Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to Eurocopter France Model SE 3130, SA 3180, SE 313B, SA 318B, and SA 318C helicopters, that currently requires visual inspections and modification, if necessary, of the horizontal stabilizer spar tube (spar tube). This amendment requires the same actions required by the existing AD, visually inspecting the four half-shell attachment clamps for cracks, and fitting a safety wire around the attachment clamps. This amendment is prompted by an in-service report of fatigue cracks that initiated from corrosion pits. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent fatigue failure of the spar tube, separation of the horizontal stabilizer and impact with the main or tail rotor, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
Effective March 21, 2000.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 21, 2000.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, Texas 75053-4005, telephone (972) 641-3460, fax (972) 641-3527. This information may be examined at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
Richard Monschke, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Rotorcraft Standards Staff, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone (817) 222-5116, fax (817) 222-5961.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 98-12-20, Amendment 39-10574 (63 FR 31350, June 9, 1998), which is applicable to Eurocopter France Model SE 3130, SA 3180, SE 313B, SA 318B, and SA 318C helicopters, was published in the
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public. The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.
The FAA estimates that 14 helicopters of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD. It will take approximately 0.5 work hour per helicopter to accomplish the inspection, 3 work hours per helicopter to accomplish the modification, and 1 work hour per helicopter to accomplish the attachment clamp inspection and install the safety wire. Required parts will cost approximately $1,100 per helicopter. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $19,180.
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.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) 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 final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
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
To prevent fatigue failure of the horizontal stabilizer spar tube (spar tube), separation of the horizontal stabilizer and impact with the main or tail rotor, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter, accomplish the following:
(a) Before further flight:
(1) Inspect the aircraft records and the horizontal stabilizer to determine whether Modification 072214 (installing the spar tube without play) or Modification 072215 (adding two half-shells on the spar) has been accomplished.
(2) If Modification 072214 has not been installed, comply with paragraphs 2.A., 2.B.1), 2.B.2)a), and 2.B.2)b) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Eurocopter France SA3130/3180 Service Bulletin No. 55.10, Revision 3, dated May 4, 1998 (SB). If the fit and dimensions of the components specified in paragraph 2.B.2)a) exceed the tolerances in the applicable structural repair manual, replace with airworthy parts.
(3) If Modification 072215 has not been installed, first comply with paragraphs 2.A., 2.B.1), and 2.B.3), and then comply with paragraph 2.B.2)c) of the Accomplishment Instructions of the SB.
Modification kit P/N 315A-07-0221571 contains the necessary materials to accomplish this modification.
(b) Before the first flight of each day:
(1) Visually inspect the installation of the half-shells, the horizontal stabilizer supports, and the horizontal stabilizer for corrosion or cracks. Repair any corroded parts in accordance with the applicable maintenance manual. Replace any cracked components with airworthy parts before further flight.
(2) Confirm that there is no play in the horizontal stabilizer supports by lightly shaking the horizontal stabilizer. If play is detected, comply with paragraphs 2.A. and 2.B.2)a) of the SB. If the fit and dimensions of the components specified in paragraph 2.B.2)a) exceed the tolerances in the applicable structural repair manual, replace with airworthy parts before further flight.
(c) At intervals not to exceed 400 hours time-in-service (TIS) or four calendar months, whichever occurs first, inspect and lubricate the spar tube attachment bolts.
(d) For stabilizers, P/N 3130-35-60-000, 3130-35-60-000-1, 3130-35-60-000-2, or 3130-35-60-000-3, within 90 days and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 18 calendar months, visually inspect the inside of the horizontal spar tube in accordance with paragraph 2.A. and 2.B.1) of the SB.
(1) If corrosion is found inside the tube, other than in the half-shell area, replace the tube with an airworthy tube within the next 500 hours TIS or 24 calendar months, whichever occurs first.
(2) If corrosion is found inside the tube in the half-shell area, apply a protective treatment as described in paragraph 2.B.1)b) of the SB.
(e) For stabilizers, P/N 3130-35-60-000-4 or higher dash numbers, accomplish the following:
(1) At or before the next major inspection, 3,200 hours total TIS, or 144 calendar months total TIS, whichever occurs first, and thereafter at each major inspection, visually inspect the inside of the horizontal spar tube in accordance with paragraph 2.A. and 2.B.1) of the SB.
(2) If corrosion is found inside the tube, other than in the half-shell area, replace the tube with an airworthy tube within the next 500 hours TIS or 18 calendar months, whichever occurs first. If corrosion is found inside the tube in the half-shell area, apply a protective treatment as described in paragraph 2.B.1)b) of the SB.
(f) Within 30 calendar days, visually inspect the four attachment clamps of the half-shells and install a safety wire around the four attachment clamps in accordance with paragraph 2.B.2)d) of the SB. If any attachment clamp is found cracked, replace it with an airworthy attachment clamp and install a safety wire around the replacement attachment clamp before further flight.
(g) 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, Regulations Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may concur or comment and then send it to the Manager, Regulations Group.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Regulations Group.
(h) 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.
(i) The inspections and modifications shall be done in accordance with paragraphs 2.A, 2.B.1), 2.B.1)b), 2.B.2)a), 2.B.2)b), 2.B.2)c), 2.B.2)d), and 2.B.3) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Eurocopter France SA3130/3180 Service Bulletin No. 55.10, Revision 3, dated May 4, 1998. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, Texas 75053-4005, telephone (972) 641-3460, fax (972) 641-3527. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(j) This amendment becomes effective on March 21, 2000.
The subject of this AD is addressed in Direction Generale De L'Aviation Civile (France) AD 96-278-054(A)R2, dated July 29, 1998.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
This document publishes in the
Effective March 1, 2000, to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency Priority Letter AD 99-25-08, issued on November 26, 1999, which contained the requirements of this amendment.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 1, 2000.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before April 17, 2000.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, Attention: Rules Docket No. 99-SW-71-AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
The applicable service information may be obtained from MD Helicopters Inc., Attn: Customer Support Division, 5000 E. McDowell Rd., Mail Stop M615-GO48, Mesa, Arizona 85215-9797, telephone 1-800-388-3378 or 480-891-6342, fax 480-891-6782. This information may be examined at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
Fred A. Guerin, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712, telephone (562) 627-5232, fax (562) 627-5210.
On November 26, 1999, the FAA issued Emergency Priority Letter AD 99-25-08, applicable to MDHI Model 500N and 600N helicopters, which requires, within the next 5 hours time-in-service (TIS) or before further flight after December 31, 1999, inspecting the cap for corrosion or a crack. The emergency priority letter AD also requires, within the next 100 hours TIS or before further flight after February 19, 2000, inspecting the cap for corrosion or a crack. If an unacceptable crack is found, replacing the unairworthy thruster cable with an airworthy thruster cable is required. That action was prompted by the discovery of stress corrosion cracks in the forward cap at the telescopic swivel end and the relieved area on an MDHI Model 500N helicopter. The forward thruster control cable in conjunction with the center thruster control cable simultaneously control the NOTAR directional control thruster and the left vertical stabilizer. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the cap causing a fixed thruster condition and subsequent loss of normal anti-torque directional control of the helicopter.
The FAA has reviewed MDHI Service Bulletin (SB) SB500N-021 SB600N-028, dated November 19, 1999, and SB500N-020R1 SB600N-027R1, dated November 24, 1999, which describe procedures for inspecting the cap telescopic swivel end and the cap relieved area for corrosion or a crack and repairing or replacing the forward and center thruster control cables as specified.
Since the unsafe condition described is likely to exist or develop on other MDHI Model 500N and 600N helicopters, which use the same forward thruster cable, the FAA issued Emergency Priority Letter AD 99-25-08 to prevent failure of the cap causing a fixed thruster condition and subsequent loss of normal anti-torque directional control of the helicopter. The AD requires, within the next 5 hours TIS or before further flight after December 31, 1999, whichever occurs first, inspecting the cap at the telescopic swivel end of the forward and center thruster cables, part number (P/N) 500N7201-5, -7, -37, -45, or -51, for corrosion or a crack in accordance with SB500N-021 SB600N-028, dated November 19, 1999. This AD also requires, within the next 100 hours TIS or before further flight after February 19, 2000, whichever occurs first, inspecting the cap at the relieved area of the forward and center thruster cables, part number (P/N) 500N7201-5, -7, -37, -45, or -51, for corrosion or a crack in accordance with SB500N-020R1 SB600N-027R1, dated November 24, 1999. If an unacceptable crack is found, replacing the unairworthy thruster cable with an airworthy thruster cable is required. The actions must be accomplished in accordance with the SB's described previously. The short compliance time involved is required because the previously described critical unsafe condition can adversely affect the controllability of the helicopter. Therefore, inspecting the cap for corrosion or a crack is required before further flight and inspecting the cap at a specified area is required within 100 hours TIS or before further flight after February 19, 2000, whichever occurs first, 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 November 26, 1999, to all known U.S. owners and operators of MDHI Model 500N and 600N helicopters. These conditions still exist, and the AD is hereby published in the
The FAA estimates that 89 helicopters of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 6 work hours per helicopter, per inspection, and 8 work hours to replace a thruster cable, if necessary. The average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $1,000 for each thruster cable replaced. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $67,040, assuming 2 inspections per helicopter, per year, and replacement of 2 thruster cables.
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-71-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
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, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
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 (e) 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 thruster control cable conduit cap (cap) at the telescopic swivel end or relieved area and subsequent loss of normal anti-torque directional control of the helicopter, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 5 hours time-in-service (TIS) or before further flight after December 31, 1999, whichever occurs first, inspect the forward and center thruster control cables, part number (P/N) 500N7201-5, -7, -37, -45, or -51, installed in affected helicopters, for a crack, corrosion, or damage in the cap at the telescopic swivel end in accordance with the following paragraphs of the Accomplishment Instructions, Section 2, of MD Helicopters Inc. (MDHI) Service Bulletin SB500N-021 SB600N-028, dated November 19, 1999 (SB 021/028).
(1) Inspect the forward thruster control cables in accordance with paragraphs A.(1) through (5) of SB 021/028. Install safety wire in accordance with paragraph A.(7) of SB 021/028.
(2) Inspect the center thruster control cable in accordance with paragraphs B.(1) through (4) and (6) of SB 021/028.
(3) If an unacceptable crack or ball separation from the cap is found, remove and replace the unairworthy forward or center thruster control cable with an airworthy cable prior to further flight.
(b) Within 100 hours TIS or before further flight after February 19, 2000, whichever occurs first, inspect the forward and center thruster control cables, P/N 500N7201-5, -7, -37, -45, or -51, installed in affected helicopters in the cap relieved area for a crack, corrosion, or damage in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, Section 2, of MDHI SB SB500N-020R1 SB600N-027R1, dated November 24, 1999 (SB 020/027).
(1) Inspect the forward thruster control cable for a crack or corrosion in accordance with paragraphs B.(1) through (5) and (7) of SB 020/027.
(2) Inspect the center thruster control cable for a crack or corrosion in accordance with paragraphs C.(1) through (4), (6), and (for Model 600N only) (7) of SB 020/027.
(3) If an unacceptable crack is found, remove and replace the unairworthy forward or center thruster control cable with an airworthy cable prior to further flight.
(c) Repeat the inspections of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this AD at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS or 3 calendar months, whichever occurs first.
(d) On or before December 1, 2000, replace the forward and center thruster control cables, part number (P/N) 500N7201-5, -7, -37, and -45, and -51, with P/N 500N7201-55 and -57 on the MDHI Model 500N or P/N 500N7201-55 and -59 on the MDHI Model 600N. Accomplishment of the requirements of this paragraph is terminating action for the requirements of this AD.
(e) 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, Los Angeles 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, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office.
(f) Special flight permits will not be issued.
(g)(1) The inspections required within 5 hours time-in-service or before further flight after December 31, 1999, whichever occurs first, shall be done in accordance with the following paragraphs of the Accomplishment Instructions, Section 2, of MD Helicopters Inc. Service Bulletin SB500N-021 SB600N-028, dated November 19, 1999:
(i) Paragraphs A.(1) through (5);
(ii) Paragraph A.(7);
(iii) Paragraphs B.(1) through (4) and (6).
(2) The inspections required within 100 hours time-in-service shall be done in accordance with the following paragraphs of the Accomplishment Instructions, Section 2, of MDHI SB SB500N-020R1 SB600N-027R1, dated November 24, 1999:
(i) Paragraphs B.(1) through (5) and (7);
(ii) Paragraphs C.(1) through (4), (6), and (for Model 600N only) (7).
(3) This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the
(h) This amendment becomes effective on March 1, 2000, to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency Priority Letter AD 99-25-08, issued November 26, 1999, which contained the requirements of this amendment.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Temporary Rule and Request for Comments.
We are issuing a temporary rule requiring that we distribute one-half of the Fiscal Year 2000 Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) funds to projects on or near Indian reservations using the Relative Need Formula adopted in 1993. We are also requesting comments on the formula for distribution of the remaining portion of the Fiscal Year 2000 funds. After consideration of comments, we will issue a final rule for distribution of the remaining portion of the Fiscal Year 2000 IRR funds.
This temporary rule is effective on February 15, 2000. Comments on the formula for distribution of the remaining portion of the Fiscal Year 2000 IRR funds must be postmarked by March 16, 2000.
You may send comments on the formula for distribution of the remaining portion of the Fiscal Year 2000 IRR funds to: LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Office of Trust Responsibility, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1849 C Street, NW, MS-4058-MIB, Washington, DC 20240. Mr. Gishi may also be reached at 202-208-4359 (phone), 202-208-4696 (fax), or leroygishi@bia.gov (electronic mail).
LeRoy Gishi, 202-208-4359.
Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) are typically among the most poorly maintained roads in the nation, in great need of development and repair. Many tribes do not even have road systems. This creates great difficulty in meeting everyday needs such as busing school students or getting medical attention for the sick and elderly. Tribes are dependent on timely distribution of IRR funds to develop and complete construction on projects started in previous years, especially since weather and time can cause damage to a partially completed project or prevent a project from being started and since many tribes will be moving into rainy seasons in the near future. The inability to enter construction contracts in a timely fashion further delays and hinders a tribe's ability to provide for its transportation needs.
The IRR program is jointly administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Federal Lands Highway office (FLH) of the Federal Highway Administration. The IRR program governs the planning, design, construction, maintenance and general administrative responsibility for IRR. The duties of each agency under the IRR program are set forth in a Memorandum of Agreement between the two agencies. In brief, the BIA works with tribal governments and tribal organizations to develop an annual priority program of construction projects which is submitted to the FLH for review and approval. Each fiscal year FLH determines the amount of funds available for construction. Then, the FLH and the BIA develop an IRR program funding plan for the fiscal year. Funds are allocated from the FLH to the BIA and distributed by the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to IRR projects on or near Indian reservations. Since 1993, IRR funds have been distributed according to the Relative Need Formula.
The Relative Need Formula is the method by which we have distributed IRR funds each fiscal year for IRR projects in each of the BIA's twelve regions. The Relative Need Formula we are adopting in this temporary rule is based on 20 percent population, 30 percent vehicle miles traveled (average daily traffic multiplied by the total miles in the IRR system), and 50 percent cost-to-improve roads in the IRR system. It will be used to compute the percentage of Highway Trust Funds we distribute to our Regional Offices for use on approved projects in a uniform, equitable manner based on the relative needs of the various Indian reservations. The Relative Need Formula ranks road and bridge improvements by the estimated cost to bring roads and bridges located within or providing access to an Indian reservation to an adequate and safe standard. We have used this funding formula since it was generally accepted by tribes and approved in 1993.
In 1998, Congress passed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Pub. L.105-178. Under TEA-21, the Secretary must issue regulations governing the IRR program and establish a formula distributing IRR funds for Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 and subsequent years. The Secretary must develop the regulations and funding formula through the use of a negotiated rulemaking process and must issue them by September 1999.
Accordingly, the Secretary established the TEA-21 Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (Committee). As required by TEA-21, tribal representation on the Committee reflects a balance of interests including: geographically diverse small, medium and large tribes; direct service, self-determination and self-governance tribes; and tribes with various levels and types of experience in the diverse concerns of transportation development and management. The Committee consists of 29 tribal representatives and 13 Federal members.
The Committee has met monthly since March 1999 in locations that permit the greatest attendance and participation by tribal members. Among the earliest actions of the Committee was to divide into four workgroups to address the broad areas of concern for the IRR program: the Technical Standards workgroup, the Delivery of Services workgroup, the Policy workgroup and the Funding Formula workgroup. Each of the workgroups works closely with the full Committee to identify specific problems and develop a regulation and formula to address those problems. Despite the diligence of the Committee, it was unable until recently to reach a consensus on a funding formula that would permit the distribution of IRR funds for FY 2000. As a result, there has been no mechanism in place for the distribution of funds during FY 2000.
Recognizing that an inability to distribute IRR funds (totaling approximately $200 million for FY 2000) causes undue hardship to tribes, the Committee reached a consensus at its January 2000 meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico, concerning the distribution of funds. The Committee recommended that for FY 2000, the Secretary should distribute funds to IRR projects according to the Relative Need Formula as used in FY 1998 and 1999 (the same formula adopted in 1993 and described above). This recommendation reflects the consensus of the Committee's tribal representatives who are in the best position to articulate what is acceptable to the tribes. Federal members of the Committee agreed to the recommendation, as it allows us to distribute needed money and permits the Federal government to fulfill its duties under the IRR program. This recommendation is consistent with the
This temporary rule will allow the Secretary to distribute one-half of FY 2000 IRR funds according to the Relative Need Formula. As noted above, the temporary rule is effective on the publication of this notice. We are also requesting comments from the public regarding the distribution of the remainder of FY 2000 IRR funds. The Committee will also use those comments in its continuing work towards a final formula for future fiscal years.
With the Committee's consensus on the tribal Committee members' proposal to distribute FY 2000 IRR funds using the Relative Need Formula, the Secretary is proceeding with this temporary rule to ensure distribution of FY 2000 IRR funds during this fiscal year. Tribes depend on continued funding during their planned one-to-three year road and bridge construction projects. There are approximately 950 ongoing road and bridge construction projects on over 25,000 road miles and 740 bridges on or near Indian reservations that will not continue without FY 2000 funding. This temporary rule allows the Secretary to continue to fund the IRR program to provide safe and adequate bridges and road access to and within Indian reservations, Indian lands and communities by distributing funds through FY 2000. Furthermore, the Committee and the Secretary agreed to use the Relative Need Formula to distribute these funds because both the tribes and the BIA understand its use and because there is currently no potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternative formula.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), notice and public procedure on this temporary rule are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. In addition, we have good cause for making this rule effective immediately under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Notice and public procedure would be impracticable because of the urgent need to distribute the first half of the FY 2000 IRR funds. Approximately 950 road and bridge construction projects are at various phases that depend on this fiscal year's funds, including 169 deficient bridges and the construction of approximately 400 miles of roads. The FY 2000 IRR funds would be used to design, plan, and construct improvements (and, in some cases, to reconstruct bridges). Designing and planning improvements must take place before the construction season (which is very short for some of the reservations) begins in the next few months.
Waiting for notice and comment on this temporary rule would be contrary to the public interest. In some of our Regions, approximately 80 percent of the roads in the IRR system (and the majority of the bridges) are designated school bus routes. Roads are essential access to schools, jobs, and medical services. Many of the priority tribal roads are also emergency evacuation routes and represent the only access to tribal lands. Two-thirds of the road miles in Indian country are unimproved roads. Deficient bridges and roads are health and safety hazards. Partially constructed road and bridge projects jeopardize the health and safety of the traveling public. Further, over 200 current projects (for which funding would be jeopardized by waiting) are directly associated with environmental protection and preservation of historic and cultural properties. This temporary rule is going into effect immediately because of the urgent need for these construction projects and the short time available for planning and construction.
Under this temporary rule, we are distributing only one-half of the FY 2000 IRR funds to address the most urgent needs while allowing for public comment on distribution of the other half of the FY 2000 IRR funds. In addition, the Committee is working on a permanent formula, which if adopted by the Secretary will be subject to full public notice and comment before we promulgate it as a final rule.
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. In addition to the comments requested above, we invite your comments on how to make this temporary rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the temporary rule clearly stated? (2) Does the temporary rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the format of the temporary rule (grouping and order of sections, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the description of the temporary rule in the
Under the criteria in Executive Order 12866, this temporary rule is a significant regulatory action, and the Office of Management and Budget has reviewed it, because it will have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy. As noted above, the total amount of FY 2000 IRR funds is approximately $200 million, $100 million of which we would distribute to IRR projects under this temporary rule. Congress has already appropriated these funds and FLH has already allocated them to BIA. The cost to the government of distributing the IRR funds, especially under the Relative Need Formula with which the tribal governments and tribal organizations and the BIA are already familiar, is therefore negligible. The distribution of the IRR funds does not require the tribal governments and tribal organizations to expend any of their own funds; in fact, distribution of the IRR funds is a benefit. Approximately 950 road and bridge construction projects are at various phases that depend on this fiscal year's funds, including 169 deficient bridges and the construction of approximately 400 miles of roads. Leaving these projects unfunded in FY 2000 would create undue hardship on tribes and tribal members. Lack of funding would also pose safety threats by leaving partially constructed road and bridge projects to jeopardize the health and safety of the traveling public. Thus, the benefits of this rule far outweigh the costs.
This temporary rule conforms to the policies and practices that currently guide our distribution of IRR funds. We do not anticipate that this regulation will have a significant effect on which IRR projects are eligible for funding. It will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. This temporary rule simply adopts the Relative Need Formula that we have used since 1993. In addition, the temporary rule only applies to a portion of the available funds for Fiscal Year 2000, and the final distribution formula may include an adjustment to account for any differences between the amounts distributed under this temporary rule and the distributions under the final formula.
This temporary rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another Federal agency. FLH has transferred the IRR funds to us, and the FLH representatives on the Committee have joined in the consensus mentioned above.
This temporary rule does not alter the budgetary effects or entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients. This temporary rule simply uses the Relative Need Formula that we have used since 1993. In addition, the temporary rule only applies to a portion of the available funds for Fiscal Year 2000, and the final distribution formula may include an adjustment to account for any differences between the amounts distributed under this temporary rule and the distributions under the final formula.
This temporary rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues. This temporary rule is based on the Relative Need Formula, in use since 1993. We are not changing the current practice with this temporary rule, except by dividing the distribution into two parts.
A Regulatory Flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, because it has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. As noted above, the total amount of FY 2000 IRR funds is approximately $200 million, $100 million of which we would distribute to IRR projects under this temporary rule. Congress has already appropriated these funds and FLH has already allocated them to BIA. The cost to the government of distributing the IRR funds, especially under the Relative Need Formula with which the tribal governments and tribal organizations and the BIA are already familiar, is therefore negligible. The distribution of the IRR funds does not require the tribal governments and tribal organizations to expend any of their own funds; in fact, distribution of the IRR funds is a benefit. Approximately 950 road and bridge construction projects are at various phases that depend on this fiscal year's funds, including 169 deficient bridges and the construction of approximately 400 miles of roads. Delaying work on many of these projects in FY 2000 would create undue hardship on tribes and tribal members, since partially constructed road and bridge projects would jeopardize the health and safety of the traveling public. Thus, the benefits of this rule far outweigh the costs.
This rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. Actions under this rule will distribute Federal funds to Indian tribal governments and tribal organizations for road improvements.
This rule does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. In fact, actions under this rule will provide a beneficial effect on employment through funding for construction jobs.
Under 5 U.S.C. 808(2), this temporary rule may take effect immediately upon publication in the
Waiting for notice and comment on this temporary rule would be contrary to the public interest. In some of our Regions, approximately 80 percent of the roads in the IRR system (and the majority of the bridges) are designated school bus routes. Roads are essential access to schools, jobs, and medical services. Many of the priority tribal roads are also emergency evacuation routes and represent the only access to tribal lands. Two-thirds of the road miles in Indian country are unimproved roads. Defective bridges and roads are health and safety hazards. Partially constructed road and bridge projects jeopardize the health and safety of the traveling public. Further, over 200 current projects (for which funding would be jeopardized by waiting) are directly associated with environmental protection and preservation of historic and cultural properties.
Under this temporary rule, we are distributing only one-half of the FY 2000 IRR funds to address the most urgent needs while allowing for public comment on distribution of the other half of the FY 2000 IRR funds. In addition, the Committee's recommendation for the ultimate distribution formula for IRR funds (after FY 2000) is undergoing public notice and comment as part of the negotiated rulemaking process, and that ultimate formula, if adopted by the Secretary, will again be subject to full public notice and comment before we promulgate it as a final rule.
Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
This temporary rule will not produce a federal mandate that may result in an expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments of $100 million or greater in any year. Rather, the overall effect of this temporary rule is to provide money to tribal governments for IRR construction projects.
With respect to Executive Order 12630, the temporary rule does not have significant takings implications since it involves no transfer of title to any property. A takings implication assessment is not required.
With respect to Executive Order 13132, the temporary rule does not have significant Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. This temporary rule should not affect the relationship between State and Federal governments because this temporary rule concerns administration of a fund dedicated to IRR projects on or near Indian reservations that has no effect on Federal funding of State roads. Therefore, the rule has no Federalism effects within the meaning of E.O. 13132.
This temporary rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. This temporary rule contains no drafting errors or ambiguity and is written to minimize litigation, provides clear
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because this temporary rule does not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements or the collection of information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 501
This temporary rule is categorically excluded from the preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321
In accordance with the President's memorandum of May 14, 1998, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (63 FR 27655) and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated any potential effects upon federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no potential adverse effects. This temporary rule is based on the Relative Need Formula, in use since 1993. We are not changing the current practice with this temporary rule. Consultation with tribal governments and tribal organizations is ongoing as part of the negotiated rulemaking process.
Our practice is to make comments, including the names and addresses of persons commenting, available for public review during regular business hours. Persons commenting as private individuals may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There may also be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a commenter's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will not consider anonymous comments. Comments from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be available for public inspection in their entirety.
Indians—Highways and Roads.
36 Stat. 861; 78 Stat. 241, 253, 257; 45 Stat. 750 (25 U.S.C. 47; 42 U.S.C. 2000e(b), 2000e-2(i); 23 U.S.C. 101(a), 208, 308), unless otherwise noted.
From February 15, 2000 through September 30, 2000, the Secretary will distribute one-half of the Fiscal Year 2000 funds authorized under Section 1115 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Pub. L. 105-178, to Indian Reservation Roads and Bridges projects on or near Indian reservations under the Relative Need Formula established and approved in January 1993. (23 U.S.C. 202(d)).
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
Final Rule; Extension of Expiration Date.
On February 19, 1999 the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission issued a final rule amending its rules of procedure to add a new Subpart H consisting of § 2200.120 to 29 CFR. 64 FR 8243. In that section the Commission established a mandatory settlement process known as the Settlement Part as a pilot program for a one-year trial period.
In order to evaluate the Settlement Part, the Commission has concluded that it is necessary to continue the pilot program beyond the original one-year trial period. The Commission will continue to evaluate the results in order to decide whether it should establish the Settlement Part procedure on a permanent basis and whether any modifications should be made. Accordingly, the period during which Subpart H consisting of § 2200.120 is effective is extended to and including September 30, 2000.
As of February 15, 2000, the expiration date for Subpart H consisting of § 2200.120 added in the
Earl R. Ohman, Jr., General Counsel, One Lafayette Center, 1120 20th St., NW 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20036-3419, phone 202-606-5410.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Final rule.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans prescribes interest assumptions for valuing benefits under terminating single-employer plans. This final rule amends the regulation to adopt interest assumptions for plans with valuation dates in March 2000. Interest assumptions are also published on the PBGC's web site (http://www.pbgc.gov).
March 1, 2000.
Harold J. Ashner, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005, 202-326-4024. (For TTY/TDD users, call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4024.)
The PBGC's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044) prescribes actuarial assumptions for valuing plan benefits of terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
Among the actuarial assumptions prescribed in part 4044 are interest assumptions. These interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets.
Two sets of interest assumptions are prescribed, one set for the valuation of benefits to be paid as annuities and one set for the valuation of benefits to be paid as lump sums. This amendment adds to appendix B to part 4044 the annuity and lump sum interest assumptions for valuing benefits in plans with valuation dates during March 2000.
For annuity benefits, the interest assumptions will be 7.10 percent for the first 25 years following the valuation date and 6.25 percent thereafter. The annuity interest assumptions are unchanged from those in effect for February 2000.
For benefits to be paid as lump sums, the interest assumptions to be used by the PBGC will be 5.25 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status, 4.50 percent during the seven-year period directly preceding the benefit's placement in pay status, and 4.00 percent during any other years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. The lump sum interest assumptions are unchanged from those in effect for February 2000.
The PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect, as accurately as possible, current market conditions.
Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the valuation of benefits in plans with valuation dates during March 2000, the PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.
The PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.
Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
Pension insurance, Pensions.
29 U.S.C. 1301(a), 1302(b)(3), 1341, 1344, 1362.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operation regulations for the Washington Street S136 Bridge, mile 0.0, across the Norwalk River at Norwalk, Connecticut. This deviation from the regulations allows the bridge owner to keep the bridge in the closed position from 8 a.m. on February 29, 2000, to 4:30 p.m. on March 2, 2000. This action is necessary to facilitate structural repairs at the bridge.
This deviation is effective February 29, 2000, through March 2, 2000.
Joseph Schmied, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, at (212) 668-7165.
The Washington Street S136 Bridge, mile 0.0, across the Norwalk River at Norwalk, Connecticut, has a vertical clearance of 9 feet at mean high water, and 16 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The bridge owner, Connecticut Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation from the operating regulations to facilitate structural repairs at the bridge. The existing operating regulations listed at 33 CFR 117.217 require the bridge to open on signal, except that, from 7 a.m. to 8:45 a.m., 11:45 a.m. to 1:15 p.m., and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays, the draw need not be opened for the passage of vessels that draw less than 14 feet of water.
This deviation to the operating regulations allows the owner of the bridge to keep the bridge in the closed position from 8 a.m. on February 29, 2000, through 4:30 p.m. on March 2, 2000. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
This document amends the Department of Veterans Affairs regulations regarding payments of premiums for National Service Life Insurance. We are revising provisions for purposes of clarity and making other non-substantive changes.
Ms. Jeanne Derrick, Attorney-Advisor, Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office and Insurance Center, P.O. Box 8079, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101, telephone number (215) 842-2000, ext. 4277, fax number (215) 381-3504.
This document revises provisions for purposes of clarity and makes other non-substantive changes. Accordingly, we are dispensing with prior notice and comment and delayed effective date provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This final rule does not make substantive changes. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule is, therefore, exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program number for this regulation is 64.103.
Disability benefits, Life insurance, Loan programs—veterans, Military personnel, Veterans.
38 U.S.C. 501, 1901-1929, 1981-1988, unless otherwise noted.
(a)
(b)
(1) Cash, check, or money order directly to VA.
(2) Allotment from service or retirement pay.
(3) Automatic deduction from VA benefits (pension, compensation or insurance dividends (see § 8.4)).
(4) Pre-authorized debit from a checking account.
(c)
(2) Policyholders may pay premiums quarterly, semi-annually, or annually in advance.
(d)
(2) If a policyholder pays a premium after the 31-day grace period, VA will not accept the payment and the policy lapses effective the date the premium was due; Except that VA will accept a premium paid after the 31-day grace period as a timely payment if:
(i) The policyholder pays the premium within 61 days of the due date; and
(ii) The policyholder is alive at the time the payment is mailed.
(3) When a policyholder pays the premium by mail, the postmark date is the date of payment.
(4) When a policyholder pays a premium by check or money order which is not honored and it is shown by satisfactory evidence that:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is approving a revision to the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP) to allow the Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County (APCDJC) to issue Federally enforceable district origin operating permits (FEDOOP). On November 10, 1998, the APCDJC through the Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet (KNREPC) submitted a SIP revision fulfilling the requirements necessary for the FEDOOP program to become federally enforceable.
This direct final rule is effective April 17, 2000 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by March 16, 2000. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
All comments should be addressed to Gregory Crawford at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
Copies of the State submittal(s) are available at the following addresses for inspection during normal business hours:
Gregory Crawford, Regulatory Planning Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division at 404/562-9046.
On November 10, 1998, the APCDJC, through the KNREPC, submitted a SIP revision to make certain permits issued under the APCDJC existing minor source operating permit program Federally enforceable. The revision was added to comply with EPA requirements specified in the
EPA has always had and continues to have the authority to enforce state and local permits that are issued under permit programs approved into the SIP. However, EPA has not always recognized as valid certain state and local permits which purport to limit a source's potential to emit. The principle purpose for adopting this regulation is to give APCDJC a Federally recognized means of expeditiously restricting potential emissions such that sources can avoid major source permitting requirements. A key mechanism for such limitations is the use of the Federally enforceable state or local operating permits. The term “Federally enforceable,” when used in the context of permits which limit potential to emit, means “Federally recognized.” The voluntary revision that is the subject of this action approves Regulation 2.17, Federally Enforceable District Origin Operating Permits, into the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP. This rule and the materials provided by the APCDJC satisfy the five criteria outlined in the June 28, 1989,
On November 10, 1998, the APCDJC through the KNREPC submitted a SIP revision request to EPA consisting of revisions to Regulation 2.17, Federally Enforceable District Origin Operating Permits, amending the APCDJC existing stationary source requirements to include provisions to issue FEDOOP.
Regulation 2.17, section 3.4 contains regulatory provisions which state that permits issued by the APCDJC will be at least as stringent as standards established pursuant to sections 111 and 112 of the CAA.
Regulation 2.17, sections 6.1 and 8.1 meet this criterion. Jefferson County will provide EPA with notice of proposed issuance, renewal, or revision of a FEDOOP or, pursuant to section 8.5, administrative incorporation of a construction permit, at the time of public notice. Jefferson County will provide public notice of proposed issuance, renewal, or revision of a FEDOOP in the newspaper having the largest bona fide paid circulation in Jefferson County, Kentucky.
EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to the SIP because they are consistent with the Clean Air Act and EPA requirements. The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on April 17, 2000 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.
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 Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 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 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 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 final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
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.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 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 action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 17, 2000. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40,
42.U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(95) Revisions to the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky State Implementation Plan submitted by the Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet on November 10, 1998. The regulation being added is Regulation 2.17, Federally Enforceable District Origin Operating Permits.
(i) Incorporation by reference. Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County Regulation 2.17, Federally Enforceable District Origin Operating Permits effective June 21, 1995.
(ii) Other material. None.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA.
Interim rule.
This interim rule lists communities where modification of the base (1% annual chance) flood elevations is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. New flood insurance premium rates will be calculated from the modified base flood elevations for new buildings and their contents.
These modified base flood elevations are currently in effect on the dates listed in the table and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Map(s) (FIRMs) in effect prior to this determination for each listed community.
From the date of the second publication of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety (90) days in which to request through the community that the Associate Director reconsider the changes. The modified elevations may be changed during the 90-day period.
The modified base flood elevations for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the following table.
Matthew B. Miller, P.E., Chief, Hazards Study Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3461, or (email) matt.miller@fema.gov.
The modified base flood elevations are not listed for each community in this interim rule. However, the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified base flood elevation determinations are available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration must be based upon knowledge of changed conditions, or upon new scientific or technical data.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The modified base flood elevations are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program.
These modified elevations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, state or regional entities.
The changes in base flood elevations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Final rule.
Base (1% annual chance) flood elevations and modified base flood elevations are made final for the communities listed below. The base flood elevations and modified base flood elevations are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing base flood elevations and modified base flood elevations for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated on the table below.
The final base flood elevations for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
Matthew B. Miller, P.E., Chief, Hazards Study Branch, Mitigation Directorate, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3461.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA or Agency) makes final determinations listed below of base flood elevations and modified base flood elevations for each community listed. The proposed base flood elevations and proposed modified base flood elevations were published in newspapers of local circulation and an opportunity for the community or individuals to appeal the proposed determinations to or through the community was provided for a period of ninety (90) days. The proposed base flood elevations and proposed modified base flood elevations were also published in the
This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67.
The Agency has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and Flood Insurance Rate Map available at the address cited below for each community.
The base flood elevations and modified base flood elevations are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.
This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
The Associate Director, Mitigation Directorate, certifies that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because final or modified base flood elevations are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and are required to establish and maintain community eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.
This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.
This rule meets the applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
This document adopts new broadcast Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) rules and policies and amends its cable EEO rules and policies. The document retains the existing ban on discrimination and promulgates recruitment-oriented outreach rules. The EEO rules make clear that broadcasting and cable entities are not required to employ a staff that reflects the racial or other composition of the community or to use racial preferences in hiring. The intended effect is to adopt effective EEO rules for the broadcasting and cable industries.
Effective April 17, 2000, except for the amendments to §§ 73.2080; 73.3526; 73.3527; 76.75; 76.77; 76.79; 76.1702; and 76.1802, which contain information collection requirements that have not been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The FCC will publish a document in the
Roy Boyce or Hope Cooper, Mass Media Bureau, EEO Staff. (202) 418-1450. For additional information concerning the information collections, contact Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order in MM Docket Nos. 98-204 and 96-16, adopted January 20, 2000, and released February 2, 2000. The complete text of this Report and Order is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information, Courtyard Level, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC, and also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., at 202-857-3800, CY-B400, 445 12th St., SW, Washington, DC.
As proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) in this
As described in the Report and Order, the Commission adopts new broadcast and cable EEO rules that require non-discrimination and outreach in employment. None of the rules creates an incentive to hire on the basis of race or gender. In fact, the proposed rules remove all references to any comparison to minority and female labor force statistics, including sections concerning evaluation of employment profile and job turnover.
In order to ensure fundamental fairness, the EEO rules include broad and inclusive outreach requirements designed to ensure that all qualified applicants have the opportunity to compete for jobs in the broadcast and cable industries on an equal basis. Accordingly, the rules require that a broadcaster or cable entity recruit for its vacancies using recruitment sources sufficient in its judgment to reach all segments of its community. However, to enhance the success of their outreach, broadcasters and cable entities are also required to implement two supplemental recruitment measures: (1) notification of job vacancies to any recruitment organization that requests such notification; and (2) outreach efforts such as job fairs, internship programs, training programs, scholarship programs, mentoring programs, and participation in educational and community activities relating to broadcast employment. Broadcasters and cable entities may choose not to engage in the supplemental recruitment measures as long as they maintain records on the recruitment sources, race, ethnicity and gender of applicants in order to monitor the success of their outreach efforts. However, entities choosing this alternative recruitment option remain subject to the core requirement that information about job vacancies be widely disseminated.
In order to provide guidance to entities, the rules also clearly describe what records of EEO efforts must be kept by broadcasters and cable entities, including the records to be placed in the public file. The Report and Order requires broadcasters and cable entities to file annually an EEO report in their public file, detailing their outreach efforts during the preceding year and the results of those efforts. Broadcasters must also file a Statement of Compliance every second, fourth and sixth year of the license term certifying compliance with the EEO Rule. Television stations and every radio station that is part of an employment unit with more than ten full-time employees will be required to file a copy of their EEO public file report midway through the license term. Stations will also be required to file their EEO public file report with their renewal application and cable entities will be required to file their EEO public report as part of the supplemental information required by statute to be filed every five years.
Along with reinstating other broadcast EEO Forms, the Report and Order reinstates the preexisting EEO requirement that broadcast station employment units with five or more full-time employees file an Annual Employment Report, but with the understanding that the Report's data will only be used to monitor industry employment trends and furnish reports to Congress.
The Report and Order retains the Commission's prohibition against employment discrimination and details the Commission's statutory authority to promulgate an employment non-discrimination rule as well as EEO program requirements. Specifically, the Report and Order outlines the Commission's conclusion that Congress has ratified the Commission's authority to adopt broadcast EEO rules; that equal employment of minorities and women furthers the Commission's public interest goal of diversity of programming; and that the statutory goal of fostering minority and female ownership in the provision of commercial spectrum-based services, as directed by section 309(j) of the Communications Act, is furthered by EEO requirements. With respect to broadcasters, the Report and Order clarifies the anti-discrimination prohibition so that religious radio and television broadcasters may establish religious belief or affiliation as a qualification for all station employees.
The Report and Order notes the Commission's intent to limit undue administrative burdens on broadcasters and cable entities generally, and particularly on those licensees of smaller stations and similarly situated cable entities, consistent with maintaining an effective EEO program. Specifically, the Report and Order exempts broadcast station employment units with fewer than five full-time employees from the FCC's specific EEO requirements, as well as providing additional relief for employment units that have between five and ten full-time employees. Cable employment units with six to ten full-time employees are also provided some relief from the Report and Order's specific EEO program requirements, and cable employment units with fewer than six full-time employees are not required to demonstrate compliance with the EEO program requirements.
The Report and Order also terminates the Commission's EEO streamlining proceeding in MM Docket No. 96-16, 63 FR 11376, March 9, 1998.
The actions contained in this Report and Order have been duly analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and found to impose a new reporting requirement or burden on the public. Implementation of this new reporting requirement will be subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget, as prescribed by the Act. The new paperwork requirement contained in the Report and Order is effective April 17, 2000, upon OMB approval.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) in this proceeding. The Commission sought written public comments on the possible significant economic impact of the proposed policies and rules on small entities in the NPRM, including comments on the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA, as amended by the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA), Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996). (Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)).
The D.C. Circuit court in
Three comments were filed specifically in response to the IRFA.
The SBA urges the FCC to look at the economic impact of its proposed EEO requirements on small stations consistent with the RFA, and if necessary, to maintain its EEO exemptions for small stations defined as those with fewer than five employees. We note that this FRFA conforms to the RFA, and that the Report and Order continues to exempt broadcast station employment units with fewer than five full-time employees from the FCC's specific EEO requirements, as well as providing additional relief for employment units that have between five and ten full-time employees.
The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules. 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(3). Under the RFA, small entities may include small organizations, small businesses, and small governmental jurisdictions. 5 U.S.C. 601(6). The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601(3), generally defines the term “small business” as having the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. Pursuant to 4 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the SBA and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the
An element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific radio or television station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the following estimates of small businesses to which the new rules will apply do not exclude any radio or television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and are therefore overinclusive to that extent. An additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. We could not fully apply this criterion, and our estimates of small businesses to which the rules may apply may be overinclusive to this extent. Last, with respect to applying SBA size standards revenue caps, the SBA has defined “annual receipts” specifically in 13 CFR 121.104, and its calculations include an averaging process. We do not currently require submission of financial data from licensees that we could use in applying the SBA's definition of a small business. Thus, for purposes of estimating the number of small entities to which the rules apply, we are limited to considering the revenue data that are publicly available, and those data may not correspond completely with the SBA definition of annual receipts.
Television and Radio Stations: The rules in this Report and Order will apply to television and radio stations. The Small Business Administration defines a television broadcasting station that has no more than $10.5 million in annual receipts as a small business. 13 CFR 121.201, Standard Industrial Code (SIC) 4833. Television broadcasting stations consist of establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting visual programs by television to the public, except cable and other pay television services. Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications and Utilities, Establishment and Firm Size, Series UC92-S-1, Appendix A-9 (1995). Included in this industry are commercial, religious, educational, and other television stations. Also included are establishments primarily engaged in television broadcasting and which produce taped television program materials.
There were 1,509 full-service television stations operating in the nation in 1992. FCC News Release No. 31327, Jan. 13, 1993; Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, Appendix A-9. That number has remained fairly constant as indicated by the approximately 1,616 operating full-service television broadcasting stations in the nation as of September 1999. FCC News Release, Broadcast Station Totals as of September 30, 1999 (released November 22, 1999). For 1992, the
The rule changes would also affect radio stations. The SBA defines a radio broadcasting station that has no more than $5 million in annual receipts as a small business. 13 CFR 121.201, SIC 4832. A radio broadcasting station is an establishment primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, Appendix A-9. Included in this industry are commercial, religious, educational, and other radio stations. Id. Radio broadcasting stations which primarily are engaged in radio broadcasting and which produce radio program materials are similarly included. Id. The 1992 Census indicates that 96 percent (5,881 of 6,127) of radio station establishments produced less than $5 million in revenue in 1992. (The Census Bureau counts multiple radio stations located at the same facility as one establishment. Therefore, each co-located AM/FM combination counts as one establishment.) Official Commission records indicate that 11,334 individual radio stations were operating in 1992. FCC News Release No. 31327, Jan. 13, 1993. As of September 1999, official Commission records indicate that 12,615 radio stations were operating. FCC News Release, Broadcast Station Totals as of September 30, 1999 (released November 22, 1999).
Small cable entities, including MVPDs: The rule changes would also affect small cable entities, including MVPDs. SBA has developed a definition of a small entity for cable and other pay television services, which includes all such companies generating $11 million or less in annual receipts. 13 CFR 121.201, SIC 4841. This definition includes cable system operators, closed circuit television services, direct broadcast satellite services (DBS), multipoint distribution systems (MDS), satellite master antenna systems (SMATV), and subscription television services. According to the Bureau of the Census, there were 1,423 such cable and other pay television services generating less than $11 million in revenue that were in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992. 1992 Economic Census Industry and Enterprise Receipts Size Report, Table 2D, SIC 4841 (U.S. Bureau of the Census data under contract to the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration). We discuss these services to provide a more succinct estimate of small entities.
Cable Systems: The Commission has developed, with SBA's approval, its own definition of small cable system operators. Under the Commission's rules, a “small cable company” is one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers nationwide. 47 CFR 76.901(e). The Commission developed this definition based on its determination that a small cable system operator is one with annual revenues of $100 million or less.
The Communications Act also contains a definition of a small cable system operator, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1% of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenue in the aggregate exceeds $250,000,000.” 47 U.S.C. 543(m)(2). The Commission has determined that there are 61,700,000 subscribers in the United States. Therefore, we found that an operator serving fewer than 617,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all of its affiliates, do not exceed $520 million in the aggregate. 47 CFR 76.1403(b) (SIC 4833). Based on available data, we find that the number of cable operators serving 617,000 subscribers or fewer totals 1,450. Paul Kagan Associates, Inc., Cable TV Investor, Feb. 29, 1996 (based on figures for Dec. 30, 1995). Although it seems certain that some of these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the Communications Act.
MDS: The Commission has defined “small entity” for purposes of the auction of MDS as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross annual revenues that are not more than $40 million for the preceding three calendar years. 47 CFR 21.961(b)(1). This definition of a small entity in the context of MDS auctions has been approved by the SBA.
MDS also includes licensees of stations authorized prior to the auction. As noted, the SBA has developed a definition of small entities for pay television services, which includes all such companies generating $11 million or less in annual receipts. 13 CFR 121.201. This definition includes multipoint distribution systems, and thus applies to MDS licensees and wireless cable operators that did not participate in the MDS auction. Information available to us indicates that there are 832 of these licensees and operators that do not generate revenue
DBS: As of November 1999, there are four DBS licensees, one of which is not in operation. Providing DBS service requires a great investment of capital to build, launch, and operate satellite systems. Typically, small businesses do not have the financial ability to become DBS licensees because of the high implementation costs associated with launching satellites. Most recent industry statistics suggest that the revenue attributed to DBS subscribers for EchoStar was $682.8 million for the year of 1998 and $1.55 billion for DIRECTV. We do not have similar revenue information for the third operating licensee, Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. However, we do not believe that any DBS licensees could be categorized as small businesses.
Estimates Based on Staff Size: As described, for purposes of providing relief from our EEO rules for entities with fewer staff resources, the Report and Order classifies such entities by number of employees. We estimate that, in 1997, the total number of full-service broadcast stations with fewer than five employees was 5,186, of which 340 were television stations. We base this estimate on a compilation of 1997 Broadcast Station Annual Employment Reports (FCC Form 395-B), performed by staff of the Equal Employment Opportunity Branch, Mass Media Bureau, FCC. Similarly, we estimate that, in 1997, 2,750 cable system or SMATV employment units employed fewer than six full-time employees. Also, in 1997, 725 MVPD employment units employed fewer than six full-time employees.
We also estimate that, in 1997, the total number of full-service broadcast stations with five to ten employees was 2,145, of which 200 were television stations. We base this estimate on a compilation of 1997 Broadcast Station Annual Employment Reports (FCC Form 395-B), performed by staff of the Equal Employment Opportunity Branch, Mass Media Bureau, FCC. Similarly, we estimate that, in 1997, 322 cable system or SMATV employment units employed six to ten full-time employees. Also, in 1997, 65 MVPD employment units employed six to ten full-time employees.
The Report and Order adopts changes to existing EEO recordkeeping and reporting requirements. It also specifies which EEO materials are required to be kept in the public inspection file. All broadcasters and cable entities must adhere to the EEO rules' general anti-discrimination provisions. Broadcasters with station employment units of five to ten full-time employees are provided some relief from EEO requirements, and station employment units of fewer than five full-time employees are exempt altogether, with the exception that all broadcasters are subject to the nondiscrimination requirement and must report any employment discrimination complaints filed against them. Cable employment units, including MVPD employment units, employing six to ten full-time employees are also provided some relief from the Report and Order's specific EEO program requirements, and cable employment units with fewer than six full-time employees are not required to demonstrate compliance with the EEO program requirements. Generally, no special skills will be necessary to comply with the requirements.
Specifically, the Report and Order requires broadcasters and cable entities to widely disseminate information concerning job vacancies. Additionally, broadcasters and cable entities must undertake two supplemental recruitment measures described herein. The first supplemental recruitment measure requires broadcasters and cable entities to provide notification of full-time job vacancies to any requesting organization if the organization regularly distributes information about employment opportunities or refers job seekers to employers. Depending on the size of a station's staff, the second supplemental recruitment measure requires broadcasters to engage in at least four (for station employment units with more than ten full-time employees) or two (for station employment units with five to ten full-time employees) of the following menu options every two years: job fairs, job banks and other general outreach efforts, scholarship programs, in-house training programs, mentoring programs, community events related to employment opportunities in the industry, industry career events/programs by educational institutions, internship programs, the listing of upper-level vacancies in a job bank or newsletter of media trade groups whose membership includes substantial participation of women and minorities, and other activities to disseminate information regarding industry employment opportunities, as designed by the broadcaster. Cable employment units with more than ten full-time employees must engage in at least two options from the supplemental recruitment measures menu every year and cable employment units with six to ten full-time employees must engage in at least one option every year. Broadcasters and cable entities that desire more flexibility in their recruitment procedures may dispense with the supplemental recruitment measures as long as they are able to demonstrate success in achieving broad outreach to all segments of the community, as based upon an analysis of the recruitment source, race, national origin, and gender of the applicants attracted by their outreach efforts.
In addition, the Report and Order requires broadcasters and cable entities to retain records to demonstrate that they have recruited for all full-time permanent positions. To alleviate recordkeeping burdens, records may be kept in an electronic format. Such recordkeeping shall include: listings of all full-time vacancies filled, listings of recruitment sources, the address/contact person/telephone number of each recruitment source, and dated copies of advertisements and other documentation announcing vacancies. Broadcasters and cable entities engaging in supplemental recruitment measures must show organizations which requested notification and must also maintain: records and proof of participation in menu options, the total number and referral source of all interviewees, and dates of hire along with the name of the recruitment source which referred the hiree. These revised recordkeeping requirements significantly reduce the cost of compliance because broadcasters and cable entities that use this approach no longer have to keep extensive records on the race and gender of all applicants and interviewees, as was the case under our former EEO rules. For those broadcasters and cable entities that opt out of the supplemental recruitment measures, we will require that they maintain records of the recruitment source, race, national origin, and gender of qualified applicants in order to demonstrate that they widely disseminated information about job openings. Some broadcasters and cable entities, especially the ones with fewer employees, may have only a few vacancies generally available so that this option may be less burdensome to them. Broadcasters' records must be
The Report and Order also requires stations and cable employment units to place annually the following EEO records in their local public inspection file: listings of full-time vacancies filled and recruitment sources used for each vacancy during the preceding year and the address/contact person/telephone number of each recruitment source. Broadcasters and cable entities engaging in supplemental recruitment measures must also include in their public file: an indication of the organizations requesting notification, the recruitment source of all full-time hirees during the preceding year, the total number of persons interviewed for full-time vacancies during the preceding year as well as the total number of interviewees referred by each recruitment source for that vacancy, and a brief description of the menu option items undertaken during the preceding year. Those broadcasters and cable entities that opt out of the supplemental recruitment measures must include in their public file: the total number of applicants generated by each recruitment source utilized for any full-time vacancy during the preceding year, and the number of those applicants who were female and the number who were minority, identified by the applicable racial and/or national origin group with which each applicant is associated. Station units must retain the materials in their file until final action has been taken on the station's next license renewal application, and cable entities must retain their materials for a period of five years.
In addition, broadcasters must file a Statement of Compliance (Form 397) every second, fourth and sixth year of the license term, on the anniversary of the date the station is due to file its renewal, stating whether the station has complied with the EEO Rule. Broadcasters must place a copy of the latest Statement in the public inspection file. Broadcasters must also continue to place a copy of Form 396 (Broadcast EEO Program Report) in the public inspection file. However, broadcasters are no longer required to place a copy of their station's Form 395-B (Broadcast Station Annual Employment Report) in the public file. Cable employment units must continue to place a copy of Forms 395-A (Cable Television Annual Employment Report) or 395-M (Multi-Channel Video Program Distributor Annual Employment Report) in their public file. Also, most broadcasters must submit the contents of their station's EEO public inspection file to the FCC at renewal time and midway through the license term for the Commission's mid-term review and cable entities with six or more full-time employees must submit copies of their EEO public inspection file to the Commission every five years. However, broadcasters may limit their submissions to cover only the last 12 months of EEO activity. These changes reduce burdens on all station and cable employment units, both by more clearly defining what must be retained and by specifying the period of retention.
The Report and Order eliminates sections concerning specific categories of recruitment sources from Form 396-A (Model EEO Program Report). The Report and Order also eliminates many sections from Form 396, including sections requesting information on local labor force statistics, and the number of minority and female hires and promotions. The Report and Order provides further relief to broadcasters by enabling them to file only one Form 395-B for all commonly owned stations in the same market sharing at least one employee. Form 396 will include a new section for broadcasters to provide a narrative statement demonstrating how the station achieved broad and inclusive outreach. With respect to cable entities, the Report and Order eliminates all sections on Forms 395-A and 395-M concerning available labor force and occupational data, employee promotions and job hires.
This Report and Order sets forth the Commission's new EEO rules and procedures, and considers all of the significant alternatives presented in the comments. We have determined that our finalized rules fulfill our public interest goals while maintaining minimal regulatory burdens and ease and clarity of administration. The new EEO rules and procedures are designed to keep essential filing and recordkeeping burdens at a minimum, and increase the efficiency of application processing for all broadcasters and cable entities, including small entities.
The NPRM requested comment on the Commission's proposal to exempt small staff stations or stations located in small markets from specific EEO recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The NPRM proposed to increase the current staff exemption threshold of fewer than five full-time employees to ten or fewer full-time employees. There was no specific proposal regarding the market threshold for exempting stations. Although we received a few comments regarding small market exemptions, the majority of comments addressed our proposal to increase the staff exemption threshold. Commenters argue that an increase is warranted since stations with small staffs have limited personnel and financial resources to carry out EEO requirements. Other commenters argue against a total exemption from the broadcast EEO Rule for stations with ten or fewer employees since such stations play a pivotal role in providing essential entry-level opportunities into the broadcast industry. As discussed in the Report and Order, we believe that a total exemption is unnecessary since the new EEO Rule streamlines and clarifies recordkeeping requirements, thereby benefiting all broadcasters, including stations with fewer employees. For this same reason, we also believe that additional EEO relief is not warranted for small market stations. Such relief is already built into the new Rule, as further evidenced by the flexibility it affords broadcasters to tailor their EEO programs to their station's particular circumstances, including market size. However, because fewer staff resources are available to them, we believe that station employment units with five to ten full-time employees, which are the smallest staff stations subject to our EEO program requirements, warrant additional relief from EEO program requirements. Therefore, for those broadcasters employing supplemental recruitment measures, we will require station employment units with five to ten full-time employees to engage in only two of the menu options listed in the EEO Rule during each two-year period. Station employment units with more than ten full-time employees are required to engage in four menu options during each two-year period. While not providing a total exemption from our EEO Rule, this approach does provide additional EEO relief to station employment units with five to ten employees. Further, we will exempt radio station employment units with six to ten employees from new mid-term review procedures. Currently, mid-term reviews for all television stations with five or more full-time employees are required by statute. However, only about 200 television stations (or 13%) had between five and ten employees in 1997. We base this estimate on a compilation of 1997 Broadcast Station
We also received comments arguing that cable systems with small staffs should be provided EEO relief since they, too, have limited personnel and financial resources. Upon consideration, we will require cable employment units with six to ten full-time employees that use the supplemental recruitment measures to engage in only one option from the supplemental recruitment measures menu each year, as opposed to the two options required otherwise.
We will continue to exempt broadcast station employment units with fewer than five full-time employees from our specific EEO program requirements. In addition, cable employment units with fewer than six full-time employees will still not be required to demonstrate compliance with the EEO program requirements.
Oxley/Hall maintain that the FCC's proposed EEO program substantially replicates the work of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Oxley/Hall Comments at 3. As we stated in the Report and Order, while the EEOC and FCC share as a common goal the elimination of discriminatory employment practices, the primary functions of the two agencies differ greatly. Whereas the EEOC reviews discrimination complaints in order to provide relief to victims of discrimination, the FCC's principal concern with respect to discrimination allegations is to determine the fitness of broadcasters and cable entities to fulfill their obligations under the Communications Act. Moreover, the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Federal Communications Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 51 FR 21798 (1986), coordinates and minimizes overlap of the enforcement efforts of the two agencies.
Organization and functions (Government agencies).
Radio, Equal employment opportunity, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Television.
Cable television, Equal employment opportunity, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155, 225, unless otherwise noted.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Present documented allegations of failure to comply with the Commission's Equal Employment Opportunity rules and policies.
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.
(a)
(b)
(1) Define the responsibility of each level of management to ensure vigorous enforcement of its policy of equal opportunity, and establish a procedure to review and control managerial and supervisory performance;
(2) Inform its employees and recognized employee organizations of the equal employment opportunity policy and program and enlist their cooperation;
(3) Communicate its equal employment opportunity policy and program and its employment needs to sources of qualified applicants without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, and solicit their recruitment assistance on a continuing basis;
(4) Conduct a continuing program to exclude all unlawful forms of prejudice or discrimination based upon race, color, religion, national origin, or sex from its personnel policies and practices and working conditions; and
(5) Conduct a continuing review of job structure and employment practices and adopt positive recruitment, job design, and other measures needed to ensure genuine equality of opportunity to participate fully in all organizational units, occupations, and levels of responsibility.
(c)
(1) Recruit for every job vacancy in its operation. A job filled by an internal promotion is not considered a vacancy for which recruitment is necessary. Religious radio broadcasters who establish religious affiliation as a qualification for a job position are not required to comply with these recruitment requirements with respect to that job position or positions, but will be expected to make reasonable, good faith efforts to recruit applicants who are qualified based on their religious affiliation. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to require a broadcaster to grant preferential treatment to any individual or group based on race, color, national origin, religion, or gender.
(i) A station employment unit shall use recruitment sources for each vacancy sufficient in its reasonable, good faith judgment to widely disseminate information concerning the vacancy.
