)-4, including asset transfers and transactions in which the exchanging shareholder is a foreign corporation. The final regulations also address the interaction of these rules with section 964(e), by providing the extent to which they apply to subsequent section 964(e) sales and exchanges. Two new examples in the final regulations, as well as an expanded restatement of the example provided in the 1998 regulations, illustrate the application of these rules.
Commentators also requested that the IRS and Treasury clarify the carryover of earnings and profits and tax accounts in transactions where an exchanging shareholder is not required to include a section 1248 amount, as well as the application of section 902 to distributions by a foreign acquiring corporation after such a section 367(b) exchange. The IRS and Treasury will address these issues in forthcoming proposed regulations.
Section 1.367(b)-5(b) of the 1991 proposed regulations generally provided that a domestic corporation must recognize gain on a section 355 distribution of foreign stock to individuals. The final regulations retain this general rule, consistent with the recently promulgated final regulations under section 367(e) (governing a section 355 distribution by a domestic corporation of foreign stock to foreign persons).
Commentators requested that the final regulations clarify the proper method for determining whether a distributee is an individual. The same issue arises under section 367(e), and the final regulations adopt the approach of the section 367(e) regulations. Thus, a distributee is presumed to be an individual except to the extent that the distributing corporation certifies that the distributee is not an individual. However, a publicly traded distributing corporation may use a reasonable analysis with respect to distributees that are not five percent shareholders of publicly traded stock to demonstrate the number of distributees that are not individuals. A reasonable analysis includes a determination of the actual number of distributees that are not individuals or a reasonable statistical analysis of shareholder records and other relevant information. Section 1.367(b)-2(k) (§ 1.367(b)-2(l) of the 1991 proposed regulations) has also been amended to adopt the look-through provisions provided in § 1.367(e)-1(b)(2) for purposes of determining the identity of distributees when the domestic distributing corporation stock is held by a partnership, trust or estate.
Section 1.367(b)-5(c) of the 1991 proposed regulations provided that, when a CFC distributes stock of a controlled corporation on a pro rata basis in a section 355 transaction, a distributee must reduce its post-distribution basis in either the distributing or controlled corporation stock to the extent its section 1248 amount attributable to such corporation is reduced as a result of the distribution. To the extent the reduction of the section 1248 amount exceeds the stock basis, the distributee must include the difference in income as a deemed dividend. The final regulations retain this general rule, subject to the following refinements.
The final regulations add new § 1.367(b)-5(c)(3), which provides that the basis adjustment provided in § 1.367(b)-2(e)(3)(ii) shall not apply if a deemed dividend is included in income pursuant to § 1.367(b)-5(c). Under § 1.367(b)-2(e)(3)(ii), a shareholder's basis is increased by the amount of a deemed dividend inclusion. In the context of a § 1.367(b)-5(c) inclusion, the § 1.367(b)-2(e)(3)(ii) basis increase would undermine the purpose of the section 367(b) regulations, because the basis increase would correspondingly decrease the shareholder's built-in gain, thereby reducing the section 1248 amount that is intended to be preserved after the transaction.
Furthermore, some taxpayers commented that the § 1.367(b)-5(c)(2) basis reduction can lead to the creation of phantom gain; that is, it can leave a shareholder with a cumulative amount of post-distribution built-in gain in the stock of the distributing and controlled corporations that exceeds its predistribution built-in gain. As a result, commentators requested that a reduction in the basis in one of the corporations give rise to a corresponding increase in the basis of the stock of the other corporation. In response, § 1.367(b)-5(c)(4) of the final regulations provides a basis redistribution rule, under which the basis of the stock of the distributing or controlled corporation (as applicable) is increased by the amount of the required decrease in basis in the other stock under § 1.367(b)-5(c)(2). However, basis cannot be increased above the fair market value of the stock and also cannot be increased to the extent the increase diminishes the postdistribution section 1248 amount with respect to such stock. This basis redistribution rule also applies with regard to deemed dividend inclusions under § 1.367(b)-5(c)(2). An example in the final regulations illustrates the application of these new rules.
Section 1.367(b)-5(d) of the 1991 proposed regulations provided that, if a CFC distributes controlled corporation stock on a non-pro rata basis, each distributee must include in income the amount of any reduction in its section 1248 amount with regard to either the distributing or controlled corporation. For this purpose, the 1991 proposed regulations treated a shareholder of the distributing corporation that does not exchange stock in the distributing corporation for stock in the controlled corporation (non-participating shareholder) as a distributee.
The 1991 proposed regulations provided that a non-participating shareholder may make an election (taxable distribution election), under which the distributing and controlled corporations are not treated as corporations for purposes of gain (but not loss) recognition by all persons affected by the taxable status of the transaction. The preamble to the 1991 proposed regulations invited comments as to whether the benefits of the taxable distribution election to non-participating shareholders are outweighed by the potential adverse effects on the other shareholders.
In response, commentators uniformly criticized the taxable distribution election. They argued that the election was inequitable because it enabled a non-participating shareholder (who may be a small shareholder) to unilaterally and retroactively invalidate the section
The taxable distribution election is also not required by the statute. Section 367(b) directs the Secretary to prescribe regulations that provide the necessary or appropriate tax consequences that should accompany the application of the Subchapter C provisions to transactions involving foreign corporations. Section 367(b)(2) specifically provides that the section 367(b) regulations “shall include (but shall not be limited to) regulations dealing with the sale or exchange of stock or securities in a foreign corporation by a U.S. person. * * *” Accordingly, the section 367(b) regulations may address the tax consequences of a non-pro rata distribution to both participating and non-participating shareholders. In both cases, the diminution in a shareholder's potential section 1248 amount following a section 355 transaction appropriately measures the shareholder's inclusion with regard to a section 355 transaction involving a distributing corporation that is a controlled foreign corporation. Differing results depending on whether a shareholder is a participating shareholder or a non-participating shareholder can also be viewed as artificial, given that the distinction is often merely a function of alternative planning strategies.
In light of all of the above considerations, the final regulations do not adopt the taxable distribution election. As a result, all shareholders of a CFC that distributes stock on a non-pro rata basis must include in income the amount of any reduction in their section 1248 amount with respect to either the distributing or controlled corporation.
Commentators noted that the 1991 proposed regulations did not automatically exclude a § 1.367(b)-5(c) or (d) deemed dividend inclusion by an exchanging foreign corporate shareholder from FPHCI. Accordingly, the deemed dividend generally would be subpart F income and currently includible in income by a U.S. shareholder of the exchanging foreign corporation. As in the case of a lower-tier foreign-to-foreign transaction described in § 1.367(b)-4, the potential application of section 1248 can be preserved by excluding the deemed dividend from FPHCI. Thus, the final regulations adopt the suggestion and provide that a § 1.367(b)-5(c) or (d) deemed dividend inclusion by a foreign corporation is not included in FPHCI under section 954(c).
Section 1.367(b)-5(f) of the 1991 proposed regulations provided rules regarding the allocation of earnings and profits of a foreign transferor corporation in connection with a section 355 distribution. After further consideration, the IRS and Treasury have not included § 1.367(b)-5(f) of the 1991 proposed regulations in the final regulations. Forthcoming proposed regulations will more fully consider the allocation of earnings and profits in section 355 distributions where either (or both) the distributing or controlled corporation is a foreign corporation.
The final regulations apply to section 367(b) exchanges that occur on or after February 23, 2000. The preamble to the 1991 proposed regulations solicited comments on whether the final regulations should provide an election to apply the regulations retroactively to exchanges that occur on or after August 26, 1991 (the date the 1991 proposed regulations were published in the
These regulations finalize substantially all of the 1991 proposed regulations. In connection with the finalization of these regulations, the 1977 regulations (other than § 7.367(b)-12) and the section 367(b) provisions contained in the 1998 regulations are removed. Section 7.367(b)-12 is retained to address distributions with respect to (or a disposition of) stock that was subject to certain provisions of the 1977 regulations in effect prior to February 23, 2000.
It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding the regulations was issued prior to March 29, 1996, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply.
Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on the impact of the proposed regulations on small business.
Drafting Information. The principal author of these regulations is Mark Harris of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 1.367(b)-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 367(a) and (b).
Section 1.367(b)-3 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 367(a) and (b). * * *
Section 1.367(b)-5 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 367(a) and (b).
Section 1.367(b)-6 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 367(a) and (b). * * *
(d) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii)
This section lists the paragraphs contained in §§ 1.367(b)-0 through 1.367(b)-6.
(a)
(b)
(i) A foreign corporation in a section 367(b) exchange is considered to be a corporation and, as a result, all of the related provisions (
(ii) Nothing in the section 367(b) regulations shall permit—
(A) The nonrecognition of income that would otherwise be required to be recognized under another provision of the Internal Revenue Code or the regulations thereunder; or
(B) The recognition of a loss or deduction that would otherwise not be recognized under another provision of the Internal Revenue Code or the regulations thereunder.
(2)
(ii)
(c)
(2)
(i) A shareholder described in § 1.367(b)-3(b)(1) that realizes income in a transaction described in § 1.367(b)-3(a);
(ii) A shareholder that makes the election described in § 1.367(b)-3(c)(3);
(iii) A shareholder described in § 1.367(b)-4(b)(1)(i)(A)(
(iv) A shareholder that realizes income in a transaction described in § 1.367(b)-5(c) or 1.367(b)-5(d) and that is either—
(A) A section 1248 shareholder of the distributing or controlled corporation; or
(B) A foreign corporation with one or more shareholders that are described in paragraph (c)(2)(iv)(A) of this section.
(3)
(ii)
(A) United States shareholders (as defined in § 1.367(b)-3(b)(2)) of foreign corporations described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section; and
(B) Section 1248 shareholders of foreign corporations described in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) or (iv) of this section.
(4)
(i) A statement that the exchange is a section 367(b) exchange;
(ii) A complete description of the exchange;
(iii) A description of any stock, securities or other consideration transferred or received in the exchange;
(iv) A statement that describes any amount required, under the section 367(b) regulations, to be taken into account as income or loss or as an adjustment to basis, earnings and profits, or other tax attributes as a result of the exchange;
(v) Any information that is or would be required to be furnished with a Federal income tax return pursuant to regulations under section 332, 351, 354, 355, 356, 361 or 368 (whether or not a Federal income tax return is required to be filed), if such information has not otherwise been provided by the person filing the section 367(b) notice;
(vi) Any information required to be furnished with respect to the exchange under sections 6038, 6038A, 6038B, 6038C or 6046, or the regulations under those sections, if such information has not otherwise been provided by the person filing the section 367(b) notice; and
(vii) If applicable, a statement that the shareholder is making the election described in § 1.367(b)-3(c)(3). This statement must include—
(A) A copy of the information the shareholder received from the foreign acquired corporation (or its successor in interest) establishing and substantiating the shareholder's all earnings and profits amount with respect to the shareholder's stock in the foreign acquired corporation; and
(B) A representation that the shareholder has notified the foreign acquired corporation (or its successor in interest) that the shareholder is making the election described in § 1.367(b)-3(c)(3).
(5)
(i) A statement from the foreign acquired corporation (or its successor in interest) that the foreign acquired corporation has never had any earnings and profits that would result in any shareholder having an all earnings and profits amount; and
(ii) The information described in paragraphs (c)(4) (i) through (iii) of this section.
(6)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(i) The foreign shareholder shall be deemed to be a United
States person for purposes of this paragraph (c), except that the foreign shareholder shall not be considered a United States person for purposes of determining whether the stock owned by the foreign shareholder is stock of a controlled foreign corporation, and
(ii) The foreign shareholder's holding period in the stock of the foreign corporation shall be determined by reference to the period that the foreign shareholder's section 1248 shareholders held (directly or indirectly) an interest in the foreign corporation. This paragraph (c)(1)(ii) applies in addition to the section 1248 regulations' incorporation of section 1223 holding periods, as modified by § 1.367(b)-4(d) (as applicable).
(2)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(d)
(2)
(ii)
(iii)
(3)
(
(ii)
(B)
(
(
(ii)
(B)
(B) FC1 owns all of the outstanding stock of FC2, a foreign corporation that is not a controlled foreign corporation subject to the rules of section 953(c). FC2 has net positive earnings and profits. In a reorganization described in section 368(a)(1)(B), DA, a domestic corporation, acquires all of the stock of FC2 from FC1 in exchange for DA voting stock.
(ii)
(B) In applying the attribution principles of section 1248, earnings and profits attributable to a section 1223(2) holding period that refers to a period of direct ownership of the stock of a foreign corporation by a non-United States person are not included, except to the extent the stock of the foreign corporation was indirectly owned by United States shareholders as defined in § 1.367(b)-3(b)(2). Accordingly, DA's all earnings and profits amount does not include the FC2 earnings and profits attributable to FC, FI, and the small shareholders. DA's all earnings and profits amount does include the FC2 earnings and profits attributable to DP, DC, and DI. See § 1.367(b)-2(k) for rules concerning the treatment of partnerships under the section 367(b) regulations.
(iii)
(e)
(2)
(3)
(i) For purposes of the section 367(b) regulations, the gain realized by an exchanging shareholder shall be determined before increasing (as provided in paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section) the basis in the stock of the foreign corporation by the amount of the deemed dividend.
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section, the deemed dividend shall be considered to be
(iii) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section, the earnings and profits of the appropriate foreign corporation shall be reduced by the deemed dividend amount before determining the consequences of the recognition of gain in excess of the deemed dividend amount (for example, under section 356(a)(2) or sections 356(a)(1) and 1248).
(4)
(f)
(2)
(i) A transfer of assets by the foreign transferor corporation to the acquiring corporation in exchange for stock (or stock and securities) of the acquiring corporation and the assumption by the acquiring corporation of the foreign transferor corporation's liabilities;
(ii) A distribution of such stock (or stock and securities) by the foreign transferor corporation to its shareholders (or shareholders and security holders); and
(iii) An exchange by the foreign transferor corporation's shareholders (or shareholders and security holders) of their stock (or stock and securities) for stock (or stock and securities) of the acquiring corporation.
(3)
(4)
(i) The acquiring corporation is a domestic corporation; or
(ii) The foreign transferor corporation has effectively connected earnings and profits (as defined in section 884(d)) or accumulated effectively connected earnings and profits (as defined in section 884(b)(2)(B)(ii)).
(g)
(h)
(2)
(i)
(j)
(ii)
(ii)
(2)
(ii)
(3)
(k)
(a)
(b)
(i) A United States shareholder of the foreign acquired corporation; or
(ii) A foreign corporation with respect to which there are one or more United States shareholders.
(2)
(3)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(B) Accordingly, for purposes of determining whether DC1 is a United States shareholder under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, DC1 is considered as owning 99 percent of the 9 percent of FC stock held by USP. Because DC1 also owns 9 percent of FC stock directly, DC1 is considered as owning more than 10 percent of FC stock. DC1 is thus a United States shareholder of FC under paragraph (b)(2) of this section and, as a result, is subject to the rules of paragraph (b) of this section. However, for purposes of determining DC1's all earnings and profits amount, DC1 is not treated as owning the FC stock held by USP. Under § 1.367(b)-2(d)(3), DC1's all earnings and profits amount is determined by reference to the 9 percent of FC stock that it directly owns.
(C) For purposes of determining whether USP is a United States shareholder under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, USP is considered as owning the 9 percent of FC stock held by DC1. Because USP also owns 9 percent of FC stock directly, USP is considered as owning more than 10 percent of FC stock. USP is thus a United States shareholder of FC under paragraph (b)(2) of this section and, as a result, is subject to the rules of paragraph (b) of this section. However, for purposes of determining USP's all earnings and profits amount, USP is not treated as owning the FC shares held by DC1.
(iii)
(4)
(c)
(2)
(3)
(i) The foreign acquired corporation (or its successor in interest) has provided the exchanging shareholder information to substantiate the exchanging shareholder's all earnings and profits amount with respect to its stock in the foreign acquired corporation; and
(ii) The exchanging shareholder complies with the section 367(b) notice requirement described in § 1.367(b)-1(c), including the specific rules contained therein concerning the time and manner for electing to apply the rules of this paragraph (c)(3).
(4)
(5)
(ii)
(iii)
(ii)
(d)
(2)
(ii)
(a)
(b)
(1)
(A) Immediately before the exchange, the exchanging shareholder is—
(
(
(B) Either of the following conditions is satisfied—
(
(
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(2)
(A) Immediately before the exchange, the foreign acquired corporation and the foreign acquiring corporations are not members of the same affiliated group (within the meaning of section 1504(a), but without regard to the exceptions set forth in section 1504(b), and substituting the words “more than 50” in place of the words “at least 80” in sections 1504(a)(2)(A) and (B));
(B) Immediately after the exchange, a domestic corporation meets the ownership threshold specified by section 902(a) or (b) such that it may qualify for a deemed paid foreign tax credit if it receives a distribution from the foreign acquiring corporation (directly or through tiers); and
(C) The exchanging shareholder receives preferred stock (other than preferred stock that is fully participating with respect to dividends, redemptions and corporate growth) in consideration for common stock or preferred stock that is fully participating with respect to dividends, redemptions and corporate growth, or, in the discretion of the Commissioner or the Commissioner's delegate (and without regard to whether the stock exchanged is common stock or preferred stock), receives stock that entitles it to participate (through dividends, redemption payments or otherwise) disproportionately in the earnings generated by particular assets of the foreign acquired corporation or foreign acquiring corporation.
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(3)
(i) During the 24-month period immediately preceding or following the date of the recapitalization, the corporation that undergoes the recapitalization (or a predecessor of, or successor to, such corporation) also engages in a transaction that would be described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section but for paragraph (b)(2)(i)(C) of this section, either as the foreign acquired corporation or the foreign acquiring corporation; and
(ii) The exchange in the recapitalization is described in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(C) of this section.
(c)
(2)
(ii)
(d)
(2)
(3)
(ii)
(B) In the event FC2 exchanges FC1 stock in a transaction that is subject to section 367(b) or 964(e), a proportionate reduction must be made to the $20 of earnings and profits that was previously attributed under paragraph (d)(1) of this section to DC1's stock in FC2. Thus, for example, if FC2 sells 50 percent of its FC1 stock (at a time when there have been no other reductions that affect the $20 of FC1 earnings and profits), paragraph (d)(2) of this section requires DC1 to proportionately reduce the $20 of earnings and profits that was previously attributed to its FC2 stock (to $10). This reduction occurs without regard to whether FC2 recognizes gain on its sale of FC1 stock.
(ii)
(ii)
(B) In the event FC2 exchanges FC3 stock in a transaction that is subject to section 367(b) or 964(e), a proportionate reduction must be made to the $20 of earnings and profits that was previously attributed under paragraph (d)(1) of this section to DC1's stock in FC1 (for purposes of subsequent application of section 367(b) or 1248) as well as to FC1's stock in FC2 (for purposes of subsequent application of section 367(b) or 964(e)). Thus, for example, if FC2 sells 50 percent of its FC3 stock (at a time when there have been no other reductions that affect the $20 of FC3 earnings and profits), paragraph (d)(2) of this section requires DC1 and FC1 to proportionately reduce the $20 of earnings and profits that was previously attributed to their FC1 and FC2 stock, respectively (to $10). These reductions occur without regard to whether FC2 recognizes gain on its sale of FC3 stock.
(a)
(2)
(b)
(i) If the distributee is a corporation, then the controlled corporation shall be considered to be a corporation; and
(ii) If the distributee is an individual, then, solely for purposes of determining the gain recognized by the distributing corporation, the controlled corporation shall not be considered to be a corporation, and the distributing corporation shall recognize any gain (but not loss) realized on the distribution.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(c)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(d)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(ii)
(e)
(2)
(f)
(g)
(ii)
(B) Under paragraph (e)(2) of this section, USS's postdistribution amount with respect to FD or FC is its section 1248 amount with respect to such corporation, computed immediately after the distribution (but without regard to paragraph (c) of this section). Under § 1.367(b)-2(c)(1), USS's section 1248 amounts computed immediately after the distribution with respect to FD and FC are $60 and $0, respectively. These amounts, which are USS's postdistribution amounts, are computed as follows: Under the normal principles of section 358, USS allocates its $80 predistribution basis in FD between FD and FC according to the stock blocks' relative values, yielding a $40 basis in each block. If USS sold its FD stock immediately after the distribution, none of the resulting gain would be treated as a dividend under section 1248. If USS sold its FC stock immediately after the distribution, it would have a $60 gain ($100 fair market value—$40 basis), all of which would be treated as a dividend under section 1248.
(C) The basis adjustment and income inclusion rules of paragraph (c)(2) of this section apply to the extent of any difference between USS's postdistribution and predistribution amounts. In the case of FD, there is no difference between the two amounts and, as a result, no adjustment or income inclusion is required. In the case of FC, USS's postdistribution amount is $60 less than its predistribution amount. Accordingly, under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, USS is required to reduce its basis in its FC stock from $40 to $0 and include $20 in income as a deemed dividend from FC. Under paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the basis increase provided in § 1.367(b)-2(e)(3)(ii) does not apply with regard to the $20 deemed dividend. Under the rules of paragraph (c)(4) of this section, USS increases its basis in FD by the amount by which it decreased its basis in FC, as well as by the amount of its deemed dividend inclusion ($40 + $40 + $20 = $100).
(ii)
(B) Under paragraph (d)(3) of this section, a distributee that owns no stock in the distributing or controlled corporation immediately after the distribution has a postdistribution amount with regard to that stock of zero. Accordingly, USS2 has a postdistribution amount of $0 with respect to FD and USS1 has a postdistribution amount of $0 with respect to FC. Under paragraph (e)(2) of this section, USS1's postdistribution amount with respect to FD is its section 1248 amount with respect to such corporation, computed immediately after the distribution (but without regard to paragraph (d) of this section). USS2's postdistribution amount with respect to FC is determined in the same manner. Under § 1.367(b)-2(c)(1), USS1's section 1248 amount computed immediately after the distribution with respect to FD is $0 and USS2's section 1248 amount computed immediately after the distribution with respect to FC is $250. These amounts, which are USS1's and USS2's postdistribution amounts, are computed as follows: After the non-pro rata distribution, USS1 owns all the stock of FD and USS2 owns all the stock of FC. If USS1 sold its FD stock immediately after the distribution, none of the resulting $250 gain ($750 fair market value $500 basis) would be treated as a dividend under section 1248. If USS2 sold its FC stock immediately after the distribution, it would have a $250 gain ($750 fair market value—$500 basis), all of which would be treated as a dividend under section 1248.
(C) The income inclusion rule of paragraph (d)(3) of this section applies to the extent of any difference between USS1's and USS2's postdistribution and predistribution amounts. In the case of USS2, there is no difference between the two amounts with respect to either FD or FC and, as a result, no income inclusion is required. In the case of USS1, there is no difference between the two amounts with respect to its FD stock. However, USS1's postdistribution amount with respect to FC is $250 less than its predistribution amount. Accordingly, under paragraph (d)(3) of this section, USS1 is required to include $250 in income as a deemed dividend. Under § 1.367(b)-2(e)(2), the $250 deemed dividend is considered as having been paid by FC to FD, and by FD to USS1, immediately prior to the distribution. This deemed dividend increases USS1's basis in FD ($500 + $250 = $750).
(a)
(2)
(i) The electing taxpayer makes the election on a timely filed section 367(b) notice;
(ii) In the case of an exchanging shareholder that is a foreign corporation, the election is made on the section 367(b) notice that is filed by each of its shareholders listed in § 1.367(b)-1(c)(3)(ii); and
(iii) The electing taxpayer provides notice of the election to all corporations (or their successors in interest) whose earnings and profits are affected by the election on or before the date the section 367(b) notice is filed.
(b)
(c)
(2)
(d)
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(a)
(1) To which, in connection with an exchange occurring before February 23, 2000, an amount has been attributed pursuant to § 7.367(b)-9 or 7.367(b)-10 (as in effect prior to February 23, 2000; see 26 CFR Part 1 revised as of April 1, 1999); or
(2) In respect of which, before February 23, 2000, an amount has been included in income or added to earnings and profits pursuant to § 7.367(b)-7 or 7.367(b)-10 (as in effect prior to February 23, 2000); see 26 CFR Part 1 revised as of April 1, 1999).
26 U.S.C. 7805.
(b) * * *
Postal Service.
Final rule.
The Postal Service has redesigned the following special services forms and labels: PS Form 3800, Receipt for Certified Mail; PS Form 3813-P, Receipt for Insured Mail—Domestic—International; PS Form 8099, Receipt for Recorded Delivery; Label 200, Registered Mail; and PS Form 3804, Return Receipt for Merchandise. In addition to the current Optical Character Reader font on the labels, the Postal Service is placing formatted barcodes. The USS-128 Subset A format barcode will be used on all USPS-printed retail labels for insured mail, recorded delivery mail, and registered mail. The USS Code 128 Subset C format will be used on all USPS-printed retail labels for certified mail and return receipt for merchandise. Customer-generated labels for these services will be either USS Code 128 or USS I 2 of 5 barcode format. Vendors and mailers preparing customer-generated labels will be required to comply with these requirements for special service labels by June 10, 2000. This final rule sets forth the new Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) and International Mail Manual (IMM) language.
Effective January 24, 2000. All parties must comply with this final rule by June 10, 2000.
Mary Shriver, (202) 268-6554.
On October 6, 1999, the Postal Service published in the
This final rule gives notice of classification changes to implement barcoded special services labels. The Postal Service has invested in an information technology infrastructure that includes the capability to scan barcodes upon delivery. To maximize the cost-effectiveness of this infrastructure and to achieve long-standing goals for improved customer information management, the Postal Service has implemented a barcode system for specific special services like the one for Delivery Confirmation and Signature Confirmation services. The affected special services include certified mail, insured mail, recorded delivery mail, registered mail, and return receipt for merchandise. The infrastructure will be used as part of the Postal Service plan to optically scan and electronically store recipient signatures. The new retail label deployment for these special services began in January 2000.
Barcodes on special services labels will be scanned at acceptance and at delivery, and an electronic record will be created for each mailpiece. If the customer is not home to sign for delivery, the carrier will leave a PS Form 3849, Delivery Notification/Reminder/Receipt, to inform the customer that a mailpiece is waiting for pickup at the local office. The barcoded mailpiece will be scanned as an attempted delivery.
Mailers may use either of these special services label options:
a. USPS-printed forms obtained from a post office at no charge.
b. Privately printed forms that are nearly identical in design to USPS-printed special services forms (as authorized by USPS). Privately printed barcoded labels must meet the requirements in Publication 109, Special Services Technical Guide.
Vendors or producers of privately printed labels will need to receive certification of their labels from the National Customer Support Center (NCSC), as described in Publication 109. To receive certification, a vendor or label producer must supply for evaluation and approval a sample that includes 20 barcoded labels generated by each printing process or printing device to be used. The sample is sent to: Barcode Certification, National Customer Support Center, 6060 Primacy Parkway Ste 201, Memphis TN 38188-0001.
In the event that barcode print quality falls out of tolerance on privately printed labels after approval has been granted, the vendor or label producer will be contacted by USPS, and an effort will be made to jointly resolve the problem. Should circumstances warrant, the printing and use of mailer-printed labels may be discontinued until a vendor or label producer's printer(s) is re-certified.
Publication 109, Special Services Technical Guide, has been created to provide greater detail for label specifications, barcode symbology, label certification, and service type codes, instead of adding such specifications to the DMM, as proposed October 6, 1999. Publication 109 has been developed to provide mailers with a handbook containing detailed information on how to produce their own special services barcoded labels. Private printers producing special services labels must adhere to the standards set forth by the U.S. Postal Service and found in Publication 109.
For the reasons discussed above, the Postal Service is not amending the DMM with respect to the technical specifications included in the October 6 proposed rule. Instead, the Postal Service hereby adopts the following amendments to the Domestic Mail Manual and International Mail Manual (IMM), which are incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations (see 39 CFR Part 111).
5 U.S.C. 552(a), 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3626, 5001.
(Amend 3.4 to include new barcode requirements to read as follows:)
Registered mail must bear a barcoded red Label 200 (see Exhibit 3.4). The label must be placed above the delivery address and to the right of the return address, or to the left of the delivery address on parcels. Any large-volume mailer can obtain Label 200 in rolls of 100.
(Redesignate current 3.5 through 3.9 as 3.6 through 3.10. Insert new 3.5 to read as follows:)
If authorized, a mailer may use a privately printed Label 200, Registered Mail, for domestic mail only. Privately printed labels must be nearly identical in design and color to the USPS form, with a barcode and human-readable numbers that meet USPS specifications in Publication 109. A minimum of three preproduction samples must be submitted to the business mail entry manager serving the mailer's location for review by the mailpiece design analyst. Once approved, the mailer must print sample labels with barcodes to be certified under the technical requirements in Publication 109.
(Amend 2.3 to include barcode requirements to read as follows:)
Certified mail must bear a barcoded green Form 3800, Receipt for Certified Mail (see Exhibit 2.3). The label part of the form must be placed above the delivery address and to the right of the return address, or to the left of the delivery address on parcels.
(Amend 2.4 by adding requirements for privately printed Form 3800 to read as follows:)
If authorized, a mailer may use a privately printed Form 3800, Receipt for Certified Mail. The privately printed form must be nearly identical in design, color, and fluorescent properties to the USPS form with a barcode and human readable numbers that meet the USPS specifications in Publication 109. A minimum of three preproduction samples must be submitted to the business mail entry manager serving the mailer's location for review by the mailpiece design analyst. Once approved, the mailer must print sample labels with barcodes to be certified under the technical requirements in Publication 109.
The treatment of parcels is determined by the insurance amount:
a. Insured for $50 or less: Each parcel must be stamped on the address side with an elliptical insured marking as shown in Exhibit 2.3. This marking must be placed above the delivery address and to the right of the return address.
b. Insured for more than $50: Each parcel must have barcoded Form 3813-P, Receipt for Insured Mail, shown in Exhibit 2.3, affixed above the delivery address and to the right of the return address. Form 3813-P must not be used for parcels insured for $50 or less.
c. All insured parcels, regardless of insurance amount, must be postmarked unless a postage meter stamp or permit imprint is used to pay postage.
Exhibit 2.3 Insurance Endorsements, Form 3813-P
(Amend 2.4 by adding requirements for privately printed Form 3813-P to read as follows:)
If authorized, a mailer may use a privately printed Form 3813-P, Receipt for Insured Mail, for domestic mail only. The privately printed form must be nearly identical in design and color to the USPS form with a barcode and human readable numbers that meet the USPS specifications in Publication 109. A minimum of three preproduction samples must be submitted to the business mail entry manager serving the mailer's location for review by the mailpiece design analyst. Once approved, the mailer must print sample labels with barcodes to be certified under the technical requirements in Publication 109.
(Delete 1.4 and 1.5. Renumber 1.6 as 1.4.)
(Add new 2.4 and 2.5. Renumber current 2.4 as 2.6.)
Return receipt for merchandise mail must bear a barcoded brown Form 3804 (see Exhibit 2.4). The label part of the form and the endorsement “Return Receipt Requested” must be placed above the delivery address and to the right of the return address, or to the left of the delivery address on parcels.
If authorized, a mailer may use a privately printed Form 3804, Return Receipt for Merchandise. The privately printed form must be nearly identical in design and color to the USPS form with a barcode and human readable numbers that meet the USPS specifications in Publication 109. A minimum of three preproduction samples must be submitted to the business mail entry manager serving the mailer's location for review by the mailpiece design analyst. Once approved, the mailer must print sample labels with barcodes to be certified under the technical requirements in Publication 109.
(Amend 2.1 by adding reference to the barcode requirements to read as follows:)
Mailers must complete barcoded Form 3816, COD Mailing and Delivery Receipt (see Exhibit 2.1), and attach it either above the delivery address and to the right of the return address, or to the left of the delivery address on parcels. If more than three articles are sent at a time, the mailer may use Form 3816-AS, COD Mailing and Delivery Receipt.
(Add new Exhibit 2.1:)
(Label will appear in DMM.)
(Amend title of 3.2 to read as follows:)
(Revise 3.2 to read as follows:)
A mailer who regularly mails a large volume of COD mail must ensure that a unique COD number is used for each article mailed.
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 401, 404, 407, 408.
2. Amend the following sections of the International Mail Manual (IMM) as set forth below:
(Amend heading and text of 324.11 to read as follows:)
All international parcels must be numbered. PS Form 3813-P, Receipt for Insured Mail—Domestic-International (label), provides a numbered insurance label for the parcel and an identically numbered mailing receipt for the sender. The receipt is issued to the sender as proof of mailing and proof of payment of insurance fee. For volume mailers, use PS Form 3877, Firm Mailing Book for Accountable Mail, as sender's receipt. Only labels printed by the Postal Service may be used on international insured mail.
(Amend heading and text of 334.11 to read as follows:)
A receipt is issued for registered mail when it is accepted. For individual transactions, PS Form 3806, Receipt for Registered Mail, is used. When an average of three or more items are presented for registration at one time, PS Form 3877, Firm Mailing Book for Accountable Mail, may be used (see DMM S911.3.8). The registered number is determined by Label 200, Registered Mail, a preprinted, self-adhesive label with a number series of nine digits preceded by a Service Type Code of two alpha characters and followed by the Country Code of two alpha characters “US.” Only labels printed by the Postal
(Amend heading and text of 385.41 to read as follows:)
PS Form 8099, Receipt for Recorded Delivery, is used for recorded delivery. Only labels printed by the Postal Service may be used on recorded delivery mail.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
This document announces the effective date of rules published in the
The amendments to 47 CFR 25.137 published at 64 FR 61791 became effective on December 22, 1999.
Steven Spaeth, International Bureau, (202) 418-1539.
1. On October 29, 1999, the Commission released a First Order on Reconsideration, a summary of which was published in the
2. The
Satellites.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Request for comments.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is requesting public comment on its proposed high-level guidelines for developing performance-based activities. The guidelines would be used to assess NRC regulatory activities for performance-based approaches. Specifically, the guidelines are designed to assess whether candidate regulatory activities are amenable to a performance-based approach; identify those regulatory activities that should utilize performance-based approaches based on opportunities for regulatory improvement; and ensure consistency with the NRC's existing high-level regulatory goals and principles. Before it uses these proposed high-level guidelines, the staff plans to hold public meetings to obtain stakeholder input and to meet with the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) and/or Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) to obtain their feedback on the guidelines.
The comment period expires March 24, 2000. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
Written comments may be sent to: David L. Meyer, Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T-6D59, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Hand deliver comments to 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on federal workdays.
You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking website through the NRC home page (http://www.nrc.gov). This site provides the capability to upload comments as files (any format), if your web browser supports that function. For information about the interactive rulemaking website, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-5905 (e-mail: CAG@nrc.gov).
Documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are also available electronically at the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at
N. Prasad Kadambi, (301) 415-5896, Internet: npk@nrc.gov of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
In the Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) to SECY-99-176, “Plans for Pursuing Performance-Based Initiatives,” issued on September 13, 1999, the Commission directed the staff to develop high-level guidelines to identify and assess the viability of candidate performance-based activities. Among other things, the Commission directed the staff to develop the guidelines with input from stakeholders and program offices, and to include discussion on how risk information might assist in the development of performance-based initiatives.
This
The staff plans to hold a public meeting to obtain feedback on the proposed high-level guidelines for performance-based activities. The public meeting is scheduled for March 1, 2000, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., in the auditorium at the NRC headquarters (Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852). The public should be aware that another meeting concerning efforts to risk-inform 10 CFR Part 50 is scheduled on February 24, 2000. That meeting, focused on reactors, will also consider performance-based revisions to 10 CFR Part 50 based on the high-level guidelines discussed in this FRN.
The meeting being noticed here will focus on the application of high-level guidelines to all regulatory activities (of which 10 CFR Part 50 would be a part) so as to make them more performance-based. This meeting is scheduled to occur 15 days prior to the expiration of the comment period mentioned above. This will allow for an exchange of views among stakeholders and the NRC staff. This interaction should be beneficial to the meeting participants in the development of written public comments.
This meeting is open to the general public to observe or to participate by making remarks; however, advance registration by February 1, 2000 is recommended. To register for attendance or to present prepared remarks, please contact N. Prasad Kadambi, USNRC, telephone: (301) 415-5896; facsimile: (301) 415-5160; internet: npk@nrc.gov.
The high-level guidelines identified in this FRN are intended to be applied to future regulatory initiatives. As the effort to risk-inform regulatory activities (for example, in the reactors and materials areas) is performed, the high-level guidelines will be used to identify activities which can be made more performance-based. It should be noted that regulatory activities that cannot be made risk-informed could still be made more performance-based. In addition, candidates for performance-based activities may also be identified as a result of other mechanisms such as proposed changes arising from stakeholder input or from petitions for
The fundamental basis for developing these guidelines has been the SRM to SECY-98--44, “White Paper on Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Regulation,”
• A regulation can be either prescriptive or performance-based.
• A performance-based regulatory approach establishes performance and results as the primary basis for regulatory decision making.
• Four attributes are identified which characterize a performance-based approach. These attributes, as discussed below, form an important part of the high-level guidelines which are being proposed herein.
• A performance-based approach can be implemented with or without the use of risk insights.
The proposed high-level guidelines are to be used to evaluate potential performance-based regulatory initiatives. When the guidelines are finalized, they will be incorporated into NRC procedures and policy documents used by staff in conducting day-to-day activities (
The following proposed guidelines are being proposed such that they can be applied in the reactor, materials, and waste arenas. The nature of the regulated activity would determine which guidelines apply and the extent of the application.
The NRC will apply the following guidelines (which are based on the four attributes in the White Paper) to assess whether a more performance-based approach is viable for any given new regulatory initiative. This assessment would be applied on a case-by-case basis and would be based on an integrated consideration of the individual guidelines. The guidelines are listed below:
• Measurable (or calculable) parameters to monitor acceptable plant and licensee performance exist or can be developed.
• For regulatory application, a parameter measured directly is preferred, although a calculation may also be acceptable; it should also be directly related to the safety objective of the regulatory activity being considered. For example, the sub-cooling margin available in the reactor coolant must be calculated from the coolant's pressure and temperature, which are monitored directly.
• Preferable parameters are those which licensees can readily access, or are currently accessing, in real time. For example, monitoring of radiological effluents at some facilities is done in real time. However, parameters monitored periodically to address postulated or design basis conditions, such as monitoring occupational radiological doses, may also be used.
• Objective criteria to assess performance exist or can be developed.
• Objective criteria are established based on risk insights, deterministic analyses and/or performance history.
• Licensees would have flexibility in meeting the established performance criteria when a performance-based approach is adopted.
• Programs and processes used to achieve the established performance criteria would be at the licensee's discretion.
• A framework exists or can be developed such that performance criteria, if not met, will not result in an immediate safety concern.
• A sufficient safety margin exists.
• Time is available for taking corrective action to avoid the safety concern.
• The licensee is capable of detecting and correcting performance degradation.
If a more performance-based approach is deemed to be viable based on the guidelines in (A) above, then the regulatory activity would be evaluated against the following set of guidelines to determine whether, on balance, after an integrated consideration of these guidelines, there are opportunities for regulatory improvement:
• Maintain safety, protect the environment and the common defense and security.
• The level of conservatism and uncertainty in the supporting analyses would be assessed to ensure adequate safety margins.
• Increase public confidence.
• An assessment would be made to determine if the emphasis on results and objective criteria (characteristics of a performance-based approach) can increase public confidence.
• Increase effectiveness, efficiency and realism of the NRC activities and decision-making.
• Reduce unnecessary regulatory burden.
• A reasonable test shows an overall net benefit results from moving to a performance-based approach.
• A reasonable test would begin with a qualitative approach to evaluate whether there is merit in changing the existing regulatory framework. When this question is approached from the perspective of existing practices in a mature industry, stakeholder support for change may need to be obtained.
• If stakeholder input indicates that a change in regulatory practice is likely to be expensive, a much closer examination of the benefits would be warranted before such a change is pursued.
• A simplified definition of the overall net benefit (such as net reduction in worker radiation exposure) may be appropriate for weighing the immediate implications of a proposed change.
• The performance-based approach can be incorporated into the regulatory framework.
• The regulatory framework includes the regulation in the Code of Federal Regulations, the associated Regulatory Guide, NUREG, Standard Review Plan, Technical Specification, or inspection guidance. A feasible performance-based approach would be one which can be directed specifically at changing one, some, or all of these components.
• The performance-based approach would accommodate new technology.
• The incentive to consider a performance-based approach may arise from development of new technologies (such as advanced non-destructive evaluation techniques) as well as difficulty stemming from technological changes in finding spare components and parts.
• Advanced technologies may provide more economical solutions to a regulatory issue, justifying consideration of a performance-based approach.
A proposed change to a more performance-based approach needs to be consistent and coherent with other overriding goals, principles and approaches involving the NRC's regulatory process. The main sources of these principles are the Principles of Good Regulation, the Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Policy Statement, the
The staff's proposed high-level guidelines reflect a measure of specificity designed to stimulate reactions, concerns, and views on the more detailed consideration or underpinnings of a set of high-level guidelines. In no way should this specificity be construed as an indication that the NRC has established any firm position regarding these guidelines. The NRC invites advice and recommendations from all interested persons on all aspects of its proposal. In addition, comments and supporting reasons are particularly requested in the following areas:
(1) Clarity and specificity of the guidelines;
a. Are the proposed guidelines appropriate and clear?
b. Are there additional guidelines that would improve clarity and specificity?
c. How does the “high-level” nature of the guidelines affect the clarity and specificity of the guidelines?
(2) Implementation of the guidelines;
a. What guidelines, if any, are mandatory for an activity to qualify as a performance-based initiative?
b. What is the best way to implement these guidelines?
c. How should the Backfit Rule apply to the implementation of performance-based approaches?
d. Should these guidelines be applied to all types of activity,
e. Should these guidelines only be applied to
f. Will these guidelines be effective in determining whether we can make a regulatory initiative more performance-based? The staff proposes that these guidelines be added to our Management Directives such that whenever the NRC is involved in a rulemaking, or changing a regulatory guide or branch technical position, etc., we will consider the option of making it more performance-based.
(3) Establishment of objective performance criteria;
a. In moving to performance-based requirements, should the current level of conservatism be maintained or should introduction of more realism be attempted?
b. What level of conservatism (safety margin) needs to be built into a performance criterion to avoid facing an immediate safety concern if the criterion is not met?
c. Recognizing that performance criteria can be set at different levels in a hierarchy (
d. Who would be responsible for proposing and justifying the acceptance limits and adequacy of objective criteria?
e. What are examples of performance-based objectives that are not amenable to risk analyses such as PRA or Integrated Safety Assessment?
f. In the context of risk-informed regulation, to what extent should performance criteria account for potential risk from beyond-design-basis accidents (
(4) Identification and use of measurable (or calculable) parameters;
a. How and by whom are performance parameters to be determined?
b. How do you decide what a relevant performance parameter is?
c. How much uncertainty can be tolerated in the measurable or calculated parameters?
(5) Pilot projects;
a. Would undertaking pilot projects in the reactor, materials, and waste arenas provide beneficial experience before finalizing the guidelines?
b. What should be the relationship between any such pilot projects and those being implemented to risk-inform the regulations?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd., Model 1125 Westwind Astra and Astra SPX series airplanes. This proposal would require replacement of the existing pneumatic de-icing boot pressure indicator switch with a newly designed switch. This proposal is prompted by an occurrence on a similar airplane model in which the pneumatic de-icing boot indication light may have provided the flightcrew with misleading information as to the proper functioning of the de-icing boots. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent ice accumulation on the airplane leading edges, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.
Comments must be received by February 23, 2000.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 99-NM-360-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Information concerning this proposal may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
Norman B. Martenson, Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2110; fax (425) 227-1149.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 99-NM-360-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 99-NM-360-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
On December 26, 1989, a British Aerospace Jetstream Model BA-3101 series airplane impacted the ground approximately 400 feet short of the runway while executing an instrument landing system (ILS) approach. The accident occurred at the Tri-Cities Airport, Pasco, Washington. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the probable cause of the accident was the flightcrew's decision to continue an unstabilized ILS approach that led to a stall, most likely of the horizontal stabilizer, and loss of control at low altitude. Contributing to the stall and loss of control was the accumulation of ice on the leading edge of the wing and the horizontal stabilizer, which degraded the aerodynamic performance of the airplane.
One result of the NTSB investigation was the determination that a flight deck wing de-icing light illuminated at a lower pressure than the pressure required to fully inflate the de-icing boots.
Based on an NTSB Safety Recommendation, the FAA reviewed the pneumatic de-icing boot system designs for airplanes operated under parts 121 and 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations to ensure that the pneumatic pressure threshold at which each de-icing boot indication light is designed to illuminate is sufficient pressure for effective operation of the pneumatic de-icing boots. The FAA has determined that the pneumatic de-icing boot pressure indicator switch located on the flight deck of Model 1125 Westwind Astra and Astra SPX series airplanes may allow the flight deck indication light to illuminate at a lower pressure [13 pounds per square inch gage (psig)] than the pressure required to fully inflate the de-icing boots (15 psig). This condition, if not corrected, could result in ice accumulation on the airplane leading edges, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.
This airplane model is manufactured in Israel and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. The FAA has determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, the proposed AD would require that the existing pneumatic de-icing boot pressure indicator switch be replaced with a switch that activates the indicator light at 15 psig. The action would be required to be accomplished in accordance with a method approved by the FAA.
The FAA estimates that 59 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD. Since the manufacturer has not yet developed a specific modification commensurate with the requirements of this proposal, the FAA is unable at this time to provide specific information as to the number of work hours or cost of parts that would be required to accomplish the proposed modification. As indicated earlier in this preamble, the FAA specifically invites the submission of comments and other data regarding the economic aspect of this proposal.
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
To prevent ice accumulation on the airplane leading edges, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 1 year after the effective date of this AD, replace the pneumatic de-icing boot pressure indicator switch with a switch that activates the flight deck indicator light at 15 pounds per square inch gage, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the International Branch, ANM-116.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the supersedure of an existing airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Raytheon Model BAe 125-800A, Model Hawker 800, and Model Hawker 800XP series airplanes, that currently requires the filling of two tooling holes on the firewalls of the left and right engine pylons with firewall sealant. This action would require the sealing of all unused (open) tooling holes on the firewalls of the left and right engine pylons, and would expand the applicability to include additional airplanes. This proposal is prompted by reports of additional unused (open) tooling holes, found at locations other than those currently addressed. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent an engine fire from moving to the fuselage and to the lines that carry flammable fluid that are located inboard of the firewall.
Comments must be received by February 23, 2000.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 99-NM-13-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Raytheon Aircraft Company, Manager Service Engineering, Hawker Customer Support Department, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, Kansas, 67201-0085. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas.
Jeffrey A. Pretz, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Propulsion Branch, ACE-116W, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone (316) 946-4153; fax (316) 946-4407.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 99-NM-13-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 99-NM-13-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
On November 22, 1996, the FAA issued AD 96-24-16, amendment 39-9840 (61 FR 66878, December 19, 1996), applicable to certain Raytheon Model BAe 125-800A, Model Hawker 800, and Model Hawker 800XP series airplanes, to require the filling of two tooling holes on the firewalls of the left and right engine pylons with firewall sealant. That action was prompted by notification from the manufacturer that these holes were not sealed during production. The requirements of that AD are intended to prevent an engine fire from moving to the fuselage and to the lines that carry flammable fluid that are located inboard of the firewall.
Since the issuance of that AD, reports have been received of airplanes with additional unused tooling holes, at locations other than those addressed in AD 96-24-16, on the left and right engine pylon firewalls, which may permit the passage of flames to the
Raytheon has issued Service Bulletin SB.54-1-3815B, Revision 1, dated May 1998, which describes procedures for the sealing of all unused tooling holes on the firewalls of the left and right engine pylons. Revision 1 of the service bulletin was issued to address additional unused engine pylon firewall tooling holes at locations other than those indicated in the original service bulletin, dated March 26, 1996. Accomplishment of the actions specified in Raytheon Service Bulletin SB.54-1-3815B, Revision 1, is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design, the proposed AD would supersede AD 96-24-16 to require the sealing of all unused tooling holes on the firewalls of the left and right engine pylons. The actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with Raytheon Service Bulletin SB.54-1-3815B, Revision 1, described previously.