(ii) In addition to such recruitment sources, a station employment unit shall provide notification of each vacancy to any organization that distributes information about employment opportunities to job seekers or refers job seekers to employers, upon request by such organization. To be entitled to notice of vacancies, the requesting organization must provide the station employment unit with its name, mailing address, e-mail address (if applicable), telephone number, and contact person, and identify the category or categories of vacancies of which it requests notice. (An organization may request notice of all vacancies).
(2) Engage in at least four (if the station employment unit has more than ten full-time employees) or two (if it has five to ten full-time employees) of the following initiatives during each two-year period preceding the filing of a Statement of Compliance pursuant to subsection (g) hereof:
(i) Participation in at least four job fairs by station personnel who have substantial responsibility in the making of hiring decisions;
(ii) Hosting of at least one job fair;
(iii) Co-sponsoring at least one job fair with organizations in the business and professional community whose membership includes substantial participation of women and minorities;
(iv) Participation in at least four events sponsored by organizations representing groups present in the community interested in broadcast employment issues, including conventions, career days, workshops, and similar activities;
(v) Establishment of an internship program designed to assist members of the community to acquire skills needed for broadcast employment;
(vi) Participation in job banks, internet programs, and other programs designed to promote outreach generally (
(vii) Participation in scholarship programs designed to assist students interested in pursuing a career in broadcasting;
(viii) Establishment of training programs designed to enable station personnel to acquire skills that could qualify them for higher level positions;
(ix) Establishment of a mentoring program for station personnel;
(x) Participation in at least four events or programs sponsored by educational institutions relating to career opportunities in broadcasting;
(xi) Sponsorship of at least two events in the community designed to inform and educate members of the public as to employment opportunities in broadcasting;
(xii) Listing of each upper-level category opening in a job bank or newsletter of media trade groups whose membership includes substantial participation of women and minorities;
(xiii) Participation in other activities designed by the station employment unit reasonably calculated to further the goal of disseminating information as to employment opportunities in broadcasting to job candidates who might otherwise be unaware of such opportunities.
(3) Analyze its recruitment program on an ongoing basis to ensure that it is effective in achieving broad outreach to potential applicants, and address any problems found as a result of its analysis.
(4) Periodically analyze measures taken to:
(i) Disseminate the station's equal employment opportunity program to job applicants and employees;
(ii) Review seniority practices to ensure that such practices are nondiscriminatory;
(iii) Examine rates of pay and fringe benefits for employees having the same duties, and eliminate any inequities based upon race, national origin, color, religion, or sex discrimination;
(iv) Utilize media for recruitment purposes in a manner that will contain no indication, either explicit or implicit, of a preference for one race, national origin, color, religion or sex over another;
(v) Ensure that promotions to positions of greater responsibility are made in a nondiscriminatory manner;
(vi) Where union agreements exist, cooperate with the union or unions in the development of programs to assure all persons equal opportunity for employment, irrespective of race, national origin, color, religion, or sex, and include an effective nondiscrimination clause in new or renegotiated union agreements; and
(vii) Avoid the use of selection techniques or tests that have the effect of discriminating against any person based on race, national origin, color, religion, or sex.
(5) Retain records to document that it has satisfied the requirements of paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section. Such records, which may be maintained in an electronic format, shall be retained until after grant of the renewal application for the term during which the vacancy was filled or the initiative occurred. Such records need not be submitted to the FCC unless specifically requested. The following records shall be maintained:
(i) Listings of all full-time job vacancies filled by the station employment unit, identified by job title;
(ii) For each such vacancy, the recruitment sources utilized to fill the vacancy (including, if applicable, organizations entitled to notification pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, which should be separately identified), identified by name, address, contact person and telephone number;
(iii) Dated copies of all advertisements, bulletins, letters, faxes, e-mails, or other communications announcing vacancies;
(iv) Documentation necessary to demonstrate performance of the initiatives required by paragraph (c)(2) of this section, if applicable, including sufficient information to fully disclose the nature of the initiative and the scope of the station's participation, including the station personnel involved;
(v) The total number of interviewees for each vacancy and the referral source for each interviewee; and
(vi) The date each vacancy was filled and the recruitment source that referred the hiree.
(6) Annually, on the anniversary of the date a station is due to file its renewal application, the station shall place in its public file, maintained pursuant to § 73.3526 or § 73.3527, and on its web site, if it has one, an EEO public file report containing the following information:
(i) A list of all full-time vacancies filled by the station's employment unit during the preceding year, identified by job title;
(ii) For each such vacancy, the recruitment source(s) utilized to fill the vacancy (including, if applicable, organizations entitled to notification
(iii) The recruitment source that referred the hiree for each full-time vacancy during the preceding year;
(iv) Data reflecting the total number of persons interviewed for full-time vacancies during the preceding year and the total number of interviewees referred by each recruitment source utilized in connection with such vacancies; and
(v) A list and brief description of initiatives undertaken pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section during the preceding year, if applicable.
(7) Stations shall substantially comply with paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section in connection with hires for part-time positions. The provisions of paragraph (c) are not otherwise applicable to hires for part-time positions.
(d)
(1) The station employment unit shall maintain records as required by paragraph (c)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section and shall maintain, in lieu of the records required by paragraph (c)(5)(iv) through (vi) of this section, data reflecting the recruitment source, gender, and racial and/or ethnic status of applicants for each full-time job vacancy filled by the station employment unit;
(2) The station employment unit shall include in the annual EEO public file report required by paragraph (c)(6) of this section the information specified in paragraph (c)(6)(i) and (ii) and, in lieu of the information required by paragraph (c)(6)(iii) through (v), data reflecting, for each recruitment source utilized for any full-time vacancy during the preceding year, the total number of applicants generated by that source, the number of applicants who were female, and the number of applicants who were minority, identified by the applicable racial and/or ethnic group with which each applicant is associated.
(3) Station employment units electing to proceed under this paragraph shall otherwise comply with the requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(1) A full-time employee is a permanent employee whose regular work schedule is 30 hours per week or more. A part-time employee is a permanent employee whose regular work schedule is less than 30 hours per week.
(2) A station employment unit is a station or a group of commonly owned stations in the same market that share at least one employee.
(i)
(1) Each broadcast station shall file with the Commission a Statement of Compliance (FCC Form 397) stating whether the station has complied with the outreach provisions of this section during the two-year period prior to the date the station files the Statement. Before filing the Statement, stations shall review their recruitment activity during the two-year period along with requirements of this section and determine whether they have been in compliance with of this section during the relevant period. The Statement of Compliance shall also report any change in the station's recruitment election pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section. All broadcast stations, including those that are part of an employment unit with fewer than five full-time employees, shall file a Broadcast Equal Employment Opportunity Program Report (Form 396) with their renewal application. As with Form 397, stations shall indicate on Form 396 whether they have complied with of this section. In addition, stations shall provide a narrative statement demonstrating how their recruitment efforts achieved broad and inclusive outreach during the two years prior to filing the Form 396. Stations should also include in Form 396 any change in recruitment election pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section. If the station believes it was not or may not have been in compliance, it shall submit an appropriate explanation on Form 396 or 397, as applicable. The Statement of Compliance (Form 397) is filed every second, fourth and sixth year of the license term, on the anniversary of the date the station is due to file its application for renewal of license. Form 396 is filed on the date the station is due to file its application for renewal of license. If a broadcast licensee acquires a station pursuant to FCC Form 314 or FCC Form 315 during the period that is to form the basis for the Statement of Compliance or Form 396, its Statement should be based on the licensee's EEO recruitment activity during the period starting with the date it acquired the station. Stations are required to maintain a copy of their Statement of Compliance and Form 396 in the station's public file in accordance with the provisions of §§ 73.3526 and 73.3527.
(2) On the date a station is due to file for renewal of license, as part of Form 396, it shall file with the Commission an EEO public file report concerning recruitment activity during the 12-month period preceding the filing date. The required contents of the public file report are described in paragraphs (c)(6)
(3) If a station is subject to a time brokerage agreement, the licensee shall file Statements of Compliance, Forms 396, and EEO public file reports concerning only its own recruitment activity. If a licensee is a broker of another station or stations, the licensee-broker shall include its recruitment activity for the brokered station(s) in determining the bases of the Statements of Compliance, Forms 396 and the EEO public file reports for its own station. If a licensee-broker owns more than one station, it shall include its recruitment activity for the brokered station in the Statements of Compliance, Forms 396, and EEO public file reports filed for its own station that is most closely affiliated with, and in the same market as, the brokered station. If a licensee-broker does not own a station in the same market as the brokered station, then it shall include its recruitment activity for the brokered station in the Statements of Compliance, Forms 396, and EEO public file reports filed for its own station that is geographically closest to the brokered station.
(4) Broadcast stations subject to this section shall maintain records of their recruitment activity necessary to demonstrate that they are in compliance with this section. Stations shall ensure that they maintain records sufficient to verify the accuracy of information provided in Statements of Compliance, Forms 396, and EEO public file reports. To determine compliance with this section, the Commission may conduct inquiries of licensees at random or if it has evidence of a possible violation of this section. In addition, the Commission will conduct random audits. Specifically, each year approximately five percent of all licensees in the television and radio services will be randomly selected for audit, ensuring that, even though the number of radio licensees is significantly larger than television licensees, both services are represented in the audit process. Upon request, stations shall make records available to the Commission for its review.
(5) The public may file complaints throughout the license term based on a station's Statement of Compliance or the contents of a station's public file. Provisions concerning filing, withdrawing, or non-filing of informal objections or petitions to deny license renewal, assignment, or transfer applications are delineated in §§ 73.3584 and 73.3587-73.3589.
(j)
(e) * * *
(7)
(e) * * *
(6)
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 503, 521, 522, 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572, 573.
Under the terms of its program, an employment unit must:
(b) Establish, maintain and carry out a positive continuing program of outreach activities designed to ensure equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in employment. The following activities shall be undertaken by each employment unit:
(1) Recruit for every job vacancy in its operation. A job filled by an internal promotion is not considered a vacancy for which recruitment is necessary. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to require a cable entity to grant preferential treatment to any individual or group based on race, national origin, color, religion, age, or gender.
(i) An employment unit shall use recruitment sources for each vacancy sufficient in its reasonable, good faith judgment to widely disseminate information concerning the vacancy.
(ii) In addition to using such recruitment sources, a cable employment unit shall provide notification of each vacancy to any organization that distributes information about employment opportunities to job seekers or refers job seekers to employers, upon request by such organization. To be entitled to notice of vacancies, the requesting organization must provide the cable employment unit with its name, mailing address, e-mail address (if applicable), telephone number, and contact person, and identify the category or categories of vacancies of which it requests notice. (An organization may request notice of all vacancies).
(2) Engage in at least two (if the unit has more than ten full-time employees) or one (if the unit has six to ten full-time employees) of the following initiatives during each twelve-month period preceding the filing of an annual employment report:
(i) Participation in at least two job fairs by unit personnel who have substantial responsibility in the making of hiring decisions;
(ii) Hosting of at least one job fair;
(iii) Co-sponsoring at least one job fair with organizations in the business and professional community whose membership includes substantial participation of women and minorities;
(iv) Participation in at least two events sponsored by organizations representing groups present in the community interested in cable employment issues, including conventions, career days, workshops, and similar activities;
(v) Establishment of an internship program designed to assist members of the community in acquiring skills needed for cable employment;
(vi) Participation in job banks, internet programs, and other programs designed to promote outreach generally (i.e., that are not primarily directed to providing notification of specific job vacancies);
(vii) Participation in a scholarship program designed to assist students interested in pursuing a career in cable communications;
(viii) Establishment of training programs designed to enable unit personnel to acquire skills that could qualify them for higher level positions;
(ix) Establishment of a mentoring program for unit personnel;
(x) Participation in at least two events or programs sponsored by educational institutions relating to career opportunities in cable communications;
(xi) Sponsorship of at least one event in the community designed to inform and educate members of the public as to employment opportunities in cable communications;
(xii) Listing of each upper-level category opening in a job bank or newsletter of media trade groups whose membership includes substantial participation of women and minorities; and
(xiii) Participation in other activities reasonably calculated by the unit to further the goal of disseminating information as to employment opportunities in cable communications to job candidates who might otherwise be unaware of such opportunities.
(c) Retain records sufficient to document that it has satisfied the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section. Such records, which may be maintained in an electronic format, shall be retained for a period of seven years. Such records need not be submitted to the Commission unless specifically requested. The following records shall be maintained:
(1) Listings of all full-time job vacancies filled by the cable employment unit, identified by job title;
(2) For each such vacancy, the recruitment sources utilized to fill the vacancy (including, if applicable, organizations entitled to notification pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, which should be separately identified), identified by name, address, contact person, and telephone number;
(3) Dated copies of all advertisements, bulletins, letters, faxes, e-mails, or other communications announcing job vacancies;
(4) Documentation necessary to demonstrate performance of the initiatives required by paragraph (b)(2) of this section, if applicable, including information sufficient to fully disclose the nature of the initiative and the scope of the unit's participation, including the unit personnel involved;
(5) The total number of interviewees for each vacancy and the referral sources for each interviewee; and
(6) The date each vacancy was filled and the recruitment source that referred the hiree.
(f) A cable entity may elect not to utilize the provisions of paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) (notification to requesting community groups) and (b)(2) (menu options) hereof, provided that it complies with the following alternative recruitment requirements:
(1) The employment unit shall maintain records as required by paragraph (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section, and shall maintain, in lieu of the records required by paragraph (c)(4) through (c)(6) of this section, data reflecting the recruitment source, gender, and racial and/or ethnic status of applicants for each full-time job vacancy filled by the employment unit;
(2) The employment unit shall place annually in its public file maintained pursuant to § 76.1702 the information specified in § 76.1702(b)(1) and (2) and, in lieu of the information required by § 76.1702(b)(3) through (5), data reflecting, for each recruitment source utilized for any full-time vacancy during the preceding year, the total number of applicants generated by that source, the number of applicants who were female, and the number of applicants who were minority, identified by the applicable racial and/or ethnic group with which each applicant is associated.
(3) Cable employment units electing to proceed under this paragraph shall otherwise comply with the requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(g) A cable entity shall analyze its recruitment program on an ongoing basis to ensure that it is effective in achieving broad outreach, and address any problems found as a result of its analysis.
(h) Within forty-five days of the effective date of this paragraph (h) each cable employment unit with six or more fulltime employees shall elect whether it wishes to utilize the recruitment procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section or the alternate recruitment procedures specified in paragraph (f) of this section and shall file with the Commission a statement indicating the election which shall also be placed in the public inspection file maintained pursuant to § 76.1702. An employment unit may change its election annually at the time of the filing of the FCC Form 395-A or FCC Form 395-M. If the employment unit wishes to change its election, it shall so state in its FCC Form 395-A or FCC Form 395-M. A cable employment unit may also change its election at the time of a substantial change in its ownership by placing a statement of its new election in the public inspection file.
(i) Analyze on an ongoing basis its efforts to recruit, hire, promote and use services without discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, color, religion, age, or sex and explain any difficulties encountered in implementing its equal employment opportunity program. For example, this requirement may be met by:
(1) Where union agreements exist, cooperating with the union or unions in the development of programs to assure all persons equal opportunity for employment, and including an effective nondiscrimination clause in new or renegotiated union agreements;
(2) Reviewing seniority practices to ensure that such practices are nondiscriminatory;
(3) Examining rates of pay and fringe benefits for employees having the same duties, and eliminating any inequities based upon race, national origin, color, religion, age, or sex discrimination;
(4) Evaluating the recruitment program to ensure that it is effective in achieving a broad outreach to potential applicants.
(5) Utilizing media for recruitment purposes in a manner that will contain no indication, either explicit or implicit, of a preference for one race, national origin, color, religion, age, or sex over another; and
(6) Avoiding the use of selection techniques or tests that have the effect of discriminating against qualified minority groups or women.
(j) Cable entities shall substantially comply with paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section in connection with hires for part-time positions. The remaining provisions of this section are not otherwise applicable to hires for part-time positions but are applicable only to full-time positions, defined as requiring a regular work schedule of 30 or more hours per week.
(k) The provisions of paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), (b)(2), (c), (f) and (g) of this section shall not apply to cable employment units that have fewer than six full-time employees.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(e)
(f)
(g)
10. Section 76.79 is revised to read as follows:
A copy of every annual employment report, and any other employment report filed with the Commission, and complaint report that has been filed with the Commission, and copies of all exhibits, letters, and other documents filed as part thereof, all amendments thereto, all correspondence between the cable entity and the Commission pertaining to the reports after they have been filed in all documents incorporated therein by reference, unless specifically exempted from the requirement, are open for public inspection at the offices of the Commission in Washington, D.C.
Cable operators must also comply with the public file requirements § 76.1702.
(a) Every employment unit with six or more full-time employees shall maintain for public inspection a file containing copies of all annual employment reports filed with the Commission pursuant to § 76.77 and the equal employment opportunity program information described in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section. These materials shall be placed in the unit's public inspection file annually by the date that the unit's annual employment report is due to be filed and shall be retained for a period of five years. The public inspection file should also contain the election information required by § 76.75 (h), insofar as it is not included in the entity's annual employment report. The file shall be maintained at the central office and at every location with six or more full-time employees. A headquarters employment unit file and a file containing a consolidated set of all documents pertaining to the other employment units of a multiple cable operator shall be maintained at the central office of the headquarters employment unit. The cable entity shall provide reasonable accommodation at these locations for undisturbed inspection of its equal employment opportunity records by members of the public during regular business hours.
(b) The following equal employment opportunity program information shall be included annually in the unit's public file, and on the unit's web site, if it has one, at the time of the filing of its FCC Form 395-A or FCC Form 395-M, except as indicated in paragraph (c) of this section:
(1) A list of all full-time vacancies filled by the cable employment unit during the preceding year, identified by job title;
(2) For each such vacancy, the recruitment source(s) utilized to fill the vacancy (including, if applicable, organizations entitled to notification pursuant to § 76.75(b)(1)(ii), which should be separately identified), identified by name, address, contact person and telephone number;
(3) The recruitment source that referred the hiree for each full-time vacancy during the preceding year;
(4) Data reflecting the total number of persons interviewed for full-time vacancies during the preceding year and the total number of interviewees referred by each recruitment source utilized in connection with such vacancies; and
(5) A list and brief description of the initiatives undertaken pursuant to § 76.75(b)(2) during the preceding year, if applicable.
(c) An entity that elects to utilize the alternative recruitment procedure pursuant to § 76.75(f) shall annually include in the public inspection file the information required therein.
Each employment unit with six or more full-time employees shall file an annual employment report on FCC Form 395-A (if cable operator or SMATV) or Form 395-M (if MVPD) with the Commission on or before September 30 of each year, in accordance with § 76.77.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
This document amends the Commission's rules to require that any petition for forbearance submitted under section 10(c) of the Communications Act, as amended (Act), 47 U.S.C. 160(c), be filed as a separate pleading and be captioned as a petition for forbearance under section 10(c). Adoption of this rule will help ensure that the Commission and all interested parties have the opportunity to consider fully the issues raised in petitions for forbearance within the statutory period for Commission consideration of such petitions.
Effective March 16, 2000.
Joanne F. Wall, Office of General Counsel, (202) 418-1720.
1. Under section 10(a) of the Act, the Commission is required to forbear from applying any regulation or provision of the Act to a telecommunications carrier or service, or class of telecommunications carriers or services, if it determines that: (1) Enforcement of such regulation or provision is not necessary to ensure that the charges, practices, classifications, or regulations by, for, or in connection with that telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service are just and reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory; (2) enforcement of such regulation or provision is not necessary for the protection of consumers; and (3) forbearance from applying such provision or regulation is consistent with the public interest. 47 U.S.C. 160(a). Under section 10(c) of the Act, any telecommunications carrier, or class of telecommunications carriers, may submit a petition to the Commission requesting that it exercise its forbearance authority under section 10 with respect to that carrier or carriers, or any service offered by that carrier or carriers. Petitions for forbearance are deemed granted if the Commission does not deny the petition for failure to meet the requirements for forbearance under section 10(a) within one year after receiving the petition, unless the Commission extends the one-year period. The Commission may extend the initial one-year period by an additional 90 days if it finds that an extension is necessary to meet the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act. 47 U.S.C. 160(c).
2. The Commission has received numerous forbearance requests under section 10(c). Many of these forbearance requests have been combined with other requests for Commission action and have not been identified as section 10(c) forbearance petitions in the captions for such pleadings. As a result, it appears that a significant number of these requests may not have been readily identifiable by the Commission staff and interested parties as section 10(c) forbearance petitions. Indeed, it has sometimes been unclear whether parties expected that a reference to section 10 forbearance would be treated as a section 10(c) petition,
3. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 10, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 160 and 303(r), § 1.53 of the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission, 47 CFR 1.53, is adopted as set forth, to be effective March 16, 2000. The Order was adopted on January 6, 2000 by the Commission and released on January 19, 2000.
4. Because the rule herein is a rule of agency procedure and practice, it may be adopted without affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
Practice and procedure.
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 225, 303(r), 309.
In order to be considered as a petition for forbearance subject to the one-year deadline set forth in 47 U.S.C. 160(c), any petition requesting that the Commission exercise its forbearance authority under 47 U.S.C. 160 shall be filed as a separate pleading and shall be identified in the caption of such pleading as a petition for forbearance under 47 U.S.C. 160(c). Any request which is not in compliance with this rule is deemed not to constitute a petition pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 160(c), and is not subject to the deadline set forth therein.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; delay of effectiveness.
NMFS delays the effective date of a final rule published January 11, 2000, from February 10, 2000, until March 15, 2000. The final rule will
Unless as otherwise specified above, the final rule implementing the Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan (published on January 11, 2000 at 65 FR 1557) is effective March 15, 2000.
Richard Pearson, Fishery Policy Analyst, at 978-281-0279.
The FMP was developed jointly by the Councils, with the Mid-Atlantic Council having the administrative lead. A Notice of Availability for the FMP was published in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Closure.
NMFS is prohibiting trawling within Steller sea lion critical habitat in the Central Aleutian District of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary because the 2000 critical habitat percentage of the interim harvest specifications of Atka mackerel allocated to the Central Aleutian District has been reached.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), February 10, 2000, until the directed fishery for Atka mackerel closes within the Central Aleutian District.
Andrew Smoker, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2000 interim TAC for Atka mackerel in the Central Aleutian District is 9,520 metric tons (mt), of which no more than 6,378 mt may be harvested from critical habitat (65 FR 60, January 3, 2000). See § 679.20(c)(2)(ii)(A) and 679.22(a)(8)(iii)(B).
In accordance with § 679.22(a)(8)(iii)(A), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the allowable harvest of Atka mackerel in Steller sea lion critical habitat in the Central Aleutian District as specified under the 2000 interim harvest specifications has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting trawling in critical habitat, as defined at 50 CFR part 226, Table 1 and Table 2 in the Central Aleutian District of the BSAI.
This action responds to the interim TAC limitations for Atka mackerel in the BSAI. It must be implemented immediately to avoid jeopardy to the continued existence of Steller sea lions. A delay in the effective date is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. NMFS finds for good cause that the implementation of this action should not be delayed for 30 days. Accordingly, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), a delay in the effective date is hereby waived.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under E.O. 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is proposing to amend the regulations under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA or Act) and the PACA Rules of Practice (other than formal disciplinary proceedings) to increase license and complaint filing fees. Specifically, the proposed revisions would increase the current annual license fee of $550 to $600 for very small businesses and would increase the license fee from $550 to $850 for all other licensees. Informal complaint filing fees would be increased from $60 to $100. This notice also announces USDA's intention to request an extension for and revision to a currently approved information collection for the Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements under Regulations (Other Than Rules of Practice) under the PACA.
Comments must be received by April 17, 2000.
Charles W. Parrott, Acting Chief, PACA Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, Room 2095-So. Bldg., PO Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, phone (202) 720-2272. Email—charles.parrott@usda.gov. All comments should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue in the
This proposal is issued under authority of section 15 of the PACA (7 U.S.C. 499o).
The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA or Act) establishes a code of fair trade practices covering the marketing of fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables in interstate and foreign commerce. The PACA protects growers, shippers, distributors, and retailers dealing in those commodities by prohibiting unfair and fraudulent trade practices. In this way, the law fosters an efficient nationwide distribution system for fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables, benefiting the whole marketing chain from farmer to consumer. USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) administers and enforces the PACA.
The PACA Amendments of 1995 (1995 Amendments)
The 1995 Amendments grant USDA the authority to increase fees through rulemaking after November 14, 1998, provided that the PACA program's operating reserves fall below 25 percent of the projected annual program costs. Because of the loss of revenue from retailers and grocery wholesalers over the past four years, PACA program budget projections for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 show that the program's assets will fall below the required 25 percent of projected expenditures in fiscal year 2001. Without a fee increase, the program will exhaust its reserves by the end of Fiscal Year 2003, and would soon need to begin reducing its level of services to the industry. Therefore, USDA is proposing an increase in the PACA license fee from $550 to $850. Branch fees would remain at $200 per branch, but the maximum fee would increase from $4,000 to $6,000. However, very small businesses would pay a license fee of $600. The parameters for a very small business to qualify for the $600 license fee will be further addressed when we discuss the effects that this proposed rule would have on small businesses. In addition, AMS would also raise the informal reparation complaint filing fee from $60 to $100. AMS would amend § 46.46 of the PACA Regulations and § 47.3 of the PACA Rules of Practice to reflect the proposed changes to the license and reparation complaint filing fees. In addition, the language in § 46.46 of the regulations regarding the phase-out of retailers and grocery wholesalers from paying license fees would be deleted, since the 3-year phase-out mandated by the 1995 Amendments has been concluded.
Additionally, a number of definitions would be amended in the regulations. Due to the reorganization of AMS, a definition of the “Fruit and Vegetable Programs” would be substituted for the definition of “Division,” a definition of “Associate Administrator” would be substituted for the definition of “Deputy Administrator,” and a definition of “Deputy Administrator” would be substituted for the definition of “Director.” Additionally, the words “Program” and “Deputy Administrator” would be substituted for “Division” and “Director” respectively, wherever they appear in part 46.
This proposed rule, issued under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (7 U.S.C. 499
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform and is not intended to have retroactive effect. This proposed rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. There are no administrative procedures which must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
The PACA is enforced through a licensing system and is user-fee financed primarily through a license fee. The PACA requires commission merchants, dealers, and brokers buying or selling fruits and/or vegetables in interstate or foreign commerce who meet certain threshold requirements to be licensed. There are approximately 16,695 PACA licensees. Separating licensees by the nature of business, there are approximately 5,800 wholesalers, 5,100 retailers, 2,000 brokers, 1,300 processors, 700 commission merchants, 420 food service businesses, 130 grocery wholesalers, and 40 truckers licensed under PACA. In addition, there are approximately 1,100 other licensees with multiple types of business. The PACA license is effective for three years for retailers and grocery wholesalers, and must be renewed on a triennial basis. The license for all other licensees is effective for up to three years. These licensees must also renew their licenses, but have the option of a 1-year, 2-year, or 3-year license term. Those who engage in practices prohibited by the PACA may have their licenses suspended or revoked by USDA (7 CFR 46.9 (a)-(h)). Many of the licensees may be classified as small entities.
Wholesalers, processors, food service companies, grocery wholesalers, and truckers are considered to be dealers and subject to a license when they buy or sell more than 2,000 pounds of fresh and/or frozen fruits and vegetables in any given day. Dealers whose fruit and vegetable purchases or sales do not exceed the 2,000 pound threshold are exempt from the license requirement. A retailer is considered to be a dealer and subject to license when the invoice cost of its perishable agricultural commodities exceeds $230,000 in a calendar year. Brokers, negotiating the sale of frozen fruits and vegetables on behalf of the seller, are exempt from licensing in any calendar year when the invoice value of the transactions are below $230,000.
The 1995 Amendments grant USDA the authority to increase fees through rulemaking after November 14, 1998, provided that the PACA program's operating reserves fall below 25 percent of the projected annual program costs. The initial increase in receipts from fees collected following the enactment of the 1995 Amendments allowed the PACA fund to build up operating reserves. Those reserves peaked at $7.48 million in July 1998. However, due to the loss of revenue from retailers and grocery wholesalers over the past four years, PACA program budget projections for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 show that the program's assets will fall below the required 25 percent of projected expenditures in fiscal year 2001. Budget projections indicate that the program must generate approximately $9.101 million per year over each of the next five years for the program to stay above the 25 percent threshold. This equates to a $2.7 million per year increase in annual program revenues beginning with fiscal year 2000. Because 93 percent of the program's revenue is generated through the collection of license fees, a majority of these funds would have to be raised through an increase in license fees. Without a fee increase, the program will exhaust its reserves by the end of fiscal year 2003, and would soon need to begin reducing its level of services to the industry.
Accordingly, it will be necessary for USDA to implement a PACA fee increase in fiscal year 2001. A significant increase will be necessary to compensate for the loss of the license revenue from retailers and grocery wholesalers. When USDA proposed revisions to the PACA regulations implementing the 1995 Amendments (61 FR 47674, September 10, 1996), it noted that the next fee increase would need to be significant.
The following table outlines how the proposed fee increase would affect the PACA program's budget through fiscal 2006:
USDA officials have discussed this issue with representatives from numerous trade associations, most of whom expressed a preference for a single, significant fee increase, rather than a series of smaller increases implemented over several years to maintain the 25 percent reserve balance. Taking that into account, USDA is proposing an increase in the PACA license fee from $550 to $850. Branch fees would remain at $200 per branch, but the maximum fee would increase from $4,000 to $6,000. The proposed fees would result in total collections of $9.1 million with a projected end-of-year reserve of approximately 44 percent for fiscal year 2001, or about $1.75 million above the level needed to achieve a reserve of 25 percent. With this revenue, AMS expects that the PACA program should have adequate financing through fiscal year 2006 when the reserve is again projected to fall below 25 percent. In order to moderate the financial burden for small businesses, AMS is also proposing that very small businesses with gross sales of less than $1 million per year pay a license fee of $600, a modest increase of $50 from the current $550 license fee. In order to qualify for the $600 license fee, AMS may require that a firm submit a copy of its last income tax return filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Because very small businesses have limited financial resources, USDA believes that such a fee structure is more equitable for those firms and should increase the likelihood the firms would voluntarily comply with the PACA licensing requirements.
Although license fees account for the majority of PACA's funding, the program also collects about 3.5 percent of its revenue from fees charged to firms that submit disputes to the PACA branch for resolution. Under section 6(a)(2) of the Act, the Secretary may alter the complaint filing and handling fees by rulemaking. In order to help
Given the preceding discussion, AMS has made an initial determination that the provisions of this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces AMS' intention to request an extension for and revision to a currently approved information collection for the Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements under Regulations (Other Than Rules of Practice) Under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) (7 U.S.C. 499a-499t).
The law provides for the enforcement of contracts by providing a forum for resolving contract disputes, and a mechanism for the collection of damages from anyone who fails to meet contractual obligations and for excluding from the industry firms or individuals who violate the law's standards for fair business practices. In addition, the PACA imposes a statutory trust on licensees for perishable agricultural commodities received, products derived from them, and any receivables or proceeds due from the sale of the commodities for the benefit of produce suppliers, sellers, or agents that have not been paid.
The PACA is enforced through a licensing system and substantially through a license fee. All commission merchant, dealers, and brokers engaged in business subject to the PACA must be licensed. Retailers and grocery wholesalers must renew their licenses every three years. All other licensees have the option of a one, two, or three-year license term. Those who engage in practices prohibited by the PACA may have their licenses suspended or revoked.
The information collected from respondents is used to administer licensing provisions under the PACA. The records maintained are used to adjudicate contract disputes and administrative complaints filed against licensees to impose sanctions on firms and responsibly connected individuals who have engaged in unfair trade practices.
We estimate the paperwork and time burden on the above to be as follows:
Comments are invited on: (1) 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; (2) 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; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to 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. Comments may be sent to Charles W. Parrott, Acting Chief, PACA Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, Room 2095-So. Bldg., PO Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456. Email—charles.parrott@usda.gov. All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address.
All responses to this notice concerning reporting and recordkeeping requirements will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Agricultural commodities, Brokers, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Brokers.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR parts 46 and 47 are proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 46 continues to read as follows:
Sec. 15, 46 Stat. 537; 7 U.S.C. 499o.
2. In § 46.2, paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) are revised to read as follows:
(e)
(f)
(g)
3. Section 46.6 is revised to read as follows:
(a) Retailers and grocery wholesalers making an initial application for license shall pay a $100 administrative processing fee.
(b) Commission merchants, brokers, and dealers (other than grocery wholesalers and retailers), provided that they do not meet specific criteria of a very small business as set forth in paragraph (c) of this section, shall pay an annual license fee of $850 plus $200 for each branch or additional business facility in excess of nine. In no case shall the aggregate annual fees paid by any such applicant exceed $6,000.
(c) To qualify as a very small business and pay a license fee of $600, the business must have had gross sales of $1,000,000 in the immediate preceding calendar year. Any applicant may be required to provide a copy of its most recent income tax return filed with the Internal Revenue Service as verification that its gross sales are less than $1,000,000. In no case shall the aggregate annual fees paid by any such applicant exceed $6,000.
4. Part 46 is amended by removing the word “Deputy Administrator” and adding in its place the words “Associate Administrator”, everywhere they appear.
5. Part 46 is amended by removing the word “Division” and adding in its place the words “Fruit and Vegetable Programs”, everywhere they appear.
6. Part 46 is amended by removing the words “Director” and “Director's”, and adding in their place the words “Deputy Administrator” and “Deputy Administrator's” respectively, everywhere they appear.
1. The authority citation for part 47 is revised to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 499o; 7 CFR 2.22(a)(1)(viii)(L), 2.79(a)(8)(xiii).
2. In § 47.3, paragraph (a)(4) is revised to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(4) The informal complaint shall be accompanied by a filing fee of $100 as authorized by the Act.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This proposal would require repetitive inspections of the sliding tube subassembly on the main landing gear (MLG) to detect cracks, and replacement of a cracked subassembly with a new subassembly. This proposal also would eventually require a more extensive, one-time inspection of the same area and corrective actions, if necessary; which would terminate the repetitive inspections. This proposal is prompted by issuance of mandatory continuing airworthiness information by a foreign civil airworthiness authority. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent cracking of the MLG sliding tube subassembly, which could result in collapse of the MLG.
Comments must be received by March 16, 2000.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 99-NM-343-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. This information 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 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-343-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-343-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The Direction Ge
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-32-1189, dated December 23, 1998, which describes procedures for visual inspections of the MLG sliding tube subassembly for cracks, and corrective action, if necessary. Two separate inspections are described. The service bulletin describes procedures for repetitive visual inspections of the sliding tube subassembly around the area between the jacking dome bushing and the high pressure inflation valve, and between the jacking dome bushing and the hole for the lower electrical harness assembly; and procedures for replacing a cracked sliding tube subassembly with a new subassembly. The service bulletin also describes procedures for removal of the jacking dome, bushing, and harness supports, and a one-time visual inspection to detect cracking of the sliding tube subassembly in the area where the jacking dome bushing was removed.
Airbus has also revised the Aircraft Maintenance Manual to include cautions during accomplishment of the MLG nondestructive test inspection.
Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. The DGAC classified the Airbus service bulletin as mandatory and issued French airworthiness directive 1999-358-137(B) R1, dated October 20, 1999, in order to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France.
These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of § 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the DGAC, reviewed all available information, and 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 accomplishment of the actions specified in the Airbus service bulletins described previously, except as discussed below.
The proposed compliance times and repetitive intervals (stated in flight hours) differ from those recommended by the manufacturer's service bulletin (stated to coincide with operators' “A” and “C” checks). However, because regularly scheduled maintenance intervals such as “A” checks and “C” checks may vary from operator to operator, there would be no assurance that the inspections would be accomplished during the maximum intervals proposed by this AD designed to maintain an adequate level of safety within the fleet. The compliance times in the proposed AD and the French airworthiness directive agree.
In addition, operators should note that, although the service bulletin specifies that the manufacturer may be contacted for disposition of certain repair conditions, this proposal would require the repair of those conditions to be accomplished in accordance with a method approved by either the FAA or the DGAC (or its delegated agent). In light of the type of repair that would be required to address the identified unsafe condition, and in consonance with existing bilateral airworthiness agreements, the FAA has determined that, for this proposed AD, a repair approved by either the FAA or the DGAC would be acceptable for compliance with this proposed AD.
Further, the applicability of this proposed AD differs from that of the French airworthiness directive, which excludes airplanes on which (1) the MLG sliding tubes have never been removed, (2) the MLG sliding tubes have never received an NDT (NDT2) inspection, and (3) the MLG sliding tubes have received an NDT (NDT2) inspection with the attaching hardware and bushing removed from the sliding tube. Because these conditions may not be easily determined, the applicability of this proposed AD would be limited to airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1189 has not been accomplished.
The FAA estimates that 179 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD.
It would take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the proposed “Part A” (repetitive) inspection, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the Part A inspection proposed by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $10,740, or $60 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
It would take approximately 6 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed “Part B” (one-time) inspection, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the Part B inspection proposed by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $64,440, or $360 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the 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
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 AD applies to each airplane 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 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 cracking of the sliding tube subassembly of the main landing gear (MLG), which could result in collapse of the MLG, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, perform a detailed visual inspection to detect cracking of the left-hand and right-hand MLG sliding tube subassemblies, in accordance with paragraph 2.B.(1) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1189, dated December 23, 1998.
(1) If no crack is found, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 500 flight hours, until the requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD have been accomplished.
(2) If any crack is found, prior to further flight, replace the sliding tube subassembly with a new subassembly, in accordance with the service bulletin. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 500 flight hours, until the requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD have been accomplished.
For the purposes of this AD, a detailed visual inspection is defined as: “an intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.”
(b) Within 15 months after the effective date of this AD: Remove the jacking dome, the stop washer, the jacking dome bushing, and the harness supports; and perform detailed visual inspections to detect discrepancies (including cracking of the left and right MLG sliding tube subassemblies, and overheat damage of the jacking dome bushing), in accordance with paragraph 2.B.(2) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1189, dated December 23, 1998. Accomplishment of the requirements of this paragraph constitutes terminating action for the requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD.
(1) If no discrepancy is found, prior to further flight, install a new stop washer and jacking dome bushing, in accordance with the service bulletin. No further action is required by this AD.
(2) If any discrepancy is found, prior to further flight, repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate; or the Direction Ge
(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, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport 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, 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.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 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.
The subject of this AD is addressed in French airworthiness directive 1999-358-137(B) R1, dated October 20, 1999.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
This document proposes to amend the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) regulations, regarding National Service Life Insurance (NSLI) and Veterans Special Life Insurance (VSLI) by providing cash values for NSLI and VSLI term capped policies and further providing the options to receive either the cash value in a lump sum or to purchase paid-up insurance upon the termination of the contract before maturity.
Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2000.
Mail or hand-deliver written comments to: Director, Office of Regulations Management (02D), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420. Comments should indicate that they are in response to “RIN 2900-AJ35”. All written comments received will be available for public inspection at the above address in the Office of Regulations Management, Room 1158, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except holidays).
George Poole, Chief of Insurance Program Administration and Oversight, PO Box 8079, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101, (215) 842-2000, ext. 4286; (215) 842-2000, ext. 5012 (voicemail); (215) 381-3502 (fax); or e-mail at “issgpool@VBA.VA.GOV”.
Currently, approximately one percent of term capped policies are canceled each year by lapse or request and these
Term capped policyholders who reach age 96 are afforded the full face value of their policies because the mortality table upon which their premiums are based (American Experience Mortality Table) effectively matures these policies at age 96. Yet, if a policyholder cancels coverage at age 95, he or she would not receive any value. In order to remedy this, we are proposing to add section 8.37 to provide cash values for these term capped policies, which is in accordance with the practices in the commercial insurance industry.
Sufficient reserves have been established, not only to fund that NSLI “V” and VSLI “RS” 5-year level premium term rates so that they do not exceed their respective renewal age 70 premium rates (term capped policies), but also to provide cash values to these term premium capped policies. As illustrative of the reserves previously established to provide for cash values, at age 85, a “V” term capped policyholder with a $10,000 policy would accumulate $4,786 in cash value. We also believe that “V” and “RS” policyholders whose policies are canceled should be afforded the option to receive the cash value in a lump sum or to use that value to purchase paid-up insurance. This will afford policyholders the opportunity to retain some of the life insurance coverage which they may have had since the beginning of WWII. At age 85, a “V” policyholder who has accumulated $4,786 in cash value could purchase $6,109 in paid-up insurance.
The Secretary of Veterans' Affairs hereby certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-602. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this proposed rule is, therefore, exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirement of sections 603 and 604. The proposed regulation will affect only government life insurance policyholders. It will therefore have no significant direct impact on small entities in the terms of compliance costs, paperwork requirements or effects on competition.
Disability benefits, Life insurance, Loan programs—veterans, Military personnel, Veterans.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 38 CFR part 8 is proposed to be amended as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for part 8 continues to read as follows:
U.S.C. 501, 1901-1929, 1981-1988, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 8.37 is added to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1906)
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) adjudicates appeals from denials of claims for veterans' benefits filed with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This document proposes to amend the Board's Rules of Practice to clarify certain procedures relating to subpoenas.
Comments must be received on or before April 17, 2000.
Mail or hand-deliver written comments to: Director, Office of Regulations Management (02D), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., NW, Room 1154, Washington, DC 20420. Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to “RIN 2900-AJ58.” All written comments will be available for public inspection at the above address in the Office of Regulations Management, Room 1158, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except holidays).
Steven L. Keller, Chief Counsel, Board of Veterans' Appeals (0C1), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420 (202-565-5978).
VA has the authority to issue subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses and/or the production of evidence. 38 U.S.C. 5711 (authority of Secretary). This authority has been delegated to Members of the Board through Rule of Practice 711 (38 CFR 20.711), which also sets forth the relevant procedures, and generally provides that subpoenas will be issued pursuant to a motion filed with the Board, which is in turn decided by a Board Member or panel of Members.
The changes in this document relate to: (1) Where such a motion must be filed; (2) ruling on the motion; (3) service of a subpoena; (4) motions to quash or modify subpoenas; and (5) enforcing compliance with a subpoena.
Rule 711(c) would be amended to provide that motions for subpoenas must be filed at the Board's offices in Washington, DC.
When originally issued in 1992, Rule 711 permitted the Chairman of the Board and, under certain circumstances, Directors of VA field facilities to rule on motions for subpoenas. See 38 CFR 20.711(e) (1992). The Rule was amended in 1996 to transfer authority to rule on subpoena motions to Members of the Board to comply with changes in 38 U.S.C. 7102. See 61 FR 20447 (1996). However, corresponding provisions in paragraph (c) of the Rule allowing subpoena motions to be filed with VA facility Directors were not removed. Local filing may not allow a motion to reach the Board early enough to permit timely issuance of a subpoena. VA proposes removing the provision for local filing.
VA proposes amending Rules 711(e) and 711(h) to provide that the issue of the costs of producing documents pursuant to a subpoena will be a matter for a motion to quash or amend, rather than a potential condition of issuing the subpoena.
Rule 711(e) now permits a Member of the Board to condition issuance of a subpoena seeking the production of tangible evidence (subpoena duces tecum) upon the moving party's advancement of the reasonable cost of producing the evidence. Setting a requirement for paying costs before there is any demand for reimbursement or evidence upon which reasonable costs may be determined is often premature. Accordingly, this provision would be moved to Rule 711(h), relating to motions to quash or modify a subpoena. This will provide a mechanism for getting actual cost disputes and related evidence before the Board. This procedure is similar to the practice of VA's Board of Contract Appeals. See 38 CFR 1.783(u)(4). In addition, Rule 711(e) would specify the forms to be used for issuing the subpoena, if the motion is granted.
VA proposes amending Rules 711(f) and 711(g) to delete the reference to “the official issuing the subpoena,” since, under the Board's Rules of Practice, subpoenas are issued only by Members of the Board pursuant to a motion to the Board.
VA proposes amending Rule 711(h) to provide that motions to quash or modify a subpoena may be brought by either party, and to provide notice procedures and permit the submission of evidence in such cases.
Current Rule 711(h) does not provide an effective means of getting before the Board disputes between the person subpoenaed and the person who initiated the subpoena where the person who initiated the subpoena is the aggrieved party—for example, disputes about unreasonable demands for reimbursement for costs associated with honoring a subpoena duces tecum. Current Rule 711(h) does provide for a motion to quash or modify a subpoena, but only by the person served. Consistent with the Board of Contract Appeals' practice, see 38 CFR 1.783(u)(4), the motion may now be brought by either party. Other revisions in this part of the Rule include new provisions requiring notice of motions to quash or modify and permitting evidence to be submitted in such proceedings.
Proposed new paragraph (i) describes the method used to secure enforcement of the BVA's subpoenas.
The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This rule will affect VA beneficiaries and will not affect small businesses. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analyses requirement of sections 603 and 604.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Lawyers, Legal services, Veterans.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 38 CFR part 20 is proposed to be amended as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:
38 U.S.C. 501(a).
2. Section 20.711 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (c) and (e);
b. Revising the second sentence of paragraph (f);
c. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (g);
d. Revising paragraph (h); and
e. Adding paragraph (i).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(c)
(e)
(2)
(f) * * * A subpoena for a witness will not be issued or served unless the party on whose behalf the subpoena is issued submits a check in an amount equal to the fee for one day's attendance and the mileage allowed by law, made payable to the witness, as an attachment to the motion for the subpoena. * * *
(g) * * * The Board will serve the subpoena by certified mail, return receipt requested. * * *
(h)
(i) That a copy of the motion, and any attachments thereto, were mailed to the party who secured the subpoena, or the person subpoenaed, as applicable;
(ii) The date of mailing; and
(iii) The address to which the copy was mailed.
(2)
(i) That a copy of the response, and any attachments thereto, were mailed to the moving party;
(ii) The date of mailing; and
(iii) The address to which the copy was mailed. If the subpoena involves testimony or the production of tangible evidence at a hearing before the Board and less than 30 days remain before the scheduled hearing date at the time the response is received by the Board, the Board may reschedule the hearing to permit disposition of the motion.
(3)
(i)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County through the Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet for the purpose of establishing a federally enforceable district origin operating permit (FEDOOP) program. In the Final Rules Section of this
Written comments must be received on or before March 16, 2000.
All comments should be addressed to Gregory Crawford at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
Copies of the State submittal(s) are available at the following addresses for inspection during normal business hours:
Gregory Crawford, Regulatory Planning Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division at 404/562-9046.
For additional information see the direct final rule which is published in the Final Rules section of this
Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA.
Proposed rule.
Technical information or comments are requested on the proposed base (1% annual chance) flood elevations and proposed base flood elevation modifications for the communities listed below. The base flood elevations are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The comment period is ninety (90) days following the second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in each community.
The proposed base flood elevations for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the following table.
Matthew B. Miller, P.E., Chief, Hazards Study Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3461, or (email) matt.miller@fema.gov.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA or Agency) proposes to make determinations of base flood elevations and modified base flood elevations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed base flood and modified base flood elevations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, state or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings.
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows:
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, “Flood Insurance.”)
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document requests comment on a proposal to amend the Commission's rules which list the major television markets and their designated communities by adding the communities of Merced and Porterville, California to the hyphenated market of Fresno-Visalia-Hanford-Clovis, California (the “Fresno-Visalia market”). A joint petition was filed on March 16, 1988 and at least one of the petitioners has expressed continued interest in the Commission acting on this petition. The joint petitioners seek to add Merced and Porterville to the Fresno-Visalia market apparently to be able to assert network non-duplication rights and syndicated programming exclusivity on a hyphenated market basis. The requested action would also permit the acquisition of broadcast territorial exclusivity rights against television stations operating in Merced and in Porterville. In a related proceeding, Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. (“CC/ABC”), licensee of television station KFSN, Fresno, California, filed a request for amendment or waiver of § 76.51 of the Commission's rules to add the community of Merced to the Fresno-Visalia market. We address both petitions in this proceeding.
Comments are due on or before February 7, 2000 and reply comments are due on or before February 22, 2000.
Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies.
Carolyn Fleming at (202) 418-7200 or via Internet at cfleming@fcc.gov.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, DA 00-12, CS Docket No. 00-1, adopted January 4, 2000 and released January 7, 2000 (“Notice”). The full text of this Notice is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service (“ITS’), (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, or may be reviewed via Internet at
1. In this proceeding, we respond to a petition for rulemaking filed by Pappas Telecasting Incorporated (“Pappas”), licensee of television station KMPH(TV), Visalia, California, Retlaw Enterprises, Inc. (“Retlaw”), licensee of television station KJEO(TV), Fresno, California, and San Joaquin Communications Corp. (“San Joaquin”), licensee of television station KSEE(TV), Fresno, California, (collectively, the “Joint Petitioners”) to amend § 76.51 of the Commission's rules to add the communities of Merced and Porterville to the “Fresno-Visalia” market. (
2. Section 76.51 of the Commission's Rules enumerates the top 100 television markets and the designated communities within those markets. Among other things, this market list is used to determine territorial exclusivity rights under § 73.658(m) and helps define the scope of compulsory copyright license liability for cable operators. (See 47 CFR 73.658) Certain cable television syndicated exclusivity and network non-duplication rights are also determined by the presence of broadcast station communities of license on this list. Some markets consist of more than one named community (a “hyphenated market”). Such “hyphenation” of a market is based on the premise that stations licensed to any of the named communities in the hyphenated market do, in fact, compete with all stations licensed to such communities. (
3. In their petition, Joint Petitioners argue that the communities of Merced and Porterville are geographically and economically part of the Fresno-Visalia market. The communities are part of the Fresno-Visalia “area of dominant influence” or ADI and the Fresno-Visalia “designated market area” or DMA. Joint Petitioners maintain the communities in the Fresno-Visalia ADI consist of farming communities and the local agri-business results in a common social, cultural, and commercial market among them.
4. Joint Petitioners further argue that Porterville is served by television stations KMPH and KSEE, both of which place a Grade A signal over the community. Joint Petitioners maintain that the proposed television station would place a predicted Grade B signal over the communities of Clovis and Sanger and a significant portion of Fresno, a Grade A signal over Hanford, and a City Grade signal over Visalia. Joint Petitioners further state that each of the Fresno-Visalia commercial television stations, except KMSG-TV, Sanger, is carried on the Porterville cable system and all are received off-air by the system. Thus, the Joint Petitioners argue that the proposed television station belongs in the Fresno-Visalia market and would necessarily compete with other Fresno-Visalia stations for programming, advertising revenues, and audience share.
5. Similarly, with regard to Merced, Joint Petitioners state that the proposed television station would compete with television stations in the Fresno-Visalia market. The Joint Petitioners state that the proposed television station would place a predicted Grade A signal over a significant portion of the communities of Fresno and Clovis and would place a predicted Grade B signal over the community of Sanger and the remaining portion of Fresno. The Joint Petitioners concede that the Grade B signal would not cover the communities of Hanford and Visalia but maintain that the propagation characteristics of the terrain permits a strong signal in those communities. The Joint Petitioners further state that each of the television stations in the Fresno-Visalia market places a predicted Grade B signal over Merced, with the exception of KMPH. With regard to KMPH, the Joint Petitioners assert that the station evidences significant viewership in Merced because it has a net weekly circulation of over 50 percent in Merced County. The Joint Petitioners further assert that the three network affiliates, KFSN-TV, KJEO, and KSEE, and indpendent station KMPH, are carried on the Merced cable systems and are received off-air. Thus, the Joint Petitioners conclude that the proposed television station would be part of the Fresno-Visalia market and would compete with other Fresno-Visalia market stations for programming, advertising revenues, and audience share.
6. In this proceeding, we also address the petition filed by CC/ABC. CC/ABC, licensee of television station KFSN, Fresno, California, requests that the Commission add the community of Merced to the Fresno-Visalia market for, among other reasons, purposes of the network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules. CC/ABC maintains that Merced is geographically part of the greater Fresno area and shares common social, cultural, trade, and economic interests with other Fresno-Visalia market communities. UA Cable Systems of California (“UA”) filed an opposition to CC/ABC's petition arguing that Merced is 55 miles southeast of Fresno and thus geographically distant, and that Merced is not in the same market as Fresno-Visalia. To support its assertion that Merced and Fresno are in different markets, UA states that the two communities are in different areas according to data from the Metropolitan Statistical Areas (“MSAs”) and the Rand McNally Map of Trading Areas (“Trading Areas”). UA further states the television stations in the two communities do not compete for advertising revenues as evidenced by the fact that the
7. In the Notice, the Commission states its belief that a sufficient case for redesignation of the subject market has been set forth so that the proposal should be tested through the rulemaking process, including the comments of interested parties. In addition, the Commission states that the proposal and CC/ABC's request appears to be consistent with the Commission's policies regarding redesignation of a hyphenated television market.
The requirements proposed in this Notice have been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the “1995 Act”) and do not impose new or modified information collection requirements on the public.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Pursuant to §§ 4(i)-(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 USC 154(i)-(j), 303(c), (f), and (r), and 309(j), notice is hereby given of the proposed amendment to Part 76 of the Commission's rules, in accordance with the proposals, discussions, and statements of issues contained in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and that comment is sought regarding such proposals, discussions, and statements of issues. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of Public Affairs, Reference Operations division, shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of Small Business Administration, in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 USC 601
Federal Communications Commission.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of public hearings.
On January 13, 2000, FRA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings (Docket No. FRA-1999-6439). On the same date FRA released a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEIS) (Docket No. FRA-1999-6440) pertaining to the proposals contained in the NPRM. In both documents, FRA stated that public hearings would be held in a number of locations throughout the country. This notice provides information regarding combined hearings on the NPRM and DEIS to be held in: Washington, DC; Los Angeles, California; Pendleton, Oregon; Ft. Lauderdale, Florida; and Salem, Massachusetts. Further notices will be published and posted on FRA's web site (
1. Washington, DC on March 6, 2000;
2. Los Angeles area, California on March 15, 2000;
3. Pendleton, Oregon on March 17, 2000;
4. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida on March 28, 2000; and
5. Salem, Massachusetts on April 3, 2000.
All hearings will begin at 9:00 am. Please see Supplementary Information for further information concerning participation in the public hearings.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Ron Ries, Office of Safety, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6299); or Mark Tessler, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6038).
Any person wishing to provide testimony at one of the public hearings should notify FRA's Docket Clerk at the address above at least three working days prior to the date of the hearing. The notification should also provide either a telephone number or e-mail address at which the person may be contacted. If a participant will be representing an organization, please indicate that name of the organization.
FRA will attempt to accommodate all persons wishing to provide testimony, however depending on the number of people wishing to participate, FRA may find it necessary to limit the length of oral comments to accommodate as many people as possible. Participants may wish to submit a complete written statement for inclusion in the record, while orally summarizing the points made in that statement.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; 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), provide notice of the reopening of the comment period for the proposed delisting of the northern populations of the tidewater goby (
Comments from all interested parties must be received by March 31, 2000.
Send written comments and other materials concerning this proposal to Ms. Diane Noda, Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California 93003. You may inspect comments and materials received, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.
Carl Benz at the above address; telephone 805/644-1766; facsimile 805/644-3958.
The tidewater goby was first described in 1857 by Girard as
Crabtree's (1985) allozyme work on tidewater gobies from 12 localities throughout the range showed fixed allelic differences at the extreme northern (Lake Earl, Humboldt Bay) and southern (Canada de Agua Caliente, Winchester Canyon, and San Onofre Lagoon) ends of the range. The northern and southern populations are genetically distinct from each other and from the central populations sampled. The more centrally distributed populations are relatively similar to each other (Brush Creek, Estero Americano, Corcoran Lagoon, Arroyo de Corral, Morro Bay, Santa Ynez River, and Jalama Creek). Crabtree's results indicated that there is a low level of gene flow (movement of individuals) between the populations sampled in the northern, central, and southern parts of the range. However, Lafferty
Recently, David Jacobs (University of California, Los Angeles, Department of Organismic Biology, Ecology and Evolution,
The tidewater goby (
The tidewater goby inhabits coastal brackish water habitats entirely within California. Within the range of the tidewater goby, these conditions occur in two relatively distinct situations: (1) The upper edge of tidal bays, such as Humboldt, Tomales, and San Francisco bays near the entrance of freshwater tributaries, and (2) the coastal lagoons formed at the mouths of small to large coastal rivers, streams, or seasonally wet canyons, along most of the length of California. Few well-authenticated records of this species are known from marine environments outside of enclosed coastal lagoons and estuaries (Swift
The life history of tidewater gobies is linked to the annual cycles of the coastal lagoons and estuaries (Swift
Males begin digging breeding burrows 75 to 100 mm (3 to 4 in.) deep, usually in relatively unconsolidated, clean, coarse sand averaging 0.5 mm (0.02 in.) in diameter, in April or May (Swift
We published a proposed rule, with additional background information, to remove the northern populations of the tidewater goby from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife on June 24, 1999 (64 FR 33816). The original comment period closed on August 23, 1999. Significant new information regarding marine dispersal of tidewater gobies was brought to our attention late in the comment period, with additional information provided since the closing of that comment period. We require time to fully evaluate the information and to solicit further peer review of this proposal. We will solicit the opinions of appropriate and independent specialists regarding the data, assumptions, and supportive information presented for the proposed delisting of the tidewater goby per our Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities (59 FR 34270).
It is our intent that any final action resulting from this proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. All comments, including written and e-mail, must be received in our Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office by March 31, 2000. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threat (or lack thereof) to this species;
(2) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and population size of this species; and
(3) Current or planned activities in the range of this species and their possible impacts on this species.
The final decision on this proposal to delist the northern population of the tidewater goby will take into consideration the comments and any additional information we receive, and such communications may lead to a final regulation that differs from this proposal.
This rule does not include any collections of information that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
We have determined that an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon request from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see
Authors: The primary authors of this proposed rule are Grace McLaughlin and Carl Benz, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (805/644-1766).
The authority of this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) is soliciting comments on its proposal to revise the United States Standards for Grades of Frozen Field Peas and Frozen Black-Eye Peas. Specifically, USDA is proposing to provide for the “individual attributes” procedure for product grading with sample sizes, acceptable quality levels (AQL's), tolerances and acceptance numbers (number of allowable defects) to be included in the standards; and provide a uniform format consistent with other recently revised U.S. grade standards by adopting definitions for terms and replacing textual descriptions with easy-to-read tables. These changes have been requested by the industry in order to improve use of the standards.
Written comments may be submitted on or before April 17, 2000.
Written comments may be submitted to Randle A. Macon, Processed Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, STOP 0247, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456; faxed to (202) 690-1527; or e-mailed to Randle. Macon@usda.gov. Comments should reference the date and page number of this issue of the
The current United States Standards for Grades of Frozen Field Peas and Frozen Black-Eye Peas, along with the proposed changes, are available either through the above address or by accessing AMS's website on the Internet at www.ams.usda.gov/standards/. The United States Standards for Grades of Frozen Field Peas and Frozen Black-Eye Peas do not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Randle A. Macon at (202) 720-5021 or e-mailed to Randle. Macon@usda.gov.
Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade and packaging and recommend and demonstrate such standards to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices. . . .” AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and makes copies of official standards available upon request.
AMS is proposing to change the United States Standards for Grades of Frozen Field Peas & Frozen Black-Eye Peas using the procedures that appear in Part 36 of Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36). The grade standards were last revised in September 1996.
The Western Technical Advisory Committee of the American Frozen Food Institute petitioned the USDA to revise the U.S. grade standards for frozen field peas and frozen black-eye peas in 1997. It was requested that the “individual attributes” system of grading, be incorporated into the revision. “Individual attributes” provide statistically derived acceptable quality levels (AQL's) based on the tolerances in the grade standards.
The current standards are based on an older “attributes” model. It is proposed that the standards be modified to convert them to the improved “individual attributes” grading system, similar to the U.S. grade standards for canned green and wax beans (58 FR4295; January 14, 1993). This change would bring the standards in line with current marketing practices and innovations in processing techniques. In addition to these changes, the revision would modify the standards to present them in a simplified easy-to-use format. Consistent with recent revisions of other U.S. grade standards, definitions of terms and easy-to-read tables would replace the textual descriptions. These changes are intended to facilitate better understanding and more uniform application of the grade standards.
AMS is publishing this notice with a 60 day comment period which will provide a sufficient amount of time for interested persons to comment on the revision of the standard.
7 U.S.C. 1621-1627
The Department of Commerce (DOC) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 USC Chapter 35).
No forms are associated with the petition to review final refusal to publish a statutory invention registration or the petition to withdraw a publication request. The petition to review final refusal to publish a statutory invention registration is used by the public to petition the PTO's rejection of a request for a statutory invention registration. The PTO uses the petition to withdraw a publication request to review requests to stop publication of a statutory invention registration.
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Linda Engelmeier, Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, (202) 482-3272, Department of Commerce, Room 5027, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230 or via the Internet at (LEngelme@doc.gov).
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication to Peter Weiss, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20503.
Proposed collection; comment request.
The Department of Commerce, 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 proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before April 17, 2000.
Direct all written comments to Linda Engelmeier, Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 5027, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at LEngelme@doc.gov).
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Michael Hartz, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Room 2535-3—EPCD, Washington, DC 20233-6100; (301-457-2633).
The Census Bureau conducted three earlier National Employers Surveys (1994, 1995 and 1997) for the National Center on the Educational Quality of the Workforce (EQW), a nonprofit research group. This survey will be sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education and the National School-to-Work Office. These groups focus on discovering relationships among employment, hiring, training, education, and business success. This information collection seeks to build upon the results of the previous surveys.
This information collection goes beyond the previous National Employers Surveys in that it seeks to explore employees' histories and to identify employees' perceptions regarding employer-provided training and job-related educational requirements. The collection will relate these employees' responses to similar information collected from employers. The purpose is to identify those areas where employee and employer views are similar and where they are different. This information then will be used to suggest areas where additional emphasis regarding employer job requirements are needed to enable potential employees to qualify for employment.
This new survey will incorporate a telephone survey of employers that responded to the 1997 National Employers survey (NES-3) and a mail questionnaire to be sent to approximately 15,000 employees of a sample of the surveyed companies. During the telephone survey, employers will be asked to volunteer to participate in the employee survey. Companies which volunteer will be sent a package of 30 questionnaires along with instructions on how to distribute these questionnaires to a sample of their employees. The employees will fill out the questionnaires and send them back to the Census Bureau in postage paid envelopes provided. The questionnaire will include about 74 questions that solicit employees' views regarding employment qualifications and training opportunities available to them that relate to their employment. These survey questions are constructed to eliminate the need for respondents to review any records relating to the subject of this collection. We expect that each respondent will spend about 20 minutes completing the questionnaire.
The Census Bureau will conduct the NES 2000 using both a telephone survey and a mail questionnaire. The telephone survey will cover about 3,000 employers that provided information for the NES-3 in 1997. The telephone interview will last less than 30 minutes. During the telephone interview, the employer will be asked to participate in the employee survey. Although we expect more than 500 employers to volunteer for the employee survey, we will limit participation to 500. We will select employers so that we get a representative sample. Employers which volunteer to participate and are selected, will be sent a package of 30 questionnaires along with instructions on how to distribute these questionnaires to a sample of their employees. The employees will fill out the questionnaires and send them back to the Census Bureau in postage paid envelopes provided. The employee questionnaire will be distributed to approximately 15,000 employees. The questionnaire will consist of approximately 74 questions. Most questions will be constructed using a “check-box” format. The check boxes primarily will be questions requiring a “yes/no” or “on a range of 1 to 5” response.
Employees completing the questionnaires will send them directly to the Census Bureau, using pre-addressed, postage-paid return envelopes. Employers will not be allowed access to the questionnaires completed by the employees or the information reported on the questionnaires. Confidentiality is guaranteed by Title 13, United States
High participation rates for both the telephone survey of employers and the employee survey are crucial for statistically reliable data in the NES 2000. We have limited participation to 500 employers in order to keep the respondent burden and the costs of the survey, as low as possible. However, we expect that the responses from the employees of the 500 participating companies will be sufficient to provide useful and representative information. The Census Bureau has discussed survey participation with selected respondents from the NES-3. Nearly all of the business establishments we contacted stated that they would strongly consider participating in the survey. The businesses indicated that their decision to participate in a survey was primarily based on their perception of the usefulness of the requested information. The businesses are very interested in the issues of the survey. One business respondent said, “After all, these are our concerns, too.” Also, more 1997 respondents (employers) than in the previous two NES surveys told the interviewers that they wanted the results of the survey. Based on these factors (and especially the employer concerns about these workplace issues), we expect a sufficiently high rate of the employers from the NES-3 to participate in the NES 2000.
We plan to rely on the employers to select the sample of their employees and distribute the questionnaires to them. We will be talking to a few more respondents to help design an effective and comfortable operational design for selecting employees and distributing the materials. The Census Bureau is confident in the ability of the volunteering businesses to draw a reliable, random sample of employees, based on payroll records containing the Social Security number (which we may instruct them to use as the selection criterion).
The survey sponsors considered two designs for this survey. One was to measure only newly hired employees and address a set of issues that relate to that segment of the work force. Another was to survey employees across the board. When we asked about limiting the selection to “new hires,” several of the businesses thought that would pose a problem and recommended that we survey all their employees. We will work with a few of the potential respondents to determine how to impart our statistical requirements in written instructions.
Another concern we discussed was anonymity. Those businesses we consulted feel that employees are more likely to return the questionnaires with accurate responses if we can assure them that the employer would not see any of the responses and would not know if the employee had responded or not. Employees are very sensitive to access of their personal information, and we feel that good response will require that we provide assurance of confidentiality.
Anonymity, sampling of employees, and operational considerations will be considered during the 60-day comment period and we would particularly welcome any ideas or concerns on these issues.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Proposed collection; comment request.
The Department of Commerce, 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 proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before April 17, 2000.
Direct all written comments to Linda Engelmeier, Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 5033, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at LEngelme@doc.gov).
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to G. Daniel Sansbury, Census Bureau, Room 2105, FOB 4, Washington, DC 20233-6900, (301) 457-1321.
The Census Bureau conducts the Survey of Housing Starts, Sales, and Completions, also known as the Survey of Construction (SOC), to collect monthly data on new residential construction from a sample of owners or builders. The Census Bureau uses the Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) electronic questionnaires SOC-QI/SF.1 and SOC-QI/MF.1 to collect data on starts and completions dates of construction, physical characteristics of the structure (floor area, number of bathrooms, type of heating system, etc.), and if
The Census Bureau uses its field representatives to collect the data. The field representatives conduct interviews to obtain data.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Proposed collection; comments request.
The Department of Commerce, 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 proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 4 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
Written comments must be submitted on or before April 17, 2000.
Direct all written comments to Linda Engelmeier, Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 5027, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.(or via e-mail at LEngelme@doc.gov).
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Bob Wendling, STAT-USA, Department of Commerce, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 4886, Washington, DC 20230.
This information collection is necessary to help STAT-USA fulfill its mission of disseminating economic and statistical information to the business community and individual users. STAT-USA plans to survey its current customer base annually with a 25-question Customer Satisfaction Survey. STAT-USA plans to use a number of survey formats including mail, fax, on-line, and paper in order to ensure a high response rate. STAT-USA believes that regular communication with its customers, specifically feedback from the survey, will enable it to deliver its goods and services in the most user-friendly, economical and efficient manner. Only by knowing its customer base and its needs can STAT-USA continue to deliver the highest quality of collected economic and statistical information.
Primarily through the mail. Other vehicles may include fax and on-line through the Internet. Respondents would mail or fax surveys back to STAT-USA. An on-line survey could be in place on the World Wide Web allowing respondents to complete the survey and “submit” it to the STAT-USA server.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden including hours and cost of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimized the burden of the collection of information on respondents including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The Department particularly welcomes comments on the burden estimates to comply with the requirements, as well as the costs associated with it. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of initiation and preliminary results of changed-circumstances antidumping and countervailing duty administrative reviews, intent to revoke orders, and rescind administrative reviews.
In response to a request from the petitioners, Ispat Inland Inc. and Republic Technologies International LLC, that the Department of Commerce revoke the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products from the United Kingdom, we are initiating changed-circumstances administrative reviews and issuing this notice of preliminary results and intent to revoke the antidumping and countervailing duty orders retroactive to January 1, 1995. We also intend to rescind the ongoing antidumping and countervailing duty reviews covering the periods March 1, 1998, through February 28, 1999, and January 1, 1998, through December 31, 1998, respectively. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
January 1, 1995.
Rebecca Trainor or Kate Johnson (Antidumping); Dana Mermelstein or Jon Lyons (Countervailing), Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4007, (202) 482-4929, (202) 482-3208, and (202) 482-0374, 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, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR part 351 (April 1999).
On December 28, 1999, Ispat Inland Inc. and Republic Technologies International LLC (the petitioners) requested that the Department revoke the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products from the United Kingdom, retroactive to January 1, 1994, stating that they no longer have an interest in maintaining these orders. The petitioners represent domestic interested parties, and are successor companies to the petitioners in the less-than-fair-value and countervailing duty investigations. On January 5, 2000, the petitioners submitted a letter substantiating their claim that they represent more than 85 percent of domestic production and shipments of the subject merchandise. On February 2, 2000, petitioners amended their initial revocation request, and asked that revocation of the orders be retroactive to January 1, 1995, rather than to January 1, 1994.
The products covered by these reviews are hot-rolled bars and rods of nonalloy or other alloy steel, whether or not descaled, containing by weight 0.03 percent or more of lead or 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, in coils or cut lengths, and in numerous shapes and sizes. Excluded from the scope of this review are other alloy steels (as defined by the
Pursuant to section 751(d)(1) of the Act, the Department may revoke, in whole or in part, a countervailing or antidumping duty order based on a review under section 751(b) of the Act (i.e., a changed circumstances review). The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.216(d) require the Department to conduct a changed-circumstances review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221 if it decides that changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review exist. Section 782(h)(2) of the Act and § 351.222(g)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations provide that the Department may revoke an order (in whole or in part) if it determines that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product have no further interest in the order, in whole or in part. In addition, in the event that the Department concludes that expedited action is warranted, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3) permits the Department to combine the notices of initiation and preliminary results.
The petitioners are domestic interested parties as defined by section 771(9)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b). These parties indicated that they represent at least 85 percent of the domestic production of the domestic like product to which these orders pertain, and thus account for “substantially all” of the production of the domestic like product. Therefore, based on the lack of interest by the domestic industry in the continued application of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products from the United Kingdom, we are initiating these changed-circumstances reviews. Because of the pending antidumping and countervailing duty administrative reviews, we have determined that expedited action is warranted, and we are combining the notices of initiation and preliminary results. We have preliminarily determined that the petitioners' statement of no interest in the continuation of the orders constitutes changed circumstances sufficient to warrant revocation of the orders in whole. We are hereby notifying the public of our intent to revoke in whole the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain
If these preliminary results become final, we intend to rescind the current antidumping and countervailing duty administrative reviews of the orders, covering the periods March 1, 1998, through February 28, 1999, and January 1, 1998, through December 31, 1998, respectively (initiated on April 30, 1999 (64 FR 23269)).
If final revocation of the orders occurs, we intend to instruct the Customs Service to discontinue the suspension of liquidation and to refund any estimated antidumping and countervailing duties collected for all unliquidated entries of certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products from the United Kingdom entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 1, 1995. We will also instruct the Customs Service to pay interest on any refunds with respect to the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 1, 1995, in accordance with section 778 of the Act. The current requirement for a cash deposit of estimated antidumping and countervailing duties will continue until publication of the final results of these changed-circumstances reviews.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument (1) A statement of the issue, and (2) A brief summary of the argument. Any interested party may request a hearing within 10 days of the date of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held no later than 21 days after the date of publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Case briefs may be submitted by interested parties not later than 7 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 12 days after the date of publication of this notice. All written comments shall be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303 and shall be served on all interested parties on the Department's service list in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. Persons interested in attending the hearing should contact the Department for the date and time of the hearing. The Department will publish the final results of these changed-circumstances reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written comments.
We are issuing and publishing these determinations and notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and section 351.222 of the Department's regulations.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan.
On October 12, 1999, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on chrome-plated lug nuts from Taiwan.
(Insert date of publication in the
Nova Daly or Thomas Futtner, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0989 or (202) 482-3814, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (“the Act”) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (1999).
On December 12, 1996, the Department issued its “Final Scope Clarifications on Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts from Taiwan and the PRC.” The scope, as clarified, is described in the subsequent paragraph. All lug nuts covered by this review conform to the December 12, 1996 scope clarification.
The products covered by the order and this review are one-piece and two-piece chrome-plated and nickel-plated hug nuts from Taiwan. The subject merchandise includes chrome-plated and nickel-plated lug nuts, finished or unfinished, which are more than
The merchandise under review currently is classifiable under item 7318.16.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of this merchandise is dispositive.
Since the publication of the
We have determined that no changes to the preliminary results are warranted for purposes of these final results. The weighted-average dumping margins for the period September 1, 1997, through August 31, 1998 are as follows:
The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service. Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these final results for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash-deposit rate for the reviewed companies will be the rates listed above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, 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 LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous reviews or the original investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 6.93 percent, the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. The deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice 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 Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also 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(a)(3). 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.
We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative review.
On October 12, 1999, the Department of Commerce published the preliminary results of the administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on large newspaper printing presses and components thereof, whether assembled or unassembled, from Japan (64 FR 55243). These reviews cover Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. and Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd., manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States. The periods of review for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. are September 5, 1996, through August 31, 1997, and September 1, 1997, through August 31, 1998. The period of review for Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho is September 1, 1997, through August 31, 1998. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received and the correction of certain data, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final results for Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. are listed below in the “Final Results of the Review” section of this notice. For the reasons stated in the “Partial Rescission of Reviews” section of this notice, we have rescinded these reviews with respect to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
February 15, 2000.
Kate Johnson or Rebecca Trainor, Office 2, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Import Administration, Room B099, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4929, or (202) 482-4007, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Act are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the
On October 12, 1999, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the
On December 27, 1999, we published in the
On December 10, 1999, the respondent Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. (TKS) submitted comments on the
The products covered by these reviews are large newspaper printing presses, including press systems, press additions and press components, whether assembled or unassembled, whether complete or incomplete, that are capable of printing or otherwise manipulating a roll of paper more than two pages across. A page is defined as a newspaper broadsheet page in which the lines of type are printed perpendicular to the running of the direction of the paper or a newspaper tabloid page with lines of type parallel to the running of the direction of the paper.
In addition to press systems, the scope of these reviews includes the five press system components. They are: (1) A printing unit, which is any component that prints in monocolor, spot color and/or process (full) color; (2) a reel tension paster, which is any component that feeds a roll of paper more than two newspaper broadsheet pages in width into a subject printing unit; (3) a folder, which is a module or combination of modules capable of cutting, folding, and/or delivering the paper from a roll or rolls of newspaper broadsheet paper more than two pages in width into a newspaper format; (4) conveyance and access apparatus capable of manipulating a roll of paper more than two newspaper broadsheet pages across through the production process and which provides structural support and access; and (5) a computerized control system, which is any computer equipment and/or software designed specifically to control, monitor, adjust, and coordinate the functions and operations of large newspaper printing presses or press components.
A press addition is comprised of a union of one or more of the press components defined above and the equipment necessary to integrate such components into an existing press system.
Because of their size, large newspaper printing press systems, press additions, and press components are typically shipped either partially assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and are assembled and/or completed prior to and/or during the installation process in the United States. Any of the five components, or collection of components, the use of which is to fulfill a contract for large newspaper printing press systems, press additions, or press components, regardless of degree of assembly and/or degree of combination with non-subject elements before or after importation, is included in the scope of these reviews. Also included in the scope are elements of a LNPP system, addition or component, which taken altogether, constitute at least 50 percent of the cost of manufacture of any of the five major LNPP components of which they are a part.
For purposes of these reviews, the following definitions apply irrespective of any different definition that may be found in Customs rulings, U.S. Customs law or the
This scope does not cover spare or replacement parts. Spare or replacement parts imported pursuant to a LNPP contract, which are not integral to the original start-up and operation of the LNPP, and are separately identified and valued in a LNPP contract, whether or not shipped in combination with covered merchandise, are excluded from the scope of these reviews. Used presses are also not subject to this scope. Used presses are those that have been previously sold in an arm's-length transaction to a purchaser that used them to produce newspapers in the ordinary course of business.
Also excluded from the scope, in accordance with the Department's determination in the
1.
• Each tower consisting of four levels, one or more of which must be populated.
• Plate cylinders which contain slot lock-ups and blanket cylinders which contain reel rod lock-ups both of which are of solid carbon steel with nickel plating and with bearers at both ends which are configured in-line with bearers of other cylinders.
• Keyless inking system which consists of a passive feed ink delivery system, an eight roller ink train, and a non-anilox and non-porous metering roller.
• The dampener system which consists of a two nozzle per page spraybar and two roller dampener with one chrome drum and one form roller.
• The equipment contained in the color keyless ink delivery system is designed to achieve a constant, uniform feed of ink film across the cylinder without ink keys. This system requires use of keyless ink which accepts greater water content.
2.
3.
4.
5.
These reviews cover all current and future printing technologies capable of printing newspapers, including, but not limited to, lithographic (offset or direct), flexographic, and letterpress systems. The products covered by these reviews are imported into the United States under subheadings 8443.11.10, 8443.11.50, 8443.30.00, 8443.59.50, 8443.60.00, and 8443.90.50 of the HTSUS. Large newspaper printing presses may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 8443.21.00 and 8443.40.00. Large newspaper printing press computerized control systems may enter under HTSUS subheadings 8471.49.10, 8471.49.21, 8471.49.26, 8471.50.40, 8471.50.80, and 8537.10.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these reviews is dispositive.
On December 27, 1999, we published in the
On November 17, 1998, and on January 21, 1999, the petitioner requested that the Department determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed during the periods of review (POR). Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides for the Department, if requested, to determine during an administrative review initiated two or four years after the publication of the order, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign producer or exporter, if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an affiliated importer. In this case, TKS sold to the United States through an importer that is affiliated within the meaning of section 751(a)(4) of the Act.
Section 351.213(j)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that during any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping order, the Department will conduct a duty absorption review, if requested. Because these reviews were initiated two years after the publication of the order, we are making a duty absorption determination in this segment of the proceeding.
The Department's February 5, 1999, antidumping questionnaire requested proof that unaffiliated purchasers will ultimately pay the antidumping duties to be assessed on entries during the review periods. Although TKS did not respond to this request, we find that there is no duty absorption, because we have determined that there is no dumping margin with respect to TKS's U.S. sales.
TKS argues that the Department overstated the amount of constructed export price (CEP) profit in its preliminary margin calculations by failing to account for an amount for installation expenses incurred on the home market sales in the CEP profit calculation. TKS argues that, according to section 772(f)(2) of the Act, the Department is required to consider the “total expenses” incurred when calculating CEP profit. TKS points out that the Department has included installation expenses in the calculation of home market profit for purposes of determining constructed value (CV), and argues that the Department should revise its preliminary calculations to include installation costs in the CEP profit calculation as well.
We agree with TKS that installation expenses should have been accounted for in the calculation of CEP profit. When calculating CEP profit, we use the respondent's “total actual profit” for all sales of the subject merchandise and the foreign like product. Thus, the calculation includes all revenues and expenses resulting from the respondent's export price and home market sales.
TKS argues that the Department has overstated home market profit in its preliminary margin calculation by failing to properly account for direct and indirect selling expenses.
To determine a respondent's CV profit, we typically calculate a profit rate using the respondent's actual profit on home market sales made in the ordinary course of trade (see Comment 3 for more details). In determining the actual profit, we take into account direct and indirect selling expenses.
TKS contends that the Department has not sufficiently demonstrated that the LNPP additions sold in the home market during the POR constitute “the foreign like product,” as defined in section 771(16) of the Act. Therefore, TKS objects to the Department's preliminary calculation of CV profit based on above-cost home market sales in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act.
TKS states that the Department apparently has based its foreign like product determination on section
TKS argues that the Department's analysis of this issue, expressed in its September 30, 1999, Normal Value (NV) Memorandum does not support the Department's conclusion that LNPPs sold in the home market were “foreign like product” within the meaning of section 771(16). First, TKS states, the Department did not find that home market LNPPs were identical to those sold to the United States. Rather, TKS asserts, the Department found “great” physical differences in sub-component specifications. Thus, TKS concludes, the Department's foreign like product determination must have relied on section 771(16)(C). Although the Department concludes in its NV Memorandum that “the general product characteristics of LNPP systems are comparable enough for them to be considered foreign like product,” TKS complains that the Department does not reveal what “general product characteristics” it considered in making its determination. Furthermore, TKS argues, this conclusion conflicts with the Department's statement in the NV Memorandum that there are “great” physical differences between home market and U.S. LNPPs. TKS points out that the Department's methodology with respect to this issue is similar to that used in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation. Furthermore, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) has twice remanded to the Department this issue over the course of on-going litigation involving this case. TKS complains that, as in the court case, the Department has failed to point to any specific record evidence in support of its determination that home market LNPPs are “reasonably comparable” to LNPPs sold to the United States during the POR. Rather, the only analysis in the Department's memorandum supports the opposite conclusion—that the two are not reasonably comparable.
TKS further argues that the Department incorrectly relied on its home market viability determination as the basis for its foreign like product determination. TKS asserts that, in discussing home market viability in its NV Memorandum, the Department appears to consider the terms “foreign like product” and “general category of merchandise” to be interchangeable. TKS asserts that it is the Department's longstanding practice to make home market viability determinations based on the “class or kind of merchandise” rather than on the more narrow category of “foreign like product,” and cites to the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) at 821-822 (“the viability of a market will be assessed based on sales of all merchandise subject to an antidumping proceeding”). Therefore, the Department's reference to “foreign like product” in the memorandum is not credible, and does not alter the fact that there is no foreign like product. TKS claims that the Department's home market viability analysis was in fact based on “the same general class or kind of merchandise,” as it took into consideration all reported home market sales.
Finally, TKS argues that, since there is no basis for finding that the reported home market sales of LNPPs constitute foreign like product under section 771(16) of the Act, the Department should utilize an alternative methodology for calculating CV profit, as provided in section 773(e)(2)(B)(i). In so doing, it would not be necessary to exclude any below-cost home market sales as being outside the ordinary course of trade, in accordance with the SAA at 841, which states that cost tests are not applicable to a “general category of merchandise.”
We disagree with TKS's assertion that its home market sales of LNPPs are not “foreign like product” within the meaning of section 771(16)(C) of the Act. First, it is uncontested that TKS's home market LNPPs are produced in the same country (Japan) and by the same person (TKS) and are of the same general class or kind as the merchandise which is subject to investigation. Second, it is uncontested that TKS's home market LNPPs are like the subject merchandise in the purpose for which used (to produce newspapers). Third, the Department has determined that TKS's home market sales of LNPPs “may reasonably be compared” with the subject merchandise for purposes of calculating CV profit. As the Department explained in its September 30, 1999 Analysis Memorandum, “the general product characteristics of LNPP systems are comparable enough for them to be considered foreign like product.” Memorandum at 7. Contrary to TKS's claim, that same memorandum details the degree to which both respondents' home market and U.S. sales of LNPPs share the same general product characteristics.
Regarding TKS's claim that the Department incorrectly relied on its home market viability determination as the basis for its foreign like product determination, TKS's point is unclear. TKS is incorrect that the Department used the terms “foreign like product” and “general category of merchandise”
Nor do we believe there is any basis for TKS's claim that CV profit should be calculated pursuant to the alternative profit calculation methodology provided in section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The methodology employed by the Department—pursuant to section 773(e)(2)(A)—is the preferred method for calculating CV profit. The language of the Act supports the Department's conclusion that the alternative provisions for determining CV profit are available only “if actual data are not available with respect to the amounts described in” section 773(e)(2)(A).
TKS argues that check-out testing should be treated as movement expenses rather than as further manufacturing expenses, as the Department treated it in the preliminary results. TKS refers to its August 16, 1999 comments, in which it argued that the testing conducted for purposes of the Dallas Morning News (DMN) contract involved no manufacturing activities such as machining, forging, cutting, welding, or electronic assembly. TKS considers check-out testing to be the final stage of transporting the equipment to the ultimate customer, and must necessarily be done at the customer's installation site because the equipment must be dismantled for transportation due to its size. TKS points out that it did not provide the equipment installation services, a further indication that check-out testing should be treated as moving expenses for the DMN sale.
We disagree with TKS. We have continued to classify testing and technical service expenses as part of further manufacturing because the U.S. installation process (including check-out testing) involves extensive technical activities on the part of engineers and installation supervisors.
As a result of this review, we have determined that the following margin exists for TKS for the period September 1, 1997, through August 31, 1998:
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service. For entries of subject merchandise from TKS during the POR, we have calculated an importer-specific assessment rate by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all examined sales and dividing by the entered value of those sales. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries of that particular importer made during the POR. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct the Customs Service to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties all entries of the subject merchandise during the POR for which the importer-specific assessment rate is zero or
This notice 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.
The following deposit requirements shall be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise from Japan that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for TKS will be the rate established above in the “Final Results of the Review” section; (2) for previously investigated companies not listed above, 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, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash
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 353.34(d). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulation and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review.
On August 9, 1999, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil. This review covers four manufacturers/exporters of silicon metal from Brazil during the period July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998.
Based on our analysis of the comments received and the correction of certain ministerial errors, we have changed our results from those presented in our preliminary results as described below in the “
February 15, 2000.
Zev Primor or Tom Futtner, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office Four, Group II, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4114 and (202) 482-3814, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions as of January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (1999).
On August 9, 1999, the Department published its preliminary results of review of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil.
In October 1999, the Department conducted a sales and cost verification of Companhia Brasileira Carbureto De Calcio (“CBCC”), a respondent in the instant review. At verification, CBCC submitted minor corrections to the data used in the preliminary results of this review. A list of the corrections can be found in the public version of the Department's verification report, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), Room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building, under the appropriate case number.
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the verification report for CBCC and the preliminary review results. We received comments from CBCC and Eletrosilex Belo Horizonte (“Eletrosilex”). We also received comments from American Silicon Technologies, Elkem Metals Company, Globe Metallurgical, Inc. and SKW Metals & Alloys, Inc., (collectively, “the petitioners”) on December 10, 1999.
On December 22, 1999, CBCC, Eletrosilex, Ligas de Aluminio, S.A. (“LIASA”), and petitioners submitted rebuttal comments. Rima Industrial S/A did not submit a case or rebuttal brief. We held a public hearing on January 13, 2000, to give interested parties the opportunity to express their views directly to the Department. Based on our analysis of the comments received and the correction of certain ministerial and computer programming errors, we have made changes from the preliminary results, as described below in the “
The merchandise covered by this administrative review is silicon metal from Brazil containing at least 96.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon by weight. Also covered by this administrative review is silicon metal from Brazil containing between 89.00 and 96.00 percent silicon by weight but which contains more aluminum than the silicon metal containing at least 96.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon by weight. Silicon metal is currently provided for under subheadings 2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) as a chemical product, but is commonly referred to as metal. Semiconductor grade silicon (silicon metal containing by weight not less than 99.99 percent silicon and provided for in subheading 2804.61.00 of the HTS) is not subject to the order. Although the HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and for U.S. Customs purposes, the written description remains dispositive.
On August 9, 1999, the Department stated its intent to partially revoke the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil with respect to CBCC.
In accordance with the regulation described above, we must determine whether the company requesting revocation sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities in each of the three years forming the basis of the revocation request.
In the
CBCC claims that its 1995-1996 transaction quantities were not “abnormally small” because the quantity in individual U.S. transactions was greater than the quantity CBCC typically sells to home market customers. Although some of the individual U.S. transactions may have been larger in quantity than the average home market transaction, CBCC has not demonstrated that the transactions at issue represent the normal commercial quantity for its individual transactions to the United States. Moreover, we note that the number of sales transactions to the United States during the 1995-1996 review segment were significantly smaller than the number of sales transactions during the POR. In addition, the overall aggregate quantity of silicon metal sold in the United States during the 1995-1996 review period is very small when compared to the period of investigation (“POI”) in this case or other review segments. During the twelve months of the 1995-1996 review period, CBCC's sales to the United States amounted to approximately four percent of the shipments made during the six-month POI. When the POI sales are annualized, the 1995-1996 sales amount to about to
After review of the criteria outlined at §§ 351.222(b) and 351.222(d) of the Department's regulations, the comments of the parties, and the evidence on the record, we have determined that the requirements for revocation have not been met. Based on the final results of this review and the final results of the two preceding reviews, CBCC has demonstrated three consecutive years of sales at not less than NV. However, CBCC did not sell in commercial quantities in one of the periods that formed the basis of CBCC's revocation request. The abnormally low level of sales activity during that review period does not provide a reasonable basis for determining that the discipline of the antidumping duty order is no longer necessary to offset dumping. Therefore, because CBCC has not sold subject merchandise in commercial quantities during each of the three years of the revocation period, we find that CBCC does not qualify for revocation from the order on silicon metal from Brazil under 19 CFR 351.222.
As a result of the verification, we have corrected the following: (1) Inland freight for home and U.S. market sales; (2) U.S. brokerage and handling
We have revised Eletrosilex's cost of production (“COP”) and recalculated its constructed value (“CV”) profit rate and CV profit amount.
On December 21, 1999, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) upheld the Department's position during the investigative phase of silicon metal from Brazil that Brazil's ICMS taxes are properly included in the calculation of CV.
In this review, the Department used CV only in the case of Eletrosilex. We included ICMS taxes in the CV for Eletrosilex using the methodology outlined in
The petitioners, citing
Eletrosilex argues that petitioners are mistaken in their assertion that the Department's standard practice is to rely only upon audited financial statements when calculating financial expenses. Eletrosilex, citing
Eletrosilex reported that Silex Trading and Silex International do not have audited financial statements, nor does the parent corporation prepare consolidated financial statements. At the Department's direction, Eletrosilex prepared a consolidated statement of income for Silex Trading and its subsidiaries, including Eletrosilex. The data for Eletrosilex was taken directly from Eletrosilex's audited financial statements as reported in its questionnaire response. Further, the data for Silex Trading and its other subsidiaries were reconciled to Silex Trading's balance sheet and statement of income as provided in Eletrosilex's July 6, 1999, Response to the Department's Supplemental Questionnaire. Therefore, we are satisfied as to the veracity of the financial information submitted by the respondent and have used this information in the calculation of Eletrosilex's financial expenses for purposes of these final results of review.
The petitioners argue that when calculating financial expenses, the Department should not consolidate Eletrosilex's audited financial information with the unaudited financial information of its affiliates. Citing
In addition, the petitioners note that in response to the Department's request that Eletrosilex recalculate its financial expenses exclusive of inter-company transactions, Eletrosilex provided the Department with a worksheet containing both the financial information for Eletrosilex and the combined financial information of Eletrosilex and Silex Trading. The petitioners argue that there is no evidence demonstrating that Eletrosilex excluded inter-company transfers from the financial information provided in the worksheet.
Eletrosilex argues that the Department's standard practice has been to consolidate the financial expenses of affiliated parties. Eletrosilex notes that the Department's questionnaire instructs affiliated companies to report consolidated financial expenses. Eletrosilex argues that it provided consolidated financial information in the manner requested, pursuant to the Department's instructions that Eletrosilex “recalculate your financial expenses based on {the cost of} goods sold (“COGS”) of Silex Trading and its subsidiaries, after eliminating inter-company transactions.”
Eletrosilex argues that
Contrary to the petitioner's arguments, the situation in this case differs from that in
In the instant proceeding, Silex Trading was the majority owner of Eletrosilex during the POR. Silex Trading handled the financing arrangements for all of Eletrosilex's sales in third-country markets and arranged for letters of credit on all sales to the United States during the POR.
The petitioners argue that the Department erred in calculating Eletrosilex's COP, by using Eletrosilex's reported cost of manufacturing (“COM”). The petitioners state that Eletrosilex incorrectly offset its COM by subtracting an amount for total revenue (inclusive of ICMS taxes received) from the sale of by-products. The petitioners, citing
Eletrosilex argues that because it pays more ICMS taxes than it collects, its collection of ICMS taxes is real revenue which it retains. Therefore, Eletrosilex argues that the full amount of revenue received should offset its COM.
The petitioners, citing
In addition, the petitioners state that the Department used an understated amount for total home market sales revenue for CBCC when calculating a weighted-average profit rate to apply to Eletrosilex. Therefore, for the final results, the petitioners assert that the Department should correct the understatement of CBCC's profit.
Eletrosilex did not comment on this issue.
The petitioners, citing
Eletrosilex did not comment on this issue.
Eletrosilex argues that the Department erred in rounding Eletrosilex's G&A ratio when calculating COP and CV. For the final results, Eletrosilex argues that the Department should use the G&A ratio, as rounded to two digits past the decimal points.
The petitioners did not comment on this issue.
Eletrosilex argues that the Department should not have denied “loans to shareholders” as a financial revenue offset to financial expenses. Eletrosilex states that its “loans to shareholders” account contains short-term interest payments from Silex Trading. Eletrosilex states that because Silex Trading arranges letters of credit for Eletrosilex's third-country sales, the payment goes directly to Silex Trading. Eletrosilex explains that Silex Trading then sends the payment to Eletrosilex and the delay in payment is viewed as a short-term loan on which Silex Trading pays Eletrosilex interest. Eletrosilex argues that the short-term nature of this loan is evidenced in a Mutual Loan Agreement (“Agreement”) entered into by Eletrosilex and Silex Trading. The Agreement provides that the interest charges be calculated monthly, the current account balance be adjusted and reviewed quarterly and that the debt balance be fully paid at the expiration of the one year agreement. Therefore, for these final results, Eletrosilex argues that the “loans to shareholders” item should have been granted as an offset to its financial expenses.
The petitioners argue that the Department correctly denied the offset to Eletrosilex's financial expenses because the investment income derived from “loans to shareholders” was not short-term. The petitioners, citing the
Eletrosilex states that its “interest on trade bills” account contains interest on late payments by customers who purchased by-products from Eletrosilex. Eletrosilex argues that because the Department denied the offset to financial expenses for “interest on trade
The petitioners argue that the first time Eletrosilex made a claim for this adjustment was in its case brief. The petitioners argue that, according to the Department, it does not make adjustments when the request for the adjustment is not made until the case brief. Additionally, the petitioners argue that Eletrosilex reported an amount for “interest on trade bills” for periods outside of the POR, while it reported cost information for the POR. Therefore, the petitioners claim that Eletrosilex did not provide the Department with the information needed to adjust COM. Additionally, the petitioners contend that Eletrosilex has the burden of establishing its right to reduce financial expenses by such interest income. However, the petitioners claim that Eletrosilex did not explain or provide documentation demonstrating how income from “interest on trade bills” was generated. Moreover, petitioners maintain that in the 1994-1995 administrative review, the Department denied CBCC's request for an adjustment to COP for revenue received from the sale of by-products, because CBCC first made the request in its case brief and because CBCC did not substantiate its claimed offsets. Therefore, for these final results, petitioners argue that the Department should not reduce Eletrosilex's COM for any “interest on trade bills” accounts.
Eletrosilex states that its “obtained discounts “ contains discounts paid to Eletrosilex by its suppliers of materials and equipment. Eletrosilex, citing the
The petitioners claim that in the
In addition, we disagree with the respondent's assertion that if we deny this item as an offset to financial expenses, we should recognize this amount as an adjustment to COM. The respondent made this claim for adjustment to COM for the first time in its case brief in this review even though the Department expressly instructed Eletrosilex in a supplemental questionnaire that “purchase discounts should be classified as a reduction to the reported direct material costs if they relate to materials used to manufacture silicon metal.”
The petitioners argue that the Department should exclude all or certain sales made by LIASA to its U.S. customer, alleging that the circumstances of the sales were not in the normal course of business.
The petitioners reason that the Department has the authority to exclude from its margin calculations U.S. sales that are distortive, atypical or unrepresentative of the seller's normal market behavior, (
The petitioners cite
According to the petitioners, LIASA reported a minimal amount of transactions during the POR, which were all sold to the same customer at prices that were substantially higher than prices reported by other respondents in the review. Citing
The petitioners contend that not only did LIASA's U.S. customer buy its product at prices well above the market price, it could have purchased the same product from other U.S. producers at substantially lower prices. Additionally, the quantity of each individual sale was far below the shipment size reported by other respondents in the review.
LIASA claims that there is no legal basis for the Department to exclude LIASA's sales from the administrative review. According to LIASA, the CIT has never held that the Department has authority to exclude U.S. sales from an administrative review, and contends that the petitioners ignore the distinction in necessary criteria for such an action in an administrative review versus the less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) stage of the proceeding.
LIASA notes that the cases that the petitioners cited,
As for the facts of this case, LIASA points out that the petitioners have failed to provide any evidence that the sales made by LIASA were not
Finally, in response to allegations by petitioners that it had arranged for artificial sales during the POR, LIASA argues that any correspondence between LIASA and its U.S. customer indicates only that the client and the company were aware of the antidumping order at the time of sale, not that LIASA and its client were circumventing the antidumping order.
We note that a small number of sales transactions in a review segment does not compel the conclusion that the transactions are not
The principal arguments put forth by the petitioners for excluding LIASA's sales to its U.S. customer rest on the premise that the price of the merchandise sold and the subsequent small quantities of merchandise delivered were not consistent with LIASA's ordinary course of business. Although the petitioners attempt to call into question the commercial validity of LIASA's sales by raising such factors as the price of identical merchandise in the United States during the same time period, they do not provide or cite to any evidence on the record of the instant review that supports the conclusion that these transactions are not
The petitioners claim that the Department's finding in the preliminary determination that CBCC has had zero or
CBCC claims that at the time the Department issued its preliminary determination, the final remand results for the 1994-1995 administrative review were not issued. Additionally, the CIT has not yet approved the Department's Remand Results. In fact, CBCC has asked the CIT to remand these results once again to the Department in order to re-calculate financial expenses. According to CBCC, these remand results will not be final until the CIT approves them.
The petitioners challenge the accuracy of the Department's statement that “CBCC maintained zero or
CBCC states that the petitioners' current claim (that CBCC received zero or
The petitioners assert that the Department's finding that CBCC's sales in three of the four years in which CBCC maintained zero or
CBCC rejects the petitioners' argument and claims that to its knowledge, the Department has never annualized POI sales for revocation purposes. In fact, CBCC argues that the petitioners cite no Department precedent to support their argument. The one case cited,
The petitioners claim that under § 351.222(d)(1) of the Department's regulations, before revoking an order, the Department must determine that the company requesting revocation sold the subject merchandise to the United States in commercial quantities during each of the three consecutive years forming the basis for the request for revocation. Consistent with § 351.222(d)(1), the petitioners' claim that the Department has determined that a respondent does not satisfy this prerequisite for revocation when the respondent did not sell the subject merchandise in commercial quantities in the U.S. market during any one of the three consecutive years forming the basis for the respondent's request for revocation.
According to the petitioners, a company requesting revocation must demonstrate that it participated meaningfully in the U.S. market during each of the three consecutive years at issue. In other words, the Department must be satisfied that the zero or
The petitioners further state that since the Department erroneously examined CBCC's sales volumes in four consecutive years, the first of which (the 1994-1995 review segment) did not form the basis for CBCC's request for revocation, the preliminary decision to revoke the order with respect to CBCC is contrary to both the Department's regulations and Department practice. In other words, in finding that CBCC had sales in commercial quantities during three of the past four consecutive reviews, the Department sidestepped finding whether CBCC had sales in commercial quantities during each of the three years forming the basis for revocation, as required by its regulations
The petitioners also add that once the Department bases its analysis of commercial quantities on the three most recent consecutive review periods, it will find that during the 1995-1996 review period, the quantities sold in the U.S. market were abnormally small both when compared to other review periods as well as when compared to the POI and to home market sales. Specifically, according to the petitioners, since the sales during the 1995-1996 review period represent only four percent of the volume of sale made during the POI (or two percent when annualized), they do not represent commercial quantities. Therefore, the petitioners argue that CBCC's request for revocation should be denied.
In contrast, CBCC states that the Department did not find the 1995-1996 sales quantity to be “an abnormally small quantity,” as portrayed by the petitioners, but merely not as extensive as in the other years. Further, CBCC claims that the petitioners' allegation that the zero margin the Department calculated for the 1995-96 review was not based on sales in commercial quantities is without merit for two reasons. First, even though the quantity exported in 1995-1996 was smaller than that exported in each of the other reviews on which the revocation request is based, it is greater than the quantity reported in each of the four prior reviews for which the Department calculated dumping margins, with the exception of the 1994-1995 review period. Thus, the quantity reported for 1995-1996 is a reliable indicator of CBCC's commercial behavior in the U.S. market and of its ability to compete without sales at less than NV.
Second, the situation in the 1995-1996 review is distinguishable from those recent instances in which the Department denied revocation on the basis of a lack of sales in commercial quantities. In
Additionally, citing
In a second decision regarding pure magnesium from Canada,
In addition, CBCC states that the Department based its preliminary determination on the fact that “CBCC shipped progressively more in each of those three years . . .” The evidence on the record shows that this statement is true whether the Department considers four years or three years. CBCC's sales to the United States increased significantly in each successive review, from four percent in 1995-1996 to 45 percent in 1996-1997, and 70 percent in 1997-1998, of the quantity shipped in the POI. Additionally, CBCC emphasizes that while its sales volume increased progressively in the last two reviews, it maintained zero or
Also, CBCC notes that the review period during which it had its lowest sales volume to the United States is 1995-1996, which, according to the petitioners, corresponded to the largest increase in silicon metal prices since the order was issued. In contrast, CBCC shipped increasing volumes in the two periods during which silicon metal prices declined significantly, at prices that were found by the Department to be not less than NV. CBCC believes that this information is more meaningful to the Department's revocation analysis than if CBCC had shipped large volumes of silicon metal at not less than NV during the period of increasing prices and small volumes during the two periods of declining prices.
Therefore, for the above reasons, CBCC believes it satisfied the requirement of selling subject merchandise in commercial quantities to the United States during each of the consecutive years for which the Department calculated zero or dumping margins.
Both parties submitted comments regarding future likelihood of dumping.
CBCC claims that the Department should reduce CBCC's COP by the amount of ICMS tax credits used to pay for electricity utilized in the production of silicon metal. CBCC claims that in the immediately preceding administrative review of this order covering the period of 1996-1997 (sixth administrative review), the Department stated that the Brazilian government allows companies to recover the amount of ICMS tax paid on purchases by retaining ICMS taxes collected on home market sales of finished products or by reducing payments on electricity costs. Further, CBCC states than even though a company does not record the ICMS tax credits as a cost in its records, the credits reflect actual expenditures (to
According to CBCC, if a respondent recovers in a subsequent POR some or all of the ICMS tax credits that were generated during the POR, this should be taken into account in calculating costs for that subsequent period, not the current POR. CBCC states that this is consistent with the Department's practice, citing
CBCC concludes that the Department incorrectly failed to account for the field ICMSOFFSET (which represents tax credits used to pay electricity costs) in calculating the revised COP (“RCOP”) variable in its preliminary determination. According to CBCC, since the Department verified that CBCC paid electricity with ICMS tax credits during the POR, the amount reported by CBCC under ICMSOFFSET should be deducted from CBCC's COP for the final determination.
The petitioners argue that the Department has never expressed any intention to reduce COP for ICMS tax credits used to pay for electricity. The only support CBCC cites for its argument is language from the final results of the immediately preceding (1996-1997) administrative review regarding the treatment of ICMS taxes in calculating CV. However, in those final results, the Department did not address the treatment of ICMS taxes in calculating COP. Instead, the Department determined that:
By comparison, with respect to calculating COP, the petitioners believe that the Department's practice is to exclude ICMS taxes from both the COP and home market prices used in the sales-below-cost analysis. Consistent with this practice, CBCC reported its direct materials costs, including electricity costs, exclusive of ICMS taxes, and the Department used these tax-exclusive direct materials costs in calculating CBCC's COP for the sales-below-cost analysis. Thus, according to the petitioners, because ICMS taxes paid by CBCC on direct materials, including electricity, are not included in the COP used in the sales-below-cost analysis, it would be erroneous to reduce COP by any ICMS tax credits used to pay for electricity.
Moreover, with respect to the calculation of COP, petitioners argue that the plain language of section 773(b)(3) of the Act provides that COP includes,
Further, the petitioners claim that electricity is an important input in the production of silicon metal. Consistent with the statutory mandate, the Department's established practice is to include the cost of electricity in COP. Thus, under section 773(b)(3) of the Act, and Department practice, CBCC's full cost of electricity must be included in COP. The price CBCC paid to acquire electricity is reflected on the monthly invoices from CBCC's electricity supplier. The ICMS tax credits CBCC used to pay for electricity do not reduce CBCC's electricity cost,
Additionally, according to the petitioners, under the Brazilian tax law, ICMS tax credits may be used to pay for electricity, or equipment, or be used to reduce monthly ICMS tax liability to the Brazilian government for ICMS tax collected on home market sales or be carried forward for future use. Moreover, CBCC's financial statements list “Taxes Recoverable,” which as Explanatory Note 5 demonstrates, include ICMS tax credits under the category “Current Assets.” Thus, ICMS tax credits were assets of CBCC and were expended for electricity, just as if they were another type of asset, such as cash.
When CBCC used ICMS credits for electricity, it reduced the amount of credits available for it to spend on equipment or to carry forward for future use, as provided for in the ICMS statute. Hence, CBCC's use of the ICMS credits, which were assets of CBCC, was a “dimunition in . . . assets,” constituting a “sacrifice made to secure” the “benefit” of electricity. In sum, the petitioners argue that it is clear that the portion of CBCC's electricity cost that was paid for by ICMS tax credits is part of CBCC's total cost of electricity, as reflected in the monthly invoices of its electricity supplier. For these reasons, pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, the petitioners assert that the full amount of CBCC's electricity cost, as reflected on the invoices of its electricity supplier (without any reduction for ICMS tax credits used to pay for the cost) must be included in CBCC's COP.
Furthermore, the petitioners claim, that in this review, CBCC's NV is based on home market prices, not CV. Thus, the treatment of ICMS tax credits CBCC used to pay for electricity in calculating CBCC's CV is irrelevant to the Department's calculation of CBCC's dumping margin in this review. For this reason, the Department does not need to and should not address the issue of the treatment of ICMS tax credits CBCC used to pay for electricity in calculating CBCC's dumping margin for the final results.
CBCC focuses solely on the Department's language in the prior administrative review, where we stated,
Thus, ICMS tax credits that are generated during the POR but that are not used during the POR to either offset tax collection or to pay electricity costs, represent un-reimbursed expenditures or costs for the POR. If a respondent recovers in a subsequent POR some or all of the ICMS tax credits that were generated during the POR, this should be taken into account in calculating costs for the subsequent period, not the current POR.
Since CBCC used tax credits to pay for electricity in the current review, it
With respect to the calculation of COP, consistent with the past practice, when conducting the sales-below-cost analysis, the Department compared both COP and the home market price on an ICMS tax-exclusive basis. Accordingly, the Department did not reduce COP by the amount of the ICMS tax credits.
CBCC claims that the Department should add interest revenue to U.S. price when calculating net price (NETPRIU). CBCC claims that the Department verified that CBCC received interest revenue on U.S. sales, as reported in its submissions. The petitioners did not comment on this issue.
CBCC claims that when the Department compared the net U.S. price to the foreign unit price in dollars (FUPDOL), we double-counted U.S. direct selling expenses in the SAS computer program. The petitioners did not comment on this issue.
As a result of this review, we have determined that the following margins exist for the period April 1, 1997 through March 31, 1998:
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
For duty assessment purposes, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates for silicon metal from Brazil. For CEP sales, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the estimated entered value of the same sales to that importer. We calculated the estimated entered value by subtracting international movement expenses and expenses incurred in the United States from the gross sales value. For assessment of EP sales, for each importer, we calculated a per unit importer-specific assessment amount by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of the sales examined.
The following deposit requirements shall be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from Brazil that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates listed above, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the most recent final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this proceeding, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the manufacturer of the merchandise in these final results of review or in the most recent final results of review in which that manufacturer participated; and (4) if neither the exporter or the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be 91.06 percent, the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. These requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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 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 351.105(a). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulation and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Commerce.
Notice.
The Secretary of Commerce approved Federal Information Processing Standard 186-2, Digital Signature Standard (DSS), which supersedes Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 186-1, Digital Signature Standard (DSS), FIPSs 186-2 expands FIPS 186-1 by
This standard is effective June 27, 2000.
Ms. Elaine Barker (301) 975-2911, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, STOP 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930.
Specifications for FIPS 186-2 are available on NIST Web page: <http://csrc.nist.gov/encryption>.
Copies of ANSI X9.31, Digital Signatures Using Reversible Public Key Cryptography, and ANSI X9.62, Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) are available from the American Bankers Assoc./DC, X9 Customer Service Dept. P.O. Box 79064, Baltimore, MD 21279-0064; telephone 1-800-338-0626.
Under Section 5131 of the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 and the Computer Security Act of 1987, the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to approve standards and guidelines for the cost effective security and privacy of sensitive information processed by federal computer systems. In May 1994, the Secretary of Commerce approved FIPS 186, Digital Signature Standard (DSS), which specified the Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA) as the single technique for the generation and verification of digital signatures. In 1997 NIST solicited comments on augmenting FIPS 186 with other digital signature techniques including the Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) and the elliptic curve technique. The comments received by NIST supported adding both techniques to FIPS 186. Both techniques were being considered by the financial services industry as voluntary industry standards.
On December 15, 1998, (FR Vol. 63, No. 240, pp 69049-51) NIST announced that the Secretary of Commerce had approved FIPS 186-1, Digital Signature Standard (DSS) as an interim final standard. FIPS 186-1 added the RSA digital signature technique, which had been approved as an industry standard (X9.31-1998, Digital Signatures Using Reversible Public Key Cryptography for the Financial Services Industry). The elliptic curve technique was not included in the interim final standard since it had not yet been approved by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) as a voluntary industry standard.
The December 1998 Notice from NIST invited comments from public, academic and research communities, manufacturers, voluntary standards organizations, and Federal, state, and local government organizations concerning the specification of two techniques (DSA and ANSI X9.31-1998) for the generation and verification of digital signatures. That Notice also referred to the elliptic curve technique, which NIST had expected to be approved by ANSI as a voluntary industry standard. In addition to being published in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of determination of noncompliance; notice of declaration of a moratorium.
In accordance with the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act of 1993 (Act), 16 U.S.C. 5101
The moratorium will become effective on June 15, 2000, through a separate rule unless, by June 1, 2000, the State of Rhode Island adopts and implements measures to return to compliance with the Commission's ISFMP for tautog. If the State of Rhode Island adopts and implements the measures required by the ISFMP for tautog, the Secretary will publish an appropriate announcement in the
Richard H. Schaefer, Chief, Staff Office for Intergovernmental and Recreational Fisheries, NMFS, 301-427-2014.
The Act was enacted to support and encourage the development, implementation, and enforcement of the Commission's ISFMPs to conserve and
On November 19, 1999, the Secretary received a letter from the Commission prepared pursuant to section 806(b) of the Act. The Commission's letter stated that the State of Rhode Island's tautog regulations did not meet the provisions of the Commission's ISFMP, and, therefore, the Commission found the State of Rhode Island out of compliance with the ISFMP as described here:
The Commission found that the State of Rhode Island has not implemented and is not enforcing the Commission's ISFMP for tautog because it has failed to adopt recreational bag limits for tautog that can be effectively evaluated by the Commission as meeting the mortality reduction requirements of the ISFMP.
Under the ISFMP, states are required to implement and enforce management measures that will achieve an interim fishing mortality target of F=0.24, with an ultimate target of F=0.15.
To meet these targets, the ISFMP recommends that possession and seasonal limits be imposed which are consistent for all recreational fishing modes. Rhode Island's recreational bag limits for tautog differ between fishing modes. Upon review of Rhode Island's analysis of its management plan, the Commission's Tautog Technical Committee determined that there was insufficient quantitative data available to effectively determine whether the State's management plan met the overall mortality targets of the Commission's ISFMP. Since the mortality targets of the ISFMP are essential to the conservation of the tautog resource, and it could not be determined whether these targets would be achieved under Rhode Island's current management scheme, the Commission found that the State is not in compliance with the ISFMP.
The Commission's letter also suggested that the Secretary use his discretionary authority under the Act to delay the date of the moratorium for up to 6 months, because the State of Rhode Island is making an effort to come into compliance. The letter stated that Rhode Island is taking action to be in compliance with the Commission ISFMP for tautog by the start of the 2000 tautog season (May 2000).
Based on a careful analysis of all relevant information, and taking into account comments presented by the State of Rhode Island and the New England Fishery Management Council, the Secretary has determined that the State of Rhode Island is not in compliance with the Commission's ISFMP for tautog. This determination is based on Rhode Island's failure to adopt recreational bag limits for tautog that can be effectively evaluated by the Commission as meeting the mortality reduction requirements of the ISFMP. Therefore, Rhode Island must implement and enforce a recreational bag limit consistent with the ISFMP in order to come back into compliance. Further, the Secretary has determined that implementation and enforcement of a recreational bag limit that can be shown to meet the fishing mortality targets is necessary for the conservation of the resource. Although the State of Rhode Island is not in compliance with the Commission's ISFMP for tautog, because Rhode Island is making expeditious efforts to promulgate regulations that would bring the state into compliance by the start of the 2000 tautog season (May 2000), the Secretary is delaying implementation of the moratorium until June 15, 2000. If the State of Rhode Island adopts and implements measures bringing the state into compliance, the Secretary will publish an appropriate announcement in the
NMFS will notify the Governor of Rhode Island of this action.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of test program.
The Department of Defense is amending its Test Program for Negotiation of Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans to update the regulatory cite reflected in the test program under “III. Program Requirements” for Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) coverage of source selection. DFARS coverage of source selection is found at Subpart 215.3.
February 15, 2000.
Mr. Ivory Fisher, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSADBU), Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology & Logistics), 1777 North Kent Street, Suite 9100, Arlington,VA 22209, telephone (703) 588-8616, telefax (703) 588-7561.
In accordance with Section 834 of Public Law 101-189, as amended, the Department of Defense (DoD) established a Test Program for
The revised test plan is as follows:
This document implements Section 834 of Public Law 101-189, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991, as amended. The primary purpose of the Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plan Test Program (the Program) is to determine whether the negotiation and administration of comprehensive small business subcontracting plans will reduce administrative burdens on contractors while enhancing subcontracting opportunities for small business concerns and small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals under Department of Defense (DoD) contracts.
The Program is established pursuant to Section 834 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991, as amended.
A. The Program shall be conducted from October 1, 1990, through September 30, 2005.
B. The selection of contractors for participation in the Program shall be in accordance with Section 811(b)(3) of the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 1996, Public Law 104-106. Eligible contractors are large business concerns at the major (total) corporate level that, during the preceding fiscal year:
1. Were performing under at least three DoD prime contracts; furnished supplies or services (including professional services) to DoD, engaged in research and development for DoD, or performed construction for DoD; and were paid $5,000,000 or more for such contract activities; and
2. Achieved a small disadvantaged business (SDB) subcontracting participation rate of 5 percent or more during the preceding fiscal year. However, this requirement does not apply to the eight original contractors accepted into the Program. Additionally, a large business with an SDB subcontracting participation rate of less than 5 percent during the preceding fiscal year may request, through the designated contracting activity, to participate in the Program if the firm submits a detailed plan with milestones leading to attainment of at least a 5 percent SDB subcontracting participation rate by September 30,
C. Contractors selected for participation shall:
1. Be eligible in accordance with paragraph III(B);
2. Establish their comprehensive subcontracting plans on the same corporate, division or plant-wide basis under which they submitted the Standard Form (SF) 295 during the preceding fiscal year, except that a division or plant that historically reported through a higher-level division, but would meet the criteria of paragraph III(B)(2), shall be permitted to participate in the Program if the lower-level division, plant or profit center can demonstrate a 5 percent or greater subcontract performance level with SDB concerns;
3. Have reported to DoD on the SF 295 for the previous fiscal year, except as provided in paragraph III(C)(2);
4. Accept an SDB goal for each fiscal year of not less than 5 percent, or an SDB goal that is in accordance with the milestone established under paragraph III(B)(2);
5. Comply with the requirements of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Subpart 215.3 for source selection purposes;
6. Offer a broad range of subcontracting opportunities;
7. Voluntarily agree to participate; and
8. Have at least one active contract that requires a subcontracting plan at the designated DoD buying activity responsible for negotiating the Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan.
A. The comprehensive small business subcontracting plan shall address each of the 11 elements set forth in paragraph (d) of the clause at FAR 52.219-9, “Small Business Subcontracting Plan.”
1. The subcontracting plan, percentage and corresponding dollar goals for awards to small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business and women-owned small business concerns shall be developed by the contractor for its entire business operation in support of all DoD contracts and subcontracts under DoD contracts regardless of dollar value.
2. Participating contractors shall include separate specific goals and timetables for the awarding of subcontracts in two industry categories which have not historically been made available to small business and small disadvantaged business concerns. These industry categories will be recommended by the contractor and approved by the contracting officer. Subcontract awards made in support of the specific industry categories shall also count towards attainment of the overall small business and small disadvantaged business goals.
3. The subcontracting plan shall set forth the prime contractor's actions to publicize prospective subcontract opportunities for small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business and women-owned small business concerns.
B. Subcontracting plans to be established under the Program shall be submitted each year by participating contractors to the designated contracting officer 45 days prior to the end of the Government's fiscal year (September 30). However, new contractors requesting participation under the Program shall submit subcontracting plans to the contracting officer as far in advance as possible to the beginning of the fiscal year in which the contractor proposes to participate.
A. The Service Acquisition Executive within each military department and defense agency having contractors that meet the requirements of paragraphs III(B) and (C) shall designate at least three but not more than five contracting activities to participate in the Program. In selecting the contracting activities to participate in the Program, the Service Acquisition Executive shall ensure that the designated activities cover a broad range of supplies and services.
B. The designated contracting activity will accomplish the following:
1. With the coordination of the Director, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, for their military department or defense agency, select as many eligible prime contractors (at least five) for participation under the Program as deemed appropriate.
2. Establish a “Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plan” negotiating team(s) composed as follows:
a. A contracting officer(s) who will be responsible for negotiation and approval of the comprehensive subcontracting plan(s) as well as the responsibilities at FAR 19.705.
b. The contracting activity's Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization Specialist.
c. The Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization Specialist of the cognizant contract administration activity that administers the preponderance of the selected prime contractor's contracts and/or the appropriate individual who will administer contractor performance under the test in accordance with FAR 19.706 and the provisions herein.
d. Production specialist, price analyst and other functional specialists as appropriate.