The applicability of the proposed AD has been expanded to include Model BAe 125-800B series airplanes, which have received FAA type certification and have a similar design to airplanes subject to the requirements of AD 96-24-16.
There are approximately 340 Model BAe 125-800A and BAe 125-800B, Model Hawker 800, and Model Hawker 800XP series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 221 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD.
The actions that are currently required by AD 96-24-16, and retained in this AD, take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions on U.S. operators is estimated to be $120 per airplane.
The new actions that are proposed in this AD action would take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed requirements of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $26,520, or $120 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the current or proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent an engine fire from moving to the fuselage and to the lines that carry flammable fluid that are located inboard of the firewall, accomplish the following:
(a) For airplanes identified in AD 96-24-16, amendment 39-9840: Within 6 months after January 27, 1997 (the effective date of AD 96-24-16), fill the two, unused tooling holes in the firewalls of the left and right engine pylons, in accordance with Raytheon Service Bulletin SB.54-1-3815B, dated March 26, 1996, or Raytheon Service Bulletin SB.54-1-3815B, Revision 1, dated May 1998. After the effective date of this AD, only Revision 1 of this service bulletin shall be used.
(b) For all airplanes: Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, fill all unused tooling holes in the left and right engine pylon firewalls with firewall sealant, in accordance with Raytheon Service Bulletin SB.54-1-3815B, Revision 1, dated May 1998.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ACE-116W, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Wichita ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Wichita ACO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections §§ 21.197 and
Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 18, 2000.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to CFM International (CFMI) CFM56-2, -2A, -2B, -3, -3B, -3C, -5, -5B, -5C series turbofan engines. This proposal would require initial and repetitive visual inspections of the fuel pump filter cover helicoil inserts and bolts for damage, and, if necessary, repair or replacement with serviceable parts. This proposal also would require the installation of new fuel pumps that incorporate an improved filter cover retention design (D-bolts) as terminating action to the inspections. This proposal is prompted by reports that fuel pump filter cover helicoil inserts have loosened or pulled out. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent fuel leakage from between the fuel pump filter cover and gear housing, which could result in an engine fire and damage to the airplane.
Comments must be received by February 23, 2000.
Submit comments to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 99-NE-40-AD, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: “9-ane-adcomment@faa.gov”. Comments sent via the Internet must contain the docket number in the subject line. Comments may be inspected at this location between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from CFM International, Technical Publications Department, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; telephone (513) 552-2981, fax (513) 552-2816. This information may be examined at the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA.
James Rosa, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299; telephone (781) 238-7152, fax (781) 238-7199.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 99-NE-40-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 99-NE-40-AD, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has received reports of fuel leakage from between the fuel pump filter cover and gear housing on CFM International (CFMI) CFM56-2, -2A, -2B, -3, -3B, -3C, -5, -5B, -5C series turbofan engines.
The investigation revealed that fuel pump filter cover helicoil inserts have loosened or pulled out. The FAA has identified excessive torque during the installation of fuel filter cover bolts as the cause.
The manufacturer has introduced an improved filter cover retention design using a captured D-bolt and special locking nut that reduces the potential for filter cover bolt over torque damage and loss of bolted joint strength.
This condition, if not corrected, could result in fuel leakage from between the fuel pump filter cover and gear housing, which could result in an engine fire and damage to the airplane.
The FAA has reviewed and approved the technical contents of the following CFMI Service Bulletins (SBs), that describe procedures for visual inspections of inserts and bolts for damage, and provide criteria for rejection of hardware and necessary replacement with serviceable parts: CFM56-2 SB 73-110, Revision 2, dated April 29, 1999; CFM56
The FAA has also reviewed and approved the technical contents of the following CFMI SBs, that describe procedures for removal and replacement of fuel pumps (D-bolt fix): CFM56-2 SB 73--A113, dated August 17, 1999; CFM56-2A SB 73-A058, dated August 17, 1999; CFM56-2B SB 73-A079, dated August 17, 1999; CFM56-3/3B/3C SB 73-A129, dated August 17, 1999; CFM56-5 SB 73-A143, dated June 18, 1999; CFM56-5B SB 73-A062, dated June 18, 1999; CFM56-5C SB 73-A078, dated June 21, 1999.
The referenced SBs describe a one-time inspection. This AD requires repetitive inspections at every filter change.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or
This AD would also require the installation of new fuel pumps that incorporate an improved filter cover retention design (D-bolts) as a terminating action to the inspections. The actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with the SBs described previously.
There are approximately 8,781 engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 4,063 engines installed on aircraft of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 0.3 work hours per engine to accomplish the proposed inspections and 3 work hours per engine to accomplish the proposed D-bolt installation, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. The FAA therefore estimates the total cost to US operators of this proposed rule is $73,134 for one inspection and $4,958,658 for hardware/D-bolt installation.
This proposal does not have federalism implications, as defined in Executive Order No. 13132, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, the FAA has not consulted with state authorities prior to publication of this proposal.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
This airworthiness directive (AD) applies to each engine identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For engines that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent fuel leakage from between the fuel pump filter cover and gear housing, which could result in an engine fire and damage to the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Perform initial and repetitive visual inspections of fuel pump filter cover helicoil inserts and bolts for damage, as follows:
(1) Initially inspect at the next fuel filter replacement, but not to exceed 200 cycles-in-service (CIS) after either the effective date of this AD or the last inspection, whichever occurs first, in accordance with section 2., Accomplishment Instructions, of the applicable CFMI Service Bulletins (SBs) listed in paragraph (a)(4) of this AD.
(2) Thereafter, inspect at each fuel filter replacement in accordance with section 2., Accomplishment Instructions, of the applicable CFMI SBs listed in paragraph (a)(4) of this AD.
(3) If damage equals or exceeds the reject criteria stated in section 2., Accomplishment Instructions, of the SBs listed in paragraph (a)(4) of this AD, prior to further flight remove the fuel pump from service and replace with serviceable part, or repair the helicoil, in accordance with section 2., Accomplishment Instructions, of the SBs listed in paragraphs (a)(4) or (b), as applicable, of this AD.
(4) Inspect, and replace, if necessary, in accordance with the following CFMI SBs, as applicable:
• CFM56-2 SB 73-110, Revision 2, dated April 29, 1999.
• CFM56-2A SB 73-055, Revision 1, dated April 29, 1999.
• CFM56-2B SB 73-076, Revision 1, dated April 29, 1999.
• CFM56-3/3B/3C SB 73-126, Revision 1, dated April 29, 1999.
• CFM56-5 SB 73-136, Revision 2, dated April 29, 1999.
• CFM56-5B SB 73-056, Revision 2, dated April 29, 1999.
• CFM56-5C SB 73-073, Revision 2, dated April 29, 1999.
(b) Remove and replace the fuel pump at the next engine, gearbox, or fuel pump shop visit, but not later than 5 years from the effective date of this AD, in accordance with section 2., Accomplishment Instructions, of the following CFMI SBs, as applicable:
• CFM56-2 SB 73-A113, dated August 17, 1999.
• CFM56-2A SB 73-A058, dated August 17, 1999.
• CFM56-2B SB 73-A079, dated August 17, 1999.
• CFM56-3/3B/3C SB 73-A129, dated August 17, 1999.
• CFM56-5 SB 73-A143, dated June 18, 1999.
• CFM56-5B SB 73-A062, dated June 18, 1999.
• CFM56-5C SB 73-A078, dated June 21, 1999.
Installation of a new fuel pump with a new filter cover attachment in accordance with this paragraph constitutes terminating action to the inspections required by paragraph (a) of this AD.
(c) For the purpose of this AD, a serviceable part is defined as a part with gear housing helicoil inserts that meet the inspection requirements of the applicable CFMI SBs listed in paragraph (a)(4) of this AD. A serviceable part is also defined as a part that has been modified in accordance
(d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Engine Certification Office (ECO). Operators shall submit their request through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, ECO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this airworthiness directive, if any, may be obtained from the ECO.
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the inspection requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on January 14, 2000.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Extension of comment period.
On November 26, 1999, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) published in the
The Commission has determined to extend the comment period for thirty days in order to insure that an adequate opportunity is provided for submission of meaningful comments.
Written comments must be received on or before February 24, 2000.
Comments on the proposal should be sent to Jean A. Webb, Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Center, 1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581. Comments may be sent by facsimile transmission to (202) 418-5521, or by e-mail to secretary @cftc.gov. Reference should be made to “Procedure for the Review of Contract Market Rules”.
David P. Van Wagner, Associate Director, Division of Trading and Markets, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581. Telephone Number: (202) 418-5490. Facsimile Number: (202) 418-5536. Electronic Mail: tm@cftc.gov.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Proposed rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing regulations to exempt marketing applications for certain antibiotic drug products from regulatory provisions governing marketing exclusivity and patents. The proposal would apply to marketing applications for drug products containing an antibiotic drug that was the subject of a marketing application received by FDA before November 21, 1997, the effective date of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (Modernization Act). This action is intended to bring the agency's regulations into conformance with certain transitional provisions of the Modernization Act. FDA is including in the proposed regulation a list of the active moieties of antibiotic drugs that were the subjects of marketing applications received by FDA before November 21, 1997.
Written comments by April 24, 2000.
Submit written comments to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Wayne H. Mitchell, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-7), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-594-2041.
On November 21, 1997, the President signed the Modernization Act (Public Law 105-115). Section 125(b) of the Modernization Act repealed section 507 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 357 (1996)). Section 507 was the section of the act under which the agency certified antibiotic drugs. Section 125(b) of the Modernization Act also made conforming amendments to the act.
In the
Section 125(d)(1) of the Modernization Act provides that marketing applications for antibiotic drugs that were approved under former section 507 of the act will be considered to have been submitted and approved under the new drug application (NDA) submission and approval provisions found at section 505(b) and (c) of the act (21 U.S.C. 355(b) and (c)). If the marketing application was an approved abbreviated antibiotic drug application, it will be considered to have been submitted and approved under the abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) provisions found in section 505(j) of the act.
The Modernization Act also exempts certain antibiotic-related drug marketing applications from the marketing exclusivity and patent provisions found
Specifically, section 125(d)(2) of the Modernization Act provides that marketing applications for drug products that contain prerepeal antibiotic drugs are not subject to the following provisions of section 505 of the act:
• The third and fourth sentences of section 505(b)(1) (requiring submission of patent information in NDA's).
• Section 505(b)(2)(A) (requiring that 505(b)(2) applications contain patent certifications).
• Section 505(b)(2)(B) (requiring that applications submitted under section 505(b)(2) of the act (505(b)(2) applications) contain a statement about relevant method of use patents).
• Section 505(b)(3) (requiring applicants submitting 505(b)(2) applications (505(b)(2) applicants) to provide notice to the patent owner and NDA holder of the certification of invalidity or noninfringement of a patent).
• Section 505(c)(2) (requiring submission of patent information if that information becomes available after an NDA is submitted).
• Section 505(c)(3) (providing for delayed effective dates of approval of 505(b)(2) applications under patent provisions of the act).
• Section 505(d)(6) (allowing FDA to refuse to approve an application that does not contain required patent information).
• Section 505(e)(4) (requiring FDA to withdraw approval of an application if the applicant refuses to submit required patent information).
• Section 505(j)(2)(A)(vii) and (j)(2)(A)(viii) (requiring ANDA's to contain patent certifications or other patent information).
• Section 505(j)(2)(B) (requiring ANDA applicants to provide notice to the patent owner and NDA holder of the certification of invalidity or noninfringement of a patent).
• Section 505(j)(5)(B) (providing for delayed effective dates of approval of ANDA's under patent provisions of the act).
• Section 505(j)(5)(D) (describing submission of and effective dates of approval of ANDA's under marketing exclusivity provisions of the act).
Section 125(d)(3) of the Modernization Act authorizes FDA to make available to the public the established name of each antibiotic drug that was the subject of a marketing application received by FDA under former section 507 of the act before November 21, 1997.
This proposed rule would exempt from the regulatory requirements that correspond to the statutory requirements described above, applications or abbreviated applications in which the drug product that is the subject of the application contains a pre-repeal antibiotic drug. Specifically, under the proposed rule, the following provisions found in part 314 (21 CFR part 314) would not apply to marketing applications for drug products that contain pre-repeal antibiotic drugs:
• Sections 314.50(h) and 314.53 (relating to submission of patent information in NDA's).
• Section 314.50(i) (relating to patent certifications and statements about relevant method of use patents in 505(b)(2) applications).
• Section 314.52 (relating to notices to the patent owner and NDA holder of certification of invalidity or noninfringement of a patent by 505(b)(2) applicants).
• Section 314.94(a)(12) (relating to patent certifications and statements about relevant method of use patents in ANDA's).
• Section 314.95 (relating to notices to the patent owner and NDA holder of certification of invalidity or noninfringement of a patent by ANDA applicants).
• Section 314.107(b) through (f) (relating to delayed effective dates of approval of ANDA's and 505(b)(2) applications under patent provisions of the act).
• Section 314.108(b) (relating to submission of and effective dates of approval of ANDA's and 505(b)(2) applications under marketing exclusivity provisions of the act).
• Section 314.125(b)(18) (relating to refusal to approve an NDA that does not contain required patent information).
• Section 314.150(a)(2)(v) (relating to withdrawal of approval of an NDA if the applicant refuses to submit required patent information).
The brief parenthetical descriptions of the various provisions of part 314 in this section and in the codified portion of this proposed rule (as well as the similar descriptions of provisions of section 505 of the act given in section I of this document) are provided merely as aids to the reader in understanding the scope of the proposed rule. They are not intended to have any regulatory significance and should not be understood to be statements of agency policy regarding the provisions they describe.
In applying section 125(d)(2) of the Modernization Act, the agency must determine whether a drug that is the subject of an NDA or ANDA contains a pre-repeal antibiotic drug. As described in section I, the Modernization Act specifies patent listing and exclusivity provisions that will not apply when the drug that is the subject of any application contains an antibiotic drug, and the antibiotic drug was the subject of any application received under section 507 of the act prior to November 21, 1997. Section 125(d)(3) of the Modernization Act also authorizes FDA to publish the established name of each antibiotic drug that was the subject of any application for marketing received by FDA under former section 507 of the act.
The term “antibiotic drug,” as used in section 125(d) of the Modernization Act, is defined as:
* * * any drug (except drugs for use in animals other than humans) composed wholly or partly of any kind of penicillin, streptomycin, chlortetracycline, chloramphenicol, bacitracin, or any other drug intended for human use containing any quantity of any chemical substance which is produced by a micro-organism and which has the capacity to inhibit or destroy micro-organisms in dilute solution (including a chemically synthesized equivalent of any such substance) or any derivative thereof.
Thus, the term “antibiotic drug” includes not only the “chemical substance which is produced by a
For this reason, and the reasons discussed below, the determination under section 125(d) of the Modernization Act of whether a drug contains a pre-repeal antibiotic depends on whether the drug that is the subject of a marketing application contains an active moiety that can be found in a pre-repeal antibiotic drug.
An active moiety is the molecule or ion responsible for physiological or pharmacological action, excluding appended portions that would cause the drug to be an ester, salt, or other noncovalent derivative of the molecule (see § 314.108(a)). FDA has consistently looked at active moieties to determine if the exclusivity protection granted to a drug product would allow a subsequent ANDA or application described in section 505(b)(2) of the act to be submitted or approved.
The agency's primary regulation governing marketing exclusivity is found at § 314.108. This regulation, which was proposed in the
This approach is also consistent with FDA's drug classification system, which assesses and classifies NDA's based upon the characteristics of the active ingredient or ingredients of the product. (See 54 FR 28872 at 28897.)
The language of section 125(d)(2) of the Modernization Act likewise supports the conclusion that Congress did not intend to confer exclusivity on, or require patent listing for, products that represent minor or incremental variations on pre-repeal antibiotic drugs. As discussed above, Congress in section 125(d)(2) of the Modernization Act chose to exclude all drugs containing pre-repeal “antibiotic drugs,” a term that by definition includes the active drug substance and “any derivative thereof” (see section 201(jj) of the act (21 U.S.C. 321(jj)).
Accordingly, the agency is proposing to implement section 125(d)(2) of the Modernization Act by relying on a comparison of active moieties to determine whether the drug that is the subject of an NDA contains a pre-repeal antibiotic drug. NDA's for products that contain, for example, a salt of a pre-repeal antibiotic drug, or that propose such things as a new manufacturing process, new dosage form, or new use of a pre-repeal antibiotic drug, will be subject to the exceptions listed in section 125(d)(2) of the Modernization Act and proposed § 314.109(a).
To help interested persons determine which drug products would be exempt from the marketing exclusivity and patent provisions described above, FDA will maintain in the Code of Federal Regulations a list of the names of each pre-repeal active moiety. A proposed version of that list is included as § 314.109(b).
The list will provide all of the information required for an interested person to determine whether a marketing application is for a drug that contains a pre-repeal antibiotic drug. The list is intended to be comprehensive, but the inadvertent omission of an active moiety found in a pre-repeal antibiotic drug will not affect the regulatory status of a marketing application for a drug that contains that active moiety; the application will still be exempt from the statutory and regulatory requirements regarding marketing exclusivity and patents described above. A person who believes that a drug has been improperly included or omitted from the list should submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments suggesting amendments to the list, along with any information that supports the suggested amendments. Comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.30(h) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
FDA has examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 12866 classifies a rule as significant if it meets any one of a number of specified conditions, including having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or adversely affecting in a material way a sector of the economy, competition, or jobs, or if it raises novel legal or policy issues. The agency believes that this proposed rule is consistent with the regulatory philosophy and principles identified in the Executive Order. Because, the proposed rule is a significant regulatory action as defined by the Executive Order and it was subject to review under the Executive Order.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that if a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the agency must analyze regulatory options to minimize the economic impact on small entities. The agency certifies, for the reasons discussed below, that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, no further analysis is required.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requires an agency to prepare a budgetary impact statement before issuing any rule likely to result in a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. Exempting applications for certain antibiotic drugs from regulatory provisions dealing with marketing exclusivity and patent information will not result in any
This proposed rule is intended to bring FDA's regulations governing the new drug approval process into conformance with the transitional provisions found in section 125(d)(2) of the Modernization Act. This proposed rule is not intended to create any rights or responsibilities that are not found in the statute. For these reasons, the agency believes that this proposed rule is necessary and that it is consistent with the principles of Executive Order 12866; that it is not a significant regulatory action under that Executive Order; that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and that it is not likely to result in an annual expenditure in excess of $100 million.
FDA tentatively concludes that this proposed rule contains no collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
Interested persons may, on or before April 24, 2000, submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments regarding this proposal. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the office above between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Drugs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, it is proposed that 21 CFR part 314 be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 314 is revised to read as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 355, 371, 374, 379e; sec. 125(d), Pub. L. 105-115, 111 Stat. 2296.
2. Add § 314.109 to subpart D to read as follows:
(a) The following regulatory provisions do not apply to any application or abbreviated application in which the drug that is the subject of the application or abbreviated application contains an antibiotic drug that has the same active moiety (as defined in § 314.108(a)) as an antibiotic drug that was the subject of a marketing application received by FDA under former section 507 of the act (21 U.S.C. 357 (1996)) before November 21, 1997:
(1) Sections 314.50(h) and 314.53 (relating to submission of patent information in applications).
(2) Section 314.50(i) (relating to patent certifications and statements about relevant method of use patents in 505(b)(2) applications).
(3) Section 314.52 (relating to notices of certification of invalidity or noninfringement of a patent by 505(b)(2) applicants).
(4) Section 314.94(a)(12) (relating to patent certifications and statements about relevant method of use patents in 505(j) applications).
(5) Section 314.95 (relating to notices of certification of invalidity or noninfringement of a patent by 505(j) applicants).
(6) Section 314.107(b) through (f) (relating to delayed effective dates of approval of 505(j) applications and 505(b)(2) applications under patent provisions of the act).
(7) Section 314.108(b) (relating to submission of and effective dates of approval of 505(j) applications and 505(b)(2) applications under marketing exclusivity provisions of the act).
(8) Section 314.125(b)(18) (relating to refusal to approve an application that does not contain required patent information).
(9) Section 314.150(a)(2)(v) (relating to withdrawal of approval of an application if the applicant refuses to submit required patent information).
(b) The following are the active moieties of antibiotic drugs that were the subject of marketing applications received by FDA under former section 507 of the act before November 21, 1997. The list is intended to be comprehensive, but the inadvertent omission of an active moiety will not affect the regulatory status of a marketing application for a drug product that contains that active moiety.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Proposed rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to amend certain references in various medical device regulations. The amendments would update the references in those regulations to various standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) to reflect the current standards designations. This proposed rule is a companion document to the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the
Submit written comments by April 10, 2000. If FDA receives no significant adverse comment on these various medical devices regulations within the specified comment period, the agency intends to publish in the
Submit written comments to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Philip L. Chao, Office of Policy, Planning, and Legislation (HF-23), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-3380.
The ASTM notified FDA that ASTM had been working on a project to help Federal agencies update and maintain the ASTM standards that are referenced in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR's). Use of consensus standards such as those developed by ASTM is consistent with the purposes of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, signed into law on March 7, 1996 (Public Law 104-113). As part of the ASTM project, ASTM informed FDA that many ASTM standards cited in FDA's food additive and device regulations were out-of-date and provided a list of standards with their current year designations. ASTM listed 58 different regulations which, in its opinion, needed to be updated.
FDA examined the ASTM's documentation and, upon closer examination, found that 56 of the 58 different FDA regulations identified by ASTM cited obsolete ASTM standards or that, in some cases, cited ASTM standards that had been withdrawn. Most regulations involved direct and indirect food additives, although two of the affected regulations involved medical devices. Consequently, through this rulemaking, FDA is proposing to revise the device regulations identified by ASTM that contain obsolete or withdrawn ASTM standards to reflect
This rule is proposing to amend §§ 801.410(d)(2) and 801.430(f)(2) (21 CFR 801.410(d)(2) and 801.430(f)(2)) by incorporating by reference into the regulation the updated standard as follows:
• Section 801.410
• Section 801.430
In addition, FDA is updating in § 801.410(d)(2) the address for the American Society for Testing Materials.
This proposed rule is a companion to the direct final rule published in the final rule section of this issue of the
If FDA receives any significant adverse comment regarding this rule, FDA will publish a document withdrawing the direct final rule within 30 days after the comment period ends and will proceed to respond to all of the comments under this companion proposed rule using usual notice-and-comment procedures. The comment period for this companion proposed rule runs concurrently with the direct final rule's comment period. Any comments received under this companion proposed rule will be considered as comments regarding the direct final rule.
A significant adverse comment is defined as a comment that explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without change. In determining whether a significant adverse comment is sufficient to terminate a direct final rulemaking, FDA will consider whether the comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. Comments that are frivolous, insubstantial, or outside the scope of the rule will not be considered significant or adverse under this procedure. For example, a comment recommending a rule change in addition to the rule will not be considered a significant adverse comment unless the comment states why the rule would be ineffective without the additional change. In addition, if a significant adverse comment applies to an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and that provision can be severed from the remainder of the rule, FDA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of a significant adverse comment.
The agency has determined, under 21 CFR 25.30(i) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
FDA has examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 12866 classifies a rule as significant if it meets any one of a number of specified conditions, including having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or adversely affecting in a material way a sector of the economy, competition, or jobs, or if it raises novel legal or policy issues. The revised ASTM standard citations that FDA is adopting in the medical device regulations reflect minor changes to the currently listed methods in those regulations. The updated citations are the result of periodic reapprovals of long-standing test methods or standards and should have no impact on those who use the standard. Thus, the proposal is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, and so is not subject to review under the Executive Order.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant economic impact of a rule on small entities. The proposed rule, if finalized, would simply update ASTM citations used in various device regulations. The updated citations are the result of periodic re-approvals of long-standing ASTM test methods or standards and will have no significant adverse impact on those who use the ASTM standards. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, FDA certifies that the proposed rule will not impose any additional regulatory burdens on small entities.
FDA tentatively concludes that this proposed rule contains no collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
Interested persons may, on or before April 10, 2000, submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments regarding this proposal. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the office above between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Hearing aids, Incorporation by reference, Medical devices, Professional and patient labeling.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 801 continues to read as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 360i, 360j, 371, 374.
2. Section 801.410
3. Section 801.430
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing.
This document proposes, by cross-reference to temporary regulations, amendments to the final regulations concerning the Federal tax treatment of certain exchanges subject to section 367(b) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). The temporary regulations, published in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
Written comments must be received by April 24, 2000. Requests to speak (with outlines of oral comments) at the public hearing scheduled for April 20, 2000, must be submitted by March 31, 2000.
Send submissions to: CC:DOM:CORP:R (REG-116048-99), room 5228, Internal Revenue Service, POB 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. In the alternative, submissions may be hand delivered between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. to: CC:DOM:CORP:R (REG-116048-99), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. Alternatively, taxpayers may submit comments electronically via the Internet by selecting the “Tax Regs” option of the IRS Home Page, or by submitting comments directly to the IRS Internet site at: http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/tax—regs/regslist.html. The public hearing will be held in room 2615, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
Concerning the regulations, Mark D. Harris, (202) 622-3860 (not a toll-free number); concerning submissions and the hearing, Guy Traynor, (202) 622-7180 (not a toll-free number).
The collection of information contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). Comments on the collection of information should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies to the Internal Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, OP:FS:FP, Washington, DC 20224. Comments on the collection of information should be received by March 24, 2000. Comments are specifically requested concerning:
Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Internal Revenue Service, including whether the information will have practical utility;
The accuracy of the estimated burden associated with the proposed collection of information (see below);
How the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected may be enhanced;
How the burden of complying with the proposed collection of information may be minimized, including through the application of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of service to provide information.
The collection of information in this proposed regulation is in § 1.367(b)-3(b)(4). This information is required to properly make an election to include an amount in income that is different than the inclusion currently required under § 1.367(b)-3 of the final regulations. This information will be used to verify proper compliance with the section 367(b) regulations, including that the election provided herein was made and that the required adjustments will be made by all parties to the section 367(b) transaction. The collection of information is mandatory. The likely respondents are businesses or other for-profit institutions.
Estimated total annual reporting burden: 85 hours.
Estimated average annual burden hours per respondent: 4 hours, 15 minutes.
Estimated number of respondents: 20
Estimated annual frequency of responses: once
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
The text of those temporary regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. The preamble to the temporary regulations explains the proposed regulations.
Except as otherwise specified, these regulations are proposed to apply to section 367(b) exchanges that occur on or after the date final regulations are published in the
It has been determined that these regulations are not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It is hereby certified that the collection of information contained in these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based upon the fact that the number of section 367(b) exchanges that require reporting under these regulations is estimated to be only 20 per year. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required.
Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these proposed regulations will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written comments (preferably a signed original and eight (8) copies) that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and Treasury request comments on the clarity of the proposed regulation and how it may be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying.
A public hearing has been scheduled for April 20, 2000, beginning at 10 a.m., in room 2615, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the Internal Revenue Building lobby more than 15 minutes before the hearing starts.
The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing.
Persons that wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit timely written comments and an outline of the topics to be discussed and the time to be devoted to each topic by (preferably a signed original and eight (8) copies) March 31, 2000. However, comments not to be presented at the hearing must be submitted by April 24, 2000.
A period of 10 minutes will be allotted to each person for making comments.
An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be prepared after the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the agenda will be available free of charge at the hearing.
Drafting Information: The principal author of these regulations is Mark Harris of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Par. 2. Section 1.367(b)-3 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(4) [The text of this proposed addition is the same as the text of § 1.367(b)-3T(b)(4) published elsewhere in this issue of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The EPA proposes to determine that the Cincinnati-Hamilton moderate ozone nonattainment area (Cincinnati-Hamilton area) has attained the public health-based 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). If EPA takes final action on this proposal, the Cincinnati-Hamilton area will be redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The Cincinnati-Hamilton area includes the Ohio Counties of Hamilton, Butler, Clermont, and Warren and the Kentucky Counties of Boone, Campbell, and Kenton. This proposed determination is based on three years of complete, quality-assured, ambient air monitoring data for the 1996 to 1998 ozone seasons that demonstrate that the ozone NAAQS has been attained in the area. Preliminary ozone monitoring data for 1999 continue to show the area attaining the ozone NAAQS. On the basis of this determination, EPA is also determining that certain attainment demonstration requirements, along with certain other related requirements, of part D of Title 1 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) are not applicable to the Cincinnati-Hamilton area.
The EPA is also proposing to approve the State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's (OEPA) and the Commonwealth of Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet (Cabinet) requests to redesignate the Cincinnati-Hamilton
The EPA is also re-proposing to approve an exemption from the nitrogen oxides (NO
Comments on EPA's proposed action must be received by February 23, 2000.
Written comments should be addressed to:
Copies of the OEPA's and the Cabinet's submittals and other information are available for inspection during normal business hours at the following locations. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least 24 hours before the visiting day. Reference file OH 132, KY-116 and KY 84. Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Air Planning Branch, Regulatory Planning Section, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
William Jones, Environmental Scientist, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6058, (
B. Why is EPA taking this action?
C. What would be the effect of the redesignation?
D. What is the background for this action?
E. What are the redesignation review criteria?
F. What is EPA's analysis of the request?
G. Where is the public record and where do I send comments?
The EPA is proposing to determine that the Cincinnati-Hamilton moderate ozone nonattainment area has attained the NAAQS for ozone. The Cincinnati-Hamilton area includes the Ohio Counties of Hamilton, Butler, Clermont, and Warren and the Kentucky Counties of Boone, Campbell, and Kenton. On the basis of this determination, EPA is also determining that certain attainment demonstration requirements (section 172(c)(1)), along with certain other related requirements, of Part D of Title 1 of the CAA, specifically the section 172(c)(9) contingency measure requirement, the section 182(b)(1) attainment demonstration requirement and the 182(j) multi-state attainment demonstration requirement are not applicable to the Cincinnati-Hamilton area as long as it continues to attain the ozone NAAQS.
The EPA proposes to redesignate the area because three years of ambient air monitoring data demonstrate that the ozone NAAQS has been attained and the area has satisfied the other requirements for redesignation. The EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret provisions regarding attainment demonstrations, along with certain other related provisions, so as not to require State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions, as described further below, if an ozone nonattainment area subject to those requirements is monitoring attainment of the ozone standard (
The requirements of section 172(c)(1), 182(b)(1) and 182(j) concerning the submission of the ozone attainment demonstration and the requirements of section 172(c)(9) concerning contingency measures for reasonable further progress (RFP) or attainment will not be applicable to the area. This proposal does not revoke the 1-hour standard (see discussion in II (A) of this document.)
Subpart 2 of part D of Title I of the CAA contains various air quality planning and SIP submission requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. The EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret provisions regarding RFP and attainment demonstrations, along with certain other related provisions, so as not to require SIP submissions if an
The attainment demonstration requirements of section 182(b)(1) are that the plan provide for “such specific annual reductions in emissions * * * as necessary to attain the national primary ambient air quality standard by the attainment date applicable under the CAA.” If an area has in fact monitored attainment of the relevant NAAQS, EPA believes there is no need for an area to make a further submission containing additional measures to achieve attainment. This is also consistent with the interpretation of certain section 172(c) requirements provided by EPA in the General Preamble to Title I. As EPA stated in the Preamble, no other measures to provide for attainment would be needed by areas seeking redesignation to attainment since “attainment will have been reached” (57 FR 13564). Upon attainment of the NAAQS, the focus of state planning efforts shifts to the maintenance of the NAAQS and the development of a maintenance plan under section 175A.
Similar reasoning applies to other related provisions of subpart 2. The first of these are the contingency measure requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. The EPA has previously interpreted the contingency measure requirement of section 172(c)(9) as no longer being applicable once an area has attained the standard since those “contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date” (57 FR 13564).
The state must continue to operate an appropriate air quality monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, to verify the attainment status of the area. The air quality data relied upon to determine that the area is attaining the ozone standard must be consistent with 40 CFR part 58 requirements and other relevant EPA guidance and recorded in EPA's Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS).
The determinations made in this notice do not shield an area from future EPA action to require emissions reductions from sources in the area where there is evidence, such as photochemical grid modeling, showing that emissions from sources in the area contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other states with respect to the NAAQS (see section 110(a)(2)(D)). The EPA has authority under sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA to require such emission reductions if necessary and appropriate to deal with transport situations.
The EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for ozone (consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in AIRS) for the Cincinnati-Hamilton moderate ozone nonattainment area from the 1996 through 1998 ozone seasons. This data is summarized in Table 1 covering EPA's analysis of the redesignation request. Preliminary monitoring data for 1999 show the area continues to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. On the basis of this review, EPA determines that the area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard during the 1996-98 period, which is the most recent three-year time period of air quality monitoring data, and therefore is not required to submit an attainment demonstration, and a section 172(c)(9) contingency measure plan.
The official record for this proposed rule is located at the addresses in the
The EPA is proposing approval of the maintenance plan submitted by the OEPA and the Cabinet and redesignation of the Cincinnati-Hamilton moderate ozone nonattainment area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The Cincinnati-Hamilton area consists of the Ohio Counties of Butler, Warren, Clermont, and Hamilton and the Kentucky Counties of Boone, Campbell, and Kenton.
The Cincinnati-Hamilton area meets the redesignation and maintenance plan requirements of the CAA.
EPA issued a proposal to determine the 1-hour ozone NAAQS inapplicable to the Cincinnati-Hamilton area in light of the new 8-hour ozone NAAQS on June 10, 1999 (64 FR 110), when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion in
The redesignation would change the official designation of the Ohio Counties of Butler, Warren, Clermont, and Hamilton and the Kentucky Counties of Boone, Campbell, and Kenton from nonattainment to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard. It would also put into place a plan for maintaining the 1-hour ozone standard for the next 10 years. This plan includes contingency measures to correct any future violations of the 1-hour ozone standard.
The OEPA and the Cabinet submitted requests on August 16, 1999 and October 29, 1999, respectively, to redesignate the Ohio and Kentucky portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area from nonattainment to attainment for ozone.
Under section 107(d) of the 1977 amended CAA, the EPA promulgated the ozone attainment status for each geographic area of the country. All counties in the Cincinnati-Hamilton area were designated as an ozone nonattainment area in March 1978 (43 FR 8962). On November 15, 1990, the CAA Amendments of 1990 were enacted. Pursuant to section 107(d)(4)(A), on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694), the Ohio Counties of Butler,
During July of 1995, an ozone monitor in the area recorded an exceedance of the ozone standard resulting in a violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. As a result of the violation the area was no longer attaining the ozone air quality standard. On September 27, 1996 (61 FR 50718), EPA disapproved the redesignation request for the Kentucky portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area and on February 18, 1997 (62 FR 7194), EPA proposed to disapprove the redesignation request for the Ohio portion based on the area's violation of the ozone NAAQS. Both Ohio and Kentucky were not meeting the requirements for redesignation specified under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA during the time period when these actions were taken by EPA. The EPA will not respond to comments received on the February 18, 1997, proposed rulemaking, since that request is now moot, having been superseded by a new request. This subsequent request is the subject of this proposed rulemaking.
The Cincinnati-Hamilton area has since recorded three years of complete, quality-assured, ambient air quality monitoring data for the 1996 to 1998 ozone seasons, thereby demonstrating that the area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Preliminary ozone monitoring data for 1999 continue to show the area is attaining the ozone NAAQS. On July 2, 1999, EPA received a redesignation request from OEPA which supersedes its request submitted on November 14, 1994. On August 16, 1999, OEPA submitted additional information for the request and on December 22, 1999, EPA received the results of OEPA's public hearing on the proposed revision which was the final portion of the initial request. On October 29, 1999, EPA received a request from the Cabinet to parallel process the prehearing redesignation submittal. On December 13, 1999, the Cabinet submitted to EPA the final redesignation request including the Cabinet's public hearing results.
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation providing that: (1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the NAAQS; (2) The Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under Section 110(k); (3) The Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable state implementation plan and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) The Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175(A); and, (5) The State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.
The EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498) and supplemented on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). The EPA has provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in the following documents:
1. “Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,” Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994. (Nichols, October 1994)
2. “Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,” D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993.
3. “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after November 15, 1992,” Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993.
4. “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act Deadlines,” John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992. (Calcagni, October 1992)
5. “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992.
6. “Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Redesignations,” G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992.
7. State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498), April 16, 1992.
For ozone, an area may be considered attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.9 and appendix H, based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality assured monitoring data. A violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS occurs when the annual average number of expected daily exceedances is equal to or greater than 1.05 per year at a monitoring site. A daily exceedance occurs when the maximum hourly ozone concentration during a given day is 0.125 parts per million (ppm) or higher. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in AIRS. The monitors should have remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment.
The OEPA and the Cabinet submitted ozone monitoring data for the April through October ozone season from 1996 to 1998. Table 1 below summarizes the air quality data from 1996-1998.
This data has been quality assured and is recorded in AIRS. During the 1996 to 1998 time period, the Middletown, Grooms Road, Lebanon, and Covington monitors each recorded a total of 2.0 expected exceedances. This equates to 0.67 average expected exceedances per year and shows that the monitoring sites with the most exceedances are attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. In addition, preliminary 1999 ambient air quality monitoring data indicate that the area continues to attain the 1-hour ozone standard. As a result, the Cincinnati-Hamilton area is currently meeting the air quality requirement for redesignation to attainment of the ozone NAAQS.
Before the Cincinnati-Hamilton area may be redesignated to attainment for ozone, it must have fulfilled the applicable requirements of section 110 and part D. The Calcagni memorandum dated September 4, 1992, states that areas requesting redesignation to attainment have to fully adopt rules and programs that come due prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request. If unimplemented and not necessary, these rules/programs may be moved into the area's maintenance plan as contingency measures rather than fully approved into the SIP. As described below in the section of this notice addressing Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules, however, the EPA is allowing an exception to this policy. While all requirements that come due prior to the submission of the redesignation request remain applicable requirements, the EPA believes it is appropriate, in this instance, to allow an exception to policy (Calcagni, September 4, 1992) to provide that the requirement for certain VOC RACT rules may be complied with simply through their incorporation among the contingency measures in the maintenance plan. For reasons described later in this action, these measures need not be fully adopted and approved prior to redesignation. Furthermore, requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request would continue to be applicable to the area until a redesignation is approved, but are not required as a prerequisite for redesignation (see section 175A(c)). If the redesignation is disapproved, the States remain obligated to fulfill those requirements.
EPA has determined that the Ohio and Kentucky SIPs for the Cincinnati-Hamilton 1-hour ozone nonattainment area satisfy all of the section 110 SIP requirements of the CAA.
Section 172(c)(5) requires permits for the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. Section 182(b)(5) requires all major new sources or modifications in a moderate nonattainment area to achieve offsetting reductions of VOCs at a ratio of at least 1.15 to 1.0. The EPA has determined that areas being redesignated do not need to comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the standard without part D NSR in effect. The rationale for this decision is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols dated October 14, 1994. See discussion in the Grand Rapids, Michigan document published on June 21, 1996 (61 FR 31831). The States have demonstrated that the Cincinnati-Hamilton area will be able to maintain the standard without part D NSR in effect, and, therefore, the States need not have fully approved part D NSR programs prior to approval of the redesignation request for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. The OEPA's federally delegated PSD program will become effective in the Cincinnati area upon redesignation to attainment. The Cabinet has a statewide NSR rule. EPA approved the latest version of the NSR rule on June 23, 1994 (59 FR 32343) and the latest version of the statewide PSD rule on June 24, 1998 (63 FR 39741). Kentucky's PSD requirements will remain enforceable after the redesignation of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area.
In regards to requirement (1) above, EPA's policy on redesignations would require full adoption, submission and approval of these rules prior to approval of the redesignation request. Since the due date for the CTG RACT rules at issue preceded the submission of the redesignation request, EPA believes, however, that, in the context of the particular circumstances of this redesignation, that it is permissible to depart from that policy and instead accept a commitment to implement these RACT rules as contingency measures in the maintenance plan rather than require full adoption and approval of the rules prior to approval of the redesignation. See Grand Rapids, Michigan, redesignation (61 FR 31831, June 21, 1996). The State of Ohio has included these RACT rules as contingency measures in its maintenance plan for Cincinnati. The reasons justifying this exception to EPA's general policy are explained in the above cited Grand Rapids, Michigan, redesignation and as explained below. The EPA believes that several factors in combination justify this approach with respect to the Cincinnati-Hamilton redesignation. First, the RACT rules at issue in this redesignation were not needed to bring about attainment of the standard in Cincinnati. Second, Ohio has demonstrated continued maintenance of the ozone standard through 2010 without the implementation of these measures. Third, Ohio has placed other contingency measures in the maintenance plan that would bring about far greater emission reductions than the RACT rules and would therefore be substantially more effective in terms of correcting violations attributable to local emissions from the Cincinnati area that may occur after redesignation. An analysis of emission reduction estimates, based on documentation contained in Ohio's 15 percent RFP Plan, shows that the implementation of low Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) or Reformulated Gasoline programs would bring about greater reductions than the CTG VOC RACT rules issued since 1990. As a consequence, EPA believes that the other, more effective contingency measures, should and would be implemented first even if the RACT rules were to be fully adopted prior to redesignation. The EPA emphasizes that even under the exception to its policy proposed herein, the requirement for these RACT rules remains an applicable requirement for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request since it predated the submission of the request. The requirement, however, would be met in the form of the submission and full approval of a commitment to adopt and implement these rules as contingency measures in the maintenance plan. (Under EPA's existing policy, contingency measures in maintenance plans may consist of commitments to adopt and implement measures upon a violation of the standard (Calcagni, September 1992)).
The EPA further notes that even without this exception to its general policy, the State would have been able to have the RACT rules become a part of the contingency measures in the maintenance plan upon approval of the redesignation. That could have occurred only after or upon EPA's full approval of the adopted RACT rules, however. Thus, the only difference between EPA's general policy and the exception to that policy described in this proposal is that a commitment to adopt and implement the RACT rules in an expeditious
Only those Stage II provisions previously approved by EPA are part of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area maintenance plan. The September 17, 1993, guidance memorandum listed above states that once onboard vapor recovery regulations are promulgated, the Stage II regulations are no longer applicable for moderate ozone nonattainment areas. The EPA promulgated onboard vapor recovery rules in February 1994. Therefore, pursuant to section 202(a)(6) of the CAA, Stage II would no longer be required. However, both Ohio and Kentucky have opted to include reductions in VOCs from the Stage II program as part of the submitted maintenance plan and the previously approved 15 percent RFP plans (63 FR 4188 and 63 FR 67586).
On May 10, 1995, EPA proposed approval for an exemption from NO
Ohio and Kentucky have satisfied the requirement that the area must have a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) and the area must have met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D.
The improvement in air quality must be due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from the SIP, Federal measures, and other state adopted measures. The improvement in air quality in the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area is due to emissions reductions from the Federal Motor Vehicle Emissions Control Program (FMVECP), Stage II vapor recovery program, VOC RACT controls, and the partial implementation of E-Check. Between 1993 and 1996, the Ohio area's VOC emissions were reduced by 6.7 percent. Kentucky attributes the improvement in air quality to emission reductions achieved prior to the attainment year of 1996 through the following programs: FMVECP; VOC RACT; fleet turnover of automobiles; low Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) gasoline; reformulated gasoline; and ceased operation and improved technology at facilities in the area. Between 1990 and 1996, the Kentucky area's VOC emissions were reduced by 2.93 tons per day. Additional programs have been implemented in the Kentucky area since the 1996 attainment year which have provided substantial emission reductions for Kentucky. These programs include: Stage II vapor recovery; vehicle emission testing program, increased rule effectiveness of Stage I vapor control; Architectural Coatings, Traffic Paints, Auto Body Refinishing, and Commercial/Consumer Products rules; and Open Burning controls. The State control programs listed above have been approved into the Ohio and Kentucky SIP. Based on the listed programs, Ohio and Kentucky have shown that the improvement in air quality is based on permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions and meets this requirement.
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. The maintenance plan is a SIP revision which provides for maintenance of the relevant NAAQS in the area for at least 10 years after redesignation. The Calcagni memorandum dated September 4, 1992, provides additional guidance on the required content of a maintenance plan. An ozone maintenance plan should address the following five areas: the attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification of continued attainment and, a contingency plan. The attainment emissions inventory identifies the emissions level in the area which is sufficient to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and includes emissions during the time period which had no monitored violations. Maintenance is demonstrated by showing that future
The OEPA and the Cabinet included a 1996 emissions inventory as the attainment inventory. Both of the maintenance plans for Ohio and Kentucky portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area provide emissions estimates from 1990 to 2010 for VOCs, NO
The OEPA and the Cabinet commit to continue the operation of the monitors in the area in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. The States will also track maintenance by regularly updating the emissions inventory for the area. The emission projections for 2010 are the budgets for transportation conformity.
The contingency plan for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area contains three major components: Attainment tracking, contingency measures to be implemented in the event that a violation of the ozone NAAQS occurs in the Cincinnati-Hamilton area, and a mechanism with which to trigger the implementation of the contingency measures.
Two methods of attainment tracking will be utilized in the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area: (1) Air quality monitoring using the existing ozone monitoring network, and (2) inventory updates on a regular schedule. Stationary, mobile, and area source inventories will be updated at a minimum of once every three years beginning with 1996. Area emission inventories will be updated using revised census data. Mobile source emission inventories will be updated using new vehicle miles traveled (VMT) estimates and any new EPA mobile emission models. Annual progress reports will summarize available VOC and NO
The contingency measures to be considered for implementation for the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area are listed below.
1. Lower RVP gasoline.
2. Reformulated gasoline.
3. Broader geographic coverage of existing regulations.
4. Application of RACT on sources covered by new control technology guidelines issued in response to the 1990 CAA Amendments.
5. Application of RACT to smaller existing sources.
6. Implementation of one or more transportation control measures sufficient to achieve at least a 0.5 percent reduction in actual area wide VOC emissions. The transportation control measures to be considered would include: (1) Trip reductions programs, including but not limited to employer-based transportation management programs, area wide rideshare programs, work schedule change, and telecommuting; (2) transit improvements; (3) traffic flow improvements; and, (4) other measures.
7. Alternative fuel programs for fleet vehicle operations.
8. Controls on consumer products consistent with those adopted elsewhere in the United States.
9. VOC offsets for new or modified major sources.
10. VOC offsets for new or modified minor sources.
11. Increased ratio of VOC offsets required for new sources.
12. Requirements of VOC controls on new minor sources.
Selection of one or more of the contingency measures will be based on various considerations including cost-effectiveness, VOC reduction potential, economic and social consideration, and other factors the State determines to be appropriate.
Consideration and selection of one or more of the contingency measures will take place in the event the ozone NAAQS is violated. Initially, the State of Ohio will conduct an analysis to determine the level of control measures needed to assure expedient future attainment. If a subsequent violation of the ozone NAAQS occurs after implementation of the VOC controls measures, NO
Reformulated gasoline and low RVP gasoline would not be able to be implemented as contingency measures by the State of Ohio unless the State first requested and received from EPA a waiver of federal preemption under section 211(c)(4) of the CAA. However, in light of the State's listing of other potential contingency measures and the State's commitment to implement contingency measures within 12 months of a violation, the identification of reformulated gasoline and low RVP gasoline does not detract from the approvability of the contingency plan.
The Cabinet commits to perform triennial reviews of actual emissions for the redesignated area using the latest emission factors, models, and methodologies. The Cabinet will begin the triennial assessments in 2000 for calendar year 1999. At the time of this periodic inventory, the Cabinet will review the assumptions made for the purpose of the maintenance demonstration concerning projected growth in activity levels. If any of these assumptions appear to have changed substantially, then the Cabinet will re-project emissions.
In the event that exceedances of the 1-hour ozone standard are measured in any portion of the nonattainment area, or if periodic emission inventory updates reveal excessive or unanticipated growth greater than 10 percent in ozone precursor emissions, the Cabinet will evaluate existing control measures to determine the further emission reduction measures that should be implemented at that time.