C. The designated contracting officer shall:
1. Encourage prime contractors interested in participating in the program to enter the program on a plant or facility basis.
2. Solicit proposed comprehensive subcontracting plans from selected contractor(s) as soon as possible and by July 1, annually thereafter.
3. By October 1, and annually thereafter, review, negotiate and approve on behalf of DoD a comprehensive subcontracting plan for each selected contractor.
4. Distribute copies of the approved subcontracting plan in accordance with paragraph VI(A).
5. Upon negotiation and acceptance of the comprehensive subcontracting plan, obtain from the contractor:
a. A listing of all active DoD contracts that contain individual subcontracting plans required by Section 211 of Public Law 95-507.
b. The listing shall include the following:
i. Contract number.
ii. Name and address of the contracting activity.
iii. Contracting officer's name and phone number.
6. Upon receipt of the information provided by the participating contractor under paragraph V(C)(4), direct the designated administrative contracting officer to issue a comprehensive change order, which modifies all of the contractor's active DoD contracts that include subcontracting plans. The modification will substitute the contractor's approved comprehensive subcontracting plan for the individual plans, will substitute the clause at DFARS 252.219-7004 for the clause at FAR 52.219-9, and will delete the clauses at FAR 52.219-10 and 52.219-16 and DFARS 252.219-7003 and 252.219-7005, as appropriate.
7. Review annually, with the contract administration activity, the contractor's performance under the plan. Document the review findings and distribute, in accordance with paragraph VI(A), within 45 days of the end of the fiscal year.
8. By November 15 of the year after acceptance, and annually thereafter, determine whether the contractor has met its comprehensive subcontracting goals. If the goals have not been met, determine whether there is any indication that the contractor failed to make a good faith effort and take appropriate action.
9. By December 15, 2005, prepare and submit a report on each participating contractor's performance which details the results of the Program. The report must compare the contractor's performance under the Program with its performance for the three fiscal years prior to acceptance into the Program. The report distribution will be in accordance with paragraph VI(A).
D. Participating contractors:
1. Shall establish their comprehensive subcontracting plans on the same corporate, division or plant-wide basis under which they submitted the SF 295 during the preceding fiscal year, except that those contractors that historically reported through a higher headquarters can elect to participate as a separate (lower-level) reporting profit center, plant or division if the contractor achieved an SDB subcontracting performance rate of 5 percent or greater in the preceding fiscal year.
2. Upon negotiation of an acceptable comprehensive subcontracting plan, shall be exempt from individual contract-by-contract reporting requirements for DoD contracts and subcontracts under DoD contracts unless otherwise required in accordance with paragraph III(C)(5).
3. Shall continue individual contract reporting on non-DoD contracts.
4. Shall comply with the flow-down provisions of Section 211 of Public Law 95-507 for large business subcontractors which are not participating in the Program. Consequently, large business concerns which are not participating in the Program receiving a DoD subcontract in excess of $500,000 ($1,000,000 for construction) are required to adopt a plan similar to that mandated by the clause at FAR 52.219-9. Participating contractors are prohibited from flowing down the “Comprehensive” subcontracting deviation provisions of DFARS 252.219-7004. Accordingly, large business subcontractors to the participating contractors who themselves are not participating in the Program shall be required to establish individual subcontracting plans with specific goals for awards to small business, small disadvantaged business and women-owned small business concerns.
5. Upon expulsion from the Program or Program termination on September 30, 2005, shall negotiate and establish individual subcontracting plans on all future DoD contracts that otherwise meet the requirements of Section 211 of Public Law 95-507.
A. Upon negotiation and acceptance of comprehensive subcontracting plans and goals, the designated activity shall immediately forward one copy of the plan to each of the following:
1. Director, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logisitcs), 1777 North Kent Street, Suite 9100, Arlington, VA 22209.
2. Director, Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, for the military department or defense agency of the activity that negotiated and accepted the comprehensive subcontracting plan.
3. The cognizant contract administration office.
B. Each participating contractor shall complete the SF 295 “Summary Subcontract Report” in accordance with the instructions on the back of the form on a semi-annual basis, except as noted below:
1. One copy of the SF 295 and attachments shall be submitted to Director, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics), 1777 North Kent Street, Suite 9100, Arlington, VA 22209.
2. Participating contractors shall enter in Item 14 Remarks block the annual corporate, division or plant-wide small business, small disadvantaged business and women-owned small business percentage and corresponding dollar goals.
3. Participating contractors shall also enter separately in Item 14 the percentage and corresponding dollar goals for each of the two selected industry categories (see paragraph IV(A)(2)).
4. Participating contractors shall also enter separately in Item 14 on a semi-annual cumulative basis the percentage and corresponding dollar amount of subcontract awards made in each of the two selected industry categories.
5. Participating contractors shall be exempt from the completion of SF 294 “Subcontract Report For Individual Contracts” for DoD contracts during their participation in the Program.
Defense Finance and Accounting Service.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service announces the proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 17, 2000.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to the Denver Center, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, DFAS-DE/FRS, ATTN: Jo Westberg, 6760 E. Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80279.
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the above address, or call Jo Westberg, 303-676-8754.
The form will be used by the Directorate of Annuity Pay, Defense Finance and Accounting Service—Denver Center (DFAS-DE/FRB), in order to establish and start the annuity for a potential child annuitant. When the form is completed, it will serve as a medical report to substantiate a child's incapacity. The law requires that an unmarried child who is incapacitated must provide a current certified medical report. When the incapacity is not permanent a medical certification must be received by DFAS-DE/FRB every two years in order for the child to continue receiving annuity payments.
Defense Finance and Accounting Service.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service announces the proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 17, 2000.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to the Cleveland Center, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, DFAS-CL/G, ATTN: Ms. Sharon Winn, 1240 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, OH 44199-2055.
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the above address, or call Ms. Sharon Winn, 216-522-5396.
When members of the uniformed services are declared mentally incompetent, the need arises to have a trustee appointed to act on their behalf with regard to military pay matters. Individuals will complete this form to apply for appointment as a trustee on behalf of the member. The requirement to complete this form helps alleviate the opportunity for fraud, waste and abuse of Government funds and member's benefits.
Defense Finance and Accounting Service.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service announces the proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 17, 2000.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to the Cleveland Center, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, DFAS-CL/G, ATTN: Ms. Sharon Winn, 1240 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, OH 44199-2055.
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the above address, or call Ms. Sharon Winn, 216-522-5396.
When members of the uniformed services are declared mentally incompetent, the need arises to have a trustee appointed to act on their behalf with regard to military pay matters. Trustees will complete this form to report the administration of the funds received on behalf of the member. The requirement to complete this form helps alleviate the opportunity for fraud, waste and abuse of Government funds and member's benefits.
Notice.
The Department of Defense will submit to OMB for emergency processing, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Mr. Springer at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, or by fax at (703) 604-6270. Requests for the collection proposal should include an e-mail address, if possible. Due to the length of the survey instruments, we will provide the surveys as attachments to an e-mail, although a paper copy will be provided as necessary.
Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of P.L. 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.
Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604-6575.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 00-24 with attached transmittal and policy justification.
Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Pub. L. 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.
Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604-6575.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 00-25 with attached transmittal and policy justification.
Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Pub. L. 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.
Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604-6575.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 00-26 with attached transmittal, policy justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Pub. L. 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.
Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604-6575.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 00-27 with attached transmittal and policy justification.
Notice of meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and summary agenda for the next meeting of the Panel to Assess the Capabilities for Domestic Reponse to Terrorist Attacks Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction. While a small portion of the meeting will be open to the public, the bulk of the meeting will be closed due to the need to discuss classified information, consistent with 5 U.S.C. Appendix II, Section 10(d) and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1). Notice of this meeting is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. (Pub. L. 92-463).
March 29, 2000.
The Pentagon, Room 2E 527, Washington, DC.
Panel to Assess the Capabilities for Domestic Response to Terrorist Attacks Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction will meet in closed session from 9:00 a.m. until 4:45 p.m. on March 29, 2000. The meeting will be open for public from 4:45 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. The closed portion of the meeting will include classified briefings on the threat of domestic WMD terrorist attacks and on response capabilities. Time will be allocated as noted for public comments by individuals or organizations.
RAND provides information about this Panel on its web site at http://www.rand.org/organization/nsrd/terrpanel; it can also be reached at (202) 296-5000 extension 5282. Public comment presentations will be limited to two minutes each and must be provided in writing prior to the meeting. Mail written presentations and requests to register to attend the open public session to: Priscilla Schlegel, RAND, 1333 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005. Public seating for this meeting is limited, and is available on a first-come, first-served basis.
United States Air Force (USAF) Museum System; DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the United States Air Force Museum System announces the proposed revision of a currently approved public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 17, 2000.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to the United States Air Force Museum, 1100 Spaatz Street, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7192, ATTN: Ms. Bonnie Holtmann, Volunteer Services Administrator.
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the above address, or call the Volunteer Services Office at (937) 255-8099, extension 313.
Respondents are individuals expressing an interest in participating in the USAF Museum System Volunteer Program authorized by 10 U.S.C. 81, Section 1588 and regulated by Air Force Instruction (AFI) 84-103. AFI 84-103, paragraph 3.5.3 requires the use of AF Form 3569. AF Form 3569 provides the most expedient means to secure basic personal information (i.e., name, telephone number, address and experience pursuant to USAF Museum System Volunteer Program requirements) to be employed solely by the USAF Museum System Volunteer Program to recruit, evaluate and make work assignment decisions. AF Form 3569 is the only instrument that exists which facilitates this purpose. The USAF Museum Volunteer Program is an integral function in the operation of the USAF Museum System. Volunteers provide valuable time, incalculable talent, skill and knowledge of USAF aviation history so that all visitors to the many USAF Museum System facilities throughout the United States may enjoy the important contribution of USAF historical heritage.
The Air University Board of Visitors will hold an open meeting on April 16-19, 2000, with the first business session beginning at 8:00 a.m. in the Air University Conference Room at Headquarters Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base (AFB), Alabama (5 seats available).
The purpose of the meeting is to give the board an opportunity to review Air University educational programs and to present to the Commander, a report of
For further information on this meeting, contact Dr. Dorothy Reed, Chief of Academic Affairs, Air University Headquarters, Maxwell AFB, Alabama 36112-6335, (334) 953-5159.
The AFIT Subcommittee of the Air University Board of Visitors will hold an open meeting on March 26-28, 2000, with the first business session beginning at 8:30 a.m. in the Commandant's Conference Room, Building 125, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (AFB), Ohio (5 seats available).
The purpose of the meeting is to give the board an opportunity to review AFIT's educational programs and to present to the Commandant a report of their findings and recommendations concerning these programs.
For further information on this meeting, contact Ms. Beverly Houtz, Directorate of Resources, Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433, (937) 255-5760.
Department of Education.
The Leader, Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 17, 2000.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.
The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from
Written comments or questions regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Joseph Schubart at (202) 708-9266 or via his internet address Joe_Schubart@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Department of Education.
The Leader, Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 16, 2000.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Danny Werfel, Desk Officer, Department of Education, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or should be electronically mailed to the internet address DWERFEL@OMB.EOP.GOV.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Information Management Group, Office
Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from
Questions regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Kathy Axt at (703) 426-9692 or via her internet address Kathy_Axt@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Department of Energy.
Notice of Open Meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Rocky Flats. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Thursday, March 2, 2000; 6:00 p.m.-9:30 p.m.
College Hill Library (Front Range Community College), 3705 West 112th Avenue, Westminster, CO.
Ken Korkia, Board/Staff Coordinator, Rocky Flats Citizens Advisory Board, 9035 North Wadsworth Parkway, Suite 2250, Westminster, CO 80021; telephone (303) 420-7855; fax (303) 420-7579.
1. Update from the Environmental Protection Agency
2. Board comments on Rocky Flats closure plan assumptions
3. Discussion of DOE and Kaiser-Hill revised contract
4. Presentation on controlled burns at Rocky Flats
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP). Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Thursday, March 9, 2000; 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Friday, March 10, 2000; 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Wilson Hall, First Floor 1 North and 1 West, Batavia, Illinois 60510.
John E. Metzler, Executive Secretary; High Energy Physics Advisory Panel; U.S. Department of Energy; 19901 Germantown Road; Germantown, Maryland 20874-1290; Telephone: 301-903-2979.
Thursday, March 9, 2000, and Friday, March 10, 2000.
• Discussion of Department of Energy High Energy Physics Programs
• Discussion of National Science Foundation Elementary Particle Physics Program
• Report on Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Programs
• Discussion of High Energy Physics University Programs
• Reports on and Discussion of U.S. Large Hadron Collider Activities
• Reports on and Discussions of Topics of General Interest in High Energy Physics
• Public Comment (10-minute rule)
Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.
Notice of Orders.
The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy gives notice that it has issued Orders granting, amending and vacating natural gas, including liquefied natural gas, import and export authorizations.
These Orders are summarized in the attached appendix and may be found on the FE web site at http: //www.fe.doe.gov., or on the electronic bulletin board at (202) 586-7853. They are also available for inspection and copying in the Office of Natural Gas & Petroleum Import & Export Activities, Docket Room 3E-033, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9478. The Docket Room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
DOE/FE AUTHORITY
On February 16, 2000 the Office of Pipeline Regulation (OPR) staff will inspect Algonquin Gas Transmission Company's (Algonquin) proposed route and potential alternative routes for the Fore River Project in Norfolk County, Massachusetts. The areas will be inspected by automobile. Representatives of Algonquin will accompany the OPR staff. Anyone interested in participating in the site visits must provide their own transportation.
For additional information, contact Mr. Paul McKee of the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (202) 208-1088.
Take notice that on January 19, 2000, Central Maine Power Company (CMP or Central Maine) provided unredacted copies of a Hydro Quebec Entitlement Agreement (Entitlement Agreement) between CMP and Select Energy, Inc. (Select), in compliance with the Commission's January 11, 2000 Order Denying A Request for Confidential Treatment.
CMP reiterates its request for a final non-appealable order on or before February 22, 2000.
CMP states that copies of the filing have been sent to Select and the Maine Department of Public Utilities Commission.
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 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before February 18, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 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).
Take notice that on February 4, 2000, CNG Transmission Corporation (CNG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with an effective date of January 10, 2000.
CNG states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the Commission's January 7, 2000 letter order in this proceeding. Pursuant to the order, the Commission accepted CNG's tariff filing, effective January 10, 2000, subject to refiling the tariff sheets in conformity with the Commission's letter order.
CNG states that copies of its letter of transmittal and enclosures are being served upon its customers and to interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to protest this 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 as provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 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/
Take notice that on February 4, 2000, Columbia Gulf Transmission Company (Columbia Gulf) submitted its administrative tariff filing in Docket No. RP00-171-000. As explained in the transmittal letter, the purpose of this tariff filing was to reflect various administrative revisions to its currently effective FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1.
Subsequent to the January 28, 2000 tariff filing, Columbia Gulf Gas learned that one of the tariff sheets that was submitted as part of the filing was included in error. Columbia Gulf respectfully requests permission from the Commission to withdraw Tariff Sheet No. 216 from Columbia Gulf's January 28, 2000 administrative tariff filing. Columbia Gulf further requests that the Commission accept the remaining tariff sheets as filed and place these tariff sheets into effect as of March 1, 2000, as requested in the January 28, 2000 filing.
Columbia Gulf states further that copies of this filing have been mailed to all of its customers and affected state regulatory commissions.
Any person desiring to protest this 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 as provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 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 21, 2000, Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company, Trunkline Gas Company, Trunkline LNG Company and Southwest Gas Storage Company each filed revised standards of conduct in response to the Commission's December 22, 1999 order.
Each company states that it has served copies of its filing to each of its affected customers and state commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filings should file a motion to intervene or a protest in each proceeding with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 or 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). All such motions to intervene or protest should be filed on or before February 24, 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. 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 be viewed on the web at
Take notice that the following filings have been made with the Commission:
Take notice that on February 2, 2000, Consolidated Edison, Inc. and Northeast Utilities filed an amendment to their Joint Application of the Jurisdictional Subsidiaries for Approval of Mergers filed on January 14, 2000.
Take notice that on January 31, 2000, pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824b (1998) and Part 33 of the Regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), 18 CFR 33 et seq., Black River Limited Partnership (Applicant) filed an application for Commission approval of the sale and lease transactions with respect to the transmission facilities and books, records, and accounts associated with the sale and leasing of the Ft. Drum Project, located at the Ft. Drum Army Base near Watertown, New York. Applicant requests that the Commission grant any other authorizations necessary to effectuate the proposed transactions.
Applicant also has requested that the Commission find that it will no longer be deemed to be a “public utility” as such term is defined under sction 201 of the FPA upon consummation of the sale and lease transactions. Applicant has requested a shortened notice period and expedited consideration of the application.
Take notice that on February 2, 2000, Duquesne Light Company and Orion Power MidWest, LLC (Orion Power MidWest) (collectively, Applicants)
A copy of the Application was served upon the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.
Take notice that on February 3, 2000, CP&L Holdings, Inc. and Florida Progress Corporation on behalf of themselves and their FERC-jurisdictional subsidiaries (collectively, the “Applicants”) tendered for filing pursuant to Sections 203 and 205 of the Federal Power Act and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations thereunder a Joint Application For Authorization to Merge Facilities and Related Transactions. The Applicants have requested that a Commission order authorizing the merger as proposed by the Applicants be issued no later than June 30, 2000.
The Applicants also tendered for filing the following agreements, each of which is proposed to become effective upon consummation of the merger:
A Joint Open Access Transmission Tariff of Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) and Florida Power Corporation (FPC), pursuant to which transmission services will be supplied over their combined transmission facilities at non-pancaked rates.
A System Integration Agreement between CP&L and FPC, pursuant to which the electric utility operations of the combined system will be coordinated for the purposes of attaining efficiencies and economies.
The merger is structured so that Florida Progress Corporation will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of CP&L Holdings, Inc. CP&L and FPC will each retain their own identities as public utilities and their current service territories.
The Applicants state that they have submitted the information required by Part 33 of the Commission's Regulations, 18 CFR Part 35, and the Commission's Merger Policy Statement, Order No. 592, III FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,044 (1996),
On February 3, 2000, Louisiana Generating LLC filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to section 32(a)(1) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA). The applicant is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware that will be engaged directly and exclusively in owning and operating eligible facilities and selling electric energy at wholesale. Applicant will be acquiring from Cajun Electric Power Cooperative gas and coal-fired generating units with a total generating capacity of 1,711 MW, located in New Roads, Louisiana.
Take notice that on February 3, 2000, Bonnie Mine Energy, LLC filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to section 32(a)(1) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. The applicant is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware that is engaged directly and exclusively in developing, owning, and operating an approximately 800 MW gas-fired combined-cycle power plant in Polk County, Florida, which will be an eligible facility.
Take notice that on February 1, 2000, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) filed, with respect to PECO Energy Company and PP&L Inc., a Petition for Order Directing Production of Information or Extending Reporting Date, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207, and Section VI.B.2 of the Commission-approved PJM Market Monitoring Plan.
Take notice that on February 7, 2000, UtiliCorp United Inc. d/b/a Missouri Public Service (MPS), tendered for filing a complaint against the City of Harrisonville, Missouri. The complaint requests that the Commission (1) order Harrisonville to pay in full promptly the $95,324.86 billed by MPS for the fuel adjustment charge for July 1999, and (2) confirm that MPS is within its rights to suspend service to Harrisonville if the city fails to make timely payment to MPS of the amounts owed.
Take notice that on January 31, 2000, Boston Edison Company filed a compliance refund report and rate schedule revision pursuant to the Commission's January 14, 2000 order in the above-captioned proceeding.
Take notice that on January 24, 2000, the above-mentioned power marketers filed quarterly reports with the Commission in the above-mentioned proceedings for information only.
Take notice that on February 2, 2000, Tampa Electric Company (Tampa Electric), tendered for filing amendments to several of the tariff sheets that were tendered with its initial filing in this docket for inclusion in its open access transmission tariff.
Tampa Electric continues to request that the tariff sheets be made effective on February 14, 2000.
Take notice that on February 2, 2000, Allegheny Energy Service Corporation on behalf of Monongahela Power Company, The Potomac Edison Company and West Penn Power Company (Allegheny Power), tendered for filing a request to amend their Pro Forma Open Access Transmission Tariff to substitute sheets reflecting changes previously accepted by the Commission in Orders dated April 6, 1999, Docket Nos. ER96-58-002 and ER99-237-001 and July 14, 1999, Docket Nos. ER96-58-004 and ER99-237-003.
Copies of the filing have been provided to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, the Maryland Public Service Commission, the Virginia State Corporation Commission, the West Virginia Public Service Commission, and all parties of record.
Take notice that on January 31, 2000, Middletown Power LLC, tendered for filing under its market-based rate tariff a long-term service agreement with NRG Power Marketing, Inc.
Take notice that on January 31, 2000, Montville Power LLC tendered for filing under its market-based rate tariff a long-term service agreement with NRG Power Marketing, Inc.
Take notice that on January 31, 2000, Norwalk Power LLC, tendered for filing under its market-based rate tariff a long-term service agreement with NRG Power Marketing, Inc.
Take notice that on January 31, 2000, Devon Power LLC, tendered for filing under its market-based rate tariff a long-term service agreement with NRG Power Marketing, Inc.
Take notice that on January 31, 2000, Connecticut Jet Power LLC, tendered for filing under its market-based rate tariff a long-term service agreement with NRG Power Marketing, Inc.
Take notice that on January 31, 2000, Ameren Services Company (ASC), tendered for filing an unexecuted Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement and associated Network Operating Agreement, between ASC and Citizens Electric Corporation. ASC asserts that the purpose of the agreements are to permit ASC to provide service over its transmission and distribution facilities to Citizens Electric Corporation pursuant to the Ameren Open Access Tariff.
Take notice that on January 31, 2000, Virginia Electric and Power Company (Virginia Power), tendered for filing the Service Agreement between Virginia Electric and Power Company and MidAmerican Energy Company. Under the Service Agreement, Virginia Power will provide services to MidAmerican Energy Company under the terms of the Company's Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff designated as FERC Electric Tariff (Second Revised Volume No. 4), which was accepted by order of the Commission dated August 13, 1998 in Docket No. ER98-3771-000.
Virginia Power requests an effective date of January 31, 2000.
Copies of the filing were served upon MidAmerican Energy Company, the Virginia State Corporation Commission and the North Carolina Utilities Commission.
Take notice that on January 31, 2000, The United Illuminating Company (UI) tendered for filing a Service Agreement dated January 1, 2000, between UI and Wisvest-Connecticut L.L.C. (Wisvest), for firm point-to-point transmission service under UI's Open Access Transmission Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 4, as amended. UI also filed Amendment No. 1 to the April 16, 1999 Interconnection Agreement between UI and Wisvest, also dated January 1, 2000.
UI requests an effective date of January 1, 2000 and has therefore requested that the Commission waive its 60-day prior notice requirement.
Copies of the filing were served upon the Contract Administrator, Wisvest-Connecticut L.L.C. and Robert J. Murphy, Executive Secretary, Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control.
Take notice that on January 31, 2000, the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) Participants Committee filed for acceptance a signature page to the New England Power Pool Agreement dated September 1, 1971, as amended, signed by Enron Energy Services, Inc. (EESI). The NEPOOL Agreement has been designated NEPOOL FPC No. 2.
The Participants Committee states that the Commission's acceptance of EESI's signature page would permit NEPOOL to expand its membership to include EESI. The Participants Committee further states that the filed signature page does not change the NEPOOL Agreement in any manner, other than to make EESI a member in NEPOOL.
The Participants Committee requests an effective date of April 1, 2000, for commencement of participation in NEPOOL by EESI.
Take notice that on January 31, 2000, the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) Participants Committee filed for acceptance a signature page to the New England Power Pool Agreement dated September 1, 1971, as amended, signed by the Town of Wiscasset (Wiscasset). The NEPOOL Agreement has been designated NEPOOL FPC No. 2.
The Participants Committee states that the Commission's acceptance of Wiscasset's signature page would permit NEPOOL to expand its membership to include Wiscasset. The Participants Committee further states that the filed signature page does not change the NEPOOL Agreement in any manner, other than to make Wiscasset a member in NEPOOL.
The Participants Committee requests an effective date of February 1, 2000, for commencement of participation in NEPOOL by Wiscasset.
Take notice that on January 31, 2000, pursuant to Section 35.15(a), 18 CFR 35.15(a) of the Commission's Regulations, Indianapolis Power & Light Company (IPL) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a Notice of Termination of the Interchange Agreement between IPL and LG& Power Marketing, Inc., effective March 1, 1996, designated as IPL Rate Schedule FERC No. 29.
Additionally, pursuant to Section 35.15 (a) of the Commission's Regulations, IPL requests an effective date for this termination of May 1, 2000.
Take notice that on January 31, 2000, pursuant to Section 35.15(a), 18 CFR 35.15(a) of the Commission's Regulations, Indianapolis Power & Light Company (IPL) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Termination of the Interchange Agreement between IPL and Catex Vitol Electric LLC, effective March 1, 1996, designated as IPL Rate Schedule FERC No. 31.
Additionally, pursuant to Section 35.15 (a) of the Commission's Regulations, IPL requests an effective date for this termination of May 1, 2000.
Take notice that on January 31, 2000, Minnesota Power, Inc. (Minnesota Power), tendered for filing an addendum to certain Agreements with Alliant Energy that would permit the incremental cost of sulfur dioxide (SO
The change is designed to conform the rate schedule to the Commission's rule regarding the ratemaking treatment of SO
A copy of the filing was served upon Alliant Energy.
Take notice that on January 31, 2000, Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf of Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans, Inc., (collectively, the Entergy Operating Companies) tendered for filing a Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreement between Entergy Services, Inc., as agent for the Entergy Operating Companies, and Reliant Energy Services, Inc.
Take notice that on January 31, 2000, the American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEPSC), tendered for filing executed Firm and Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreements for ACN Power, Inc. and Jay County Electric Cooperative, Inc. These agreements are pursuant to the AEP Companies' Open Access Transmission Service Tariff (OATT). The OATT has been designated as FERC Electric Tariff Original Volume No. 4, effective July 9, 1996.
AEPSC requests waiver of notice to permit the Service Agreements to be made effective for service billed on and after January 1, 2000.
AEPSC also tendered for filing an executed supplement to Network Transmission Service (NTS) Agreement No. 116. The supplement modifies the service agreement to include new delivery points requested by WVPA and a load power factor billing provision.
AEPSC requested that West Penn Power firm and non-firm point-to-point Service Agreement Nos. 170 and 168, under AEP Companies' FERC Electric Tariff Original Volume No. 4, accepted for filing in Docket No, ER98-4390-000, effective August 1, 1998, be assigned to Allegheny Energy Supply.
AEPSC also requested termination of AEP Operating Companies Rate Schedule FERC No. 5, filed in Docket No. ER95-219-000, and AEP Companies' FERC Electric Tariff Original Volume No. 1, Service Agreement No. 47, accepted for filing in Docket No. ER96-1313-000. Those agreements are superceded by firm and non-firm Point-to-Point Service Agreements Nos. 231 and 234, under AEP Companies' FERC Electric Tariff Original Volume No. 4. The customer holding those agreements, Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc., has previously executed new agreements.
A copy of the filing was served upon the Parties and the state utility regulatory commissions of Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.
Take notice that on UAE Lowell LLC (UAE Lowell), tendered for filing a service agreement establishing Southern Company Energy Marketing L.P. (Southern) as a customer under UAE Lowell's Rate Schedule No. 1.
UAE Lowell requests an effective date of January 1, 2000.
UAE Lowell states that a copy of the filing was served on Southern.
Take notice that on January 31, 2000, Florida Power & Light Company (FPL), tendered for filing proposed service agreements with Cargill-Alliant, LLC for Short-Term Firm and Non-Firm transmission service under FPL's Open Access Transmission Tariff.
FPL requests that the proposed service agreements are permitted to become effective on February 1, 2000.
FPL states that this filing is in accordance with Section 35 of the Commission's regulations.
Take notice that on January 31, 2000, The Detroit Edison Company (Detroit Edison), tendered for filing Service Agreements for wholesale power sales transactions (the Service Agreements) under Detroit Edison's Wholesale Power Sales Tariff (WPS-2), FERC Electric Tariff No. 3 (the WPS-2 Tariff).
Take notice that on January 31, 2000, Utilimax.com, Inc. (Utilimax), petitioned the Commission for acceptance of Utilimax 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.
Utilimax intends to engage in wholesale electric power and energy purchases and sales as a marketer. Utilimax is not in the business of generating or transmitting electric power.
Take notice that Wayne-White Counties Electric Cooperative (WWCEC or Cooperative) on January 31, 2000, tendered for filing an unexecuted Service Agreement for Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service with Illinois Power Company. Under the Service Agreement, WWCEC will provide firm point-to-point transmission service to Illinois Power Company under the Cooperative's Open Access Transmission Tariff.
WWCEC requests an effective date of January 1, 2000, the date service was first provided.
A copy of the filing was served upon Illinois Power Company.
Take notice that on January 31, 2000, FirstEnergy Corp., as agent for its wholly owned subsidiaries, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania Power Company and The Toledo Edison Company, filed an Amendment to the Network Service Agreement between FirstEnergy and American Muncipal Power-Ohio, Inc. under the FirstEnergy Open Access Tariff to recover an increase in the Pennsylvania Gross Receipts Tax applicable to certain Pennsylvania Boroughs who obtain transmission service through American Municipal Power-Ohio, Inc. FirstEnergy requests approval under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act for the increase in tax rate to the Boroughs.
Take notice that, on January 31, 2000, Illinois Power Company (Illinois Power), 500 South 27th Street, Decatur, Illinois 62521, tendered for filing an unexecuted Service Agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service and an unexecuted Network Operating Agreement under which Soyland Power Cooperative, Inc., will take transmission service pursuant to Illinois Power's open access transmission tariff (OATT). The agreements are based on the forms of agreements in Illinois Power's OATT.
Illinois Power has requested an effective date of January 1, 2000.
Take notice that, on January 31, 2000, Illinois Power Company (Illinois Power), 500 South 27th Street, Decatur, Illinois 62521, tendered for filing a firm transmission service agreement under which Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc. will take transmission service pursuant to Illinois Power's open access transmission tariff (OATT). The agreement is based on the form of agreement in Illinois Power's OATT.
Illinois Power has requested an effective date of January 1, 2000.
Take notice that on February 1, 2000, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), tendered for filing an “Generator Special Facilities Agreement” (GSFA) and a “Generator Interconnection Agreement” between PG&E and San Joaquin Cogen Limited” (San Joaquin).
The GSFA permits PG&E to recover the ongoing costs associated with owning, operating and maintaining the Special Facilities. As detailed in the Special Facilities Agreement, PG&E proposes to charge San Joaquin a monthly Cost of Ownership Charge equal to the rate for distribution-level, customer-financed facilities in PG&E's currently effective Electric Rule 2, as filed with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). PG&E's currently effective rate of 0.46% for distribution-level, customer-financed Special Facilities is contained in the CPUC's Advice Letter 1960-G/1587-E, effective August 5, 1996, a copy of which is included as Attachment 3 of this filing. PG&E has requested permission to use automatic rate adjustments whenever the CPUC authorizes a new Electric Rule 2 Cost of Ownership Rate for distribution-level, customer-financed special facilities but caps the rate at 0.65% per month.
Copies of this filing have been served upon San Joaquin and the CPUC.
Take notice that on February 1, 2000, Orion Power MidWest, LLC, with an office located at c/o Orion Power Holdings, Inc., 7 E. Redwood Street, 10th Floor, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an application seeking waivers and granting blanket approvals under various Commission regulations and for an order accepting Orion Power MidWest's initial rate schedule, FERC Electric Rate Schedule No. 1.
Orion Power MidWest's acquisition of the Duquesne Light Company's Generating Assets will close on or about May 1, 2000. Orion Power MidWest intends to sell energy and capacity, and certain ancillary services from the Generating Assets at market-based rates. In transactions where Orion Power MidWest sells electric energy, it proposes to make such sales on rates, terms and conditions to be mutually agreed to with the purchasing party.
Take notice that on February 1, 2000, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), tendered for filing three executed service agreements for long-term firm point-to-point transmission service under the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff with Cinergy Power Marketing and Trading for 200 MW (between PJM West Hub and First Energy (CEI)), PECO Energy Power Team for 214 MW (between PECO Energy and Allegheny), and PECO Energy Power Team for 750 MW (between PECO Energy and Virginia Power).
Copies of this filing were served upon the parties to the service agreements.
Take notice that on February 1, 2000, the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO), tendered for filing (i) an executed copy of the Agreement between the New York Independent System Operator and Transmission Owners, (ii) an executed copy of the Independent System Operator Agreement together with 62 additional signed signature pages to the ISO Agreement, and (iii) an executed copy of the Agreement between the New York Independent System Operator and the New York State Reliability Council.
The NYISO is not proposing any changes in any of the agreements. Except as otherwise noted, the NYISO requests an effective date of December 1, 1999 and waiver of the Commission's notice requirements.
Copies of this filing were served on the Commission's Service List in Docket Nos. ER97-1523-000 et al., on the parties to the ISO Agreement and on the respective electric utility regulatory agencies in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Take notice that on February 1, 2000, Orion Power MidWest, LLC (Orion Power MidWest) and FirstEnergy Corp. (FirstEnergy), tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act certain jurisdictional agreements providing for services related to Orion Power MidWest's acquisition of generation assets from Duquesne Light Company.
Take notice that on February 1, 2000 the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO), tendered for filing a Transitional Installed Capacity market design in the above-referenced proceeding consisting of a series of revisions to the Installed Capacity provisions of the NYISO's Market Administration and Control Area Services Tariff and an accompanying Installed Capacity auction description document.
The NYISO requests an effective date of March 15, 2000.
A copy of this filing was served upon all persons on the Commission's official service lists in Docket Nos. ER97-1523-000, OA97-470-000 and ER97-4234-000 (not consolidated), and the respective electric utility regulatory agencies in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Take notice that on February 2, 2000, Central Illinois Public Service Corporation (AmerenCIPS), tendered for filing an Agreement Among Citizens Electric Corporation, Central Illinois Public Service Corporation, and Union Electric Company dated December 29, 1999 (the Agreement). AmerenCIPS states that under the Agreement, responsibility for providing wholesale electric service to Citizens Electric Corporation (Citizens) is being transferred to it from Union Electric Company (AmerenUE), an affiliated electric utility. AmerenCIPS further states that the rates, terms and conditions under which service is being supplied to Citizens will not be affected by the transfer, but that the term of an existing Wholesale Electric Service Agreement with Citizens is being extended to December 31, 2001.
AmerenCIPS is proposing to make the Agreement effective as of January 1, 2000.
Take notice that on February 2, 2000, Central Illinois Public Service Corporation (AmerenCIPS), tendered for filing an Agreement Among the City of Fredericktown, MO, Central Illinois Public Service Corporation, and Union Electric Company. AmerenCIPS states that under the Agreement, responsibility for providing wholesale electric service to the City of Fredericktown, MO (Fredericktown) is being transferred to it from Union Electric Company (AmerenUE), an affiliated electric utility. AmerenCIPS further states that the rates, terms and conditions under which service is being supplied to Fredericktown will not be affected by the transfer, but that the term of an existing Wholesale Electric Service Agreement with Fredericktown is being extended to December 31, 2001.
AmerenCIPS is proposing to make the Agreement effective as of February 1, 2000.
Take notice that on February 2, 2000, Central Illinois Public Service Corporation (AmerenCIPS), tendered for filing an Agreement Among the City of Owensville, MO, Central Illinois Public Service Corporation, and Union Electric Company dated January 25, 2000 (the Agreement). AmerenCIPS states that under the Agreement, responsibility for providing wholesale electric service to the City of Owensville, MO (Owensville) is being transferred to it from Union Electric Company (AmerenUE), an affiliated electric utility. AmerenCIPS further states that the rates, terms and conditions under which service is being supplied to Owensville will not be affected by the transfer, but that the term of an existing Wholesale Electric Service Agreement with Owensville is being extended to December 31, 2001.
AmerenCIPS is proposing to make the Agreement effective as of February 1, 2000.
Take notice that on February 1, 2000 Louisville Gas and Electric Company/Kentucky Utilities (LG&E/KU), tendered for filing a revision to their Transmission Coordination Agreement, Rate Schedule FERC No. 2.
Take notice that on February 2, 2000, Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) tendered for filing a revised Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreement with Alliant Bulk Power under the terms of ComEd's Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT).
Copies of this filing were served on Alliant.
Take notice that on February 2, 2000, Consumers Energy Company (Consumers), tendered for filing an executed service agreement for Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service with Tenaska Power Services Company. The agreement was pursuant to the Joint Open Access Transmission Service Tariff filed on December 31, 1996 by Consumers and
The Detroit Edison Company (Detroit Edison) and has an effective date of January 25, 2000.
Copies of the filed agreement were served upon the Michigan Public Service Commission, Detroit Edison, and Tenaska Power Services Company.
Take notice that on February 2, 2000, The Dayton Power and Light Company (Dayton), tendered for filing Long Term Firm transmission service agreements pursuant to its open access transmission tariff.
Take notice that on February 2, 2000, Columbia Energy Power Marketing Corporation (CEPM), tendered for filing a notice of cancellation of its Rate Schedule FERC No. 1, to be effective on the date CEPM transfers all of its wholesale sales contracts to Enron Power Marketing, Inc., pursuant to Commission approval of the application filed by CEPM in Docket No. EC00-51-000.
Take notice that on February 2, 2000, the California Independent System Operator Corporation (ISO), tendered for filing notice of termination of the Meter Service Agreement for Scheduling Coordinators (MSA SC) between the ISO and the Montana Power Trading & Marketing Company.
The ISO requests that the MSA SC be terminated effective April 19, 2000.
The ISO states that copies of this filing have been served on all parties in the above-referenced docket.
Take notice that on February 2, 2000, Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (Applicant), tendered for filing an Application Submitting Service Agreement Pursuant to Market-Based Rate Authority And Request For Waivers, submitting a Service Agreement between the Applicant and Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative for service to a single, new delivery point pursuant to the Applicant's previously granted authority to make sales at market-based rates.
Take notice that on February 2, 2000, Atlantic City Electric Company (Atlantic), tendered for filing an executed umbrella service agreement with Tenaska Power Services Co. (Tenaska), under Atlantic's market rate sales tariff.
Atlantic requests an effective date of February 2, 2000.
Take notice that on February 2, 2000, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), tendered for filing an amendment to Schedule 11 (PJM Capacity Credit Markets) of the Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., extending the expiration date of the mandatory Sell Offers and Buy Bids provision until May 31, 2001.
Copies of this filing were served upon all PJM Members and the electric regulatory commissions in the PJM Control Area.
Take notice that on February 2, 2000, San Joaquin Cogen Limited (San Joaquin), tendered for filing an application for waivers and blanket approvals under various regulations of the Commission and for an order accepting its FERC Electric Rate Schedule No. 1. San Joaquin proposed that its Rate Schedule No. 1 become effective immediately. San Joaquin intends to sell energy, capacity and ancillary services from its 49 MW
Take notice that on February 1, 2000, Robert N. Danziger filed an abbreviated application for authorization to hold interlocking positions as President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director of Sunlaw Energy Corporation; President and Director of Sunlaw Operating Corporation; President and Director of Sunlaw Environmental Technologies, Inc.; and President and Manager of Goal Line Management LLC.
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 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).
Staff from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will hold a public meeting on March 27, 2000 to take oral comments on a draft environmental assessment (DEA) issued for the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project. The DEA analyzes the environmental impacts of a Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) filed for Commission approval. The Yadkin Project is located on the Yadkin-Pee Dee River in Montgomery, Stanly, Davidson and Rowan Counties, North Carolina. The Yadkin Project contains the following reservoirs: High Rock, Tuckertown, Narrows (Badin) and Falls.
The DEA was written by staff in the Commission's Office of Hydropower Licensing. Commission staff believe the SMP would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Copies of the DEA can be viewed on the web at
The public meeting on March 27, 2000 (Monday), will be 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. at the Agri-Civic Center in Albemarle, North Carolina—26032 East Newt Road, Albemarle NC 28001- (704) 986-3666. All those who intend to provide oral comments at the public meeting should register (provide name only) prior to the meeting at the reception area in the Agri-Civic Center. If you have any questions regarding this notice, please call Steve Hocking at (202) 219-2656.
Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: David P. Boergers, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426.
Please include the project numbers (4244-017) on any comments or motions filed.
i.
j.
k. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in
Agency Comments—Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Please include the project name and number (Battle Creek Project, No. 1121-052) on any comments or motions filed.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list for the proposed amendment of license should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTEST”, OR ”MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
Agency Comments—Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before April 17, 2000.
Public comments shall be submitted to: Brian Rourke (Mail Code 4607), Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St. SW., Washington, DC 20460. Public comments may also be sent electronically to:
Brian Rourke, Telephone (202) 260-7785, Facsimile Number (202) 260-3762, E-mail:
But financial data is only part of the picture. The Agency must also gather information on the operating characteristics of the treatment systems, storage facilities and distribution systems. This data is critical in estimating the need for new facilities as a consequence of any new Agency regulations. For example, water systems that have already installed treatment processes to treat one sort of contaminant might well not have to install any additional treatment to comply with regulations effecting a similar type of contaminant or one susceptible to the same type of treatment. Thus, all of the Agency's estimates of regulatory impacts can be no more accurate than the baseline information gathered through this survey. Because of the magnitude of potential cost impacts of the regulations, even small changes in water system characteristics can produce significant differences in impacts. Hence, it is critical that the Agency use the most up-to-date information available.
Also, under section 1412(b) of the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act, the Agency must consider the affordability of the treatment technologies that will meet the proposed regulatory requirements. To determine affordability, the Agency must consider both the new, incremental costs that would result from any proposed regulation together with the costs already borne by the water system. Clearly, this means that the Agency must have an accurate picture of current costs.
This is a one-time collection effort, and responses to this ICR are voluntary. 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.
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 16, 2000.
For a copy of the ICR contact Sandy Farmer at EPA by phone at (202) 260-2740, by email at farmer.sandy@epamail.epa.gov, or download off the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr and refer to EPA ICR No. 1428.05. For technical questions about the ICR contact Sicy Jacob at (202) 260-7249.
Trade secrecy protection is provided for specific chemical identities contained in reports submitted under each of the following EPCRA sections: (1) 303(d)(2)—Facility notification of changes that have or are about to occur, (2) 303(d)(3)—Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) requests for facility information, develop or implement emergency plans, (3) 311—Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) submitted by facilities, or lists of those chemicals submitted in place of the MSDSs, (4) 312—Tier II emergency and hazardous chemical inventory forms, and (5) 313—Toxic chemical release inventory forms.
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
Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the following addresses. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1428.05 and OMB Control No. 2050-0078 in any correspondence.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability of the Project XL Proposed Final Project Agreement: International Paper Predictive Emissions Monitoring Project.
EPA is requesting comments on a proposed Project XL Final Project Agreement (FPA) for International Paper, U.S.A. (hereafter “International Paper”). The FPA is a voluntary agreement developed collaboratively by International Paper, the State of Maine Division of Environmental Protection, the Town of Jay Maine and EPA. Project XL, announced in the
In the draft FPA, International Paper proposes to develop, test, and implement a computer model that can estimate pollutant emissions on a continuous basis. Currently, International Paper is required to measure some of these pollutants only once every year. If successfully developed and implemented, this computer model would provide the surrounding community with information on emissions that is continuous, non-biased, credible, and
The period for submission of comments ends on March 16, 2000.
All comments on the proposed Final Project Agreement should be sent to: Chris Rascher, EPA New England, 1 Congress Street (SPP), Boston, MA 02114, or Ted Cochin, U.S. EPA, Room 1025 (1802), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. Comments may also be faxed to Mr. Rascher (617) 918-1810, or Mr. Cochin (202) 401-6637. Comments may also be received via electronic mail sent to: rascher.chris@epa.gov or cochin.ted@epa.gov.
To obtain a copy of the proposed Final Project Agreement, Test Plan or Fact Sheet, contact: Chris Rascher, EPA New England, 1 Congress Street (SPP), Boston Massachusetts, or Ted Cochin, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW Room 1025WT (1802), Washington DC 20460. The FPA and related documents are also available via the Internet at the following location:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability of United States Postal Service Project XL Draft Final Project Agreement.
EPA is today requesting comments on a draft Project XL Final Project Agreement (FPA) for United States Postal Service (USPS).
The period for submission of comments ends on March 16, 2000.
All comments on the draft Final Project Agreement should be sent to: Mary Byrne, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2466, or L. Nancy Birnbaum, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Room 1025WT (1802), Washington, DC 20460. Comments may also be faxed to Ms. Byrne at (303) 312-6741 or Ms. Birnbaum at (202) 401-2474. Comments will also be received via electronic mail sent to: byrne.mary@epa.gov or birnbaum.nancy@epa.gov.
To obtain a copy of the draft Final Project Agreement, contact: Mary Byrne, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2466, or L. Nancy Birnbaum, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Room 1025WT (1802), Washington, DC 20460. The documents are also available via the Internet at the following location: “http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL”. In addition, public files on the Project are located at EPA Region 8 in Denver. Questions to EPA regarding the documents can be directed to Mary Byrne at (303) 312-6491 or L. Nancy Birnbaum at (202) 260-2601. Additional information on Project XL, including documents referenced in this notice, other EPA policy documents related to Project XL, application information, and descriptions of existing XL projects and proposals, is available via the Internet at “http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL”.
The FPA is a voluntary agreement developed by USPS, stakeholders, the State of Colorado, and EPA. Project XL, announced in the
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Environmental Financial Advisory Board, Cost Effective Environmental Management Workgroup (CEM) will hold an open meeting in Washington, DC on March 6, 2000. The meeting will be held at the National Press Club, 13th Floor in the First Amendment Lounge, 14th and F Streets, NW, Washington, DC. The meeting will begin at 9:00 am and end at approximately 4:00 pm.
The meeting will consist of a group of respected panelists who will share their perspectives on what the Environmental Protection Agency's role should be with respect to cost-effective environmental management (CEM) for drinking water and wastewater and what the Environmental Financial Advisory Board should do to assist the Agency in this regard. Several issues to be discussed include: federal and state tax policies that help or hinder CEM,
The meeting is open to the public, but seating is limited. To confirm your participation or get additional information, please contact Vanessa Bowie, U.S. EPA on 202-564-5186.
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Environmental Financial Advisory Board (EFAB) will hold an open meeting of the full Board in Washington, DC on March 7-8, 2000. The meeting will be held at the National Press Club, 13th Floor in the Holeman Lounge, 14th and F Streets, NW, Washington, DC. The Tuesday, March 7 session will run from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and the Wednesday, March 8 session will begin at 8:15 a.m. and end at approximately 11:30 a.m.
EFAB is chartered with providing analysis and advice to the EPA Administrator on environmental finance. The purpose of this meeting is to hear presentations on key issues, discuss work products under EFAB's current strategic action agenda and to make changes to the agenda as necessary. Environmental financing topics expected to be discussed include: the Office of Water's Gap Analysis, cost effective environemtnal management, community-based environmental protection, international environmental finance, smart growth, and brownfields redevelopment.
The meeting will be open to the public, but seating is limited. For more information, please contact Alecia Crichlow, U.S. EPA on 202-564-5188.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Small Community Advisory Subcommittee will meet on March 2 and 3, 2000, in Dallas, TX.
The Small Community Advisory Subcommittee was established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a standing subcommittee of the Local Government Advisory Committee. The March meeting will focus on Small Town Sustainable Community Development; the Agency's implementation of Executive Order 13132 on Federalism; and implementation of section 109(d) of the small town Environmental Planning Act of 1992.
The Committee will hear comments from the public between 9:00 a.m. and 9:15 a.m. on March 2, 2000. Each individual or organization wishing to address the Committee will be allowed a minimum of three minutes. Please contact the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at the number listed below to schedule agenda time. Time will be allotted on a first come, first serve basis.
This is an open meeting and all interested persons are invited to attend. Meeting minutes will be available after the meeting and can be obtained by written request from the DFO. Members of the public are requested to call the DFO at the number listed below if planning to attend so that arrangements can be made to comfortably accommodate attendees as much as possible. However, seating will be on a first come, first serve basis.
The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, March 2 and conclude at 5:00 p.m. on the March 3.
The meetings will be held at the Magnolia Hotel located at 1401 Commerce Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
Requests for Minutes and other information can be obtained by writing the DFO at 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW (1306), Washington, DC 20460.
The DFO for this Subcommittee is Steven Wilson. He is the point of contact for information concerning any Subcommittee matters and can be reached by calling (202) 564-3646.
Meeting Cancellation—Microbial and Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Federal Advisory Committee—February 16-17, 2000.
The meeting of the Microbial and Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Federal Advisory Committee that was scheduled for February 16-17, 2000 between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. eastern time, has been
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
Under Section 10(a)(2) of Public Law 92-423, “The Federal Advisory
The purpose of this meeting is for the Working Group to develop and use robust and transparent protocols that can be used for making regulatory determinations from the CCL and for the periodic review of existing NPDWRs. The Working Group will provide specific recommendations for analyzing and presenting the available scientific data, and also recommend methods to identify and document the judgments made to arrive at a conclusion and the supporting rationale.
The CCL and 6-Year Review Working Group will develop specific protocols for making regulatory determinations and selecting existing NPDWRs for possible revision. The Working Group will provide specific recommendations for analyzing and presenting the available scientific data, and also recommend methods to identify and document the judgments made to arrive at a conclusion and the supporting rationale. Due to the statutory deadlines mandated by the SDWA's 1996 amendments, the Working Group will develop a protocol to support CCL regulatory determinations before beginning work on the protocol(s) for the 6-year review of existing NPDWRs.
For CCL regulatory determinations, the Working Group will develop protocols for both chemical and microbial contaminants that will be robust enough to apply to contaminants on the current and future CCLs. As a starting point in developing a protocol, the Working Group will evaluate the draft framework developed by the EPA, which will be presented to the group at the first meeting.
The working group members will be asked draft proposed position papers for deliberation by the advisory council, and provide advice and recommendations to the full National Drinking Water Advisory Council. The meeting is open to the public to observe and statements will be taken from the public as time allows.
For more information, contact Corry Westbrook, Designated Federal Officer, Contaminant Candidate List and Regulatory Determination and 6-Year Review of Existing Regulations Working Group, U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (4607), 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. The telephone number is 202-260-3228, fax 202-260-3762, and e-mail address westbrook.corry@epa.gov.
The meeting of the Executive Committee of the SAB that was scheduled for February 16, 2000 between the hours of 2:00 and 4:00 EST has been
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the Science Advisory Board's (SAB's) Executive Committee will conduct a public meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday, March 7-8, 2000. The meeting will convene each day at 8:30 in Conference Room 6013 of the Ariel Rios Building, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20460 and adjourn no later than 5:30. The meeting is open to the public; however, seating is limited and available on a first-come basis.
At this meeting, the Executive Committee will receive updates from its committees and subcommittees concerning their recent and planned activities. As part of these updates, some committees will present draft reports for Executive Committee review and approval. Tentatively anticipated drafts include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Drafts of the reports that will be reviewed at the meeting should be available to the public at the SAB website (http://www.epa.gov/sab) by close-of-business on February 28, 2000.
As part of this two day meeting, the Executive Committee will also: (a) Meet with various Agency officials to discuss matters of mutual interest such as the framework for a Strategic Plan for Science at EPA; (b) receive briefings from Agency staff on various topics, including an update of the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) project; and (c) conduct the second in a series of Workshops on the role of science in some of the Agency's innovative approaches to environmental decision making.
The timing of these events will be included in an agenda for the meeting that should be available one week prior to the meeting.
Any member of the public wishing to submit
Individuals requiring special accommodation at this meeting due to disability should contact Dr. Barnes at least five business days prior to the
Notice is hereby given of changes to three meetings of the Science Advisory Board's Environmental Engineering Committee and its Subcommittees. The original meetings were announced in 65 FR 1866, dated Wednesday, January 12, 2000. For further information, please contact Ms. Kathleen Conway, Designated Federal Officer for the Environmental Engineering Committee at (202) 564-4559 or via e-mail at (Conway.Kathleen@epa.gov). The changes follow.
(a) The Technology Evaluation Subcommittee will
The following information from the previous announcement is provided again here for your convenience, “The Environmental Engineering Committee of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) will meet Monday through Friday, March 6-10, 2000 in room 6450 of in the Ariel Rios Building North, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 (adjacent to the escalator to the Federal Triangle Metro Station on 12th Street NW). The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. on Monday and end no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday.”
(b) The Natural Attenuation Research Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board's (SAB) Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) will conduct a public teleconference meeting Thursday February 24, 2000 between the hours of 3:00 p.m.—5:00 p.m (Eastern Standard Time) as announced. However,
(c) The Natural Attenuation Research Subcommittee will
The Science Advisory Board expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written statements. In general, each individual or group making an oral presentation will be limited to a total time of ten minutes (unless otherwise noted). Written comments (at least 35 copies) should be received in the SAB Staff Office one week before the meeting so that they can be mailed to the relevant SAB committee or subcommittee for study. Written comments may be provided to the relevant committee or subcommittee up until the time of the meeting.
Additional information concerning the Science Advisory Board, its structure, function, and composition, may be found on the SAB Website (
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of availability with request for comment.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed and is requesting public comment on a draft guidance entitled “Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume 3 Part A: Process for Conducting Probabilistic Risk Assessment (RAGS 3A).” It is available electronically on the Internet at
Further, 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 and regulatory policies 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.”
RAGS 3A does not have federalism implications. It 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. As explained above, RAGS 3A does not impose legally-binding requirements on the States. It is a technical risk assessment guidance which discusses a statistical risk assessment approach that may be used at more complex Superfund sites. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to RAGS 3A.
You may submit comments until April 21, 2000. Comments received after
You are invited to submit written comments to: EPA, Superfund Docket RAGS 3A-2, Mail Code 5202G, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20460. For cost savings the draft RAGS 3A document is available electronically on the Internet and EPA plans to print the document only after it is finalized. The Superfund Docket containing the RAGS 3A document and public comments is physically located at 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Gateway I Building street level, Arlington, Virginia. The docket is available for inspection between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Appointments to review the docket can be made by calling (703) 603-9232. The public may copy a maximum of 266 pages from the docket free of charge, however a charge of 15 cents will be incurred for each additional page, plus a $25.00 administrative fee.
S. Steven Chang, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (5204G), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20460, at (703) 603-9017, by E-Mail at Chang.Steven@epa.gov, or the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at (800) 424-9346 (in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, (703) 412-9810). The Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) Hotline number is (800) 553-7672 (in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, (703) 412-3323).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) responds to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances under the authority of CERCLA. Regulations governing such responses are found in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan or NCP. The process for remedy selection in the NCP generally involves performance of a remedial investigation to identify the nature and extent of contamination at National Priorities List sites. In general, sampling results and site observations obtained in the field are used in the baseline risk assessment to identify specific contaminants and exposure pathways of concern and to determine whether remedial action is warranted.
Today's
Probabilistic risk analysis, as exemplified by Monte Carlo analysis, has been in use since 1946. However, the application of PRA to human health and ecological risk assessment is a more recent application. As a result, the Agency believes that those using PRA analysis would benefit from development of additional guidance.
In 1997, the EPA announced the “Policy for Use of Probabilistic Analysis in Risk Assessment at the U.S. EPA” (U.S. EPA, 1997), indicating the Agency's interest in probabilistic analysis in human health and ecological risk assessment. This 1997 policy states that “It is the policy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that such probabilistic analysis techniques as Monte Carlo analysis, given adequate supporting data and credible assumptions, can be viable statistical tools for analyzing variability and uncertainty in risk assessments. As such, and provided that the conditions described below are met, risk assessments using Monte Carlo analysis or other probabilistic techniques will be evaluated and utilized in a manner that is consistent with other risk assessments submitted to the Agency for review or consideration. It is not the intent of this policy to recommend that probabilistic analysis be conducted for all risk assessments supporting risk management decisions. Such analysis should be a part of a tiered approach to risk assessment that progresses from simpler (e.g., deterministic) to more complex (e.g., probabilistic) analyses as the risk management situation requires. Use of Monte Carlo or other such techniques in risk assessments shall not be cause, per se, for rejection of the risk assessment by the Agency. For human health risk assessments, the application of Monte Carlo and other probabilistic techniques has been limited to exposure assessments in the majority of cases. The current (1997) policy, Conditions for Acceptance and associated guiding principles are not intended to apply to dose response evaluations for human health risk assessment until this application of probabilistic analysis has been studied further. In the case of ecological risk assessment, however, this policy applies to all aspects including stressor and dose-response assessment.”
Based on this (1997) Policy the Superfund program is developing guidance for implementation of PRA to better characterize variability and uncertainty in fate and transport, and exposure assessment for human health and ecological risk assessments, and dose-response assessment for ecological risk assessments.
EPA welcomes feedback on today's draft RAGS 3A document. EPA will review public comments received on the draft RAGS 3A document and, where appropriate, incorporate changes responsive to those comments.
EPA is seeking public comment at this time in order to ensure hearing the widest range of views and obtaining all information relevant to the development of policy, not because doing so is a legal requirement. EPA does, however, expect to respond to the principal comments received on the draft RAGS 3A document as a matter of public information.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; request for public comment.
In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675, notice is hereby given that a proposed purchaser agreement (“Purchaser Agreement”) associated with the Metro Container Corporation Site in Trainer, Pennsylvania was executed by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Justice and is now subject to public comment, after which the United States may modify or withdraw its consent if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the Purchaser Agreement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Purchaser Agreement would resolve certain potential EPA claims under section 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607, against Trainer Industries, L.L.C. (“Purchaser”). The settlement would require the Purchaser to, among other things, pay the sum of $15,000 to the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund, provide an irrevocable right of access to EPA, and record notice of the agreement in the local land records.
For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the proposed Purchaser Agreement. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Comments must be submitted on or before March 16, 2000.
The proposed Purchaser Agreement and additional background information relating to the proposed Purchaser Agreement are available for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. A copy of the proposed Purchaser Agreement may be obtained from Suzanne Canning, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Docket Clerk (3RC00), 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103. Comments should reference the “Metro Container Corporation Site Prospective Purchaser Agreement” and “EPA Docket No. CERC-PPA-99-06,” and should be forwarded to Suzanne Canning at the above address or through electronic mail at “canning.suzanne@epa.gov.”
Andrew S. Goldman (3RC41), Sr. Assistant Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: (215) 814-2487.
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Written comments should be submitted on or before March 16, 2000. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all comments to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW, DC 20554 or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov.
For additional information or copies of the information collection(s), contact Judy Boley at 202-418-0214 or via the Internet at jboley@fcc.gov.
The Public Notice establishes guidelines relating to its consideration of preemption petitions. Consideration of a petition requesting Commission action pursuant to Section 253 necessarily will involve state or local statutes, regulations, ordinances, or other legal requirements that will likely be initially unfamiliar to the Commission. In order to render a timely and informed decision, the Commission expects petitions and commenters to provide it with relevant information sufficient to describe the legal regime involved in the controversy and to establish the factual basis necessary for decision.
The Commission will use the information to discharge its statutory mandate relating to the preemption of state or local statutes or other state or local legal requirements.
In connection with supplemental appropriations legislation enacted on May 1, 1998, Congress directed the Commission to establish a single entity to administer federal universal service. In a May 8, 1998 Report to Congress, the Commission proposed that, by January 1, 1999, USAC would serve as the single entity responsible for administering all of the universal service support mechanisms including the schools and libraries and rural health care support mechanisms. On November 20, 1998, the Commission released an Order directing the merger of SLC and RHCC into USAC as the single entity responsible for administering the universal service support mechanisms as of January 1, 1999. The Order adopted rules that will govern USAC following the required merger.
Pursuant to 47 CFR 54.703, industry an non-industry groups may submit to the Commission for approval nominations for individuals to be appointed to the USAC Board of Directors.
The USAC Board currently consists of the following seventeen members: (1) Three incumbent local exchange carrier representatives (one director representing Bell Operating Companies and GTE, one director representing ILECs (other than Bell Operating Companies) with annual operating revenues in excess of $40 million, and one director representing ILECs (other than Bell Operating Companies) with annual revenues of $40 million or less); (2) two interexchange carrier representatives (one director representing interexchange carriers with more than $3 billion in annual operating revenues and one director representing interexchange carriers with annual operating revenues of $3 billion or less; (3) one commercial mobile radio service representative; (4) one competitive local exchange carrier representative; (5) one cable operator representative; (6) one information service provider representative; (7) three school representatives; (8) one library representative; (9) one rural health care provider representative; (10) one low income consumer representative; (11) one state telecommunications regulator; and (12) one state consumer advocate representative.
47 CFR 54.719-54.725 contain the procedures for Commission review of USAC decisions, including the general filing requirements pursuant to which parties must file requests for review. An affected party would be permitted to file a petition for Commission review with the Bureau within thirty days of an action taken by USAC. The appellant must state specifically its interest in the matter presented for review. The appellant also must provide the Commission with a full statement of relevant, material facts with supporting affidavits and documentation. In addition, the appellant must state concisely the question presented for view, with reference, where appropriate, to the relevant Commission rule, Commission order, or statutory provision. The appellant also must state the relief sought and the relevant statutory or regulatory provision pursuant to which such relief is sought. If an appellant alleges prohibited conduct by a third party, the appellant shall serve a copy of the appeal on such third party, who shall have an opportunity to file an opposition. Similarly, appellants shall serve on USAC a copy of the appeal of a USAC decision filed with the Commission.
Affected parties are encouraged to bring issues to the attention of the division head or the USAC CEO to determine whether the matter can be handled without a formal appeal to the Commission.
The Commission uses the information to select USAC's Board of Directors and to ensure that requests for review are filed properly with the Commission. The information requested is not otherwise available. Without such information, the Commission could not appoint a representative body to USAC's Board of Directors nor resolve requests for review and, therefore, could not fulfill its statutory responsibilities in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on the subjects listed below on
Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from Maureen Peratino or David Fiske, Office of Media Relations, telephone number (202) 418-0500; TTY (202) 418-2555.
Copies of materials adopted at this meeting can be purchased from the FCC's duplicating contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc. (ITS, Inc.) at (202 857-3800; fax (202) 857-3805 and 857-3184; or TTY (202) 293-8810. These copies are available in paper format and alternative media, including large print/type; digital disk; and audio tape. ITS may be reached by e-mail: its—inc@ix.netcom.com. Their Internet address is htt://www.itsi.com.
This meeting can be viewed over George Mason University's Capitol Connection. The Capitol Connection also will carry the meeting live via the Internet. For information on these services call (703) 993-3100. The audio portion of the meeting will be broadcast live on the Internet via the FCC's Internet audio broadcast page at http://www.fcc.gov/realaudio. The meeting can also be heard via telephone, for a fee, from National Narrowcast Network, telephone (202) 966-2211 or fax (202) 966-1770. Audio and video tapes of this meeting can be purchased from Infocus, 341 Victory Drive, Herndon, VA 20170, telephone (703) 834-0100; fax number (707) 834-0111.
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. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
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 March 10, 2000.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is given of a meeting of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. The Commission will discuss its ongoing projects: (a) ethical issues in international research and (b) ethical and policy issues in the oversight of human subjects research in the United States. Some Commission members may participate by telephone conference.
The President established the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) on October 3, 1999 by Executive Order 12975 as amended. The mission of the NBAC is to advise and make recommendations to the National Science and Technology Council, its Chair, the President, and other entities on bioethical issues arising from the research on human biology and behavior, and from the applications of that research.
The meeting is open to the public with attendance limited by the availability of space on a first come, first serve basis. Members of the public who wish to present oral statements should contact Ms. Jody Crank by telephone, fax machine, or mail as shown below as soon as possible, at least 4 days before the meeting. The Chair will reserve time for presentations by persons requesting to speak and asks that oral statements be limited to five minutes. The order of persons wanting to make a statement will be assigned in the order in which requests are received. Individuals unable to make oral presentations can mail or fax their written comments to the NBAC staff office at least five business days prior to the meeting for distribution to the Commission and inclusion in the public record. The Commission also accepts general comments at its website at bioethics.gov. Persons needing special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other special accommodations, should contact NBAC staff at the address or telephone number listed below as soon as possible.
Ms. Jody Crank, National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Suite 5B01, Rockville, Maryland 20892-7508, telephone 301-402-4242, fax number 301-480-6900.
Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
This notice provides an update of the HHS poverty guidelines to account for last (calendar) year's increase in prices as measured by the Consumer Price Index.
These guidelines go into effect on the day they are published (unless an office administering a program using the guidelines specifies a different effective date for that particular program.)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Room 404E, Humphrey Building, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Washington, DC 20201.
For general information about the poverty guidelines (but NOT for information about a particular program—such as the Hill-Burton Uncompensated Services Program—that uses the poverty guidelines), contact Gordon Fisher, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Room 404E, Humphrey Building, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC 20201—telephone: (202) 690-5880; persons with Internet access may visit the poverty guidelines Internet site at <http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/poverty.htm>.
For family units with more than 8 members, add $2,900 for each additional member. (The same increment applies to smaller family sizes also, as can be seen in the figures above.)
For family units with more than 8 members, add $3,630 for each additional member. (The same increment applies to smaller family sizes also, as can be seen in the figures above.)
For family units with more than 8 members, add $3,340 for each additional member. (The same increment applies to smaller family sizes also, as can be seen in the figures above.)
The preceding figures are the 2000 update of the poverty guidelines required by section 673(2) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1981 (Pub. L. 97-35). As required by law, this update reflects last year's change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U); it was done using the same procedure used in previous years.
Section 673(2) of OBRA-1981 (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) requires the use of the poverty guidelines as an eligibility criterion for the Community Services Block Grant program. The poverty guidelines are also used as an eligibility criterion by a number of other Federal programs (both HHS and non-HHS). Due to confusing legislative language dating back to 1972, the poverty guidelines have sometimes been mistakenly referred to as the “OMB” (Office of Management and Budget) poverty guidelines or poverty line. In fact, OMB has never issued the guidelines; the guidelines are issued each year by the Department of Health and Human Services (formerly by the Office of Economic Opportunity/Community Services Administration). The poverty guidelines may be formally referenced as “the poverty guidelines updated annually in the
The poverty guidelines are a simplified version of the Federal Government's statistical poverty thresholds used by the Bureau of the Census to prepare its statistical estimates of the number of persons and families in poverty. The poverty guidelines issued by the Department of Health and Human Services are used for administrative purposes—for instance, for determining whether a person or family is financially eligible for assistance or services under a particular Federal program. The poverty thresholds are used primarily for statistical purposes. Since the poverty guidelines in this notice—the 2000 guidelines—reflect price changes through calendar year 1999, they are approximately equal to the poverty thresholds for calendar year 1999 which the Census Bureau expects to issue in September or October 2000. (A preliminary version of the 1999 thresholds is now available from the Census Bureau.)
In certain cases, as noted in the relevant authorizing legislation or program regulations, a program uses the poverty guidelines as only one of several eligibility criteria, or uses a percentage multiple of the guidelines (for example, 125 percent or 185 percent of the guidelines.) Non-Federal organizations which use the poverty guidelines under their own authority in non-Federally-funded activities also have the option of choosing to use a percentage multiple of the guidelines such as 125 percent or 185 percent.
While many programs use the guidelines to classify persons or families as either eligible or ineligible, some other programs use the guidelines for the purpose of giving priority to lower-income persons or families in the provision of assistance or services.
In some cases, these poverty guidelines may not become effective for a particular program until a regulation or notice specifically applying to the program in question has been issued.
The poverty guidelines given above should be used for both farm and non-farm families. Similarly, these guidelines should be used for both aged and non-aged units. The poverty guidelines have never had an aged/non-aged distinction; only the Census Bureau (statistical) poverty thresholds have separate figures for aged and non-aged one-person and two-person units.
There is no universal administrative definition of “family,” “family unit,” or “household” that is valid for all programs that use the poverty guidelines. Federal programs in some cases use administrative definitions that differ somewhat from the statistical definitions given below; the Federal office which administers a program has the responsibility for making decisions about administrative definitions. Similarly, non-Federal organizations which use the poverty guidelines in non-Federally-funded activities may use administrative definitions that differ from the statistical definitions given below. In either case, to find out the precise definitions used by a particular program, one must consult the office or organization administering the program in question.
The following statistical definitions (derived for the most part from language used in U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P60-185 and earlier reports in the same series) are made available for illustrative purposes only; in other words, these statistical definitions are not binding for administrative purposes.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Note that this notice no longer provides a definition of “income.” This is for two reasons. First, there is no universal administrative definition of “income” that is valid for all programs that use the poverty guidelines. Second, in the past there has been confusion regarding important differences between the statistical definition of income and various administrative definitions of “income” or “countable income.” The precise definition of “income” for a particular program is very sensitive to the specific needs and purposes of that program. To determine, for example, whether or not taxes, college scholarships, or other particular types of income should be counted as “income” in determining eligibility for a specific program, one must consult the office or organization administering the program in question; that office or organization has the responsibility for making decisions about the definition of “income” used by the program (to the extent that the definition is not already contained in legislation or regulations).
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following committee meeting.
CDC Advisory Committee on HIV and STD Prevention.
3 p.m.-4:30 p.m., February 28, 2000.
Teleconference Call
Open to the public, limited only by the space available. The teleconference will accommodate approximately 100 people.
This Committee is charged with advising the Director, CDC, regarding objectives, strategies, and priorities for HIV and STD prevention efforts including maintaining surveillance of HIV infection, AIDS, and STDs, the epidemiologic and laboratory study of HIV/AIDS and STDs, information/education and risk reduction activities designed to prevent the spread of HIV and STDs, and other preventive measures that become available.
Agenda items include a discussion of recommendations pertaining to evolving HIV prevention priorities related to programs, surveillance and research.
Paulette Ford, Committee Management Analyst, National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, M/S E-07, Atlanta, Georgia 30333. Telephone 404/639-8008, fax 404/639-8600, e-mail pbf7@cdc.gov.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register Notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Guidance for Reviewers: Potency Limits for Standardized Dust Mite and Grass Allergen Vaccines: A Revised Protocol” dated January, 2000. The draft guidance document provides information on the revised release limits to be used by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) for its evaluation of standardized dust mite and grass allergen vaccines submitted to CBER for lot release. The establishment of suitable potency limits for standardized allergen vaccines submitted to CBER for lot release helps to ensure the safety, purity, and potency of these products.
Written comments may be submitted at any time, however, comments should be submitted by May 15, 2000, to ensure their adequate consideration in preparation of the final document.
Submit written requests for single copies of “Guidance for Reviewers: Potency Limits for Standardized Dust Mite and Grass Allergen Vaccines: A Revised Protocol” dated January, 2000 to the Office of Communication, Training, and Manufacturers Assistance (HFM-40),
Submit written comments on the document to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Joseph L. Okrasinski, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448, 301-827-6210.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Guidance for Reviewers: Potency Limits for Standardized Dust Mite and Grass Allergen Vaccines: A Revised Protocol” dated January, 2000. The draft guidance document, when finalized, would provide information to FDA reviewers regarding broader relative potency limits for CBER evaluation of standardized dust mite and grass allergen vaccines submitted to CBER for lot release. Issues addressed in the guidance document, include but are not limited to, the following: (1) Diagnostic Equivalence, (2) therapeutic equivalence, (3) safety equivalence, (4) lot-to-lot variation in allergen vaccine potency, and (5) current and broadened CBER release limits for standardized dust mite and grass allergen vaccines submitted to CBER for lot release.
This draft guidance document represents the agency's current thinking with regard to the potency limits for standardized dust mite and grass allergen vaccines. 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 requirement of the applicable statute, regulations, or both. As with other guidance documents, FDA does not intend this document to be all-inclusive and cautions that not all information may be applicable to all situations. The document is intended to provide information and does not set forth requirements.
This draft document is being distributed for comment purposes only and is not intended for implementation at this time. Interested persons may submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments regarding this draft guidance document. Submit Written comments at any time, however, comments should be submitted by May 15, 2000, to ensure adequate consideration in preparation of the final document. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except individuals may submit one copy. Comments should be identified with the docket number found in the brackets in the heading of this document. A copy of the document and received comments are available for public examination in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at http://www.fda.gov/cber/guidelines.htm.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects (section 3506(c)(2)(A) of Title 44, United States Code, as amended by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) publishes periodic summaries of proposed projects being developed for submission to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, call the HRSA Reports Clearance Officer on (301) 443-1129.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The regulation known as “Federal Right of Recovery and Waiver of Recovery,” provides a means for the Federal Government to recover grant funds and a method of calculating interest when a grant-assisted facility under Title VI and XVI is sold or leased, or there is a change in use of the facility. It also allows for a waiver of the right of recovery under certain circumstances. Facilities are required to provide written notice to the Federal Government when such a change occurs; and to provide copies of sales contracts, lease agreements, estimates of current assets and liabilities, value of equipment, expected value of land on the new owner's books and remaining depreciation for all fixed assets involved in the transactions, and other information and documents pertinent to the change of status.
Send comments to Susan G. Queen, Ph.D., HRSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 14-36, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
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:
The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) proposes to revise the Guidance and Forms for the Application and Annual Report for the Maternal and Child Health Services Title V Block Grant Program. The guidance is used annually by the 50 States and nine jurisdictions in making application for Block Grants under Title V of the Social Security Act, and in preparing the required annual report. The proposed revisions follow and build on extensive modifications made to the guidance and forms in 1997. The proposed revisions are of two types: (1) Editorial and technical revisions based on the experiences of the States and jurisdictions in using the guidance and forms in 1998 and 1999; and, (2) The addition of a standard set of measures to be used in conducting the formal needs assessment required by Title V every five years. This needs assessment will be required of each State and jurisdiction in fiscal year 2000.
The addition of the core set of measures for use in conducting the formal needs assessment follows discussions with State Maternal and Child Health Directors over the last two years. The changes incorporated in the 1997 revisions have been reflected in major changes in the Title V program, with much more emphasis on accountability and performance measurement as part of the performance partnership concept on which those changes were built. The inclusion now of standard measures for all States and jurisdictions to use in conducting the five-year needs assessment is a natural progression in the development of the Federal-State partnership process.
Following approval of the 1997 revisions, HRSA developed and instituted an automated electronic data collection and reporting system, the Title V Electronic Reporting Package (Title V ERP). The ERP has greatly reduced the burden on the States and jurisdictions, because it provides for automatic calculations of ratios, rates, and percentages, carries data over from year to year, and assures that data used in multiple tables are entered only once. The ERP also provides for text entry, and facilitates the orderly printing of tables, text, and required appendices.
The estimated response burden is as follows:
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.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice of Redelegation of Authority.
In this notice, the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing redelegates the authority for review and approval or disapproval of the 5-year Plans and Annual Plans of a public housing agencies (PHAs) under 24 CFR part 903, and conducting all activities related to such review, approval or disapproval, to the Offices of Public Housing Hub Directors, Program Center Coordinators and to the Directors of Troubled Agency Recovery Centers, with exceptions.
January 28, 2000.
Rod Solomon, Office of Policy, Program and Legislative Initiatives, Office of Public and Indian Housing, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Room 4116, Washington, DC 20410. Telephone number: (202) 708-0713. This is not a toll-free number. This number may be
On October 21, 1999 (64 FR 56844), HUD published its final rule implementing section 511 of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-276, approved October 21, 1998; 112 Stat. 2461) (referred to as the “Public Housing Reform Act”). Section 511 of the Public Housing Reform Act, which added a new section 5A to the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437
In accordance with section 511, the Secretary of HUD has the authority to review, approve or disapprove PHA plans submitted by PHAs. Section 511 is implemented in regulations found at 24 CFR part 903.
By separate delegation, the Secretary has elsewhere delegated to the Assistant Secretary for PIH the authority for administering the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, subject to certain exceptions.
Accordingly, the Assistant Secretary for PIH redelegates that authority as follows:
The Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing redelegates the authority for: review, approval or disapproval of PHAs' 5-year Plans and Annual Plans (“plans”) under 24 CFR part 903, and conducting all activities related to such review, approval or disapproval of the plans, to the Offices of Public Housing Hub Directors, Program Center Coordinators and Directors of Troubled Agency Recovery Centers, except as provided in Section B, below.
(1) The authority redelegated does not include the authority to waive regulations; and
(2) The Offices of Public Housing Hub Directors, Program Center Coordinators and Directors of Troubled Agency Recovery Centers may exercise the authority redelegated to disapprove a PHA plan on the grounds that the plan and/or its content is prohibited by or inconsistent with applicable Federal law only with the concurrence of the Assistant Secretary or his or her designee.
The authority redelegated in Section A may not be further redelegated.
Section 7(d), Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of application.
The following applicant requests an amendment to their permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531,
The applicant requests an amendment to their permit to take (harass, capture and release) endangered Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) in a larger geographical area, to include the following states: Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Activities are proposed for the enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
Written data or comments should be submitted to the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Operations, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056, and must be received within 30 days of the date of this publication.
Documents and other information submitted with this application are available for review by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to the following office within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Operations, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056. Telephone: (612/713-5350); FAX: (612/713-5292).
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Invitation for Coal Exploration License.
Pursuant to section 2(b) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended by section 4 of the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 1083, 30 U.S.C. 201(b), and to the regulations adopted at 43 CFR 3410, all interested parties are hereby invited to participate with Triton Coal Company, LLC on a pro rata cost sharing basis in its program for the exploration of coal deposits owned by the United States of America in the following-described lands in Campbell County, WY:
T. 52 N., R. 72 W., 6th P.M., Wyoming;
Sec. 17: Lot 16;
Sec. 20: Lots 1-3, 6-10, 15, 16;
Sec. 21: Lots 3-6, 10-15.
Containing 868.11 acres, more or less.
All of the coal in the above-described land consists of unleased Federal coal within the Powder River Basin Known Recoverable Coal Resource Area. The purpose of the exploration program is to obtain data on the Anderson and Canyon coal seams.
The proposed exploration program is fully described and will be conducted pursuant to an exploration plan to be approved by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Copies of the exploration plan are available for review during normal business hours in the following offices (serialized under number WYW149826): BLM, Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, WY 82003; and, BLM, Casper Field Office, 2987 Prospector Drive, Casper, WY 82604.
This notice of invitation will be published in The News-Record of Gillette, WY, once each week for two consecutive weeks beginning the week of February 14, 2000, and in the
The foregoing is published in the
Bureau of Land Management.
Public Meeting.
Notice is hereby given that the Bureau of Land Management will convene a Public Meeting to discuss a proposed ranch in the community of Trona, California on March 8, 2000 from 7:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. in the Trona High School Library. The purpose of this public meeting is to identify and address public issues and concerns, and to assess the nature and extent of potential environmental impacts which should be addressed in the Environmental Assessment.
Immediately upon publication.
Peter Graves, Ridgecrest Field Office, BLM, 300 South Richmond Road, Ridgecrest, CA 93555, (760) 384-5429.
On June 29, 1999, Rocking “R” Ranch submitted to the Bureau of Land Management an “Application For Land For Recreation or Public Purpose” to operate a public ranch for the rescue and rehabilitation of abused and neglected horses. The proposed ranch would be located on public land near the community of Trona, California. The land is more fully described as follows:
Containing 40.00 acres more or less, in the County of San Bernardino, State of California.
The Bureau of Land Management, Ridgecrest Field Office, will convene a public meeting beginning at 7:00 P.M. local time on Wednesday, March 8, 2000, in the Trona High School Library, 83600 Trona Road, Trona, California concerning the proposed Rocking “R” Ranch. The purpose of this public meeting is to identify and address public issues and concerns, and to assess the nature and extent of potential environmental impacts which should be addressed in the Environmental Assessment. Written comments are requested and should be submitted no later than March 3, 2000, to Peter G. Graves, Resource Management Specialist, Bureau of Land Management, 300 South Richmond Road, Ridgecrest, CA 93555. For more information, contact Peter G. Graves at (760) 384-5429.
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before February 5, 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 March 1, 2000.
1152-1154 S. Wabash Ave., Chicago, 00000153
81-95 Richmond St., Boston, 00000160
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is seeking an extension of the following information collection: Diversions, Return Flow, and Consumptive Use of Colorado River Water in the Lower Colorado River Basin, OMB No. 1006-0015. Before submitting the information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget for approval, Reclamation is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the information collection.
Comments on this notice must be received by April 17, 2000.
Address all comments concerning this notice to Information Collection Officer, Bureau of Reclamation, D-7924, P.O. Box 25007, Denver, Colorado 80225-0007.
Susan Rush, Information Collection Officer, (303) 445-2047; Internet address: srush@do.usbr.gov.
Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of the ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Department of Labor. To obtain documentation for BLS, ETA, PWBA, and OASAM contact Karin Kurz ((202) 219-5096 ext. 159 or by E-mail to Kurz-Karin@dol.gov). To obtain documentation for ESA, MSHA, OHSA, and VETS contact Darrin King ((202) 219-5096 ext. 151 or by E-mail to King-Darrin@dol.gov).
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for BLS, DM, ESA, ETA, MSHA, OSHA, PWBA, or VETS, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 ((202) 395-7316), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• 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.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA-W) issued during the period of January and February, 2000.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made and a certification of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance to be issued, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222 of the Act must be met.
(1) That a significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision thereof, have become totally or partially separated,
(2) That sales or production, or both, of the firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely, and
(3) That increases of imports of articles like or directly competitive with aticles produced by the firm or appropriate subdivision have contributed importantly to the separations, or threat thereof, and to the absolute decline in sales or production.
In each of the following cases the investigation revealed that criterion (3) has not been met. A survey of customers indicated that increased imports did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the firm.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the criteria for eligibility have not been met for the reasons specified.
The workers firm does not produce an article as required for certification under section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Increased imports did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the firm.
The investigation revealed that criteria (2) and criteria (3) have not been met. Sales or production did not decline during the relevant period as required for certification. Increases of imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by the firm or an appropriate subdivision have not contributed importantly to the separations or threat thereof, and the absolute decline in sales or production.
U.S. imports of coal from all sources were negligible (less than one percent of U.S. production) during the relevant period.
The following certifications have been issued; the date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
Also, pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (P.L. 103-182) concerning transitional adjustment assistance hereinafter called (NAFTA-TAA) and in accordance with Section 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act as amended, the Department of Labor presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for NAFTA-TAA issued during the month of January and February, 2000.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made and a certification of eligibility to apply for NAFTA-TAA the following group eligibility requirements of Section250 of the Trade Act must be met:
(1) That a significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision thereof, (including workers in any agricultural firm or appropriate subdivision thereof) have become totally or partially separated from employment and either—
(2) That sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely,
(3) That imports from Mexico or Canada of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have increased, and that the increases imports contributed importantly to such workers' for separations or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or
(4) That there has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to Mexico or Canada of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by the firm or subdivision.
In each of the following cases the investigation revealed that criteria (3) and (4) were not met. Imports from Canada or Mexico did not contribute importantly to worker' separations. There was no shift in production from the subject firm to Canada or Mexico during the relevant period.
The investigation revealed that the criteria for eligibility have not been met for the reasons specified.
The investigation revealed that workers of the subject firm did not produce an article within the meaning of Section 250(a) of the Trade Act, as amended.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the month of January and February, 2000. Copies of these determinations are available for inspection in Room C-4318, U.S. Department of Labor, 2000 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210 during normal business hours or will be mailed to persons who write to the above address.
On November 15, 1999, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration applicable to workers of the subject firm. The Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees, AFL-CIO, CLC, (UNITE) presented evidence that the Department's survey of the subject firm's customers was incomplete. The notice was published in the
The Department initially denied TAA to workers producing fleece fabric at Glenoit Corporation located in Jacksboro, Tennessee, based on the finding that the “contributed importantly” test of the worker group eligibility requirements of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met. The investigation revealed that the customers responding to a customer survey reported no increase in import purchases of fleece fabric during the relevant time period of the investigation (1997 to 1998 and the first half of 1999 compared to first half of 1998).
At the Department's request, the subject firm identified additional declining customers. On reconsideration, the Department conducted further survey of the subject firm's major declining customers. One respondent reported replacing purchases of fleece fabric from Glenoit with imports. This customer, however, accounted for an insignificant percentage of the subject firm's sales decline. Other respondents to the survey reported no import purchases of fleece fabric like or directly competitive with that produced by the workers of the firm.
After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Glenoit Corporation, Jacksboro, Tennessee.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on January 18, 2000, in response to a worker petition which was filed by the company on behalf of its workers at Great American Knitting mills, located in Bally and Pottstown, Pennsylvania. The workers produce men's socks.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the invstigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address show below, not later than February 25, 2000.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than February 25, 2000.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on August 30, 1999 in response to a worker petition which was filed by a company official on behalf of former workers at Lawson Mardon Thermoplate Corporation, Piscataway, New Jersey.
The Department of Labor has been unable to locate an official of the company to provide the information necessary to render a trade adjustment assistance determination. Consequently, the Department of Labor cannot conduct an investigation to make a determination as to whether the workers are eligible for adjustment assistance benefits under the Trade Act of 1974. Therefore, further investigation in this matter would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on June 24, 1999, applicable to workers of Levi Strauss and Company, Morrilton Sewing Facility located in Morrilton, Arkansas. The notice was published in the
At the request of the company, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged in the production of men's slacks and men's and women's jeans. New information received by the company shows that worker separations have occurred at the following facilities of Levi Strauss & Company: Little Rock Rescreen and Little Rock Customer Service, Little Rock, Arkansas, KB's Environmental Service, Menifee, Arkansas and Zimmerman Food Service, Morrilton, Arkansas. The Little Rock Rescreen and Little Rock Customer Service provided inspection, various customer services and distribution for Levi Strauss & Company. KB's Environmental Service and Zimmerman Food Service provided janitorial and cafeteria services for the subject firm's Morrilton Sewing Facility located in Morrilton, Arkansas which closed in early 1999.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of the subject firm, including full time contractors working at the above mentioned facilities, adversely affected by increased imports of men's slacks and men's and women's jeans.
Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to properly reflect this matter.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-36,243 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of the following facilities of Levi Strauss & Company: Morrilton Sewing Facility, Morrilton, Arkansas (TA-W-36,243), Little Rock Rescreen, Little Rock, Arkansas (TA-W-36,243D), Little Rock Customer Service Center, Little Rock, Arkansas (TA-W-36,234E), KB's Environmental Service, Meniffee, Arkansas (TA-W-36,243F) and Zimmerman Food Service, Morrilton, Arkansas (TA-W-36,243G) who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after May 10, 1998 through June 24, 2001 are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than February 25, 2000.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than February 25, 2000.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210.
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on January 3, 2000 in response to a worker petition which was filed on behalf of workers at Wagener Manufacturing Company, a division of Foster Industries, Incorporated, located in Wagener, South Carolina.
An active certification covering the petitioning group of workers remains in effect (TA-W-36,937). Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on December 20, 1999 in response to a worker petition which was filed on the same date on behalf of workers at Wolverine Tube, Inc., Roxboro, North Carolina.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
In accordance with section 250(A), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 2273), the Department of Labor issued a Certification for NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance on June 24, 1999, applicable to workers of Levi Strauss and Company, Morrilton Sewing Facility, located in Morrilton, Arkansas. The notice was published in the
At the request of the company, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged in the production of men's slacks and men's and women's jeans. New information received by the company shows that worker separations have occurred at the following facilities of Levis Strauss & Company: Little Rock Rescreen and Little Rock Customer Service, Little Rock, Arkansas, KB's Environmental Service, Menifee, Arkansas and Zimmerman Food Service, Morrilton, Arkansas. The Little Rock Rescreen and Little Rock Customer Service provided inspection, various customer services and distribution for Levi Strauss & Company. KB's Environmental Service and Zimmerman Food Service provided janitorial and cafeteria services for the subject firm's Morrilton Sewing Facility located in Morrilton, Arkansas which closed in early 1999.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of the subject firm, including full time contractors working at the above mentioned facilities, adversely affected by increased imports from Canada and Mexico.
The amended notice applicable to NAFTA-03161 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of the following facilities of Levi Strauss & Company: Morrilton Sewing Facility, Morrilton, Arkansas (NAFTA-03161), Little Rock Rescreen, Little Rock Arkansas (NAFTA-03161D), Little Rock Customer Service Center, Little Rock,
Pursuant to Section 250 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on December 3, 1999 on behalf of workers Wolverine Tube, Inc., Roxoboro, North Carolina.
The petitioner has requested tha the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
National Education Goals Panel.
Notice of Meeting.
This notice sets forth the date and location of a forthcoming meeting of the National Education Goals Panel. This notice also describes the functions of the Panel.
Saturday, February 26, 2000 from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
National Press Club, 529 14th Street, NW, HOLEMAN LOUNGE, Washington, DC 2005.
Ken Nelson, Executive Director, 1255 22nd Street, NW, Suite 502, Washington, DC 20037. Telephone: (202) 724-0015.
The National Education Goals Panel was established to monitor, measure and report state and national progress toward achieving the eight National Education Goals, and report to the states and the Nation on that progress.
The meeting is open to the public. Agenda items will include: A Panel discussion on data and reporting issues with presentations given by Cynthia D. Price, Associate Director of Analysis and Reporting, NEGP, on background of data issues; Gary Philips, Acting Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), on the perspective of NCES; and Mark Musick, Chair and President, respectively, of the National Assessment Board (NAGB) and the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB), on the perspectives of NAGB and SREB; as well as an action to establish a Data and Reporting Task Force.
Also included on the agenda will be the passing of the gavel from Governor Paul E. Patton (D-KY), NEGP Chair, 1999 to Governor Tommy G. Thompson, (R-WI), NEGP Chair, 2000. At that time Governor Thompson will announce the Panel's initiatives for the year 2000.
The National Science Board (NSB) is the policymaking body for the National Science Foundation (NSF). The Board consists of 24 members appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, for six-year terms, in addition to the NSF Director
The Board and the NSF Director solicit and evaluate nominations for submission to the President. Nominations accompanied by biographical information may be forwarded to the Chairman, National Science Board, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA, 22230, no later than March 31, 2000.
Any questions should be directed to Mrs. Susan E. Fannoney, Staff Assistant, National Sciences Board Office (703) 306-2000.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following four meetings of the Advisory Panel for Economics, Decision, and Management Sciences (17559):
1.
2.
3.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meetings of the Committee of Visitors for the Advisory Panel for Economics, Decision and Management Sciences (1760):
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463, as amended, the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
1. Briefing on Congressional Activities related to science and engineering, including briefing on FY 2001 Congressional Budget;
2. Briefing on Graduate Fellowship Program;
3. Planning for CEOSE Biannual report;
4. Update on activities of the Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering, and Technology Development (CAWMSET).
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meetings of the COV Advisory Panel for Methods, Cross-Directorate, and Science and Society (1760):
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
Special Emphasis Panel in Physics (1208).
February 20-22, 2000; 9 a.m.-5:30 p.m.
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1020, Arlington, VA 22230.
Closed.
Boris Kayser, Program Director for Theoretical Physics, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 1015, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 306-1889.
To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support in the Theoretical Physics Program.
To review and evaluate proposals as part of the selection process for awards.
The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information, financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.
Pursuant to delegation by the Commission,
This proceeding, which will be conducted pursuant to 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart L, of the Commission's Regulations, “Informal Hearing Procedures for Adjudications in Materials and Operator Licensing Proceedings,” concerns a request for hearing submitted by Save The Valley, Inc. The request was filed in response to a notice of consideration by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff of a request by the U.S. Army to amend its materials license to authorize decommissioning of its Jefferson Proving Ground Site in Madison, Indiana. The notice of consideration of the application and opportunity for hearing was published in the
The Presiding Officer in this proceeding is Administrative Judge Alan S. Rosenthal. Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.722, 2.1209, Administrative Judge Thomas D. Murphy has been appointed to assist the Presiding Officer in taking evidence and in preparing a suitable record for review.
All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed with Judge Rosenthal and Judge Murphy in accordance with 10 CFR 2.1203. Their addresses are:
Administrative Judge Thomas D. Murphy, Special Assistant, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
This designation of presiding officer is issued pursuant to the authority of the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.
This proceeding involves the proposed increase in capacity (through the addition of high-density storage racks) of the spent fuel storage pool of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3, a pressurized water reactor located in New London County, Connecticut. In response to a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, published at 64 FR 48672 (September 7, 1999), Connecticut Citizens Against Millstone (CCAM) and Long Island Citizens Against Millstone (CAM) submitted a timely request for a hearing. On October 19, 1999, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, consisting of Dr. Richard F. Cole, Dr. Charles N. Kelber, and Charles Bechhoefer, who serves as Chairman, was established to preside over this proceeding. 64 FR 57485 (October 25, 1999).
Notice is hereby given that, following the holding of a prehearing conference in New London, Connecticut, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has, by Prehearing Conference Order dated February 9, 2000, LBP-00-02, granted the request for a hearing/petition to intervene submitted by CCAM and CAM. Parties to this proceeding are the Licensee, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNEC); CCAM; CAM; and the Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
This proceeding will be conducted either under the Commission's hearing procedures in 10 CFR part 2, subpart G or, if requested by any party by February 22, 2000, under the Commission's hybrid hearing procedures set forth in 10 CFR part 2, subpart K.
During the course of this proceeding, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.715(a), will entertain limited appearance statements from any member of the public who is not a party to the proceeding, for the purpose of stating his or her views on the issues involved in this proceeding. Although these statements are not evidence and do not become part of the decisional record, they may assist the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and the parties in their consideration of matters at issue in this proceeding. Limited appearance statements should be made in writing. If the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board conducts an oral argument or in-person prehearing conference or evidentiary hearing, the Board may at its discretion hear oral statements, at a time and location yet to be determined. Written statements, and requests to make oral statements, should be submitted to the Office of the Secretary, Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555. A copy of such statement or request should also be served on the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, T3 F23, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, or CXB2@nrc.gov.
Documents related to this proceeding, issued prior to December 1, 1999, are available in print form for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), 2120 L St. NW, Washington, D.C. Documents issued subsequent to November 1, 1999 are available electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), with access to the public through NRC's Internet Web site (Public Electronic Reading Room Link,
For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering the issuance of an order under 10 CFR 50.80 approving the transfer of operating authority under Facility Operating License No. DPR-22 for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, currently held by Northern States Power Company (NSP), as owner and licensed operator of Monticello. The transfer would be to a new operating company called Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC). The Commission is also considering amending the license for administrative purposes to reflect the proposed transfer.
By application dated November 24, 1999, seeking approval of the transfer, the Commission was informed that NSP has entered into Nuclear Power Plant Operating Services Agreements with NMC. Under these Agreements, NMC is to assume exclusive responsibility for the operation and maintenance of Monticello. NSP's ownership of Monticello will not be affected by the proposed transfer of operating authority, according to the application. Likewise, NSP's entitlement to capacity and energy from Monticello will not be affected by the transfer of operating authority. No physical changes to the facility or operational changes are being proposed in the application.
The proposed amendment would reflect the transfer of authority under the license to operate Monticello from NSP to NMC.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its consent in writing. The Commission will approve an application for the transfer of a license, if the Commission determines that the proposed transferee is qualified to hold the license, and that the transfer is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission pursuant thereto.
Before issuance of the proposed conforming license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless otherwise determined by the Commission with regard to a specific application, the Commission has determined that any amendment to the license of a utilization facility which does no more than conform the license to reflect the transfer action involves no significant hazards consideration. No contrary determination has been made with respect to this specific license amendment application. In light of the generic determination reflected in 10 CFR 2.1315, no public comments with respect to significant hazards considerations are being solicited, notwithstanding the general comment procedures contained in 10 CFR 50.91.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene, and written comments with regard to the license transfer application, are discussed below.
By March 6, 2000, any person whose interest may be affected by the Commission's action on the application may request a hearing, and, if not the applicants, may petition for leave to intervene in a hearing proceeding on the Commission's action. Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene should be filed in accordance with the Commission's rules of practice set forth in subpart M, ``Public Notification, Availability of Documents and Records, Hearing Requests and Procedures for Hearings on License Transfer Applications,'' of 10 CFR part 2. In particular, such requests and petitions must comply with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.1306, and should address the considerations contained in 10 CFR 2.1308(a). Untimely requests and petitions may be denied, as provided in 10 CFR 2.1308(b), unless good cause for failure to file on time is established. In addition, an untimely request or petition should address the factors that the Commission will also consider, in reviewing untimely requests or petitions, set forth in 10 CFR 2.1308(b) (1)-(2).
Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene should be served upon John H. O'Neill, Jr., counsel for NSP, at Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037 (tel: 202-663-8148; fax: 202-663-8007; e-mail: john.o'neill@shawpittman.com); and the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 (e-mail address for filings regarding license transfer cases only: OGCLT@NRC.gov); and the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.1313.
The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the
As an alternative to requests for hearing and petitions to intervene, by March 18, 2000, persons may submit written comments regarding the license transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of the decisional record. Comments should be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and should cite the publication date and page number of this
For further details with respect to this action, see the application dated November 24, 1999, available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and accessible electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
By application dated November 24, 1999, seeking approval of the transfer, the Commission was informed that NSP has entered into Nuclear Power Plant Operating Services Agreements with NMC. Under these Agreements, NMC is to assume exclusive responsibility for the operation and maintenance of Prairie Island, Units 1 and 2, and Prairie Island ISFSI. NSP's ownership of Prairie Island, Units 1 and 2, and Prairie Island ISFSI will not be affected by the proposed transfer of operating authority, according to the application. Likewise, NSP's entitlement to capacity and energy from Prairie Island, Units 1 and 2, will not be affected by the transfer of operating authority. No physical changes to the facilities or operational changes are being proposed in the application.
The proposed amendments would reflect the transfer of authority under the licenses to operate Prairie Island, Units 1 and 2, and Prairie Island ISFSI from NSP to NMC.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80 and 10 CFR 72.50, no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its consent in writing. The Commission will approve an application for the transfer of a license, if the Commission determines that the proposed transferee is qualified to hold the license, and that the transfer is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission pursuant thereto.
Before issuance of the proposed conforming license amendments, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless otherwise determined by the Commission with regard to a specific application, the Commission has determined that any amendment to the license of a utilization facility or the license of an independent spent fuel storage installation which does not more than conform the license to reflect the transfer action, involves respectively, “no significant hazards consideration” or “no genuine issue as to whether the health and safety of the public will be significantly affected.” No contrary determination has been made with respect to this specific license amendment application. In light of the generic determination reflected in 10 CFR 2.1315, no public comments with respect to significant hazards considerations are being solicited, notwithstanding the general comment procedures contained in 10 CFR 50.91.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene, and written comments with regard to the license transfer application, are discussed below.
By March 6, 2000, any person whose interest may be affected by the Commission's action on the application may request a hearing, and, if not the applicants, may petition for leave to intervene in a hearing proceeding on the Commission's action. Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene should be filed in accordance with the Commission's rules of practice set forth in subpart M, “Public Notification, Availability of Documents and Records, Hearing Requests and Procedures for Hearings on License Transfer Applications,'' of 10 CFR part 2. In particular, such requests and petitions must comply with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.1306, and should address the considerations contained in 10 CFR 2.1308(a). Untimely requests and petitions may be denied, as provided in 10 CFR 2.1308(b), unless good cause for failure to file on time is established. In addition, an untimely request or petition should address the factors that the Commission will also consider, in reviewing untimely requests or petitions, set forth in 10 CFR 2.1308(b)(1)-(2).
Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene should be served upon John H. O'Neill, Jr., counsel for NSP, at Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge, 2300 N Streeet, NW, Washington, DC 20037 (tel: 202-663-8148; fax: 202-663-8007; e-mail: john.o'neill@shawpittman.com); and the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 (e-mail address for filings regarding license transfer cases only: OGCLT@NRC.gov); and the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.1313.
The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the
As an alternative to requests for hearing and petitions to intervene, by March 18, 2000, persons may submit written comments regarding the license transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of the decisional record. Comments should be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and should cite the publication date and page number of this
For further details with respect to this action, see the application dated November 24, 1999, available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and accessible electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).
By letter dated January 12, 2000, Holtec International (Holtec or applicant) requested an exemption, pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.234(c). Holtec, located in Marlton, New Jersey, is seeking Nuclear Regulatory
By letter dated October 26, 1995, as supplemented, and pursuant to 10 CFR part 72, Holtec submitted an application to the NRC for a CoC for the HI-STORM 100 system. This application is currently under consideration by the NRC staff. The applicant is seeking Commission approval to fabricate three HI-STORM 100 overpacks and one HI-TRAC 100 transfer cask prior to the Commission's issuance of a CoC for the HI-STORM 100 system. The applicant requests an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.234(c), which state that “Fabrication of casks under the Certificate of Compliance must not start prior to receipt of the Certificate of Compliance for the cask model.” The proposed action before the Commission is whether to allow fabrication, including material procurement, prior to issuance of the CoC and to grant this exemption pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7.
Holtec requested the exemption from 10 CFR 72.234(c) to ensure the availability of overpacks so that Hatch can continue loading dry storage casks as planned. Hatch plans to begin loading the three HI-STORM 100 systems in April 2001. Holtec has requested this exemption to allow Hatch sufficient time for training and pre-operational testing. To support Hatch's cask loading schedule, Holtec stated that it must begin fabrication activities in early April 2000; 3 months prior to the scheduled issuance of the HI-STORM 100 CoC, in July 2000.
The HI-STORM 100 application, dated October 26, 1995, is under consideration by the Commission. It is anticipated that, if approved, the HI-STORM-100 CoC may be issued by July 2000. The proposed fabrication exemption will not authorize use of the HI-STORM 100 overpacks to store spent fuel. That will occur only when, and if, a CoC is issued. NRC approval of the exemption request should not be construed as NRC's favorable consideration of Holtec's application for a CoC. Holtec will bear the risk of all activities conducted under the exemption, including the risk that the three HI-STORM 100 overpacks and one HI-TRAC-125 transfer cask that Holtec plans to construct may not be usable because they may not meet the specifications or conditions delineated in a CoC that the NRC may ultimately approve.
Regarding the fabrication exemption, the Environmental Assessment for the final rule, “Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181 (1990)), considered the potential environmental impacts of overpacks which are used to store spent nuclear fuel under a CoC and concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts. The proposed action now under consideration would not permit use of the overpacks, but would only permit fabrication. There are no radiological environmental impacts from fabrication since overpack fabrication does not involve radioactive materials. The major non-radiological environmental impacts involve use of natural resources due to overpack fabrication. Each HI-STORM 100 overpack weighs approximately 100 tons and is constructed of primarily metal and concrete. The HI-TRAC-125 transfer cask weighs approximately 125 tons and is made primarily of steel and lead. The amount of materials required to fabricate these components is expected to have very little impact on the associated industry. Fabrication of the metal components would be at a metal fabrication facility. Fabrication of the concrete overpacks would be partially done at a metal fabrication facility and completed by pouring the concrete at the Hatch site. The metal and concrete used in the fabrication of these components is insignificant compared to the amount of metal and concrete used in construction annually in the United States. If the components are not usable, the components could be disposed of or recycled. The amount of metal and concrete disposed of is insignificant compared to the amount of metal and concrete that is disposed of annually in the United States. Based upon this information, the fabrication of these components will have no significant impact on the environment since no radioactive materials are involved, and the amount of natural resources used is minimal.
Since there is no significant environmental impact associated with the proposed actions, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact are not evaluated. The alternative to the proposed actions would be to deny approval of the exemption and, therefore, not allow fabrication until a CoC is issued. This alternative would have the same environmental impact.
Given that there are no significant differences in environmental impact between the proposed action and the alternative considered, and that the applicant has a legitimate need to fabricate the components prior to certification and is willing to assume the risk that any fabricated components may not be approved or may require modification, the Commission concludes that the preferred alternative is to grant an exemption from the prohibition on fabrication prior to receipt of a CoC.
Mr. J. Setzer, Chief of Program Coordination, Department of Natural Resources, State of Georgia, was contacted about the Environmental Assessment for the proposed action and had no comments.
The environmental impacts of the proposed action have been reviewed in accordance with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 51. Based upon the foregoing Environmental Assessment, the Commission finds that the proposed action of granting an exemption from 10 CFR 72.234(c) so that Holtec may fabricate three HI-STORM 100 overpacks and one HI-TRAC-125 transfer cask prior to issuance of a CoC will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption.
The request for the exemption from 10 CFR 72.234(c) was filed on January 12, 2000. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for CoC for the HI-STORM 100 system, dated October 26, 1995. On July 30, 1999, a preliminary Safety Evaluation Report and proposed CoC for the HI-STORM 100 system were issued by the NRC staff to initiate rulemaking to add the HI-STORM 100 system to the list of approved cask designs in 10 CFR
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice of interest rates and assumptions.
This notice informs the public of the interest rates and assumptions to be used under certain Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation regulations. These rates and assumptions are published elsewhere (or are derivable from rates published elsewhere), but are collected and published in this notice for the convenience of the public. Interest rates are also published on the PBGC's web site (http://www.pbgc.gov).
The interest rate for determining the variable-rate premium under part 4006 applies to premium payment years beginning in February 2000. The interest assumptions for performing multiemployer plan valuations following mass withdrawal under part 4281 apply to valuation dates occurring in March 2000.
Harold J. Ashner, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005, 202-326-4024. (For TTY/TDD users, call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4024.)
Section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii)(II) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and § 4006.4(b)(1) of the PBGC's regulation on Premium Rates (29 CFR part 4006) prescribe use of an assumed interest rate in determining a single-employer plan's variable-rate premium. The rate is the “applicable percentage” (currently 85 percent) of the annual yield on 30-year Treasury securities for the month preceding the beginning of the plan year for which premiums are being paid (the “premium payment year”). The yield figure is reported in Federal Reserve Statistical Releases G.13 and H.15.
The assumed interest rate to be used in determining variable-rate premiums for premium payment years beginning in February 2000 is 5.64 percent (
The following table lists the assumed interest rates to be used in determining variable-rate premiums for premium payment years beginning between March 1999 and February 2000.
The PBGC's regulation on Duties of Plan Sponsor Following Mass Withdrawal (29 CFR part 4281) prescribes the use of interest assumptions under the PBGC's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044). The interest assumptions applicable to valuation dates in March 2000 under part 4044 are contained in an amendment to part 4044 published elsewhere in today's
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice.
This gives notice of positions placed or revoked under Schedules A and B, and placed under Schedule C in the excepted service, as required by Civil Service Rule VI, Exceptions from the Competitive Service.
Director, Staffing Reinvention Office, Employment Service (202) 606-0830.
The Office of Personnel Management published its last monthly notice updating appointing authorities established or revoked under the Excepted Service provisions of 5 CFR 213 on December 27, 1999 (64 FR 72369). Individual authorities established or revoked under Schedules A and B and established under Schedule C between November 1, 1999, and December 31, 1999, appear in the listing below. Future notices will be published on the fourth Tuesday of each month, or as soon as possible thereafter. A consolidated listing of all authorities has been published June 30 of last year.
No Schedule A authorities were established or revoked during November or December 1999.
No Schedule B authorities were established or revoked during November or December 1999.
The following Schedule C authorities were established during November thru December 1999:
Senior Advisor to the Director, International Broadcasting Bureau. Effective November 2, 1999.
Special Assistant to the Commissioner. Effective November 5, 1999.
Confidential Assistant to the Deputy Administrator, Office of Community Development. Effective November 1, 1999.
Confidential Assistant to the Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Effective November 3, 1999.
Confidential Assistant to the Director, Office of Civil Rights. Effective November 5, 1999.
Confidential Assistant to the Director, Office of Communications. Effective November 5, 1999.
Confidential Assistant to the Administrator, Rural Utilities Service. Effective November 18, 1999.
Staff Assistant to the Press Secretary to the Director, Office of Communications. Effective November 24, 1999.
Confidential Assistant to the Director, Office of Communications. Effective November 24, 1999.
Staff Assistant to the Chief (Program Support Assistant) to the Chief, Natural Resources and Environment. Effective December 2, 1999.
Deputy Press Secretary to the Director, Office of Communications. Effective December 15, 1999.
Staff Assistant to the Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. Effective December 15, 1999.
Staff Assistant to the Administrator, Agricultural Research Service. Effective December 22, 1999.
Special Assistant to the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmospheric Administration. Effective November 22, 1999.
Special Assistant to the Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for White House Liaison. Effective November 3, 1999.
Confidential Assistant to the Director, Defense Research and Engineering. Effective December 13, 1999.
Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict). Effective December 13, 1999.
Special Assistant for Outreach to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security). Effective December 20, 1999.
Confidential Assistant to the Director, Office of Public Affairs, Office of the Secretary. Effective November 2, 1999.
Confidential Assistant to the Director, America Reads Challenge. Effective November 5, 1999.
Confidential Assistant to the Director, America Reads Challenge. Effective November 5, 1999.
Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary, Office for Civil Rights. Effective December 22, 1999.
Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary, Office of Interagency Affairs and Community Service. Effective December 22, 1999.
Special Assistant for Communications to the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management. Effective November 15, 1999.
Director, Energy Advisory Board to the Secretary of Energy. Effective November 18, 1999.
Senior Policy Advisor to the Secretary of Energy. Effective December 6, 1999.
Executive Assistant to the Secretary of Energy. Effective December 7, 1999.
Senior Policy Advisor to the Secretary of Energy. Effective December 15, 1999.
Special Assistant to the Director, Consumer Information. Effective December 22, 1999.
Special Projects Officer to the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Power Technology. Effective December 23, 1999.
Special Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Natural Gas and Petroleum Technology. Effective December 23, 1999.
Confidential Assistant to the Administrator, Health Care Financing Administration. Effective November 8, 1999.
Special Assistant to the Advisor for Management Reform and Operations. Effective November 12, 1999.
Director of Operations to the Advisor for Management Reform and Operations. Effective November 18, 1999.
Associate General Deputy Assistant Secretary to the Assistant Secretary for Housing. Effective December 15, 1999.
Deputy Assistant Secretary to the Assistant Secretary for Administration.. Effective December 15, 1999.
Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary. Effective December 16, 1999.
Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development. Effective December 22, 1999.
Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development. Effective December 22, 1999.
Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development. Effective December 22, 1999.
Special Assistant to the Advisor for Management Reform and Operations. Effective December 23, 1999.
Special Counsel to the General Counsel. Effective December 23, 1999.
Special Counsel to the General Counsel. Effective December 23, 1999.
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research to the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research. Effective December 23, 1999.
Deputy Director, Office of Insular Affairs to the Director, Office of Insular Affairs. Effective November 5, 1999.
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Workforce Diversity to the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget. Effective November 9, 1999.
Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff. Effective November 18, 1999.
Special Assistant to the Deputy Chief of Staff. Effective November 22, 1999.
Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary, Policy Management and Budget. Effective December 1, 1999.
Special Assistant to the Deputy Chief of Staff. Effective December 15, 1999.
Senior Advisor to the Director, Bureau of Land Management. Effective December 15, 1999.
Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General, Environmental and Natural Resources Division. Effective November 5, 1999.
Staff Assistant to the Director, Office of Public Affairs. Effective November 15, 1999.
Special Assistant to the Director, Community Relations Service. Effective December 7, 1999.
Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Policy. Effective November 1, 1999.
Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. Effective November 5, 1999.
Attorney-Advisor (Labor) to the Solicitor of Labor. Effective November 24, 1999.
Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Labor. Effective November 29, 1999.
Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. Effective December 1, 1999.
Speech Writer to the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. Effective December 2, 1999.
Chief of Staff to the Assistant Secretary, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. Effective December 7, 1999.
Special Assistant to the Secretary of Labor. Effective December 22, 1999.
Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. Effective November 3, 1999.
Staff Assistant to the Under Secretary for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs. Effective November 3, 1999.
Staff Assistant to the Deputy to the Chief of Staff. Effective November 22, 1999.
Program Officer to the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Public Affairs. Effective December 6, 1999.
Management Analyst to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Logistics Management. Effective December 15, 1999.
Protocol Officer (Visits) to the Chief of Protocol. Effective December 16, 1999.
Special Assistant to the Assistant to the Secretary and Director of Public Affairs. Effective November 5, 1999.
Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. Effective November 15, 1999.
Senior Advisor to the Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration. Effective November 18, 1999.
Special Assistant for Scheduling and Advance to the Director of Scheduling and Advance. Effective December 7, 1999.
Special Assistant to the Executive Secretary. Effective November 15, 1999.
Deputy Executive Secretary to the Executive Secretary. Effective November 29, 1999.
Special Assistant to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Effective December 7, 1999.
Confidential Assistant to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Effective December 17, 1999.
Special Assistant to the Deputy Administrator. Effective December 28, 1999.
Senior Advisor to the Director, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs. Effective December 9, 1999.
Secretary to the Chairman. Effective November 9, 1999.
Confidential Assistant to the Associate Director, National Security and International Affairs. Effective November 5, 1999.
Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Management and Budget. Effective November 15, 1999.
Senior Advisor for Communications to the Director, Office of Communications. Effective December 17, 1999.
Senior Advisor to the Deputy Administrator. Effective December 22, 1999.
Senior Advisor to the Associate Deputy Administrator for Entrepreneurial Development. Effective December 22, 1999.
Regional Administrator, Region V, Chicago, IL to the Assistant Director, for Field Operations. Effective December 28, 1999.
Staff Assistant to the Commissioner. Effective December 22, 1999.
5 U.S.C. 3301 and 3302; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR 1954-1958 Comp., P.218.
According to the provisions of section 10 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given that meetings of the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee will be held on—
The meeting will start at 10:00 a.m. and will be held in Room 5A06A, Office of Personnel Management Building, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.
The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee is composed of a Chair, five representatives from labor unions holding exclusive bargaining rights for Federal blue-collar employees, and five representatives from Federal agencies. Entitlement to membership on the Committee is provided for in 5 U.S.C. 5347.
The Committee's primary responsibility is to review the Prevailing Rate System and other matters pertinent to establishing prevailing rates under subchapter IV, chapter 53, 5 U.S.C., as amended, and from time to time advise the Office of Personnel Management.
This scheduled meeting will start in open session with both labor and management representatives attending. During the meeting either the labor members or the management members may caucus separately with the Chair to devise strategy and formulate positions. Premature disclosure of the matters discussed in these caucuses would unacceptably impair the ability of the Committee to reach a consensus on the matters being considered and would disrupt substantially the disposition of its business. Therefore, these caucuses will be closed to the public because of a determination made by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management under the provisions of section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B). These caucuses may, depending on the issues involved, constitute a substantial portion of a meeting.
Annually, the Chair compiles a report of pay issues discussed and concluded recommendations. These reports are available to the public, upon written request to the Committee's Secretary.
The public is invited to submit material in writing to the Chair on Federal Wage System pay matters felt to be deserving of the Committee's attention. Additional information on this meeting may be obtained by contacting the Committee's Secretary, Office of Personnel Management, Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee, Room 5559, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20415 (202) 606-1500.
Notice is hereby give that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information
The survey is called the Securities and Exchange Commission Survey on Reciprocal Subpoena Enforcement. The staff created the survey pursuant to a Congressional directive in the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“1998 Act”). The 1998 Act requires the Commission, in consultation with state securities commissions (or similar agencies) to “seek to encourage the adoption of State laws providing for reciprocal enforcement by State securities commissions of subpoenas issued by another State securities commission* * *” The 1998 Act further requires the SEC to submit a report to Congress by November 2000 which identifies the states that have adopted such laws, describes the actions the Commission and the state commissions have taken to promote such laws, and identifies any further actions the Commission recommends for such purposes.
The survey seeks information regarding (1) the states' laws authorizing providing assistance to other states with subpoenas, (2) the states' experiences in seeking assistance from other states with their subpoenas, (3) the states' experiences in requesting assistance from other states with their subpoenas and (4) each state's proposals and suggestions regarding reciprocal subpoena enforcement. The Commission will use the information gathered in the survey to write the report to Congress.
The survey will be sent to all of the states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. It is estimated that there will be approximately 52 respondents to the survey and that each full response will take approximately 30 minutes. Thus, the total reporting burden of the survey will be about 26 hours. The survey is voluntary and may be completed at the option of the recipient. Responses will not be kept confidential. An agency may not sponsor, conduct, or require response to an information collection unless a currently valid OMB control number is displayed.
Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), the Commission solicits comments to: (1) 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, (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 automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Michael E. Bartrell, Associate Executive Director, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 5th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20549.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for extension and approval on the collection of information described below.
Section 18(f)(1)
The rule includes one requirement for the collection of information. A multiple class fund must prepare and fund directors must approve a written plan setting forth the separate arrangement and expense allocation of each class, and any related conversion features or exchange privileges (“ rule 18f-3 plan”).
The requirement that the fund prepare and directors approve a written rule 18f-3 plan is intended to ensure that the fund compiles information relevant to the fairness of the separate arrangement and expense allocation for each class, and that directors review and approve the information. Without a blueprint that highlights material differences among classes, directors might not perceive potential conflicts of interests when they determine whether the plan is in the best interests of each class and the fund. In addition, the plan may be useful to Commission staff in reviewing the fund's compliance with the rule.
There are approximately 550 multiple class funds.
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules.
Please direct general comments regarding the above information to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; and (ii) Michael E. Bartell, Associate Executive Director, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 5th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Wellness Universe, Inc. (“Wellness” because of questions about the accuracy and adequacy of publicly disseminated information concerning, among other things: the business prospects of Wellness and Synpan Corporation (“Synpan“), a related entity; the employment of Synpan officers; and a purportedly planned initial public offering of Synpan securities.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above listed company.
Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST, on February 11, 2000 through 11:59 p.m. EST, on February 25, 2000.
By the Commission.
On August 2, 1999, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX” or “Exchange”) submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the
The Exchange proposes to provide rules that govern access to the CHX trading floor (and related trading privileges) during an E-Session that operates after the Primary Trading Session and Post Primary Trading Session.
Under the proposed rules, a person or entity may access the E-Session through his or its own existing Exchange membership or by leasing the rights to a membership. The rights and privileges that can be leased for the E-Session will be limited to access rights to the trading floor during the E-Session in the capacity of a floor broker or co-specialist only (“E-Session trading privileges”). To lease the E-Session trading privileges of a membership, a person or entity would be required to register with and be approved by the Exchange as a member or member organization under the Exchange's Constitution and Rules. The lessee would not be entitled to sublease the privileges and rights and would not be able to vote such interest.