In the event of a monitored violation of the 1-hour ozone standard, the Cabinet commits to adopt, within nine months, one or more of the following contingency measures to achieve reductions sufficient to bring the area back into attainment with the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. All regulatory programs will be implemented within 18 months. The Cabinet will also evaluate existing control measures to see if any further emission reductions should be implemented at that time.
1. Implementation of a program to require additional emission reductions on stationary sources.
2. New Source Review.
3. Implementation of a more frequent, or more stringent vehicle emissions testing program.
4. Restriction of certain roads or lanes to, or construction of such roads or lanes for use by, passenger buses or high-occupancy vehicles.
5. Trip-reduction ordinances.
6. Employer based transportation management plans, including incentives.
7. Programs to limit or restrict vehicle use in downtown areas, or other areas of emission concentration, particularly during periods of peak use.
8. Programs for new construction and major construction of paths or tracks for use by pedestrians or by non-motorized vehicles when economically feasible and in the public interest.
The OEPA and the Cabinet submittals adequately address the five basic components which comprise a maintenance plan (attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan) and therefore, satisfy the maintenance plan requirement.
The CAA section 175A(b) also requires the OEPA and the Cabinet to submit a revision of the SIP eight years after the original redesignation request is approved to provide for maintenance of the NAAQS for an additional 10 years following the first-10 year period. The Cabinet has committed to submit the revision to the SIP 8 years after redesignation of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. Ohio did not formally commit to submit this revision in the redesignation request, however, OEPA is still required to submit a revision to the SIP 8 years after this request is approved.
The official record for this proposed rule has been established under OH-132 and KY-116 and is located at the addresses in the
Public comments are solicited on EPA's proposed rulemaking action. Public comments received by February 23, 2000, will be considered in the development of EPA's final rulemaking action. EPA will not respond to comments received on the February 18, 1997 (62 FR 7194), proposed rulemaking, since a new request has been submitted and is the subject of this proposed rulemaking.
EPA is also re-proposing to approve an exemption from the NO
The EPA memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated February 8, 1995, entitled, “Section 182(f) Nitrogen Oxides (NO
On November 11, 1994, the Cabinet submitted a request for a 182(f) NO
Based on evidence that the area is currently demonstrating compliance with the ozone NAAQS, EPA is re-proposing approval of Kentucky's request to exempt the Kentucky portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area from the 182(f) NO
The official record for this proposed rule has been established under KY-84 and is located only at the EPA Region 4 address in the
Public comments are solicited on EPA's proposed rulemaking action. Public comments received by February 23, 2000, will be considered in the development of EPA's final rulemaking action.
Nothing in this action should be construed as making any determination or expressing any position regarding Kentucky's audit privilege and penalty immunity law Kentucky—“KRS 224.01-040” or its impact upon any approved provision in the SIP, including the revision at issue here. The action taken herein does not express or imply any viewpoint on the question of whether there are legal deficiencies in this or any other Clean Air Act program resulting from the effect of Kentucky's audit privilege and immunity law. A state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on federal enforcement authorities. EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the Clean Air Act, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the Clean Air Act is likewise unaffected by a state audit privilege or immunity law.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Order 12612 (Federalism) and Executive Order 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of Indian tribal governments “to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.” Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
This proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA does not impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any regulatory requirements on sources. The Administrator certifies that the approval of the redesignation request will not affect a substantial number of small entities.
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing new regulations. To comply with NTTAA, the EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this proposed action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control.
42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; amendments.
This action proposes to amend the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities to include a separate emission standard for exterior primers used for large commercial aircraft components (parts or assemblies) or fully assembled large commercial aircraft at existing facilities that produce fully assembled large commercial aircraft. We are proposing these amendments based on review of data that support significant technical concerns of an aircraft manufacturer's ability to achieve the current 350 grams per liter (g/L) (2.9 pounds per gallon (lb/gal)) hazardous air pollutant (HAP) and volatile organic compound (VOC) content limit requirements when using exterior primers.
Mr. James Szykman or Mr. Jaime Pagan; Policy, Planning, and Standards Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-2452 (Szykman) or (919) 541-5340 (Pagan), electronic mail address szykman.jim@epa.gov or pagan.jaime@epa.gov.
The regulated category and entities affected by this action include:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive but, rather, provides a guide for readers likely to be interested in the proposed amendments to the regulations affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of these proposed amendments to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding
These proposed amendments, the promulgated NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart GG), and other background information are available in Docket Number A-92-20 or by request from the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (
On September 1, 1995, we promulgated the NESHAP for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities (60 FR 45948). The NESHAP contains standards to control organic HAP and VOC emissions from primer application operations. These standards require the use of a primer with an organic HAP and VOC content level of 350 g/L (2.9 lb/gal) or less (40 CFR 63.745(c)(1),(2)) where no add-on control system is used, or the use of a control system to reduce the organic HAP and VOC emissions to the atmosphere by 81 percent or greater (§ 63.745(d)). We set these standards at the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) floor for new and existing sources.
In the preamble to the proposed NESHAP (59 FR 29241), we explained the basis of the MACT floor for primer application operations. We established the MACT floor for existing facilities based on the weighted average VOC content that represented the average of the top 12 percent of facilities. Because of the limited available data on the corresponding organic HAP content, we proposed a HAP content limit at the same level as the VOC content limit. Also, in applying these standards within the source category, we did not identify any technical reason to distinguish between the different types of market segments (commercial or military), or the work type (original equipment manufacture or rework). Therefore, we applied these standards to all market segments within the source category.
In public comments received on the proposed rule, aircraft manufacturers raised concerns about the inclusion of exterior primers for large commercial aircraft in the data set for the MACT floor on primer operations. The industry expressed concerns about whether a suitable exterior primer would be available by the September 1, 1998 NESHAP compliance deadline for existing sources. However, at that time, industry did not provide adequate supporting data to justify separate treatment of exterior primers for large commercial aircraft.
Recently, an aircraft manufacturer raised these same concerns and submitted additional data indicating that it has not been able to find a satisfactory exterior primer for use in manufacturing and assembling large commercial aircraft that will meet the current HAP and VOC content limits in the NESHAP and their own performance needs. This aircraft manufacturer has stated that several factors exist that create a distinction between facilities that produce fully assembled large commercial aircraft and facilities that manufacture other types of aerospace components and vehicles. One of the primary differences is the annual utilization rates for large commercial aircraft versus other aircraft. Large commercial aircraft often remain in constant use with multiple take-offs and landings daily and much higher annual flight hours than other aircraft. The total flight time, flight frequency, and flight altitudes for large commercial aircraft are often much higher than for other types of aircraft, such as defense aircraft and general aviation aircraft. These higher utilization rates associated with large commercial aircraft create distinct stresses for the paint systems used. In addition, the largest of the commercial aircraft are often designed for overseas travel (transcontinental routes) which creates a greater exposure to salt, a strong corrosive agent. Finally, this aircraft manufacturer has stated that differing paint requirements, such as replicability of color and gloss, and differing maintenance requirements due to its large number of customers (200 plus), are also factors that can contribute to the acceptability of a paint system. This aircraft manufacturer expressed significant technical concern about its ability to find an exterior primer that would provide adequate protection to large commercial aircraft without pitting or peeling and that would meet the VOC and HAP content standards for primers. This aircraft manufacturer has stated that available low-VOC exterior primers have very different physical and chemical properties, such as the rheology and cross-link density of the coating, from the primers that were in use when the MACT floor was established in 1995. Primers that were in use at that time contained 1,1,1
The compliance date for the NESHAP was September 1, 1998. We have granted compliance extensions based on this issue; however, these extensions expired September 1, 1999.
Today, we are proposing to amend the current emission limits contained in 40 CFR 63.745(c)(1) and (2) for primer operations with no add-on control systems by proposing a separate emission limit of 650 g/L (5.4 lb/gal) or less of organic HAP and VOC for exterior primers as applied to large commercial aircraft components (parts or assemblies) or fully assembled large commercial aircraft at existing affected sources that produce fully assembled large commercial aircraft; and an emission limit of 350 g/L (2.9 lb/gal) or less of organic HAP and VOC for exterior primers as applied to large commercial aircraft components (parts or assemblies) or fully assembled large commercial aircraft at new affected sources that produce fully assembled large commercial aircraft. Our bases for these amendments are data recently submitted to us by a manufacturer of large commercial aircraft and a reevaluation of the original data used to establish the MACT floor for primer application operations. Also based on the fact that TCA-based primer is no longer available, as previously discussed, we reevaluated the original data used to establish the MACT floor for primer application operations of 350 g/L (2.9 lb/gal) or less of organic HAP and VOC.
In order to determine if a separate limit should be established for exterior primers used on large commercial aircraft at existing facilities that produce fully assembled large commercial aircraft, we considered whether these facilities are distinct from other segments of the industry. Because large commercial aircraft often have much higher annual utilization rates and greater exposure to corrosive environments, creating the need for higher performance coating systems, and the manufacturer of such aircraft has many different customer specifications it must satisfy, we determined that a separate limit should be established for these facilities. We then re-evaluated the original data only for facilities that manufactured fully assembled large commercial aircraft. In our re-evaluation of the data, we identified four facilities which manufactured fully assembled large commercial aircraft. To account for the fact that TCA-based primer is no longer available, we removed all TCA-based primer data. The data from these four facilities on the annual usage of primers used in the primer operations for large commercial aircraft had a VOC content that ranged from 650 g/L (5.3 lb/gal) to 670 g/L (5.6 lb/gal). A more detailed discussion of this analysis can be found in the Docket (No. A-92-20) within the document titled, “MACT Floor for Aerospace Commercial Aircraft Original Equipment Operations—Interior and Exterior Primers.”
The Clean Air Act requires that emission standards for HAP established under section 112(d)(2) be based on “* * * the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of the hazardous air pollutants subject to this section * * * that the Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements, determines is achievable for new or existing sources in the category or subcategory to which such emission standards applies * * *.” This basis is commonly referred to as MACT.
Section 112(d)(3) further clarifies the minimum acceptable stringency for the MACT level of emission reduction. For new sources, MACT shall be no “* * * less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source, as determined by the Administrator.” For existing sources, MACT “* * * shall not be less stringent, and may be more stringent than—
(A) the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources * * * in the category or subcategory for categories and subcategories with 30 or more sources, or
(B) the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing five sources * * * in the category or subcategory for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources.”
In prior rulemaking where fewer than five sources exist, we have based the MACT floor for existing sources on the average emission limitation achieved by all the sources. Use of the arithmetic average would result in a VOC content of 655 g/L. This method for calculating the MACT floor yields a number that does not correspond to an actual VOC content of primer used at these facilities. Therefore, we determined the MACT floor for these four facilities based on the median VOC content for primer operations at these facilities. The MACT floor for primer operations at these facilities is 650 g/L (5.4 lb/gal) or less of organic HAP and VOC. This represents the existing source MACT floor for all primer operations at facilities that manufacture fully assembled large commercial aircraft.
We then considered exterior versus interior primers. The data recently submitted to us by the aircraft manufacturer relate only to technical problems concerning the use of “exterior” primers at existing facilities that manufacture fully assembled large commercial aircraft. We do not have any data indicating that similar problems exist with the use of interior primers at these facilities. We believe that the 350 g/L (2.9 lb/gal) level has already been demonstrated to be an achievable level of control for interior primers used at facilities that manufacture fully assembled large commercial aircraft. Therefore, we propose to go beyond the MACT floor level of control (650 g/L (2.9 lb/gal) or less of organic HAP and VOC to 350 g/L (2.9 lb/gal) or less of organic HAP and VOC for interior primer operations used at existing and new facilities that manufacture fully assembled large commercial aircraft.
We are not proposing to establish MACT at a level beyond the MACT floor for exterior primers used on large commercial aircraft at facilities that produce fully assembled large commercial aircraft. This is because we believe that meeting a standard more stringent than a 650 g/L level is not technically achievable for all existing commercial production facilities that manufacture and assemble large commercial aircraft at this time. However, the manufacturer in question has stated that it will continue to test and evaluate exterior primers, used to manufacture and assemble large commercial aircraft, with the goal of achieving the current content limit of 350 g/L. Should this manufacturer find an exterior primer that meets its specifications and is lower than the proposed content limit of 650 g/L prior to promulgation of these proposed amendments, we intend to promulgate an emission limit for exterior primers used on large commercial aircraft at facilities that manufacture fully
For new sources, section 112(d)(3) states that MACT “* * * shall not be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source, as determined by the Administrator.”
Based on our reevaluation of these original data, the new source MACT floor for primer operations used on large commercial aircraft at facilities that produce fully assembled large commercial aircraft is 650 g/L (5.4 lb/gal) or less of organic HAP and VOC. This represents the “best controlled similar source” from these four facilities. Since the original data were collected, new high-solids chemistry, without TCA, has been employed to achieve the 350 g/L levels. Some existing sources may not be able to use this new technology, combined with other changes to low-HAP and low-VOC topcoats and new application techniques, because of design constraints in their overall operation. The use of this technology may only be feasible for facilities with maximum flexibility in physical plant, climate control, contaminant control (keeping the surface clean prior to primer application), etc. However, for a new source that manufactures fully assembled large commercial aircraft, the operation as a whole could be designed to accommodate the new high-solids technology. Indeed, at least one large commercial aircraft facility is currently using this technology (Boeing Long Beach facility, formerly the McDonnell Douglas facility). This is new information that is not in the original data set used to determine the MACT floor.
Based on the recent data provided, EPA concludes that although technological problems exist at the 350 g/L level for most of the existing facilities, manufacturers can design new facilities with this new technology in mind. Thus, we believe that it is appropriate to set MACT above the floor for new facilities. As a result, we propose to set the limit for exterior primer used on large commercial aircraft at new facilities that produce fully assembled large commercial aircraft at 350 g/L (2.9 lb/gal) or less of organic HAP and VOC.
Although we are not addressing other sectors of the industry, such as the military, in today's proposal, we reviewed the data from the remainder of the responses to section 114 questionnaires for these sectors of the aerospace manufacturing and rework industry that perform primer operations. Our preliminary analysis indicates that the MACT floor for these sectors of the industry would also be in the range of 650 g/L, assuming that we removed the TCA-based data from the data set. However, even if the floor for these sectors were to change, we would see no reason not to adopt the current 350 g/L limit as an above-the-floor requirement. We have received no information indicating that this limit is not achievable for these sectors of the industry. In addition, on September 1, 1998, we issued amendments to the Aerospace NESHAP (63 FR 46533) that set new standards for the control of organic HAP and VOC emissions from primer and topcoat application operations for general aviation rework facilities. We believe that those standards resolved any similar problems for the general aviation rework facilities. Therefore, the proposed organic HAP and VOC emission limit of 650 g/L (5.4 lb/gal) or less for exterior primers applies only to large commercial aircraft components (parts or assemblies) or fully assembled large commercial aircraft at existing affected sources that produce fully assembled large commercial aircraft.
In deciding how to define “large commercial aircraft,” we evaluated several different criteria. A review of current Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) regulations revealed two definitions of large aircraft in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14 (-) Aeronautics and Space. Under title 14, part 1, general definitions are provided which are applicable for the majority of FAA regulations, sub-chapters A through K. Part 1.1 of title 14 defines large aircraft as “an aircraft of more than 12,500 pounds, maximum certified take-off weight.” Under 14 CFR 268.1, which is a regulation applicable to air carriers known as air taxi operators and commuter air carrier operations, large aircraft is defined as “any aircraft designed to have a maximum passenger capacity of more than 60 seats or a maximum payload capacity of more than 18,000 pounds.” These definitions suggest the use of maximum certified take-off weight, maximum payload capacity, or maximum passenger capacity as possible criteria to define large aircraft. However, factors cited in the data submitted by the aircraft manufacturer indicated that total flight time, flight frequency and flight altitudes were distinguishing criteria which create more demanding performance characteristics for exterior primers used to manufacture and assemble large commercial aircraft. This suggests that one or all of these criteria could serve as another possible alternative for defining large commercial aircraft.
Based on our review of the data, we believe that the weight of the aircraft is the best defining factor. Greater weight frequently is related to aircraft that are designed to have greater flight time, flight frequency and flight altitude. After reviewing the FAA definitions of large aircraft, we believe that maximum take-off weight would be an appropriate criterion to define large commercial aircraft. The maximum take-off weight is well known and documented within the industry. However, based on the data received, the current definition within FAA regulations (a maximum take-off weight of 12,500 lbs) does not characterize the size of the aircraft where we believe the problems exist for exterior primers.
With respect to the second part of this definition, “commercial,” this manufacturer has not indicated that this is a problem for the large military aircraft it manufactures. Therefore, we are defining the term commercial to exclude large aircraft manufactured for military use.
We are proposing to define a large commercial aircraft as an aircraft of more than 110,000 pounds, maximum certified take-off weight manufactured for non-military use. We are requesting comments on this definition along with the use of the other criteria discussed for defining large commercial aircraft.
We are proposing to amend section 63.745(c)(1) and (2) of the NESHAP by adding a separate HAP and VOC content limit of 650 g/L for exterior primers applied to large commercial aircraft components (parts or assemblies) or fully assembled large commercial aircraft at existing affected sources that produce fully assembled large commercial aircraft.
These proposed amendments would affect you if you are the owner or operator of an existing or new exterior primer application operation at a facility that, either in part or in whole, manufactures and assembles large commercial aircraft and is a major source as defined in 40 CFR 63.2.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must
(1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is, therefore, not subject to OMB review.
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposal is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology performance and not on health or safety risks.
These proposed amendments would not impose any new information collection requirements would result in no change to the currently approved collection. The OMB has approved the information collection requirements contained in the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities NESHAP under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed amendments on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that has less than 1,500 employees; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed amendments on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These proposed amendments will not impose any requirements on small entities. They affect only manufacturers of large commercial aircraft. There are no small-entity manufacturers of large commercial aircraft.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
Today's proposed amendments contain no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. These proposed amendments would amend certain existing emission limits in a de-regulatory manner and would not impose any new enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, today's proposed amendments are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. The EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Thus, today's proposed amendments are not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance
Today's proposed amendments do not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to these proposed amendments.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., material specifications, test methods, sampling and analytical procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations when EPA decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
These proposed action amendments do not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
These proposed amendments do not have federalism implications. They will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. These proposed amendments would amend portions of an existing rule, the Aerospace NESHAP, in a de-regulatory manner. They would not impose any obligations on State or local governments. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations, is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
2. Section 63.742 is amended by adding in alphabetical order definitions for “Exterior primer” and “Large commercial aircraft” to read as follows:
Large commercial aircraft means an aircraft of more than 110,000 pounds, maximum certified take-off weight manufactured for non-military use.
3. Section 63.745 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) to read as follows:
(c) * * *
(1) Organic HAP emissions from primers shall be limited to an organic HAP content level of no more than: 540 g/L (4.5 lb/gal) of primer (less water), as applied, for general aviation rework facilities, or 650 g/L (5.4 lb/gal) of exterior primer (less water), as applied, to large commercial aircraft components (parts or assemblies) or fully assembled large commercial aircraft at existing affected sources that produce fully assembled large commercial aircraft, or 350 g/L (2.9 lb/gal) of primer (less water), as applied.
(2) VOC emissions from primers shall be limited to a VOC content level of no more than: 540 g/L (4.5 lb/gal) of primer (less water and exempt solvents), as applied, for general aviation rework facilities, or 650 g/L (5.4 lb/gal) of exterior primer (less water and exempt solvents), as applied, to large commercial aircraft components (parts or assemblies) or fully assembled large commercial aircraft at existing affected sources that produce fully assembled large commercial aircraft, or 350 g/L (2.9
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Status review; notice of reopening of comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), provides notice of the reopening of the comment period for the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (
Written materials from all interested parties must be received by March 27, 2000.
Written comments, data, reports, map products, and other information concerning this status review should be sent to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Upper Columbia River Basin Field Office, 11103 East Montgomery Drive, Spokane, Washington 99206.
Chris Warren, at the address listed above (telephone 509/891-6839; facsimile 509/891-6748).
The Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is one of six recognized subspecies of sharp-tailed grouse that occur in North America (AOU 1957). Compared to the other subspecies, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are described as slightly smaller with darker gray plumage. Historically, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse range extended westward from the continental divide in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado to northeastern California and eastern Oregon and Washington; southward to northern Nevada and central Utah; and northward through central British Columbia.
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse rely on a variety of native habitats within the sagebrush-bunchgrass, meadow-steppe, mountain shrub, and riparian zones of the northwestern United States (Giesen and Connelly 1993). Various upland habitats, with a component of more dense riparian or mountain shrub habitat to provide escape cover, are important to the subspecies from spring to fall. The availability of suitable wintering habitat, containing a dominant component of deciduous trees and shrubs, is also thought to be a key element to healthy Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations (Marks and Marks 1987, Giesen and Connelly 1993).
In 1979, the range wide population estimate for the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse was approximately 60,000 to 170,000 individuals, with roughly 60 to 80 percent occurring in British Columbia (Miller and Graul 1980). Miller and Graul (1980) also estimated that the subspecies occupied less than 10 percent of its historic range in Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming, 10 to 50 percent in Colorado and Washington, and 80 percent or more in British Columbia. The current minimum to maximum range wide population estimate for the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is approximately 30,000 to 70,000 individuals, with roughly 60 to 70 percent occurring in southeastern Idaho. The Columbian sharp-tailed grouse has been extirpated from California (
Declines in the overall abundance of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse and the extent of its occupied range have acted to isolate various populations of the subspecies. Three relatively large populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse still exist; one in northwestern Colorado to south-central Wyoming, one in southeastern Idaho to northern Utah, and one in central British Columbia. To varying degrees, the remaining areas occupied by the subspecies are made up of relatively small and isolated local populations.
Much of the historic area used by Columbian sharp-tailed grouse has been converted for crop production and affected by other influences including rural and suburban development, dam construction, minerals exploitation, chaining, herbicide spraying, and fire (Miller and Graul 1980, Wood 1991, Giesen and Connelly 1993). In addition, grazing practices over large portions of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse range may negatively impact native habitats (Hart
Much of the area currently and potentially occupied by Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is in private ownership. Presently, large portions of these privately owned lands are withdrawn from crop production and planted to native and non-native cover under the Federal Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) (USDA 1998). CRP lands have become very important to Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. A number of CRP contracts are scheduled to expire from 1999 through the year 2002. The potential net changes that may occur under the CRP vary considerably by the counties and states occupied by Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. Presently, it is unclear what affects these potential changes may have on the subspecies' populations.
Currently, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are hunted in Colorado, Idaho, and British Columbia. Hunting is not likely to have an additive affect over natural mortality for relatively large, stable populations of upland birds under managed conditions (Braun
Reintroduction efforts for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse have taken place in Washington, Montana, Oregon, Nevada, and Idaho. Many early reintroduction efforts conducted for prairie grouse (including sharp-tailed grouse) failed to produce self-sustaining populations or to increase the size or distribution of augmented populations (Toepfer
The Service published a notice in the
Author: The primary author of this notice is Chris Warren of the Upper Columbia River Basin Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 11103 East Montgomery Drive, Spokane, Washington 99206 (Telephone: 509/891-6839).
The authority of this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice announces the surplus and purchased commodities that the Department expects to make available for donation to States for use in providing food assistance to the needy under the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) in Fiscal Year (FY) 2000. The commodities made available under this notice shall, at the discretion of the State, be distributed to organizations for use in preparing meals, and/or for distribution to households for home consumption.
October 1, 1999.
Lillie Ragan, Assistant Branch Chief, Household Programs Branch, Food Distribution Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302-1594 or telephone (703) 305-2662.
Surplus commodities donated for distribution under TEFAP are Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) commodities determined to be available for donation by the Secretary of Agriculture under the authority of section 416 of the Agricultural Act of 1949, 7 U.S.C. 1431 (section 416) and commodities purchased under the surplus removal authority of section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, 7 U.S.C. 612c (section 32). The types of commodities typically made available under section 416 include dairy, grains, oils, and peanut products. The types of commodities purchased under section 32 include meat, poultry, fish, vegetables, dry beans, juices and fruits. Donations of surplus commodities were initiated in 1981 as part of the Department's efforts to reduce stockpiles of government-owned commodities, such as cheese, flour, butter, and cornmeal, which had been acquired under section 416. These donations responded to concern over the costs to taxpayers of storing large quantities of foods, while at the same time there were persons in need of food assistance. The authority to donate surplus commodities for distribution through TEFAP is currently codified in Section 202 of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983, 7 U.S.C. 7502 (EFAA).
The supply of surplus commodities has been drastically reduced from the levels available in the early 1980s. These reductions are the result of changes in the agricultural commodity loan programs which have brought supply and demand into better balance, and accelerated donations and sales. However, this trend reversed itself beginning in FY 1997. In FY 1999, the Department purchased over $106.4 million worth of surplus commodities. The large surpluses were the result of the reduction in foreign sales due primarily to the Asian economic downturn. The following surplus commodities were purchased for donation in FY 1999 but will be delivered in the first quarter of FY 2000, because they did not become available for purchase until late in the year: frozen bison and instant nonfat dried milk. In addition to delivering these products for distribution in FY 2000, the Department anticipates that there will be sufficient quantities of nonfat dry milk available for donation under section 416, and salmon, pork, walnut pieces, trailmix, and canned chicken purchased under section 32, to support the donation of these commodities for distribution through TEFAP in FY 2000. The Department would like to point out that commodity acquisitions are based on changing agricultural market conditions; therefore, the availability of commodities is subject to change.
Congress responded to the reduced availability of surplus commodities with section 104 of the Hunger Prevention Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-435, which added sections 213 and 214 to the EFAA. Those sections require the Secretary to purchase commodities for distribution to States in addition to those surplus commodities which otherwise might be provided to States for distribution under TEFAP. Pursuant to section 871(d) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-193, Congress repealed the authorization of funds for food purchases under section 214 of the EFAA. In addition, section 871(g) added a new section 27 to the Food Stamp Act of 1977, 7 U.S.C. 2011
For FY 2000, the Department anticipates purchasing the following commodities for distribution through TEFAP: fresh apples, peanut butter, roasted peanuts, rice, macaroni, spaghetti, egg noodles, oats, fortified cereal, bakery mix, egg mix, dehydrated potatoes, corn syrup, vegetable oil, dry bagged beans, raisins, prunes, the following canned foods: apple juice, applesauce, peaches, pears, plums, vegetarian beans, refried beans, green beans, potatoes, tomatoes, tomato sauce, vegetarian and tomato reduced-sodium soups, spaghetti sauce, tomato juice, corn, orange juice, grapefruit juice, pineapple juice, pork, tuna, beef, and chicken, as well as the following frozen foods: ground beef, whole chicken,
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of public meeting, request for comments.
The Agricultural Marketing Service and the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), U.S. Department of Agriculture; and the Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, are sponsoring a public meeting on February 15, 2000, to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items that will be discussed at the 4th Session of the Codex Committee on Milk and Milk Products, which will be held in Wellington, New Zealand, on February 28-March 3, 2000.
The public meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 15, 2000, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon.
The public meeting will be held in Room 0745, South Agriculture Building, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250. To receive copies of the documents referenced in the notice contact the FSIS Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Room 102, Cotton Annex, 300 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20250-3700. The documents will also be accessible via the World Wide Web at the following address:
Patrick J. Clerkin, Associate U.S. Manager for Codex, FSIS, Room 4861, South Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700, telephone (202) 205-7760; Fax (202) 720-3157. Persons requiring a sign language interpreter or other special accommodations should notify Patrick J. Clerkin, telephone (202) 205-7760; Fax (202) 720-3157.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) was established in 1962 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. Codex is the major international organization for encouraging fair international trade in food and protecting the health and economic interests of consumers. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to ensure that the world's food supply is sound, wholesome, free from adulteration, and correctly labeled.
The Codex Committee on Milk and Milk Products was established to elaborate codes and standards for Milk and Milk Products. The Government of New Zealand hosts this committee and will chair the committee meeting.
The following specific issues will be discussed during the public meeting:
1. Matters referred by the Codex Alimentarius Commission and other Codex committees.
2. Draft Standard for Unripened Cheeses including Fresh Cheese at Step 7.
3. Review of the Proposed Draft and Draft Revised Standards: Cream; Fermented Milk Products; Dairy Spreads; Processed Cheese; Individual Cheeses; Whey Powders; and Edible Casein Products; at Step 4.
4. Heat Treatment Definitions.
5. Model Export Certificate for Milk Products.
6. Review of Proposals for New Standards for “Parmesan” and “Cheese Speciality”.
Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the New Zealand Secretariat to the Meeting. Members of the public may access or request copies of these documents (see
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development are important. Consequently, in an effort to better ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this public meeting, FSIS will announce it and provide copies of this
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of Public meeting; request for comment.
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, and the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), United States Department of Agriculture, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are sponsoring a public meeting on February 4, 2000. The purpose of the meeting is to provide information and receive public comment on agenda items that will be discussed at the Thirty-second Session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC), which will be held in Beijing, China on March 20-24, 2000.
The public meeting is scheduled for Friday, February 4, 2000, from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
The public meeting will be held in Room 1409, FOB 8, 200 C. St. S.W., Washington, DC. Documents referenced in this notice can be reviewed at the FSIS Docket Clerk's office, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Room 102, Cotton Annex, 300 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20250-3700. The documents will also be accessible via the World Wide Web at the following address:
Patrick J. Clerkin, Associate U.S. Manager for Codex, U.S. Codex Office, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Room 4861, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue S.W., Washington, DC 20250, Telephone: (202) 205-7760, Fax: (202) 720-3157.
Codex was established in 1962 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. Codex is the principal international organization for protecting the health and economic interests of consumers and encouraging fair international trade in food. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to ensure that the world's food supply is sound, wholesome, free from adulteration, and correctly labeled.
The CCFAC establishes or endorses maximum or guideline levels for individual food additives, for contaminants (including environmental contaminants), and for naturally occurring toxicants in foodstuffs and animal feeds. In addition, the Committee prepares priority lists of food additives and contaminants for toxicological evaluation by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives; recommends specifications of identity and purity for food additives for adoption by the Commission; considers methods of analysis for their determination in food; and considers and elaborates standards or codes for related subjects such as the labeling of food additives when sold as such and food irradiation. The Netherlands chairs the committee.
The following lists the provisional agenda items that will be discussed during the public meeting on February 4, 2000:
1. Adoption of the Agenda.
2. Matters referred by the Codex Alimentarius Commission and other Codex Committees.
3. Summary Report of the 53rd Meeting of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA).
4. Action Required as a Result of Changes in Acceptable Daily Intake Status and other Toxicological Recommendations.
5. Discussion Paper on the Application of Risk Analysis Principles for Food Additives and Contaminants.
1. Endorsement and/or Revision of Maximum Levels for Food Additives in Codex Standards.
2. Consideration of the Codex General Standard for Food Additives.
3. Discussion Paper on the Use of Colours in Foods.
4. Discussion Paper on Processing Aids.
5. Proposed Draft Revision to the Codex General Standard for Irradiated Foods.
6. Specifications for the Identity and Purity of Food Additives Arising from the 53rd JECFA Meeting.
7. Proposed Amendments to the International Numbering System.
1. Endorsement and/or Revision of Maximum Levels for Contaminants in Codex Standards.
2. Consideration of the Codex General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Foods.
3. Methodology and Principles for Exposure Assessment in the Codex General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Foods.
4. Mycotoxins in Food and Feed:
(a) Aflatoxin M
(b) Ochratoxin A in Cereals
(c) Zearalenone
(d) Patulin
(e) Fumonisins.
5. Industrial and Environmental Contaminants in Foods:
(a) Proposed Draft Code of Practice for Source Directed Measures to Reduce Contamination of Food with Chemicals
(b) Lead
(c) Cadmium
(d) Dioxins.
1. Proposals for Priority Evaluation of Food Additives and Contaminants by JECFA.
2. Other Business and Future Work:
(a) Comments on Methods of Analysis for the Determination of Food Additives and Contaminants in Foods.
(b) Comments on the Inventory of Processing Aids.
(c) Comments on Packaging Provisions to Maintain the Stability of Iodized Salt in the Codex Standard for Food Grade Salt.
Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by Commission Secretariat or by The Netherlands' Secretariat to the Meeting. Members of the public may review copies of these documents (see
At the February 4, 2000, public meeting, the agenda items will be described, discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments.
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development are important. Consequently, in an effort to better ensure that minorities, women,
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
Notice of meeting.
The Task Force on Agricultural Air Quality will meet for the second time in FY 2000 to discuss the relationship between agricultural production and air quality. Special emphasis will be placed on promoting a greater understanding of agriculture's impact on air quality and the role it plays in the local and national economy. The meeting is open to the public.
The meeting will convene Tuesday, February 15, 2000 at 8:30 a.m. and continue until 5:00 p.m. The meeting will resume Thursday, February 17, 2000 from 8:30 a.m. to 2:45 p.m. Written material and requests to make oral presentations should reach the Natural Resources Conservation Service on or before February 7, 2000.
The meeting will be held at the Amerisuites, 6080 Bluebonnet Boulevard, Baton Rouge, LA 70809, telephone (225) 769-4400/Fax (225) 769-7444. Written material and requests to make oral presentations should be sent to George Bluhm, University of California, Land, Air, and Water Resources, 151 Hoagland Hall, Davis, CA 95616-6827.
Questions or comments should be directed to George Bluhm, Designated Federal Official, telephone (530) 752-1018, fax (530) 752-1552, email bluhm@crocker.ucdavis.edu.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. Additional information about the Task Force on Agricultural Air Quality, including any revised agendas for the November 9 and 10, 1999 meeting that may appear after this
This meeting is open to the public. At the discretion of the Chair, members of the public may present oral presentations during the February 15 and 17, 2000 meeting. Persons wishing to make oral presentations should notify George Bluhm no later than February 7, 2000. If a person submitting material would like a copy distributed to each member of the committee in advance of the meeting, that person should submit 25 copies to George Bluhm no later than February 7, 2000.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact George Bluhm as soon as possible.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of the North Carolina Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 1:00 p.m. and adjourn at 5:00 p.m. on February 9, 2000, at the North Carolina A&T State University, Hodgin Hall, Room 106, Greensboro, North Carolina 27411. The purpose of the meeting is to finalize a project proposal and to review civil rights issues.
Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation to the Committee, should contact Bobby D. Doctor, Director of the Southern Regional Office, 404-562-7000 (TDD 404-562-7004). Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of Reduction in the Size of
On August 21, 1998, the Department of Commerce published a notice of intent to modify the manner in which its final determinations are made available to the public in an effort to reduce publishing costs. See 63 FR 44837. We proposed to publish a notice in the
Based on our budget constraints and the widespread access to the Internet, we are proceeding with reducing the size of our FR notices and ensuring access to decision memoranda on our web page. Based on our analysis of the comments received in response to our August 21, 1998, proposal we have alerted traditional services such as Lexis and Westlaw to our plans and they have indicated that they will make the decision memoranda available to their clients in an electronically searchable format.
February 15, 2000.
Please contact Laura Merchant or Laurie Parkhill, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20230, at (202) 482-0367 and (202) 482-4733, respectively.
As described in the August 1998 proposal, final determinations will be divided into two sections: (1) the notice to be published in the FR; and (2) an “Issues and Decision Memorandum” to be posted simultaneously on the Import Administration web page. In addition, traditional services such as Lexis and Westlaw have indicated that they will make the decision memoranda available to their clients in an electronically searchable format. Access to paper copies of these documents will continue to be available through the IA Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department building.
The published notice will contain information relating to the Department's decisions, including margins, Department contacts, deadlines, cash-deposit requirements, and, for administrative reviews, the duty-assessment methodology. The notice will state explicitly that the public can find a paper copy of the discussion of the issues and relevant memoranda on file in the IA Central Records Unit and will also provide the public with an Internet address that will allow public access to the electronic version of these documents.
The “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (Decision Memo) will contain the complete discussion of issues parties raise in case and rebuttal briefs, and it will be adopted and incorporated by reference into the notice we publish in the FR. It will be identical in content to the “Analysis of Comments” section in current final determinations. Specifically, the Decision Memo will be a memorandum from a Deputy Assistant Secretary with a summary of comments received and the Department's position with respect to each of those comments. The Decision Memo will be available on the IA web page simultaneously with the publication of the notice in the FR. We will follow this approach for all FR final notices regardless of the type of proceeding.
Examples of the FR document, Issues in Decision Memo, and Decision Memo are located in Appendices 1, 2, and 3 at the end of this notice.
Comment 1: All commenters urged the Department not to change its present policy of publication. They argue that the proposed change will make it more difficult, time-consuming, and costly to research Departmental precedents and policy because the IA web site does not contain adequate text-searching tools which are available on other services including the Government Printing Office (GPO) web site. They conclude that to “publish” a Decision Memo only on IA's web site would effectively deny meaningful access to the Department's decisions through the GPO site and other commercial research services. This change, they contend, will reduce the Department's current level of transparency to all parties. At a minimum, commenters urge IA to either include a robust text-searching tool on its web site and/or arrange for traditional research services such as Lexis and Westlaw to include the Department's complete decisions in their services.
We have consulted with the traditional commercial services such as Westlaw and Lexis about our proposed changes. They have indicated that they will make IA's decision memoranda available through their services just as they make the FR Notices available to their customers. Access to IA's decision memoranda and related documents through traditional commercial services should mitigate these concerns. With this search capability and the wide availability of internet access, we believe that our decisions and policy will be more publicly available than is presently the case.
Comment 2: We received one comment arguing that we are required by statute to publish the full facts and our conclusions in the FR.
We disagree. The Department is required by section 771(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, to make public its decisions and the basis of those decisions. Nowhere does the statute
The Department will continue to publish notices of final determinations containing all fundamental information relating to the Department's decisions. In addition, the Department will provide access to the electronic version of these documents through both the IA web site and through traditional commercial services. Paper copies will remain available through the IA Central Records Unit.
Comment 3: Several commenters argued that the proposed change will affect the quality of advocacy and quality of Department decision-making adversely because the Department will no longer be able to research electronically the entire set of its prior decisions.
We disagree. Changing the location of publicly available documents should have little impact on the quality of advocacy or our decision-making abilities. The Department's decision memoranda and related documents will continue to be available and accessible to the public through the IA web site, the Central Records Unit, and the traditional electronic research services.
Comment 4: Several commenters contend that our proposed change could result in increased costs, including the cost of maintaining the new information on the IA web page. One commenter anticipated that the costs of maintaining the information on our web site will rise beyond savings we anticipate. Another argued that, if the Department's proposed changes were to cause a delay in the resolution of any Antidumping or Countervailing proceedings, the additional amount of interest payable for estimated duties incurred during the delay could exceed the savings in publication costs.
We disagree. The information currently available in our FR notices will remain available to the public through other means, as well as continued access through Lexis and Westlaw, thereby providing the ability to research precedents and avoiding delay in access to the information. While the Department acknowledges additional effort may be involved in locating and tracing documents during the initial stages of transition to this new format, the technology and resources available should not increase time spent on researching Department decisions, policies, and precedents substantially. Any increased cost of conducting proceedings would not arise from changing the location of publicly available documents.
We do not anticipate significantly increased maintenance costs. Moreover, we expect significant increased net savings resulting from lower publishing costs. Additional server space on the IA web site as well as time compiling the documents onto the web page and making electronic copies available to the public and any commercial services cost far less than continuing to publish lengthy documents in the
Comment 5: We received several comments expressing a general fear of loss of access to IA decisions due to the unreliability of the Internet. Other commenters suggested that the availability of memoranda through the CRU is not an adequate substitute for access through the Internet. One commenter stressed the importance of continued availability of Department decisions in the CRU. Several comments noted that, unlike the IA web site, the GPO web site maintains searchable back issues of the FR from June 1980, from which the public may access and search Department decisions.
We understand this concern and will strive whenever possible to create alternative access locations for all publicly available documents using the CRU and traditional commercial Internet services. The Department will continue to maintain its files of all publicly available information in the CRU.
Contrary to what commenters contend, we believe that the historical information will be more publicly available than is presently the case. Lexis and Westlaw have indicated that they will include both the Department's FR notice and the accompanying Decision Memo in their databases which include information dating from 1980. Our Decision Memo and FR Notices will also be posted on the IA web site in addition to all of our FR notices published since 1995. In addition, all past and future FR Notices will remain on the GPO site.
Comment 6: Many commenters pointed out that the IA web site does not have a full-text searching capability like the Lexis and Westlaw sites. They contend that, without such a searching tool, the availability of decision memoranda on the IA web site cannot substitute for these current services.
As noted in response to Comment 1, the Department recognizes these concerns and has discussed solutions with Westlaw and Lexis to carry both the FR notice and the decision memoranda. In addition, the Department affirms its commitment to maintain an effective and user-friendly web site available to any party that does not have access to these commercial services. In addition to any searching capabilities that we can incorporate into our web site, we will also post our FR notices and decision memoranda using meaningful indexes and links.
Comment 7: Of great concern to all commenters is the lack of an effective search mechanism on IA's web site. We received comments suggesting that we include a search engine on our web site that is similar to the ones currently available through the leading commercial legal on-line services and the GPO web site. Three commenters suggested that, in addition to decision memoranda being posted on the Internet, prior decisions, disclosed orders, and interpretations of applicability in prior cases also be available through the web site, including all documents relevant to a particular case, a full history of agency analysis and actions, remand results, liquidation instructions, assessment rates in graphical format, and internal memoranda associated with each order.
If possible, we will incorporate a robust search engine on the IA web site as a substitute to what is currently available on the GPO web site. While including all relevant documents in a particular case, such as remand results, liquidation instructions, and assessment rates might be a valuable research tool in some cases, we are not prepared to make such a commitment at this time. The IA web site is an extremely useful and important information dissemination tool and we strive to post as many public documents as feasible in a useful fashion.
Comment 8: Several commenters proposed various indexing schemes to better identify and group documents on the IA web site for easy identification.
We are sympathetic to the need to identify notices and decision memoranda quickly and effectively on the IA web site. We view our web site to be an integral part of our information-dissemination efforts and will arrange the information in a way that is both useful and easy to locate.
Comment 9: We received one comment suggesting that, in lieu of our proposed changes to reduce the size of our final notices in the FR, subscription prices for the FR should be increased instead.
It is not in the Department's power to increase subscription prices to the FR, which is maintained by a separate federal agency, nor does the Department receive proceeds from such subscriptions. Therefore, this point is irrelevant.
Comment 10: We received two comments expressing concern over the simultaneous timing of the release of the Decision Memo on the Internet and
The Department has established procedures to ensure simultaneous release of documents on the Internet and in the FR. The Department will not consider its obligations fulfilled until both documents are available publicly.
Comment 11: We received one comment expressing concern that interested parties may not continue to receive an advance copy of the notice for publication in the FR and the Decision Memo or that the Department may publish the FR Notice but not release the Decision Memo to the parties on the same day.
The Department will continue to provide paper copies of the final notice and the Decision Memo to interested parties in advance of the date of publication of the FR notice under this new system.
The procedures outlined in this notice will be applied to all final determinations which are subject to a publication requirement and issued after February 15, 2000, the effective date of this notice. If necessary, additional information on procedures to follow for locating our decisions on the internet will be posted on the IA web site at www.ita.doc.gov/import_admin/records/. Any questions concerning file formatting, access on the Web, or other electronic filing issues should be addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, IA Webmaster, at (202)482-0866 or via e-mail at andrew_lee_beller@ita.doc.gov.
This will be published in the FR. (Please note that this sample reflects final results of an administrative review. All IA final determinations will be subject to this modified format.)
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of the Review.”
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (1998).
On (date), the Department published the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on (product) from (country) (FR citation). The review covers (number) manufacturers/exporters. The period of review (POR) is (date) through (date). We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. At the request of certain interested parties, we held a public hearing on (date). The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
The product covered by this review is (product) and (description). (Standard scope language will appear here unless, for reasons of length, the complete scope description is in a separate memorandum. Such a memorandum will also be available on the IA web site.)
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (Decision Memo) from (name), Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, to (name), Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated (date), which is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference into this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memo, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099, of the main Department building.
In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at www.ita.doc.gov/import_admin/records/frn/, under the heading “(Applicable Country).” The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.
For a discussion of our application of facts available, see the “Facts Available” section of the Decision Memo, which is on file in B-099 and available on the Web at www.ita.doc.gov/ import_admin/records/frn/, under the heading “(Applicable Country).”
The Department disregarded home market sales below cost for (names of firms) in these final results of review.
We have determined that duty absorption has/has not occurred with respect to (name of firm) with respect to (XX) percent of sales which this firm made through its U.S. affiliated party. For a discussion of our determination with respect to this matter, see the “Duty Absorption” section of the Decision Memo, accessible in B-099 and on the Web at www.ita.doc.gov/import_admin/records/frn/, under the heading “(Applicable Country).”
Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations. We have also corrected certain programming and clerical errors in our preliminary results, where applicable. Any alleged programming or clerical errors with which we do not agree are discussed in the relevant sections of the “Decision Memorandum,” accessible in B-099 and on the Web at www.ita.doc.gov/import_admin/records/frn/, under the heading “(Applicable Country).”
We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins exist for the period (date) through (date):
The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated exporter/importer-specific assessment rates. With respect to both export price and constructed export price sales, we divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each importer. We will direct Customs to assess the resulting percentage margins against the entered Customs values for the subject merchandise on each of that importer's entries under the relevant order during the review period.
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of (product) from (country) entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above except that, for firms whose weighted-average margins are less than 0.5 percent and therefore
These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections section 751(a)(1) and 771(i) of the Act.
This will be available on IA's Web page.
We have analyzed the comments and rebuttals of interested parties in the (date) administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering (product) from (country). As a result of our analysis, we have made changes, including corrections of certain inadvertent programming and clerical errors, in the margin calculations. We recommend that you approve the positions we have developed in the Discussion of the Issues section of this memorandum. Below is the complete list of the issues in this administrative review for which we received comments and rebuttals by parties:
On (date), the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on (product) from (country). The merchandise covered by this order is (brief description). The period of review (POR) is (date) through (date). We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. At the request of certain interested parties, we held a public hearing on (date).
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we recommend adopting all of the above positions and adjusting all related margin calculations accordingly. If these recommendations are accepted, we will publish the final results of review and the final weighted-average dumping margins for all reviewed firms in the
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Reviews: Bars and Wedges and Hammers and Sledges from the People's Republic of China.
On July 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on bars and wedges and on hammers and sledges from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) (64 FR 35588) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). On the basis of notices of intent to participate filed on behalf of domestic interested parties and adequate substantive comments filed on behalf of domestic and respondent interested parties, the Department determined to conduct full reviews. As a result of these reviews, the Department preliminarily finds that revocation of the antidumping orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the Preliminary Results of Reviews section of this notice.
January 24, 2000.
Darla D. Brown or Melissa G. Skinner, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3207 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
These reviews are being conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of the Act. The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset reviews are set forth in
Although we provide the full scope language for the order on heavy forged hand tools (“HFHTs”) below, this determination applies only to the types of HFHTs which fall under the orders (A-570-803) on bars/wedges and hammers/sledges from the PRC. HFHTs include heads for drilling, hammers, sledges, axes, mauls, picks, and mattocks, which may or may not be painted, which may or may not be finished, or which may or may not be imported with handles; assorted bar products and track tools including wrecking bars, digging bars and tampers; and steel wool splitting wedges. HFHTs are manufactured through a hot forge operation in which steel is sheared to the required length, heated to forging temperature, and formed to final shape on forging equipment using dies specific to the desired product shape and size. Depending on the product, finishing operations may include shot-blasting, grinding, polishing, and painting, and the insertion of handles for handled products. HFHTs are currently classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”) item numbers 8205.20.60, 8205.59.30, 8201.30.00, and 8201.40.60. Specifically excluded are hammers and sledges with heads 1.5 kilograms (3.33 pounds) in weight and under, and hoes and rakes, and bars 18 inches in length and under. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope remains dispositive.