With respect to lessors, the proposed rules would require that the lessor be either: (i) An Approved Lessor, as defined in Article I.A. of the Exchange rules; (ii) a member or member organization that leases its membership privileges to a lessee for the Primary Trading Session; or (iii) a member or member organization that owns a membership and uses the membership for his or its own purposes during the Primary Trading Session.
Finally, the proposed rules would permit the Exchange to terminate the E-Session trading privileges upon 30 days written notice if the Exchange determines that it is in the best interest of the Exchange.
The Commission has reviewed carefully the CHX's proposed rule change and finds, for the reasons set forth below, that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange,
Under the proposal, the Exchange will allow a person or entity to access the E-Session through his or its own existing Exchange membership, or by leasing the rights to a membership, and will limit the rights and privileges that can be leased for the E-Session to access rights to the trading floor during the E-Session as a floor broker or co-specialist only. Additionally, lessees will be required to register with and be approved by the Exchange as a member or member organization under the Exchange's Constitution and Rules, and will not be entitled to sublease the privileges and rights, nor will they be allowed to vote their interest. The Commission believes that the proposed limitations on access to the E-Session, coupled with the proposed restrictions on the rights of E-Session lessees, should prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, by allowing the CHX to closely monitor the E-Session.
Additionally, the CHX proposes to require lessees to provide proof of an agreement with a registered clearing firm that is approved by the Exchange, and provide evidence that such clearing firm will guarantee the lessee's obligations for any and all losses incurred through his or its lease of the E-Session trading privileges. The Commission finds that this provision is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Exchange has also proposed that the lessee be considered a “member” or “member organization” for purposes of federal securities laws, and the Exchange's Certificate of Incorporation, Constitution and Rules, except in certain circumstances set forth in the rules. The Commission finds that this requirement is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act
Finally, the Commission believes that the proposed provision which permits the Exchange to terminate the E-Session trading privileges if the Exchange determines that it is in the best interests of the Exchange, is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On September 15, 1999, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD” or “Association”), through its wholly owned subsidiary NASD Regulation, Inc. (“NASD Regulation” or “NASDR”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) a proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
NASD Regulation proposes to amend certain aspects of the PDP in an effort to make the operation of the PDP clearer and fairer to NASD members, associated persons, and the public. The PDP is described in Interpretive Material 8310-2 of the NASD Rules (“the Interpretation”). Under the PDP, NASD Regulation discloses to the public certain information regarding employment history, other business experience, and disciplinary history of NASD members and associated persons. NASD Regulation uses information reported on the uniform forms
NASD Regulation seeks to clarify which firms or persons will be subject to disclosure through the PDP. Although the NASD currently releases information about current or former members and associated persons, the Interpretation does not explicitly address the issue of disclosure regarding
NASD Regulation also seeks to clarify its “required to be reported” standard and the effect of this standard on former members and associated persons, especially in light of former members and associated persons' limited ability to submit information to amend or update a disclosure record.
NASD Regulation presently interprets the “required to be reported” standard for
For
Under the proposed rule change, NASA Regulation will begin releasing information reported on Form U-6 for former members and associated persons, subject to the two-year time limitation discussed above. Among other things, NASD Regulation believes that the information reported on Form U-6 is highly reliable because it is filed by state securities regulators and self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”). NASD Regulation, however, does not currently release information that has been reported on a Form U-5 regarding
NASD Regulation proposes to clarify that it releases information on awards rendered in the NASD's arbitration forum involving securities or commodities disputes between members and public customers through the PDP, even though this information is not required to be reported on the Form BD. This information is already available to the public pursuant to NASD arbitration rules.
NASD also proposes to continue its current policy of not releasing social security numbers, home addresses, or physical description information reported on the uniform forms. Further, the proposed rule change clarifies that NASD Regulation will not release information through the PDP that it is otherwise prohibited from releasing under Federal law
Additionally, NASD Regulation proposes to discontinue public disclosure of a limited category of CRD information that it deems to be factually incorrect. NASD Regulation occasionally receives requests to expunge an event from CRD where the person who was the subject of the CRD filing can demonstrate to the NASD's satisfaction that it was factually impossible for him to have been involved in the event (
NASD Regulation also proposes to automate the preparation of disclosure reports. Currently, when NASD Regulation receives a public disclosure request, NASD Regulation staff reviews the CRD record of the subject of the request, identifies events that must be disclosed under the Interpretation, and manually prepares a summary report for the requester. Under the proposal, NASD Regulation will discontinue the manual preparation of these reports and instead use a computer program that automatically generates a report after drawing information directly from the Web CRD database. The report then will be sent by regular or electronic mail to the requester.
One consequence of this approach is that the automatically generated reports will include verbatim any comment submitted by a registered representative, firm, or regulator in response to the last question on the DRPs of the uniform forms.
After the proposal goes into effect, NASD Regulation will address objections to disclosure of customer names, confidential customer information, or offensive or potentially defamatory language on a case-by-case basis in the following manner. After receiving an objection, NASD Regulation will identify the filer (
The Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 15A of the Act
The Commission believes that the proposal will help further one of the primary objectives of the PDP—to help investors make informed choices about the individuals and firms with whom they choose to do business. Under the PDP, NASD Regulation will now release information contained on the Form U-6, which contains disciplinary and other information provided by SROs and state regulators. This information should help investors determine whether to conduct or continue to conduct business with a particular firm or individual. Further, the disclosure of this additional information may serve as a deterrent to fraudulent activity.
The Commission also believes that the proposal will help clarify the standards NASD Regulation uses to release information on current or former associated persons and firms. For example, NASD Regulation has clarified its policy about the release of information on a former associated person. Under the proposed rule change, NASD Regulation will release information on a former associated person for a two-year period after the associated person's effective date of termination. This clarification helps balance an investor's interest in obtaining information about a former associated person with the former associated person's interest in privacy.
In addition, the Commission believes that the automation of public disclosure reports should benefit investors and the NASD. For investors, the automation of public disclosure reports should help them receive information in a timelier manner, which in turn should help them make quicker decisions about the individuals and firms with whom they choose to do business. For the NASD, the automation of public disclosure reports should help it reduce its costs in providing these reports to the public.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to adopt a new procedure, codified in proposed Exchange Rule 6.41, whereby the Exchange would furnish PCX market makers with statistical reports that reflect trading volumes and identify specific trading activity in particular option issues to be used by PCX market makers for marketing and business development purposes. Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is in italics.
Rule 6.41. The Exchange will provide its Market Makers with statistical reports designed to measure trading volume and participation in trading activity in each option issue traded on the Exchange. The reports will provide monthly trading information that will identify, by order flow provider, the issue and number of contracts traded, the LMM post where the issue is traded, the contra and executing broker symbols, and whether the trade was executed through the Exchange's Automatic Execution System, through the Limit Order Book, or manually in the trading crowd.
In its filing with the Commission, the PCX 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 Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to furnish its market makers with statistical reports designed to measure trading volume and participation in trading activity in each option issue traded on the Exchange. The reports will provide monthly trading information that will identify, by order flow provider, the issue and number of contracts traded, the Lead market maker (“LMM”) post where the issue is traded, the contra and executing broker symbols, and whether the trade was executed through the Exchange's Automatic Execution System, through the Limit Order Book, or manually in the trading crowd.
The Exchange believes these reports will help market makers develop marketing plans specific to order flow providers that the market makers can use to help them increase order flow sent to the PCX. The reports will identify which order flow providers currently are bringing trades to the PCX and how those orders are being executed. In addition, the reports are designed to help PCX market makers support their business relationships and encourage further business development with those order flow providers. Furthermore, these reports will help the market makers identify specific customers to whom they should direct their marketing efforts. The Exchange believes that these reports will help the market makers focus on specific business needs of their customers, so that they can attract more business to the PCX. Finally, the Exchange believes the reports will help it compete for order flow in multiply traded issues.
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 that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange did not solicit or receive written comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve such 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, NW, Washington, DC 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 PCX. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-PCX-99-38 and should be submitted by March 7, 2000.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice; Invitation for Public Comment.
The Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) is informing the public of interim 1999 import statistics relating to Competitive Need Limitations (CNL) under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program. The TPSC also invites public comments by 5:00 p.m. March 31, regarding possible de minimis CNL waivers with respect to particular articles, and possible redesignations under the GSP program of articles currently subject to CNLs.
GSP Subcommittee, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., Room 518, Washington, DC 20508. The telephone number is (202) 395-6971.
Section 503(c)(2)(A) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (the “1974 Act”) (19 U.S.C. 2463(c)(2)(A)), provides for Competitive Need Limitations on duty-free treatment under the GSP program. When the President determines that a beneficiary developing country exported to the United States during a calendar year either (1) a quantity of a GSP-eligible article having a value in excess of the applicable amount for that year ($90 million for 1999), or (2) a quantity of a GSP-eligible article having a value equal to or greater than 50 percent of the value of total U.S. imports of the article from all countries (the “50 percent” CNL), the President shall terminate GSP duty-free treatment for that article from that beneficiary developing country by no later than July 1 of the next calendar year.
Section 503(c)(2)(F) of the 1974 Act provides the President with discretion to waive the 50 percent CNL with respect to an eligible article imported from a beneficiary developing country if the value of total imports of that article from all countries during the calendar year did not exceed the applicable amount for that year ($14.5 million for 1999).
Where an eligible article from a beneficiary developing country ceased to receive duty-free treatment due to exceeding the CNL in a prior year, Section 503(c)(2)(C) of the 1974 Act provides the President with discretion to redesignate such an article for duty-free treatment if imports in the most recently completed calendar year did not exceed the CNLs.
Exclusions from GSP duty-free treatment where CNLs have been exceeded, as well as the return of GSP duty-free treatment to products for which the President has used his discretionary authority to grant redesignations, will be effective July 1, 2000. Decisions on these matters, as well as decisions with respect to de minimis waivers, will be based on full 1999 calendar year import statistics.
In order to provide advance indication of possible changes in the list of eligible articles pursuant to exceeding CNLs, and to afford an earlier opportunity for comment regarding possible de minimis waivers and redesignations, interim import statistics covering the first 10 months of 1999 are included with this notice.
The following lists contain the HTSUS numbers and beneficiary country of origin for GSP-eligible articles, the value of imports of such articles for the first ten months of 1999, and their percentage of total imports of that product from all countries. The flags indicate the status of GSP eligibility.
Articles marked with an “*” are those that have been excluded from GSP eligibility for the entire past calendar year. Flags “1” or “2” indicate products that were not eligible for duty-free treatment under GSP for the first six months or last six months, respectively, of 1999.
The flag “D” identifies articles with total U.S. imports from all countries, based on interim 1999 data, less than the applicable amount ($14.5 million in 1999) for eligibility for a de minmis waiver of the 50 percent CNL.
List I shows GSP-eligible articles from beneficiary developing countries that have exceeded the CNL of $90 million in 1999. Those articles without a flag identify articles that were GSP eligible during 1999 but stand to lose GSP duty-free treatment on July 1, 2000. In addition, List I shows articles (denoted with a flag “*” or “2”) which did not have GSP duty-free treatment in all or the last half of 1999.
List II shows GSP-eligible articles from beneficiary developing countries that (1) have not yet exceeded, but are approaching, the $90 million CNL during the period from January through October 1999, or (2) are close to or above the 50 percent CNL. Depending on final calendar year 1999 import data, these products also stand to lose GSP duty-free treatment on July 1, 2000.
List III is a subset of List II. List III identifies GSP-eligible articles from beneficiary developing countries that are near or above the 50 percent CNL, but that may be eligible for a de minimis waiver of the 50 percent CNL. Actual eligibility for de minimis waivers will depend on final calendar year 1999 import data.
List IV shows GSP articles from beneficiary developing countries which are currently not receiving GSP duty-free treatment, but which have import levels (based on interim 1999 data) below the CNLs and which thus may be eligible for redesignation pursuant to the President's discretionary authority. Articles with a “D” exceed the 50 percent CNL and would require both de minimis waivers and redesignation to receive GSP duty-free treatment. The list may contain articles that may not be redesignated until certain conditions are fulfilled, as for example, where GSP eligibility for articles was suspended because of deficiencies in beneficiary countries' protection of the rights of workers or owners of intellectual property. This list does not include articles from India which do not receive GSP treatment as a result of Presidential Proclamation 6425 of April 29, 1992 (57 FR 19067).
Each list is followed by a summary table that indicates the number of products cited from each beneficiary developing country and the total value of imports of those products from the beneficiary developing country.
The lists appended to this notice are provided for informational purposes only. The attached lists are computer-generated and, based on interim 1999 data, may not include all articles that may be affected by the GSP CNLs. Regardless of whether or not an article is included on the lists, all determinations and decisions regarding the CNLs of the GSP program will depend on full calendar year 1999 import data with respect to each GSP eligible article. Each interested party is advised to conduct its own review of 1999 import data with regard to the possible application of GSP CNLs.
All written comments with regard to the matters discussed above should be addressed to: GSP Subcommittee, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, N.W., Room 518, Washington, DC 20508. All submissions must be in English and should conform to the information requirements of 15 CFR 2007. Furthermore, each party providing comments should indicate on the first page of the submission its name, the relevant Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading(s), the beneficiary country or territory of interest, and the type of action (e.g., the use of the President's
A party must provide fourteen copies of its statement which must be received by the Chairman of the GSP Subcommittee no later than 5 p.m., Friday, March 31. Comments received after the deadline will not be accepted. If the comments contain business confidential information, fourteen copies of a non-confidential version must also be submitted. A justification as to why the information contained in the submission should be treated confidentially must be included in the submission. In addition, the submissions containing confidential information should be clearly marked “confidential” at the top and bottom of each page of the submission. The version that does not contain confidential information should also be clearly marked, at the top and bottom of each page, “public version” or “non-confidential”.
Written comments submitted in connection with these decisions, except for information granted “business confidential” status pursuant to 15 CFR 2007.7, will be available for public inspection shortly after the filing deadline by appointment only with the staff of the USTR Public Reading Room (202) 395-6186. Other requests and questions should be directed to the GSP Information Center at USTR by calling (202) 395-6971.
Notice of results of section 302 investigation and invitation for public comments.
The United States Trade Representative (USTR) has conducted an investigation initiated under section 302(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (the Trade Act) (19 U.S.C. 2412(a)), with respect to certain acts, policies and practices of the Government of Canada and of the Province of Ontario that may discriminate against U.S. providers of tourism services. The USTR initiated this investigation on April 29, 1999, in response to a petition filed by the Border Waters Coalition Against Discrimination in Services Trade. Subsequently, the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario have taken steps that provide a satisfactory resolution of the dispute concerning the acts, policies, and practices that are the subject of this investigation. Therefore, pursuant to section 304(a)(1)(B) of the Trade Act, the USTR has determined that the appropriate action in this case is to terminate the investigation and to monitor the Canadian and Ontario Governments' implementation of these measures to eliminate those acts, policies, and practices. The USTR invites public comment with respect to this action.
Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20508.
Mary Ryckman, Director for Canadian Affairs, (202) 395-3412, or Steven F. Fabry, Associate General Counsel, (202) 395-3582.
On March 15, 1999, the Border Waters Coalition Against Discrimination in Services Trade filed a petition pursuant to section 302(a) of the Trade Act alleging that certain acts, policies and practices of the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario are actionable under section 301. In particular, the petition alleged that Ontario impaired the ability of Minnesota tourist establishments (fishing resorts, fishing guides, outfitters, and others) to compete against their Canadian counterparts by prohibiting U.S. recreational fishermen from keeping their catch if they lodged on the Minnesota side of certain lakes that straddle the U.S.-Canadian border. U.S. fishermen who lodged instead in Ontario tourist establishments were permitted to keep their catch. The petition alleged that, as a result, U.S. resorts, fishing guides, and other businesses tied to sport fishing suffered discrimination. The petition further alleged that Canadian immigration officials required U.S. fishing guides to obtain Canadian work authorizations to guide fishing trips into Canada. The petition also alleged that these acts, policies or practices had caused a sharp fall-off in the tourism industry, which directly or indirectly generates over $700 million in revenues per year in the Minnesota counties bordering Ontario. On April 29, 1999, the USTR determined that an investigation should be initiated under section 302(a) of the Trade Act. See 64 FR 28545.
During the course of this investigation, the U.S. Government held a series of consultations with the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario on the matters under investigation. On October 29, 1999, the Province of Ontario announced that it had revoked the provincial measures that were under investigation in this matter. On November 4, 1999, the Government of Canada agreed that the immigration measure under investigation would be reviewed by the NAFTA Temporary Entry Working Group. The USTR has determined that these measures and agreements provide a satisfactory resolution of the matters that are the subject of this investigation and that it is therefore appropriate to terminate this investigation. The USTR will continue to monitor implementation by the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario of these measures and agreements.
Prior to terminating this 301 action, the USTR consulted with the domestic industry that filed the petition and with the State of Minnesota. An opportunity for public comment prior to this action was not possible in view of the need to provide prompt relief to the domestic industry.
Interested members of the public are invited to submit comments to USTR regarding this action. USTR will review these comments upon receipt.
Comments must be filed in accordance with the requirements set forth in 15 CFR 2006.8(b) and must be filed on or before March 13, 2000. Comments must be in English and provided in twenty copies to: Sybia Harrison, Staff Assistant to the Section 301 Committee, Room 223, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20508. Comments will be placed in a file (Docket 301-119) open to public inspection pursuant to 15 CFR 2006.13, except confidential business information exempt from public inspection in accordance with 15 CFR 2006.15. Confidential business information submitted in accordance with 15 CFR 2006.15 must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” in a contrasting color ink at the top of each page on each of 20 copies, and must be accompanied by a nonconfidential summary of the confidential information. The nonconfidential summary shall be placed in the file that is open to public inspection.
Copies of the public version of the petition and other relevant documents are available for public inspection in the USTR Reading Room. An appointment to review the docket may be made by calling Brenda Webb (202) 395-6186. The USTR Reading Room is open to the public from 9:30 a.m. to 12 noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and is located in Room 101.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before March 16, 2000. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Judy Street on (202) 267-9895.
Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725-17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: FAA Desk Officer.
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 Harrisburg International Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (P.L. 101-508) and part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).
Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2000.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Roxane Wren, Harrisburg Airports District Office, 3911 Hartzdale Drive, Suite 1100, Camp Hill, PA 17011.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. David Holdsworth, Executive Director of the Susquehanna Area Regional Airport Authority at the following address: Susquehanna Area Regional Airport Authority, 135 York Drive, Suite 100, Middletown, PA 17057-5078.
Air carriers and foreign air carriers may submit copies of written comments previously provided to the Susquehanna Area Regional Airport Authority under section 158.23 of part 158.
Ms. Roxane Wren, Program Specialist, Harrisburg Airports District Office, 3911 Hartzdale Drive, Suite 1100, Camp Hill, PA 17011, 717-730-2830. 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 Harrisburg International Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (P.L. 101-508) and part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).
On January 20, 2000, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by Susquehanna Area 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 22, 2000.
The following is a brief overview of the application.
—Relocate Terminal Loop Road
—Enplaned/Deplaned Drive Expansion
—Loading Bridge Replacements (2)
—PFC Application Development
Any person may inspect the applicationin 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 the Susquehanna Area Regional Airport Authority.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Maritime Administration's (MARAD) intentions to request approval for three years of an
Comments should be submitted on or before April 17, 2000.
Thomas W. Harrelson, Office of Cargo Preference, Maritime Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 8118, Washington, D.C. 20590, telephone number—202-366-4610. Copies of this collection can also be obtained from that office.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Maritime Administration's (MARAD) intentions to request approval for three years of an existing information collection entitled “Information to Determine Seamen's Reemployment Rights—National Emergency.”
Comments should be submitted on or before April 17, 2000.
Christopher Krusa, Office of Maritime Labor, Training, and Safety, Maritime Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 7302, Washington, D.C. 20590, telephone number—202-366-2648. Copies of this collection can also be obtained from that office.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before March 16, 2000.
Marlene Markison at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of State and Community Services (NSC-01), 202-366-0166. 400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 6240, Washington, DC 20590.
Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725-17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.
A Comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before March 16, 2000.
Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.
Sharon Vaughn at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Chief Counsel (NCC-30), 202-366-1834. 400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 5219, Washington, DC 20590.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725-17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.
A Comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Surface Transportation Board.
Decision No. 6; Request for Comments on Procedural Schedule; Establishment of Schedule for Any Comments on Petition for Waiver or Clarification of Certain Requirements of the Board's Regulations.
Pursuant to 49 CFR 1180.4(b), Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation (BNSFC) and The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSFR),
Written comments on the procedural schedule and the petition for waiver or clarification must be filed with the Board no later than March 1, 2000. Applicants' reply is due by March 6, 2000.
An original and 25 copies of all documents filed in this proceeding must refer to STB Finance Docket No. 33842 and must be sent to the Surface Transportation Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, ATTN: STB Finance Docket No. 33842, 1925 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each document filed in this proceeding must be sent to the Administrative Law Judge assigned to entertain and rule upon all disputes concerning discovery in this proceeding (an ALJ will be assigned to this proceeding in the near future), and to each of applicants' representatives: (1) Erika Z. Jones, Mayer, Brown & Platt, 1909 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006-1101 (representing BNSF), and (2) Paul A. Cunningham, Harkins Cunningham, 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20004-2664 (representing CN).
In addition to submitting an original and 25 copies of all paper documents filed with the Board, parties must also submit, on diskettes (3.5-inch IBM-compatible floppies) or compact discs, one electronic copy of each such document (e.g., textual materials, electronic workpapers, data bases and spreadsheets used to develop quantitative evidence). Textual materials must be in, or convertible by and into, WordPerfect 7.0. Spreadsheets must be in some version of Lotus, Excel, or Quattro Pro.
Julia M. Farr, (202) 565-1613. [TDD for the hearing impaired: 1-800-877-8339.]
In their BN/CN-8 petition filed February 3, 2000, applicants have proposed a procedural schedule to govern the course of the BNSF/CN proceeding. In their BN/CN-9 petition filed February 4, 2000, applicants have requested waiver or clarification of certain of the Board's 49 CFR part 1180 Railroad Consolidation Procedures, and of certain other regulations governing filings related to the primary application.
The procedural schedule proposed by applicants is as follows:
Applicants propose that we further provide: that, immediately upon each evidentiary filing, the filing party must place all documents relevant to the filing (other than documents that are privileged or otherwise protected from discovery) in a depository open to all parties, and must make its witnesses available for discovery depositions; that access to documents subject to protective order will be appropriately restricted; that discovery relating to applications and other filings (including responsive and inconsistent applications), where permitted, will begin immediately upon their filing; and that the ALJ assigned to this matter will have the authority initially to resolve any discovery disputes.
Applicants also propose that parties wishing to engage in discovery be directed to consult with the ALJ who will be designated to handle all discovery matters and to resolve initially all discovery disputes; and that the ALJ be given authority to adopt discovery guidelines (which, applicants indicate, they intend to seek) and to rule on discovery matters, but not to modify the procedural schedule. Applicants further propose that we require: that appeals of ALJ decisions must be filed within 3 working days of the date of a bench ruling, or, in its absence, the date of a written ruling; and that replies to appeals, and also replies to any motion filed with the Board itself in the first instance, must be filed within 3 working days of the date of filing of such appeal or motion.
As respects environmental matters, applicants propose that they be allowed to develop, in consultation with the Board's Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA), a schedule for their environmental submissions, one element of which (applicants indicate) will be a Safety Integration Plan that will be prepared under the guidelines established by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). Applicants add that any party contemplating the filing of an inconsistent or responsive application should similarly be required to consult with SEA to confirm the schedule for its environmental filings, with the understanding that a responsive environmental report for any such application should be filed 20 days before such application (i.e., on Day F+100 in the schedule proposed by applicants), unless the responsive/inconsistent applicant can certify that the transaction proposed in its application does not require environmental documentation pursuant to 49 CFR 1105.6(c)(2).
As further respects environmental matters, applicants indicate that their proposed schedule assumes that the final environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) will be available prior to oral argument (which applicants would schedule for Day F+300). Applicants add that, if more time should be needed to complete the EA or EIS, that need could be accommodated by an appropriate extension.
In their BN/CN-9 petition, applicants seek waiver or clarification of certain requirements of the Board's Railroad Consolidation Procedures, 49 CFR part 1180, subpart A, and of certain other regulations governing filings related to the BNSF/CN primary application. Applicants seek, in particular: (A) waiver or clarification to provide that the primary application is not required to include effects of the proposed transaction that would take place entirely outside the United States, and therefore may be limited to effects within, and on traffic to and from, the United States; (B) waiver or clarification of 49 CFR 1180.3(a) to exclude Grand Trunk Corporation, Illinois Central Corporation, CCP Holdings, Inc., and North American Railways, Inc. (NAR) from the definition of “applicant'; (C) waiver or clarification of 49 CFR 1180.3(b) to limit the definition of “applicant carriers” to those Board-regulated rail carriers in which either CN or BNSF now holds a majority interest, and, where the Board's rules require the submission of information or data pertaining to “applicant carriers,” waiver or clarification to permit applicants to submit, as appropriate, information or data pertaining to CNR and BNSFC, or CNR and BNSFR, as appropriate, and their respective majority-owned subsidiaries on a consolidated basis; (D) waiver or clarification of 49 CFR 1180.6(a)(2)(v) to permit applicants to submit employee impact data using the classifications and format described in Appendices A and B to the BN/CN-9 petition; (E) waiver or clarification of 49 CFR 1180.6(b)(1), (2), and (4) to permit applicants to file only (a) the most recent Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Form 40-F for CNR and the most recent Form 10-Ks for BNSFC and BNSFR, (b) the joint BNSFC/CNR proxy statement/circular/prospectus included in Forms F-4 and S-4 filed by CNR and NAR in connection with the contemplated issuance of shares of CNR voting stock and shares of NAR common stock at the closing of the BNSF/CN control transaction, and (c) the most recent annual reports to shareholders of CNR and BNSFC; (F) waiver or clarification of 49 CFR 1180.6(b)(3), (6), and (8), relating to matters of corporate structure and intercorporate relationships, to permit applicants to exclude certain data that (applicants claim) is not relevant to a thorough evaluation of the BNSF/CN primary application; (G) waiver of 49 CFR 1105.10(a) and 1150.1(b) to provide that applicants may advise SEA, by no later than 30 days before the filing of the BNSF/CN primary application, of any control-related construction projects that will be the subject of applications for approval, petitions for exemption, or notices of exemption related to the primary application; and (H) certain assertedly related relief to permit the filing of any directly-related abandonment applications (or notices of, or petitions for, exemption) together with the primary application and the processing of any such abandonment applications on the same schedule as the control proceeding, as well as the waiver or clarification of certain abandonment regulations pursuant to 49 CFR 1152.24(e)(5).
We invite all interested persons to submit written comments on applicants' proposed procedural schedule by March 1, 2000. In addition, interested persons who wish to comment on applicants' petition for waivers and clarifications will be permitted to do so by the same March 1, 2000 deadline.
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice of Exemption.
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502, the Board conditionally exempts from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10901 the construction and operation by Ellis County Rural Rail Transportation District of a 4.8-mile line of railroad in Ellis County, TX.
The exemption will not become effective until the environmental process is completed. Once that process is completed, the Board will issue a further decision addressing the environmental matters and establishing an exemption effective date at that time, if appropriate. Petitions to reopen must be filed by March 6, 2000.
Send pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 33731, to: (1) Surface Transportation Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20423-0001; and (2) Donald G. Avery, 1224 Seventeenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.
Beryl Gordon, (202) 565-1600. [TDD for the hearing impaired: 1-800-877-8339.]
Additional information is contained in the Board's decision. To purchase a copy of the full decision, write to, call, or pick up in person from: Da
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at “WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.”
Decided: February 8, 2000.
By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Burkes and Commissioner Clyburn.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C., 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before March 16, 2000.
Denise McLamb, Information Management Service (045A4), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-8030 or FAX (202) 273-5981. Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0120.”
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
Send comments and recommendations concerning any aspect of the information collection to VA's OMB Desk Officer, Allison Eydt, OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 (202) 395-4650. Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0120” in any correspondence.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C., 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before March 16, 2000.
Denise McLamb, Information Management Service (045A4), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-8030 or FAX (202) 273-5981. Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0131.”
Send comments and recommendations concerning any aspect of the information collection to VA's OMB Desk Officer, Allison Eydt, OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 (202) 395-4650. Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0131” in any correspondence.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C., 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before March 15, 2000.
Denise McLamb, Information Management Service (045A4), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-8030 or FAX (202) 273-5981. Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0208.”
a. Daily Log—Formal Contract, VA Form 10-6131.
b. Architect-Engineer Fee Proposal, VA Form 10-6298.
c. Supplement to SF 129, Solicitation Mailing List Application, VA Form 10-6299.
a. VA Form 10-6131 is used by contractors to furnish daily reports verifying work progress and assure proper contract compliance.
b. VA Form 10-6298 is used by architect-engineering firms to submit a fee proposal on the scope and complexity of an individual project.
c. VA Form 10-6299 is mailed with SF 129, Solicitation Mailing List Application, to prospective bidders on VA contract projects.
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
a. Daily Log—Formal Contract, VA Form 10-6131—3,600 hours.
b. Architect-Engineer Fee Proposal, VA Form 10-6298—800 hours.
c. Supplement to SF 129, Solicitation Mailing List Application, VA Form 10-6299 3,000 hours.
a. Daily Log—Formal Contract, VA Form 10-6131—12 minutes.
b. Architect-Engineer Fee Proposal, VA Form 10-6298—4 hours.
c. Supplement to SF 129, Solicitation Mailing List Application, VA Form 10-6299—1 hour.
a. Daily Log—Formal Contract, VA Form 10-6131—18,000.
b. Architect—Engineer Fee Proposal, VA Form 10-6298—200.
c. Supplement to SF 129, Solicitation Mailing List Application, VA Form 10-6299—3,000.
Send comments and recommendations concerning any aspect of the information collection to VA's OMB Desk Officer, Allison Eydt, OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 (202) 395-4650. Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0208” in any correspondence.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C., 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before March 16, 2000.
Denise McLamb, Information Management Service (045A4), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-8030 or FAX (202) 273-5981. Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0139.”
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
Send comments and recommendations concerning any aspect of the information collection to VA's OMB Desk Officer, Allison Eydt, OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 (202) 395-4650. Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0139” in any correspondence.
By direction of the Secretary.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
This document establishes rules authorizing the operation of two new classes of low power FM (LPFM) radio stations. LP100 stations will operate at a maximum power of 100 watts and LP10 stations at a maximum power of 10 watts. The LPFM service will provide opportunities for new voices to be heard and will be implemented in a manner that best serves the public interest.
Effective April 17, 2000.
Julie Barrie, (202) 418-2130, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau; Engineering Contact: Keith Larson, (202) 418-2600, Mass Media Bureau.
This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order (“
1. With this
2. In establishing this new service, we are determined to preserve the integrity and technical excellence of existing FM radio service, and not to impede its transition to a digital future. In this regard, our own technical studies and our review of the record persuade us that 100-watt LPFM stations operating without 3rd-adjacent channel separation requirements will not result in unacceptable new interference to the service of existing FM stations. Moreover, imposing 3rd-adjacent channel separation requirements on LPFM stations would unnecessarily impede the opportunities for stations in this new service, particularly in highly populated areas where there is a great demand for alternative forms of radio service. We will not, therefore, impose 3rd-adjacent channel separation requirements. To avoid any possibility of compromising existing service, given the new nature of the LPFM service, we will impose separation requirements for low power with respect to full power stations operating on co-, 1st- and 2nd-adjacent and intermediate frequency (IF) channels. We believe that the rules we are adopting will maintain the integrity of the FM band and preserve the opportunity for a transition to a digital radio service in the future, while affording significant opportunities for new radio service.
3. The
4. Our goal in creating a new LPFM service is to create a class of radio stations designed to serve very localized communities or underrepresented groups within communities. To that end, in the
5. Another goal expressed in the
6. Finally, in proposing the creation of a new LPFM service, we made clear that we will not compromise the integrity of the FM spectrum. We are committed to creating a low power FM radio service only if it does not cause unacceptable interference to existing radio service. The
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12. However, the record, including comments from both current broadcasters and public interest groups who were opposed to stations as large as 1000 watts, convinces us that licensing such a service is not in the public interest. As argued by commenters, 1000 watt stations may pose a greater interference concern for existing broadcasters and are not necessary to meet the most pressing and widespread demand for service
13. LP100 stations will be authorized to operate with maximum facilities equivalent to 100 watts ERP at 30 meters (100 feet) HAAT and minimum facilities equivalent to 50 watts at 30 meters (100 feet). This would permit a maximum 1 mV/m contour (60 dBu) with a radius of approximately 5.6 kilometers (3.5 miles), subject to the radio environment. Depending on population density, such a station could serve hundreds or thousands of listeners. This service will allow LPFM licensees to broadcast affordably to communities of moderate size and interest groups that are geographically proximate, such as ethnic, professional, industry and student groups, and retirement neighborhoods. Spectrum rights and responsibilities for this service are addressed below.
14. LP10 stations will operate at between one and 10 watts ERP and an antenna height of up to 30 meters (100 feet) HAAT. Such stations will produce a 60 dBu signal out to about 1.6 to 3.2 kilometers (1 to 2 miles) from the antenna site. Such stations will fit in some locations where LP100 stations cannot, due to separation requirements, and will provide groups with the opportunity to operate stations that reach smaller communities or groups with a common interest. Spectrum rights and responsibilities for this service are addressed below.
15.
16.
17.
18. Establishing LPFM as a noncommercial service will have the added benefit of giving us additional flexibility to assign licenses for this service in a manner that is most likely to place them in the hands of local community groups that are in the best position to serve local community needs. As a general matter, where mutually exclusive applications are filed for initial commercial licenses or construction permits, the licenses or permits must be awarded by competitive bidding pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 309(j). Licenses for noncommercial educational broadcast stations, as described in section 397(6) of the Act, however, are not subject to competitive bidding. Accordingly, having decided to establish LPFM as a noncommercial service, we will require that LPFM licensees comply with the eligibility requirements of section 397(6) of the Act.
19. Section 397(6) of the Act defines “noncommercial educational broadcast station” as a station which:
(A) Under the rules and regulations of the Commission in effect on the effective date of this paragraph, is eligible to be licensed by the Commission as a noncommercial educational radio or television broadcast station and which is owned and operated by a public agency or nonprofit private foundation, corporation, or association; or
(B) Is owned and operated by a municipality and which transmits only noncommercial programs for education purposes. Since the statute incorporates by reference the Commission's noncommercial eligibility rules, we must look to those rules in determining noncommercial eligibility under section 397(6) of the Act. The Commission's rules limit eligibility for noncommercial radio stations to nonprofit educational organizations that show that the station will be used “for the advancement of an educational program.” In applying this rule, the Commission has required that applicants be (a) a government or public educational agency, board or institution, or (b) a private, nonprofit educational organization, or (c) a nonprofit entity with a demonstrated educational purpose. We require that an applicant described in (a) or (b) have an educational program and demonstrate how its programming will be used for the advancement of that program. An applicant applying as (c) must specifically show (i) that it is in fact a nonprofit educational organization, (ii) that it has an educational objective, and (iii) how its programming will further that objective.
20. The requirement that NCE licensees provide programming that advances an educational objective may be satisfied by a variety of programs, including but not limited to
21.
22.
23.
24. In order to further our diversity goals and foster local, community-based service, we will not allow any broadcaster or other media entity subject to our ownership rules to control or to hold an attributable ownership interest in an LPFM station or enter broadcast related operating agreements with an LPFM licensee. Additionally, to foster the local nature of LPFM service, we are limiting eligibility to local entities during the
25. Throughout this discussion we use the term “community” in a manner different from our traditional use of the term. Here, we use the term to refer to the very small area and population group that will make up the potential service area and audience of an LPFM station. Given the very small nature of LPFM service contours and prospective audiences, we do not expect LPFM service areas to be coincident with traditional political boundaries that we use to define communities in other contexts, such as our allocations process.
26.
27.
28. Most commenters, however, oppose cross-ownership of full-service stations and LPFM stations. Most commenters also support the Commission's proposal to prohibit arrangements between full service broadcasters and LPFM entities, such as joint sales and time brokerage agreements.
29.
30. We have also decided to prohibit operating agreements in any form, including time brokerage agreements, local marketing or management agreements, and similar arrangements, between full power broadcasters and LPFM broadcasters, or between two or more low power licensees. Many commenters strongly oppose allowing any form of operating agreement that would dilute new ownership in the low power service. We are concerned that such agreements too readily could undermine the strict cross-ownership restriction adopted by allowing an ineligible entity to program or manage an LPFM station. We see no harm, however, in permitting any existing licensee to apply for an LPFM station on the condition that it is otherwise qualified and it represents that it will divest its interest prior to commencement of LPFM operations.
31.
32.
33.
34. We do not find convincing the argument made by some commenters that imposition of a local residency eligibility requirement here would pose the same legal problems as the “integration of ownership and management” factor formerly employed as a comparative criterion in the commercial broadcast service. While that comparative criterion was overturned as arbitrary and capricious in the
35. Furthermore, we believe that local roots are particularly important in a noncommercial educational service like LPFM. As noted above, we cannot rely on commercial market forces to ensure that LPFM licensees are responsive to local needs because they will be noncommercial entities providing noncommercial program services. Indeed, Congress and the Commission have long recognized the unique role played by local entities in providing noncommercial educational programming, and we have favored local entities in providing other noncommercial educational services.
36. Finally, we do not believe that our preference for local applicants here raises the concerns voiced by the court in
37.
38.
39.
40. In addition to ensuring the fullest use of LPFM spectrum in the long term, we believe that this tiered system will balance the interests of local entities, which we expect to be the first entrants in this service, and national noncommercial educational entities, which may be interested in additional local outlets to increase their reach and to achieve certain efficiencies of operation. We note the attribution exception for national or other large entities with local community-based chapters, discussed below in the attribution section, which will allow the local chapters to apply as individual entities and thus not be constrained by this national ownership provision.
41. In the
42.
43.
44.
45. In the
46. We note that the attribution exception for local chapters of national entities, discussed in the next section, will allow local chapters to apply as individual entities and thus avoid the bar that the national ownership rules would otherwise impose.
47.
48.
49.
50. We will, moreover, include an attribution exception for local chapters of national or other large organizations. In the event that a local chapter can demonstrate that it: (1) Is separately incorporated, and (2) has a distinct local presence and mission, the local chapter can apply for a license in its own right and the national entity's “ownership” will not be attributed to it. In order to meet this standard, the local entity must be able to show a significant membership within the community, as well as a local purpose that can be distinguished from its national purpose. For example, the general purpose of raising awareness of the toxic waste problem in the United States would not suffice, but raising awareness of the toxic waste problem in particular local areas would meet the local purpose standard.
51.
52.
53.
54. The most significant specific question that character concerns raise in the context of this proceeding, as discussed in the
55. Contrary to some commenters arguments, this rule does not unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment rights of unlicensed broadcasters. Disqualification under this rule is based solely on lack of compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements. All parties should note, however, that as licensed broadcasters, ignorance, whatever its cause, is not considered an excuse for violation, and full compliance with our rules will be required. Moreover, as implied by the provisions of the
56.
57.
58.
59. In view of their relatively smaller service areas, we believe that most LPFM stations will co-locate program origination and transmission facilities. As a result, these stations would not require studio-to-transmitter links (STL) between these facilities. However, we will not foreclose LPFM operators the use of broadcast auxiliary frequencies used by full-service radio stations for this purpose. LPFM stations may also desire to air programming relayed from a remote location, such as an athletic event, or in connection with news gathering. Generally, we will permit entities authorized to operate LPFM stations to use remote pickup frequencies and radio broadcast auxiliary frequencies in the manner in which full-service stations use these frequencies, pursuant to the technical rules and procedures given in subparts D and E of part 74 of our rules. However, we will require that LPFM operations on auxiliary frequencies be secondary to that of full-service broadcast stations and other primary users, given the congestion of frequency use in some locales. We note that TV auxiliary frequencies are licensed to low power TV stations on this basis. An entity seeking to operate an LPFM station may apply for broadcast auxiliary license only after it has been authorized to construct the LPFM station.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64. The extent of interference protection from LPFM stations to existing FM, LPFM and FM translator and booster service generally will be that afforded by minimum station separation requirements. These were designed to provide the same degree of interference protection that full-service stations provide each other. We have added a 20-kilometer buffer to the separations for protecting co-channel and first adjacent channel full-service stations. This buffer will help to protect FM radio facilities that were modified or upgraded in a manner that would create a short-spacing with an operating LPFM station. LPFM stations will not be required to eliminate interference caused to FM stations by their lawful operations. They will, however, be required to eliminate interference caused by operations that violate the terms of the station's authorization or the Commission's Rules; for example, radiation of excessive emissions outside of the station's authorized channel. LPFM station operators will also be required to respond to complaints of “blanketing” interference. They will also be subject to international agreements regarding the elimination of interference to primary Canadian or Mexican broadcast stations. Until these agreements are modified, we believe it is appropriate to apply to LPFM stations the international provisions applicable to FM translators, which operate at comparable power levels.
65.
66. We expressed our desire to provide a measure of stability to operating LPFM stations. For this purpose, we will permit LPFM stations to continue operating even though they would cause interference within the protected service contours of a subsequent authorized FM service, including new stations and facilities modifications or upgrades of existing stations. In such situations, the LPFM operator would decide whether interference received to its service would permit the station to continue operating on its channel. However, we must make one exception to this policy. FM stations have a core responsibility to service their principal communities. Therefore, we will not permit an operating LPFM station to cause interference within a commercial or NCE FM station's 3.16 mV/m (70 dB) contour. This issue can only arise in connection with a subsequently filed full-service new station or modification application. If grant of such an application would result in predicted interference within the 3.16 mV/m (70 dBu) contour of the proposed station,
67. We recognize that actual interference within the 3.16 mV/m contour might still be possible where the LPFM station has demonstrated that it is unlikely. In these circumstances, a complaint of actual interference must be served on the LPFM station and filed with the Commission, attention Audio Services Division. The LPFM station must suspend operations within twenty-four hours of the receipt of a complaint unless the interference has been eliminated by the application of suitable techniques and to the satisfaction of the complainant. An LPFM station may resume operations only at the direction of the Commission. If the Commission determines that a complainant has refused to permit the LPFM station to apply remedial techniques that demonstrably will eliminate the interference without impairment of the original reception of the full-service station, the licensee of the LPFM station will be absolved of further responsibility. As a practical matter we believe that in many cases involving FM station modifications or upgrades, interference to new or expanded areas will be offset by the conservative separation distances met by the LPFM station when it was initially authorized, particularly because of the 20-kilometer interference protection buffer.
68.
69.
70.
71. The minimum distance separation requirements that we adopt here for LPFM stations do not apply to full-service stations and FM translators. To prevent subsequently filed FM translator stations from causing interference to existing LPFM stations, we will expand the current FM translator interference protection rules to include a requirement that previously authorized LPFM stations be protected. As noted, we will permit a full service station to modify its facility in a manner that reduces these separations to LPFM stations. However, in such cases we generally will not require the LPFM station to cease operation. Instead, the affected stations will have to bear any interference caused by facilities changes, such as an FM transmitter site move. However, so as to reduce the potential impact on the affected stations, the spacing rules we adopt today include a 20 km “buffer” for co-channel and first-adjacent channel LPFM-to-full-service-FM stations. This additional separation is included for two reasons. First of all, we recognize that the FM band is not static. For example, broadcast stations often change transmitter sites to provide better service to their communities and service areas. Same-station-class transmitter site moves are generally less than 20 km from the original site. Therefore, inclusion of the 20 km buffer spacing allows full-service stations room to move while also reducing the potential impact on existing LPFM stations. Second, and equally important, the additional separation affords the LPFM station an increased likelihood that its operation would not cause interference within a full service station's community of license. This additional 20 km separation will apply
72.
73.
74. With regard to 2nd-adjacent channel protection, we noted that “grandfathered” short-spaced FM facilities were permitted to modify their facilities without regard to 2nd- and 3rd-adjacent channel spacings during the period from 1964 to 1987, and from 1997 to the present. We indicated that no interference complaints were received as a result of those modifications and found that the small risk of interference was outweighed by improved service. Similarly, we noted that we have been willing in the past to accept small amounts of potential 2nd- and 3rd-adjacent channel interference in the noncommercial FM service where such interference is counterbalanced by substantial service gains. We sought comment on the state of receiver technology and the ability of receivers to operate satisfactorily in the absence of 2nd-adjacent channel protection. We also sought comment on the impact of eliminating 2nd-adjacent channel protection on the possible conversion of existing analog radio services to a digital mode, in particular with regard to in-band-on-channel (IBOC) technology. In this regard, we noted that one IBOC proponent, suggested that 2nd-adjacent channel signals from analog FM stations in the existing radio environment would not pose an interference threat to its digital IBOC signal.
75.
76.
77. With regard to 2nd-adjacent channel protection requirements, it appears that the risk of interference from LPFM signals on 2nd-adjacent channels may be somewhat higher. We find that this would also be true with regard to LPFM stations at power levels higher than 100 watts and antenna heights higher than 30 meters. Therefore, we will retain 2nd-adjacent channel protection requirements.
78.
79.
80. We recognize that computing a station's HAAT requires access to terrain database and numerous calculations. Therefore, in order to streamline the application process, the staff will utilize a computer program to calculate the antenna HAAT based upon information provided by the LPFM applicant (the coordinates of the proposed antenna, the site elevation above mean sea level, and the antenna height above ground level (AGL)). If the calculated HAAT is less than or equal to 30 meters, the LPFM station will be authorized to operate with any ERP within the maximum and minimum limits for its class. If the HAAT is calculated to exceed 30 meters, the permit will specify maximum and minimum ERP values that would produce the reference 60 dBu contours.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92. These minimal requirements will not impose any significant burden on LPFM licensees. Except for any required daily tower lighting checks, entries need only be made when necessary. Logs must be retained for two years from the date of the last entry, and station logs must be made available to FCC personnel upon request.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98. We recognize that, as some commenters point out, there may be disparities among potential LPFM applicants in terms of Internet access and/or computer skills. We believe that making electronic filing permissive at this time will accommodate applicants that might be disadvantaged by mandatory electronic filing. We previously have discussed the significant advantages of a mandatory electronic filing system in terms of realizing savings and efficiencies. We do not believe that electronic filing would necessarily constitute an undue burden or expense for potential LPFM applicants, as the costs of computer and modem equipment continue to fall, and Internet access increasingly is becoming available at minimal cost commercially and at public institutions such as libraries. In addition, the Commission has made, and will continue to make, great efforts to create a simple, user-friendly electronic filing system. However, at present we are determined to be cautious with the first applications for a new service filed by applicants whose resources and familiarity with Commission processes may be very limited. We will reassess our electronic filing decision after our experience during the first filing window. We can better determine at that time whether the first filing window has provided a reasonable opportunity for interested parties to understand and arrange for Internet access and familiarize themselves with our Web site and electronic filing system. We can then determine whether the public interest benefits of mandatory electronic filing will outweigh any difficulties encountered or inequities expected, and decide whether electronic filing will remain voluntary or be mandated for use by all.
99. Although electronic filing will be permissive, we strongly encourage applicants to take advantage of electronic filing, and expect that many will do so. The forms will be accessible to anyone with a computer and a modem, without the need to purchase any special computer software. The Commission's software will make filing more certain for applicants by automatically notifying them of critical errors or omissions in their applications, and allowing them to correct the applications prior to submission. This software also will provide applicants with immediate verification that their applications have been received by the Commission. In addition, it will allow applicants to submit amendments, make corrections to their previously-filed applications, and submit narrative, explanatory exhibits. Furthermore, we intend to design additional software that will be available on the Commission's Web site to assist interested parties in making a preliminary determination as to which frequencies are available for LPFM use, based on current information in the Commission's database. Thus, LPFM applicants using the electronic filing system also will have access to a form of automated technical assistance in preparing their applications.
100.
101. In the
102.
103.
104. Once this
105. In accordance with our window filing procedure for commercial broadcast applications, after the LPFM window closes, the staff initially will screen applications for the purpose of identifying those that are mutually exclusive and those that fail to protect existing broadcast stations in accordance with the standards adopted herein. Applications that fail to properly protect these existing stations will be dismissed without the applicant being afforded an opportunity to amend. This will increase the speed and efficiency with which LPFM applications can be processed by the staff. Technically acceptable non-mutually exclusive applications will be further reviewed for acceptability and processed by the staff in accordance with the Commission's general procedures. Groups of mutually exclusive applications will be identified in a subsequent public notice, and will be subject to the selection procedures set forth. After an application is tentatively selected from a mutually exclusive group, it will be reviewed for acceptability, and a public notice will be released announcing the finding that the application has been tentatively selected and is acceptable for filing. Petitions to deny the application will be due within 30 days of the release of the public notice of its acceptability for filing. Petitions and informal objections will not be considered unless and until the application has been tentatively selected for processing and found acceptable for filing. A tentative selectee whose application is found unacceptable for filing will be given a single opportunity to submit a curative amendment, provided that the amendment is minor and the amended application has the same number of points as originally claimed, or more than the points claimed by the next highest applicant. Tentative selectees whose applications remain unacceptable for filing after this opportunity will be removed from their mutually exclusive groups, and will not be provided with an additional opportunity to amend.
106. As stated, we are developing software to assist interested parties in determining whether specific frequencies may be available at specific locations for LPFM use. This software will not be able to determine conclusively whether a particular frequency will be available for an applicant, as frequency availability also will depend, among other things, on whether competing applications are filed during the LPFM filing window. Nevertheless, we anticipate that the software will help interested parties focus on potentially-available facilities, and will provide technical assistance for interested parties with limited financial resources. We anticipate that this software will be ready for use by the time we announce the first filing window for LPFM applications. The Mass Media Bureau will issue a public notice with information regarding how to access the software and the technical assistance it can provide. Such information also will be posted on the Commission's Web site.
107.
108.
109.
110. We conclude that the point system we are adopting is superior to alternative selection methods. As discussed above, the LPFM service will be reserved for noncommercial, educational service, and we are precluded by statute from using auctions to award station licenses on channels reserved for NCE use. Accordingly, we need not discuss an auction-based selection mechanism. In our proceeding reexamining full-service NCE comparative standards, we
111.
112.
113.
114. As we stated in our discussion of the community-based eligibility requirement, we do not believe this preference for established local entities contravenes the court's concerns in
115. Applicants claiming points for established community presence will be required to certify in their applications that they meet the above-stated conditions. The application form will identify appropriate documentation that must be made available for the point claimed. Applicants will be required to submit this information at the time of filing and it will be available in our public reference room. As with other broadcast applications, the Commission will rely on certifications but will use random audits to verify the accuracy of the certifications. This information also will enable applicants to verify that competing applicants qualify for the points they claim.
116.
117.
118. With regard to both the second and the third selection criteria, applicants will be required to certify in their applications that they will meet the qualifying conditions for the points claimed. We will require successful applicants to adhere to their operating hours and local program origination pledges. As these criteria are prospective in nature, they will not be subject to verification at the application stage. The Commission will use random audits to verify the accuracy of the certifications, and will consider written complaints regarding actual performance. Consistent with our current practice, the staff may issue letters of inquiry requiring submission of documentation in connection with such audits. Where analysis of the requested information indicates that licensees have not fulfilled their pledges, appropriate action will be taken, including the possibility of monetary forfeitures and revocation proceedings.
119. In choosing selection criteria, we have carefully considered the comments we received advocating various selection factors, as well as the point system elements under consideration in our proceeding reexamining full-service NCE comparative standards. We believe that the factors we have chosen best balance our interest in furthering the specific localized objectives of the LPFM service and avoiding cumbersome, subjective and manipulable criteria. We note that a number of commenters advocate preferences for entities controlled by minorities. We shall defer consideration of this matter. The Commission is conducting fact-finding studies as to whether such preferences may be justified consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in
120.
121. Our decision to incorporate voluntary time-sharing into the point system as a tie-breaker is based on our judgment that voluntary time-share arrangements have the potential to advance the Commission's goals for the new service. We noted in our proceeding reexamining full-service NCE comparative standards that “[a] number of commenters dislike mandatory share-time arrangements, finding them confusing to audiences, and potentially inefficient for licensees.” On a voluntary basis, however, time-sharing has significant potential advantages for LPFM applicants. From a practical standpoint, the localized nature of the LPFM service is likely to enhance applicants' ability to time-share. In many cases, the small scale of LPFM operations also may make time-sharing more efficient for LPFM licensees. Furthermore, by increasing the number of new broadcast voices, time-sharing can advance our interest in promoting additional diversity in radio voices and program services through the LPFM service.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128. Most commenters argue that all LPFM licenses should be renewable. Commenters also contend that LPFM licensees should have the same renewal expectancy as existing broadcasters.
129.
130. Section 73.1020(a) divides the country into 18 different regions containing one or more states for purposes of establishing synchronized schedules for radio and television licenses. Radio station licenses expired under this rule in intervals between October 1, 1995, and August 1, 1998, and those licenses, renewed for eight years, will expire again between September 30, 2003, and July 31, 2006. We consistently grant initial terms for all new broadcast authorizations to fit into this synchronized schedule, although it means initial terms are usually for a period of less than eight years.
131. We adopt these synchronized schedules for LPFM licenses because maintaining the predictability, administrative efficiencies, public awareness, and fairness inherent in the existing synchronized schedule of license cycles serves the public interest. Accordingly, an initial LPFM license granted within any renewal period set forth in § 73.1020 of our rules will be assigned the expiration date assigned to those full-power FM stations licensed in the same region during the same licensing cycle. Because of the cyclical nature of this process, granting initial full eight-year license terms in the middle of a licensing cycle could undermine the synchronization of the whole process. Like full-power licenses, LPFM licenses may then be renewed for a term not to exceed eight years from the expiration date of the preceding license. This approach will reduce the regulatory burden on LPFM broadcasters by affording them the same maximum license terms now granted other broadcasters, and will correspondingly reduce the associated burdens on the Commission. We see no compelling reason to vary from the term set by Congress for full-power stations. We further note that, while we will authorize eight-year license terms, the public may scrutinize station performance and file complaints with the Commission at any time during the term of an LPFM license.
132. The one exception to this rule pertains to situations where we grant successive license terms under the final tiebreaker procedures. These tiebreaker licenses will not be based on the synchronized licensing cycle of § 73.1020. If applicants were granted last resort tiebreaker licenses conformed to the synchronized schedule, each licensee, depending on where in the renewal cycle we were, might receive authorizations to operate for a very short period of time,
133. We will also extend the renewal expectancy provisions of section 309(k)(1) of the Act to LPFM licensees. Providing incumbents with the likelihood of renewal encourages licensees to make investments to ensure quality service. Upon receiving an application for renewal of an LPFM license, we will determine whether the licensee has served the public interest, convenience, and necessity; whether there have been any serious violations of the Act or Commission rules; and whether there have been any serious violations that, taken together, would constitute a pattern of abuse. Only if incumbent LPFM licensees fail to meet these requirements will other applicants be eligible to apply for the same license. As noted, an exception is where the license is held for successive terms as a result of the final tiebreaker procedure. Such licenses will be nonrenewable.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140. We will, however, apply certain specific rules applicable to all broadcasters to LPFM licensees. First, LPFM operators must, of course, comply with those rules required by statute. Thus, for example, like all broadcasters, LPFM licensees will be expressly prohibited from airing programming that is obscene, and restricted from airing programming that is “indecent” during certain times of the day. They must also comply with our sponsorship identification and political programming rules. In addition, we will require LPFM licensees to comply with our rules regarding taped, filmed, or recorded material, personal attacks, and periodic call sign announcements. Violation of any of these rules by an LPFM licensee would be as detrimental to its audience as violation by a full-power broadcaster, and widespread disregard for these rules could outweigh the benefits to the public this service is intended to bring.
141.
142.
143.
144. We do, however, agree with commenters that LPFM stations should not be used for retransmitting, either terrestrially or via satellite, the programming of full-power stations. This would significantly undercut a fundamental basis for the establishment of this service. This prohibition against LPFM stations operating as translators also promotes locally originated programming by eliminating a
145.
146.
147.
148. In conformance with the statutory mandate, we will apply the reasonable access and equal opportunities provisions of the statute and the Commission's rules, as well as related policies delineated in prior Commission orders, to LPFM licensees. With respect to reasonable access, the Commission's policy has generally been to defer to the reasonable, good faith judgment of licensees as to what constitutes “reasonable access” under all the circumstances present in a particular case. Noncommercial educational stations, including LPFM stations, however, may not support or oppose any candidate for political office. LPFM licensees cannot charge legally qualified candidates for the time used on their stations and no LPFM licensee may discriminate among candidates “in practices, regulations, facilities, or services” or “make or give any preference to any candidate for public office.” In addition, we will require LPFM licensees to maintain a political file, if needed, to record the requisite particulars. The political file shall be maintained for public inspection at an accessible place in the station's community. Finally, we will resolve any issues involving LPFM licensees on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the licensee is acting within the spirit of the statute and Commission rules and policies on political programming.
149. Background. In the
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156. We also proposed to treat low power radio stations like full power stations for the purposes of our environmental rules and responsibilities under the National Environmental Protection Act. With respect to protection against exposure to radio frequency radiation, we noted that LP1000 and LP100 stations would operate at the power levels of some Class A FM stations and thus the same safety and environmental concerns would seem to apply. We therefore proposed to apply to these stations the maximum permissible exposure limits and related regulatory provisions that apply to FM radio stations. We invited comment on this matter, and specifically on whether and how we should treat LP100 stations differently from LP1000 stations and, if so, why. We also sought comment on how our environmental rules should apply to LP10 stations, if this low power radio class were adopted.
157.
158.
159. As to equal employment opportunity (EEO) rules, we conclude that all LPFM licensees must comply with the Commission's long-standing prohibition against employment discrimination. We believe that a finding that any broadcaster has engaged in employment discrimination raises a serious question as to its character qualifications to be a Commission licensee. In addition to the prohibition against discrimination, the broadcast EEO Rule also includes EEO program requirements. These requirements are not currently in force. In any event, we did not enforce compliance with the EEO program requirements by broadcast stations with fewer than five full-time employees. Because we anticipate that the vast majority of this class of licensees will employ very few (if any) full-time, paid employees, we do not intend to require LPFM licensees to comply with any EEO program requirements we adopt in our pending rulemaking proceeding.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166. The EAS is composed of several entities, including FM broadcast stations, LPTV stations, and cable systems operating on an organized basis at the national, state, and local levels. The EAS alert is designed to make viewers and listeners aware of emergencies that may affect them so that they may take appropriate protective action or seek additional information. Though the arguments of financial hardship for LPFM licensees to implement the EAS are well taken, alert messages are potentially important to all listeners and viewers, and commenters do not persuade us that the LPFM stations should, as a class, be exempted from this important public safety function. We will, however, minimize the cost of effective participation for LPFM licensees. Accordingly, we amend § 11.11(a) to include LPFM stations in the list of the EAS entities. We also amend the Broadcast Station Timetable of § 11.11(a) to set out the requirements for LPFM.
167. While we will require EAS participation, we will exempt LPFM stations from purchasing some of the EAS equipment required for other participants under our rules. In general, EAS equipment must be able to perform the functions described in all of our rules regulating EAS. However, we relaxed some of these requirements for Class D noncommercial educational FM and LPTV stations. Because LPFM stations will also provide service to small audiences, we exempt LPFM stations from the requirement to install and operate encoders. We believe that the cost to LPFM licensees of installing and operating both encoding and decoding equipment outweighs the benefits that these small stations could provide to the public.
168. While we are not requiring LPFM stations to install encoding equipment, all LPFM stations are required to use decoding equipment that notifies the station in case of any emergency. We recognize that there will be costs associated with EAS decoders, but believe the costs are justified. Current Commission-certified integrated encoder/decoder equipment costs $1,500 or more depending on the options a station wants to install. We note that today's manufacturers only produce certified encoders and decoders as integrated units, as that is the only demand that exists. Noncertified decoding equipment, however, is currently available and is advertised in some places for as little as $650. Thus, it appears that Commission-certified decoding equipment should be available for well under $1000 and should be able to reach the market in the near future. Accordingly, we will require the use of Commission-certified EAS decoders or decoder/encoders by all LPFM stations when they commence operations. It will be several months before the first LPFM stations are on the air. Given that decoders are already on the market, this should be ample time to obtain Commission certification and make certified units available for purchase. If certified decoder equipment is not available at that time, we can grant a temporary exemption for LPFM stations until such time as it is reasonably available. Once the licensee has installed decoding equipment, if the station is on the air at the time it receives a national emergency alert message, station personnel must pass the information along to listeners.
169. Finally, we will continue to grant waivers of EAS requirements to broadcasters, including LPFM licensees, on a case-by-case basis in appropriate circumstances upon a sufficient showing of need. As we outlined in the
170. In this final rule, we set the stage for a new dimension in radio broadcasting, creating additional, affordable outlets for the expression of views and the provision of information and entertainment to local communities. By limiting participants in this service to noncommercial, educational organizations, we hope to ensure that this service will meet needs unmet by the commercial radio service. Through eligibility requirements, selection preference factors, and the relatively small range of LPFM stations, we hope to create a service that will serve the distinct needs of small local communities. Mindful of the need to protect the technical integrity of the existing radio service and to preserve its potential transition to digital service, however, we are proceeding cautiously. Accordingly, we are limiting radio stations in the LPFM service to a maximum of 100 watts. We are also maintaining 2nd-adjacent channel protection. Based on our engineers' careful review of the technical data submitted to the Commission, as well as their own studies, we are confident that any risk of interference is small and, on balance, outweighed by the benefits this new service will bring.
171.
172. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the
173. The Commission received petitions for rulemaking asking for the creation of a low power radio service. Because they raised similar or identical issues, the Commission coordinated its responses to them. The Commission released public notices of its receipt of three of the proposals and invited public comment on them. In response to significant public support, the Commission released the
174. In the
175. No comments were received in response to the IRFA.
176. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the rules. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). A small organization is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations. “Small governmental jurisdiction” generally means “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than 50,000.” The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all governmental entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 81,600 (91 per cent) are small entities.
177. The Small Business Administration defines a radio broadcasting station that has $5 million or less in annual receipts as a small business. A radio broadcasting station is an establishment primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. Included in this industry are commercial, religious, educational, and other radio stations. The 1992 Census indicates that 96 percent (5,861 of 6,127) radio station establishments produced less than $5 million in revenue in 1992. Official Commission records indicate that 11,334 individual radio stations were operating in 1992. As of December 31, 1998, Commission records indicate that 12,615 radio stations were operating, of which 7,832 were FM stations.
178. The rules will apply to a new category of FM radio broadcasting service. It is not known how many entities that may seek to obtain a low power radio license. Nor do we know how many of these entities will be small entities. We note, however, that in the year since we issued the
179. The Commission is creating a new broadcasting service that may allow hundreds or thousands of small entities to become broadcast licensees for the first time. This endeavor will require the collection of information for the purposes of processing applications for (among other things) initial construction permits, assignments and transfers, and renewals. We will also require lower power radio stations to comply with some of the reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements as full power radio broadcasters.
180. The RFA requires agencies to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives: (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
181. The LP100 and LP10 services are likely to create significant opportunities for new small businesses. In addition, the Commission has taken steps to minimize the impact on existing small broadcasters.
182.
183. The
184. The
185. The
186.
187. The Commission will send a copy of the
188. Accordingly, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1, 4(i), 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 303, part 73 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR part 73, is amended.
189. The amendments shall be effective April 17, 2000.
190. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this
191. This proceeding is terminated.
Emergency alert system.
Radio broadcasting.
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (o), 303(r), 544(g) and 606.
(b) Class D noncommercial educational FM stations as defined in § 73.506, LPFM stations as defined in §§ 73.811 and 73.853, and LPTV stations as defined in § 74.701(f) are not required to comply with § 11.32. * * *
(e) Class D non-commercial educational FM stations as defined in § 73.506 of this chapter, Low Power FM (LPFM) stations as defined in §§ 73.811 and 73.853 of this chapter, and low power TV (LPTV) stations as defined in § 74.701(f) of this chapter are not required to have equipment capable of generating the EAS codes and Attention Signal specified in § 11.31.
(a) * * *
(3) Wire services to all subscribers (AM, FM, low power FM (LPFM), TV, LPTV and other stations).
6. Section 11.61 is amended by revising the last sentence of paragraph (a)(1)(v) and revising paragraph (a)(2)(iii) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) * * * Class D non-commercial educational FM, LPFM and LPTV stations are required to transmit only the test script.
(2) * * *
(iii) Class D non-commercial educational FM, LPFM and LPTV stations are not required to transmit this test but must log receipt.
(47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.)
(c) Permittees and licensees of FM stations are not protected from interference which may be created by the grant of a new LPFM station or of authority to modify an existing LPFM station, except in instances where the FM station would receive predicted interference from an LPFM station within the FM station's 3.16 mV/m (70 dBu) contour.
(a) All noncommercial educational stations and LPFM stations operating with more than 10 watts transmitter power output shall be subject to all of the provisions of the FM Technical Standards contained in subpart B of this part. Class D educational stations and LPFM stations operating with 10 watts or less transmitter output power shall be subject to the definitions contained in § 73.310, and also to those other provisions of the FM Technical Standards which are specifically made applicable to them by the provisions of this subpart.
(b) The transmitter and associated transmitting equipment of each noncommercial educational FM station and LPFM station licensed for transmitter power output above 10 watts must be designed, constructed and operated in accordance with § 73.317.
(c) The transmitter and associated transmitting equipment of each noncommercial educational FM station licensed for transmitter power output of 10 watts or less, although not required to meet all requirements of § 73.317, must be constructed with the safety provisions of the current national electrical code as approved by the American National Standards Institute. These stations must be operated, tuned, and adjusted so that emissions are not radiated outside the authorized band causing or which are capable of causing interference to the communications of other stations. The audio distortion, audio frequency range, carrier hum, noise level, and other essential phases of the operation which control the external effects, must be at all times capable of providing satisfactory broadcast service. Studio equipment properly covered by an underwriter's certificate will be considered as satisfying safety requirements.
Permittees and licensees of NCE FM stations are not protected from interference which may be created by the grant of a new LPFM station or of authority to modify an existing LPFM station, except in instances where the NCE FM station would receive interference from an LPFM station within the 3.16 mV/m (70 dBu) contour.
The following rules are applicable to LPFM stations:
Except as provided in § 73.220 of this chapter, all of the frequencies listed in § 73.201 of this chapter are available for LPFM stations.
Minimum separation requirements for LP100 and LP10 stations, as defined in § 73.811 and § 73.853 of this part, are listed in the following paragraphs. An LPFM station will not be authorized unless these separations are met. Minimum distances for co-channel and first-adjacent channel are separated into two columns. The left-hand column lists the required minimum separation to protect other stations and the right-hand column lists (for informational purposes only) the minimum distance necessary for the LPFM station to receive no interference from other stations. For second-adjacent channels and IF channels, the required minimum distance separation is sufficient to avoid interference received from other stations.
(a) An LP100 station will not be authorized initially unless the minimum distance separations in the following table are met with respect to authorized FM stations, timely filed applications for new and existing FM stations, authorized LP100 stations, LP100 station applications that were timely-filed within a previous window, and vacant FM allotments. LP100 stations are not required to protect LP10 stations.
(b) An LP10 station will not be authorized unless the minimum distance separations are met with respect to authorized FM stations, timely-filed applications for new and existing FM stations, vacant FM allotments, or LPFM stations.
(c) In addition to meeting or exceeding the minimum separations for Class LP100 and Class LP10 stations in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, new LP100 and LP10 stations will not be authorized in Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands unless the minimum distance separations are met with respect to authorized or proposed FM stations:
(2) LP10 Stations in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands:
Minimum distance separations towards “grandfathered” superpowered Reserved Band stations, are as specified. Full service FM stations operating within the reserved band (Channels 201-220) with facilities in excess of those permitted in § 73.211(b)(1) or § 73.211(b)(3) shall be protected by LPFM stations in accordance with the minimum distance separations for the nearest class as determined under § 73.211. For example, a Class B1 station operating with facilities that result in a 60 dBu contour that exceeds 39 kilometers but is less than 52 kilometers would be protected by the Class B minimum distance separations. Class D stations with 60 dBu contours that exceed 5 kilometers will be protected by the Class A minimum distance separations. Class B stations with 60 dBu contours that exceed 52 kilometers will be protected as Class C1 or Class C stations depending upon the distance to the 60 dBu contour. No stations will be protected beyond Class C separations.
(d) In addition to meeting the separations (a) through (c), LPFM applications must meet the minimum separation requirements with respect to authorized FM translator stations, cutoff FM translator applications, and FM translator applications filed prior to the release of the Public Notice announcing the LPFM window period:
(1) LP100 stations:
(2) LP10 Stations:
(e) Existing Class LP100 and LP10 stations which do not meet the separations in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section may be relocated provided that the separation to any short-spaced station is not reduced.
(f) Commercial and noncommercial educational stations authorized under subparts B and C of this part, as well as new or modified commercial FM allotments, are not required to adhere to the separations specified in this rule section, even where new or increased interference would be created.
(g)
(2) Within 320 km of the Mexican border, LP100 stations must meet the following separations with respect to any Mexican stations:
(3) Within 320 km of the Canadian border, LP10 stations must meet the following minimum separations with respect to any Canadian stations:
(4) Within 320 km of the Mexican border, LP10 stations must meet the following separations with respect to any Mexican stations:
(5) The Commission will notify the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) of any LPFM authorizations in the US Virgin Islands. Any authorization issued for a US Virgin Islands LPFM station will include a condition that permits the Commission to modify, suspend or terminate without right to a hearing if found by the Commission to be necessary to conform to any international regulations or agreements.
(6) The Commission may, at its option, initiate international coordination of a LPFM proposal even where the above Canadian and Mexican spacing tables are met, if it appears that such coordination is necessary to maintain compliance with international agreements.
For the purposes of determining compliance with any LPFM distance requirements, distances shall be calculated in accordance with § 73.208(c) of this part.
(a) It shall be the responsibility of the licensee of an LPFM station to correct at its expense any condition of interference to the direct reception of the signal of any subsequently authorized commercial or NCE FM station that operates on the same channel, first-adjacent channel, second-adjacent channel or intermediate frequency (IF) channels as the LPFM station, where interference is predicted to occur and actually occurs within the 3.16 mV/m (70 dBu) contour of such stations. Predicted interference within this contour shall be calculated in accordance with the ratios set forth in § 73.215(a)(1) and (2) of this part. Actual interference will be considered to occur whenever reception of a regularly used signal is impaired by the signals radiated by the LPFM station.
(b) An LPFM station will be provided an opportunity to demonstrate in connection with the procession of the commercial or NCE FM application that interference with the 3.16 mV/m contour of such station is unlikely. If the LPFM station fails to so demonstrate, it will be required to cease operations upon the commencement of program tests by the commercial or NCE FM station.
(c) Complaints of actual interference by an LPFM station subject to paragraph (b) within the 3.16 mV/m contour of a commercial or NCE FM station must be served on the LPFM licensee and the Federal Communications Commission, attention Audio Services Division. The LPFM station must suspend operations within twenty-four hours of the receipt of such complaint unless the interference has been resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant on the basis of suitable techniques. An LPFM station may only resume operations at the direction of the Federal Communications Commission. If the Commission determines that the complainant has refused to permit the LPFM station to apply remedial techniques that demonstrably will eliminate the interference without impairment of the original reception, the licensee of the LPFM station is absolved of further responsibility.
(d) It shall be the responsibility of the licensee of an LPFM station to correct any condition of interference that results from the radiation of radio frequency energy outside its assigned channel. Upon notice by the FCC to the station licensee or operator that such interference is caused by spurious emissions of the station, operation of the station shall be immediately suspended and not resumed until the interference has been eliminated. However, short test transmissions may be made during the period of suspended operation to check the efficacy of remedial measures.
(e) In each instance where suspension of operation is required, the licensee shall submit a full report to the FCC in Washington, DC, after operation is resumed, containing details of the nature of the interference, the source of the interfering signals, and the remedial steps taken to eliminate the interference.
(a) LP100 stations: (1)
(2)
(b) LP10 stations: (1)
(2)
(a) Effective radiated power (ERP) will be rounded to the nearest watt on LPFM authorizations.
(b) Antenna radiation center, antenna height above average terrain (HAAT), and antenna supporting structure height will all be rounded to the nearest meter on LPFM authorizations.
HAAT determinations for LPFM stations will be made in accordance with the procedure detailed in § 73.313(d) of this part.
(a) Directional antennas will not be authorized in the LPFM service.
(b) Permittees and licensees may employ nondirectional antennas with horizontal only polarization, vertical only polarization, circular polarization or elliptical polarization.
LPFM stations will be authorized on Channels 201 through 220 only if the pertinent minimum separation distances are met with respect to all TV Channel 6 stations.
The transmitter power output (TPO) of an LPFM station must be determined by the procedures set forth in § 73.267 of this part. The operating TPO of an LPFM station with an authorized TPO of more than ten watts must be maintained as near as practicable to its authorized TPO and may not be less than 90% of the minimum TPO nor greater than 105% of the maximum authorized TPO. An LPFM station with an authorized TPO of ten watts or less may operate with less than the authorized power, but not more than 105% of the authorized power.
Each LPFM licensee is responsible for maintaining and operating its broadcast station in a manner that complies with the technical rules set forth elsewhere in this part and in accordance with the terms of the station authorization. In the event that an LPFM station is operating in a manner that is not in compliance with the technical rules set forth elsewhere in this part or the terms of the station authorization, broadcast operation must be terminated within three hours.
(a) All LPFM stations will be licensed for unlimited time operation, except those stations operating under a time sharing agreement pursuant to § 73.872.
(b) All LPFM stations are required to operate at least 36 hours per week, consisting of at least 5 hours of operation per day on at least 6 days of the week; however, stations licensed to educational institutions are not required to operate on Saturday or Sunday or to observe the minimum operating requirements during those days designated on the official school calendar as vacation or recess periods.
(a) An LPFM station may be licensed only to:
(1) Nonprofit educational organizations and upon a showing that the proposed station will be used for the advancement of an educational program; and
(2) State and local governments and non-government entities that will provide non-commercial public safety radio services.
(b) Only local applicants will be permitted to submit applications for a period of two years from the date that LP100 and LP10 stations, respectively, are first made available for application. For the purposes of this paragraph, an applicant will be deemed local if it can certify that:
(1) The applicant, its local chapter or branch is physically headquartered or has a campus within 16.1 km (10 miles) of the proposed site for the transmitting antenna;
(2) It has 75% of its board members residing within 16.1 km (10 miles) of the proposed site for the transmitting antenna; or
(3) In the case of any applicant proposing a public safety radio service, the applicant has jurisdiction within the service area of the proposed LPFM station.
No application for an LPFM station may be granted unless the applicant certifies, under penalty of perjury, to one of the following statements:
(a) Neither the applicant, nor any party to the application, has engaged in any manner including individually or with persons, groups, organizations or other entities, in the unlicensed operation of any station in violation of section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 301.
(b) To the extent the applicant or any party to the application has engaged in any manner, individually or with other persons, groups, organizations or other entities, in the unlicensed operation of a station in violation of section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 301, such an engagement:
(1) Ceased voluntarily no later than February 26, 1999, without direction from the FCC to do so; or
(2) Ceased operation within 24 hours of being directed by the FCC to terminate unlicensed operation of any station.
(a) No authorization for an LPFM station shall be granted to any party if the grant of that authorization will result in any such party holding an attributable interest in two LPFM stations separated by less than 12 km (7 miles).
(b) Nationwide ownership limits will be phased in according to the following schedule:
(1) For a period of two years from the date that the LPFM stations are first made available for application, a party may hold an attributable interest in no more than one LPFM station.
(2) For the period between two and three years from the date that the initial filing window opens for LPFM applications, a party may hold an attributable interest in no more than five LPFM stations.
(3) After three years from the date that the initial filing window opens for LPFM stations, a party may hold an attributable interest in no more than ten stations.
Ownership and other interests in LPFM station permittees and licensees will be attributed to their holders and deemed cognizable for the purposes of §§ 73.855 and 73.860, in accordance with the provisions of § 73.3555, subject to the following exceptions:
(a) A director of an entity that holds an LPFM license will not have such interest treated as attributable if such director also holds an attributable interest in a broadcast licensee or other media entity but recuses himself or herself from any matters affecting the LPFM station.
(b) A local chapter of a national or other large organization shall not have the attributable interests of the national organization attributed to it provided that the local chapter is separately incorporated and has a distinct local presence and mission.
(c) A parent or subsidiary of a LPFM licensee or permittee that is a non-stock corporation will be treated as having an attributable interest in such corporation. The officers, directors, and members of a non-stock corporation's governing body and of any parent or subsidiary entity will have such positional interests attributed to them.
(a) No license for an LPFM station shall be granted to any party if the grant of such authorization will result in the same party holding an attributable interest in any other non-LPFM broadcast station, including any FM translator or low power television station, or any other media subject to broadcast ownership restrictions.
(b) A party with an attributable interest in a broadcast radio station must divest such interest prior to the commencement of operations of an LPFM station in which the party also holds an interest.
(c) No LPFM licensee may enter into an operating agreement of any type, including a time brokerage or management agreement, with either a full power broadcast station or another LPFM station.
(a) An LPFM authorization may not be transferred or assigned except for a transfer or assignment that involves:
(1) Less than a substantial change in ownership and control; or
(2) An involuntary assignment of license or transfer of control.
(b) A change in the name of an LPFM licensee where no change in ownership or control is involved may be accomplished by written notification by the licensee to the Commission.
(a) A minor change for an LP100 station authorized under this subpart is limited to transmitter relocations of less than two kilometers. A minor change for an LP10 station authorized under this subpart cannot is limited to transmitter site relocations of less than one kilometer. Minor changes of LPFM stations may include changes in frequency to adjacent or IF frequencies, or, upon a technical showing of reduced interference, to any frequency.
(b) The Commission will specify by Public Notice a window filing period for applications for new LPFM stations and major modifications in the facilities of authorized LPFM stations. LPFM applications for new facilities and for major modifications in authorized LPFM stations will be accepted only during the appropriate window. Applications submitted prior to the window opening date identified in the Public Notice will be returned as premature. Applications submitted after the deadline will be dismissed with prejudice as untimely.
(c) Applications subject to paragraph (b) of this section that fail to meet the § 73.807 minimum distance separations, other than to LPFM station facilities proposed in applications filed in the same window, will be dismissed without any opportunity to amend such applications.
(d) Following the close of the window, the Commission will issue a Public Notice of acceptance for filing of applications submitted pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section that meet technical and legal requirements and that are not in conflict with any other application filed during the window. Following the close of the window, the Commission also will issue a Public Notice of the acceptance for filing of all applications tentatively selected pursuant to the procedures for mutually exclusive LPFM applications set forth at § 73.872. Petitions to deny such applications may be filed within 30 days of such public notice and in accordance with the procedures set forth at § 73.3584. A copy of any petition to deny must be served on the applicant.
(e) Minor change LPFM applications may be filed at any time, unless restricted by the staff, and generally, will be processed in the order in which they are tendered. Such applications must meet all technical and legal requirements applicable to new LPFM station applications.
(a) Following the close of each window for new LPFM stations and for modifications in the facilities of authorized LPFM stations, the Commission will issue a public notice identifying all groups of mutually exclusive applications. Such applications will be awarded points to determine the tentative selectee. Unless resolved by settlement pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section, the tentative selectee will be the applicant within each group with the highest point total under the procedure set forth in this section, except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section .
(b) Each mutually exclusive application will be awarded one point for each of the following criteria, based on application certification that the qualifying conditions are met:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(c)
(1) Time-share proposals shall be in writing and signed by each time-share proponent, and shall satisfy the following requirements:
(i) The proposal must specify the proposed hours of operation of each time-share proponent;
(ii) The proposal must not include simultaneous operation of the time-share proponents; and (iii) Each time-share proponent must propose to operate for at least 10 hours per week.
(2) Where a station is licensed pursuant to a time-sharing proposal, a change of the regular schedule set forth therein will be permitted only where an written agreement signed by each time-sharing licensee and complying with requirements (i) through (iii) of paragraph (c)(1) of this section is filed with the Commission, Attention: Audio Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, prior to the date of the change.
(d)
(2) Groups of more than eight tied, grantable applications will not be eligible for successive license terms under this section. Where such groups exist, the staff will dismiss all but the applications of the eight entities with the longest established community presences, as provided in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. If more than eight tied, grantable applications remain, the applicants must submit, within 30 days of written notification by the Commission staff, a written settlement agreement limiting the group to eight. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of the entire application group.
(e) Mutually exclusive applicants may propose a settlement at any time during the selection process after the release of a public notice announcing the mutually exclusive groups. Settlement proposals must include all of the applicants in a group and must comply with the Commission's rules and policies regarding settlements, including the requirements of §§ 73.3525, 73.3588, and 73.3589. Settlement proposals may include time-share agreements that comply with the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section, provided that such agreements may not be filed for the purpose of point aggregation outside of the thirty-day period set forth in paragraph (c) of this section.
(a) Initial licenses for LPFM stations not subject to successive license terms will be issued for a period running until the date specified in § 73.1020 for full service stations operating in the LPFM station's state or territory, or if issued after such date, determined in accordance with § 73.1020.
(b) The station license period issued under the successive license term tiebreaker procedures will be determined pursuant to § 73.872(d) and shall be for the period specified in the station license.
(c) The license of an LPFM station that fails to transmit broadcast signals for any consecutive 12-month period expires as a matter of law at the end of that period, notwithstanding any provision, term, or condition of the license to the contrary.
The following procedures and restrictions apply to licensee modifications of authorized broadcast transmission system facilities.
(a) The following changes are prohibited:
(1) Those that would result in the emission of signals outside of the authorized channel exceeding limits prescribed for the class of service.
(2) Those that would cause the transmission system to exceed the equipment performance measurements prescribed in § 73.508.
(b) The following changes may be made only after the grant of a construction permit application on FCC Form 318.
(1) Any construction of a new tower structure for broadcast purposes, except for replacement of an existing tower with a new tower of identical height and geographic coordinates.
(2) Any change in station geographic coordinates, including coordinate corrections and any move of the antenna to another tower structure located at the same coordinates.
(3) Any change in antenna height more than 2 meters above or 4 meters below the authorized value.
(4) Any change in channel.
(c) The following LPFM modifications may be made without prior authorization from the Commission. A modification of license application (FCC Form 319) must be submitted to the Commission within 10 days of commencing program test operations pursuant to § 73.1620. For applications filed pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the modification of license application must contain an exhibit demonstrating compliance with the Commission's radiofrequency radiation guidelines. In addition, applications solely filed pursuant to paragraphs (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section, where the installation is located within 3.2 km of an AM tower or is located on an AM tower, an exhibit demonstrating compliance with § 73.1692 is also required.
(1) Replacement of an antenna with one of the same or different number of antenna bays, provided that the height of the antenna radiation center is not more than 2 meters above or 4 meters below the authorized values. Program test operations at the full authorized ERP may commence immediately upon installation pursuant to § 73.1620(a)(1).
(2) Replacement of a transmission line with one of a different type or length which changes the transmitter operating power (TPO) from the authorized value, but not the ERP, must be reported in a license modification application to the Commission.
(3) Changes in the hours of operation of stations authorized pursuant to time-share agreements in accordance with § 73.872.
(a) The licensee of each LPFM station must maintain a station log. Each log entry must include the time and date of observation and the name of the person making the entry. The following information must be entered in the station log:
(1) Any extinguishment or malfunction of the antenna structure obstruction lighting, adjustments, repairs, or replacement to the lighting system, or related notification to the FAA. See sections 17.48 and 73.49 of this chapter.
(2) Brief explanation of station outages due to equipment malfunction, servicing, or replacement;
(3) Operations not in accordance with the station license; and
(4) EAS weekly log requirements set forth in § 11.61(a)(1)(v) of this chapter.
(b) [Reserved]
(a) The licensee of a broadcast station shall make the station available for inspection by representatives of the FCC during the station's business hours, and at any time it is in operation. In the course of an inspection or investigation, an FCC representative may require special equipment or program tests.
(b) Station records and logs shall be made available for inspection or duplication at the request of the FCC or its representatives. Such logs or records may be removed from the licensee's possession by an FCC representative or, upon request, shall be mailed by the licensee to the FCC by either registered mail, return receipt requested, or certified mail, return receipt requested. The return receipt shall be retained by the licensee as part of the station records until such records or logs are returned to the licensee. A receipt shall be furnished when the logs or records are removed from the licensee's possession by an FCC representative and this receipt shall be retained by the licensee as part of the station records until such records or logs are returned to the licensee. When the FCC has no further need for such records or logs, they shall be returned to the licensee. The provisions of this rule shall apply solely to those station logs and records that are required to be maintained by the provisions of this part.
(1) Where records or logs are maintained as the official records of a recognized law enforcement agency and the removal of the records from the possession of the law enforcement agency will hinder its law enforcement activities, such records will not be removed pursuant to this section if the chief of the law enforcement agency promptly certifies in writing to the FCC that removal of the logs or records will hinder law enforcement activities of the agency, stating insofar as feasible the basis for his decision and the date when it can reasonably be expected that such records will be released to the FCC.
An LPFM licensee may not retransmit, either terrestrially or via satellite, the signal of a full-power radio broadcast station.
6. Section 73.1001 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
(b) Rules in part 73 applying exclusively to a particular broadcast service are contained in the following: AM, subpart A; FM, subpart B; Noncommercial Educational FM, subpart C; TV, subpart E; and LPFM, subpart G.
(c) Certain provisions of this subpart apply to International Broadcast Stations (subpart F, part 73), LPFM (subpart G, part 73), and Low Power TV, TV Translator and TV Booster Stations (subpart G, part 74) where the rules for those services so provide.
(a) Upon the completion of construction of an AM, FM, LPFM, or TV station in accordance with the terms of the construction permit, the technical provisions of the application, the rules and regulations and the applicable engineering standards, program tests may be conducted in accordance with the following:
(5) Except for permits subject to successive license terms, the permittee of an LPFM station may begin program tests upon notification to the FCC in Washington, DC, provided that within 10 days thereafter, an application for license is filed. Program tests may be conducted by a licensee subject to mandatory license terms only during the term specified on such licensee's authorization.
(a) An AM, FM, LPFM, or TV transmitter shall be verified for compliance with the requirements of this part following the procedures described in part 2 of the FCC rules.
(a)(8) FCC Form 318, “Application for Construction Permit for a Low Power FM Broadcast Station.”
(b)(7) FCC Form 319, “Application for a Low Power FM Broadcast Station License.”
(f) Only four-letter call signs (plus LP, FM, or TV, if used) will be assigned. The four letter call sign for LPFM stations will be followed by the suffix “-LP”. However, subject to the provisions of this section, a call sign of a station may be conformed to a commonly-owned station holding a three-letter call sign (plus FM, TV, or LP suffixes, if used).
(a) Each original construction permit for the construction of a new TV, AM, FM or International Broadcast; low power TV; TV translator; TV booster; FM translator; FM booster; or broadcast auxiliary station, or to make changes in such existing stations, shall specify a period of three years from the date of issuance of the original construction permit within which construction shall be completed and application for license filed. Each original construction permit for the construction of a new LPFM station shall specify a period of eighteen months from the date of issuance of the construction permit within which construction shall be completed and application for license filed.
The Mass Media Bureau and each of its Divisions provide information on the Internet regarding broadcast rules and policies, pending and completed rulemakings, and pending applications. These sites also include copies of public notices and texts of recent decisions.
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.
(a) A license for a remote pickup station will be issued to: the licensee of an AM, FM, noncommercial FM, low power FM, TV, international broadcast or low power TV station; broadcast network-entity; or cable network-entity.
(a) An aural broadcast STL or an aural broadcast intercity relay station will be licensed only to the licensee or licensees of broadcast stations, including low power FM stations, other than international broadcast stations, and for use with broadcast stations owned entirely by or under common control of the licensee or licensees. An aural broadcast intercity relay station also will be licensed for use by low power FM stations, noncommercial educational FM translator stations assigned to reserved channels (Channels 201-220) and owned and operated by their primary station, by FM translator stations operating within the coverage contour of their primary stations, and by FM booster stations. Aural auxiliary stations licensed to low power FM stations will be assigned on a secondary basis;
(a) An application for an FM translator station will not be accepted for filing if the proposed operation would involve overlap of predicted field contours with any other authorized commercial or noncommercial educational FM broadcast stations, FM translators, and Class D (secondary) noncommercial educational FM stations; or if it would result in new or increased overlap with an LP100 station, as set forth below:
(4) LP100 stations (Protected Contour: 1mV/m)
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
The purpose of this rule is to establish procedures which the Department of Agriculture (USDA or the Department) will use in conducting a referendum to determine whether the issuance of the proposed Blueberry Promotion, Research, and Information Order (Order) is favored by the blueberry industry. The Order will be implemented if it is approved by a majority of producers and importers who also represent a majority of the volume of blueberries represented in the referendum. These procedures would also be used for any subsequent referendum under the Order, if it is approved in the initial referendum. The Order is being published in a separate document. This proposed program would be implemented under the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 (Act).
This final rule is effective February 16, 2000.
Oliver L. Flake, Research and Promotion Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, Stop 0244, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Room 2535-S, Washington, D.C. 20250-0244; telephone (202) 720-5976 or fax (202) 205-2800.
A referendum will be conducted among eligible blueberry producers and importers to determine whether the issuance of the proposed Blueberry Promotion, Research, and Information Order (Order) (7 CFR Part 1218) is favored by those who would pay assessments under the program. The Order will be implemented if it is approved by a majority of producers and importers voting for approval who also represent a majority of the volume of blueberries represented in the referendum. The Order is authorized under the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 (Act) [Pub. L. 104-427, 7 U.S.C. 7401-7425]. It would cover domestic and imported cultivated blueberries (hereinafter called blueberries). A proposed Order is being published separately in the
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. Section 524 of the Act provides that the Act shall not affect or preempt any other Federal or State law authorizing promotion or research relating to an agricultural commodity.
Under section 519 of the Act, a person subject to the Order may file a petition with the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) stating that the Order, any provision of the Order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the Order, is not established in accordance with the law, and requesting a modification of the Order or an exemption from the Order. Any petition filed challenging the Order, any provision of the Order or any obligation imposed in connection with the Order, shall be filed within two years after the effective date of the Order, provision or obligation subject to challenge in the petition. The petitioner will have the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States for any district in which the petitioner resides or conducts business shall be the jurisdiction to review a final ruling on the petition, if the petitioner files a complaint for that purpose not later than 20 days after the date of entry of the Secretary's final ruling.
This rule has been determined not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and therefore has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The Act, which authorizes the Secretary to consider industry proposals for generic programs of promotion, research, and information for agricultural commodities, became effective on April 4, 1996. The Act provides for alternatives within the terms of a variety of provisions.
Paragraph (e) of Section 518 of the Act provides three options for determining industry approval of a new research and promotion program: (1) By a majority of those voting; (2) by a majority of the volume of the agricultural commodity voted in the referendum; or (3) by a majority of those persons voting who also represent a majority of the volume of the agricultural commodity voted in the referendum. In addition, section 518 of the Act provides for referenda to ascertain approval of an order to be conducted either prior to its going into effect or within three years after assessments first begin under the Order. The North American Blueberry Council, Inc. (proponent), has recommended that the Secretary conduct a referendum. Approval of the Order would be based on a majority of producers and importers voting for approval who also represent a majority of the volume of blueberries represented in the referendum. The proponent also has recommended that a referendum be conducted prior to the proposed Order going into effect.
This rule establishes the procedures under which producers and importers may vote on whether they want a blueberry promotion, research, and information program to be implemented. Blueberry producers and importers of 2,000 pounds or more of blueberries annually would be eligible to vote. The proposed Order provides for an exemption from assessments for producers and importers of less than 2,000 pounds of fresh and processed blueberries. This action will add a new subpart which establishes procedures to conduct an initial and future referenda. The subpart covers definitions, voting instructions, use of subagents, ballots, the referendum report, and confidentiality of information.
There are approximately 2,000 producers, 200 first handlers, 50 importers, and 4 exporters of blueberries who would be subject to the program. It is estimated that 1,818 producers and 32 importers would be eligible to vote in the first referendum. These figures have been revised since publication of the proposed rule. This revision is based upon more current information from a comment received concerning the proposed Order. That comment is discussed in the proposed rule for the Order which is published separately in this issue of the
Most of the producers would be classified as small businesses under the criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA) [13 CFR 121.601]. Most importers and first handlers would not be classified as small businesses. The SBA defines small agricultural handlers as those whose annual receipts are less than $5 million, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of not more than $500,000 annually.
According to USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service, total production of cultivated blueberries was 172.9 million pounds in 1997, up 35 percent from the 1996 output. Approximately 70.2 million pounds of the total were utilized for fresh market sale and 99.4 million pounds were used for processing (primarily frozen). Blueberries are grown in 35 states. Commercial production operations are located in Michigan (44 percent), New Jersey (19 percent), Oregon (12 percent), Georgia (9 percent), North Carolina (5 percent), Washington (5 percent), Indiana and Florida (2 percent each), and all other states (2 percent). Farm value for the 1997 cultivated blueberry crop was $141 million, compared with $113.6 million a year earlier.
U.S. frozen blueberry per capita consumption has been declining rapidly in recent years, decreasing from 0.38 pounds in 1996 to 0.33 pounds in 1997. From calendar year 1991 through 1995, U.S. per capita consumption of frozen blueberries averaged 0.43 pounds.
The United States exported 6.3 million pounds of fresh cultivated blueberries in 1997, valued at $7.9 million. Canada is the principal destination for U.S. exports— accounting for nearly 79 percent of the total in 1997. Other key markets included Switzerland (7 percent), the United Kingdom (5 percent), and Germany (3 percent). The remaining export volume of fresh cultivated blueberries primarily went to other European and Asian countries.
U.S. exports of frozen cultivated blueberries totaled 22.1 million pounds in 1997 and were valued at $9.9 million. The largest U.S. export market is Canada, accounting for 90 percent of the total quantity in 1997. Japan was the second largest U.S. market for frozen cultivated blueberries, accounting for 8 percent of the total. The remaining 2 percent of U.S. exports were sent mainly to other Asian and European countries.
In 1997, the United States imported 13.9 million pounds of fresh cultivated blueberries worth $10.8 million. Imports from Canada alone accounted for 89 percent of the total. Other important fresh cultivated blueberry import sources were Chile with 9 percent of the total and New Zealand with 2 percent. Small amounts were also imported from Mexico and Honduras.
In 1997, total imports of frozen cultivated blueberries were 9.8 million pounds and were valued at $8.5 million. The vast majority of U.S. frozen blueberry imports (about 96 percent) came from Canada in 1997. U.S. imports of frozen cultivated blueberries from Chile represented 2 percent of the total, while Mexico accounted for 1 percent of the total. The rest of the 1997 import volume originated from the Netherlands, Costa Rica and Colombia.
This rule provides the procedures under which blueberry producers and importers may vote on whether they want the Order to be implemented. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, subsequent referenda may be conducted, and it is anticipated that these procedures would apply. There are approximately 1,818 producers and 32 importers who will be eligible to vote in the first referendum.
USDA will keep these individuals informed throughout the program implementation and referendum process to ensure that they are aware of and are able to participate in the program implementation process. USDA will also publicize information regarding the referendum process so that trade associations and related industry media can be kept informed.
Voting in the referendum is optional. However, if producers and importers choose to vote, the burden of voting would be offset by the benefits of having the opportunity to vote on whether or not they want to be covered by the program.
The information collection requirements contained in this rule are designed to minimize the burden on producers and importers. This rule provides for a ballot to be used by eligible producers and importers to vote in the referendum. The estimated annual cost of providing the information by an estimated 1,818 producers (2,000−182 exempt producers) would be $909.00 or $.50 per producer and for an estimated 32 importers (50−18 exempt importers) would be $16.00 or $.50 per importer.
The Secretary considered requiring eligible voters to vote in person at various USDA offices across the country. The Secretary also considered electronic voting, but the use of computers is not universal, current technology is not reliable enough to ensure that electronic ballots would be received in a readable format, and technology is insufficient at this time to provide sufficient safeguards of voters' confidentiality. Conducting the referendum from one central location by mail ballot would be more cost-effective and reliable. The Department will provide easy access to information for potential voters through a toll-free telephone line.
There are no federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulation (5 CFR part 1320) which implements the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the referendum ballot, which represents the information collection and recordkeeping requirements that may be imposed by this rule, has been submitted to OMB for approval.
The estimated annual cost of providing the information by an estimated 1,818 producers (2,000−182 exempt producers) would be $909.00 or $.50 per producer and for an estimated 32 importers (50−18 exempt importers) would be $16.00 or $.50 per importer.
The ballot will be added to the other information collections approved for use under OMB Number 0581-0093.
In the proposed rule published on July 22, 1999, comments were invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of USDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The number of respondents and burden have been changed to reflect
The Act authorizes the Secretary, under generic authority, to establish agricultural commodity research and promotion orders. The North American Blueberry Council, Inc. (proponent), has requested the establishment of a Blueberry Promotion, Research, and Information Order (Order) pursuant to the Act. The proposed Order would provide for the development and financing of an effective and coordinated program of promotion, research, and information for fresh and processed blueberries. The program would be funded by an assessment levied on producers (to be collected by handlers) and importers (to be collected by the U.S. Customs Service at time of entry into the United States) at a rate of $12 per ton. In the proposed Order, blueberries are defined as cultivated blueberries grown in or imported into the United States of the genus Vaccinium
Assessments would be used to pay for promotion, research, and information; administration, maintenance, and functioning of the U.S.A. Blueberry Council; and expenses incurred by the Secretary in implementing and administering the Order, including referendum costs.
Section 518 of the Act requires that a referendum be conducted among eligible blueberry producers and importers to determine whether they favor the Order. In addition, section 518 of the Act provides for referenda to ascertain approval of an Order to be conducted either prior to its going into effect or within three years after assessments first begin under the Order. According to a proposed rule published separately in this issue of the
This rule establishes the procedures under which producers and importers may vote on whether they want the blueberry promotion, research, and information program to be implemented. There are approximately 1,850 eligible voters.
This rule would add a new subpart which would establish procedures to be used in this and future referenda. The subpart covers definitions, voting, instructions, use of subagents, ballots, the referendum report, and confidentiality of information.
A proposed rule on the Order was published in the July 22, 1999, issue of the
In addition to estimate changes, the Department has revised the referendum requirements. The proponent had recommended that the Order be implemented if approved by producers and importers representing a majority of the volume of blueberries represented in the referendum. The Department will keep this requirement but add a second requirement. In order to be implemented, the Order must also be approved by a majority of the voters in the referendum. The majority of the persons to be covered by the proposed program are small producers. This change was made in order to ensure that these small producers have fair input into the outcome of the referendum. In addition, this change would further the goals of the Secretary's Small Farm Initiative without harming the interests of the larger growers.
Pursuant to the provisions in 5 U.S.C. 553, it is found and determined that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this action until 30 days after publication in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Blueberries, Consumer Information, Marketing agreements, Blueberry promotion, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
U.S.C. 7401—7425.
Referenda to determine whether eligible blueberry producers and importers favor the issuance, amendment, suspension, or termination of the Blueberry Promotion, Research, and Information Order shall be conducted in accordance with this subpart.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) Owns, or shares the ownership and risk of loss of, the crop;
(2) Rents blueberry production facilities and equipment resulting in the ownership of all or a portion of the blueberries produced;
(3) Owns blueberry production facilities and equipment but does not manage them and, as compensation, obtains the ownership of a portion of the blueberries produced; or
(4) Is a party in a landlord-tenant relationship or a divided ownership arrangement involving totally independent entities cooperating only to produce blueberries who share the risk of loss and receive a share of the blueberries produced. No other acquisition of legal title to blueberries shall be deemed to result in persons becoming eligible producers.
(e)
(f)
(1) A husband and a wife who have title to, or leasehold interest in, a blueberry farm as tenants in common, joint tenants, tenants by the entirety, or, under community property laws, as community property; and
(2) So-called “joint ventures” wherein one or more parties to an agreement, informal or otherwise, contributed land and others contributed capital, labor, management, or other services, or any variation of such contributions by two or more parties.
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(a) Each person who is an eligible producer or an eligible importer, as defined in this subpart, at the time of the referendum and during the representative period, shall be entitled to cast only one ballot in the referendum. However, each producer in a landlord-tenant relationship or a divided ownership arrangement involving totally independent entities cooperating only to produce blueberries, in which more than one of the parties is a producer, shall be entitled to cast one ballot in the referendum covering only such producer's share of the ownership.
(b) Proxy voting is not authorized, but an officer or employee of an eligible corporate producer or importer, or an administrator, executor, or trustee or an eligible entity may cast a ballot on behalf of such entity. Any individual so voting in a referendum shall certify that such individual is an officer or employee of the eligible entity, or an administrator, executive, or trustee of an eligible entity and that such individual has the authority to take such action. Upon request of the referendum agent, the individual shall submit adequate evidence of such authority.
(c) All ballots are to be cast by mail or by facsimile, as instructed by the Secretary.
The referendum agent shall conduct the referendum, in the manner herein provided, under the supervision of the Administrator. The Administrator may prescribe additional instructions, not inconsistent with the provisions hereof, to govern the procedure to be followed by the referendum agent. Such agent shall:
(a) Determine the period during which ballots may be cast.
(b) Provide ballots and related material to be used in the referendum. The ballot shall provide for recording essential information, including that needed for ascertaining whether the person voting, or on whose behalf the vote is cast, is an eligible voter.
(c) Give reasonable public notice of the referendum:
(1) By utilizing available media or public information sources, without incurring advertising expense, to publicize the dates, places, method of voting, eligibility requirements, and other pertinent information. Such sources of publicity may include, but are not limited to, print and radio; and
(2) By such other means as the agent may deem advisable.
(d) Mail to eligible producers and importers whose names and addresses are known to the referendum agent, the instructions on voting, a ballot, and a summary of the terms and conditions of the proposed Order. No person who claims to be eligible to vote shall be refused a ballot.
(e) At the end of the voting period, collect, open, number, and review the ballots and tabulate the results in the presence of an agent of a third party authorized to monitor the referendum process.
(f) Prepare a report on the referendum.
(g) Announce the results to the public.
The referendum agent may appoint any individual or individuals necessary or desirable to assist the agent in performing such agent's functions hereunder. Each individual so appointed may be authorized by the agent to perform any or all of the functions which, in the absence of such appointment, shall be performed by the agent.
The referendum agent and subagents shall accept all ballots cast. However, if an agent or subagent deems that a ballot should be challenged for any reason, the agent or subagent shall endorse above their signature, on the ballot, a statement to the effect that such ballot was challenged, by whom challenged, the reasons therefore, the results of any investigations made with respect thereto, and the disposition thereof. Ballots invalid under this subpart shall not be counted.
Except as otherwise directed, the referendum agent shall prepare and submit to the Administrator a report on the results of the referendum, the manner in which it was conducted, the extent and kind of public notice given, and other information pertinent to the analysis of the referendum and its results.
The ballots and other information or reports that reveal, or tend to reveal, the vote of any person covered under the Act and the voting list shall be held confidential and shall not be disclosed.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would establish an industry-funded promotion, research, and information program for cultivated blueberries. A proposed program—the Blueberry Promotion, Research, and Information Order (Order)—was submitted to USDA by the North American Blueberry Council, Inc. Under the Order, blueberry producers and importers would pay an assessment of $12 per ton, which would be paid to the proposed U.S.A. Blueberry Council. Producers and importers of less than 2,000 pounds of fresh and processed blueberries annually would be exempt from the assessment. The proposed program would be implemented under the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 (Act). In addition, the USDA is announcing that a referendum will be conducted among eligible blueberry producers and importers to determine whether they favor the implementation of the program.
In order to be eligible to vote, blueberry producers and importers must have produced or imported 2,000 pounds or more of blueberries during the period from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999 (representative period). The voting period for the referendum will be from March 13 through March 24, 2000.
Oliver L. Flake, Research and Promotion Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, Stop 0244, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Room 2535-S, Washington, DC 20250-0244; telephone (202) 720-5976 or fax (202) 205-2800.
This proposed Order is issued pursuant to the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996, 7 U.S.C. 7401-7425; Public Law 104-127, enacted April 4, 1996, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. Section 524 of the Act provides that the Act shall not affect or preempt any other Federal or state law authorizing promotion or research relating to an agricultural commodity.
Under section 519 of the Act, a person subject to the Order may file a petition with the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) stating that the Order, any provision of the Order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the Order, is not established in accordance with the law, and requesting a modification of the Order or an exemption from the Order. Any petition filed challenging the Order, any provision of the Order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the Order, shall be filed within two years after the effective date of the Order, provision, or obligation subject to challenge in the petition. The petitioner will have the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. Thereafter, the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) will issue a ruling on a petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States for any district in which the petitioner resides or conducts business shall have the jurisdiction to review a final ruling on the petition, if the petitioner files a complaint for that purpose not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the Secretary's final ruling.
This proposed rule has been determined not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and therefore has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) [5 U.S.C. 601
The Act authorizes generic programs of promotion, research, and information for agricultural commodities. Congress found that it is in the national public interest and vital to the welfare of the agricultural economy of the United States to maintain and expand existing markets and develop new markets and uses for agricultural commodities through industry-funded, government-supervised, generic commodity promotion programs.
This program is intended to develop and finance an effective and coordinated program of promotion, research, and information to maintain and expand the markets for cultivated blueberries (hereinafter referred to as blueberries). A proposal was submitted by the North American Blueberry Council, Inc. (proponent or NABC). The proponent has proposed that blueberry producers and importers approve the program in a referendum in advance of its implementation. In addition, NABC proposed that producers, importers, exporters, and first handlers would serve on a 13-member U.S.A. Blueberry Council (USABC) that would administer the program under USDA's oversight. In order to provide the opportunity for public input into USABC deliberations, the Secretary added one public member to the proponent's proposed USABC. Any person subject to the program may file with the Secretary a petition stating that the Order or any provision of the Order is not in accordance with law and requesting a modification of the Order or an exemption from the Order.
While the proposed Order would impose certain recordkeeping requirements on first handlers, information required under the proposed Order could be compiled from records currently maintained. First handlers would collect and remit the assessments on domestic blueberries to the Council. Their responsibilities would include accurate recordkeeping and accounting of all blueberries purchased or contracted for, including the number of pounds handled, the names of their producers, and when blueberries are purchased. The forms require the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the requirements of the program, and their use is necessary to fulfill the intent of the Act. Such records shall be retained for at least two years. This information is already being maintained as a normal business practice.
In addition, first handlers of blueberries who seek nomination to serve on the USABC would be required to complete a nomination form which would be submitted to the Secretary.
The added burden to first handlers for a blueberry promotion, research, and information program is therefore expected to be minimal.
There is also a minimal paperwork burden on producers. The burden relates to those producers who would seek nomination to serve on the USABC and those who vote in referenda. In addition, the proposed Order would require producers to keep records and to provide information to the USABC or the Secretary when requested. However, it is not anticipated that producers would be required to submit forms to the USABC. Most likely, the information would be obtained through an audit of a producer's records to confirm
In addition, there is a minimal burden on importers. The import assessments would be collected by the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) at time of entry into the United States. Importers would be required to keep records and to provide information to the USABC or the Secretary when requested. However, it is not anticipated that importers would be required to submit forms to the USABC. Importers who seek nomination to serve on the USABC would be required to complete one form which would be submitted to the Secretary.
Further, there would be a minimal burden on exporters who seek nomination to serve on the USABC. They would be required to complete one form which would be submitted to the Secretary.
The estimated annual cost of providing the information to the USABC by an estimated 2,254 respondents (2,000 producers, 200 first handlers, 50 importers, and 4 exporters) would be $14,570 or $11,090 for all producers or $5.55 per producer, $2,020 for all first handlers or $10.10 per first handler, $1,440 for all importers or $28.80 per importer, and $20 for all exporters or $5.00 per exporter.
USDA would oversee program operations and, if the program is implemented, would conduct a referendum (1) every five years to determine whether blueberry producers and importers support continuation of the program, (2) at the request of the USABC, or (3) at the request of 10 percent or more of the number of persons eligible to vote in referenda. Additionally, the Secretary may conduct a referendum at any time to determine whether the continuation, suspension, or termination of the Order or a provision of the Order is favored by those eligible to vote in referenda.
There are approximately 2,000 producers, 200 first handlers, 50 importers, and 4 exporters of blueberries who would be subject to the program. These figures have been revised since publication of the proposed rule. This revision is based upon more current information from a comment received concerning the proposed Order. That comment is discussed later in this proposed rule. Most of the producers would be classified as small businesses under the criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA) [13 CFR 121.601]. Most importers and first handlers would not be classified as small businesses and, while most exporters are large, we assume that some are small. The SBA defines small agricultural handlers as those whose annual receipts are less than $5 million, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of not more than $500,000 annually.
The blueberry, along with the cranberry and Concord grape, is one of only three native North American fruits. Blueberries were domesticated from wild highbush blueberries in the early 1900's. Over the years, they have been bred for flavor, size, color, vigor, and yield.
North America is the world's leading producer of blueberries. From 1993 to 1997, cultivated blueberries represented an average of approximately 70 percent of all blueberries produced in the United States with the remainder, known as lowbush (wild) blueberries, produced primarily in Maine. There are over 37 varieties of blueberries, but not all are actively produced for market.
Blueberries are harvested from April through October, with more than 60 percent harvested from mid-June though mid-August. Blueberries are grown in 35 states. Commercial production operations are located in Michigan (44 percent), New Jersey (19 percent), Oregon (12 percent), Georgia (9 percent), North Carolina (5 percent), Washington (5 percent), Indiana and Florida (2 percent each), and all other states (2 percent).
A majority of blueberry growers are relatively small business owners, operating 20- to 30-acre farms which have been in their families for a number of generations. Blueberry acreage is expanding in the United States, with considerable growth in the high-yielding areas of the Northwest and South. Harvested acreage in the United States has more than doubled over the past 15 years, from 21,850 harvested acres in 1980 to an estimated 46,685 harvested acres in 1996.
U.S. blueberry production has more than doubled since the late 1970's, from an average of 35,693 tons during the five-year period 1977 through 1981 to an average of more than 75,500 tons from 1993 through 1997. According to USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), total production of blueberries was 79,485 tons in 1998, a decrease from 84,990 tons in 1997. Approximately 39,493 tons of the total were utilized for fresh market sale and 37,608 tons were processed (primarily frozen).
Farm value of the 1997 blueberry crop was $141 million, compared with $113.6 million a year earlier.
U.S. frozen blueberry per capita consumption has been declining rapidly in recent years, decreasing from 0.38 pounds in 1996 to 0.33 pounds in 1997. From calendar year 1991 through 1995, U.S. per capita consumption of frozen blueberries averaged 0.43 pounds.
The United States exported 6.3 million pounds of fresh blueberries in 1997, valued at $7.9 million. Canada is the principal destination for U.S. exports—accounting for nearly 79 percent of the total in 1997. Other key markets included Switzerland (7 percent), the United Kingdom (5 percent), and Germany (3 percent). The remaining export volume went mostly to other European and Asian countries.
U.S. exports of frozen blueberries totaled 11,050 tons in 1997, and were valued at $9.9 million. The largest U.S. export market for frozen blueberries is Canada, accounting for 90 percent of the total quantity exported in 1997. Japan was the second largest U.S. market, accounting for 8 percent of the total. The remaining 2 percent of U.S. exports were sent mainly to other Asian and European countries.
In 1997, the United States imported 6,950 tons of fresh blueberries worth $10.8 million. Imports from Canada accounted for 89 percent of the total. Other major suppliers of fresh blueberries were Chile, with 9 percent of the total, and New Zealand with 2 percent.
In 1997, total imports of frozen blueberries reached 4,900 tons, valued at $8.5 million. The bulk of U.S. frozen blueberry imports (about 96 percent) in 1997 came from Canada. U.S. imports of frozen blueberries from Chile represented 2 percent of the total, while Mexico accounted for 1 percent of the total. The rest of the 1997 import volume originated from the Netherlands, Costa Rica, and Colombia.
During the 1997 season, average annual production per U.S. producer was approximately 66.04 tons of blueberries. Blueberries produced during this growing season provided average annual gross sales of $109,557 per blueberry producer.
The proposed Order would authorize a fixed assessment paid by producers (to be collected by first handlers) and importers (to be collected by Customs) at a rate of $12 per ton.
Section 516(a)(1) of the Act provides authority to the Secretary to exempt from the Order any de minimis quantity of an agricultural commodity otherwise covered by the Order. The proponent has recommended that producers and
At the proposed rate of assessment of $12 per ton, the USABC would collect approximately $1.1 million annually. It is expected that the assessment would represent less than 1 percent of producers' average return. In 1997, the average price for blueberries was $1,659 per ton.
USDA will keep all individuals informed throughout the referendum process to ensure that they are aware of and are able to participate in the referendum. USDA will publicize information regarding the referendum process so that trade associations and related industry media can be kept informed.
In addition, the blueberry industry would nominate producers and the USABC would nominate importers, exporters, first handlers, and a public member to serve as members and alternates on the USABC. The USABC would recommend the assessment rate, programs, projects, a budget, and any rules and regulations that might be necessary for the administration of the program. USDA would ensure that the nominees represent the blueberry industry in accordance with the proposed Order.
The USABC would consist of 13 members: one producer representative from each of four regions, one producer representative for each of the top five producing states, one importer, one exporter, one first handler, and one public member. The regional and state members would be nominated from within the respective regions or states by the state commissions or the NABC as applicable for initial nominations, and the importer, exporter, and first handler members would be nominated by the USABC. There would be an alternate for each member. The importer position would be filled by a person who imports fresh or processed blueberries from outside of the United States for sale in the United States. The exporter position would be filled by a representative of the foreign production area which, based on a 3-year average, produces the most blueberries that are shipped to the United States.
In order to provide the opportunity for public input into USABC deliberations, the Secretary added one public member and alternate to the proponent's proposed USABC. The public member and alternate would be nominated by the USABC.
Proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the blueberry promotion, research, and information program would be designed to minimize the burden on the blueberry industry. The blueberry promotion program would be designed to strengthen the position of blueberries in the marketplace, maintain and expand existing domestic and foreign markets, and develop new uses and markets for blueberries.
The estimated annual cost of providing the information to the USABC by an estimated 2,254 respondents (2,000 producers, 200 first handlers, 50 importers, and 4 exporters) would be $14,570 or $11,090 for all producers or $5.55 per producer, $2,020 for all first handlers or $10.10 per first handler, $1,440 for all importers or $28.80 per importer, and $20 for all exporters or $5.00 per exporter.
With regard to alternatives to this proposed rule, the Act itself does provide for authority to tailor a program according to the individual needs of an industry. Provision is made for permissive terms in an order in Section 516 of the Act, and other sections provide for alternatives. For example, Section 514 of the Act provides for orders applicable to (1) producers, (2) first handlers and other persons in the marketing chain as appropriate, and (3) importers (if imports are subject to assessment). Section 516 authorizes an order to provide for exemption of de minimis quantities of an agricultural commodity; different payment and reporting schedules; coverage of research, promotion, and information activities to expand, improve, or make more efficient the marketing or use of an agricultural commodity in both domestic and foreign markets; provision for reserve funds; provision for credits for generic and branded activities; and assessment of imports. In addition, Section 518 of the Act provides for referenda to ascertain approval of an order to be conducted either prior to its going into effect or within 3 years after assessments first begin under the order. An order also may provide for its approval in a referendum to be based upon (1) a majority of those persons voting; (2) persons voting for approval who represent a majority of the volume of the agricultural commodity; or (3) a majority of those persons voting for approval who also represent a majority of the volume of the agricultural commodity. Section 515 of the Act provides for establishment of a board from among producers, first handlers, and others in the marketing chain as appropriate and importers, if importers are subject to assessment.
This proposal includes provisions for both domestic and foreign market expansion and improvement; reserve funds; and an initial referendum to be conducted prior to the Order going into effect. Approval would be determined by a majority of producers and importers voting for approval who also represent a majority of the volume of blueberries represented in the referendum.
The proposed rule that was published in the
Based upon available information, we estimated that 1,297 producers and 120 importers would be subject to the program. The commenter estimates in its comment that 2,000 producers and 50 importers/exports would be subject to the program.
In the July 22, 1999, proposed rule, we invited information on the number of persons subject to the program. The commenter's estimate of the number of producers subject to the program is supported by data from the 1997 Census of Agriculture. Further, we accept the estimate as to importers. However, our estimate as to the number of handlers and exporters will remain unchanged based upon available information. Accordingly, we have changed all references to these estimates in both this proposed Order as well as the referendum procedures, which are published separately in this issue of the
The commenter also requested a change to a reference in the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis regarding the required forms to be submitted to the USABC. The commenter requested that producers be required to provide the USABC with an annual report at the end of the harvest season. The commenter asked that this report include the producer's production so that proper assessments can be determined and checked with USABC production figures. We believe that such a required annual report would place an unnecessary added burden on producers. The Order already requires that producers maintain records to confirm information provided by first handlers. Consequently, if needed, assessments can be checked through an audit of producers' records. Therefore, no changes are made as a result of this comment.
Regarding a reference in the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to the nomination of the pubic member to the USABC, the commenter inquired whether the blueberry industry would be responsible to nominate this public member. Section 1218.41(d) states that
In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulation [5 CFR part 1320] which implements the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. Chapter 35], the information collection and recordkeeping requirements that may be imposed by this Order have been submitted to OMB for approval.
In addition, there will be the additional burden on producers and importers voting in referenda. The referendum ballot, which represents the information collection requirement relating to referenda, is addressed in a proposed rule on referendum procedures which is published separately in this issue of the
Under the proposed program, first handlers would be required to collect assessments from producers and file reports with and submit assessments to the USABC. While the proposed Order would impose certain recordkeeping requirements on first handlers, information required under the proposed Order could be compiled from records currently maintained. Such records shall be retained for at least two years beyond the marketing year of their applicability. The estimated annual cost of providing the information to the USABC by an estimated 2,254 respondents (2,000 producers, 200 first handlers, 50 importers, and 4 exporters) would be $14,570 or $11,090 for all producers or $5.55 per producer, $2,020 for all first handlers or $10.10 per first handler, $1,440 for all importers or $28.80 per importer, and $20 for all exporters or $5.00 per exporter.
The proposed Order's provisions have been carefully reviewed, and every effort has been made to minimize any unnecessary recordkeeping costs or requirements, including efforts to utilize information already submitted under other blueberry programs administered by USDA.