There has been one scope ruling with respect to the orders on HFHTs from the PRC in which the Forrest Tool Company's Max Multipurpose Tool was determined to be within the scope of the order (58 FR 59991; November 12, 1993).
These reviews cover imports from all manufacturers and exporters of bars and wedges and hammers and sledges from the PRC.
The Department published its final affirmative determination of sales at less than fair value (“LTFV”) with respect to imports of HFHTs from the PRC on January 3, 1991 (56 FR 241). In this determination, the Department published four country-wide weighted-average dumping margins, one each for hammers/sledges, bars/wedges, picks/mattocks and axes/adzes. These margins were all subsequently affirmed when the Department issued the antidumping duty orders on HFHTs from the PRC on February 19, 1991 (56 FR 6622). Since the imposition of the orders, the Department has conducted several administrative reviews.
To date, the Department has not issued any duty absorption findings in these cases.
On July 1, 1999, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on bars and wedges and on hammers and sledges
In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the Department may treat a review as extraordinarily complicated if it is a review of a transition order (
In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department is conducting these reviews to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. Section 752(c) of the Act provides that, in making these determinations, the Department shall consider the weighted-average dumping margins determined in the investigation and subsequent reviews and the volume of imports of the subject merchandise for the period before and the period after the issuance of the antidumping order, and shall provide to the International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) the magnitude of the margins of dumping likely to prevail if the order were revoked.
The Department's determinations concerning continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins are discussed below. In addition, domestic interested parties' and respondents' comments with respect to continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins are addressed within the respective sections below.
Drawing on the guidance provided in the legislative history accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), specifically the Statement of Administrative Action (“the SAA”), H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, vol. 1 (1994), the House Report, H.R. Rep. No. 103-826, pt.1 (1994), and the Senate Report, S. Rep. No. 103-412 (1994), the Department issued its
In their substantive responses, the domestic interested parties argue that revocation of the orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. They base their conclusion on the combined facts that dumping has continued over the life of the orders at levels well above
The respondents argue that if the order were revoked, shipments would likely continue at average levels as seen in 1996 through 1998. They maintain that there is greater competition from other supplying countries and that demand in the U.S. is fairly inelastic, indicating that even with lower prices (without dumping duties), demand for imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC is not likely to change much (
As discussed in section II.A.3 of the
Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department also considers the volume of imports before and after issuance of the order. As mentioned above, the domestic interested parties maintain that imports of bars/wedges and hammers/sledges from the PRC declined significantly following the imposition of the order.
Using the Department's statistics, including IM146 reports, on imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC, the Department concludes that imports of bars/wedges and hammers/sledges from the PRC have fluctuated over the life of the order, showing no overall trend.
As noted above, in conducting its sunset reviews, the Department considers the weighted-average dumping margins and volume of imports when determining whether revocation of an antidumping duty order would lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping. Based on this analysis, the Department finds that the existence of dumping margins above
In the
In their substantive responses, the domestic interested parties recommend that the Department deviate from its normal practice of forwarding margins from the original investigation and instead recommend using margins from more recent administrative reviews. In the case of bars/wedges, the domestic interested parties recommend forwarding to the Commission a margin of 36.76 percent for Fujian Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Corp. and 38.30 percent for Shandong Machinery Import & Export Corp., as calculated in the second administrative review; 31.76 percent for Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Corp. and Liaoning Machinery Import & Export Corp., as calculated in the original investigation; and 34 percent for Shandong Huarong General Group Corp., as calculated in the sixth administrative review. The domestic interested parties argue that since the imposition of the order, the dumping margins have increased for three companies as well as for the PRC as a whole. They argue further that because import volumes of bars/wedges have declined since the imposition of the order, the Department should use a more recently calculated rate for several PRC companies.
For hammers/sledges, the domestic interested parties recommend forwarding to the Commission the margin of 45.42 percent calculated in the original investigation.
The respondents argue that the dumping margin likely to prevail if the order were revoked would be zero, but no higher than the average margin for the latest reviews. They base this argument on the fact that recent reviews conducted by the Department confirm that different surrogate steel values than were used in the original investigation significantly reduce the dumping margin (
As noted in the
Additionally, the Department disagrees with the respondents' argument that a dumping margin of zero percent is likely to prevail were the order to be revoked. Specifically, as noted in the
As a result of these reviews, the Department preliminarily finds that revocation of the antidumping order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held on March 15, 2000. Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than March 7, 2000, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than March 13, 2000. The Department will issue a notice of final results of this sunset review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, no later than June 26, 2000.
These five-year (“sunset”) reviews and notices are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
On November 2, 1999, the Department of Commerce (“the
January 1, 2000.
Martha V. Douthit or Melissa G. Skinner, Office of Policy, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5050 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
On September 7, 1993, the Department issued the antidumping duty order on CDIW from the PRC (58 FR 47117). Pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department initiated a sunset review of this order by publishing notice of the initiation in the
No domestic interested party in the sunset review on this order responded to the notice of initiation by the November 17, 1999 deadline (
Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act and § 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(
Pursuant to section 751(c)(6)(A)(iv) of the Act, the Department will instruct the United States Customs Service to terminate the suspension of liquidation of the merchandise subject to this order entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after January 1, 2000. Entries of subject merchandise prior to the effective date of revocation will continue to be subject to suspension of liquidation and antidumping duty deposit requirements. The Department will complete any pending administrative reviews of this order and will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of Final Results of Full Sunset Review: Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Belgium.
On September 23, 1999, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of preliminary results of the full sunset review of the antidumping duty order on industrial phosphoric acid from Belgium (64 FR 51511) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). We provided interested parties an opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. We received comments from the domestic interested parties. The Department did not receive a request for a public hearing, and, therefore, no hearing was held. As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the Final Results of Review section of this notice.
January 24, 2000.
Darla D. Brown or Melissa G. Skinner, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3207 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
This review was conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of the Act. The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset reviews are set forth in
The merchandise subject to this antidumping duty order is industrial phosphoric acid (“IPA”) from Belgium. IPA is currently classifiable under item number 2809.20.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description remains dispositive.
On September 23, 1999, the Department issued its
On November 8, 1999, within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i), we received comments on behalf of Albright and Wilson Americas, Inc., FMC Corporation, and Solutia Inc. (collectively, the “domestic interested parties”). We have addressed the comments received below.
As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department's regulations. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This five-year (“sunset”) review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of final results of antidumping duty new shipper review of stainless steel bar from India.
On August 25, 1999, the Department of Commerce published the preliminary results of the new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes for the final results.
This review covers three producers/exporters of stainless steel bar to the United States during the period February 1, 1998, through July 31, 1998.
January 24, 2000.
James Breeden or Melani Miller, Import Administration, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Office 1, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-1174 or 482-0116, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). In addition, all references to the Department of Commerce's (“the Department's”) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (April 1998).
On August 25, 1999, the Department published the preliminary results of the new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India (64 FR 46350) (“
Imports covered by this review are shipments of stainless steel bar (“SSB”). SSB means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process.
Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products (
The SSB subject to this review is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.10.0005, 7222.10.0050, 7222.20.0005, 7222.20.0045, 7222.20.0075, and 7222.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information provided by Jyoti using standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities, the examination of relevant cost data and financial records, and selection of original documentation containing relevant information. Our verification results are outlined in the public and business proprietary versions of the verification report, dated December 13, 1999.
We calculated export price and normal value based on the same methodology used in the
With respect to Shah, we used facts available as discussed in the
For Jyoti, we adjusted its direct material costs, internal taxes on direct material purchases, direct labor costs, variable overhead costs, general and administrative costs, interest expenses, and international freight expense based on information gathered at verification.
Section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act provides for the use of facts available when an interested party withholds information that has been requested by the Department. As described in more detail below, Shah failed to provide information explicitly requested by the Department; therefore, we have used facts otherwise available in determining Shah's dumping margin.
However, pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, in using the facts otherwise available we must determine whether information Shah already submitted for the record of this review may be used in calculating a dumping margin. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and that is necessary to the determination but which does not meet all the applicable requirements established by the Department if—
(1) the information is submitted by the deadline established for its submission;
(2) the information can be verified;
(3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination;
(4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability in providing the information and meeting the requirements established by the Department with respect to the information; and
(5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.
While Shah did respond to our original questionnaire and supplemental questionnaires, it refused our request to revise its constructed value (“CV”) using cost data relevant to the POR, or in the alternative, explain or document why the cost data it did submit was representative of the costs incurred during the POR. Because of Shah's refusal to respond to our requests for additional information, we did not verify the company as planned. Thus, pursuant to section 782(e)(3), we found the information on the record so incomplete for the POR being examined that we determined that it could not serve as a reliable basis for calculating a dumping margin. Also, pursuant to section 782(e)(4), Shah failed to act to the best of its ability in providing the requested information. Consequently, we are not using any of the information submitted by Shah for our final results and are relying instead on facts available.
In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of a party if it determines that party has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. On August 19, 1999, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to Shah, which instructed the company to either revise its CV database based on costs incurred during the POR or to submit supporting documentation as to why its fiscal year cost information accurately reflected the costs incurred by the company during the POR. In its supplemental questionnaire response, Shah failed to address either issue. We issued Shah another supplemental questionnaire on September 29, 1999, requesting that it submit CV data based on actual costs incurred during the POR. Shah responded in its October 16, 1999, supplemental questionnaire response that it was not revising its CV database and that it was continuing to provide CV information based on fiscal year 1998-1999 data.
We find that by not providing necessary information specifically requested by the Department, Shah failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, in selecting facts available, we have determined that an adverse inference is warranted. As adverse facts available, we have assigned a margin of 21.02 percent to Shah's sales of the subject merchandise.
This margin, calculated for sales by Mukand Limited during the original less than fair value (“LTFV”) investigation, represents the highest weighted-average margin determined for any firm during any segment of this proceeding. Information from prior segments of the proceeding constitutes secondary information and section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) provides that “corroborate” means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value (
To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. However, unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources for calculated dumping margins. Thus, in an administrative review, if the Department chooses as adverse facts available a calculated dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time period. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin (
As discussed above, it is not necessary to question the reliability of a calculated margin from a prior segment of the proceeding. Further, there are no
In our
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309, we invited interested parties to comment on our
The petitioners argue that the Department should rely on facts available for Parekh and Shah for purposes of the final results because each company failed to report critical information required for the calculation of dumping margins. With respect to Parekh, the petitioners note that the company failed to respond to the Department's supplemental request for information. Therefore, the petitioners argue that the Department should continue to rely on facts available when calculating Parekh's margin, as it did in the
Shah argues that the CV information it provided to the Department was the only cost data that it had available when it received the Department's requests. Therefore, Shah contends that it has cooperated to the best of its ability with the Department requests for information.
We agree with the petitioners and have applied the facts otherwise available to both Shah and Parekh for the final results. As discussed in the
Moreover, we corroborated the facts available rate applied to Parekh as explained in the
As noted above in the
Section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act provides for the use of facts available when an interested party withholds information that has been requested by the Department. As explained in the
Furthermore, as is also noted above, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. Because we found that neither Shah nor Parekh cooperated to the best of its ability, the use of an adverse inference is also appropriate for the final results for both Shah and Parekh.
The petitioners argue that Jyoti has significantly impeded the proceeding by failing to report its sales to third country markets and, therefore, the Department should rely on facts available for Jyoti. Moreover, contrary to Jyoti's explanation at verification that it misunderstood the Department's reporting instructions, the petitioners allege that record evidence indicates Jyoti clearly understood the Department's instructions. Given that Jyoti has intentionally withheld information requested, the Department should disregard the constructed value information submitted by Jyoti as the basis for the calculation of normal value and assign an adverse facts available rate to Jyoti for the final results. In support of their argument, the petitioners cite
Jyoti argues that it reported the sales that are identical to its U.S. sales. The company states that the merchandise it sold to third country markets is different in physical and chemical properties. Thus, according to Jyoti, those sales should not have been reported.
As discussed in the
We do not agree that applying adverse facts available is appropriate in this situation. Unlike the situation in
The petitioners contend that the information obtained by the Department at verification demonstrates that Jyoti's reporting methodology is flawed. Specifically, the petitioners argue that Jyoti's use of a single, average cost for all of its products fails to measure accurately the direct labor and overhead expenses allocable to the different bar sizes produced by Jyoti. The petitioners contend that Jyoti's failure to revise its allocation methodology, despite the requests made by the Department, warrants the use of facts available.
Jyoti contends that the size and simplicity of its operations does not necessitate allocating labor and overhead costs differently across the various bar sizes it produces. Jyoti further argues that any deviations from the single, average cost it reported are marginal and do not have an impact on the calculation of CV.
Although we found at verification that the allocation methodology used in Jyoti's questionnaire response contained certain errors, we agree with Jyoti that none of these errors was so significant as to warrant the rejection of Jyoti's data. In general, when we deem a respondent's data to be acceptable, our practice is to correct it for errors found at verification. Accordingly, we have reallocated Jyoti's direct labor and variable overhead expenses based on the information collected at verification for purposes of the final results.
The petitioners argue that Jyoti's calculation of U.S. credit expense does not take into account the correct number of days between the shipment of the merchandise and the receipt of payment from the customer. According to the petitioners, the Department should adjust this expense to reflect the correct number of days outstanding between shipment and customer payment.
Jyoti argues that it has correctly used the number of days between the issuance of the invoice and receipt of payment from its bank.
We disagree with the petitioners that the calculation of credit expense is incorrect. The Department's preference is to use actual credit cost information. As discussed in the
The petitioners argue that the Department should not allow an adjustment to constructed value for internal taxes on raw material purchases because Jyoti failed to provide evidence of rebates from the government. The petitioners note that it is the Department's practice to allow an adjustment for tax rebates only if a respondent can demonstrate a link between claimed rebates and its cost of manufacture.
Jyoti contends that there is a direct link between the sales tax rebate and the cost of manufacture. However, Jyoti argues that this tax rebate is difficult to document because reimbursement occurs through the reduction of taxes payable to the government.
We agree with the petitioners, in part. At verification, company officials were unable to provide supporting documentation with respect to the rebates received in connection with sales taxes paid on raw material purchases. Accordingly, we have not made an adjustment to Jyoti's CV data for these tax rebates. However, company officials were able to document the refund of excise duties paid on the raw materials used to produce subject merchandise. Therefore, we have offset Jyoti's CV data by the amount of excise duties refunded in connection with the purchase of the raw materials used in the production of the subject merchandise.
As a result of this review, we find that the following margins exist for the period February 1, 1998, through July 31, 1998:
The Department will disclose to a party to the proceeding calculations performed in connection with these final results within five days after the date of announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days after the date of publication of this notice.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results of this new shipper review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed companies will be the rates indicated above; (2) for companies not covered in this review, but covered in previous reviews or the LTFV investigation (59 FR 66915, December 28, 1994), the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the most recent rate established for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review or any previous review or the original investigation, the cash deposit rate will be the “all others” rate of 12.45 percent established in the LTFV investigation.
These deposit requirements will remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This new shipper review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of an instrument of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instrument shown below is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the United States.
Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and be filed within 20 days with the Statutory Import Programs Staff, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230. Application may be examined between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
Docket Number: 00-001. Applicant: USDA, Agricultural Research Service, 800 Buchanan Street, Albany, CA 94710. Instrument: Picking and Gridding Q-Bot System. Manufacturer: Genetix Ltd., United Kingdom. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used in experiments that will include: isolation, characterization and DNA sequencing of genes from organisms of agronomic importance; gridding of clone collections onto filters for gene isolation and genome characterization; construction of DNA microarrays; rearraying clones and samples into new matrix collections; replication of clones and clone library samples.
This is a decision pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
This decision is made pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
We know of no other instrument or apparatus of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument which is being manufactured in the United States.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice of partially closed meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, notice is hereby given that the Advanced Technology Program Advisory Committee, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), will meet Wednesday, February 2, 2000, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. The Advanced Technology Program Advisory Committee is composed of seven members appointed by the Director of NIST; who are eminent in such fields as business, research, new product development, engineering, education, and management consulting. The purpose of this meeting is to review and make recommendations regarding general policy for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), its organization, its budget, and its programs within the framework of applicable national policies as set forth by the President and the Congress. The agenda will include a background and briefing on the ATP, a briefing from each ATP program area, and a presentation by the ATP Economic Assessment Office. Discussions scheduled to begin at 8:30 a.m. and to end at 9:30 a.m. and to begin at 3 p.m. and to end at 5 p.m. on February 2, 2000, on the ATP budget issues and staffing of positions will be closed.
The meeting will convene February 2, 2000, at 8:30 a.m. and will adjourn at 5 p.m. on February 2, 2000.
The meeting will be held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Administration Building Tenth Floor Conference Room, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899.
Janet R. Russell, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1004, telephone number (301) 975-2107.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the General Counsel, formally determined on January 13, 2000 that portions of the meeting of the Advanced Technology Program Advisory Committee which involve discussion of proposed funding of the Advanced Technology Program may be closed in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), because those portions of the meetings will divulge matters the premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of proposed agency actions; and that portions of meetings which involve discussion of staffing of positions in ATP may be closed in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6), because divulging information discussed in those portions of the meetings is likely to reveal information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice of availability of proposed amendments to contract terms and conditions.
The Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME or Exchange) has proposed amendments to the Exchange's lean hogs cattle futures and option contracts. The proposed amendments would increase to 2,400 contracts from 2,000 contracts the speculative position limit applicable to individual non-spot contract months. The proposed amendments also would increase to 950 contracts from 650 contracts the speculative position limit that is applicable to positions held on and after the close of business of the fifth business day of the expiring contract month. The proposed amendments were submitted under the Commission's 45-day Fast Track procedures which provides that, absent any contrary action by the Commission, the proposed amendments may be deemed approved on February 24, 2000—45 days after the Commission's receipt of the proposals. The Acting Director of the Division of Economic Analysis (Division) of the Commission, acting pursuant to the authority delegated by Commission Regulation 140.96, has determined that publication of the proposed amendments is in the public interest and will assist the Commission in considering the views of interested persons, and is consistent with the purposes of the Commodity Exchange Act.
Comments must be received on or before February 8, 2000.
Interested persons should submit their views and comments to Jean A. Webb, Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581. In addition, comments may be sent by facsimile transmission to facsimile number (202) 418-5521, or by electronic mail to secretary@cftc.gov. Reference should be made to the proposed amendments to the CME lean hogs futures and option contracts.
Please contact John Bird of the Division of Economic Analysis, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581, telephone (202) 418-5274. Facsimile number: (202) 418-5527. Electronic mail: jbird @cftc.gov
The lean hogs futures contract is cash settled based on cash prices reported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture during the last two trading days of expiring contract month. Contract months for the
The proposed amendments would increase the speculative position limit applicable to individual non-spot contract months to 2,400 contracts from 2,000 contracts. The proposed amendments also would increase to 950 contracts from 650 contracts the speculative limit applicable from the close of business on the fifth business day of the expiring contract month through the last trading day for that month.
The CME intends to make the proposed amendments effective upon Commission approval for all existing and newly listed contract months.
The Commission is requesting comments on the proposed amendments.
Copies of the proposed amendments will be available for inspection at the Office of the Secretariat, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581. Copies of the proposed amendments can be obtained through the Office of the Secretariat by mail at the above address, by phone at (202) 418-5100, or via the Internet at secretary@cftc.gov.
Other materials submitted by the Exchange in support of the proposal may be available upon request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and the Commission's regulations thereunder (17 CFR Part 146 (1987)), except to the extent they are entitled to confidential treatment as set forth in 17 CFR 145.5 and 145.9. Requests for copies of such materials should be made to the FOI, Privacy and Sunshine Act Compliance Staff of the Office of Secretariat at the Commission's headquarters in accordance with 17 CFR 145.7 and 145.8.
Any person interested in submitting written data, views, or arguments on the proposed amendments, or with respect to other materials submitted by the Exchange, should send such comments to Jean A. Webb, Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581 by the specified date.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice of availability of proposed amendments to contract terms and conditions.
The Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME or Exchange) has proposed amendments to the Exchange's live cattle futures and option contracts. The proposed amendments would increase to 3,200 contracts from 2,400 contracts the speculative position limit applicable to individual non-spot months. The proposed amendments also would increase to 900 contracts from 600 contracts the speculative position limit applicable to positions held in the expiring contract month from the close of business on the business day following the first Friday of the contract month to the business day preceding the last five trading days of the expiring month. The proposed amendments were submitted under the Commission's 45-day Fast Track procedures which provides that, absent any contrary action by the Commission, the proposed amendments may be deemed approved on February 24, 2000—45 days after the Commission's receipt of the proposals. The Acting Director of the Division of Economic Analysis (Division) of the Commission, acting pursuant to the authority delegated by Commission Regulations 140.96, has determined that publication of the proposed amendments is in the public interest, will assist the Commission in considering the views of interested persons, and is consistent with the purposes of the Commodity Exchange Act.
Comments must be received on or before February 8, 2000.
Interested persons should submit their views and comments to Jean A. Webb, Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581. In addition, comments may be sent by facsimile transmission to facsimile number (202) 418-5521, or by electronic mail to secretary@cftc.gov. Reference should be made to the proposed amendments to the speculative position limits for the CME live cattle futures and option contracts.
Please contact John Bird of the Division of Economic Analysis, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581, telephone (202) 418-5274. Facsimile number: (202) 418-5527. Electronic mail: jbird@cftc.gov.
The live cattle futures calls for delivery of 40,000 pounds of live steers at specified CME-approved livestock yards located in Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico and Colorado or, at the delivery receiver's request, at CME-approved cattle slaughter plants located near the CME-approved livestock yards. The live cattle futures option contract is exercisable into the futures contract and option contract months expire prior to the last five trading days for the underlying futures contract month (the last trading day for expiring contract months is the last business day of the month). Non-delivery period option contract months expire on the last Friday of the month and delivery period options expire on the business day preceding the last nine business days of the underlying futures contract month. Currently, traders' combined positions in the futures and option contracts are subject to speculative position limits of 2,400 contracts in individual non-spot contract months and 600 contracts commencing at the close of business on the business day following the first Friday of the contract month. In addition, positions in the expiring futures contract month are subject to a speculative position limit of 300 contracts during the last five trading days of the expiring contract month.
The proposed amendments would increase to 3,200 contracts from 2,400 contracts the speculative position limit applicable to combined futures and option positions in individual non-spot months. The proposed amendments also would increase to 900 contracts from 600 contracts the speculative position limit applicable to combined futures and option positions held in the expiring contract month from the close of business on the business day following the first Friday of the contract
The CME intends to make the proposed amendments effective upon Commission approval for all existing and newly listed contract months beginning with the April 2000 contract month.
The Commission is requesting comments on the proposed amendment.
Copies of the proposed amendments will be available for inspection at the Office of the Secretariat, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581. Copies of the proposed amendments can be obtained through the Office of the Secretariat by mail at the above address, by phone at (202) 418-5100, or via the Internet at secretary@cftc.gov.
Other materials submitted by the Exchange in support of the proposal may be available upon request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and the Commission's regulations thereunder (17 CFR Part 145 (1987)), except to the extent they are entitled to confidential treatment as set forth in 17 CFR 145.5 and 145.9. Requests for copies of such materials should be made to the FOI, Privacy and Sunshine Act Compliance Staff at the Office of Secretariat at the Commission's headquarters in accordance with 17 CFR 145.7 and 145.8.
Any person interested in submitting written data, views, or arguments on the proposed amendments, or with respect to other materials submitted by the Exchange, should send such comments to Jean A. Webb, Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581 by the specified date.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice of proposed rule amendments of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange to implement cross-margining with the London Clearing House.
The Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME” or “Exchange”) has submitted to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule amendments that would establish a “two-pot” cross-margining program between the CME and the London Clearing House (“LCH”). The program would permit participants to cross-margin their positions at the CME Clearing House and LCH while holding those positions at each clearing house in separate accounts.
Acting pursuant to the authority delegated by Commission Regulation 140.96(b), the Division of Trading and Markets (“Division”) has determined to publish the CME's proposal for public comment. The Division believes that publication of the proposal is in the public interest and will assist the Commission in considering the views of interested persons.
Comments must be received on or before February 8, 2000.
Comments should be submitted to Jean A. Webb, Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581. Comments also may be sent by facsimile to (202) 418-5221 or by electronic mail to secretary@cftc.gov. Reference should be made to “Chicago Mercantile Exchange's Proposal To Establish A Cross-Margining Program With the London Clearing House.”
Joshua R. Marlow, Attorney-Advisor, Division of Trading and Markets, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581. Telephone (202) 418-5490.
On October 22, 1999, CME submitted to the Commission proposed rule amendments that would set forth a framework for the establishment of guaranteed cross-margining programs with other clearing organizations. These proposed rule amendments were submitted by CME in anticipation of its plan to establish a cross-margining program with LCH,
Under the program, CME clearing members that either (1) are clearing
The Commission requests comment from interested persons concerning any aspect of CME's proposed cross-margining program. The Commission is especially interested in comments regarding the cross-border bankruptcy aspects of this proposal.
Copies of CME's proposed rule amendments and certain other materials are available for inspection at the Office of the Secretariat, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581. Copies of the proposed amendments and related materials may also be obtained through the Office of the Secretariat by mail at the above address, by telephone at (202) 418-5100, or by electronic mail at secretary@cftc.gov. Other materials submitted by CME may be available upon request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Commission's regulations thereunder, 17 CFR § 145 (1987), except to the extent they are entitled to confidential treatment as set forth in 17 CFR §§ 145.5, 145.9. Requests for copies of such materials should be made to the FOIA, Privacy Act, and Sunshine Act Compliance Staff of the Office of Secretariat at the Commission's headquarters in accordance with 17 CFR §§ 145.7, 145.8.
Issued in Washington, D.C. on January 14, 2000 by the Commission.
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Notice.
It is the policy of the Commission to publish settlements which it provisionally accepts under the Consumer Product Safety Act in the Federal Register in accordance with the terms of 16 CFR 1118.20(e). Published below is a provisionally-accepted Settlement Agreement Lancaster Colony Corporation, a corporation, containing a civil penalty of $150,000.
Any interested person may ask the Commission not to accept this agreement or otherwise comment on its contents by filing a written request with the Office of the Secretary by February 8, 2000.
Persons wishing to comment on this Settlement Agreement should send written comments to the Comment 00-C0004, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C. 20207.
Ronald G. Yelenik, Trial Attorney, Office of Compliance and Enforcement, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C. 20207; telephone (301) 504-0626, 1351.
The text of the Agreement and Order appears below.
1. This Settlement Agreement and Order, entered into between Lancaster Colony Corporation, a corporation (hereinafter, “Lancaster Colony” or “Respondent”), and the staff of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (hereinafter, “staff”), pursuant to the procedures set forth in 16 C.F.R. § 1118.20, is a compromise resolution of the matter described herein, without a hearing or determination of issues of law and fact.
2. The staff is the staff of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (hereinafter, “Commission”), an independent federal regulatory agency of the United States government, established by Congress pursuant to section 4 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (hereinafter, “CPSA”), as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 2053.
3. Respondent Lancaster Colony is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Ohio with its principal corporate offices located in Columbus, Ohio. Lancaster Colony has an operating division named Candle-lite located in Cincinnati, Ohio, which manufactures and sells candles.
4. Section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2064(b), requires a manufacturer of a consumer product who,
5. Between August 1995 and February 1996, Lancaster Colony through its Candle-lite division, manufactured and sold nationwide, approximately three million Clearfire De-lite Candles (hereinafter the “Candles” or the “product”). A candle is a “consumer product and Lancaster Colony is a “manufacturer” of a “consumer product,” which is “distributed in
6. The product is a candle made of a clear gel-like substance which is packaged in a textured glass jar.
7. The Candles are defective because they could flare up unexpectedly during use, causing the Candles' glass holders to overheat and break. If this occurs, consumers could be burned or injured by broken glass.
8. On or about November 20, 1995, Lancaster Colony first received a report of an incident involving Candle flare-up.
9. By December 31, 1995, Lancaster Colony was aware of approximately forty four incidents involving Candle flare-up, resulting in reports alleging five personal injuries and twenty one occurrences of property damage.
10. In January 1996, with the incidents continuing to mount, Respondent stopped manufacture of the Candles.
11. In February 1996, Respondent revised the formulation of its original Candle, in part, to address the flare-up problem, and introduced a new candle in its place.
12. On or about May 2, 1996, the date the staff conducted an establishment inspection of the firm, Respondent was aware of at least 142 incidents involving candle flare-ups, including reports of approximately 20 incidents involving personal injury and reports of more than 55 incidents involving property damage.
13. Although Lancaster Colony through its Candle-lite division, had obtained sufficient information to reasonably support the conclusion that these Candles contained a defect which could create a substantial product hazard, or created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, it failed to report such information to the Commission prior to the inspection, as required by section 15(b) of the CPSA. This is a violation of section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2068(a)(4).
14. Respondent's failure to report to the Commission, as required by section 15(b) of the CPSA, was committed “knowingly,” as that term is defined in Section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2069(d), and Lancaster Colony is subject to civil penalties under Section 20 of the CPSA.
15. Lancaster Colony denies the allegations of the staff that the Clearfire De-lite candles contain a defect which could create a substantial product hazard pursuant to section 15(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2065(a); denies that it violated the reporting requirements of section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2064(b), and further denies the other allegations of the CPSC staff as stated herein.
16. Lancaster Colony did not have reason to believe that these candles posed a substantial product hazard. Lancaster Colony believed the information available did not reasonably support the conclusion that the products were defective within the meaning of the CPSA or that they created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, and, therefore, no report was required under section 15(b) of the Act.
17. During the time period in which the CPSC alleges Lancaster Colony wrongfully failed to file a report, it conducted its own internal testing as well as independent testing at four different laboratories of 4,500 candles. Neither the in-house nor outside laboratories were able to recreate the scenario about which some consumers complained. These test results suggested to Lancaster Colony that no defect was present. Likewise, the extremely low complaint rate (0.00020) suggested to Lancaster Colony that any flare ups were due to consumer misuse and/or environmental contamination rather than an inherent product defect. Finally, based upon the nature of the complaints received by Lancaster Colony, the firm did not believe that the candles could create a substantial product hazard or create an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. For these reasons, Lancaster Colony concluded, and outside counsel concurred, that it was not required to submit a report to the CPSC.
18. Nevertheless, Lancaster Colony cooperated fully with the Commission staff in designing and implementing a voluntary recall of the candles described in paragraphs 5 and 6 above.
19. By entering into this Settlement Agreement and Order, Lancaster Colony does not admit any liability or wrongdoing. This Settlement Agreement and Order is agreed to by Lancaster Colony solely for the purposes of avoiding the cost of litigation and does not constitute, and is not evidence of, an admission of liability or wrongdoing by Lancaster Colony.
20. The Commission has jurisdiction in this matter under the CPSA, U.S.C. §§ 2051-2084.
21. Lancaster Colony knowingly, voluntarily and completely waives any rights it may have (i) to an administrative or judicial hearing with respect to the Commission staff's allegations discussed in paragraphs 4 through 14 herein, and to the issuance of a complaint, (ii) to judicial review or other challenge or contest of the validity of the Commission's Order, (iii) to a determination by the Commission as to whether a violation of Section 15(b) of the CPSA, has occurred, (iv) to a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law with, and (v) to any claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
22. Upon provisional acceptance of this Settlement Agreement and Order by the Commission, the Commission shall place this Agreement and Order on the public record and shall publish it in the
23. This Settlement Agreement and Order becomes effective only upon its final acceptance by the Commission and service upon Respondent. Compliance by Lancaster Colony with this Final Settlement Agreement and Order releases it from liability arising from any allegations of violation of section 15(b) of the CPSA regarding the specific candles described in paragraphs 5 and 6 above.
24. Upon final acceptance of this Settlement Agreement, the Commission may publicize the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Order.
25. Lancaster Colony agrees to pay to the Commission a civil penalty in the amount of one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000), in settlement of this matter, payable within twenty (20) days after service of the Final Order of the Commission accepting this Settlement Agreement.
26. This Settlement Agreement and Order are entered into for settlement purposes only and shall not constitute an admission or determination arising from the allegations that the candles contain a defect which could create a substantial product hazard or create an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death.
27. The provisions of this Settlement Agreement and Order shall apply to Lancaster Colony and its successors and assigns, agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division, or other business entity, or through any agency, device or instrumentality.
28. This Settlement Agreement may be used in interpreting the Order. Agreements, understandings,
Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement between Respondent Lancaster Colony Corporation, a corporation, and the staff of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Commission having jurisdiction over the subject matter and over Lancaster Colony Corporation, and it appearing the Settlement Agreement is in the public interest, it is
Ordered, that the Settlement Agreement be and hereby is accepted, and it is
Further Ordered, that within 20 days of service of the Final Order upon Respondent, Lancaster Colony Corporation shall pay to the order of the U.S. Treasury a civil penalty in the amount of one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000).
Provisionally accepted and Provisional Order issued on the 18th day of January, 2000.
By order of the Commission.
Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings.
The Defense Science Board Task Force on Global Positioning Systems will meet in closed session on January 12-13, January 20-21, and January 24-25, 2000, at 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, Virginia 22203.
The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will receive briefings and discuss interim findings and tentative recommendations resulting from ongoing activities.
In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, P.L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1994)), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board meetings, concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (1) (1994), and that accordingly these meetings will be closed to the public. However, due to critical mission requirements for a report by the end of January, the Task force is unable to provide timely notice of the above mentioned meetings.
Pursuant to the provisions of Part 404 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs), which implements Public Law 96-517, the Department of the Air Force announces its intention to grant Thorgersen ElectroLuminescence Corporation, a company doing business in Woodbury, CT, an exclusive license in any right, title and interest the Air Force has in U.S. Patent No. 5,213,099. The inventor, Lloyd D. Tripp, was a government employee at the time of the invention. The invention is entitled “Ear Canal Pulse/Oxygen Saturation Measuring Device” and issued on May 25, 1993.
The license described above will be granted unless an objection thereto, together with a request for an opportunity to be heard, if desired, is received in writing by the addressee set forth below within 60 days from the date of publication of this Notice. Information concerning the application may be obtained, on request, from the same addressee.
All communications concerning this Notice should be sent to Mr. Randy Heald, Associate General Counsel (Acquisition), SAF/GCQ, 1500 Wilson Blvd., Suite 304, Arlington, VA 22209-2310. Mr. Heald can be reached at 703-588-5091 or by fax at 703-588-8037.
Notice is hereby given that the Delaware River Basin Commission will hold an informal conference followed by a public hearing on Wednesday, January 26, 2000. The hearing will be part of the Commission's regular business meeting. Both the conference and business meeting are open to the public and will be held in the Goddard Conference Room of the Commission's offices at 25 State Police Drive, West Trenton, New Jersey.
The conference among the Commissioners and staff will begin at 10:00 a.m. and will include a report on the agency's budget for 2001; a discussion of the Basin comprehensive planning process; an update on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposal for undertaking projects jointly with the Commission; a status report on progress toward an agreement between the Army Corps and the Commission for storage at F.E. Walter Reservoir; a report on the status of a new basinwide flood coordination initiative; and a discussion of plans for a two-day Commission meeting in Reading, Pennsylvania in March.
In addition to the dockets listed below, which are scheduled for public hearing, the Commission will address the following at its 1:00 p.m. business meeting: minutes of the December 8, 1999 business meeting; announcements; report on Basin hydrologic conditions; reports by the Executive Director and General Counsel; and public dialogue. The Commission also will conduct public hearings and consider a resolution to adopt the FY 2001 Budget and the 2000 Water Resources Program. It will consider additional resolutions to: authorize the Executive Director to contract with Water Resources Management, Inc. for a flow needs study for the Delaware River and major tributaries; and control toxic pollutants from point sources discharging to the Delaware River Estuary.
The dockets scheduled for public hearing will be as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Documents relating to these items may be examined at the Commission's offices. Preliminary dockets are available in single copies upon request. Please contact Thomas L. Brand at (609) 883-9500 ext. 221 concerning docket-related questions. Persons wishing to testify at this hearing are requested to register with the Secretary at (609) 883-9500 ext. 203 prior to the hearing.
Individuals in need of an accommodation as provided for in the Americans With Disabilities Act who wish to attend the hearing should contact the Secretary, Pamela M. Bush, at (609) 883-9500 ext. 203 or the New Jersey Relay Service at 1-800-852-7899 (TTY) to discuss how the Commission may accommodate your needs.
This notice announces an open teleconference meeting of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board's Laboratory Operations Board. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463, 86 Stat. 770), requires that agencies publish these notices in the
Betsy Mullins, Executive Director, or Laurie Keaton, LOB Staff Director, Office of Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (AB-1), US Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586-7162 or (202) 586-6279 (fax).
The purpose of the Laboratory Operations Board is to provide independent external advice to the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board regarding the strategic direction of the Department's laboratories, the coordination of budget and policy issues affecting laboratory operations, and the reduction of unnecessary and counterproductive management burdens on the laboratories. The Laboratory Operations Board's goal is to facilitate the productive and cost-effective utilization of the Department's laboratory system and the application of best business practices.
Copies of the draft report may be obtained from the following Internet address:
This tentative agenda is subject to change.
Take notice that on November 12, 1999, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National Fuel) tendered for filing Amendment No. 3 to the transportation service agreement filed on August 26, 1999, in the above-referenced proceeding.
National Fuel states that the filing is being made in compliance with the Letter Order issued by the Commission on October 27, 1999. The order directed National Fuel to revise and refile its non-conforming service agreement for transportation service with ProGas U.S.A., Inc., to reflect the elimination of certain language found in the second footnote of Exhibit 1.
National Fuel states that in compliance with that directive, National Fuel submits Amendment No. 3 which replaces Exhibit 1 to the service agreement.
National Fuel states that copies of the filing are being mailed to all of National Fuel's customers, parties on the official service list compiled by the Secretary and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on or before January 25, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Take notice that on January 10, 2000, Questar Pipeline Company (Questar), 180 East 100 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, filed in Docket No. CP00-68-000 an application pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas act (NGA), for authorization to construct and operate pipeline and compression facilities in Utah, in order to increase the capacity of its system, all as more fully set forth in the application on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing may be viewed on the web at
Specifically, Questar proposes to construct and operate a 24-inch diameter loop of an existing section of its Main Line (M.L.) No. 40 and the entirety of its M.L. No. 41. Questar states that the loop, to be known as M.L. No. 104, will extend approximately 75.6 miles from Price, Utah, to the Payson, Utah, City Gate and on to an interconnection with Kern River Gas Transmission company (Kern River) located near Elberta, Utah. It is explained that the loop will be located in Carbon, Emery, Sanpete and Utah Counties, Utah. In addition, Questar proposes to add 9,336 site-rated horsepower of compression at Questar's existing Oak Spring Compressor station, near Price, Utah.
Questar states that the reason for the proposed construction is to expand the capacity of its southern transmission
Questar states that once the proposed project is placed in service, Questar will sell a 50 percent interest to CIG Gas Supply Company (Supply) and then lease back the 50 percent interest to give Questar control over the facilities. It is explained that the sale/leaseback arrangement will enhance both companies' ability to meet market needs most efficiently. Questar explains that it will retain the right to re-purchase Supply's 50 percent interest at net book value.
The cost of the proposed construction is estimated at $80,850,975, including pipeline looping and compression facilities. Questar requests rolled-in rate treatment for the costs associated with the project, stating that the project is in accordance with the Commission's recent policy statement issued in PL99-3-000.
Questar asserts that it conducted an open season between December 28, 1998, and February 23, 1999, to determine market demand and asserts that the result was that Questar has executed firm transportation service contracts with three customers (CIG Resources Company, Questar Gas Company, and Texaco Natural Gas, Inc.) for a total of 270,000 Dt equivalent of reserved daily capacity with contract terms ranging from 5 to 10 years.
Any questions regarding the application may be directed to Alan K. Allred, Manager, Regulatory Affairs and Gas Supply Services, Questar Regulated Services Company, 180 East 100 South, P.O. Box 43560, Salt Lake City, Utah 84145-0360, (801) 324-5768.
Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with reference to said application should on or before February 8, 2000, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene or a protest in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). All protests filed with the Commission will be considered by it in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make the protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party to a proceeding or to participate as a party in any hearing therein must file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules.
Take further notice that, pursuant to the authority contained in, and subject to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Commission by sections 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas Act and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures, a hearing will be held without further notice before the Commission or its designee on this application if no motion to intervene is filed within the time required herein and if the Commission, on its own review of the matter, finds that a grant of the certificate is required by the public convenience and necessity. If a motion for leave to intervene is timely filed, or if the Commission on its own motion believes that a formal hearing is required, further notice of such hearing will be duly given.
Under the procedure herein provided for, unless otherwise advised, it will be unnecessary for Questar to appear, or be represented, at the hearing.
Take notice that on January 7, 2000, Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation (Texas Eastern), P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, filed in Docket No. CP00-67-000 a request pursuant to Sections 167.205 and 157.208 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 157.208) for authorization to construct, own, operate, and maintain certain facilities (Vermillion Lateral) located in Vermilion County, Illinois and Vermillion County, Indiana, to render interruptible lateral transportation service to Duke Energy Vermillion, LLC (DEV) under Texas Eastern's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-535-000, pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the request that is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Texas Eastern proposes to construct, own, operate, and maintain: (i) a measurement facility which will consist of one 6-inch and one 10-inch ultrasonic meter run plus associated pipline, electronic gas measurement equipment and associated instrumentation (M&R Station); and (ii) the Vermillion Lateral, which will consist of approximately 14.03 miles of 16-inch diameter pipeline that will extend from a proposed interconnect with Midwestern Gas Transmission Company (Midwestern), to be located at milepost 2116−1+9.93 in Vermilion County, Illinois, to the M&R Station which will be located at the interconnection with the DEV Plant at milepost 14.03 in Vermillion county, Indiana.
Texas Eastern states that the estimated cost of the Vermillion Lateral facilities is approximately $13 million dollars and that DEV will reimburse Texas Eastern for 100% of the costs and expenses associated with the construction and installation.
Midwestern proposes to construct, own, and operate an interconnect to be located at the intersection of the Vermillion Lateral and Midwestern's 30-inch mainline pipeline (Line No. 2100) located in Vermilion County, Illinois at milepost 2116−1+9.93, which will be constructed under Midwestern's Part 157 blanket construction certificate.
After receipt of the authorization requested and installation of the facilities for which authorization is requested herein, Texas Eastern states that it will deliver up to 200 MMcfd of natural gas to DEV at the DEV Plant, pursuant to a service agreement entered into under Texas Eastern's open access interruptible Rate Schedule IT-1. Texas Eastern declares that the transportation service to be rendered will have no effect on their peak day or annual deliveries and submits that its proposal herein will be accomplished without detriment or disadvantage to Texas Eastern's other customers.
Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice
Take notice that in the above proceeding concerning Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation's new Part 284 liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage services, a technical conference will be held on Tuesday, February 15, 2000 at 10:00 am, in a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20426.
All interested parties and Staff are permitted to attend.
Wells Rural Electric Company (WREC) is a Nevada rural electric cooperative providing electrical service to approximately 5,300 customers in northeastern Nevada and Tooele County, Utah. On November 19, 1999, in Docket No. EL00-19-000, WREC filed a request for waiver of the requirements of Order Nos. 888 and 889. In its filing, WREC also requested certain waivers and authorizations. In particular, WREC requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liabilities by WREC. On January 12, 2000, the Commission issued an Order Granting Request For Waivers of Order Nos. 888 And 889, Addressing Requests For Other Waivers And Accepting Agreements For Filing (Order), in the above-docketed proceedings.
The Commission's January 12, 2000 Order granted the request for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the conditions found in Ordering Paragraphs (D), (E), and (G):
(D) Within 30 days of the date of this order, any person desiring to be heard or to protest the Commission's blanket approval of issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities by WREC should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214.
(E) Absent a request to be heard within the period set forth in Ordering Paragraph (D) above, WREC is hereby authorized to issue securities and assume obligations and liabilities as guarantor, indorser, surety or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issue or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of WREC compatible with the public interest, and reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
(G) The Commission reserves the right to modify this order to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued Commission approval of WREC's issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities . . .
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene or protests, as set forth above, is February 11, 2000.
Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Take notice that the following filings have been made with the Commission:
Take notice that on December 17, 1999, Ameren Services Company (Ameren), on behalf of the Ameren Operating Companies, made a compliance filing at the direction of the Commission's order issued in the above-captioned proceeding on December 1, 1999.
Copies of the filing have been served on the Illinois Commerce Commission, the Missouri Public Service Commission and all parties to the proceeding.
Take notice that on January 11, 2000, Maine Public Service Company (MPS) submitted pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act and Part 35 of the Commission's regulations, revisions to its Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) to implement retail open access in the state of Maine, to reflect that on March 1, 2000 the Northern Maine Independent System Administrator, Inc. (Northern Maine ISA) will begin operations, to modify its rate formula for the rates charged under the OATT, and to make various other revisions and corrections to its OATT.
MPS proposes that the revised OATT rates, terms and conditions become effective March 1, 2000.
Copies of this filing were served on the current customers under the OATT, participants in Maine Public Utilities Commission Docket No. 99-185, the Northern Maine ISA, and the state commission within whose jurisdiction MPS transmits electricity under the OATT.
Take notice that on January 11, 2000, Avista Corporation (AVA), tendered for
AVA requests waiver of the prior notice requirement and requests that the Service Agreement be accepted for filing and made effective December 21, 1999.
The filing has been served upon the following: Ms. Michelle Palmer, PP&L Montana, LLC, 45 Basin Creek Road, Butte, MT 59701.
Take notice that on January 11, 2000, Avista Corporation (AVA), tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission pursuant to Section 35.12 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 35.12), an executed Service Agreement under AVA's FERC Electric Tariff First Revised Volume No. 10, with PP&L Montana, LLC.
AVA requests waiver of the prior notice requirement and requests that the Service Agreement be accepted for filing effective December 21, 1999.
The filing has been served upon the following: Ms. Michelle Palmer, PP&L Montana, LLC, 45 Basin Creek Road, Butte, MT 59701.
Take notice that on January 11, 2000, Avista Corporation (AVA), tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission pursuant to Section 35.12 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 35.12), an executed Mutual Netting/Settlement with British Columbia Power Exchange Corporation, (Powerex), effective January 1, 2000.
The filing has been served upon the following: Mr. David Wong, Credit Risk Manager, British Columbia Power Exchange Corporation, Suite 1400, 666 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6C 2X8.
Take notice that on January 11, 2000, the above-mentioned affiliated power producers and/or public utilities filed their quarterly reports for the quarter ending December 31, 1999.
7. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Docket No. ER00-1059-000.
Take notice that on January 11, 2000, (PJM), tendered for filing three executed umbrella service agreements for network integration transmission service under state required retail access programs. The agreements are with ACN Energy, Inc., KeySpan Energy Services, Inc., and Worley & Obetz, Inc. d/b/a Advanced Energy.
Copies of this filing were served upon the parties to the service agreements and the state commissions within the PJM control area.
8. AmerGen Energy Company, L.L.C., Docket No. ER00-1060-000.
Take notice on January 11, 2000, AmerGen Energy Company, L.L.C. tendered for filing a Service Agreement with Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc. under its FERC Electric Tariff Original Volume No. 1.
AmerGen is requesting an effective date of December 15, 1999 for the Service Agreement.
9. MidAmerican Energy Company, Docket No. ER00-1061-000.
Take notice that on January 11, 2000, MidAmerican Energy Company (MidAmerican), 666 Grand Avenue, 2900 Ruan Center, Des Moines, Iowa 50309 tendered for filing proposed changes to its Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT). The changes are for the purpose of updating the Index of Point-to-Point Transmission Service Customers and the Index of Network Integration Tranmission Service Customers.
MidAmerican proposes that the rate schedule changes become effective on January 13, 2000 and requests a waiver of the Commissions notice requirements.
The proposed rate schedule changes have been mailed to all Transmission Customers having service agreements under the OATT, the Iowa Utilities Board and the Illinois Commission, the South Dakota Public Service Commission.
10. Florida Power Corporation, Docket No. ER00-1062-000.
Take notice that on January 11, 2000, Florida Power Company (FPC) tendered for filing service agreements between TXU Energy Trading Company and FPC and Merchant Energy Group of the Americas, Inc. and FPC under FPC's Market-Based Wholesale Power Sales tariff (MR-1), FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume Number 8. This tariff was accepted for filing by the Commission on June 26, 1997, in Docket No. ER97-2846-000.
The service agreement with Merchant Energy Group of the Americas, Inc. is proposed to be effective December 29, 1999 and the service agreement with TXU Energy Trading Company is proposed to be effective January 6, 2000.
11. Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket No. ER00-1063-000.
Take notice that on January 11, 2000, Virginia Electric and Power Company (Virginia Power) tendered on filing an Assignment and Assumption Agreement entered into by and among Strategic Energy, Ltd. (Assignor), Strategic Energy, LLC (Assignee) and Virginia Electric and Power Company (Virginia Power). Under this assignment, the Assignor assigns to the Assignee and the Assignee assumes all of the Assignor's rights and obligations pertaining to its Service Agreements with Virginia Power dated October 7, 1998 and accepted by Letter Order of the Commission on December 29, 1999 under Docket No. ER99-494-00 and ER99-495-000.
Virginia Power requests an effective date of the assignment of December 31, 1999.
Copies of this filing were served upon Strategic Energy LLC, the Virginia state Corporation Commission and the North Carolina Utilities Commission.
12. Portland General Electric Company, Docket No. ER00-1065-000.
Take notice that on January 11, 2000, Portland General Electric Company (PGE) tendered for filing an Amendment No. 2 to the Power Sales Agreement between PGE and the Canby Utility Board (PGE Rate Schedule FERC No. 192). The Amendment changes the
PGE respectfully requests the Commission grant a waiver of the notice requirements of 18 CFR 35.3 to allow Amendment No. 2 to PGE Rate Schedule FERC No. 192 to become effective January 12, 2000.
Copies of this filing were served upon the names listed in the filing letter.
13. PP&L, Inc., Docket No. ER00-1066-000.
Take Notice that on January 11, 2000, PP&L, Inc. (PP&L) filed a Service Agreement dated January 5, 2000 with The Energy Authority (EA) under PP&L's Market-Based Rate and Resale of Transmission Rights Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Revised Volume No. 5. The Service Agreement adds EA as an eligible customer under the Tariff.
PP&L requests an effective date of January 5, 2000 for the Service Agreement.
PP&L states that copies of this filing have been supplied to EA and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.
14. Louisville Gas and Electric Company and Kentucky Utilities Company, Docket No. ER00-1067-000.
Take notice that on January 11, 2000 Louisville Gas and Electric Company (LG&E) and Kentucky Utilities (KU) (hereinafter Companies) tendered for filing fully executed Netting Agreements between the Companies and Illinova Power Marketing, Inc.
Take notice that on January 11, 2000 Louisville Gas and Electric Company (LG&E) and Kentucky Utilities (KU) (hereinafter Companies) tendered for filing an executed Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreement between the Companies and Cinergy Operating Companies under the Companies Open Access Transmission Tariff.
Take notice that on January 11, 2000 Louisville Gas and Electric Company (LG&E) and Kentucky Utilities (KU) (hereinafter Companies) tendered for filing an executed Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreement between the Companies and LGE Dispatch and Trading under the Companies Open Access Transmission Tariff.
Take notice that on January 11, 2000 Louisville Gas and Electric Company (LG&E) and Kentucky Utilities (KU) (hereinafter Companies) tendered for filing an executed Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreement between the Companies and LGE Dispatch and Trading under the Companies Open Access Transmission Tariff.
Take notice that on January 11, 2000 Louisville Gas and Electric Company (LG&E) and Kentucky Utilities (KU) (hereinafter Companies) tendered for filing an executed Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreement between the Companies and LGE Dispatch and Trading under the Companies Open Access Transmission Tariff.
Take notice that on January 11, 2000 Louisville Gas and Electric Company (LG&E) and Kentucky Utilities (KU) (hereinafter Companies) tendered for filing an executed Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreement between the Companies and LGE Dispatch and Trading under the Companies Open Access Transmission Tariff.
Take notice that on January 11, 2000 Louisville Gas and Electric Company (LG&E) and Kentucky Utilities (KU) (hereinafter Companies) tendered for filing an executed Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreement between the Companies and LGE Dispatch and Trading under the Companies Open Access Transmission Tariff.
Take notice that on January 11, 2000 Louisville Gas and Electric Company (LG&E) and Kentucky Utilities (KU) (hereinafter Companies) tendered for filing an executed Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreement between the Companies and LGE Dispatch and Trading under the Companies Open Access Transmission Tariff.
Take notice that on January 12, 2000 Wisvest-Connecticut, LLC filed their quarterly report for the quarter ending December 31, 1999.
E. Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies
Take notice that the following filings have been made with the Commission:
Take notice that on January 12, 2000, the above-mentioned power marketers filed quarterly reports with the Commission in the above-mentioned proceedings for information only.
Take notice that on January 13, 2000, the above-mentioned power marketers filed quarterly reports with the Commission in the above-mentioned proceedings for information only.
Take notice that on January 10, 2000, Northwest Natural Gas Company filed their quarterly report for the quarter ending December 31, 1999 for information only.
Take notice that on January 13, 2000, the above-mentioned power marketers filed quarterly reports with the Commission in the above-mentioned proceedings for information only.
Take notice that on January 12, 2000, Energy Atlantic, LLC filed their quarterly report for the quarter ending December 31, 1999, for information only.
Take notice that on January 12, 2000, Energy West Resources, Inc., tendered for filings its amended petition to the Commission for acceptance of EWR Rate Schedule FERC No. 1; the granting of certain blanket approvals, including the authority to sell electricity at market-based rates; and the waiver of certain Commission Regulations.
EWR intends to engage in wholesale electric power and energy purchases and sales as a marketer. EWR is not in the business of generating or transmitting electric power. EWR is a wholly owned subsidiary of EWI which owns and operates natural gas and propane distribution facilities.
Take notice that on January 11, 2000, the above-mentioned power marketers filed quarterly reports with the Commission in the above-mentioned proceedings for information only.
Take notice that on January 12, 2000, MidAmerican Energy Company (MidAmerican), 666 Grand Avenue, 2900 Ruan Center, Des Moines, Iowa 50309 tendered for filing proposed changes to its Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT). The changes are for the purpose of accommodating retail open access in Illinois where MidAmerican operates as a public utility providing electric delivery service.
MidAmerican proposes that the rate schedule change become effective on April 1, 2000.
The proposed rate schedule changes have been mailed to all Transmission Customers having service agreements under the OATT, the Iowa Utilities Board and the Illinois Commission, the South Dakota Public Service Commission.
Take notice that on January 12, 2000, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG) tendered for filing pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act and Section 35.13 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC or Commission) Regulations, a request for modification of its tax factor applicable to service rendered under Schedules 7 and 8 and Attachment H of NYSEG's OATT.
NYSEG requests waiver of the Commission's sixty day notice requirement and an effective date of February 1, 2000, for the new tax factor.
NYSEG has served copies of the filing upon each OATT customer on the attached service list and the PSC.
Take notice that on January 12, 2000, FPL Energy Power Marketing, Inc. (FPLEPM) tendered for filing Amendment No. 1 to the Transitional Power Sales Agreement, System Sale of Energy, Capacity and Related Services [Fossil] between FPLEPM and Central Maine Power Company.
FPLEPM requests an effective date of January 1, 2000.
Take notice that on January 12, 2000, West Texas Utilities Company (WTU) filed a new Facility Schedule to its Interconnection Agreement with Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (Brazos) to establish a new point of interconnection between WTU and Brazos.
WTU seeks an effective date of January 13, 2000 and, accordingly, seeks waiver of the Commission's notice requirements.
Copies of the filing have been served on Brazos and the Public Utility Commission of Texas.
Take notice that on January 12, 2000, the California Independent System Operator Corporation (ISO), tendered for
The ISO states that this filing has been served on San Joaquin Cogen Limited and the California Public Utilities Commission.
The ISO is requesting waiver of the 60-day notice requirement to allow the Participating Generator Agreement to be made effective January 6, 2000.
Take notice that on January 12, 2000, Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative Inc. (Platte-Clay) submitted for filing an agreement for the Interchange of Electric Power and Energy Between Platt-Clay Electric Cooperative Inc. and the City of Cameron, Missouri and various Border Customer Agreements Between Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative Inc. and Missouri Public Service, a Division of Utilicorp United, Inc. pursuant to § 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. § 824d, and section 35.12 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Regulations (18 CFR 35.12).
Platte-Clay's filing is available for public inspection at its offices in Kearney, Missouri.
Platte-Clay requests an effective date of January 18, 2000.
Take notice that on January 13, 2000, Avista Corporation (AVA) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, pursuant to Section 35.12 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 35.12), an executed Mutual Netting Agreement with the Public Service Company of Colorado.
AVA requests an effective date of January 1, 2000.
The filing has been served on the following: Mr. Cary Oswald, Credit Analysis Manager, Public Analysis Manager, Public Service Company of Colorado, 1099 18th Street, Suite 3000, Denver, CO 80202.
E. Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of these filings are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before March 24, 2000.
Interested persons may obtain a copy of this ICR without charge by contacting Ash Sajjad, NPDES Branch, Water Division (WN-16J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, telephone number (312) 886-6112, E-mail address “sajjad.ash@epa.gov”.
Ash Sajjad, telephone number (312) 886-6112, facsimile number (312) 886-7804, E-mail address “sajjad.ash@epa.gov'.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
The EPA would like to solicit comments to:
(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that two committees of the Science Advisory Board will hold public teleconference meetings on the dates and times noted below. All times noted are Eastern Time. All meetings are open to the public, however, seating and teleconference lines are limited and available on a first-come basis.
The Integrated Risk Project (IRP) Peer Review Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board will meet Tuesday February 15, 2000 from 3:00 to 5:00 pm. The meeting will be coordinated through a conference call connection located in Room 6013 of the Ariel Rios Building at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) located at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004. The building entrance is adjacent to the Federal Triangle Metro Stop on 12th Street. For directions and further information concerning the meeting, please contact the individuals given below. The public is welcome to attend the meeting physically or through a telephonic link.
At this meeting the Integrated Risk Project Subcommittee will review the report of the Integrated Risk Project:
The Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) will meet Wednesday, February 16, 2000 from 12:00 am to 2:00 pm. The meeting will be coordinated through a conference call connection located in Room 6013 of the Ariel Rios Building at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) located at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004. The building entrance is adjacent to the Federal Triangle Metro Stop on 12th Street. For directions and further information concerning the meeting, please contact the individuals given below. The public is welcome to attend the meeting physically or through a telephonic link.
The purpose of this meeting is to plan for “Phase 2 of the Review of EPA's Peer Review Program: Effectiveness Evaluation.”
The Subcommittee has tasked itself to develop specific guidance for the subsequent SAB evaluation of how peer reviews are conducted by the Agency Programs and Regions using specific case studies. The Committee will work to develop (a) an overall strategy for the review, (b) criteria for the selection of projects to review, and (c) options for how the review might be conducted, together with a recommended approach for consideration by the SAB's Executive Committee.
Members of the public desiring additional information about either meeting should contact Dr. John R. Fowle III, Deputy Staff Director and Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Science Advisory Board (1400A), U.S. EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone/voice mail at (202) 564-4547; fax at (202) 501-0323; or via e-mail at fowle.jack@epa.gov or Ms. Wanda Fields, Management Assistant; telephone/voice mail at (202) 564-4539; fax at (202) 501-0256; or via email at fields.wanda@epa.gov. A copy of the draft agenda and copies of the background material will be available approximately two weeks prior to the meeting on the SAB website (www.epa.gov/sab) or from Ms. Wanda Fields at the fax or address noted above. Additional instructions about how to participate in either conference call can be obtained from Ms. Fields.
Members of the public who wish to make a brief oral presentation at either meeting must contact Dr. Fowle in writing (by email, by letter or by fax—see previously stated information) no later than 12 noon Eastern Time, Thursday, February 10, 2000 in order to be included on the Agenda. Public comments will be limited to three
Additional information concerning the Science Advisory Board, its structure, function, and composition, may be found on the SAB Website
Notice of public meeting.
The SFIREG Water Quality and Pesticide Disposal Working Committee will hold a 2-day meeting, beginning on February 7, 2000 and ending on February 8, 2000. This notice announces the location and times for the meeting and sets forth the tentative agenda topics.
The State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG) will meet on Monday, February 7, 2000 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and on Tuesday, February 8, 2000 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon. There will be a CLOSED SESSION (Open Only to EPA and State Lead Agencies) on Monday, February 7, 2000 from 4:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at The Doubletree Hotel, 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington-Crystal City, VA 22202.
Philip H. Gray, SFIREG Executive Secretary, P. O. Box 1249, Hardwick, VT 05843-1249; (802) 472-6956; fax: (802) 472-6957; e-mail address: aapco@plainfield.bypass.com or Elaine Y. Lyon, Field and External Affairs Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305-5306; fax number: (703) 308-1850; e-mail address: lyon.elaine@epa.gov.
This action is directed to the public in general, but all parties interested in SFIREG's information exchange relationship with EPA regarding important issues related to human health, environmental exposure to pesticides, and insight into the EPA's decision-making process are invited and encouraged to attend the meetings and participate as appropriate.
1.
2.
1. Working committee issues and updates.
2. Update on pesticide field data plan.
3. Update on Total Maximum Daily Load & National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Draft Straw Proposal.
4. Office of Research and Developments grant to study “The Impact of Lawn Care Practices on Aquatic Ecosystems in Suburban Watersheds.”
5. Update on Pesticides in Ground Water and Surface Water Data bases.
6. Working committee discussion on survey on aquatic pesticides and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permitting.
7. Florida State University grant to develop Indicators.
8. Updates from the Office of Pesticide Programs and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
9. Other topics as appropriate.
Environmental protection,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the initial filing of pesticide petitions proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of certain pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities.
Comments, identified by docket control number PF-909, must be received on or before February 23, 2000.
Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in
The product manager listed in the table below:
You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under “FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.”
1.
2.
You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number PF-909 in the subject line on the first page of your response.
1
2
3.
Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified under “FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.”
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
EPA has received pesticide petitions as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of certain pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Comestic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that these petitions contain data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Petitioner summaries of the pesticide petitions are printed below as required by section 408(d)(3) of the FFDCA. The summaries of the petitions were prepared by the petitioners and represent the views of the petitioners. EPA is publishing the petition summaries verbatim without editing them in any way. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.
EPA has received pesticide petitions (PP 5F4505 and 6F4791) from Acetochlor Registration Partnership, c/o Zeneca Ag Products, 1800 Concord Pike, Wilmington DE 19850 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a tolerance for residues of acetochlor (2-chloro-2′-methyl-6′-ethyl-
1.
2.
3.
Fourteen field residue trials in sweet corn with acetochlor were conducted in 12 states. The maximum combined residues (acetochlor and metabolites) were 1.35 ppm in corn forage, 0.97 ppm in corn fodder and <0.05 ppm in grain.
Seventeen rotational crop residue trials were conducted in 17 states representing the top corn, alfalfa and clover producing regions in the U.S. The maximum combined residue (acetochlor and metabolites) in alfalfa forage was 0.540 ppm and the maximum alfalfa hay residue was 1.870 ppm. The maximum clover forage residue was 0.567 ppm, the maximum clover residue was 1.244 ppm.
1.
2.
In mutagenicity tests conducted by ZENECA, acetochlor induced a reproducible, positive, mutagenic response in strain TA 1538 of
Acetochlor induced a weak DNA repair (measured by UDS) in rat hepatocytes derived from animals exposed
3.
In a developmental study submitted by ZENECA , with rats fed dosages of 0, 40, 150, and 600 mg/kg/day, the developmental NOAEL was 150 mg/kg/day based on increased resorptions, post-implantation loss, and decrease in mean fetal weight at 600 mg/kg/day (HDT). The maternal toxicity NOAEL for this study was 150 mg/kg/day based on animals sacrificed moribund, clinical observations, and decreased body weight gain at 600 mg/kg/day (HDT).
In a developmental study submitted by Monsanto, with rabbits fed dosages of 0, 15, 50, and 190 mg/kg/day, acetochlor did not induce developmental toxicity in rabbits up to 190 mg/kg/day (HDT). The maternal toxicity NOAEL was 50 mg/kg/day based on loss of body weight during dosing at 190 mg/kg/day (HDT).
In a developmental study submitted by ZENECA, with rabbits fed dosages of 0, 30, 100, and 300 mg/kg/day, acetochlor did not induce either maternal or developmental toxicity up to 300 mg/kg/day (HDT).
In a 2-generation reproduction study submitted by Monsanto, with rats fed dosages of 0, 30.4, 74.1, and 324.5 mg/kg/day (males) or 0, 44.9, 130.1, and 441.5 mg/kg/day (females), the reproductive NOAEL was 30.4 mg/kg/day for males and 44.9 mg/kg/day for females, based on decreased body weight gain of F2b pups at 74.1 mg/kg/day for males and 130.1 mg/kg/day for females. A NOAEL for systemic effects was not established.
In a 2-generation reproduction study submitted by ZENECA, with rats fed dosages of 0, 1.6, 21, and 160 mg/kg/day, the reproductive NOAEL was 21 mg/kg/day based on significant reductions in pup weight at lactational day 21 and total body weight gain during lactation at 160 mg/kg/day (HDT). The parental NOAEL was 21 mg/kg/day based on reductions in body weight, accompanied by slight reductions in food consumption and significant increases in relative organ weights at 160 mg/kg/day (HDT).
Conclusion. Acetochlor is not considered to be a material that causes developmental or reproductive toxicity. The lowest NOAEL for fetotoxicity was 21 mg/kg/day in a 2-generation reproduction study and the lowest NOAEL for fetotoxicity in a developmental study was 150 mg/kg/day.
4.
A 3-week dermal study submitted by Monsanto with rabbits fed dosages of 0, 100, 400, and 1,200 mg/kg/day resulted in a NOAEL for systemic effects of 400 mg/kg/day based on mortality and decreased body weight at 1,200 mg/kg/day, (HDT). The lowest effect level (LEL) for dermal irritation was 100 mg/kg lowest dose tested (LDT). A NOAEL for dermal irritation was not established.
A 3-week dermal study submitted by ZENECA with rats fed dosages of 0.1, 1.0, 10, or 100 mg/kg/day resulted in minimal to mild skin irritation after 21 days. Signs of systemic toxicity were not apparent at any level. Higher doses were not possible because of severe dermal toxicity at higher doses.
5.
In a 1-year feeding study submitted by ZENECA, with dogs fed dosages of 0, 2, 10, and 50 mg/kg/day, the NOAEL was 2 mg/kg/day based on increased salivation, ornithine carbamyl transferase, and triglyceride values accompanied by decreased blood glucose levels and liver glycogen levels at 10 mg/kg/day. Interstitial nephritis, tubular degeneration of the testes and hypospermia were reported.
In a chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study submitted by Monsanto, in which rats were fed dose levels of 0, 22, 69, and 250 mg/kg/day, a NOAEL for chronic effects was not established.
In a repeat chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study submitted by Monsanto, in which rats were fed dose levels of 0, 2, 10, and 50 mg/kg/day, the NOAEL for chronic effects was 10 mg/kg/day.
In a chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study submitted by ZENECA, in which rats were fed dose levels of 0, 0.8, 7.9, and 79.6 mg/kg/day, the NOAEL for chronic effects was 7.9 mg/kg/day.
Conclusion. The lowest NOAEL for chronic effects in dogs was 2 mg/kg/day and the lowest NOAEL for chronic effects in rats was 7.9 mg/kg/day. EPA has established the Reference Dose (RfD) for acetochlor at 0.02 mg/kg/day based on the 2.0 mg/kg/day NOAEL in the ZENECA dog study and the application of a 100-fold safety factor.
In a chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study submitted by Monsanto with mice fed dosages of 0, 75, 225, and 750 mg/kg/day (high dose determined to be 973 mg/kg/day by the ARP) carcinogenic effects noted included increased incidence of liver carcinomas in high-
In a chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study submitted by ZENECA with mice fed dosages 0, 1.1, 11, and 116 mg/kg/day in males and 0, 1.4, 13, and 135 mg/kg/day in females, carcinogenic effects noted included an increase in pulmonary adenoma in both male and females at the high dose. Pulmonary tumors were confirmed as adenomas or carcinomas of the lung parenchyma and were all of the alveolar type. The NOAEL for systemic toxicity in females was 13 mg/kg/day based on a significant increase in anterior polar vacuoles in the lens of the eye at 135 mg/kg/day.
In a chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study submitted by Monsanto, with rats fed dosages of 0, 22, 69, and 250 mg/kg/day (males) or 0, 30, 93, and 343 mg/kg/day (females), carcinogenic effects noted at 250 (highest dose determined to be 297 mg/kg/day) mg/kg/day in males and 343 mg/kg/day in females included hepatocellular carcinoma in both sexes and thyroid follicular cell adenoma in males. Nasal papillary adenomas were noted in male rats at 69 mg/kg/day and above and in females at 93 mg/kg/day. A NOAEL for chronic effects was not established.
In a repeat chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study submitted by Monsanto, in rats fed dosages of 0, 2, 10, and 50 mg/kg/day oncogenic effects noted at 50 mg/kg/day (HDT) included neoplastic nodules of the liver, follicular adenoma/cystadenoma of the thyroids and papillary edema of the mucosa of the nose/turbinates in high dose animals. The NOAEL for chronic effects was 10 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weights and body weight gain in both sexes, high cholesterol levels in males, increased absolute and relative kidney and liver weight in males, and increased testicular weights at 50 mg/kg/day (HDT).
In a 2-year chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study submitted by ZENECA, with rats fed dosages of 0, 0.8, 7.9, and 79.6 mg/kg/day, carcinogenic effects noted at 79.6 mg/kg/day (HDT) included a significant increase in nasal epithelial adenomas and thyroid follicular cell adenomas in both sexes at 79.6 mg/kg/day. Also, at that dose nasal carcinoma was present in two males and one female rat at this dose. Rare tumors in the form of benign chondroma of the femur and basal cell tumor of the stomach were also observed at 79.6 mg/kg/day. The systemic NOEL was 7.9 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight gain, decreased food efficiency, increased organ to body weight ratios, increased plasma GGT and cholesterol at 79.6 mg/kg/day (HDT).
Conclusions. Three oncogenicity studies have been conducted with acetochlor in rats and two have been conducted in mice. In rats, increased incidences of tumors in nasal, thyroid and liver tissues were found only at dose levels equal to or exceeding the MTD. Liver tumors were found in only one rat study and at the highest dose tested (297mg/kg/day), a dose which greatly exceeded the MTD. The nasal tumors, found only at and above the MTD, are the only biologically relevant and reproducible oncogenic effect in rats.
In mice, increased incidences of tumors in liver, lung, and uterine tissues were observed. The liver tumors were observed only in one study, at the HDT (973mg/kg/day) a dose which greatly exceeded the MTD as evidenced by increased mortality of approximately 90%. The lung tumors and uterine histiocytic sarcomas were observed in all treated female groups in one study, but there was no dose-response relationship which makes the relationship to treatment and relevance equivocal. Lung tumors occurred only in high dose animals in the second mouse study and their incidence rate was within the historical control range for the laboratory. The rat and mouse liver tumors and the mouse lung and histiocytic sarcomas have been subjected to an independent pathology peer review.
Overall, the only clear oncogenic responses in rats or mice are found only at high dose levels at or above the MTD. This suggests that such tumors are not produced by genotoxic mechanisms, but by other threshold-dependent mechanisms. The weight of the evidence of all the genotoxicity studies conducted with acetochlor also supports the conclusion that tumor formation is not driven by genotoxic mechanisms. An overview of the genotoxicity studies with acetochlor has been reported by Ashby, et al. in Human and Experimental Toxicology, 15, 702, 1996 (EPA MRID NO. 44069503).
Mechanistic studies with alachlor, a structural analog of acetochlor which produces the same nasal and thyroid tumors in the rat, provide additional evidence that rodent tumors incident to acetanilide dosing are produced by indirect threshold mechanisms that are unique to the rat and not relevant to humans under realistic exposure levels. The Acetochlor Registration Partnership (ARP) has conducted and submitted a number of studies on the mechanism of tumor formation with acetochlor. The ARP believes these studies establish the basis for the use of a Margin of Exposure (MOE) for the cancer risk assessment for acetochlor.
6.
7.
8.
1.
i.
ii.
Although acetochlor is not expected to leach through most agricultural soils, there is a potential for limited ground water contamination in areas of highly permeable soils. To address this possibility, acetochlor products are labeled to prohibit use in fields where the depth to ground water is less than 30 feet and where the soils are “sands” with less than 3% organic matter; “loamy sands” with less than 2% organic matter; or “sandy loams” with less than 1% organic matter. However, shallow ground water contamination can also result from misuse, improper well construction and the movement of surface water into direct conduits to ground water. The ARP has been conducting a ground water monitoring (GWM) program consisting of 175 wells immediately adjacent to acetochlor treated fields since 1995. The wells are located in a variety of soil types to cover the range from light permeable soils to heavy less vulnerable soils, reflecting the soils on which corn is grown in the seven major corn-producing states. The ARP GWM wells are agricultural monitoring wells and do not adequately represent the drinking water wells across the entire country. Therefore, sporadic detections at very low levels cannot be extrapolated to provide accurate estimates of acetochlor in drinking water derived from ground water. A series of eight Prospective Ground Water (PGW) studies are being conducted by the ARP to monitor the movement of acetochlor to ground water under intensively instrumented fields, across a range of soil textures. Two studies initiated during 1995 are nearing completion and neither show any indication of acetochlor movement. Four studies commenced during 1996 and continue to show no acetochlor ground water contamination. Traces of acetochlor were detected at one of these sites at one sampling interval, soon after application. The residues were extremely low (0.06 ppb) and had dissipated by the next sampling interval.
The conditions of the registration of acetochlor include cancellation triggers based on detection scenarios in the Surface Water Monitoring Program, the Ground Water Monitoring Program and the Prospective Ground Water Program that will preclude any significant, widespread contamination of drinking water.
For the purpose of chronic risk assessment, a level of 0.1 ppb seems to represent a reasonable, upper-bound level for acetochlor in drinking water. Based on 0.1 ppb in the water and an assumed water consumption of 2 liters per day for an adult weighing 70 kg, the upper bound exposures would be 2.9 x 10
For the purpose of assessing short term risk, a level of 2 ppb, the probable MCL, represents a reasonably conservative, upper bound level for acetochlor in drinking water. Based on 2 ppb in the water and an assumed water consumption of 2 liters per day for an adult weighing 70 kg and 1 liter per day for a child weighing 10 kg, the short-term exposure for the adult would be 5.7 x 10
2.
Toxicological testing of the chloroacetamide herbicide family in animals with high doses has produced a number of observed effects. Certain effects in some tissues are observed in two, three, or four members of the family, but there is no single effect that represents conclusive evidence of a common mechanism of toxicity existing throughout the chloroacetamide family.
EPA has not established procedures for determining when pesticides share a common toxic mechanism, or provided a definition of “concurrent exposure.” At this time there is no established procedure for risk assessment of pesticides which may have a common mechanism by may differ in potency and exposure. Following an EPA proposal to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel meeting on March 20, 1997 (Docket No. OPP-00466) that nasal tumors in alachlor, acetochlor, butachlor, and perhaps metolachlor may be formed by a common toxic mechanism, Monsanto Company has derived an equation to calculate a MOE for the combined, concurrent exposure to multiple chloroacetamide herbicides that may share a common mechanism for nasal tumors. The mechanism is thought to be metabolic production of
MOE=1÷([ala]÷[ala]
In which, [ChlorX] represents the Aggregate Exposure to each individual chloroacetamide herbicide which shares the common mechanism with alachlor (ala), and [ChlorX]
The ARP adopts this equation for the purpose of the cumulative risk assessment for chloroacetamides and to show that acetochlor uses meet the FQPA standard of reasonable certainty of no harm even if a common mechanism of toxicity is presumed to exist for several chloroacetamides.
1.
The Aggregate Exposure estimate for chronic exposures to acetochlor is 1.29 x 10
For cancer risk assessment, the ARP proposes that acetochlor be assessed by the MOE method that has been approved for cancer risk assessment of alachlor, a close structural analog which produces the same nasal and thyroid tumors in the rat. The appropriate cancer reference endpoint for acetochlor is the lowest NOAEL for tumors which is 26 mg/kg/day, the NOAEL for nasal tumors in the rat. Comparison of the aggregate exposure estimate of 1.29 x 10
ii.
Because some of these active ingredients have more than one chronic rat study, MOE ED
2.
Based on the current toxicological data requirements, the acetochlor data base is complete and sufficient for assessing prenatal and postnatal effects on children. There are two developmental studies with acetochlor in both the rat and the rabbit and there are two reproduction studies in the rat. In the four developmental studies and two reproduction studies with acetochlor, the fetal NOAEL's were either equal to or higher than the maternal (systemic) NOAEL's, indicating that there is no increased sensitivity for offspring. The NOAEL of 2 mg/kg/day in the dog study which was used to establish the RfD is lower than the lowest developmental NOAEL by a factor of 75, and lower than the lowest reproductive NOAEL by a factor of 10, suggesting that the RfD is appropriate for assessing aggregate risk to infants and children. The results of the acetochlor testing establishes that there is reasonable certainty of no harm to infants and children from the proposed uses of acetochlor.
The upper bound Aggregate Exposure for infants or children is 2.27 x 10
There are no Codex Alimentarius Commission (CODEX) Maximum Residue Levels established for residues of acetochlor on agricultural commodities.
EPA has received a pesticide petition (9E6025) from the Interregional Project Number 4 (IR-4), New Jersey
1.
2.
1.
In a rat acute dermal study, the LD
Results of a primary eye irritation study in the rabbit indicated that pyridate is a mild irritant.
A primary dermal irritation study showed pyridate to be a moderate skin irritant, whereas, a dermal sensitization study indicated it is a sensitizer.
2.
3.
A developmental toxicity study in the rabbit with doses of 0, 150, 300, or 600 mg/kg/day showed a maternal NOAEL of 300 mg/kg/day and a developmental NOAEL > 600 mg/kg/day.
Results of a multi-generational reproduction study with rats dosed at 0, 2.2, 10.8, or 67.5 mg/kg/day showed a NOAEL of 10.8 mg/kg/day for maternal and developmental toxicity.
4.
A 90-day feeding study in dogs with doses of 0, 20, 60, or 200 mg/kg/day showed a NOAEL of 20 mg/kg/day. Slight degenerative myelopathy in the peripheral nerves was observed at the highest dose level, which is much higher than the NOAEL and the expected exposure from field use.
5.
A lifespan (121 week) chronic/carcinogenicity study in rats treated with analytical levels of 0, 2.2, 10.8, or 67.5 mg/kg/day (equivalent to 0, 48, 240, or 1,500 ppm) showed a systemic NOAEL of 10.8 mg/kg/day (240 ppm) based on body weight depression. No carcinogenic potential was observed.
In an 18-month carcinogenicity study, mice were fed doses of 0, 400, 800, 1,600 or 7,000 ppm of pyridate. In males, dose levels were approximately 0, 47.7; 97.1; 169.5, and 882.6 mg/kg bwt/day; in females, dose levels were approximately 0, 54.5, 114.6, 204.3, and 1,044.6 mg/kg bwt/day with a NOAEL at 800 ppm (97.1 mg/kg in males and 114.6 mg/kg in females). Results showed no evidence of carcinogenicity.
6.
1.
i.
ii.
2.
3.
Pyridate belongs to the pyridazine group of herbicidal compounds and has a unique mode of action in plants. Sandoz does not have data to indicate a common mechanism of toxicity to other compounds in humans. Therefore cumulative effects from common mechanisms of action are unlikely.
1.
2.
Using the same assumptions as above, the exposure to infants and children is presented as a percent of cPAD. The dietary exposure for the current uses plus the corn grain, peanut butter, and cabbage uses for non-nursing infants is estimated as 1.25 x 10
No international tolerances have been established for pyridate on peppermint tops and spearmint tops by CODEX Alimentarius Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the initial filing of pesticide petitions proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of certain pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities.
Comments, identified by docket control number PF-914, must be received on or before February 23, 2000.
Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I.C. of the “SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.” To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number PF-914 in the subject line on the first page of your response.
By mail: Mary Waller, Registration Support Branch, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-9354; e-mail address: waller.mary@epa.gov.
You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under “FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.”
1.
2.
You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number PF-914 in the subject line on the first page of your response.
1
2
3.
Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified under “FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.”
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
EPA has received pesticide petitions as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of certain pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Comestic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that these petitions contain data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Petitioner summaries of the pesticide petitions are printed below as required by section 408(d)(3) of the FFDCA. The summaries of the petitions were prepared by the petitioners and represent the views of the petitioners. EPA is publishing the petition summaries verbatim without editing them in any way. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.
EPA has received pesticide petitions (PP 6F4693, PP 4F4380) from AgrEvo USA Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Wilmington, DE 19808 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing tolerances for residues of flutolanil in or on the raw agricultural commodities potatoes at 0.20 parts per million (ppm), and potato waste (wet) at 0.40 ppm, rice at 2.0 ppm, rice straw at 12.0 ppm, and in or on the processed food commodities rice hulls at 7.0 ppm and rice bran at 3.0 ppm. EPA has determined that the petitions contain data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petitions. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petitions.
1.
2.
3.
A processing study was also conducted to support the use of flutolanil as a potato seed piece protectant. Concentration of residues was observed into wet peel (1.7x). No concentration was observed in potato granules, chips, or flakes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Thus, acute dietary, occupational and residential risk assessments are not considered necessary. The Agency has concluded that the chronic Referene Dose (RfD) for flutolanil should be 0.63 mg/kg/day, based on the NOAEL of 63 mg/kg/day from the first rat multigeneration reproduction study and a 100-fold Uncertainty Factor. The Agency has also determined that the carcinogenicity classification for flutolanil should be “Group E--Evidence of Non-Carcinogenicity for Humans.”
1.
i.
ii.
2.
Flutolanil has demonstrated only minimal toxicity in animal studies. The mechanism of this toxicity is unknown. Furthermore, there are no available data to indicate that flutolanil has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. Thus, only the potential risks from flutolanil are being considered in this document.
1.
2.
Based on the existing and proposed tolerances in rice, potatoes, peanuts, and secondary commodities, the TMRC from the current petition is estimated to be 0.006498 mg/kg/day for the most highly exposed subpopulation, non-nursing infants (less than 1 year old). This exposure would utilize approximately 1% of the RfD. Therefore, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants or children from aggregate exposure to flutolanil.
No Codex Alimentarius Commission (CODEX) tolerances have been established for flutolanil.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the initial filing of pesticide petitions proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of certain pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities.
Comments, identified by docket control number PF-911, must be received on or before February 23, 2000.
Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I.C. of the “SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.” To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number PF-911 in the subject line on the first page of your response.
By mail: Judy Loranger, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-8056; e-mail address: loranger.judy@epa.gov.
You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under “FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.”
1.
2.
You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number PF-911 in the subject line on the first page of your response.
1
2
3.
Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified under “FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.”
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Comestic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Pursuant to section 408(d)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA, as amended, Bird Shield Repellent Corporation has submitted the following summary of information, data, and arguments in support of their pesticide petitions. These summaries were prepared by Bird Shield Repellent Corporation and EPA has not fully evaluated the merits of the pesticide petition. The summaries may have been edited by EPA if the terminology used was unclear, the summaries contained extraneous material, or the summaries unintentionally made the reader conclude that the findings reflected EPA's position and not the position of the petitioner.
EPA has received a pesticide petition 9F5055 from Bird Shield Repellent Corporation, P.O. Box 785, Pullman, WA 99163, proposing pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the biochemical pesticide methyl anthranilate in or on sunflower.
The commercial name for the end use product containing methyl anthranilate (MA) is Bird Shield Repellent, EPA Reg. No. 66550-1. The product was approved for use as a bird repellent on cherries, blueberries and grapes on October 3, 1995. The active ingredient, methyl anthranilate, is a natural constituent of concord and heavy red grapes. It is listed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a flavoring compound under 21 CFR 182.60 and is classified as a Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) compound by the Expert panel of the Flavoring and Extract Manufacturer's Association (FEMA No. 2682). An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the active ingredient, methyl anthranilate for cherries, blueberries and grapes under 40 CFR 180.1143 became effective on April 26, 1995, as published in the
The mode of action is physical whereby the repellent irritates the bird's taste buds, olfactory sensors and skin. For this petition, methyl anthranilate is
1.
2.
3.
Methyl anthranilate is approved by the FDA for food use as an artificial flavoring and fragrance agent. Bird Shield Repellent Corporation has reviewed the acute toxicological studies associated with these approvals and conducted additional studies for verification. Summaries of these studies are presented below:
1.
2.
1.
ii.
2.
Consideration of a common mode of toxicity is not appropriate given there is no indication of mammalian toxicity of methyl anthranilate and no information that indicates that the toxic effects would be cumulative with any other compounds. Moreover, methyl anthranilate does not exhibit a toxic mode of action in its target species.
1.
2.
Bird Shield Repellent Corporation has no information to suggest that methyl anthranilate will adversely affect the immune or endocrine systems.
An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the active ingredient, methyl anthranilate for cherries, blueberries and grapes under 40 CFR 180.1143 became effective in the
Bird Shield Repellent Corporation is not aware of any tolerance, exemption from tolerance or maximum residue levels (MRLs) issued for methyl anthranilate outside the United States.
EPA has received a pesticide petition 9F5056 from Bird Shield Repellent Corporation, P.O. Box 785, Pullman, WA 99163, proposing pursuant to section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the biochemical pesticide methyl anthranilate in or on corn.
The commercial name for the end use product containing methyl anthranilate is Bird Shield Repellent, EPA Reg. No. 66550-1. The product was approved for use as a bird repellent on cherries, blueberries and grapes on October 3, 1995. The active ingredient, methyl anthranilate, is a natural constituent of concord and heavy red grapes. It is listed by the FDA as a flavoring compound under 21 CFR 182.60 and is classified as a GRAS compound by the Expert panel of FEMA No. 2682. An
The mode of action is physical whereby the repellent irritates the bird's taste buds, olfactory sensors and skin. For this petition, methyl anthranilate is sprayed in a water solution at a rate of 0.2862 pounds (lbs.) per acre to corn twice and may be reapplied at 5 to 10 day intervals until harvest. Applications to the crop can be applied up to 2 days before harvest.
1.
2.
3.
Methyl anthranilate is approved by the FDA for food use as an artificial flavoring and fragrance agent. Bird Shield Repellent Corporation has reviewed the acute toxicological studies associated with these approvals and conducted additional studies for verification. Summaries of these studies are presented below:
1.
2.
1.
ii.
2.
Consideration of a common mode of toxicity is not appropriate given there is no indication of mammalian toxicity of methyl anthranilate and no information that indicates that the toxic effects would be cumulative with any other compounds. Moreover, methyl anthranilate does not exhibit a toxic mode of action in its target species.
1.
2.
Bird Shield Repellent Corporation has no information to suggest that methyl anthranilate will adversely affect the immune or endocrine systems.
An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the active ingredient, methyl anthranilate for cherries, blueberries and grapes under 40 CFR 180.1143 became effective on April 26, 1995 (60 FR 20432).
Bird Shield Repellent Corporation is not aware of any tolerance, exemption from tolerance or MRL's issued for methyl anthranilate outside the United States.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of
Comments, identified by docket control number PF-910, must be received on or before February 23, 2000.
Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I.C. of the “SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.” To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number PF-910 in the subject line on the first page of your response.
By mail: Susanne Cerrelli, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-8077; e-mail address: Cerrelli.susanne@epa.gov.
You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under “FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.”
1.
2.
You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number PF-910 in the subject line on the first page of your response.
1
2
3.
Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified under “FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.”
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your
EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Comestic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP) 9F6038 from Prophyta Biologischer Pflanzenschutz GmbH, Inselstrabe 12, D-23999 Malchow/Poel, Germany, proposing pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the microbial pesticide
Pursuant to section 408(d)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA, as amended, Prophyta Biologischer Pflanzenschutz GmbH has submitted the following summary of information, data, and arguments in support of their pesticide petition. This summary was prepared by Prophyta Biologischer Pflanzenschutz GmbH and EPA has not fully evaluated the merits of the pesticide petition. The summary may have been edited by EPA if the terminology used was unclear, the summary contained extraneous material, or the summary unintentionally made the reader conclude that the findings reflected EPA's position and not the position of the petitioner.
1.
2.
3.
CONTANS® WG, the end-use product which contains 5.3% active ingredient, was evaluated for acute toxicity through oral, dermal, inhalation and eye routes of exposure. The results of the studies indicated Toxicity Category III or IV, which pose no significant human health risks.
The acute oral toxicity of
A waiver is being requested for acute oral toxicity/pathogenicity, acute dermal toxicity/pathogenicity and acute pulmonary toxicity/pathogenicity data requirements, based on the fact that the active ingredient is not able to grow at temperatures above 32 °C, and thus would not be pathogenic or infective to humans. A growth temperature study has been submitted to support the waiver request. Additionally, acute toxicity studies have determined the end-use product containing the organism is not toxic, irritating or
1.
ii.
2.
Personal protective equipment (PPE) mitigates the potential for exposure to applicators and handlers of the proposed products, when used in commercial, agricultural and horticultural settings.
It is not expected that, when used as proposed,
1.
2.
There are no existing tolerances for this ingredient.
A Codex Alimentarium Commission Maximum Residue Level (MRL) is not required for
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has granted or denied emergency exemptions under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for use of pesticides as listed in this notice. These exemptions or denials were issued during the period between January 1, 1999, through December 15, 1999, to control unforseen pest outbreaks. The actions detailed in this document do not represent every FIFRA section 18 emergency exemption decision issued by EPA during the above time period.
See each emergency exemption or denial for the name of a contact person. The following information applies to all contact persons: Team Leader, Emergency Response Team, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-9366.
EPA has granted or denied emergency exemptions to the following State and Federal agencies. The emergency exemptions may take the following form: Crisis, public health, quarantine, or specific. EPA has also listed denied emergency exemption requests in this notice.
You may be potentially affected by this action if you petition EPA for authorization under section 18 of FIFRA to use pesticide products which are otherwise unavailable for a given use. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table in this unit could also be regulated. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
1.
2.
Under FIFRA section 18, EPA can authorize the use of a pesticide when emergency conditions exist. Authorizations (commonly called emergency exemptions) are granted to State and Federal agencies and are of four types:
1. A “specific exemption” authorizes use of a pesticide against specific pests on a limited acreage in a particular State. Most emergency exemptions are specific exemptions.
2. “Quarantine” and “public health” exemptions are a particular form of specific exemption issued for quarantine or public health purposes. These are rarely requested.
3. A “crisis exemption” is initiated by a State or Federal agency (and is confirmed by EPA) when there is insufficient time to request and obtain EPA permission for use of a pesticide in an emergency.
EPA may deny an emergency exemption: If the State or Federal agency cannot demonstrate that an emergency exists, if the use poses unacceptable risks to the environment, or if EPA cannot reach a conclusion that the proposed pesticide use is likely to result in “a reasonable certainty of no harm” to human health, including exposure of residues of the pesticide to infants and children.
If the emergency use of the pesticide on a food or feed commodity would result in pesticide chemical residues, EPA establishes a time-limited tolerance meeting the “reasonable certainty of no harm standard” of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
In this document: EPA identifies the State or Federal agency granted the exemption or denial, the type of exemption, the pesticide authorized and the pests, the crop or use for which authorized, number of acres (if applicable), and the duration of the exemption. EPA also gives the
Department of Agriculture and Industries
On August 26, 1999, for the use of spinosad on soybeans to control caterpillars. This program ended on September 10, 1999. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of chlorfenapyr on cotton to control beet armyworm; June 14, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: Andrea Beard
EPA authorized the use of emamectin benzoate on cotton to control beet armyworm and tobacco budworm; August 3, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: Andrea Beard
EPA authorized the use of tebufenozide in pasture land to control fall army worms; September 17, 1999, to October 31, 1999. Contact: Barbara Madden
Department of Agriculture
EPA authorized the use of metolachlor on spinach to control weeds; September 16, 1999, to May 15, 2000. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mite and small hive beetle October 27, 1999, to October 21, 2000. Contact: Barbara Madden
On August 9, 1999, for the use of maleic hydrazide on rice to control red rice. This program ended on August 24, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
On May 6, 1999 EPA denied the use of fenoxaprop-ethyl on rice to control Bermuda grass. This request was denied because this formulation of the pesticide included a new and unregistered inert ingredient, for which the Agency does not have adequate amounts of previously reviewed data with which it is able to reach a “reasonable certainty of no harm” finding regarding health effects which may result if this use were to occur. Contact: David Deegan.
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mite and small hive beetle June 3, 1999, to June 3, 2000. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of emamectin benzoate on cotton to control beet armyworm June 4, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: Andrea Beard
EPA authorized the use of chlorfenapyr on cotton to control beet armyworm June 14, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: Andrea Beard
EPA authorized the use of emamectin benzoate on cotton to control tobacco budworm June 18, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: Andrea Beard
EPA authorized the use of tebufenozide on cotton to control beet armyworm June 18, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: Andrea Beard
Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Pesticide Regulation
On November 1, 1999, for the use of paraquat on artichokes to control various weeds and grasses. This program ended on November 1, 2000. Contact: Libby Pemberton
EPA authorized the use of carfentrazone-ethyl on rice to control California arrowhead and Ricefield bulrush; April 22, 1999, to August 15, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of carbofuran flowable formulation on cotton to control aphids; April 30, 1999, to October 15, 1999. Contact: David Deegan
EPA authorized the use of tebuconazole on pistachios to control Alternaria late blight and Botryosphaeria panicle and shoot blight; May 4, 1999, to September 15, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of hexythiazox on cotton to control various spider mites; May 6, 1999, to August 1, 1999. Contact: David Deegan
EPA authorized the use of propamocarb hydrochloride on tomatoes to control late blight; May 20, 1999, to May 19, 2000. Contact: Libby Pemberton
EPA authorized the use of propamocarb hydrochloride on potatoes to control late blight; May 25, 1999, to May 25, 2000. Contact: Libby Pemberton
EPA authorized the use of avermectin on basil to control leafminer; June 15, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; July 23, 1999, to July 20, 2000. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of imidacloprid on turnip greens and garden beets to control aphids; August 30, 1999, to August 6, 2000. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of avermectin on celeriac to control two spotted spider mite; September 10, 1999, to September 10, 2000. Contact: Dan Rosenblatt
EPA authorized the use of carboxin on onion seed to control onion smut; September 30, 1999, to May 31, 2000. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of cyromazine on onion seed to control onion maggots; October 5, 1999, to May 31, 2000. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of paraquat on artichokes to control various weeds and grasses; November 3, 1999, to November 3, 2000. Contact: Libby Pemberton
EPA authorized the use of tebuconazole on garlic to control garlic rust; November 4, 1999, to July 3, 2000. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of spinosad on agricultural commodities to control exotic fruit flies in quarantine certification programs throughout the State; November 8, 1999, to November 8, 2002. Contact: Dan Rosenblatt
EPA authorized the use of imidacloprid on strawberries to control whiteflies; December 24, 1999, to December 23, 2000. Contact: Andrea Beard
Department of Agriculture
EPA authorized the use of imazamox on dry beans to control various nightshade species and velvetleaf; June 1, 1999, to July 15, 1999. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of propiconazole on dry beans to control rust; July 1, 1999, to August 31, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; July 23, 1999, to July 20, 2000. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of chlorine dioxide on stored potatoes to control late blight; September 21, 1999, to September 17, 2000. Contact: Andrew Ertman
Department of Environmental Protection
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mite and small hive beetle September 2, 1999, to August 31, 2000. Contact: Barbara Madden
Department of Agriculture
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetle; March 24, 1999, to March 24, 2000. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of myclobutanil on cucurbit vegetables to control powdery mildew; July 16, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: David Deegan
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
On March 2, 1999, for the use of tebufenozide on longan to control Lychee webworm. This program is expected to end on March 1, 2000. Contact: Barbara Madden
On May 19, 1999, for the use of naled in bait stations to control Oriental fruit fly. This program is expected to end on September 9, 2000. Contact: Dan Rosenblatt
EPA authorized the use of tebufenozide on lychee to control Lychee webworm; March 4, 1999, to March 1, 2000. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of tebufenozide on longan to control Lychee webworm; March 4, 1999, to March 4, 2000. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of myclobutanil on strawberries to control powdery mildew; March 18, 1999, to December 31, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of Switch 62.5 WG containing the active ingredients fludioxonil and cyprodinil on strawberries to control gray mold; April 8, 1999, to May 15, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of chlorfenapyr on cotton to control beet armyworm; June 14, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: Andrea Beard
EPA authorized the use of imidacloprid on citrus to control the citrus leafminer and brown citrus aphid; July 1, 1999, to June 30, 2000. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of imidacloprid on legume vegetables Crop Group 6 to control silverleaf whitefly; September 27, 1999, to September 27, 2000. Contact: Andrea Beard
EPA authorized the use of chlorfenapyr on cotton to control beet armyworm; June 14, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: Andrea Beard
On June 23, 1999, for the use of cymoxanil on hops to control downy mildew. This program ended on September 10, 1999. Contact: Libby Pemberton
EPA authorized the seed treatment use of fosetyl-Al on peas to control downy mildew; March 29, 1999, to June 1, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of tebuconazole on barley to control barley stripe rust; April 23, 1999, to August 15, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of myclobutanil on hops to control powdery mildew; April 27, 1999, to September 22, 1999. Contact: David Deegan
EPA authorized the use of tebuconazole on hops to control powdery mildew; April 27, 1999, to September 22, 1999. Contact: David Deegan
EPA authorized the use of imazamox on dry beans to control various nightshade species and velvetleaf; May 1, 1999, to July 1, 1999. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of pyridate on mint to control redroot pigweed and kochia; May 1, 1999, to December 31, 1999. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of paraquat dichloride on green peas grown for seed and dry peas to control weeds; May 25, 1999, to November 30, 1999. Contact: Libby Pemberton
EPA authorized the use of propamocarb hydrochloride on potatoes to control late blight; June 10, 1999, to June 10, 2000. Contact: Libby Pemberton
EPA authorized the use of trifloxystrobin on hops to control powdery mildew; June 28, 1999, to September 22, 1999. Contact: Dave Deegan
EPA authorized the use of cyhexatin on hops to control Two-spotted spider mites; July 1, 1999, to September 20, 1999. Contact: David Deegan
EPA authorized the use of difenoconazole on sweet corn seed to control damping-off and die-back diseases; September 3, 1999, to September 3, 2000. Contact: Andrea Beard
EPA authorized the use of chlorine dioxide on stored potatoes to control late blight; September 8, 1999, to August 31, 2000. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of flufenacet on wheat to control Italian ryegrass or annual ryegrass; October 4, 1999, to June 30, 2000. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of fomesafen on snap beans to control weeds; June 25, 1999, to August 31, 1999. Contact: Andrea Beard
EPA authorized the use of tebufenozide on apples to control the tufted apple bud moth; July 15, 1999, to August 31, 1999. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of pyridate on mint to control redroot pigweed; May 1, 1999, to December 31, 1999. Contact: Barbara Madden
On August 18, 1999, for the use of bifenthrin on sorghum grown for seed to control Banks grass mite. This program ended on September 2, 1999. Contact: Andrea Beard
EPA authorized the use of metsulfuron-methyl on sorghum to control weeds; June 11, 1999, to August 15, 1999. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of propiconazole on grain sorghum to control sorghum ergot; July 31, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
On June 4, 1999, for the use of tebufenozide on sweet potatoes to control the beet armyworm. This program ended on October 31, 1999. Contact: Andrew Ertman
On June 23, 1999, for the use of tebufenozide on pasture land to control fall army worms. This program ended on October 15, 1999. Contact: Barbara Madden
On July 14, 1999, for the use of azoxystrobin on soybeans to control
On July 17, 1999, for the use of tebufenozide on soybeans to control fall armyworms. This program ended on August 2, 1999. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of carbofuran flowable formulation on cotton to control aphids; March 15, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: David Deegan
EPA authorized the use of maleic hydrazide on rice to control red rice; June 1, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of chlorfenapyr on cotton to control beet armyworm; June 14, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: Andrea Beard
EPA authorized the use of emamectin benzoate on cotton to control beet armyworm; June 18, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: Andrea Beard
EPA authorized the use of tebufenozide on cotton to control beet armyworm; June 18, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: Andrea Beard
EPA authorized the use of azoxystrobin on soybean to control aerial blight; July 1, 1999, to August 30, 1999. Contact: Jacqueline Gwaltney
EPA authorized the use of tebufenozide on sweet potatoes to control the beet armyworm; July 16, 1999, to October 31, 1999. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of emamectin benzoate on cotton to control tobacco budworm; August 3, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: Andrea Beard
EPA authorized the use of tebufenozide on pasture land to control fall army worms; September 17, 1999, to October 15, 1999. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of propamocarb hydrochloride on potatoes to control late blight; May 25, 1999, to May 25, 2000. Contact: Libby Pemberton
EPA authorized the use of propiconazole on blueberries to control mummy berry disease; April 15, 1999, to June 15, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mite and small hive beetle August 11, 1999, to August 5, 2000. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of chlorpropham on spinach to control chickweed; March 1, 1999, to March 5, 2000. Contact: David Deegan
EPA authorized the use of propamocarb hydrochloride on tomatoes to control late blight; June 3, 1999, to June 3, 2000. Contact: Libby Pemberton
EPA authorized the use of metolachlor on spinach to control weeds; July 9, 1999, to April 30, 2000. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of fenpropathrin in soybeans to control two-spotted spider mite; July 15, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: Jacqueline Gwaltney
EPA authorized the use of myclobutanil on cucurbit vegetables to control powdery mildew; July 16, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: David Deegan
EPA authorized the use of pyridaben on cranberry to control Southern red mites; May 13, 1999, to August 31, 1999. Contact: David Deegan
EPA authorized the use of spinosad on cranberries to control sparganothis fruitworm; May 24, 1999, to August 15, 1999. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mite and small hive beetle June 3, 1999, to June 3, 2000. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of tebuconazole on wheat to control Fusarium head blight; May 6, 1999, to June 30, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of myclobutanil on asparagus to control asparagus rust; May 13, 1999, to November 1, 1999. Contact: David Deegan
EPA authorized the use of propamocarb hydrochloride on potatoes to control late blight; June 18, 1999, to June 18, 2000. Contact: Libby Pemberton
EPA authorized the use of fomesafen on snap beans to control redroot pigweed and puncturevine; June 25, 1999, to August 30, 1999. Contact: Andrea Beard
EPA authorized the use of myclobutanil on cucurbit vegetables to control powdery mildew; July 16, 1999, to November 1, 1999. Contact: David Deegan
EPA authorized the use of triazamate on sugar beets to control root aphids; July 30, 1999, to September 15, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of imazamox on imidazolinone tolerant canola to control wild mustard; March 8, 1999, to July 15, 1999. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of ethalfluralin on canola to control kochia; March 30, 1999, to December 31, 1999. Contact: David Deegan
EPA authorized the use of tetraconazole on sugarbeets to control cercospora leaf spot; April 7, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: David Deegan
EPA authorized the use of tebuconazole on barley and wheat to control Fusarium head blight; April 9, 1999, to August 25, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of imazamox on dry beans to control various nightshade species and velvetleaf; May 1, 1999, to June 30, 1999. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of propamocarb hydrochloride on potatoes
EPA authorized the use of propiconazole on dry beans to control rust; June 20, 1999, to August 31, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of chlorine dioxide on stored potatoes to control late blight; September 9, 1999, to August 31, 2000. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of carbofuran flowable formulation on cotton to control aphids; March 15, 1999, to September 15, 1999. Contact: David Deegan
EPA authorized the use of emamectin benzoate on cotton to control beet armyworm and tobacco budworm; June 4, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: Andrea Beard
EPA authorized the use of chlorfenapyr on cotton to control beet armyworm; June 14, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: Andrea Beard
EPA authorized the use of tebufenozide in cotton to control beet armyworm; June 18, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: Andrea Beard
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetle; September 29, 1999, to September 29, 2000. Contact: Barbara Madden
On August 19, 1999, for the use of lambda-cyhalothrin on canola to control lygus bugs. This program ended on September 2, 1999. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of ethalfluralin on canola to control kochia; March 30, 1999, to December 31, 1999. Contact: David Deegan
EPA authorized the use of imazamox on dry beans to control various nightshade species and velvetleaf; May 1, 1999, to June 30, 1999. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of pyridate on mint to control redroot pigweed and kochia; May 1, 1999, to December 31, 1999. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of azoxystrobin on sugar beets to control rhizoctonia crown and root rot; May 1, 1999, to July 1, 1999. Contact: Jacqueline Gwaltney
EPA authorized the use of lambda-cyhalothrin on canola to control flea beetles; May 18, 1999, to June 30, 1999. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of paraquat dichloride on dry peas to control weeds; May 25, 1999, to November 30, 1999. Contact: Libby Pemberton
EPA authorized the use of triazamate on sugar beets to control root aphids; July 30, 1999, to September 15, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of chlorine dioxide on stored potatoes to control late blight; September 10, 1999, to August 31, 2000. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of propiconazole on dry beans to control rust; June 15, 1999, to August 1, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of triazamate on sugar beets to control root aphids; July 30, 1999, to August 31, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of imazapic-ammonium on pastureland/rangeland including land in the Conservation Reserve Program to control leafy spurge; August 30, 1999, to August 30, 2000. Contact: Libby Pemberton
EPA authorized the use of chlorine dioxide on stored potatoes to control late blight; September 10, 1999, to August 31, 2000. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of chlorine dioxide on stored potatoes to control late blight; September 21, 1999, to September 17, 2000. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetle; March 10, 1999, to March 9, 2000. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of propiconazole on blueberries to control mummy berry; April 22, 1999, to June 30, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of imidacloprid on blueberries to control blueberry aphids; May 14, 1999, to August 15, 1999. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of imidacloprid on blueberries to control the oriental beetle; May 14, 1999, to August 15, 1999. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of imidacloprid on cranberries to control the cranberry rootworm; May 14, 1999, to September 1, 1999. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of propamocarb hydrochloride on potatoes to control late blight; May 25, 1999, to May 25, 2000. Contact: Libby Pemberton
EPA authorized the use of propamocarb hydrochloride on tomatoes to control late blight; June 3, 1999, to June 3, 2000. Contact: Libby Pemberton
EPA authorized the use of tebufenozide on cotton to control beet armyworm; June 18, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: Andrea Beard
EPA authorized the use of desmedipham on garden beets to control broadleaf weeds; April 27, 1999, to July 31, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of propamocarb hydrochloride on potatoes to control late blight; May 25, 1999, to May 25, 2000. Contact: Libby Pemberton
EPA authorized the use of myclobutanil on cucurbit vegetables to control powdery mildew; July 16, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: David Deegan
On August 18, 1999 EPA denied the use of fluazinam on peanuts to control Sclerotinia blight. This request was denied because at this time the Agency's is not able to reach a “reasonable certainty of no harm” finding regarding health effects which may result if this use were to occur. Additionally, EPA is unable at this time to conclude that there will not be unacceptable adverse effects to the environment, including non-target organisms, endangered species, and ground water resources. Fluazinam is an unregistered chemical for which EPA has minimal data previously reviewed. Contact: Barbara Madden.
EPA authorized the use of chlorfenapyr on cotton to control beet armyworm; June 14, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: Andrea Beard
EPA authorized the use of myclobutanil on cucurbit vegetables to control powdery mildew; July 16, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: David Deegan
On June 18, 1999, for the use of sethoxydim on buckwheat to control volunteer grains and foxtail. This program ended on July 18, 1999. Contact: Libby Pemberton
On July 8, 1999, for the use of paraquat on dry peas to control weeds. This program ended on September 15, 1999. Contact: Libby Pemberton
On August 6, 1999, for the use of lambda-cyhalothrin on flax to control grasshoppers. This program ended on August 20, 1999. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetle; March 10, 1999, to March 9, 2000. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of ethalfluralin on canola to control kochia; March 30, 1999, to December 31, 1999. Contact: David Deegan
EPA authorized the use of tetraconazole on sugarbeets to control cercospora leaf spot; April 7, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: David Deegan
EPA authorized the use of tebuconazole on barley and wheat to control Fusarium head blight; April 9, 1999, to August 25, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of imazamox on dry beans to control various nightshade species and velvetleaf; May 1, 1999, to June 30, 1999. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of propamocarb hydrochloride on potatoes to control late blight; May 25, 1999, to May 25, 2000. Contact: Libby Pemberton
EPA authorized the use of propiconazole on dry beans to control rust; June 20, 1999, to August 31, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of chlorine dioxide on stored potatoes to control late blight; September 10, 1999, to August 31, 2000. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of myclobutanil on caneberries to control orange rust; May 28, 1999, to October 31, 1999. Contact: Dave Deegan
EPA authorized the use of oxyfluorfen on strawberries to control broadleaf weeds; June 20, 1999, to December 15, 1999. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of myclobutanil on cucurbit vegetables to control powdery mildew; July 16, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: David Deegan
On September 3, 1999, for the use of bifenthrin on peanuts to control Banks grass mites. This program ended on October 30, 1999. Contact: Andrea Beard
EPA authorized the use of emamectin benzoate on cotton to control beet armyworm June 4, 1999, to October 31, 1999. Contact: Andrea Beard
EPA authorized the use of chlorfenapyr on cotton to control beet armyworm; June 14, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: Andrea Beard
EPA authorized the use of propiconazole on grain sorghum to control sorghum ergot; June 15, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of tebufenozide on cotton to control beet armyworm; June 18, 1999, to October 31, 1999. Contact: Andrea Beard
EPA authorized the use of metsulfuron-methyl on sorghum to control weeds; June 28, 1999, to September 15, 1999. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of dicloran on peanuts to control Sclerotinia blight; July 15, 1999, to October 15, 1999. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; July 23, 1999, to July 20, 2000. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of tebufenozide on peanuts to control beet armyworm; July 30, 1999, to October 15, 1999. Contact: Barbara Madden
On April 29, 1999 for the use of Switch 62.5 WG containing the active ingredients fludioxonil and cyprodinil on caneberries to control gray mold. The state had requested a specific exemption for the use prior to the crisis declaration; the requested expiration date in the specific exemption was Septemeber 10, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
On May 12, 1999 for the use of Switch 62.5 WG containing the active ingredients fludioxonil and cyprodinil on strawberries to control gray mold. The state had requested a specific exemption for the use prior to the crisis declaration; the requested expiration date in the specific exemption was July 7, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
On July 1, 1999, for the use of cymoxanil on hops to control downy mildew. This program ended on September 10, 1999. Contact: Libby Pemberton
EPA authorized the use of ethoprop on baby hops and idle hops to control garden symphylans; March 24, 1999, to May 31, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of tebuconazole on barley to control barley stripe rust; April 23, 1999, to August 15, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of myclobutanil on hops to control powdery mildew; April 27, 1999, to September 22, 1999. Contact: David Deegan
EPA authorized the use of tebuconazole on hops to control powdery mildew; April 27, 1999, to September 22, 1999. Contact: David Deegan
EPA authorized the use of pyridate on mint to control redroot pigweed and kochia; May 1, 1999, to December 31, 1999. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of propiconazole on raspberries to control yellow rust; May 18, 1999, to November 1, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of paraquat dichloride on green peas grown for seed and dry peas to control weeds; May 25, 1999, to November 30, 1999. Contact: Libby Pemberton
EPA authorized the use of propamocarb hydrochloride on potatoes to control late blight; May 25, 1999, to May 25, 2000. Contact: Libby Pemberton
EPA authorized the use of triazamate on true fir Christmas trees to control root aphids; May 27, 1999, to October 31, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of trifloxystrobin on hops to control powdery mildew; June 28, 1999, to September 22, 1999. Contact: Dave Deegan
EPA authorized the use of fludioxonil on stone fruit to control brown rot, gray mold and Rhizopus rot; July 14, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of propyzamide on grasses grown for seed to control grassy weeds; July 15, 1999, to January 20, 2000. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of Switch 62.5 WG containing the active ingredients fludioxonil and cyprodinil on caneberries to control gray mold; July 22, 1999, to September 10, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of ethoprop on baby mint to control garden symphylans; August 17, 1999, to September 15, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of chlorine dioxide on stored potatoes to control late blight; September 8, 1999, to August 31, 2000. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of flufenacet on wheat to control Italian ryegrass or annual ryegrass; October 4, 1999 through to June 30, 2000. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of myclobutanil on cucurbit vegetables to control powdery mildew; July 16, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: David Deegan
EPA authorized the use of chlorine dioxide on stored potatoes to control late blight; September 3, 1999, to August 31, 2000. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of oxyfluorfen on strawberries to control field pansy, wood sorrel and groundsel; October 15, 1999, to December 15, 1999. Contact: Barbara Madden
On May 18, 1999, for the use of fludioxonil on stone fruit to control brown rot. This program ended on September 1, 1999. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of chlorfenapyr on cotton to control beet armyworm; June 14, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: Andrea Beard
EPA authorized the use of pendimethalin on mint to control kochia and redroot pigweed; March 31, 1999, to November 1, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of tebuconazole on barley and wheat to control Fusarium head blight; June 5, 1999, to August 25, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of chlorine dioxide on stored potatoes to control late blight; October 18, 1999, to June 30, 2000. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of imazapic-ammonium on pastureland and rangeland to control leafy spurge; October 25, 1999, to October 25, 2000. Contact: Libby Pemberton
EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on cowpeas and lima beans to control hophornbeam copperleaf; June 1, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of chlorfenapyr on cotton to control beet armyworm; June 14, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: Andrea Beard
On September 8, 1999 for the use of fenbuconazole on grapefruit to control greasy spot. This program ended on October 1, 1999. Contact: Dan Rosenblatt
On March 12, 1999 EPA denied the use of propazine on sorghum to control broadleaf weeds. This request was denied because aggregate risk from the triazine herbicides exceeds the level the Agency considers to represent a reasonable certainty of no harm. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of carbofuran flowable formulation on cotton to control aphids; March 15, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: David Deegan
EPA authorized the use of propiconazole on grain sorghum to control sorghum ergot; May 19, 1999, to December 31, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of propamocarb hydrochloride on potatoes to control late blight; May 25, 1999, to May 25, 2000. Contact: Libby Pemberton
EPA authorized the use of tebufenozide on cotton to control beet armyworm; June 10, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: Andrea Beard
EPA authorized the use of emamectin benzoate on cotton to control beet armyworm; June 10, 1999, to October 1, 1999. Contact: Andrea Beard
EPA authorized the use of chlorfenapyr on cotton to control beet armyworm; June 14, 1999, to September 30, 1999. Contact: Andrea Beard
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mite and small hive beetle June 28, 1999, to June 28, 2000. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of dicloran on peanuts to control Sclerotinia blight; July 1, 1999, to October 31, 1999. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of metolachlor on spinach to control weeds; July 1, 1999, to July 1, 2000. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of myclobutanil on cucurbit vegetables to control powdery mildew; July 16, 1999, to April 15, 2000. Contact: David Deegan
EPA authorized the use of bifenthrin on sorghum grown for seed to control Banks grass mite; August 24, 1999, to August 23, 2000. Contact: Andrea Beard
EPA authorized the use of fenbuconazole on grapefruit to control greasy spot; October 1, 1999, to October 1, 2000. Contact: Dan Rosenblatt
EPA authorized the use of chlorine dioxide on stored potatoes to control late blight; October 14, 1999, to September 29, 2000. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of norflurazon on bermudagrass to control annual grassy weeds; November 9, 1999, to November 9, 2000. Contact: Libby Pemberton
EPA authorized the use of chlorine dioxide on stored potatoes to control late blight; September 30, 1999, to September 21, 2000. Contact: Andrew Ertman
On September 17, 1999, EPA denied the use of Acibenzolar on tomatoes to control bacterial diseases. This request was denied because at this time the Agency's is not able to reach a “reasonable certainty of no harm” finding regarding health effects which may result if this use were to occur. Additionally, EPA is unable at this time to conclude that there will not be unacceptable adverse effects to the environment. Acibenzolar is an unregistered chemical for which EPA has minimal data previously reviewed. Contact: Andrea Beard.
EPA authorized the use of myclobutanil on cucurbit vegetables to control powdery mildew; July 16, 1999, to October 31, 1999. Contact: David Deegan
EPA authorized the use of chlorpropham on spinach to control chickweed; December 1, 1999, to April 30, 2000. Contact: David Deegan
On April 28, 1999, for the use of Switch 62.5 WG containing the active ingredients fludioxonil and cyprodinil on caneberries to control gray mold. The state had requested a specific exemption for the use prior to the crisis declaration; the requested expiration date in the specific exemption was September 10, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
On May 11, 1999, for the use of Switch 62.5 WG containing the active ingredients fludioxonil and cyprodinil on strawberries to control gray mold. The state had requested a specific exemption for the use prior to the crisis declaration; the requested expiration date in the specific exemption was July 22, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
On July 2, 1999, for the use of imazamox on dry bean to control nightshade and velvetleaf. This program ended on/is expected to end on August 15 , 1999. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the seed treatment use of fosetyl-Al on peas to control downy mildew; March 1, 1999, to April 30, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of propiconazole on blueberries to control mummy berry disease; March 15, 1999, to June 10, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of propiconazole on cranberries to control cottonball disease; April 19, 1999, to July 31, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of tebuconazole on barley to control barley stripe rust; April 23, 1999, to August 15, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of myclobutanil on hops to control powdery mildew; April 27, 1999, to September 22, 1999. Contact: David Deegan
EPA authorized the use of tebuconazole on hops to control powdery mildew; April 27, 1999, to September 22, 1999. Contact: David Deegan
EPA authorized the use of pyridate on mint to control redroot pigweed and kochia; May 1, 1999, to December 31, 1999. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of propiconazole on raspberries to control yellow rust; May 18, 1999, to July 1, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of paraquat dichloride on green peas grown for seed and dry peas to control weeds; May 25, 1999, to May 30, 1999. Contact: Libby Pemberton
EPA authorized the use of propamocarb hydrochloride on potatoes to control late blight; May 25, 1999, to May 25, 2000. Contact: Libby Pemberton
EPA authorized the use of triazamate on true fir Christmas trees to control root aphids; May 27, 1999, to October 31, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of pirimicarb on vegetable seed crops to control aphids; June 18, 1999, to September 15, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of trifloxystrobin on hops to control powdery mildew; June 24, 1999, to September 22, 1999. Contact: Dave Deegan
EPA authorized the use of cyhexatin on hops to control Two-spotted spider mites; July 1, 1999, to September 20, 1999. Contact: David Deegan
EPA authorized the use of imazamox on dry beans to control nightshade and velvetleaf; July 2, 1999, to August 15, 1999. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of Switch 62.5 WG containing the active ingredients fludioxonil and cyprodinil on caneberries to control gray mold; July 22, 1999, to September 10, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of chlorine dioxide on stored potatoes to control late blight; September 8, 1999, to August 31, 2000. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of flufenacet on wheat to control Italian ryegrass or annual ryegrass; October 4, 1999, to June 30, 2000. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of oxyfluorfen on strawberries to control broadleaf weeds; December 15, 1999, to August 15, 2000. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of propiconazole on cranberries to control cottonball disease; April 15, 1999, to July 31, 1999. Contact: Steve Schaible
EPA authorized the use of pyridate on mint to control redroot pigweed; May 1, 1999, to December 31, 1999. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of glufosinate-ammonium on sweet corn to control weeds; May 24, 1999, to July 15, 1999. Contact: Barbara Madden
EPA authorized the use of propamocarb hydrochloride on potatoes to control late blight; May 25, 1999, to May 25, 2000. Contact: Libby Pemberton
EPA authorized the use of chlorine dioxide on stored potatoes to control late blight; September 9, 1999, to August 31, 2000. Contact: Andrew Ertman
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mite and small hive beetle; September 17, 1999, to September 15, 2000. Contact: Barbara Madden
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
EPA authorized the use of sodium carbonate 4.0% solution plus sodium silicate 0.1% solution on aircraft surfaces potentially exposed to certain animal diseases, in or on semen containers to control certain animal diseases; April 15, 1999, to April 15, 2002. Contact: David Deegan
EPA authorized the use of sodium hypochlorite in a solution not to exceed 12.5% on surfaces potentially exposed to certain animal diseases, and to plant parts or plant materials to control certain animal diseases; April 15, 1999, to April 15, 2002. Contact: David Deegan
EPA authorized the use of sodium hydroxide in a 2.0% solution on exposed surfaces, animal product containers, hay and straw to control certain animal diseases; April 15, 1999, to April 15, 2002. Contact: David Deegan
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposal of CERCLA section 122(h)(1) administrative cost recovery settlement for the Uniroyal Hill Street Site.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) proposes to address the potential liability of Uniroyal, Inc., Uniroyal Holding, Inc., CDU Holding, Inc., and the CDU Holding, Inc. Liquidating Trust (the “Settling Parties”) by execution of a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) section 122(h)(1) Administrative Order on Consent prepared pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9622(h)(1) (the “Agreement”). The Agreement provides the Settling Parties certain covenants not to sue under CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601
Written comments on the proposed Agreement must be received by U.S. EPA on or before February 23, 2000. In accordance with section 7003(d) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6973(d), commenters may request an opportunity for a public hearing in the affected area.
The proposed Agreement and the U.S. EPA's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at U.S. EPA Records Center Room 714, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. A copy of the proposed Agreement may be obtained from U.S. EPA Office of Regional Counsel, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Comments should reference the Uniroyal Hill Street Site, Mishawaka, Indiana, and U.S. EPA Docket No. V-W-99-C-575 and should be addressed to Ms. Hedi Bogda-Cleveland, U.S. EPA Office of Regional Counsel, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (C-14J), Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590.
Ms. Hedi Bogda-Cleveland, U.S. EPA Office of Regional Counsel, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (C-14J), Chicago, Illinois 60604, at (312) 886-5825.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on the TSCA Inventory) to notify EPA and comply with the statutory provisions pertaining to the manufacture of new chemicals. Under sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3) of TSCA, EPA is required to publish a notice of receipt of a premanufacture notice (PMN) or an application for a test marketing exemption (TME), and to publish periodic status reports on the chemicals under review and the receipt of notices of commencement to manufacture those chemicals. This status report, which covers the period from December 6, 1999 to December 31, 1999, consists of the PMNs, pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.
Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in
Joe Carra, Deputy Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (7401), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone numbers: (202) 554-1404 and TDD: (202) 554-0551; e-mail address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.
This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitter of the premanufacture notices addressed in the action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under “FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.”
1.
2.
You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPPTS-51940 and the specific PMN number in the subject line on the first page of your response.
1.
2.
3.
Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under “FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.”
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this document.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
Section 5 of TSCA requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on the TSCA Inventory to notify EPA and comply with the statutory provisions pertaining to the manufacture of new chemicals. Under sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3) of TSCA, EPA is required to publish a notice of receipt of a PMN or an application for a TME and to publish periodic status reports on the chemicals under review and the receipt of notices of commencement to manufacture those chemicals. This status report, which covers the period from December 6, 1999 to December 31, 1999, consists of the PMNs, pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.
This status report identifies the PMNs, pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period. If you are interested in information that is not included in the following tables, you may contact EPA as described in Unit II. to access additional non-CBI information that may be available.
In table I, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the PMNs received by EPA during this period: the EPA case number assigned to the PMN; the date the PMN was received by EPA; the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN; the submitting manufacturer; the potential uses identified by the manufacturer in the PMN; and the chemical identity.
In table II, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the Notices of Commencement to manufacture received:
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Premanufacture notices, Test marketing exemptions.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
This document announces a change in the International Bureau's interpretation of its Exclusion List in light of the Commission's decision in the DISCO II Recon. proceeding. This action will reduce the regulatory burden on carriers seeking to provide international services using certain non-U.S.-licensed satellite systems by permitting the use of pre-approved satellites under global international section 214 authorizations without the need to obtain separate authority for such non-U.S.-licensed satellites.
Effective December 22, 1999.
Lisa Choi, Policy and Facilities Branch, Telecommunications Division, International Bureau, (202) 418-1460.
1. The International Bureau announces its interpretation of its Exclusion List for International section 214 Authorizations (Exclusion List) to conform to a recent Commission order streamlining rules relating to the use of non-U.S. licensed satellite systems. See Amendment of the Commission's Regulatory Policies to Allow Non-U.S. Licensed Space Stations to Provide Domestic and International Satellite Service in the United States, IB Docket No. 96-111, FCC 99-325 (64 FR 61791, November 15, 1999).
2. The Commission developed the Exclusion List as a procedural mechanism to identify restrictions on providing common carrier service. The Exclusion List identifies those countries or facilities that are not included within the scope of a global section 214 authorization (61 FR 15724, April 9, 1996). When a carrier seeks to use facilities or serve a country that is on the Exclusion List, the carrier must file a separate section 214 application pursuant to § 63.18(e)(4) of the Commission's rules.
3. Currently, the Exclusion List prohibits carriers from using all non-U.S.-licensed satellite systems without obtaining a separate section 214 authorization (64 FR 19057, April 19, 1999). The Commission, however, recently changed its rules regarding the use of non-U.S.-licensed satellite systems in the
4. In light of the
5. Accordingly, we interpret the Exclusion List restriction for all non-U.S.-licensed satellite systems to refer only to non-U.S.-licensed satellite systems that are not listed on the Permitted Space Station List. This interpretation will avoid confusion, reduce regulatory burden, and ensure that the Exclusion List is consistent with the Commission's policies. This interpretation of the Exclusion List became effective December 22, 1999. The announcement of the effective date of the
The following is a list of countries and facilities not covered by grant of global section 214 authority under § 63.18(e)(1) of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 63.18(e)(1). In addition, the facilities listed shall not be used by U.S. carriers authorized under § 63.18 of the Commission's Rules unless the carrier's section 214 authorization specifically lists the facility.
Carriers desiring to serve countries or use facilities listed as excluded hereon shall file a separate section 214 application pursuant to § 63.18(e)(4) of the Commission's Rules. See generally 47 CFR 63.22.
This list is subject to change by the Commission when the public interest requires. Before amending the list, the Commission will first issue a public notice giving affected parties the opportunity for comment and hearing on the proposed changes. The Commission may then release an order amending the exclusion list. This list also is subject to change upon issuance of an Executive Order. See Streamlining the section 214 Authorization Process and Tariff Requirements, IB Docket No. 95-118, FCC 96-79, 11 FCC Rcd 12,884, released March 13, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 15,724, April 9, 1996). A current version of this list is maintained at http://www.fcc.gov/ib/td/pf/exclusionlist.html. For additional information, contact the International Bureau's Telecommunications Division, Policy & Facilities Branch, (202) 418-1460.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than February 7, 2000.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 17, 2000.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (A. Linwood Gill, III, Assistant Vice President), 701 Easy Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
1. FNB Corp., Asheboro, North Carolina; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Carolina Fincorp, Inc., Rockingham, North Carolina, and thereby indirectly acquire Richmond Savings Bank, Inc., SSB, Rockingham, North Carolina.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Lois Berthaume, Vice President), 104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2713:
1. Vision Bancshares, Inc., Gulf Shores, Alabama; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Vision Bank (in organization), Gulf Shores, Alabama.
C. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Randall C. Sumner, Vice President), 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63102-2034:
1. National Commerce Bancorporation, Memphis, Tennessee; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Piedmont Bancorp, Inc., Hillsborough, North Carolina, and thereby indirectly acquire Hillsborough Savings Bank, Inc., SSB, Hillsborough, North Carolina.
D. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice President), 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
1. Mesquite Financial Services, Inc., Alice, Texas; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Falfurrias State Bank, Falfurrias, Texas. Comments on this application must be received by February 15, 2000.
E. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Maria Villanueva, Consumer Regulation Group), 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:
1. Eggemeyer Advisory Corp.; WJR Corp.; Castle Creek Capital LLC; Castle Creek Capital Partners Fund I, LP; Castle Creek Capital Partners Fund IIa, LP; Castle Creek Capital Partners Fund IIb, LP, all of Rancho Santa Fe, California; to acquire up to 35 percent of the voting shares of First Community Bancorp, Rancho Santa Fe, California, and thereby indirectly acquire Rancho Santa Fe National Bank, Rancho Santa Fe,
2. First Community Bancorp, Rancho Santa Fe, California; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Rancho Santa Fe National Bank, Rancho Santa Fe, California, and First Community Bank of the Desert, Indian Wells, California.
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Federal Trade Commission announces the revised thresholds for interlocking directorates required by the 1990 amendment of section 8 of the Clayton Act. Section 8 prohibits, with certain exceptions, one person from serving as a director or officer of two competing corporations if two thresholds are met. Competitor corporations are covered by section 8 if each one has capital, surplus, and undivided profits aggregating more than $10,000,000, with the exception that no corporation is covered if the competitive sales of either corporation are less than $1,000,000. Section 8(a)(5) requires the Federal Trade Commission to revise those thresholds annually, based on the change in gross national product. The new thresholds, which take effect immediately, are $16,732,000 for section 8(a)(1), and $1,673,200 for section 8(a)(2)(A).
January 24, 2000.
H. Gabriel Dagen, Bureau of Competition, Office of Accounting and Financial Analysis, (202) 326-2573.
15 U.S.C. 19(a)(5).
By direction of the Commission.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has made a final finding of scientific misconduct in the following case:
Specifically, ORI found that Dr. John Ho committed scientific misconduct in connection with the data contained in Figure 10 of the Application that purportedly demonstrated cytokine production heterogeneity. Dr. John Ho falsified the text describing Panel 2 of Figure 10 by representing that the interferon-
Dr. John Ho has accepted the ORI finding and has entered into a Voluntary Exclusion Agreement with ORI in which he has voluntarily agreed:
(1) to comply with all terms and conditions of the plan for remedial training and scientific and administrative oversight imposed by Cornell University. Pursuant to the Cornell Plan, Dr. John Ho can return to work at Cornell University only after it receives written confirmation from Dr. David Ho that Dr. John Ho has successfully completed a program of remedial training of at least one (1) year's duration at the Aaron Diamond Foundation. Under the terms of the Cornell Plan, Dr. John Ho will be subject to a two (2) year plan of scientific and administrative oversight of his research upon his return to Cornell University from the Aaron Diamond Foundation.
(2) that, for a period of three (3) years beginning on December 28, 1999, any institution (including but not limited to Cornell University and the Aaron Diamond Foundation) that submits an application for U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) support for a research project on which Dr. John Ho's participation is proposed or which uses him in any capacity on PHS supported research, or that submits a report of PHS-funded research in which he is involved, must concurrently submit to PHS and ORI:
a. a plan for supervision of his duties during the particular PHS-related project at issue, which must be designed to ensure the scientific integrity of his research contribution; and
b. a certification that the data provided by Dr. John Ho are based on actual experiments or are otherwise legitimately derived, and that the data, procedures, and methodology are accurately reported in the application or research report.
(3) to exclude himself from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS, including but not limited to service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant for a three (3) year period beginning December 28, 1999.
Further, in the event that Dr. John Ho obtains a new employer at anytime during the three (3) year period beginning on December 28, 1999, Dr. John Ho has agreed to:
(1) notify ORI in writing no later than ten (10) business days after the commencement of his new employment of the name and address of his new employer;
(2) provide his new employer with a copy of the Agreement (including the Cornell Plan); and
(3) ensure that, for so long as the Cornell Plan is in effect, his new employer will agree to assume the scientific and research oversight responsibilities adopted by Cornell University pursuant to paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the Cornell Plan.
Acting Director, Division of Research Investigations, Office of Research Integrity, 5515 Security Lane, Suite 700, Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 443-5330.
In addition, under an MOU signed in December 1990 with DOE and replaced by an MOU signed in 1996, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has been given the responsibility and resources for conducting analytic epidemiologic investigations of residents of communities in the vicinity of DOE facilities, workers at DOE facilities, and other persons potentially exposed to radiation or to potential hazards from non-nuclear energy production and use. HHS has delegated program responsibility to CDC. Community Involvement is a critical part of ATSDR's and CDC's energy-related research and activities and input from members of the ICHHP is part of these efforts. The ICHHP will work with the HHES to provide input on American Indian health effects at the Hanford, Washington site.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services office has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announce the following meeting.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services office has been delegated the authority to sign
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Biological Products Regulated Under Section 351 of the Public Health Service Act; Implementation of Biologics License; Elimination of Establishment License and Product License” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
JonnaLynn P. Capezzuto, Office of Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-4659.
In the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Cosmetic Product Voluntary Reporting Program” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Peggy Schlosburg, Office of Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223.
In the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that Cultor Food Science, Inc., DSM Food Specialties, and Protein Technologies International have filed a petition proposing that the food additive regulations be amended regarding the safe use of natamycin on cheese.
Felicia Binion Williams, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-206), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-418-3122.
Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (sec. 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5))), notice is given that a food additive petition (FAP 0A4704) has been filed by Cultor Food Science, Inc., 430 Saw Mill River Rd., Ardsley, NY 10502; DSM Food Specialties, 700 American Ave., suite 300, King of Prussia, PA 19406; and Protein Technologies International, Checkerboard Square, St. Louis, MO 63164. The petition proposes that the food additive regulations in 21 CFR 172.155
The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.32(k) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the anticipated availability of conference grant funds for the support of State Food Safety Task Force meetings contingent on the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2000 funds. This initiative is intended to support and encourage State food regulatory agencies to establish (or provide support of existing) regularly scheduled Food Safety Task Force meetings. These meetings should foster communication and cooperation within the State among State and local food safety regulatory agencies and is part of the President's Food Safety Initiative (FSI).
For States with existing State Food Safety Task Forces, the lead/champion/food regulatory agency must submit applications by March 24, 2000. For States in the process of developing a State Food Safety Task Force, submit applications by April 15, 2000. If the closing date falls on a weekend, or the date falls on a holiday, the date of submission will be extended to the following workday.
Application forms are available from, and completed applications should be submitted to Cynthia M. Polit, Grants Management Office, Division of Contracts and Procurement Management (HFA-520), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 2129, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-7180, e-mail: cpolit@oc.fda.gov. Applications hand-carried or commercially delivered should be addressed to 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 2129, Rockville, MD 20857.
Regarding the administrative and financial management aspects of this notice: Cynthia M. Polit (address above).
Regarding the programmatic aspects of this notice: Paul M. Raynes, or Glenn E. Johnson, Division of Federal-State Relations (DFSR), Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA), Food and Drug Administration (HFC-150), 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 12-07, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-6906, or access the Internet at www.fda.gov/ora/fed
FDA will support meetings covered by this notice under section 1701 (300u-300u-5) of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 241) or the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-602) (42 U.S.C. 263b-n). FDA's Conference Grant Program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, No. 93-103 and applicants are limited to State food safety regulatory agencies. Applications submitted under this program are subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372. Requirements under the original FDA request for applications for its Conference Grant Program (52 FR 12257, April 15, 1987) apply. PHS strongly encourages all award recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and to discourage the use of all tobacco products. This is consistent with the PHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.
PHS urges applicants to submit workplans that address specific objectives of “Healthy People 2000.” Potential applicants may obtain a copy of “Health People 2000” (Full Report, stock No. 017-0010-0474-0) through the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325, 202-512-1800.
ORA is the inspection component of FDA and has 1,000 investigators and inspectors who cover the country's approximately 95,000 FDA-regulated businesses. These investigators and inspectors inspect more that 15,000 facilities a year. In addition to the standard inspection program, they conduct special investigations, food inspection recall audits, perform consumer complaint inspections and sample collections. FDA has relied on the States in assisting with the above duties through formal contracts, partnership agreements, and other informal arrangements. Under the FSI, the demands on both the agency and the States will increase. Procedures need to be reviewed and innovative changes made that increase effectiveness and efficiency and conserve resources. ORA will support FSI by: (1) Providing effective and efficient compliance of regulated products, and (2) providing high quality, science-based work that maximizes consumer protection.
Under the FSI, FDA is encouraging State food safety regulatory agencies to establish (or provide support of existing) regularly scheduled Food Safety Task Force meetings. These meetings should foster communication and cooperation within the State among State and local food safety regulatory agencies. The purpose of the meetings should be to discuss/resolve issues at the State and local level relating to: (1) State/local agency roles and responsibilities, (2) capacity and resource needs, (3) outbreak coordination and investigations, (4) information sharing and data collection, (5) uniform regulatory standards, (6) communications and education, (7) State/local laboratory operations and coordination, and (8) adoption/implementation of the Food Code.
The purpose of these meetings is to foster communication and cooperation within the State among State and local food safety regulatory agencies. The meetings should: (1) Provide a forum for all the stakeholders of the food safety initiative; (2) assist in adopting or implementing the Food Code; and (3) promote the integration of a Statewide food safety system to become a cost effective, efficient system to maximize the protection of the public health.
Grant funds will be awarded for 1 year for direct costs only to secure meeting facility rental/expenses and in-state travel expenses for meeting attendees during the 1-year period. FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture region/district representatives may be invited to be a non-member liaison or advisor at the meetings but the task force should develop its own guidelines for work, consensus decisionmaking, size, and format at the initial meeting. Conference grant funds may not be used for Federal employees to travel to these meetings.
DFSR will provide meeting guidelines and other meeting organization documents as requested. Information on “Productive Meeting Fundamentals” is available via the Fax-on-Demand system by calling 301-827-4352 and requesting document
A final Program Progress Report or conference proceedings and a final Financial Status Report (FSR) (SF-269) are required within 90 days of the expiration date of the project period as noted on the Notice of Grant Award. An original and two copies of each report shall be submitted to FDA's Grants Management Office. Failure to file these
Support for this program will be in the form of a grant. These grants will be subject to all policies and requirements that govern the conference grant programs of PHS, including the provisions of 42 CFR part 52 and 45 CFR parts 74 and 92. The regulations issued under Executive Order 12372 also apply to this program and are implemented through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) regulations at 45 CFR part 100. Executive Order 12372 sets up a system for State and local government review of applications for Federal financial assistance. Applicants (other than federally recognized Indian tribal governments) should contact the State's Single Point of Contact (SPOC) as early as possible to alert them to the prospective application(s) and to receive any necessary instructions on the State's review process. A current listing of SPOC's is included in the application kit. The SPOC should send any State review process recommendations to the FDA Grants Management Office (address above). The due date for the State process recommendations is no later than 60 days after the deadline date for the receipt of applications. FDA does not guarantee to accommodate or explain SPOC comments that are received after the 60-day cutoff.
These grants are available to State food regulatory agencies (see section IV.A of this document).
The length of support will be for 1 year from the date of issuance of the award.
All applications submitted in response to this RFA will first be reviewed by grants management and program staff for responsiveness. If applications are found to be nonresponsive, they will be returned to the applicant without further consideration.
Responsive applications will be reviewed and evaluated for scientific and technical merit by an ad hoc panel of experts in the subject field of the specific application. Final funding decisions will be made by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs or her designee.
Applicants are strongly encouraged to contact FDA to resolve any questions regarding criteria prior to the submission of their application. All questions of a technical or programmatic nature must be directed to the ORA Program Staff (address above) and all questions of an administrative or financial nature must be directed to the Grants Management Staff (address above). Applications will be given an overall score and judged based on all of the following criteria:
1. Participant determination of the size and membership of the meetings' operating rules and goals in relation to the mission and priorities of FDA;
2. Makeup of the participants to include State and local food safety agencies, industry, consumers, legislators (State and local) and other interested associations or groups. Recommended attendance at meetings is approximately 15 to 20 persons;
3. Information dissemination to constituents regarding the existence of the meetings and information regarding the goals and outcomes;
4. Biannual or quarterly meetings as necessary to accomplish the established goals;
5. Yearly self-evaluation concerning the progress toward achieving goals and outcomes.
The original and two copies of the completed grant application Form PHS-5161-1 (Revised 5/96) for State and local governments should be delivered to the Grants Management Office (address above). The application receipt date is March 24, 2000, for applicants with an established task force and April 15, 2000, for applicants in the process of developing a task force. If the receipt date falls on a weekend or if the date falls on a holiday, the date of submission will be extended to the following workday. No supplemental material or addenda will be accepted after the receipt date.
The outside of the mailing package and item 2 of the application facepage should be labeled “Response to RFA-FDA-ORA-00-1.”
A lead/champion/initiating State food regulatory agency who will coordinate/host and take the lead in establishing the Food Safety Task Force must be determined within the State prior to submission of an application. That lead/champion/initiating State food regulatory agency would prepare and submit the application. Only one grant will be awarded per State. Approximately $250,000 will be available in FY 2000, subject to the availability of funds. FDA anticipates making awards, not to exceed $5,000 in direct costs per award. Support of these grants will be for 1 year. The number of grants funded will depend on the quality of the applications received and the availability of Federal funds to support the grant. These grants are available to State food regulatory agencies that have an existing State Food Safety Task Force as well as State food regulatory agencies that are in the process of developing a State Food Safety Task Force. The formation of these Food Safety Task Force meetings will not interfere with existing advisory mechanisms within the Federal/State/local system and is not a mandatory requirement of FDA.
Applications will be accepted during working hours, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, on or before the established receipt date. Applications will be considered received on time if sent or mailed on or before the receipt date as evidenced by a legible U.S. Postal Service dated postmark or a legible date receipt from a commercial carrier, unless they arrive too late for orderly processing. Private metered postmarks shall not be acceptable as proof of timely mailing. Applications not received on time will not be considered for review and will be returned to the applicant. Applicants should note that the U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide dated postmarks. Before relying on this method, applicants should check with their local post office.
Do not send applications to the Center for Scientific Research, National Institutes of Health (NIH). Any application that is sent to NIH, that is then forwarded to FDA and not received in time for orderly processing, will be deemed nonresponsive and returned to the applicant. Instructions for completing the application are included in Form PHS-5161-1. FDA is unable to receive applications via the Internet.
When using Form PHS 5161-1 (Revised 5/96), all instructions for the enclosed Standard Form 424 (SF424) should be followed using the nonconstruction application pages. The facepage of the application should be labeled “RFA-FDA-ORA-00-1.”
Data included in the application, if restricted with the legend specified below, may be entitled to confidential treatment as trade secret or confidential commercial information within the meaning of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)) and FDA's implementing regulations (21 CFR 20.61).
Information collection requirements requested on PHS Form 5161-1 were approved and issued under the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-102.
Unless disclosure is required by FOIA as amended (5 U.S.C. 552), as determined by the freedom of information officials of DHHS or by a court, data contained in the portions of an application that have been specifically identified by page number, paragraph, etc., by the applicant as containing restricted and/or proprietary information shall not be used or disclosed except for evaluation purposes.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the revised guidance document entitled “Guidance on Medical Device Tracking.” This guidance document, which replaces the previous guidance issued on February 12, 1999, provides guidelines to manufacturers and distributors concerning their responsibilities for medical device tracking under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) as amended by the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA).
Submit written comments at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies on a 3.5″ diskette of the guidance document entitled “Guidance on Medical Device Tracking” to the Division of Small Manufacturers Assistance (HFZ-220), Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., Rockville, MD 20850. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your request, or fax your request to 301-443-8818. Submit written comments on “Guidance on Medical Device Tracking” to the contact person (address below). See the
Chester T. Reynolds, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-300), Food and Drug Administration, 2094 Gaither Rd., Rockville, MD 20850, 301-594-4618.
Section 211 of FDAMA (Public Law 105-115) amended the tracking provisions of section 519(e) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360i(e)) to authorize FDA, at its discretion, to issue orders that require a manufacturer to track a class II or class III device if: (1) The failure of the device would be reasonably likely to have serious adverse health consequences; (2) the device is intended to be implanted in the body for more than 1 year; or (3) the device is life sustaining or life supporting and used outside a device user facility. The FDAMA tracking provisions became effective on February 19, 1998.
The revised final guidance replaces the February 1999 guidance and clarifies the devices that must be tracked. Agency experience indicates that industry and other interested parties are confused about the term “replacement heart valves” because there is more than one type. The category of replacement heart valves that must be tracked is limited to mechanical heart valves only and does not include human allograft (tissue) heart valves. The revised guidance document includes this descriptive limitation.
Agency experience also indicates that industry and other interested parties are confused about which infusion pumps are subject to medical device tracking because the types of fluids the pumps are intended to deliver may not be clear from indications for use set out in labeling. The previous guidance stated that infusion pumps, except those designated and labeled for use
Finally, the agency added abdominal aortic aneurysm stent grafts to the devices that must be tracked. The agency issued tracking orders for these devices on September 28, 1999, which were effective immediately. FDA determined that these devices meet the statutory tracking criteria under section 519(e) of the act because failure of the device would be reasonably likely to have serious adverse health effects. The agency may add or remove devices from the list of tracked devices as a result of its review of premarket applications, recall data, medical device reporting, inspections, petitions, postmarket surveillance, or other information.
This guidance document represents the agency's current thinking on medical device tracking requirements, as amended by FDAMA. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the applicable statute, regulations, or both.
The agency has adopted Good Guidance Practices (GGP's), which set forth the agency's policies and procedures for the development, issuance, and use of guidance documents (62 FR 8961, February 27, 1997). This guidance document is issued as a Level 2 guidance consistent with GGP's.
In order to receive “Guidance on Medical Device Tracking” via your fax machine, call the CDRH Facts-On-Demand (FOD) system at 800-899-0381 or 301-827-0111 from a touch-tone telephone. At the first voice prompt press 1 to access DSMA Facts, at second voice prompt press 2, and then enter the document number (169) followed by the pound sign (
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may also do so using the Internet. CDRH maintains an entry on the Internet for easy access to information including text, graphics, and files that may be downloaded to a personal computer with access to the Internet. Updated on a regular basis, the CDRH home page includes “Guidance on Medical Device Tracking,” device safety alerts,
Interested persons may, at any time, submit to the contact person (address above) written comments regarding this guidance. Such comments will be considered when determining whether to amend the current guidance.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance document entitled “Guidance Document for Premarket Notification Submissions for the Nitric Oxide Delivery Apparatus, Nitric Oxide Analyzer, and Nitrogen Dioxide Analyzer.” This guidance will serve as a special control for nitric oxide delivery apparatus; nitric oxide analyzer; and nitrogen dioxide analyzer. FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) believes that this guidance is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of these devices. The guidance document includes material specific for the devices, consensus standards for electrical safety, electromagnetic compatibility, software and hardware documentation, and resistance to environmental effects.
Written comments concerning this guidance document must be received by April 24, 2000.
See the
Michael G. Bazaral, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-450), Food and Drug Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850, 301-443-8609.
On January 11, 2000, FDA issued an order to Datex-Ohmeda, Inc., under section 513(f)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(2)) classifying the nitric oxide administration apparatus, the nitric oxide gas analyzer, and the nitric dioxide analyzer into class II (special controls). This guidance document is intended to serve as the special control for these devices.
FDA is making this guidance document effective immediately
The guidance document is intended to set forth the controls and testing that FDA believes ensure the safety and effectiveness of the nitric oxide administration apparatus, nitric oxide gas analyzer, and nitrogen dioxide gas analyzer. It also intends to provide comprehensive directions to enable a manufacturer to submit a 510(k) premarket notification demonstrating substantial equivalence for any or all three device types.
The guidance document identifies the risks associated with these types of devices and contains information that will help manufacturers address those risks. The guidance outlines the controls that should be incorporated in the devices for controlling risks, testing that should be completed for each device, and suggested methods for developing preclinical criteria. Other elements of the guidance document include: (1) General device description; (2) specific description of the information to support applications for each device; and (3) general considerations for each device, such as software and hardware testing.
This guidance document represents the agency's current thinking on the premarket notification submissions for the nitric oxide delivery apparatus, nitric oxide analyzer, and nitrogen dioxide analyzer. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the applicable statute, regulations, or both.
The agency has adopted good guidance practices (GGP's), which set forth the agency's policies and procedures for the development, issuance, and use of guidance documents (62 FR 8961, February 27, 1997). This guidance document is issued as a Level 1 guidance consistent with GGP's.
In order to receive the “Guidance Document for Premarket Notification Submissions for Nitric Oxide Delivery Apparatus, Nitric Oxide Analyzer, and Nitrogen Dioxide Analyzer” via your fax machine, call the CDRH Facts-On-Demand (FOD) system at 800-899-0381 or 301-827-0111 from a touch-tone telephone. At the first voice prompt press 1 to access DSMA Facts, at second voice prompt press 2, and then enter the document number (1157) followed by the pound sign (#). Then follow the remaining voice prompts to complete your request.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance document may also do so using the Internet. CDRH maintains an entry on the Internet for easy access to information including text, graphics, and files that may be downloaded to a personal computer with access to the Internet. Updated on a regular basis, the CDRH home page includes the “Guidance Document for Premarket Notification Submissions for Nitric Oxide Delivery Apparatus, Nitric Oxide Analyzer, and Nitrogen Dioxide Analyzer,” device safety alerts,
Interested persons may, on or before April 24, 2000, submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments regarding this immediately in effect guidance document. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Health Care Financing Administration.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access HCFA's Web Site address at http://www.hcfa.gov/regs/prdact95.htm, or E-mail your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and HCFA document identifier, to Paperwork@hcfa.gov, or call the Reports Clearance Office on (410) 786-1326.
Health Care Financing Administration
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
This collection will also allow the HCFA to provide a totally automated submission and review capability, replace text with data format, establish a standard set of benefit descriptions/definitions, provide a framework to describe benefits, reduce variation in benefit descriptions, and eliminate the need to validate Medicare Compare data;
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access HCFA's Web Site address at http://www.hcfa.gov/regs/prdact95.htm, or E-mail your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and HCFA document identifier, to Paperwork@hcfa.gov, or call the Reports Clearance Office on (410) 786-1326. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be mailed within 30 days of this notice directly to the OMB desk officer: OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, Attention: Allison Eydt, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, D.C. 20503.
Periodically, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) publishes abstracts of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, call the HRSA Reports Clearance Office on (301) 443-1129.
The following request has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995:
Under the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Bureau of Health Professions (BHPr), the Division of Quality Assurance (DQA) is planning to conduct a survey to obtain information on the degree of user satisfaction with the National Practitioner Data Bank's (NPDB) querying and reporting processes, how users believe these processes can be improved, and how users perceive the usefulness of information they obtained from the NPDB for licensing and credentialing of health care entities,
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of this notice to: Wendy A. Taylor, Human Resources and Housing Branch, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463), announcement is made of the following National Advisory body scheduled to meet during the month of February 2000.
The meeting is open to the public.
For further information, call Ms. Eve Morrow, Division of National Health Service Corps, at (301) 594-4144.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463), announcement is made of the following National Advisory body scheduled to meet during the month of February 2000.
The National Advisory Committee on Rural Health will convene its thirty-fourth meeting at the time and place specified below:
The meeting is open to the public.
Tuesday morning at 8:30 a.m., there will be an update of the Office of Rural Health Policy activities, followed by presentations on Medicare payment in rural areas, rural mental issues, and an update on research and regulatory activities.
After lunch, Committee discussion will continue on issues presented by the Indian Health Service, and Veterans Administration.
The final plenary session will be convened on Wednesday, February 9 at 8:30 a.m. During this session the Committee will discuss future activities and next meeting. The meeting will be adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
Anyone requiring information regarding the subject Committee should contact Wayne W. Myers, M.D., Executive Secretary, National Advisory Committee on Rural Health, Health Resources and Services Administration, Room 9A-55, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, telephone (301) 443-0835, Fax (301) 443-2803.
Persons interested in attending any portion of the meeting should contact Sandi Lyles or Lilly Smetana, Office of Rural Health Policy, (301) 443-0835.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, to provide a 60-day advance opportunity for public comment on proposed information collection projects, the Indian Health Service (IHS) is publishing for comment a summary of a proposed information collection to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
Table 1 below provides: Types of data collection instruments, Estimate number of respondents, Number of responses per respondent, Annual Number of Responses, Average burden hour per response, and total annual burden hour.
There are no Capital Costs, Operating Costs, and/or Maintenance Costs to report.
Your written comments and/or suggestions are invited on one or more of the following points: (a) Whether the information collection activity is necessary to carry out an agency function; (b) whether the agency processes the information collected in a useful and timely fashion; (c) the accuracy of public burden estimate (the estimated amount of time needed for individual respondents to provide the requested information); (d) whether the methodology and assumption used to determine the estimate are logical; (e) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (f) ways to minimize the public burden through the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Office of Inspector General, HHS.
Notice of program exclusions.
During the month of December 1999, the HHS Office of Inspector General imposed exclusions in the cases set forth below. When an exclusion is imposed, no program payment is made to anyone for any items or services (other than an emergency item or service not provided in a hospital emergency room) furnished, ordered or prescribed by an excluded party under the Medicare, Medicaid, and all Federal Health Care programs. In addition, no program payment is made to any business or facility, e.g., a hospital, that submits bills for payment for items or services provided by an excluded party. Program beneficiaries remain free to decide for themselves whether they will continue to use the services of an excluded party even though no program payments will be made for items and services provided by that excluded party. The exclusions have national effect and also apply to all Executive Branch procurement and non-procurement programs and activities.
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of the following meeting of the SAMHSA Special Emphasis Panel I in November and December 1999.
A summary of the meetings and a roster of the members may be obtained from: Ms. Coral Sweeney, Review Specialist, SAMHSA, Office of Policy and Program Coordination, Division of Extramural Activities, Policy, and Review, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 17-89, Rockville, Maryland 20857. Telephone: 301-443-2998.
Substantive program information may be obtained from the individual named as Contact for the meeting listed below.
The meetings will include the review, discussion and evaluation of individual grant applications. These discussions could reveal personal information concerning individuals associated with the applications. Accordingly, these meetings are concerned with matters exempt from mandatory disclosure in Title 5 U.S.C. 552b
This notice is published in accordance with Section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463), 5 U.S.C. App. (1988). Following consultation with the General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the Secretary of the Interior is reestablishing the EOS Land Processes DAAC Science Advisory Panel.
The purpose of the Panel is to advise the U.S. Geological Survey, Earth Resources Observation Systems (EROS) Data Center in the definition, development, implementation, and operation of data processing, archiving, and distribution systems and associated science support capabilities required in its role as one of eight original DAACs established by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as part of the EOS Program. EOS is a major component of the U.S. Global Change Program.
The Panel is responsible for providing advice and consultation on a broad range of scientific technical topics and for representing the interests and requirements of the scientific research community in guiding development and operation of Land Processes DAAC systems and capabilities. Membership
The Panel functions solely as an advisory body and in compliance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Charter will be filed under the Act, 15 days from the date of publication of this notice. Further information regarding the Land Processes DAAC Science Advisory Panel may be obtained from the Director, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, Virginia 22092. Certification of reestablishment is published below.
I hereby certify that the reestablishment of the EOS Land Processes DAAC Science Advisory Panel is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties undertaken by the Department of the Interior pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for Experiment Land Remotely Sensed Data Processing, Distribution, Archiving and Related Science Support. The U.S. Geological Survey is authorized to cooperate with NASA in developing and operating the Land Processes DAAC pursuant to the Organic Act of the U.S. Geological Survey of March 3, 1879 (43 U.S.C. 31), Sec. 101(h) of P.L. 99-591 (An act making appropriations for the Department of Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 10, 1987, and for other purposes.), 100 Stat, 3341, 3341-252; and NASA's Section 203(c)(5) of the National Aeronautics and Space of 1958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2473(C)(5)).
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. I), this notice announces a meeting of the Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force, established under the authority of the Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 460ss
The Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force (Task Force) will meet from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, February 10, 2000 and from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Friday, February 11, 2000.
The meeting will be held at the Brookings Inn, 1143 Chetco Avenue, Brookings, Oregon.
Dr. Ronald A. Iverson, Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1006 (1215 South Main), Yreka, California 96097-1006, telephone (530) 842-5763.
For background information on the Task Force, please refer to the notice of their initial meeting that appeared in the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces its intention to request renewal of approval to collect certain information from the Governors of States to allow the BLM to compute units of payments due to local governments. The Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Act of September 13, 1982, as amended, requires that the Governor of each State furnish BLM with a listing of payments made to local governments by the State on behalf of the Federal Government under 11 receipt-sharing statutes. This information helps local governments recover some of the expenses incurred by providing services on public lands.
BLM must receive comments on the proposed information collection by March 24, 2000 to assure consideration.
You may mail comments to the Bureau of Land Management, (630), Administrative Record, Room 401 LS, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240. You may also hand deliver comments to Bureau of Land Management, Room 401, 1620 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036. To file comments electronically, send your comments via Internet to
Bill Howell, Budget Group, (202) 452-7721 (Commercial or FTS). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to contact Mr. Howell about the information collection.
In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.12(a), BLM is required to provide 60-day notice in the
BLM makes payments in lieu of taxes to units of local governments for certain Federal lands within their boundaries through authority provided by the PILT Act of October 20, 1976 (90 Stat. 2662, 31 U.S.C. 6901-6907). The implementing regulations located at 43 CFR Subpart 1881—Payments in Lieu of Taxes. The Governor of each State or his agent must furnish BLM with a listing of payments made to local governments
Based on BLM's experience in administering PILT, BLM estimates each State's reporting burden for this information collection to average 20 hours. The respondents already maintain this information for their own record-keeping purposes and need only transfer it to the matrix described above. The estimate includes time for research, time to transcribe and audit the data, and time to prepare the PILT submission. The respondents are offices designated by the Governor of each State, usually the Treasurer's office. The frequency of response is once annually, reporting on the previous fiscal year's revenues. The number of responses per year is 50. The estimated total annual burden on the States collectively is about 1,000 hours.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico State Office.
Notice of Availability.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces the availability of the Proposed Statewide Resource Management Plan Amendment/Final Environmental Impact Statement, of Land Use Plans in New Mexico for Implementation of New Mexico Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management.
Amendment/Final Environmental Impact Statement addresses the effects of adopting statewide standards for public land health and guidelines for livestock grazing on BLM administered lands in New Mexico. When adopted the standards and guidelines would be incorporated into eight BLM land use plans that cover approximately 13.5 million acres of BLM-administered land. This action is proposed in accordance with revised regulations for livestock grazing on BLM-administered lands (43 CFR 4100).
The Proposed Plan is the New Mexico Resource Advisory Council (RAC) Alternative. The RAC modified the alternative based on public comment on the Draft, and to make the alternative more in concert with the regulations (43 CFR § 4180). All parts of the Proposed Plan may be protested. Only those persons or organizations who participated in the planning amendment and analysis process may protest issues previously raised in the Draft.
Protests must be sent to the Director (WO-210), Bureau of Land Management, Attn.: Brenda Williams, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240. Also send a Carbon Copy to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, State Capitol, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505—Attention Cecilia Abeyta. Protests must be postmarked on or before February 28, 2000. The protest must include the following information: (1) Name, mailing address, telephone number, and interest of the person filing the protest; (2) a statement of the issue or issues being protested; (3) a statement of the parts or part being protested; (4) a copy of all documents addressing the issue or issues that were submitted during the planning amendment process by the protesting party or an indication of the date the issue or issues were discussed for the records; and (5) a concise statement explaining why the BLM New Mexico State Director's decision is wrong. For those who do not want to protest the Proposed Plan but wish to comment on the Proposed Plan, they may do so. All comments received will be considered in preparation of the Record of Decision. Comments must also be postmarked on or before February 28, 2000 and sent to: BLM—S&G Comment, NM931, P.O. Box 27115, Santa Fe, NM 87502-0115. At the end of the 30-day protest period, and following resolution of any protests, a Record of Decision will be published and the Resource Management Plans updated to reflect the Resource Management Plan Amendment changes. Single copies of the Proposed Statewise Resource Management Plan Amendment/Final Environmental Impact Statement can be obtained by writing or calling J.W. Whitney the BLM Project Team Leader. A limited number of copies of the Proposed Statewide Resource Management Plan Amendment/Final Environmental Impact Statement are available at BLM Field Offices in Farmington, Taos, Albuquerque, Socorro, Las Cruces, Roswell, Carlsbad and at the BLM State Office in Santa Fe, NM.
J.W. Whitney, BLM Project Leader, BLM, New Mexico State Office, P.O. Box 27115, Santa Fe, NM 87502-7115; telephone 505-438-7438.
Four alternatives are considered in detail in the Proposed Statewide Resource Management Plan Amendment/Final Environmental Impact Statement. The Four alternatives include: No Action Alternative (continuation of current management), RAC Alternative (Proposed Plan), County Alternative, and Fallback Alternative.
The RAC Alternative (Proposed Plan) has four Standards which include: an Upland Standard, a Biotic Standard, a Riparian Standard, and a Sustainable Communities and Human Dimension Standard.
Under the provisions of Public Law 97-451, a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease NMNM 101077 for lands in Eddy County, New Mexico, was timely filed and was accompanied by all required rentals and royalties accruing from September 1, 1999, the date of termination.
No valid lease has been issued affecting the lands. The lessee has agreed to new lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction thereof and 16
For further information contact: Lourdes B. Ortiz, BLM, New Mexico State Office, (505) 438-7586.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Interior.
Notice of Intent for Planning Analyses.
The Jackson Field Office, Eastern States, will prepare Planning Analyses (PA) for consideration of leasing six scattered tracts of Federal mineral estate for oil and gas exploration and development. The PAs will be prepared in concert with Environmental Analyses (EA).
This notice is issued pursuant to Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1501.7 and Title 43 CFR 1610.2(c). The planning effort will follow the procedures set forth in 43 CFR Part 1600.
The public is invited to participate in this planning process, beginning with the identification of planning issues and criteria.
Comments relating to the identification of planning issues and criteria will be accepted for thirty days from the date of this publication.
Send comments to Bureau of Land Management, Jackson Field Office, 411 Briarwood Drive, Suite 404, Jackson, Mississippi 39206.
Quazi T. Islam, Physical Scientist, Jackson Field Office, (601) 977-5400.
The BLM has responsibility to consider applications to lease Federal mineral estate for oil and gas exploration and development. An interdisciplinary team will be used in the preparation of the PA/EAs. Preliminary issues, subject to change as a result of public input, are (1) potential impacts of oil and gas exploration and development on the surface resources and (2) consideration of restrictions on lease rights to protect surface resources.
Due to the scattered nature of the six tracts proposed for leasing, a separate analysis will be prepared for each tract.
Tract locations, along with acreages, are listed below.
T 18 S, R 8 W, Section 7; T 18 S, R 9 W, Sections 11 and 12; 200.94 acres.
T 5 N, R 9 E, Sections 66 and 67; 112.80 acres.
T 2 N, R 16 W, Sections 11, 12, 13, and 14; 1,470.0 acres.
T 8 N, R 14 W, Section 4; 40.0 acres.
T 6 N, R 54 W, Sections 8 and 17; 70.0 acres.
Tract No. 550G, Parcel A-3. 200.61 acres.
Due to the limited scope of this PA/EA process, public meetings are not scheduled.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Public Land Order.
This order revokes one Executive order in its entirety and partially revokes another Executive order insofar as they affect 491 acres of public lands withdrawn for the Bureau of Land Management's Public Water Reserve No. 139 and Public Water Reserve No. 107. This action will open these lands to surface entry under the public land laws and to nonmetalliferous location and entry under the United States mining laws. This action is consistent with the Northeast Resource Area Management Plan. The lands have been and will remain open to mineral leasing and to metalliferous mining.
February 23, 2000.
Doris E. Chelius, BLM Colorado State Office, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80215, 303-239-3706.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. (1994), it is ordered as follows:
1. Executive Order No. 5593, dated April 4, 1931, which established Public Water Reserve No. 139, is hereby revoked in its entirety:
The area described contains 80 acres in Weld County.
2. The Executive Order dated April 17, 1926, which established Public Water Reserve No. 107, is hereby revoked insofar as it affects the following described lands:
The areas described aggregate 411 acres in Boulder, Weld, Gilpin, and Jefferson Counties.
2. At 9:00 a.m. on February 23, 2000, the lands described in Paragraphs 1 and 2 will be opened to operation of the public land laws generally, subject to valid existing rights, the provisions of
3. At 9:00 a.m. on February 23, 2000, the lands described in Paragraphs 1 and 2 will be opened to nonmetalliferous location and entry under the United States mining laws, subject to valid existing rights, the provisions of existing withdrawals, other segregations of record, and the requirements of applicable law. Appropriation of any of the lands described in this order to nonmetalliferous mining under the general mining laws prior to the date and time of restoration is unauthorized. Any such attempted appropriation, including attempted adverse possession under 30 U.S.C. 38 (1994), shall vest no rights against the United States. Acts required to establish a location and to initiate a right of possession are governed by State law where not in conflict with Federal law. The Bureau of Land Management will not intervene in disputes between rival locators over possessory rights since Congress has provided for such determinations in local courts.
Bureau of Land Management.
Recreation and Public Purpose Lease/conveyance.
The following described public land in Las Vegas, Clark County, Nevada has been examined and found suitable for lease/conveyance for recreational or public purposes under the provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 869
Containing
The land is not required for any federal purpose. The lease/conveyance is consistent with current Bureau Planning for this area and would be in the public interest. The lease/patent, when issued, will be subject to the provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act and applicable regulations of the Secretary of the Interior, and will contain the following reservations to the United States:
1. A right-of-way thereon for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States, Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945).
2. All minerals shall be reserved to the United States, together with the right to prospect for, mine and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe.
1. An easement 40 feet in width along the North boundary, 30 feet in width along the South boundary, 30 feet in width along the West boundary, and 40 feet in width along the East boundary in favor of the City of Las Vegas for roads, public utilities and flood control purposes.
2. Those rights for public utility purposes which have been granted to Nevada Power Company by Permit No. N-38447 under the Act of October 26, 1976 (FLPMA).
Detailed information concerning this action is available for review at the office of the Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas Field Office, 4765 W. Vegas Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Upon publication of this notice in the
Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the State Director. In the absence of any adverse comments, the classification of the land described in this Notice will become effective 60 days from the date of publication in the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Owyhee Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (RMP/EIS).
Pursuant to section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management and section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the Proposed Owyhee Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The ROD documents approval of BLM's plan to manage the public lands within the Owyhee Resource Area during the next 15 to 20 years and beyond. The Owyhee RMP establishes direction for management on about 1.3 million acres of BLM administered public lands in the Owyhee Resource Area in southwest Idaho. The Owyhee RMP is the same as the Proposed Owyhee Resource Management Plan (Alternative E) published in July 1999.
The Owyhee Resource Management Plan is effective December 30, 1999. Implementation of the Owyhee RMP will begin immediately. Some RMP decisions require immediate action while other decisions are identified for implementation during
Copies of the Record of Decision are available at the BLM, Lower Snake River District Office, 3948 Development Avenue, Boise, ID 83705.
Daryl Albiston, Field Manager; or Fred Minckler, Team Leader at telephone (208) 384-3300.
The Owyhee Resource Area includes 1,320,032 acres of BLM administered public lands in western Owyhee County, Idaho. The Owyhee RMP is a general land use plan that establishes guidance for managing a broad spectrum of land uses and allocations and contains resource objectives, land use allocations, management actions and direction needed to achieve program and multiple use goals. The Owyhee RMP replaces the BLM's land management guidance for the Owyhee Resource Area contained in the Owyhee Management Plan (MFP) which was approved in 1981. The record of decision documents selection of Alternative E (the Proposed Owyhee RMP) as presented in the Proposed Owyhee Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement issued July 1999, with associated Appendices, Tables and Maps, as the approved Owyhee RMP.
The following are the major components of the approved RMP:
Manage land uses and activities to ensure properly functioning watershed conditions.
Manage vegetation to achieve healthy rangelands
Meet State of Idaho water quality standards.
Provide habitat for special status plants and animals and habitat for a high diversity of wildlife.
Provide habitat for a wild horse herd appropriate management level of 192 wild horses.
Provide for a sustained level of livestock use. Initially allocate 135,116 livestock AUMs.
Manage livestock grazing activities so goals for rangeland health are achieved.
Use fire as a management tool to improve rangeland health.
Manage Douglas-fir communities to emphasize forest health.
Recommend and manage nine river segments (163 miles) as suitable for designation as Wild and Scenic Rivers. Sixty (60) miles of eligible river segments were determined to be non-suitable and are released from further Wild and Scenic River consideration.
Designate 13 areas totaling 167,372 acres as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs).
Continue management of 298,630 acres as Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). 195,980 acres were previously recommended to Congress as suitable for Wilderness designation.
Designate off-highway motorized vehicle (OHMV) use as “Open” on 192 acres, “Limited” on 1,217,805 acres and “Closed” on 101,994 acres.
Identify 325,000 acres potentially available for disposal, subject to further review.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management proposes to withdraw 19.09 acres of public land in Cassia County for the protection of the Burley Administrative Site. This notice closes the land up to 2 years from settlement, sale, location or entry, under all of the general land laws, including the mining laws, but not from leasing under the mineral leasing laws, subject to valid existing rights.
Comments and requests for a meeting should be sent on or before February 23, 2000.
Comments and meeting requests should be sent to the Idaho State Director, BLM, Idaho State Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Boise, ID 83709.
Jackie Simmons, BLM, Idaho State Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Boise, ID 83709, 208-373-3867.
On December 1, 1999, a petition was approved allowing the Bureau of Land Management to file an application to withdraw the following described public land:
A parcel of land lying in the E
The area described aggregates 19.09 acres, more or less, in Cassia County.
The purpose of the proposed withdrawal is to protect the Burley Administrative Site.
For a period of 90 days from the date of publication of this notice, all persons who wish to submit comments, suggestions, or objections in connection with the proposed withdrawal may present their views in writing to the Idaho State Director of the Bureau of Land Management.
Notice is hereby given that an opportunity for a public meeting is afforded in connection with the proposed withdrawal. All interested persons who desire a public meeting for the purpose of being heard on the proposed withdrawal must submit a written request to the Idaho State Director within 90 days from the date of publication of this notice. Upon determination by the authorized officer that public meeting will be held, a notice of the time and place will be published in the
The application will be processed in accordance with the regulations set forth in 43 CFR 2300.
For a period 2 years from the date of publication of this notice in the
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before January 15, 2000. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR Part 60 written comments concerning the significance of these properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation may be forwarded to the National Register, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW, NC400, Washington, DC 20240. Written comments should be submitted by February 8, 2000.
A Request for Removal has been made for the following Resource:
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
The Bay-Delta Advisory Council (BDAC) will meet on February 17, 2000 to discuss the CALFED Preferred Alternative, Water Use Efficiency, and CALFED Implementation, including the Ecosystem Restoration Program. This meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may make oral statements to the BDAC or may file written statements for consideration.
The Bay-Delta Advisory Council will meet in Sacramento from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 17, 2000 in the Auditorium of the Sacramento Association of Realtors.
The Bay-Delta Advisory Council will meet at the Sacramento Association of Realtors' Auditorium at 2003 Howe Avenue, Sacramento CA 95825, (916) 922-8294.
Eugenia Laychak, CALFED Bay-Delta Program, at (916) 654-4214. If reasonable accommodation is needed due to a disability, please contact the Equal Employment Opportunity Office at (916) 653-6952 or TDD (916) 653-6934 at least one week prior to the meeting.
The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta system) is a critically important part of California's natural environment and economy. In recognition of the serious problems facing the region and the complex resource management decisions that must be made, the state of California and the Federal government are working together to stabilize, protect, restore, and enhance the Bay-Delta system. The State and Federal agencies with management and regulatory responsibilities in the Bay-Delta system are working together as CALFED to provide policy direction and oversight for the process.
One area of Bay-Delta management includes the establishment of a joint State-Federal process to develop long-term solutions to problems in the Bay-Delta system related to fish and wildlife, water supply reliability, natural disasters, and water quality. The intent is to develop a comprehensive and balanced plan which addresses all of the resource problems. This effort, the
Minutes of the meeting will be maintained by the program, Suite 1155, 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, and will be available for public inspection during regular business hours, Monday through Friday within 30 days following the meeting.
United States International Trade Commission.
Scheduling of full five-year reviews concerning the antidumping duty order on uranium from Ukraine and the suspended investigations on uranium from Russia and Uzbekistan.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(5)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on uranium from Ukraine and the termination of the suspended investigations on uranium from Russia and Uzbekistan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207). Recent amendments to the Rules of Practice and Procedure pertinent to five-year reviews, including the text of subpart F of part 207, are published at 63 FR 30599, June 5, 1998, and may be downloaded from the Commission's World Wide Web site at http://www.usitc.gov/rules.htm.
January 14, 2000.
Larry Reavis (202-205-3185), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http://www.usitc.gov).
On November 4, 1999, the Commission determined that responses to its notice of institution of the subject five-year reviews were such that full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act should proceed (64 FR 62691, November 17, 1999). A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's web site.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that a proposed consent decree in the action entitled
The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the proposed consent decree. Any comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should refer to
The proposed consent decree may be examined at EPA Region 1, located at One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114 (contact Peter DeCambre, 617-918-1890). A copy of the proposed consent decree may be obtained by mail from the Department of Justice Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, D.C. 20044. In requesting a copy, please refer to the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount of $7.25 (25 cents per page reproduction costs).
Notice is hereby given that a proposed consent decree in the action entitled
Pursuant to the proposed consent decree, the Settling Defendant will make a payment of $1 million to the
The Settling Defendant has agreed not to file claims against the United States in connection with the
The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of forty-five (45) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the proposed consent decree, including comments concerning the Restoration Plan attached as Appendix B to the proposed consent decree. Any comments should be addressed to Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resource Division, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, D.C. 20044. Comments should state “Attention: Don Frankel” and refer to
The proposed consent decree may be examined at the offices of the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Maine, East Tower, Sixth Floor, One Hundred Middle Street Plaza, Portland, ME 04101 (contact David Collins, 207-780-3257). A copy of the proposed consent decree may be obtained by mail from the Department of Justice Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, D.C. 20044. In requesting a copy, please refer to the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount of $18.00 (25 cents per page reproduction costs).
Notice is hereby given that on January 6, 2000, the United States lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, in
The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree for 30 days following publication of this Notice. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044-7611, and should refer to
Consistent with Departmental policy, 28 C.F.R. § 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in
The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, D.C. 20044; and refer to
The proposed settlement agreement may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, Suite 410, 200 Jefferson Avenue, Memphis, TN 38103, and at the office of the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303. A copy of the proposed Consent Decree may be obtained in person or by mail from the Department of Justice Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, D.C. 20044. In requesting a copy please refer to the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount of $4.25 (25 cents
Federal Bureau of Prisons, Department of Justice/City of Atwater
Notice Is Hereby Given regarding the availability of a Joint Initial Study/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) for public review at the City of Atwater Planning Department, located at 750 Bellevue Road, Atwater, California 95301, in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The IS/EA is also available through the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 500 First Street NW, Washington DC 20534 in conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
A Negative Declaration, filed by the Planning Department in conformance with CEQA, along with the Joint IS/EA may be reviewed at the City during normal business hours (8:00 AM to 5:00 PM) for a 30 day review period commencing on January 20, 2000.
The proposed project will extend municipal water and sewer services from the City of Atwater to the United States Penitentiary at the Castle Airport and Aviation Development Center. Given that the proposed project involves federal, state and local agencies, a joint CEQA/NEPA environmental document has been prepared.
All interested parties should review the document and provide written comments to the City of Atwater Planning Department (Attention: Mo Khatami, Planning and Redevelopment Director) no later than February 22, 2000. A separate Planning Commission public hearing notice will be issued by the City to provide an opportunity for interested parties to give oral comments.
Questions concerning the action can also be answered by: David J. Dorworth, 5stChief, Site Selection and Environmental Review Branch, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 320 First Street, NW, Washington, DC 20534, Telephone (202) 514-6470, Telefacsimile (202) 616-6024, ddorworth@BOP.gov.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, (OSHA), Labor.
Request for nominations for persons to serve on MACOSH.
OSHA intends to renew the charter of the Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (MACOSH). MACOSH advises the Secretary of Labor on matters relating to occupational safety and health programs, policies, and standards for the maritime industries of the United States. The Committee will consist of 15 members and will include a cross-section of individuals who represent the following interests: employers, employees; Federal and State safety and health organizations; professional organizations specializing in occupational safety and health; and national standards setting groups. OSHA invites persons interested in serving on MACOSH to submit their names in nomination for committee membership.
Nominations for MACOSH membership should be postmarked by March 6, 2000.
Nominations for MACOSH membership should be sent to: Chappell Pierce, Office of Maritime Standards, Room N-3609, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210.
Chappell Pierce, Acting Director, Office of Maritime Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210; Telephone: (202) 693-2255.
On October 18, 1999, OSHA announced its intention to request that MACOSH be rechartered for another two years. MACOSH was established to advise the Secretary on various issues pertaining to providing safe and healthful employment in the maritime industries, which include shipyard and longshoring activities. The Secretary consults with MACOSH on rulemaking issues affecting the industry, and has sought the committee's advice on other issues including streamlining regulatory efforts and improving training and outreach programs. In addition, MACOSH recommends enforcement initiatives that will help improve the working conditions and the safety and health of men and women working in the maritime industry.
OSHA is seeking men and women with an interest in the safety and health of workers in the maritime industry for membership on MACOSH. Interested persons may submit their own name or the name of another whom they believe to be interested in and qualified to serve on MACOSH. The Agency is looking for nominees to represent the following interests or categories: Employees, Employers, State or Federal Safety and Health Organizations, and Professional Organizations or National Standards-Setting Groups.
OSHA seeks a broad-based and diverse membership for MACOSH. Nominations of women and minorities are encouraged. Nominations of new members or re-nominations of former or current members will be accepted in all categories of membership. Interested persons may nominate themselves or may be nominated by organizations from one of the categories listed above. Nominations should include the name and address of the candidate. Each nomination should include a summary of the candidate's training or experience relating to safety and health in the maritime industry and the interest the candidate represents. In addition to listing the candidate's qualifications to serve on the committee, each nomination should state that the person consents to the nomination and acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on MACOSH.
This document was prepared under the direction of Charles N. Jeffress, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210, pursuant to sections 6(b) and
Signed at Washington, DC this 18th day of January 2000.
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, Department of Labor.
Correction.
In notice document 99-33599 beginning on page 72696 in the issue of Tuesday, December 28, 1999, make the following correction:
On page 72697 in the first column in the second paragraph, the submission date for written comments was on or before January 27, 2000. It should be changed to read on or before February 28, 2000.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (Department), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA 95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the information collection provisions of Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 78-6. A copy of the Information Collection Request (ICR) may be obtained by contacting the office listed in the addresses section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office shown in the addresses section below on or before March 24, 2000.
Gerald B. Lindrew, Office of Policy and Research, U.S. Department of Labor, Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room N-5647, Washington, D.C. 20210. Telephone: (202) 219-4782; Fax: (202) 219-4745. These are not toll-free numbers.
Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 78-6 allows a multiple employer welfare benefit plan maintained for the purpose of providing apprenticeship or other training programs (apprenticeship plan) to (1) purchase personal property and (2) lease personal property or real property (other than office space as described in section 408(b)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)) from an employer who makes contributions to an apprenticeship plan (contributing employer), from a wholly-owned subsidiary of a contributing employer, or from an employee organization any of whose members' work results in contributions being made to the apprenticeship plan. In the absence of this exemption, sections 406(a)(1) (A), (C) and (D) of ERISA might prohibit part or all of these transactions.
The Department is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This existing information collection should be continued because without this exemption, apprenticeship plans would have difficulty operating in accordance with the purposes for which they were established. For the Department to grant an exemption, however, it is required by the provisions of section 408(a) of ERISA to ensure the participants and beneficiaries are protected. It, therefore, included certain conditions and required that records be kept for six years from the date of the transaction so that the Department, contributing employers and their employees, the sponsoring employee organization, and plan participants can determine whether these conditions have been met. Without such records, the Department and other interested parties would be unable to enforce the terms of the exemption and ensure user compliance.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services has prepared a report regarding two funding categories for its National Leadership Grant for Libraries: education and training, and research and demonstration. The full text of the report can be found on the IMLS web site at
The Institute of Museum and Library Services' National Leadership Grants for libraries are designed to support leading edge activities in the field of library and information science. In 1999, IMLS awarded over $10 million in awards for model projects in education and training, research and demonstration and the preservation and archiving of digital media. These grants also help to build digital library resources and to promote cooperation between libraries and museums. The Institute is the only federal agency that administers grants specifically targeted for libraries, library education and library research.
IMLS places a high priority on developing ongoing and open communication with the constituents it serves. Dialogue is essential to assuring that policy and grant making procedures are developed in concert with the needs of the library community. To further this dialogue IMLS held a series of meetings in 1999 in Washington, DC, with library leaders to exchange ideas about priorities for the education and training, and research and development grant categories of National Leadership Grants. The meetings were designed to promote discussion among library leaders to help ensure that funding priorities address current problems and provide leadership for future needs.
IMLS is an independent Federal grantmaking agency that fosters leadership, innovation, and a lifetime of learning by supporting the nation's 8,000 museums and 122,000 libraries. Created by the Museum and Library Services Act of 1996, P.L. 104-208, IMLS has an annual budget of $190 million. For more information about IMLS contact: Institute of Museum and Library Services, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20506, (202) 606-8536, or
Comments and questions received by March 17, 2000 will be most useful. All interested parties should respond to: Barbara Holton, Office of Library Services, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20506,
National Science Foundation, National Science Board.
February 2, 2000: 9:00 a.m.-5:30 p.m., Open Session; February 3, 2000: 8:30 a.m.-12:15 p.m., Open Session.
The Arnold & Mabel Beckman Center, 100 Academy Drive, Irvine, California 92612.
This meeting will be open to the public.
Postal Service.
Notice of implementation of changes to the Domestic Mail Classification Schedule and accompanying fee changes.
This notice sets forth the changes to Domestic Mail Classification Schedule (DMCS) § 931 and the accompanying Fee Schedule 931 changes to be implemented as a result of the November 1, 1999, Decision of the Governors of the United States Postal Service on the Recommended Decision of the Postal Rate Commission on Establishment of Permanent Classification and Fees For Weight-Averaged Nonletter-Size Business Reply Mail, Docket No. MC99-2.
February 6, 2000.
Michael Tidwell, (202) 268-2998.
On March 10, 1999, pursuant to its authority under 39 U.S.C. 3621
On July 14, 1999, pursuant to its authority under 39 U.S.C. 3624, the PRC issued to the Governors of the Postal Service its recommended decision on the Postal Service's request. The PRC recommended the establishment of the permanent weight averaging classification and fees which were requested by the Postal Service and ratified by the Docket No. MC99-2 parties in a Stipulation and Agreement.
Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3625, the Governors of the United States Postal Service acted on the PRC's Docket No. MC99-2 recommendations on November 1, 1999. The Governors determined to approve those recommendations. A copy of the attachment to that decision, setting forth the Docket No. MC99-2 classification and fee changes approved by the Governors, is set forth below.
Also on November 1, 1999, the Board of Governors of the Postal Service, pursuant to their authority under 39 U.S.C. 3625(f), determined to make the Docket No. MC99-2 classification and fee changes approved by the Governors effective at 12:01 a.m. on February 6, 2000 (Resolution No. 99-12).
In accordance with the aforementioned Decision of the Governors and Resolution No. 99-12, the Postal Service hereby gives notice that the classification and fee changes
In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 which provides opportunity for public comment on new or revised data collections, the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) will publish periodic summaries of proposed data collections.
Under Section 6 of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), benefits that may be due on the death of a railroad employee
When the RRB receives notification of the death of a railroad employee or survivor annuitant, an RRB field office utilizes Form RL-94-F, Survivor Questionnaire, to secure additional information from surviving relatives needed to determine if any further benefits are payable under the RRA. Completion is voluntary. One response is requested of each respondent.
The RRB proposes minor, non-burden impacting, formatting and editorial changes to Form RL-94-F. The completion time for the RL-94-F is estimated at between 5 to 11 minutes.
To request more information or to obtain a copy of the information collection justification, forms, and/or supporting material, please call the RRB Clearance Officer at (312) 751-3363. Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) has submitted the following proposal(s) for the collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
Copies of the forms and supporting documents can be obtained from Chuck Mierzwa, the agency clearance officer (312-751-3363). Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60611-2092 and the OMB reviewer, Joe Lackey (202-395-7316), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10230, New Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”).
Notice of an application for an order under section 61(a)(3)(B) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”).
Applicant, Franklin Capital Corporation, requests an order approving its Non-Statutory Stock Option Plan (the “Director Plan”) and the grant of certain stock options under the Director Plan.
The application was filed on August 6, 1998, and amended on April 14, 1999. Applicant has agreed to file an amendment during the notice period, the substance of which is reflected in this notice.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicant with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on February 11, 2000, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, Commission, 450 5th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609. Applicant, 450 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10022.
Deepak T. Pai, Senior Counsel, at (202) 942-0574, or George J. Zornada, Branch Chief, at (202) 942-0564 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application is available for a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0102 (tel. 202-942-8090).
1. Applicant is an internally-managed business development company (“BDC”) within the meaning of section 2(a)(48) of the Act.
2. Applicant requests an order under section 61(a)(3)(B) of the Act approving the Director Plan for directors who are not employees, officers, or interested persons (as defined in section 2(a)(9) of the Act) of the applicant (“Eligible Directors”).
3. The Director Plan provides for the grant of stock options to purchase shares of applicant's common stock (“Options”) to each of the Eligible Directors on the Approval Date. A total of 30,000 shares of applicant's common stock is reserved for issuance under the Director Plan. Pursuant to the Director Plan, on the Approval Date, each of the Eligible Directors will be granted Options for 5,000 shares of common stock (20,000 shares total). The Options vest as follows: one-third of each Eligible Director's 5,000 Options will vest immediately, one-third will vest one year from the date of grant, and the remaining one-third will vest two years from the date of grant. The remaining 10,000 shares will be granted in the following manner: Options to purchase an additional 1,250 shares of common stock will be automatically granted to each Eligible Director upon his election, re-election, or appointment to the Board at the Year 2000 and Year 2001 annual shareholders' meetings.
4. Under the Director Plan, the exercise price for Options will be the fair market value of the applicant's stock, defined as the closing price on the American Stock Exchange on the date of grant. Options granted under the Director Plan are exercisable for a period of 10 years from the date of grant or a shorter period as the Board may establish. Options will become exercisable, in accordance with the vesting schedule prescribed in each Eligible Director's Option agreement. In the event of death or permanent and total disability of an Eligible Director during the Director's service, unexercised Options will become exercisable only during the period of twelve months following the date of death or disability. In the event of the termination of an Eligible Director's directorship for a reason other than by death or permanent and total disability, an Option shall be exercisable only during a period of thirty days following the date of termination. The Options will not be transferable except for disposition by gift, will, intestacy, or pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order as defined by section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
5. Applicant's officers and employees, including any employee directors, are eligible to receive stock options under the Franklin Holding Corporation Stock Incentive Plan (the “Employee Plan”). Eligible Directors are not eligible to receive stock options under the Employee Plan. The total number of shares of common stock issuable under the Director Plan and the Employee Plan is 75,000 shares (30,000 shares under the Director Plan and 45,000 shares under the Employee Plan), representing 10.3% of the 730,588 shares of applicant's stock outstanding as of December 31, 1999. Applicant has no warrants, options or rights to purchase its outstanding voting securities other than those granted to its directors, officers, and employees pursuant to the Employee Plan and the Director Plan.
1. Section 63(3) of the Act permits a BDC to sell its common stock at a price below current net asset value upon the exercise of any option issued in accordance with section 61(a)(3) of the Act. Section 61(a)(3)(B) of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that a BDC may issue to its non-employee directors options to purchase its voting securities pursuant to an executive compensation plan, provided that: (a) the options expire by their terms within ten years; (b) the exercise price of the options is not less than the current market value of the underlying securities at the date of the issuance of the options, or if no market exists, the current net asset value of the voting securities; (c) the proposal to issue the options is authorized by the BDC's shareholders, and is approved by order of the Commission upon application; (d) the options are not transferable except for disposition by gift, will or intestacy; (e) no investment adviser of the BDC receives any compensation described in section 205(1) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, except to the extent permitted by clause (A) or (B) of that section; and (f) the BDC does not have a profit-sharing plan as described in section 57(n) of the Act.
2. In addition, section 61(a)(3) of the Act provides that the amount of the BDC's voting securities that would result from the exercise of all outstanding warrants, options, and rights at the time of issuance may not exceed 25% of the BDC's outstanding voting securities, except that if the amount of voting securities that would result from the exercise of all outstanding warrants, options, and rights issued to the BDC's directors, officers, and employees pursuant to an executive compensation plan would exceed 15% of the BDC's outstanding voting securities, then the total amount of voting securities that would result from the exercise of all outstanding warrants, options, and rights at the time of issuance will not exceed 20% of the outstanding voting securities of the BDC.
3. Applicant represents that the terms of the Director Plan meet all the requirements of section 61(a)(3)(B) of the Act. Applicant states in support of the application that the Eligible Directors are actively involved in the oversight of applicant's affairs and that it relies on the judgment and experience of the Board. Applicant also states that the Eligible Directors provide guidance and advice on financial and operational issues, credit and loan policies, asset valuation, and strategic direction, as well as serve on committees. Applicant believes that the Options to be granted to the Eligible Directors provide significant incentives for the Eligible Directors to remain on the Board and to devote their best efforts to the success of applicant's business and the enhancement of shareholder value. Applicant also states that the Options will provide a means for the Eligible Directors to increase their ownership interests in applicant, thereby ensuring close identification of their interests with the interests of applicant's shareholders.
4. Applicant submits that the terms of the Director Plan are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching of applicant or its shareholders. Applicant states that the number of voting securities that would result from the exercise of all Options issued or issuable to the directors, officer, and employees under the Director Plan and the Employee Plan is 75,000 shares, or 10.3% of the company's outstanding stock, which is below the percentage limitations in the Act. Applicant asserts that, given the small amount of common stock issuable upon the exercise of Options under the Director Plan, the exercise of Options would not have a substantial dilutive effect on the net asset value of the applicant's stock.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).
Notice of Application for Exemption under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”).
Ibbotson Associates, Inc.
Exemption requested under section 203A(c) from section 203A(a).
Applicant requests an order to permit it to register with the SEC as an investment adviser.
The application was filed on August 2, 1999, and amended on December 8, 1999.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the SEC orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the SEC's Secretary and serving applicant with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on February 14, 2000, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the
Secretary, SEC, 450 5th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549-0609. Applicant, Ibbotson Associates, Inc., 225 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 700, Chicago, Illinois 60601-7676.
Karen L. Goldstein, Attorney, at (202) 942-0646 or Jennifer L. Sawin, Special Counsel, at (202) 942-0716 (Division of Investment Management, Task Force on Investment Adviser Regulation).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the SEC's Public Reference Branch.
1. Applicant is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. Until July 8, 1997, Applicant was registered as an investment adviser with the SEC. Applicant is currently registered as an investment adviser in California, Illinois and New York.
2. Applicant provides services predominantly to institutional clients such as pension plans, pension consultants, investment advisers, broker-dealers, insurance companies and banks. None of Applicant's current clients are natural persons.
3. Applicant provides a wide range of services to its clients; these services include portfolio strategy design, asset allocation, assessment of investor risk tolerance and financial engineering, corporate finance, client specific research and educational programs. Applicant also assists institutional clients by designing model asset allocation portfolios or by designing a questionnaire for institutions to use in determining model portfolio allocations for their individual investor clients. Applicant's institutional clients, however, are responsible for their individual investor clients.
1. On October 11, 1996, the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 was enacted. Title III of the Act, the Investment Advisers Supervision Coordination Act (“Coordination Act”), added new section 203A to the Advisers Act. Under section 203A(a)(1),
2. Applicant states that it does not qualify for registration as an investment adviser with the SEC. Applicant states that it does not have $25 million or more in assets under management, does not serve as an investment adviser to an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act, and does not qualify for an exemption from the prohibition on SEC registration as provided in rule 203A-2 under the Advisers Act.
3. Applicant notes that section 203A(c) of the Advisers Act authorizes the SEC to permit an investment adviser to register with the SEC if prohibiting registration would be “unfair, a burden on interstate commerce, or otherwise inconsistent with the purposes of [section 203A].”
4. Applicant argues that prohibiting it from registering as an investment adviser with the SEC would be inconsistent with the purposes of section 203A. Applicant submits that Congress intended section 203A to divide responsibility for regulating investment advisers between the SEC and the states; the states should be responsible for regulating advisers “whose activities are likely to be concentrated in their home state,” and “larger advisers, with national businesses” should be regulated by the Commission and “be subject to national rules.”
5. Applicant submits that Congress recognized that the “assets under management” requirement does not precisely differentiate national investment advisers from local investment advisers, and that some national investment advisers may not qualify for SEC registration under the test formulated by Congress. Applicant states that Congress acknowledged that “the definition of ‘assets under management’ * * * may, in some cases, exclude firms with a national or multistate practice from being able to register with the SEC.”
6. Applicant argues that it engages in a large, national investment advisory business of the type Congress contemplated when it provided the SEC exemptive authority under section 203A(c). Applicant asserts that by providing services to institutional clients across the country, its activities, like those of pension consultants exempted by SEC rule from the prohibition on SEC registration,
7. Applicant submits further that it is inconsistent with the purposes of section 203A for a state to regulate investment advisers whose activities involve little or no traditional state interest. Applicant notes that, in section 203A, Congress preserved the states' ability to regulate certain investment adviser representatives of advisers registered with the SEC. Applicant further notes that under the SEC's definition of investment adviser representative,
8. Applicant argues that it is the type of investment adviser that Congress intended the Commission to consider exempting under section 203A(c). Applicant states that it provides services predominantly to institutions and that it believes that its business will remain predominantly institutional. Applicant will not market its services to individual investors, and in no case will it have (i) more than five clients who are natural persons (other than certain “excepted persons,” as that term is defined in rule 203A-3, paragraph (a)(3)(i) under the Advisers Act
For the SEC, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
[65 FR 2656, January 18, 2000]
Closed Meeting.
450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
January 18, 2000.
Cancellation of Meeting.
The closed meeting scheduled for Thursday, January 20, 2000 at 11:00 a.m., has been canceled.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
The Office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070.
January 14, 2000.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend Section 106 of the
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Amex has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Section 106 of the
In its release adopting new Rule 19b-4(e), the Commission noted that in order to rely on the amendment and not submit filings pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) for warrants that satisfy the criteria of Rule 901C, a self-regulatory organization would be required to submit a proposed rule change for Commission approval to eliminate the Section 19(b)(3)(A) rule filing
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition.
The Exchange did not solicit or receive any written comments with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Amex. All submissions should refer to the File No. SR-Amex-99-21 and should be submitted by February 14, 2000.
Small Business Administration.
Notice of Reporting Requirements Submitted for OMB Review.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before February 23, 2000. If you intend to comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.
Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the Agency Clearance Officer.
Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency Clearance Officer,> Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, S.W., 5th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20416; and OMB Reviewer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503.
Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7044.
United States Department of State.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C. 2459), the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of exhibit objects, contact Lorie J. Nierenberg, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/619-6084). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44; 301-4th Street, S.W., Room 700, Washington, D.C. 20547-0001.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of availability of proposed advisory circular and request for comments
This notice announces the availability of Advisory Circular (AC) No. 20.XX, Turbojet, Turboprop & Turbofan Engine Induction System Icing.
Comments must be received on or before February 23, 2000.
Send all comments on the proposed AC to the Federal Aviation Administration, Attn: Engine and Propeller Standards Staff, ANE-110, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299
John Fisher, Engine and Propeller Standards, Staff, ANE-110, at the above address, telephone (781) 238-7149, fax (781) 238-7199
A copy of the subject AC may be obtained by contacting the person named above under
This AC is on the subject of continued airworthiness of aircraft engines certificated under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) parts 33 and 25. The information and guidance presented in this AC would provide a method that can be used to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of §§ 25.1093, 33.68, 33.77, and 33.89.
This advisory circular, published under the authority granted to the Administrator by 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 401113, 44701-44702, 44704, provides guidance for these proposed requirements.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on January 13, 2000.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Federal Aviation Administration Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
The meeting will be held on February 9, 2000 at 10 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW, Rooms 6200-6204, Washington, DC 20590.
Regina Jones, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-9822; fax (202) 267-5075; e-mail Regina.Jones@faa.gov.
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. II), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Executive Committee to be held on February 9, 2000, at the Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW, Rooms 6200-6204, Washington, DC 20590. The agenda will include:
• Use of proxy votes
• ARAC Chair
• Aviation Consumer Action Project (ACAP) motions
Attendance is open to the interested public but will be limited to the space available.
The public must make arrangements by February 7, to present oral statements at the meeting. The public may present written statements to the executive committee at any time by providing 25 copies to the Executive Director, or by bringing the copies to the meeting.
If you are in need of assistance or require a reasonable accommodation for this meeting, please contact the person listed under the heading
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of intent to rule on application.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Gainesville Regional Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Public Law 101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158).
Comments must be received on or before February 23, 2000.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, Florida 32822.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must
Air carriers and foreign air carriers may submit copies of written comments previously provided to Gainesville-Alachua County Regional Airport authority under section 158.23 of Part 158.
Richard Owen, Program Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, Florida 32822, (401) 812-6331 extension 19. The application may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Gainesville Regional airport under the provisions of the aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Public Law 101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158).
On January 12, 2000, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by Gainesville-Alachua County Regional airport Authority was substantially complete within the requirements of section 158.25 of part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than April 12, 2000.
The following is a brief overview of the application.
Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under
In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at Gainesville Regional Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Monthly Notice of PFC Approvals and Disapprovals. In December 1999, there were five applications approved. Additionally, 14 approved amendments to previously approved applications are listed.
The FAA publishes a monthly notice, as appropriate, of PFC approvals and disapprovals under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158). This notice is published pursuant to paragraph d of § 158.29.
Installation of distance-to-go signs on runway 10/28 and runway end identifier lights on runway 4.
Reconstruct taxiway F south and relocate taxiway H.
Construct building for storage and maintenance of airport snow and ice control equipment and materials.
Mary Vargas, Seattle Airports District Office, (425) 227-2660.
Airport master plan study.
Taxiway extension.
Revise airport layout plan.
Taxiway reconstruction.
Apron reconstruction.
Install Part 107 security gates.
Reconstruct T-hangar taxiway.
Sealcoat runway 7/25.
Taxiway construction.
Apron construction.
Access road construction.
Construct perimeter fencing.
Parking lot rehabilitation.
Land acquisition.
Terminal area improvements.
Airfield safety area study.
Pavement maintenance study.
Runway 7/25 safety area improvements.
Acquire snow removal equipment.
Acquire handicapped lift.
PFC program administration and application preparation.
Acquisition of passenger loading bridges.
Acquire aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) vehicle.
Rehabilitate porous friction course.
Construct blast pads on runway 13/31.
Rehabilitate taxiway C.
Install distance remaining signs and modify existing signs.
Construct service road.
ARFF, snow removal equipment (SRE) and security radios.
Acquire ARFF vehicle.
Reconstruct and mark taxiway F.
Security access control system installation.
Install security fencing.
Replace segmented circle and rotating beacon, and install airport signs.
Acquire SRE (rotary snow blower).
Upgrade security access control system.
Rehabilitate taxiway A.
Overlay and groove runway 9/27.
Pavement management plan and topographic mapping.
Glycol collection improvements.
North cargo ramp expansion.
Aircraft ramps rehabilitation.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Intent.
The Federal Highway Administration is issuing this notice of intent to advise the public that an environmental impact statement will be prepared for a proposed highway project in Valley County, Idaho.
Loren D. Thomas, District Engineer, District 3, Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), 8150 Chinden Blvd., Boise, Idaho 83707, Telephone (208) 334-8300,
Jack T. Coe, Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, 3050 Lake Harbor Lane, Suite 126, Boise, Idaho, 83703, Telephone: 208-334-1843.
The FHWA in cooperation with the ITD will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on a proposal to improve State Highway 55 (SH-55) in Valley County, Idaho. The proposed improvements would involve seven miles of existing SH-55 from approximately 4 miles south of Smith's Ferry (Milepost 95) to Round Valley (Milepost 102).
The improvements on State Highway 55 are considered necessary to improve safety, increase capacity, accommodate economic development, and correct operational deficiencies in the roadway.
Alternatives under consideration include: (1) taking no action; (2) improving the existing two-lane highway along the North Fork of the Payette River; (3) constructing a two or four lane rural highway on new alignment. Incorporated into and studied with the various build alternatives will be design variations of grade and alignment.
Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will be sent to the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and citizens who have previously expressed interest in this proposed project. Scoping will begin with the publication of the Notice of Intent. As part of the scoping process, a series of public information meetings will be held in Valley County beginning in February 2000. In addition, a public hearing will be held. Public notice will be given of the time and place of any public information meetings and the public hearing. The draft EIS will be made available for public and agency review and comment.
To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues are identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties.
Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS should be directed to the ITD or FHWA at the addresses provided above.
23 U.S.C. 315; 23 CFR 771.123.
Federal Railroad Administration, DOT.
Notice, and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before February 23, 2000.
Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Safety Analysis, Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), 1120 Vermont Ave., NW, Mail Stop 17, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6292) or Dian Deal, Office of Information Technology and Productivity Improvement, RAD-20, FRA, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW, Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6133). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.)
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Pub. L. No. 104-13, section 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506; 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.12. On May 13, 1999, FRA published a 60-day notice in the
Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C. 3607(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30 day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507 (b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995.
The summaries below describe the nature of the ICRs and the expected burden. The revised requirements are being submitted for clearance by OMB as required by the PRA.
A second set of comments was submitted by the Association of American Railroads (AAR). AAR recommended that the Crossing Inventory Form clearly identify the data elements which should be completed by the railroad industry and those elements which should be completed by the highway authority. FRA agrees, and has done this on the form (where possible), and in the instructions and additional materials which accompany the form instructions. AAR had several comments about the form itself. It requested that AAR's name be removed from the title of the form. FRA agrees. After consultation with the major Class I railroads which indicated their agreement, FRA has changed the title to “DOT Crossing Inventory Form.” AAR suggested that time could be saved by eliminating the second box in data items
A third set of comments was submitted by the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF). BNSF had a number of comments regarding the data elements of the form. He suggested that data items 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, and 24 of Part I “Location and Classification of All Crossings” be moved to Part III (which should contain items provided by the highway authority). In response, FRA has revised the form and also the instructions to more clearly identify which data elements are to be completed by the railroad and which elements are to be completed by the highway authority. BNSF suggested removing Part I Item 25B “Public Access” since he believed the answer to this item is always “no.” FRA disagrees and has retained this item in the form. This field was specifically requested by a Class I railroad and is designed to cover those situations where the general public would use the crossing and not be aware that it was a private crossing. BNSF remarked that it did not wish to provide the information requested regarding the “Railroad Contact” in Item 35 of Part I. Again, this data element does not request names of individuals but only telephone numbers and is retained in the form. BNSF remarked that Part II “Detailed Railroad Information” should contain only data items that apply to railroads. FRA agrees and has taken steps in the revised form to separate Part II into two parts by creating a fifth part for the warning device information. BNSF further remarked that Item 1 “Typical Number of Daily Train Movements” of Part II should be dropped since it has never been able to determine the train movements by day or night. FRA disagrees and believes that this information is useful, particularly in the DOT Accident Prediction Formulas. However, changes have been effected in the revised form to simplify the information to be provided. BNSF advocated that Part II Item 2B “Typical Speed Range Over Crossing” be eliminated since determining what is typical for each crossing is not possible and can change over time. FRA disagrees and has retained this data element. In thru territory, the normal typical speed over the crossing would be constant, most probably the timetable speed. BNSF recommended that Part II Item 6E “Hump Crossing Sign W 10-5” be moved to Part III since this is information that the highway is responsible for providing. FRA agrees. FRA has created a new Part for Items 6 through 16 titled “Traffic Control Device Information” and has specified in the instructions that Item 6E is the responsibility of the highway authority. BNSF suggested that the part for “Other Colored” in Part II Item 7A “Gates” be removed. FRA has changed this data element (now Part III Item 3A) so that it will just count the number of gates
A fourth set of comments was submitted by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). VDOT noted that there is no place on the Crossing Inventory Form for independent cities. It wanted to know if there is an edit list of acceptable Counties/Cities in the FRA database. In response, FRA has provided an explanation in the Instruction Manual to ensure that Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) Codes are used in the Inventory File. FRA is evaluating placing the FIPS Codes on its Website. VDOT suggested that, regarding the instructions to Part I Item 7, the RRID No. (Item 8) box be used to enter the alpha component. In response, FRA notes that an alpha character can be entered in the “Milepost” field. However, because of data retrieval and printout anomalies, FRA strongly recommends that alpha characters be avoided. Usually avoiding the alpha character will not present a serious identification problem. VDOT suggested that the instructions to Item 3 of Part II be improved to clarify what are the acceptable types of “other” tracks and how they are defined. In response, the Instruction Manual supplied by FRA will provide examples of what to specify.
A fifth set of comments was submitted by unidentified individuals. One of these commenters requested an item for the “number of signal heads” be included in the form. FRA concurs that this is useful information and has added a data element for the “number of flashing light pairs” (now Part III item 3E). Another commenter suggested a change to both the Instructions and to Part II Item 6.C “Other Stop Signs.” This commenter stated that there should not be any other stop signs other than the Standard Highway Stop Sign. FRA agrees. It has deleted Item 6C and has specified in the instructions that non-standard stop signs should be reported as “Other Signs,” now Part III Item 2F. One commenter suggested that Part I Item 7 “Mile Post” should be one word. FRA agrees and has made the necessary change. Another commenter suggested that Part II Item 7A. “Gates” combine “red and white reflectorized “and “other colored” into one category. FRA concurs and Item 3A of Part III will just be a count of the number of gates present a the crossing without distinction to the type or color. There was also a suggestion that Part II Item 6A “Crossbucks” combine “reflectorized” and “non-reflectorized” into one category. FRA agrees and Part III Item 2A will just be a count of the number of Crossbucks present at the crossing without distinction to the type.
Another commenter requested that FRA create an additional Part on the form (there would be 5 Parts) and change Part II “Detailed Railroad Information” to “Highway Warning Device Information.” FRA agrees and has created a fifth Part (which becomes Part III “Traffic Control Device Information”). One commenter recommended moving Part II Item 10 “Is Commercial Power Available?” to Part III “Physical Data.” FRA concurs and has moved this item to Part III “Physical Data'(new Part IV). Two other form changes were requested by commenters. One was to change Part IV “Highway Department Information” (new Part V) to “Highway Information.” The other was to change Part III “Physical Data” to “Physical Characteristics.” FRA agrees and has made both changes. Several other suggestions were submitted. One concerned grouping Items 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 together and inserting the subtitle “State Supplied Information” for this group. Another regarded changing the title of Part II from “Detailed Railroad Information” to “Detailed Information.” FRA has implemented these last two suggestions in the revised form. Also recommended by commenters was to change the title of Part I “Location and Classification of All Crossings” to “Location and Classification Information,” and to move “Whistle Ban” (Part II Item 14) to Part I and change the Item name to “Quiet Zone.” FRA agrees with both suggestions and has revised the form accordingly. FRA has also moved Part III Item 6 “Pavement Marking” and Item 7 “Are Advanced Warning Signs Present?” to the section “Traffic Control Device Information” in response to comments.
A comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Financial Management Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection. By this notice, the Financial Management Service solicits comments concerning the form ``States Where Licensed for Surety.''
Written comments should be received on or before March 24, 2000.
Direct all written comments to Financial Management Service, 3700 East West Highway, Programs Branch, Room 144, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form(s) and instructions should be directed to Dorothy Martin, Manager, Surety Bond Branch, Room 608A, 3700 East West Highway, Hyattsville, Maryland, (202) 874-6850.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), the Financial Management Service solicits comments on the collection of information described below.
Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Financial Management Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection. By this notice, the Financial Management Service solicits comments concerning the “Pools and Associations—Annual Letter”.
Written comments should be received on or before March 24, 2000.
Direct all written comments to Financial Management Service, 3700 East West Highway, Programs Branch, Room 144, Hyattsville, MD 20782.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form(s) and instructions should be directed to Dorothy Martin, Manager, Surety Bond Branch, Room 608A, 3700 East West Highway, Hyattsville, MD 20872, (202) 874-6850.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), the Financial Management Service solicits comments on the collection of information described below.
Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
This is Supplement No. 11 to the Treasury Department Circular 570; 1999 Revision, published July 1, 1999, at 64 FR 35864.
Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-7102.
A Certificate of Authority as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds is hereby issued to the following Company under 31 U.S.C. 9304 to 9308. Federal bond-approving officers should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Circular 570, 1999 Revision, on page 35889 to reflect this addition: Suretec Insurance Company. Business address: 10000 Memorial Drive, Suite 330, Houston, TX 77024. Phone: (713) 812-0800. Underwriting limitation b/: $307,000. Surety licenses c/: TX. Incorporated in: Texas.
Certificates of Authority expire on June 30 each year, unless revoked prior to that date. The Certificates are subject to subsequent annual renewal as long as the companies remain qualified (31 CFR Part 223). A list of qualified companies is published annually as of July 1 in Treasury Department Circular 570, with details as to underwriting limitations, areas in which licensed to transact surety business and other information.
The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at http:/www.fms.treas.gov/c570/index.html. A hard copy may be purchased from the Government Printing Office (GPO) Subscription Service, Washington, DC, Telephone (202) 512-1800. When ordering the Circular from GPO, use the following stock number: 048000-00527-6.
Questions concerning this Notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6A04, Hyattsville, MD 20782.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Proposed rule.
The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to clarify the requirements regarding changes to time-and-materials and labor-hour contracts.
Interested parties should submit comments in writing on or before March 24, 2000 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule.
Submit written comments to: General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVRS), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, ATTN: Laurie Duarte, Washington, DC 20405.
Submit e-mail comments via the Internet to:
farcase.1999_606@gsa.gov.
Please submit comments only and cite FAR case 1999-606 in all correspondence related to this case.
The FAR Secretariat, Room 4035, GS Building, Washington, DC 20405, at (202) 501-4755 for information pertaining to status or publication schedules. For clarification of content, contact Ms. Linda Klein, Procurement Analyst, at (202) 501-3775. Please cite FAR case 1999-606.
This proposed rule amends the FAR to conform the guidance in the clause at FAR 52.243-3, Changes—Time-and-Materials or Labor-Hours, with the guidance in Alternate II of the clause at FAR 52.243-1, Changes—Fixed Price, because most of the work performed under time-and-materials or labor-hour contracts involves services.
This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
The Councils do not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed changes to the FAR do not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose that 48 CFR parts 43 and 52 be amended as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 43 and 52 continues to read as follows:
40 U.S.C. 486(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c).
2. Amend section 43.205 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
(c) Insert the clause at 52.243-3, Changes—Time-and-Materials or Labor-Hours, in solicitations and contracts when a time-and-materials or labor-hour contract is contemplated. The contracting officer may vary the 30-day period in paragraph (c) of the clause according to agency procedures.
3. Amend section 52.243-3 by—
a. Revising the introductory text;
b. Revising the date of the clause;
c. Revising paragraph (a) of the clause;
d. In the introductory text of paragraph (b) and in paragraph (b)(4) by removing “shall” and adding “will” in their place;
e. In the first sentence of paragraph (c) by removing “must” and adding “shall” in its place; and
f. Revising paragraph (d). The revised text reads as follows:
As prescribed in 43.205(c), insert the following clause:
(a) The Contracting Officer may at any time, by written order, and without notice to the sureties, if any, make changes within the general scope of this contract in any one or more of the following:
(1) Description of services to be performed.
(2) Time of performance (
(3) Place of performance of the services.
(4) Drawings, designs, or specifications when the supplies to be furnished are to be specially manufactured for the Government in accordance with the drawings, designs, or specifications.
(5) Method of shipment or packing of supplies.
(6) Place of delivery.
(7) Amount of Government-furnished property.
(d) Failure to agree to any adjustment will be a dispute under the Disputes clause. However, nothing in this clause excuses the Contractor from proceeding with the contract as changed. (End of clause)
Economic Development Administration (EDA), Department of Commerce (DoC).
Notice.
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) announces its policies and application procedures under the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended (PWEDA) for fiscal year 2000 to support projects designed to alleviate conditions of substantial and persistent unemployment and underemployment in economically-distressed areas and regions of the Nation, and to address economic dislocations resulting from sudden and severe job losses.
Unless otherwise noted below, applications are accepted on a continuous basis and will be processed as funds are available. Normally, two months are required for a final decision after the receipt of a completed application that meets all EDA requirements.
Addresses for EDA's six regional offices and Washington office are provided in Section XIII. Addresses for Economic Development Representatives (EDRs) are listed under each regional office.
Interested parties should contact the appropriate regional office or EDR as shown in Section XIII for community and regional economic development projects. For national technical assistance, research, and trade adjustment assistance projects, contact the headquarters program office as shown in Sections XI and XII, respectively.
In light of its limited resources and the demonstrated widespread need for economic development, EDA encourages only project proposals that will significantly benefit areas experiencing or threatened with substantial economic distress. EDA will focus its scarce financial resources on communities with the highest economic distress. Distress may exist in a variety of forms, including, but not limited to, high levels of unemployment, low income levels, large concentrations of low-income families, significant decline in per capita income, substantial loss of population because of the lack of employment opportunities, large numbers (or high rates) of business failures, sudden major layoffs or plant closures, military base closures, natural or other major disasters, depletion of natural resources, and/or reduced tax bases.
Potential applicants are responsible for demonstrating to EDA, by providing statistics and other appropriate information, the nature and level of the distress their project efforts are intended to alleviate. In the absence of evidence of high levels of distress, EDA funding is unlikely.
EDA's strategic funding priorities are intended to implement PWEDA and to continue the general goals in place over the past six fiscal years, which have been refined to reflect the priorities of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Unless otherwise noted below, the funding priorities listed will be considered by the Selecting Official (depending upon the program, either the Regional Director or Assistant Secretary) after the project proposal has been evaluated based upon evaluation criteria described in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR Chapter III (64 FR 5347, February 3, 1999 and 64 FR 69867, December 14, 1999).
During FY 2000, EDA will give priority consideration to projects that help communities achieve and sustain economic growth, including those that support the Administration's “New Markets” and “Liveable Communities” initiatives and the priorities of the Department of Commerce, including, among other things, the following:
• Construction and rehabilitation of essential public works infrastructure and economic development facilities that are necessary to achieve long-term growth and provide stable and diversified local economies in the Nation's distressed communities;
• Assistance to communities suffering job losses and/or plant closings resulting from changing trade patterns. This may include, but is not limited to, projects for export promotion, identification of new markets and products, increased productivity, and diversification of the local economic base;
• Commercialization and deployment of technology, particularly information technology and telecommunications, and efforts that support technology transfer, application, and deployment for regional economic development. Also included under this category would be projects that support the development of new environmental technologies and techniques (e.g., innovative material recycling or reuse within the context of eco-industrial development, pollution control or treatment processes, and flood mitigation) that significantly enhance an area's economic development potential; Sustainable development programs that will provide long-term economic development benefits while promoting eco-efficiency. Included are diversification of natural resource dependent economies, eco-industrial parks, aquaculture facilities, brownfields' redevelopment, and other projects that increase efficient use of resources without compromising the environment for future generations;
• Projects from Minority Serving Institutions to plan and implement activities that will create opportunities for minority enterprise and technology-based employment in distressed areas;
• Entrepreneurial development, especially programs that build local capacity such as small business incubators and community financial intermediaries, and projects benefitting minorities, businesses owned by women, and people with disabilities (e.g., revolving loan funds);
• Economic adjustment, especially in response to military base and Department of Energy facility closures and downsizing, defense industry downsizing, and post-disaster, long-term economic recovery;
• Projects that fall under the New Markets Initiative—those that attract private investment in economically distressed inner city areas, small and medium-sized towns, rural areas, and Native American communities.
• Projects located in federally designated rural and urban Enterprise Communities and Empowerment Zones and state enterprise zones;
• Projects that demonstrate innovative approaches to economic development;
• Projects that support the economic development of Native American communities including Alaska Native Villages;
• Projects that support locally created partnerships that focus on regional solutions for economic development. Such projects will be given priority over proposals that are more limited in scope. For example, projects that evidence collaboration in fostering an increase in regional (multicounty and/or multistate) productivity and growth will be considered to the extent that such projects demonstrate a substantial
• Projects that support the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) designated brownfield pilots and Brownfield Showcase Communities that are eligible for EDA funding; and/or
• Projects that support the Council on Environmental Quality's American Heritage Rivers Initiative. EDA will to the extent practicable, given its limited resources, work with EDA eligible river communities on each of the 14 Presidentially designated rivers in achieving their economic development goals and objectives.
To the degree that one or more funding priorities are included (or packaged together) in the proposal, the ability to obtain EDA assistance may be enhanced.
EDA regulations at 13 CFR Chapter III published in the
Certain Departmental and other requirements are noted below. Additional information is available through links to EDA's web site at
A. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This notice involves a collection of information requirement subject to the provisions of the PRA and has been approved by OMB under Control Number 0610-0094.
B. All primary applicants must submit a completed Form CD-511, “Certifications Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters; Drug-Free Workplace Requirements and Lobbying,” and the following explanations are hereby provided: Prospective participants (as defined at 15 CFR Part 26, Section 105) are subject to “Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension” and the related section of the certification form prescribed above applies;
Grantees (as defined at 15 CFR Part 26, Section 605) are subject to 15 CFR Part 26, Subpart F, “Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (Grants)” and the related section of the certification form prescribed above applies;
Persons (as defined at 15 CFR Part 28, Section 105) are subject to the lobbying provisions of 31 U.S.C. 1352, “Limitation on use of appropriated funds to influence certain Federal contracting and financial transactions,” and the lobbying section of the certification form prescribed above applies to applications/bids for grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts for more than $100,000, and loans and loan guarantees for more than $150,000, or the single family maximum mortgage limit for affected programs, whichever is greater; and
C. Any applicant that has paid or will pay for lobbying using any funds must submit an SF-LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” as required under 15 CFR part 28, Appendix B.
D. The implementing regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) require EDA to provide public notice of the availability of project specific environmental documents such as environmental impact statements, environmental assessments, findings of no significant impact, records of decision etc., to the affected public as specified in 40 CFR 1506.6(b).
Depending on the project location, environmental information concerning specific projects can be obtained from the Regional Environmental Officer (REO) in the appropriate EDA regional office listed in Section XIII.
E. Recipients shall require applicants/bidders for subgrants, contracts, subcontracts, or other lower tier covered transactions at any tier under the award to submit, if applicable, a completed Form CD-512, “Certifications Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transactions and Lobbying” and disclosure form, SF-LLL “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities.” Form CD-512 is intended for the use of recipients and should not be transmitted to DoC. SF-LLL submitted by any tier recipient or subrecipient should be submitted to DoC in accordance with the instructions contained in the award document.
F. No award of Federal funds will be made to an applicant who has an outstanding delinquent Federal debt until either:
1. The delinquent account is paid in full;
2. A negotiated repayment schedule is established and at least one payment is received; or
3. Other arrangements satisfactory to DoC are made.
G. Unsatisfactory performance under prior Federal awards may result in an application not being considered for funding.
H. Applicants should be aware that a false statement on the application is grounds for denial of the application or termination of the grant award and grounds for possible punishment by a fine or imprisonment as provided in 18 U.S.C. 1001.
I. Applicants are hereby notified that any equipment or products authorized to be purchased with funding provided under this program must be American-made to the maximum extent feasible.
J. Applicants seeking an early start, i.e., to begin a project before EDA approval, must obtain a letter from EDA allowing such early start. The letter allowing the early start will be null and void if the project is not subsequently approved for funding by the grants officer. Approval of an early start does not constitute project approval. Applicants should be aware that if they incur any costs prior to an award being made they do so solely at their own risk of not being reimbursed by the Government. Notwithstanding any verbal or written assurance that may have been received, there is no obligation on the part of DoC to cover preaward costs. Additionally, EDA also requires that compliance with environmental regulations, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), be completed before construction begins.
K. If an application is selected for funding, EDA has no obligation to provide any additional future funding in connection with an award. Renewal of an award to increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the sole discretion of EDA.
L. Unless otherwise noted below, eligibility, program objectives, application procedures, selection procedures, evaluation criteria and other requirements for all programs are set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR Chapter III (64 FR 5347, February 3, 1999, 64 FR 39273, June 18, 1999, and 64 FR 69867, December 14, 1999).
M. Area eligibility is determined at the time that EDA invites an application under 13 CFR 305 or 308 and is based on the most recent Federal data available for the area where the project will be located or where the substantial direct benefits will be received. If no Federal data are available to determine eligibility, an applicant must submit to EDA the most recent data available for the area through the government of the State in which the area is located, i.e., conducted by or at the direction of the State government. Project areas must be
EDA will reject any documentation of eligibility that it determines is inaccurate.
N. EDA is not authorized to provide any financial assistance directly to individuals for the purpose of starting a new business or expanding an existing business.
An area is eligible pursuant to “Special Need” (13 CFR 301.2 (b) (3)), if the area meets one of the criteria described below:
A. Substantial out-migration or population loss. Applicants seeking eligibility under this criterion will be asked to present appropriate and compelling economic and/or demographic data to demonstrate the special need.
B. Underemployment, that is, employment of workers at less than full time or at less skilled tasks than their training or abilities permit. Applicants seeking eligibility under this criterion will be asked to present appropriate and compelling economic and/or demographic data to demonstrate the special need.
C. Military base closures or realignments, defense contractor reductions-in-force, or Department of Energy defense-related funding reductions.
1. A military base closure refers to a military base that was closed or is scheduled for closure or realignment pursuant to a Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC) process or other Defense Department process. The area is eligible from the date of Defense Department recommendation for closure until five years after the actual date of closing of the installation, provided that the closure recommendation is not sooner canceled.
2. A defense contractor reduction-in-force refers to a defense contractor(s) experiencing defense contract cancellations or reductions resulting from official DoD announcements and having aggregate value of at least $10 million per year. Actual dislocations must have occurred within one year of application to EDA and threatened dislocations must be anticipated to occur within two years of application to EDA. Defense contracts that expire in the normal course of business will not be considered in meeting this criterion.
3. A Department of Energy defense-related funding reduction refers to a Department of Energy facility that has experienced or will experience a reduction of employment resulting from its defense mission change. The area is eligible from the date of the Department of Energy announcement of reductions until five years after the actual date of reduced operations at the installation, provided that the reduction is not sooner canceled.
D. Natural or other major disasters or emergencies. An area that has received one of the following disaster declarations is eligible for EDA assistance for a period of 18 months after the date of declaration, unless further extended by the Assistant Secretary:
1. A Presidential Disaster Declaration authorizing FEMA Public Assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended (Public Law 93-288), 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), or
2. A Federally Declared Disaster pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, (Public Law 94-265) as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act (Public Law 104-297), or
3. A Federal Declaration pursuant to the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended (Public Laws 92-419, 96-438, 97-35, 98-258, 99-198, 100-233, 100-387, and 101-624), or
4. A Federally Declared Disaster pursuant to the Small Business Act, as amended (Public Law 85-536).
E. Extraordinary depletion of natural resources. EDA presently recognizes the following conditions of extraordinary natural resource depletion:
1. Fisheries
2. Coal
3. Timber
Assistant Secretary modifications to the above listing of conditions of extraordinary natural resource depletion, as they may occur, will be announced in subsequent public notices.
F. Closure or restructuring of industrial firms, essential to area economies. An area that has experienced closure or restructuring of firms resulting in sudden job losses and meeting the following criteria:
1. For areas over 100,000 population, the actual or threatened dislocation is 500 jobs, or 1 percent of the civilian labor force (CLF), whichever is less.
2. For areas up to 100,000 population, the actual or threatened dislocation is 200 jobs, or 1 percent of the CLF, whichever is less.
Actual dislocations must have occurred within one year of application to EDA and threatened dislocations must be anticipated to occur within two years of application.
G. Local negative impacts of foreign trade. An area certified as eligible by the North American Development Bank (NADBank) Program or the Community Adjustment and Investment Program (CAIP) .
H. Other special need. The area is experiencing other special and/or extraordinary economic adjustment need as determined by the Assistant Secretary.
The applicant will be asked to present appropriate economic or demographic statistics to demonstrate a special need.
Under EDA's fiscal year 2000 appropriation, Pub. L. 106-113, program funds totalling $360,550,000 are available until expended. EDA has already received and begun processing requests for funding under its programs for fiscal year 2000. New requests submitted that require approval during this fiscal year will face substantial competition.
The authority for programs listed in Parts VI through XI is the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, (Pub. L. 89-136, 42 U.S.C. 3121,
Funds in the amount of $204,521,000 maybe appropriated for this program. The average funding level for a grant last fiscal year was $849,000.
Funds in the amount of $9,100,000 million have been appropriated for the Technical Assistance programs of which approximately $1,530,000 is available
EDA expects that most University Center funds will be used for support to existing University Centers. EDA is in the process of designating the University Center program as a multi-(up to three) year program and expects at least $6,469,000 in funding to be available in each of the second and third years. Applicants under EDA's University Center Technical Assistance programs may be invited to submit applications for multi-year awards, setting out the proposed budget and project activities for each year, up to three years. If accepted, such applications will simplify the application process in subsequent year or years, although in each year approval of an award will be dependent upon continued satisfactory performance during the preceding period, the availability of program funds, and will be at EDA's sole discretion. It is EDA's intention to have the multi-year funding cycle coincide with the peer review cycle called for under Section 506 of PWEDA and 13 CFR § 318.1.
A separate FR Notice will set forth the specific funding priorities, application process, and time frames for certain National Technical Assistance projects.
Funds in the amount of $24,000,000 have been appropriated for the Planning program. The funding levels for planning grants last year ranged from $10,000 to $200,000. EDA expects the majority of planning funds will be used for support to existing Economic Development District and Indian Tribe grantees. EDA is in the process of designating the Planning programs as multi-(up to three)year programs and expects at least $24,000,000 in funding to be available annually in the second and third years. Applicants under EDA's Planning programs may be invited to submit applications for multi-year awards, setting out the proposed budget and project activities for each year, up to three years. If accepted, such applications will simplify the application process in the subsequent year or years, although in each year approval of an award will be dependent upon continued satisfactory performance during the preceding period, the availability of program funds, and will be at EDA's sole discretion. It is EDA's intention to have the multi-year funding cycle coincide with the peer review cycle called for under Section 506 of PWEDA and 13 CFR § 318.2. At the discretion of the Regional Office, other applicants for planning assistance may be invited to submit applications for up to a three-year period. Funding in FY 2001 and FY 2002 for these other applicants will be contingent upon the availability of funds from Congress, satisfactory performance, and at the sole discretion of EDA.
Funds in the amount of $34,629,000 have been appropriated for this program. Of this amount, $12,000,000 is available for economic adjustment projects located in regions impacted by coal industry downsizing and timber industry issues with an additional $3,129,000 available for disaster mitigation uses.
The $3,129,000 for disaster mitigation and recovery will be available to support selected hazard prone communities (areas subject to natural disasters) including Project Impact communities (communities recognized for taking actions on their own to mitigate) designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), for capacity building and mitigation activities in areas that are EDA eligible. In addition to the eligibility criteria set forth in EDA's regulation's at 13 CFR Chapter III (64 FR 5347, February 3, 1999 and 64 FR 69867, December 14, 1999) these communities must have experienced a natural disaster or be located in natural hazard prone areas.
The average funding level for a regular economic adjustment grant last year was $180,000.
Funds in the amount of $77,300,000 have been appropriated for this program. The average funding level for a grant last year was $1,300,000.
Up to $2.5 million of defense adjustment funds will be available for projects that demonstrate innovative credit enhancement of debt financing for base-reuse infrastructure. In 1998, EDA published the results of its funded research project entitled Defense Adjustment Infrastructure Bonds: Credit Enhancement Grants Make Affordable Capital Available. During FY 2000, EDA encourages projects that apply the concepts explained in the study which is available on EDA's website at www.doc.gov/eda. EDA will give priority to projects that: (1) Fund financial studies to determine whether a base-reuse capital improvement financing scheme requires credit enhancement, and if so, to determine the most appropriate form(s) of credit enhancement (note that proposed credit enhancement schemes need not identify EDA as a funding source in order to be competitive); or (2) fund the credit enhancement of a bond for construction activities targeted to new or renovated infrastructure and/or buildings located on former military base property. Factors that will be considered in selecting projects under this demonstration will include: the economic distress of the community affected by the base closure; the projected economic development benefits, e.g., job creation and private sector investment, that will result from the construction of improvements that will be funded by the bond; and the degree to which the resulting activities can serve as a prototype for other areas facing major base conversion needs.
Funds in the amount of $500,000 have been appropriated for this program. The average funding level for a grant last fiscal year was $41,000.
A separate FR Notice will set forth the specific funding priorities, application
Funds in the amount of $10,500,000 have been appropriated for this program. The typical funding level for a grant last year was $791,000. For further information on this program contact: Anthony J. Meyer, Coordinator, Trade Adjustment and Technical Assistance, Planning and Development Assistance Division, Economic Development Administration, Room 7317, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230, Telephone: (202) 482-2127.
For general information on EDA contact the appropriate Regional Office listed above or EDA's Office of Congressional Liaison and Program Research and Evaluation: Economic Development Administration, Room7814A, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230, Telephone: (202) 482-2309, EDA website www.doc.gov/eda.
Economic Development Administration (EDA), Department of Commerce (DoC).
Request for Grant Proposals (RFP) Upon Availability of Funds.
A total of $361,879,000 is available to EDA for all its programs in FY 2000, of which approximately $1,601,000 will be available for National Technical Assistance, Training, Research, and Evaluation. EDA is soliciting proposals for the specific projects described herein: (1) Evaluation of EDA's Planning Program; (2) Evaluation of EDA's Local Technical Assistance Program; (3) Economic Assessment of Sustainable Development Projects; (4) Improving Technology-Led Economic Development Strategies; and (5) Reviews of Economic Development Literature and Practice. These projects will be funded if acceptable proposals are received. Remaining funding, if any, may be used to fund additional projects. EDA issues this Notice to describe the conditions under which eligible applications for these National Technical Assistance, Training, Research, and Evaluation projects under 13 CFR Part 307, Subpart C (64 FR 5347, 5428-5429; 64 FR 69878-879) will be accepted and selected for funding.
Prospective applicants are advised that EDA will conduct a pre-proposal conference on February 16, 2000, at 10:00 a.m. EDT in the Department of Commerce, Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, Room 1414, at which time questions on these projects can be answered. Potential applicants are encouraged to provide written questions (See
Proposals for funding under this program will be accepted through March 9, 2000, at the address provided below. Proposals received after 5:00 p.m. EDT, on March 9, 2000, will not be considered for funding.
By March 30, 2000, EDA will advise successful proponents to submit full applications. OMB has assigned application forms Control Number 0610-0094.
Completed applications must be submitted to EDA by April 19, 2000, at the address below. EDA anticipates that these projects will be funded about June 15, 2000, but will make the awards no later than September 30, 2000.
Send proposals to John J. McNamee, Director, Research and National Technical Assistance Division, Economic Development Administration, Room 7019, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230.
John J. McNamee (202) 482-4085.
EDA invites proposals to evaluate the impact of its Economic Development District (EDD) Planning Program.
EDA's Planning Program and the network of local partnerships it has supported have been critical to the effectiveness of economic development efforts at the local and regional level for more than 30 years. In 1998, EDA commissioned an independent evaluation of its regional planning process in order to increase the benefits of the process and enhance economic development capacity at the local level. That evaluation was completed in 1999. The current evaluation will complement this earlier evaluation by measuring the impact of EDA's assistance under the EDD Planning Program.
• Has the program influenced the design, implementation, or timing of local economic development projects?
• Has the program helped distressed communities undertake or eliminate specific economic development projects from their overall strategy?
• Has the program helped distressed communities build and expand local organizational economic development capacity?
• Has the program supported innovative economic development approaches and/or given local officials needed technical expertise?
• To what extent have the projects and/or the program targeted distressed areas?
• Were projects completed in a timely and cost-effective fashion?
• Were there common features that contributed to project success or failure?
• Could specific outcomes be tracked back to the completed Local Technical Assistance projects?
EDA invites proposals to assess the economic impacts of sustainable development projects in distressed communities.
This project is designed to assist individuals and organization that are undertaking sustainable development activities to collect data and develop methods for assessing the economic benefits and costs of their projects. EDA is primarily interested in assessments of direct economic impacts. Simulations that assess secondary, indirect, and induced impacts without generating original research of direct benefits and costs will not be considered. Utility of the research to economic development practitioners is essential. EDA seeks economic impact assessments that are replicable in other contexts, in order to help future sustainable development efforts. Impacts considered may be either on the supply side or the demand side of the market. However, the economic impacts described must be quantifiable and derived from real economic development projects. It is not necessary to assess all economic impacts for a given sustainable development activity, but those impacts that are considered should be researched as completely as possible. Given the time frame of this study, EDA anticipates that most proposals will relate to projects already underway. EDA is especially interested in studies that assess impacts that have not previously been described well (e.g., product quality impacts, equity impacts, etc.), studies that improve existing assessment methods, and/or studies that utilize new assessment methods.
EDA seeks proposals to improve the technology-led strategies for economic development in distressed communities.
EDA assists distressed communities to design and implement their own technology-led economic development strategies. The agency also funds research to support its investment strategy by identifying areas where further investment is most needed, methods to improve the effectiveness of the agency's investments, and ways to leverage available funding, EDA research also assists local economic development practitioners by disseminating lessons learned by others in the field. To give some examples, EDA is presently funding an assessment of the technology infrastructure needs of America's distressed communities, and recently completed a similar needs assessment in Native communities. EDA is also funding the preparation of a handbook to help local practitioners prepare technology strategic plans. Other recent EDA research projects in this area include a collection of best practices in technology transfer and commercialization (underway); a review of state science and technology strategic plans (1997); and a comprehensive guide to business incubators (1996).
This project is designed to support EDA investments in technology-led economic development in distressed areas. Examples of acceptable projects include (but are not limited to):
• Assessments of past and current EDA technology investments;
• Research that identifies, describes, and evaluates specific strategies for technology-led economic development;
• Research that identifies national investment needs to support specific types of technology-led economic development; and
• Exploration of methods to enhance the effectiveness of existing technology-led strategies, including ways to expand available funding in a responsible fashion.
Projects must have significance to practitioners nationally. Local feasibility studies, needs assessments, and project implementation will generally not be funded unless the projects have compelling demonstration value and include a careful assessment of the strategy's replicability elsewhere. Likewise, purely theoretical research will not be funded without a convincing demonstration of its utility to practitioners.
EDA invites proposals to review the literature and practical experience regarding issues of critical importance to economic development practitioners nationally.
EDA is especially interested in reviews supporting EDA's core programs and initiatives. Examples include: technology-led economic development; productivity enhancement through infrastructure investment; e-commerce; strategies and policies for dealing with sprawl; strategies that promote regional growth; counter-cyclical spending strategies; microenterprise development; economic development in Native communities; and support for regions harmed by international trade. EDA, however, welcomes other topics of importance to domestic economic development. Completed reviews must be analytical, and should identify important policy implications. They must also be prepared for practitioners rather than an academic audience.
EDA expects researchers to demonstrate familiarity with the proposed topic and ability to conduct a timely, thorough, and objective review. EDA welcomes strong graduate student participation in these projects, contingent on the student's ability to demonstrate expertise in the field of study. Where a student is to be a primary participant in the research, a faculty letter in support of the student's participation may be included in the proposal. This letter, not to exceed two pages, shall not be subject to the other page limits specified in Part III. B. EDA anticipates making multiple awards, but will not make multiple awards to any individual researcher. Authors are encouraged to submit the final review paper for publication.
(1) Prepare a review paper that: a) describes and analyzes critically key debates in the literature, analytical techniques of broad importance to practitioners; and/or the range of experience with specific economic development strategies; b) identifies important policy implications of the research; c) represents original research not previously submitted for publication elsewhere; d) is of length and quality suitable for publication in a peer reviewed journal; and e) is written in a style appropriate for practitioners.
(2) Conduct up to three presentations as described in IV.E below.
See EDA's interim final rule at 13 CFR § 300.2 (64 F.R. 5347). Eligible applicants are as follows: institutions of higher education, consortiums of institutions of higher education; public or private nonprofit organizations or associations acting in cooperation with officials of a political subdivision of a state, for-profit organizations, and private individuals; areas meeting requirements under 13 CFR 301.2; Economic Development Districts; Indian tribes; consortiums of Indian Tribes; states, cities or other political subdivisions of a state; consortiums of political subdivisions of states.
Proposals submitted should include: (1) a description of how the researcher(s) intend(s) to carry out the scope of work (not to exceed 10 pages in length); (2) a proposed budget and accompanying explanation; (3) resumes/qualifications of key staff (not to exceed two pages per individual or organization), and (4) a proposed time line for completion of the project. EDA will not accept proposals submitted by FAX or email. Proposals received after 5:00 p.m. EST on March 9, 2000, at the address provided above, will not be considered.
All proposals must meet EDA's statutory and regulatory requirements. Proposals will receive initial review by EDA to assure that they meet all requirements of this announcement and 13 CFR Chapter III (64 FR 5347), including eligibility and relevance to the specified project as described herein. EDA's general selection process and criteria are set out in 13 CFR §§ 304.1 and 304.2 (64 FR 5347-5348; 64 FR 69874-69875). Proposals that meet these requirements will then be evaluated by a review panel composed of at least three members. EDA will carry out its selection of proposals to be funded under the specific projects described in this RFP using the following criteria:
• The quality of a proposal's response to the scope of work proposed; and
• The ability of the prospective applicant to successfully carry out the proposed activities.
If a proposal is selected, EDA will provide the proponent with an Application for Federal Assistance (OMB Control Number 0610-0094). Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
The Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended (Pub. L. 89-136, 42 U.S.C. 3121
For a description of this program see PWEDA and 13 CFR Chapter III, Part 307 (64 FR 5347).
EDA assistance is focused on areas experiencing significant economic distress, defined principally as per capita income of 80 percent or less of the national average, or an unemployment rate that is, for the most recent 24-month period for which data are available, at least one percent greater than the national average.
Ordinarily, the applicant is expected to provide a 50 percent non-federal share of project costs. However, the Assistant Secretary may waive the required 50 percent matching share of the total project costs, provided the applicant can demonstrate: (1) the project is not feasible without, and the project merits such a waiver, or (2) the project is addressing major causes of distress in the area serviced and requires the unique characteristics of the applicant, which will not participate if it must provide all or part of a 50 percent non-federal share, or (3) the project is for the benefit of local, state, regional, or national economic development efforts, and will be of no or only incidental benefit to the recipient (See 13 CFR § 307.9; 64 FR 5429).
Unless otherwise noted, each award includes a requirement that the applicant conduct a total of up to seven briefings and/or training workshops for individuals and organizations interested in the results of this project. Potential applicants should be aware that the completion dates set forth above are for completion of the project and submission of the final written report. Briefings/workshops will take place no later than one year after submission of the final report. Locations and dates of the briefings/workshops are at EDA's discretion. Usually, these consist of at least one briefing in Washington, DC, with the other briefings/workshops held in conjunction with one or more of EDA's regional conferences.
Unless otherwise noted, each award includes a requirement that the applicant submit an electronic version and 200 hard copies of the final report in formats acceptable to EDA.
See 64 FR 9221-9226, Part II for additional information and requirements (available on the Internet at http://www.doc.gov/eda/html/notice.htm, under the heading “Economic Development Assistance Programs-Availability of Funds”).