The proposed forms would require the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the requirements of the program, and their use is necessary to fulfill the intent of the Act. Such information can be supplied without data processing equipment or outside technical expertise. In addition, there are no additional training requirements for individuals filling out reports and remitting assessments to the USABC. The forms would be simple, easy to understand, and place as small a burden as possible on the person required to file the information.
Collecting information yearly would coincide with normal industry business practices. Reporting other than yearly would impose an additional and unnecessary recordkeeping burden on first handlers. The timing and frequency of collecting information are intended to meet the needs of the industry while minimizing the amount of work necessary to fill out the required reports. In addition, the information to be included on these forms is not available from other sources because such information relates specifically to individual producers and first handlers who are subject to the provisions of the Act.
Therefore, there is no practical method for collecting the required information without the use of these forms.
Information collection requirements that are included in this proposal include:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Comments were invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Order and the USDA's oversight of the program, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of USDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumption used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility,
The burdens have been revised, as appropriate, based upon a comment from the proponent concerning the estimated number of producers and importers. Another comment was received from a producer who opposed the proposed Order. This commenter did not want more paperwork and specifically stated that she did not want to submit an annual report. A comment from the proponent requested that an annual report be required of producers. As previously discussed, we have not included such a change in the Order provisions. Further, every attempt has been made to minimize the burden on regulated parties, including producers. Accordingly, no change is made based upon the producer's comment.
The Act authorizes the Secretary, under a generic authority, to establish agricultural commodity research and promotion orders. The Act provides for a number of optional provisions that allow the tailoring of orders for different commodities. Section 516 of the Act provides permissive terms for orders, and other sections provide for alternatives. For example, Section 514 of the Act provides for orders applicable to (1) producers, (2) first handlers and others in the marketing chain as appropriate, and (3) importers (if importers are subject to assessment). Section 516 authorizes an order to provide for exemption of de minimis quantities of an agricultural commodity; different payment and reporting schedules; coverage of research, promotion, and information activities to expand, improve, or make more efficient the marketing or use of an agricultural commodity in both domestic and foreign markets; provision for reserve funds; provision for credits for generic and branded activities; and assessment of imports. In addition, Section 518 of the Act provides for referenda to ascertain approval of an order to be conducted either prior to its going into effect or within 3 years after assessments first begin under the order. The order also may provide for its approval in a referendum based upon different voting patterns. Section 515 provides for establishment of a board from among producers, first handlers and others in the marketing chain as appropriate, and importers, if imports are subject to assessment.
This proposed Order includes provisions for both domestic and foreign market expansion and improvement, reserve funds, and an initial referendum to be conducted prior to the Order going into effect. Approval would be determined by a majority of producers and importers voting for approval who also represent a majority of the volume of blueberries represented in the referendum.
The proponent has requested the establishment of a national blueberry promotion, research, and information order pursuant to the Act. The Act authorizes the establishment and operation of generic promotion programs which may include a combination of promotion, research, industry information, and consumer information activities funded by mandatory assessments. These programs are designed to maintain and expand markets and uses for agricultural commodities. This proposal would provide for the development and financing of an effective and coordinated program of research, promotion, and information for blueberries. The purpose of the program would be to strengthen the position of blueberries in domestic and foreign markets, and to develop, maintain, and expand markets for blueberries.
The program would not become effective until approved in a referendum conducted by USDA. Section 518 of the Act provides for USDA (1) to conduct an initial referendum, preceding a proposed order's effective date, among persons who would pay assessments under the program or (2) to implement a proposed order, pending the conduct of a referendum, among persons subject to assessments, within three years after assessments first begin.
In accordance with Section 518(e) of the Act, an order may provide for its approval in a referendum based upon (1) a majority of those persons voting; (2) persons voting for approval who represent a majority of the volume of the agricultural commodity; or (3) a majority of those persons voting for approval who also represent a majority of the volume of the agricultural commodity.
The Secretary will conduct a referendum in which approval of the Order would be determined by a majority of producers and importers voting for approval who also represent a majority of the volume of blueberries represented in the referendum. The proponent has recommended that a referendum be conducted prior to the proposed Order going into effect.
In accordance with the Act, USDA would oversee the program's operations. In addition, the Act requires the Secretary to conduct subsequent referenda: (1) not later than 7 years after assessments first begin under the Order; or (2) at the request of the board established under the Order; or (3) at the request of 10 percent or more of the number of persons eligible to vote. The proponent group has requested that a referendum be conducted every five years to determine if producers and importers want the program to continue.
In addition to these criteria, the Act provides that the Secretary may conduct a referendum at any time to determine whether the continuation, suspension, or termination of the Order or a provision of the Order is favored by persons eligible to vote.
A national research and promotion program for blueberries would help the industry to address the many market problems it currently faces. According to the proponent, three main factors currently affecting blueberry sales, both here in the domestic market and abroad, are increasing production, aggressive competition, and changing consumer habits.
Over the years, increased blueberry production has led to depressed grower prices and increasing cold storage inventory levels. Though slightly lower production and inventory levels in 1996 and early 1997 improved grower returns to more profitable levels, record production in 1997 led once again to a build up in cold storage inventory of frozen blueberries and a downturn in grower prices in late 1997 and early 1998. The potential for continued increases in tonnage from new plantings, expected to come into full production in the future, will continue to affect the balance of supply and demand and threaten to depress grower returns.
The blueberry industry has seen tremendous growth in the Northwest and Southern states which accounted for an estimated 19.9 percent of total U.S. blueberry acreage in 1980 and an estimated 38.6 percent of acres by 1996. The growth in the Northwest is an important factor for the future of the industry, given its production potential. Over the years, yield per acre in the Northwest has been substantially above that of the major growing regions of Michigan and New Jersey. On average, from 1990 to 1996, Oregon produced 71 percent more blueberries per acre than New Jersey (3.6 tons per acre versus 2.1 tons per acre) and more than twice the yield of Michigan (3.6 tons per acre versus 1.6 tons per acre). During this same time period, Washington produced
The blueberry industry is facing strong competition in the marketplace from both indirect and direct competitors. Like all food products, the blueberry must compete for a share of the consumer dollar. As competition in the supermarket increases, the blueberry industry must work harder to gain its share of consumer attention at a time when the industry's direct and indirect competitors expand their promotional activities.
A recent informal survey conducted by the proponent showed that from 1991 to 1995, the blueberry industry committed an average of 0.26 percent of farm gate value to the voluntary NABC domestic marketing program, far below the average of products such as prunes, kiwifruit, figs, pears, grapes, apples, citrus, and avocados whose domestic marketing expenditures averaged 2.10 percent of crop value. Though some individual members of the blueberry industry conduct promotional efforts on their own as well as contribute to the NABC program, it is extremely difficult to compete for a share of consumer and industrial user attention when the national generic marketing expenditure is slightly more than one-tenth the average amount of competitive products.
The blueberry industry must also address direct competition with the lowbush blueberry industry which is very active in the industrial market both in the United States and abroad. The blueberry industry must also contend with artificial blueberries which are making their presence felt in a wide range of national and regional branded food products.
Changing consumer trends are also having an impact on the use of blueberries. Of great concern to the blueberry industry is the overall decline in home baking, given the fact that consumers perceive blueberries as the primary baking berry. As consumers move away from home baking of blueberry muffins and pies and decide to buy rather than bake, the industry must increase its efforts in the industrial market to be sure that manufacturers maintain and expand their use of blueberries in baked applications.
It is also necessary for the industry to expand the awareness of the versatility of blueberries and encourage new consumer and food manufacturer uses.
In 1965, the NABC was established as a voluntary association of U.S. and Canadian lowbush (native) and cultivated (highbush) blueberry growers and marketers who collectively worked to promote blueberry awareness and consumption. Over the years, the structure of the organization changed to where the association now represents only the cultivated blueberry industry in the United States and Canada. The 31 U.S.-based NABC members account for an estimated 78 percent of the U.S. blueberry crop. These members, along with members from British Columbia and Quebec, voluntarily assess themselves at a rate of $9 per ton to fund domestic publicity and promotion efforts directed to both the consumer and industrial user, as well as to support international market development. The NABC generates approximately $500,000 annually.
As the only national organization funding market development efforts for cultivated (highbush) blueberries, the voluntary NABC has not been able to generate the funds necessary to support the aggressive marketing efforts needed to help expand blueberry consumption and improve the profitability of the industry. In order to deal with increased production, aggressive competition, and changing consumer habits, the proponent states that a more extensive marketing program is needed. A mandatory national program could solve this problem. In addition, a mandatory national program would place all domestic growers, first handlers, and importers on an equal playing field with each investing a fair share in promoting blueberries.
Additional funds generated through a national program would allow the blueberry industry to take advantage of a wide range of promotional opportunities. At a minimum, increased funding would allow the industry to expand its current consumer, food service, and food manufacturer promotion efforts. It would also allow for increased participation in the USDA's Market Access Program and the opportunity to develop stronger markets overseas. Increased funding would allow for a more aggressive school effort (educational films, educational booklets, Internet lesson plans, and the like) and help increase awareness and demand among children. In addition, such a program would create the opportunity to explore tie-in promotional activities with nationally branded food products which would help the blueberry industry gain advertising and in-store exposure. Further, a mandatory national program would generate the funds for the industry to support expanded varietal research activities, new product development efforts, and nutritional and health research proposals.
Section 516(f) of the Act allows an order to authorize the levying of assessments on imports of the commodity covered by the program or on products containing that commodity, at a rate comparable to the rate determined for the domestic agricultural commodity covered by the order. The proponent has proposed to assess imports.
The assessment levied on domestically-produced and imported blueberries would be used to pay for promotion, research, and consumer and industry information as well as administration, maintenance, and functioning of the Council. Expenses incurred by the Secretary in implementing and administering the Order, including referenda costs, also would be paid from assessments.
Sections 516(e)(1) and (2) of the Act state that the Secretary may provide credits of assessments for generic and branded activities. The proponent has elected not to propose credits for generic or branded activities. Therefore, the terms “generic activities” and “branded activities” are not defined in the Order.
First handlers would be responsible for the collection of assessments from the producer and payment to the Council. First handlers would be required to maintain records for each producer for whom blueberries are handled, including blueberries produced by the first handler. In addition, first handlers would be required to file reports regarding the collection, payment, or remittance of the assessments.
Assessments on imported fresh and processed blueberries would be collected by Customs at the time of entry into the United States and remitted to the Council.
All information obtained from persons subject to this Order as a result of recordkeeping and reporting requirements would be kept confidential by all officers, employees, and agents of USDA and of the Council. This information may be disclosed only if the Secretary considers the information relevant, and the information is revealed in a judicial proceeding or administrative hearing brought at the direction or on the request of the Secretary or to which the Secretary or any officer of USDA is a party. Other exceptions for disclosure of confidential information would include the issuance of general statements based on reports or on information relating to a number of persons subject to an order if the statements do not identify the
The proposed Order provides for USDA to conduct an initial referendum preceding the proposed Order's effective date. Therefore, the proposed Order must be approved by producers and importers voting in the referendum. Approval would be determined by a majority of producers and importers voting for approval who also represent a majority of the volume of blueberries represented in the referendum. The proposed Order also provides for subsequent referenda to be conducted (1) every 5 years after the program is in effect, (2) at the request of the Board established under the Order, or (3) when requested by 10 percent or more of blueberry producers and importers subject to the Order. In addition, the Secretary may conduct a referendum at any time.
The Act requires that such a proposed order provide for the establishment of a board to administer the program under USDA supervision. The proponent's proposal provided for a 12-member U.S.A. Blueberry Council to which the Secretary would add a public member, as stated earlier.
To ensure fair and equitable representation of the blueberry industry on the USABC, the Act requires membership on the USABC to reflect the geographical distribution of the production of blueberries and the quantity or value of imports. To that end, the proposed Order divides the production area into four relatively equal regions which would each have one member on the USABC. Regions are based on the most recent three-year average of blueberries produced in each region. The proposed Order also provides for a representative from each of the top five blueberry producing states based on the most recent 3-year average of blueberries produced in each state. In addition, the proposed Order provides for one importer, a first handler, and an exporter position to be filled by a representative of the foreign production area which, based on a 3-year average, produces the most blueberries that are shipped to the United States. Each member would have an alternate.
Upon implementation of the Order and pursuant to the Act, the USABC would at least once in each five-year period, but not more frequently than once in each three-year period, review the geographical distribution of blueberry production in the United States and the quantity of fresh and processed blueberries imported into the United States and make a recommendation to the Secretary after considering the results of its review and other information it deems relevant regarding the reapportionment of the USABC.
Members and alternates would serve for three-year terms, except that the members and alternates appointed to the initial USABC would serve proportionately for two, three, and four years. No member or alternate would serve more than two consecutive three-year terms.
A proposal was submitted by the North American Blueberry Council, Inc. (proponent or NABC). Prior to publication, the Department modified the proponent's proposal to make it consistent with the Act and other similar national research and promotion programs; for consistency throughout the text; and for clarity.
In the definitions, “commodity covered” was changed to “blueberries,” “consumer information” and “producer information” were combined into a definition of “information” to conform with the Act. Additionally, the definition of “research,” and “importer” were altered to conform with the Act.
In the definitions and throughout the proposed Order, “grower/producer” was changed to “producer,” “handler” was changed to “first handler,” the term “board” was eliminated, and “council” was changed to “U.S.A. Blueberry Council” or “USABC.” The terms “plans, projects, and programs” were deleted because they were deemed unnecessary, and a definition for “processed blueberries” and “part and subpart” were added. Throughout the proposed Order, the term “blueberry products” was changed to “fresh and processed blueberries,” and, for clarity, time periods were changed to match definitions.
The following terms were removed from the definitions: “association,” “buyer,” “broker,” “distributor,” “packer,” “processor,” and “shipper.” These terms were removed because they are not necessary for the administration of the proposed program.
In § 1218.40
In § 1218.43
In § 1218.60, the date all reports are due was changed from November 30 of the crop year to 30 days after the end of the crop year. This phrase was changed for clarity.
In § 1218.61, the length of time records must be maintained by first handlers, producers, and importers was changed from seven years to two years beyond the fiscal period to be consistent with other research and promotion programs. Also, the following sections were added to the proponent's proposal: § 1218.73
Other minor changes which did not materially affect the text were made for consistency and clarity.
A proposed rule seeking comments on the national research and promotion program for blueberries was published on July 22, 1999, in the
A comment was received requesting that, throughout the proposal and in the Council's title, the term “blueberry” be changed to “cultivated blueberry.” The commenter stated that the generic use of the term “blueberry” was misleading as to the specific type of blueberry and industry segment represented by the proposed Council. The commenter noted that the wild blueberry industry promotes its product as unique from the cultivated blueberry. While the commenter brings forth differences between the two types of blueberries, the Order and Council name were proposed by the proponent organization which represents approximately 70 percent of domestic production of all blueberries. Wild blueberry production is very localized and represents less than 30 percent of total domestic blueberry production. Generally, most consumers do not differentiate between wild and cultivated blueberries.
Even if this proposed program is implemented, the wild blueberry industry can still create a separate image and niche market to identify its product.
It is not uncommon in other national research and promotion programs that a generic term is used for a commodity that is defined with further specificity. For example, the Fluid Milk Promotion Order uses the term “milk” and defines it as any class of cow's milk produced in the United States. Neither this definition of milk nor the title of the Fluid Milk Promotion Order addresses goats' milk or other speciality milks. As with fluid milk, “blueberry” is a generic term. Further, cultivated blueberries represent the majority of production. Therefore, no change will be made as a result of this comment, and we will leave the proposed Order provisions and Council title as recommended by the proponent.
Comments were received concerning the accuracy and clarity of wording in the background section of the proposed Order. These comments included a notation that the NABC is not the only national organization funding blueberry market development and asked for clarification of how the proposed Order would be approved in a referendum. We have addressed these comments and revised the background section, as appropriate.
Comments regarding the regulatory text included a comment concerning § 1218.2 which defines blueberries. The commenter requested that the definition of blueberries be clarified by including lowbush/highbush crosses (known as “half-high” blueberries). The definition of blueberries submitted by the proponent only excludes the lowbush (wild) blueberry. Therefore, simply clarifying that hybrids are included will not significantly change the definition of blueberry. Further, any blueberry that is not a pure lowbush is generally considered cultivated (highbush).
A comment was submitted on § 1218.07 which defines a first handler. The commenter felt a need to specify that a producer who markets his or her own product be considered a first handler. Including such producers in the definition of first handlers is consistent with other similar national research and promotion programs. Therefore, we accept the commenter's suggestion to include blueberry producers who market their own product in the definition of first handlers and have added this to the definition.
A comment was received concerning § 1218.41 which addresses nominations and appointments to the USABC. The commenter requested the inclusion of a statement indicating that no one group should have a majority position on the USABC. The commenter specifically requested that no one state and/or organization have representatives filling more than 6 out of the 13 USABC positions. The commenter addresses a valid concern regarding representation of states and organizations on the USABC. However, according to § 1218.40, which describes the establishment of membership, it would not be possible for any state or organization to have a majority of the positions on the Council. Only two members could come from the same state as, of the nine producer positions, four regions are represented along with the top five blueberry producing states. Concerning majority representation of organizations, with 9 of the 13 positions being filled by producers, an organization could not obtain a majority position. Therefore, no change is necessary as a result of this comment.
One comment was submitted regarding § 1218.45 which outlines USABC procedures. The commenter requested that “industry experts” be included on USABC committees and that these individuals be able to vote on committee actions. Similar national research and promotion programs allow for nonmembers to serve on Board committees and vote on committee actions but not on Board actions. We have accepted this comment and added the following language to § 1218.45(e): Committees may also consist of individuals other than USABC members and such members may vote in committee meetings.
A comment was received regarding § 1218.47 which outlines the powers and duties of the proposed USABC. The commenter requested that the USABC have the power to pay all necessary expenses and fees for committee members who are not USABC members. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, precedent exists for allowing individuals to serve on USABC committees who are not USABC members. The Act states that members and alternates will serve without compensation except that they may be reimbursed for travel expenses. Therefore, we accept the comment that non-USABC members who serve on committees be compensated for travel expenses but deny the request that the USABC pay fees for such committee members. This comment is addressed in § 1218.45(e), where a reference to travel expenses for such committee members has been added.
One comment was received regarding § 1218.50 which addresses budget and expenses. The commenter requested a statement in this section that would allow the USABC to establish an operating monetary reserve and carry over excess funds to subsequent fiscal periods provided that the funds in the reserve do not exceed one fiscal period's budget. The Act authorizes orders to contain authority to reserve funds from assessments provided that the amount of funds reserved does not exceed the greatest aggregate amount of the anticipated disbursements specified in budgets approved by the Secretary for any two fiscal years. We therefore accept the commenter's request and have added § 1218.50(j) which authorizes an operating monetary reserve, not to exceed one fiscal period's budget.
One comment was received in regard to § 1218.51 which deals with financial statements. The commenter requested clarification on how often financial statements would be required of the USABC. As a general rule, research and
Comments were received concerning § 1218.52 which deals with assessments. Some of the comments questioned whether the USABC could charge a penalty on late assessments in addition to interest charges. A commenter suggested that the Council set the penalty amount and interest charge upon approval by the Secretary. The Act and other similar national research and promotion programs allow for late-payment charges. Therefore, we have revised § 1218.52(e) to include a late payment charge, in addition to interest, that may be charged to late assessments. However, it should be noted that the USABC would be required to use the rates specified in official debt collection regulations. These regulations authorize a one-time late payment charge of 6 percent per year of the unpaid balance once the payment of assessments is 90 days past due. In addition, from the first day any assessments are late, a rate of 15 percent interest is applied on the unpaid balance.
Another comment requested that § 1218.52(d)(1) be clarified by indicating that the assessment rate for imported fresh and processed blueberries be the same or equivalent to the rate for fresh and processed blueberries produced in the United States. The commenter's request that “and processed” be added to the description of blueberries produced in the United States, which would be assessed, is not made because among domestic blueberries only fresh blueberries would be assessed under the Order.
Another comment was submitted addressing § 1218.52(c). The commenter felt that the method of assessment should be changed from an amount per unit of sale ($12 per ton) to a percent of farm gate value. This commenter stated that an assessment rate based on a percent of farm gate value is more equitable. The proponent, which represents the majority of domestic blueberry producers and is comprised of importers as well as producers, recommended that only a flat assessment rate of $12 per ton be used. The Act provides authority to tailor a program according to the individual needs of an industry. Further, the proposed flat assessment conforms to many other national research and promotion programs. The industry is familiar with this method of assessment, and it would enhance administrative simplicity and cost effectiveness. Accordingly, no change to the Order provisions is made as a result of this comment.
A comment was submitted regarding § 1218.75 which addresses personal liability. The commenter believed that USABC staff should be covered under this liability statement. Taking this comment into account, we have changed § 1218.75, as appropriate.
One comment was received that was opposed to the overall Order. The commenter noted that the program was not voluntary, that it would increase expenses and paperwork, and that the current promotion of blueberries was very good. We disagree with this comment. The proposed program is authorized and consistent with the provisions of the Act and, if implemented, would benefit the overall industry. Further, every effort has been made to minimize the burden of this program on the affected parties. Further, we would also note that, if this proposed Order is approved in a referendum, the terms of office for the initial Council will be established according to the provisions of § 1218.42, with appropriate rounding to maintain a calendar year basis.
In summary, § 1218.02, § 1218.07, § 1218.45(e), § 1218.50, § 1218.52(e), § 1218.75, and the background section have been revised as a result of comments received that were deemed to have merit. Changes to the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis were discussed previously. In addition to making several changes to the proposed Order based on the comments received, two additional changes to the proposed rule made by AMS are noted and discussed below.
The Department has revised the referendum requirements. The proponent had recommended that the Order be implemented if approved by producers and importers representing a majority of the volume of blueberries represented in the referendum. The Department will keep this requirement but add a second requirement. In order to be implemented, the Order must also be approved by a majority of the voters in the referendum. The majority of the persons to be covered by the proposed program are small producers. This change was made in order to ensure that these small producers have fair input into the outcome of the referendum. In addition, this change would further the goals of the Secretary's Small Farm Initiative without harming the interests of the larger growers.
In addition, in § 1218.52
The Order is summarized as follows: Sections 1218.01 through 1218.23 of the proposed Order define certain terms, such as blueberries, producer, and importer, which are used in the proposed Order.
Sections 1218.40 through 1216.48 include provisions relating to the USABC. These provisions cover establishment and membership, nominations and appointments, term of office, vacancies, alternate members, procedures for conducting USABC business, compensation and reimbursement, and powers and duties of the USABC, and prohibited activities. The USABC is the governing body authorized to administer the Order through the implementation of programs, plans, projects, budgets, and contracts to promote and disseminate information about blueberries, subject to oversight of the Secretary.
Sections 1218.50 through 1218.56 cover budget review and approval; financial statements; authorize the collection of assessments; specify how assessments would be used, including reimbursement of necessary expenses incurred by the USABC for the performance of its duties and expenses incurred for USDA's oversight responsibilities; specify who pays the assessment and how; authorize the imposition of a late-payment charge on past-due assessments; outline exemption procedures; address programs, plans, and projects; require the USABC to periodically conduct an independent review of its overall program; and address patents, copyrights, trademarks, information, publications, and product formulations developed through the use of assessment funds.
The proposed assessment rate is $12 per ton for domestic blueberries and imported fresh and processed blueberries. The assessment rate may be raised or lowered after the initial continuance referendum which would be conducted after the program has been in operation five years. A referendum on a higher or lower new assessment rate is not required.
The federal debt collection procedures referenced above and in § 1218.52(e) include those set forth in 7
Sections 1218.60 through 1218.62 concern reporting and recordkeeping requirements for persons subject to the Order and protect the confidentiality of information from such books, records, or reports.
Sections 1218.70 through 1218.78 describe the rights of the Secretary; address referenda; authorize the Secretary to suspend or terminate the Order when deemed appropriate; prescribe proceedings after termination; address personal liability, separability, and amendments; and provide OMB control numbers.
The Department has determined that this Order is consistent with and will effectuate the purposes of the Act.
For the Order to become effective, the Order must be approved by a majority of producers and importers voting for approval who also represent a majority of the volume of blueberries represented in the referendum.
It is hereby directed that a referendum be conducted among eligible blueberry producers and importers to determine whether they favor implementation of the Blueberry Promotion, Research, and Information Order.
The referendum shall be conducted from March 13 through 24, 2000. Ballots will be mailed to all known blueberry producers and importers on or before March 13, 2000. Eligible voters who do not receive a ballot by mail should call the following toll-free telephone number to receive a ballot: 1 (888) 720-9917. All ballots will be subject to verification. Ballots must be received by the referendum agents no later than March 24, 2000, to be counted.
Oliver L. Flake and Martha B. Ransom, Research and Promotion Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 2535-S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244, are designated as the referendum agents of the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct the referendum. The Procedure for the Conduct of Referenda in Connection with the Blueberry Promotion, Research, and Information Order, 7 CFR 1218.100-1218.107, which is being published separately in this issue of the
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Blueberries, Consumer information, Marketing agreements, Blueberry promotion, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, it is proposed that Title 7 of Chapter XI of the Code of Federal Regulations be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 1218 continues to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 7401-7425.
2.Subpart A is added to part 1218 to read as follows:
Department means the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b) To
(a) Establishment of the U.S.A. Blueberry Council. There is hereby established a U.S.A. Blueberry Council, hereinafter called the USABC, composed of no more than 13 members and alternates, appointed by the Secretary from the nominations as follows:
(1) One producer member and alternate from each of the following regions:
(i) Region #1 Western Region (all states from the Pacific east to the Rockies): Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
(ii) Region #2 Midwest Region (all states east of the Rockies to the Great Lakes and south to the Kansas/Missouri/Kentucky state line): Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.
(iii) Region #3 Northeast Region(all states east of the Great Lakes and North of the North Carolina/Tennessee state line): Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, D.C., and West Virginia.
(iv) Region #4 Southern Region (all states south of the Virginia/Kentucky/Missouri/Kansas state line and east of the Rockies): Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.
(2) One producer member and alternate from each of the top five blueberry producing states, based upon the average of the total tons produced over the previous three years. Average tonnage will be based upon North American Blueberry Council production figures for the initial election and production and assessment figures generated by the USABC thereafter.
(3) One importer and alternate.
(4) One exporter and alternate shall be filled by foreign blueberry producers currently shipping blueberries into the
(5) One first handler member and alternate shall be filled by a United States based independent or cooperative organization which is a producer/shipper of domestic blueberries.
(6) One public member and alternate.
(b) Adjustment of membership. At least once every five years, the USABC will review the geographical distribution of United States production of blueberries and the quantity of imports. The review will be conducted through an audit of state crop production figures and USABC assessment receipts. If warranted, the USABC will recommend to the Secretary that membership on the USABC be altered to reflect any changes in geographical distribution of domestic blueberry production and the quantity of imports. If the level of imports increases, importer members and alternates may be added to the USABC.
(a) Voting for regional and state representatives will be made by mail ballot.
(b) In a case where a state has a state blueberry commission or marketing order in place, the state commission or committee will nominate members and alternates to serve on the USABC. At least two nominees shall be submitted to the Secretary for each member and each alternate.
(c) Nomination and election of regional, and state representatives where no commission or order is in place will be handled by the USABC, provided that the initial nominations will be handled by the North American Blueberry Council. The USABC will seek nominations for members and alternates from the specific states and/or regions. Nominations will be returned to the USABC and placed on a ballot which will then be sent to producers in the state and/or region for vote. The final nominee for member will have received the highest number of votes cast. The person with the second highest number of votes cast will be the final nominee for alternate. The persons with the third and fourth place highest number of votes cast will be designated as additional nominees for consideration by the Secretary.
(d) Nominations for the importer, exporter, first handler, and public member positions will be made by the USABC. Two nominees for each member and alternate position will be submitted to the Secretary for consideration.
(e) From the nominations, the Secretary shall select the members of the USABC and alternates for each position on the USABC.
USABC members and alternates will serve for a term of three years and be able to serve a maximum of two consecutive terms. A USABC member may serve as an alternate during the years the member is ineligible for a member position. When the USABC is first established, the state representatives, first handler member, and their respected alternates will be assigned initial terms of three years. Regional representatives, the importer member, the exporter member, public member, and their alternates will serve an initial term of two years. Thereafter, each of these positions will carry a full three-year term. USABC nominations and appointments will take place in two out of every three years. Each term of office will end on December 31, with new terms of office beginning on January 1.
(a) In the event any member of the USABC ceases to be a member of the category of members from which the member was appointed to the USABC, such position shall automatically become vacant.
(b) If a member of the USABC consistently refuses to perform the duties of a member of the USABC, or if a member of the USABC engages in acts of dishonesty or willful misconduct, the USABC may recommend to the Secretary that the member be removed from office. If the Secretary finds the recommendation of the USABC shows adequate cause, the Secretary shall remove such member from office.
(c) Should any member position become vacant, the alternate of that member shall automatically assume the position of said member. Should the positions of both a member and such member's alternate become vacant, successors for the unexpired terms of such member and alternate shall be appointed in the manner specified in § 1218.40 and § 1218.41, except that said nomination and replacement shall not be required if said unexpired terms are less than six months.
An alternate member of the USABC, during the absence of the member for whom the person is the alternate, shall act in the place and stead of such member and perform such duties as assigned. In the event of death, removal, resignation, or disqualification of any member, the alternate for that member shall automatically assume the position of said member. In the event that both a producer member of the USABC and the alternate are unable to attend a meeting, the USABC may not designate any other alternate to serve in such member's or alternate's place and stead for such a meeting.
(a) At a USABC meeting, it will be considered a quorum when a minimum of seven members, or their alternates serving in the absence, are present.
(b) At the start of each fiscal period, the USABC will select a chairperson and vice chairperson who will conduct meetings throughout that period.
(c) All USABC members and alternates will receive a minimum of 10 days advance notice of all USABC and committee meetings.
(d) Each member of the USABC will be entitled to one vote on any matter put to the USABC, and the motion will carry if supported by one vote more than 50 percent of the total votes represented by the USABC members present.
(e) It will be considered a quorum at a committee meeting when at least one more than half of those assigned to the committee are present. Alternates may also be assigned to committees as necessary. Committees may also consist of individuals other than USABC members and such individuals may vote in committee meetings. These committee members shall serve without compensation but shall be reimbursed for reasonable travel expenses, as approved by the USABC.
(f) In lieu of voting at a properly convened meeting and, when in the opinion of the chairperson of the USABC such action is considered necessary, the USABC may take action if supported by one vote more than 50 percent of the members by mail, telephone, electronic mail, facsimile, or any other means of communication, and all telephone votes shall be confirmed promptly in writing. In that event, all members must be notified and provided the opportunity to vote. Any action so taken shall have the same force and effect as though such action had been taken at a properly convened meeting of the USABC. All votes shall be recorded in USABC minutes.
(g) There shall be no voting by proxy.
(h) The chairperson shall be a voting member.
(i) The organization of the USABC and the procedures for the conducting of meetings of the USABC shall be in accordance with its bylaws, which shall be established by the USABC and approved by the Secretary.
The members of the USABC, and alternates when acting as members, shall serve without compensation but shall be reimbursed for reasonable travel expenses, as approved by the USABC, incurred by them in the performance of their duties as USABC members.
The USABC shall have the following powers and duties:
(a) To administer the Order in accordance with its terms and conditions and to collect assessments;
(b) To develop and recommend to the Secretary for approval such bylaws as may be necessary for the functioning of the USABC, and such rules as may be necessary to administer the Order, including activities authorized to be carried out under the Order;
(c) To meet, organize, and select from among the members of the USABC a chairperson, other officers, committees, and subcommittees, as the USABC determines to be appropriate;
(d) To employ persons, other than the members, as the USABC considers necessary to assist the USABC in carrying out its duties and to determine the compensation and specify the duties of such persons;
(e) To develop programs and projects, and enter into contracts or agreements, which must be approved by the Secretary before becoming effective, for the development and carrying out of programs or projects of research, information, or promotion, and the payment of costs thereof with funds collected pursuant to this subpart. Each contract or agreement shall provide that any person who enters into a contract or agreement with the USABC shall develop and submit to the USABC a proposed activity; keep accurate records of all of its transactions relating to the contract or agreement; account for funds received and expended in connection with the contract or agreement; make periodic reports to the USABC of activities conducted under the contract or agreement; and make such other reports available as the USABC or the Secretary considers relevant. Any contract or agreement shall provide that:
(1) The contractor or agreeing party shall develop and submit to the USABC a program, plan, or project together with a budget or budgets that shall show the estimated cost to be incurred for such program, plan, or project;
(2) The contractor or agreeing party shall keep accurate records of all its transactions and make periodic reports to the USABC of activities conducted, submit accounting for funds received and expended, and make such other reports as the Secretary or the USABC may require;
(3) The Secretary may audit the records of the contracting or agreeing party periodically; and
(4) Any subcontractor who enters into a contract with a USABC contractor and who receives or otherwise uses funds allocated by the USABC shall be subject to the same provisions as the contractor.
(f) To prepare and submit for approval of the Secretary fiscal year budgets in accordance with § 1218.50;
(g) To maintain such records and books and prepare and submit such reports and records from time to time to the Secretary as the Secretary may prescribe; to make appropriate accounting with respect to the receipt and disbursement of all funds entrusted to it; and to keep records that accurately reflect the actions and transactions of the USABC;
(h) To cause its books to be audited by a competent auditor at the end of each fiscal year and at such other times as the Secretary may request, and to submit a report of the audit directly to the Secretary;
(i) To give the Secretary the same notice of meetings of the USABC as is given to members in order that the Secretary's representative(s) may attend such meetings, and to keep and report minutes of each meeting of the USABC to the Secretary;
(j) To act as intermediary between the Secretary and any producer, first handler, importer, or exporter;
(k) To furnish to the Secretary any information or records that the Secretary may request;
(l) To receive, investigate, and report to the Secretary complaints of violations of the Order;
(m) To recommend to the Secretary such amendments to the Order as the USABC considers appropriate; and
(n) To work to achieve an effective, continuous, and coordinated program of promotion, research, consumer information, evaluation, and industry information designed to strengthen the blueberry industry's position in the marketplace; maintain and expand existing markets and uses for blueberries; and to carry out programs, plans, and projects designed to provide maximum benefits to the blueberry industry.
The USABC may not engage in, and shall prohibit the employees and agents of the USABC from engaging in:
(a) Any action that would be a conflict of interest; and
(b) Using funds collected by the USABC under the Order to undertake any action for the purpose of influencing legislation or governmental action or policy, by local, state, national, and foreign governments, other than recommending to the Secretary amendments to the Order.
(a) At least 60 days prior to the beginning of each fiscal year, and as may be necessary thereafter, the USABC shall prepare and submit to the Secretary a budget for the fiscal year covering its anticipated expenses and disbursements in administering this subpart. Each such budget shall include:
(1) A statement of objectives and strategy for each program, plan, or project;
(2) A summary of anticipated revenue, with comparative data or at least one preceding year (except for the initial budget);
(3) A summary of proposed expenditures for each program, plan, or project; and
(4) Staff and administrative expense breakdowns, with comparative data for at least on preceding year (except for the initial budget).
(b) Each budget shall provide adequate funds to defray its proposed expenditures and to provide for a reserve as set forth in this subpart.
(c) Subject to this section, any amendment or addition to an approved budget must be approved by the Secretary, including shifting funds from one program, plan, or project to another. Shifts of funds which do not cause an increase in the USABC's approved budget and which are consistent with governing bylaws need not have prior approval by the Secretary.
(d) The USABC is authorized to incur such expenses, including provision for a reasonable reserve, as the Secretary finds are reasonable and likely to be incurred by the USABC for its maintenance and functioning, and to enable it to exercise its powers and perform its duties in accordance with the provisions of this subpart. Such expenses shall be paid from funds received by the USABC.
(e) With approval of the Secretary, the USABC may borrow money for the payment of administrative expenses, subject to the same fiscal, budget, and audit controls as other funds of the USABC. Any funds borrowed by the USABC shall be expended only for startup costs and capital outlays and are limited to the first year of operation of the USABC.
(f) The USABC may accept voluntary contributions, but these shall only be
(g) The USABC may also receive funds provided through the Department's Foreign Agricultural Service or from other sources, with the approval of the Secretary, for authorized activities.
(h) The USABC shall reimburse the Secretary for all expenses incurred by the Secretary in the implementation, administration, and supervision of the Order, including all referendum costs in connection with the Order.
(i) The USABC may not expend for administration, maintenance, and functioning of the USABC in any fiscal year an amount that exceeds 15 percent of the assessments and other income received by the USABC for that fiscal year. Reimbursements to the Secretary required under paragraph (h) are excluded from this limitation on spending.
(j) The USABC may establish an operating monetary reserve and may carry over to subsequent fiscal periods excess funds in any reserve so established:
(a) As requested by the Secretary, the USABC shall prepare and submit financial statements to the Secretary on a periodic basis. Each such financial statement shall include, but not be limited to, a balance sheet, income statement, and expense budget. The expense budget shall show expenditures during the time period covered by the report, year-to-date expenditures, and the unexpended budget.
(b) Each financial statement shall be submitted to the Secretary within 30 days after the end of the time period to which it applies.
(c) The USABC shall submit annually to the Secretary an annual financial statement within 90 days after the end of the fiscal year to which it applies.
(a) The funds to cover the Council's expenses shall be paid from assessments on producers and importers, donations from any person not subject to assessments under this Order, and other funds available to the Board including those collected pursuant to § 1218.56 and subject to the limitations contained therein.
(b) The collection of assessments on domestic blueberries will be the responsibility of the first handler receiving the blueberries. In the case of the producer acting as its own first handler, the producer will be required to collect and remit its individual assessments.
(c) Such assessments shall be levied at a rate of $12 per ton on all blueberries. The assessment rate will be reviewed, and may be modified with the approval of the Secretary, after the first referendum is conducted as stated in § 1218.71(b).
(d) Each importer of fresh and processed blueberries shall pay an assessment to the USABC on blueberries imported for marketing in the United States, through the U.S. Customs Service.
(1) The assessment rate for imported fresh and processed blueberries shall be the same or equivalent to the rate for fresh blueberries produced in the United States.
(2) The import assessment shall be uniformly applied to imported fresh and frozen blueberries that are identified by the numbers 0810.40.0028 and 0811.90.2028, respectively, in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States or any other numbers used to identify fresh and frozen blueberries. Assessments on other types of imported processed blueberries, such as dried blueberries, puree, and juice, may be added at the recommendation of the USABC with the approval of the Secretary.
(3) The assessments due on imported fresh and processed blueberries shall be paid when they enter or are withdrawn for consumption in the United States.
(e) All assessment payments and reports will be submitted to the office of the USABC. All final payments for a crop year are to be received no later than November 30 of that year. A late payment charge shall be imposed on any handler who fails to remit to the USABC, the total amount for which any such handler is liable on or before the due date established by the USABC. In addition to the late payment charge, an interest charge shall be imposed on the outstanding amount for which the handler is liable. The rate of interest shall be prescribed in regulations issued by the Secretary.
(f) Persons failing to remit total assessments due in a timely manner may also be subject to actions under federal debt collection procedures.
(g) The USABC may authorize other organizations to collect assessments on its behalf with the approval of the Secretary.
(a) Any producer who produces less than 2,000 pounds of blueberries annually who desires to claim an exemption from assessments during a fiscal year as provided in § 1218.52 shall apply to the USABC, on a form provided by the USABC, for a certificate of exemption. Such producer shall certify that the producer's production of blueberries shall be less than 2,000 pounds for the fiscal year for which the exemption is claimed. Any importer who imports less than 2,000 pounds of fresh and processed blueberries annually who desires to claim an exemption from assessments during a fiscal year as provided in § 1218.52 shall apply to the USABC, on a form provided by the USABC, for a certificate of exemption. Such importer shall certify that the importer's importation of fresh and processed blueberries shall not exceed 2,000 pounds, for the fiscal year for which the exemption is claimed.
(b) On receipt of an application, the USABC shall determine whether an exemption may be granted. The USABC then will issue, if deemed appropriate, a certificate of exemption to each person who is eligible to receive one. Each producer who is exempt from assessment must provide an exemption number to the first handler in order to be exempt from the collection of an assessment on blueberries. First handlers and importers, except as otherwise authorized by the USABC, shall maintain records showing the exemptee's name and address along with the exemption number assigned by the USABC.
(c) Importers who are exempt from assessment shall be eligible for reimbursement of assessments collected by the U.S. Customs Service and shall apply to the USABC for reimbursement of such assessments paid. No interest will be paid on assessments collected by the U.S. Customs Service. Requests for reimbursement shall be submitted to the USABC within 90 days of the last day of the year the blueberries were actually imported.
(d) Any person who desires an exemption from assessments for a subsequent fiscal year shall reapply to the USABC, on a form provided by the USABC, for a certificate of exemption.
(e) The USABC may require persons receiving an exemption from assessments to provide to the USABC reports on the disposition of exempt blueberries and, in the case of importers, proof of payment of assessments.
(a) The USABC shall receive and evaluate, or on its own initiative develop, and submit to the Secretary for approval any program, plan, or project authorized under this subpart. Such programs, plans, or projects shall provide for:
(1) The establishment, issuance, effectuation, and administration of appropriate programs for promotion, research, and information, including producer and consumer information, with respect to fresh and processed blueberries; and
(2) The establishment and conduct of research with respect to the use, nutritional value, sale, distribution, and marketing of fresh and processed blueberries, and the creation of new products thereof, to the end that the marketing and use of blueberries may be encouraged, expanded, improved, or made more acceptable and to advance the image, desirability, or quality of fresh and processed blueberries.
(b) No program, plan, or project shall be implemented prior to its approval by the Secretary. Once a program, plan, or project is so approved, the USABC shall take appropriate steps to implement it.
(c) Each program, plan, or project implemented under this subpart shall be reviewed or evaluated periodically by the USABC to ensure that it contributes to an effective program of promotion, research, or information. If it is found by the USABC that any such program, plan, or project does not contribute to an effective program of promotion, research, or information, then the USABC shall terminate such program, plan, or project.
(d) No program, plan, or project including advertising shall be false or misleading or disparaging another agricultural commodity. Blueberries of all origins shall be treated equally.
The USABC shall, not less often than every five years, authorize and fund, from funds otherwise available to the USABC, an independent evaluation of the effectiveness of the Order and other programs conducted by the USABC pursuant to the Act. The USABC shall submit to the Secretary, and make available to the public, the results of each periodic independent evaluation conducted under this paragraph.
Patents, copyrights, trademarks, information, publications, and product formulations developed through the use of funds received by the USABC under this subpart shall be the property of the U.S. Government as represented by the USABC and shall, along with any rents, royalties, residual payments, or other income from the rental, sales, leasing, franchising, or other uses of such patents, copyrights, trademarks, information, publications, or product formulations, inure to the benefit of the USABC; shall be considered income subject to the same fiscal, budget, and audit controls as other funds of the USABC; and may be licensed subject to approval by the Secretary. Upon termination of this subpart, § 1218.73 shall apply to determine disposition of all such property.
(a) Each first handler subject to this subpart may be required to provide to the USABC periodically such information as may be required by the USABC, with the approval of the Secretary, which may include but not be limited to the following:
(1) Number of pounds handled;
(2) Number of pounds on which an assessment was collected;
(3) Name and address of person from whom the first handler has collected the assessments on each pound handled; and
(4) Date collection was made on each pound handled. All reports are due to the USABC 30 days after the end of the crop year.
(b) Each producer and importer subject to this subpart may be required to provide to the USABC periodically such information as may be required by the USABC, with the approval of the Secretary, which may include but not be limited to the following:
(1) Number of pounds produced;
(2) Number of pounds on which an assessment was paid;
(3) Name and address of the producer;
(4) Date collection was made on each pound produced.
All reports are due to the USABC 30 days after the end of the crop year.
Each first handler, producer, and importer subject to this subpart shall maintain and make available for inspection by the Secretary such books and records as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this subpart and the regulations issued thereunder, including such records as are necessary to verify any reports required. Such records shall be retained for at least 2 years beyond the fiscal period of their applicability.
All information obtained from books, records, or reports under the Act, this subpart, and the regulations issued thereunder shall be kept confidential by all persons, including all employees and former employees of the USABC, all officers and employees and former officers and employees of contracting and subcontracting agencies or agreeing parties having access to such information. Such information shall not be available to USABC members, producers, importers, exporters, or first handlers. Only those persons having a specific need for such information to effectively administer the provisions of this subpart shall have access to such information. Only such information so obtained as the Secretary deems relevant shall be disclosed by them, and then only in a judicial proceeding or administrative hearing brought at the direction, or on the request, of the Secretary, or to which the Secretary or any officer of the United States is a party, and involving this subpart. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prohibit:
(a) The issuance of general statements based upon the reports of the number of persons subject to this subpart or statistical data collected therefrom, which statements do not identify the information furnished by any person; and
(b) The publication, by direction of the Secretary, of the name of any person who has been adjudged to have violated this subpart, together with a statement of the particular provisions of this subpart violated by such person.
All fiscal matters, programs, plans, or projects, rules or regulations, reports, or other substantive actions proposed and prepared by the USABC shall be submitted to the Secretary for approval.
(a)
(1) The Secretary determines that the Order is consistent with and will effectuate the purposes of the Act; and
(2) The Order is approved by a majority of producers and importers voting for approval who also represent a majority of the volume of blueberries represented in the referendum who, during a representative period determined by the Secretary, have been engaged in the production or importation of blueberries.
(b)
(a) The Secretary shall suspend or terminate this part or subpart or a provision thereof if the Secretary finds that the subpart or a provision thereof obstructs or does not tend to effectuate the purposes of the Act, or if the Secretary determines that this subpart or a provision thereof is not favored by persons voting in a referendum conducted pursuant to the Act.
(b) The Secretary shall suspend or terminate this subpart at the end of the marketing year whenever the Secretary determines that its suspension or termination is approved or favored by a majority of producers and importers voting for approval who also represent a majority of the volume of blueberries represented in the referendum who, during a representative period determined by the Secretary, have been engaged in the production or importation of blueberries.
(c) If, as a result of a referendum the Secretary determines that this subpart is not approved, the Secretary shall:
(1) Not later than 180 days after making the determination, suspend or terminate, as the case may be, collection of assessments under this subpart; and
(2) As soon as practical, suspend or terminate, as the case may be, activities under this subpart in an orderly manner.
(a) Upon the termination of this subpart, the USABC shall recommend not more than three of its members to the Secretary to serve as trustees for the purpose of liquidating the affairs of the USABC. Such persons, upon designation by the Secretary, shall become trustees of all of the funds and property then in the possession or under control of the USABC, including claims for any funds unpaid or property not delivered, or any other claim existing at the time of such termination.
(b) The said trustees shall:
(1) Continue in such capacity until discharged by the Secretary;
(2) Carry out the obligations of the USABC under any contracts or agreements entered into pursuant to the Order;
(3) From time to time account for all receipts and disbursements and deliver all property on hand, together with all books and records of the USABC and the trustees, to such person or persons as the Secretary may direct; and
(4) Upon request of the Secretary execute such assignments or other instruments necessary and appropriate to vest in such persons title and right to all funds, property and claims vested in the USABC or the trustees pursuant to the Order.
(c) Any person to whom funds, property or claims have been transferred or delivered pursuant to the Order shall be subject to the same obligations imposed upon the USABC and upon the trustees.
(d) Any residual funds not required to defray the necessary expenses of liquidation shall be turned over to the Secretary to be disposed of, to the extent practical, to the blueberry producer organizations in the interest of continuing blueberry promotion, research, and information programs.
Unless otherwise expressly provided by the Secretary, the termination of this subpart or of any regulation issued pursuant thereto, or the issuance of any amendment to either thereof, shall not:
(a) Affect or waive any right, duty, obligation or liability which shall have arisen or which may thereafter arise in connection with any provision of this subpart or any regulation issued thereunder; or
(b) Release or extinguish any violation of this subpart or any regulation issued thereunder; or
(c) Affect or impair any rights or remedies of the United States, or of the Secretary or of any other persons, with respect to any such violation.
No member, alternate member, or employee of the USABC shall be held personally responsible, either individually or jointly with others, in any way whatsoever, to any person for errors in judgment, mistakes, or other acts, either of commission or omission, as such member, alternate, or employee, except for acts of dishonesty or willful misconduct.
If any provision of this subpart is declared invalid or the applicability thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this subpart or the applicability thereof to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
Amendments to this subpart may be proposed from time to time by the USABC or by any interested person affected by the provisions of the Act, including the Secretary.
The control number assigned to the information collection requirements by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, is OMB control number 0581-0093, except for the USABC nominee background statement form which is assigned OMB control number 0505-001.
Department of Education.
Final regulations.
We amend the regulations governing the Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program (MSEIP) to conform them to statutory changes made to this program by the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 (1998 Amendments). These revisions make the regulations consistent with the applicable statutory provisions.
These regulations are effective March 16, 2000.
Deborah Newkirk, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20006-8512. Telephone: (202) 502-7591 or e-mail address deborah_newkirk@ed.gov. If you use a telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternate format (
The MSEIP is now authorized under Title III, Part E of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). However, prior to the 1998 Amendments (Pub. L. 105-244), it was authorized under Title X of the HEA.
The 1998 Amendments made several other changes to the HEA with regard to MSEIP that require conforming changes to the program regulations. These statutory amendments incorporated in the regulations in part 637 include:
• Requiring two-year minority institutions to partner with four-year institutions;
• Expanding the definition eligible institutions; and
• Including behavioral sciences in the definition of science programs.
It is the practice of the Secretary to offer interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). However, since these changes merely incorporate statutory amendments into the regulations and do not implement substantive policy, public comment could have no effect. Therefore, the Secretary has determined pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) that public comment on the regulations is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.
The Secretary certifies that these regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small entities affected would be small minority institutions of higher education. These regulations would not have a significant economic impact on any of the institutions affected because they do not make any substantive changes to the existing regulations but only conform them to current statutory provisions.
These regulations do not contain any information collection requirements.
This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. The objective of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism by relying on processes developed by State and local government for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
In accordance with the order, we intend this document to provide early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for this program.
Based on our own review, we have determined that these final regulations do not require transmission of information that any other agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available.
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the
The official version of this document is the document published in the
Colleges and universities, Grant programs-education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
20 U.S.C. 1067-1067c, 1067g-1067k, 1068, and 1068b, unless otherwise noted.
The Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program (MSEIP) is designed to effect long-range improvement in science and engineering education at predominantly minority institutions, and to increase the flow of underrepresented ethnic minorities, particularly minority women, into scientific and technological careers.
The following are eligible to receive a grant under this part:
(a) Public and private nonprofit institutions of higher education that—
(1) Award baccalaureate degrees; and
(2) Qualify as minority institutions as defined in § 637.4.
(b) Public or private nonprofit institutions of higher education that—
(1) Award associate degrees;
(2) Qualify as minority institutions as defined in § 637.4;
(3) Have a curriculum that includes science or engineering subjects; and
(4) Enter into a partnership with public or private nonprofit institutions
(c) Nonprofit science-oriented organizations, professional scientific societies, and institutions of higher education that award baccalaureate degrees that—
(1) Provide a needed service to a group of minority institutions; or
(2) Provide in-service training to project directors, scientists, and engineers from minority institutions; or
(d) A consortia of organizations, that provide needed services to one or more minority institutions. The consortia membership may include—
(1) Institutions of higher education which have a curriculum in science or engineering;
(2) Institutions of higher education that have a graduate or professional program in science or engineering;
(3) Research laboratories of, or under the contract with, the Department of Energy;
(4) Private organizations that have science or engineering facilities; or
(5) Quasi-governmental entities that have a significant scientific or engineering mission.
(1) Public and private nonprofit institutions of higher education that:
(A) Award baccalaureate degrees; and
(B) Are minority institutions;
(2) Public or private nonprofit institutions of higher education that:
(A) Award associate degrees; and (B) Are minority institutions that:
(i) Have a curriculum that includes science or engineering subjects; and
(ii) Enter into a partnership with public or private nonprofit institutions of higher education that award baccalaureate degrees in science and engineering;
(3) Nonprofit science-oriented organizations, professional scientific societies, and institutions of higher education that award baccalaureate degrees, that:
(A) Provide a needed service to a group of minority institutions; or
(B) Provide in-service training for project directors, scientists, and engineers from minority institutions; or
(4) Consortia of organizations that provide needed services to one or more minority institutions, the membership of which may include:
(A) Institutions of higher education that have a curriculum in science and engineering;
(B) Institutions of higher education that have a graduate or professional program in science or engineering;
(C) Research laboratories of, or under contract with, the Department of Energy;
(D) Private organizations that have science or engineering facilities; or
(E) Quasi-governmental entities that have a significant scientific or engineering mission.
(b) For special projects described in 34 CFR 637.14 (b) and (c)—nonprofit organizations, institutions, and consortia as defined in section 361 (3) and (4) of the HEA.
(c) For cooperative projects described in 34 CFR 637.15—groups of nonprofit accredited colleges and universities whose primary fiscal agent is an eligible minority institution as defined in 34 CFR 637.4(b).
2. Section 365(4) of the HEA now defines the term “science” to include “behavior science.”
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
To use the PDF you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with Search, which is available free at either of the previous sites. If you have questions about using the PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) toll free at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
Sections 301 (a), (b), and 307 of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, Public Law 105-244, 112 Stat. 1581.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Notice of final priority for fiscal year (FY) 2000 and subsequent fiscal years.
The Secretary announces a final funding priority for FY 2000 and subsequent fiscal years under the Rehabilitation Short-Term Training program. The Secretary takes this action to support special seminars, institutes, workshops, and other short-term courses in technical matters relating to the vocational, medical, social, and psychological rehabilitation programs, independent living services programs, and client assistance programs.
This priority is effective on March 16, 2000.
Beverly Steburg, U.S. Department of Education, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Room 18T91, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Telephone: (404) 562-6336. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the TDD number at (404) 562-6347. Internet address: Beverly—Steburg@ed.gov
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternate format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed in the preceding paragraph.
This notice contains a final priority under the Rehabilitation Short-Term Training program. The Short-Term Training program is authorized under section 302(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.
On October 22, 1999 the Secretary published a notice of proposed priority for this program in the
This notice of final priority does not solicit applications. A notice inviting applications under this competition is published in a separate notice in this issue of the
In response to the Secretary's invitation in the notice of proposed priority, seven parties submitted comments. All seven commenters supported the priority, and several provided examples of how similar training has been of benefit in the past. One commenter suggested 16 specific training topics, all of which could be addressed under the priority as written. Technical and other minor changes—and suggested changes the Secretary is not legally authorized to make under the applicable statutory authority—are not addressed.
The Secretary has made no changes in this priority since publication of the notice of proposed priority.
Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), the Secretary gives an absolute preference to applications that meet the following priority. The Secretary funds under this competition only applications that meet this absolute priority:
A project must—
• Provide training to Client Assistance Program (CAP) personnel on an as-needed basis, including—
(1) Management training on skills needed for strategic and operational planning and direction of CAP services;
(2) Advocacy training on skills and knowledge needed by CAP staff to assist persons with disabilities to gain access to and to use the services and benefits available under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, with particular emphasis on new statutory and regulatory requirements;
(3) Systemic advocacy training on skills and knowledge needed by CAP staff to address programmatic issues of concern;
(4) Training and technical assistance on CAP best practices; and
(5) Training on skills and knowledge needed by CAP staff to perform additional responsibilities required by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, as amended.
• Coordinate training efforts with other training supported by the Rehabilitation Services Administration, as well as with the training supported by the Center for Mental Health Services and the Administration on Developmental Disabilities on common areas such as protection and advocacy, financial management, and trial advocacy.
• Include both national and regional training seminars in each project year.
The Goals 2000: Educate America Act (Goals 2000) focuses the Nation's education reform efforts on the eight National Education Goals and provides a framework for meeting them. Goals 2000 promotes new partnerships to strengthen schools and expands the Department's capacities for helping communities to exchange ideas and obtain information needed to achieve the goals.
This final priority addresses the National Education Goal that every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. The final priority furthers the objectives of this Goal by focusing available funds on projects that improve the skills of Client Assistance Program personnel, which will improve the responsiveness of the vocational rehabilitation system to adults with disabilities and their vocational pursuits.
This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. The objective of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism by relying on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
In accordance with the order, this document is intended to provide early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for this program.
To use the PDF you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with Search, which is available free at either of the previous sites. If you have questions about using the PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
For FY 2000 the competition for new awards focuses on projects designed to meet the priority that we describe in the PRIORITY section of this application notice.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
(1) A page is 8.5″ × 11″, on one side only with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
(2) You must double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
If you use a proportional computer font, you may not use a font smaller than 12-point font or an average character density greater than 18 characters per inch. If you use a nonproportional font or a typewriter, you may not use more than 12 characters per inch.
The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, you must include all of the application narrative in Part III.
If, in order to meet the page limit, you use print size, spacing, or margins smaller than the standards specified in this notice, we will not consider your application for funding.
This competition focuses on projects designed to meet the absolute priority in the notice of final priority for this program, published elsewhere in this issue of the
Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet the absolute priority.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the application package in an alternate format by contacting the Grants and Contracts Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3317, Switzer Building, Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone: (202) 205-8351. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339. However, the Department is not able to reproduce in an alternate format the standard forms included in the application package.
For Further Information Contact:
Beverly Steburg, U.S. Department of Education, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Room 18T91, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Telephone: (404) 562-6336. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the TDD number at (404) 562-6347. Internet address: Beverly_Steburg@ed.gov.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternate format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed in the preceding paragraph.
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the
To use the PDF you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with Search, which is available free at either of the previous sites. If you have questions about using the PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
29 U.S.C. 774.
LEAs or consortia of LEAs in Oklahoma and Montana that have previously received Goals 2000 funds are eligible to apply for funds under this competition. However, in order that other needy districts may benefit from Goals 2000 support, the Secretary is particularly interested in receiving applications from LEAs or consortia that have not previously received Goals 2000 funding.
This competition, authorized by section 304(e) of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, is only for LEAs in Oklahoma and Montana. LEAs in other States apply to their respective State educational agency for funds under Title III of Goals 2000.
In the event that there are an insufficient number of funded applications to use all of either State's allotment, the Secretary may reallot the remaining funds consistent with the Act.
The Secretary does not intend to conduct competitions for FY 2000 funds. Instead, pursuant to 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary intends to make continuation awards from the FY 2000 allotments to each grantee that has made substantial progress toward meeting the objectives in its approved application.
The sizes of the awards requested should be governed by the size of the LEA or consortium and the scope of the proposed project. The Secretary will consider each applicant's request and the needs of all successful applicants in determining the amount of each grant award. The Department of Education is not bound by the estimates in this notice.
Consistent with section 309(c) of the Goals 2000 Act, the Secretary will award at least 50 percent of each State's available allotment to LEAs that have a greater percentage or number of disadvantaged children than the statewide average percentages or numbers for all LEAs in each respective State. The Department may waive this provision if it does not receive a sufficient number of applications from such districts.
(1) 34 CFR part 75 (Direct Grant Programs).
(2) 34 CFR part 77 (Definitions that Apply to Department Regulations).
(3) 34 CFR part 79 (Intergovernmental Review of Department of Education Programs and Activities).
(4) 34 CFR part 80 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments).
(5) 34 CFR part 81 (General Education Provisions Act—Enforcement).
(6) 34 CFR part 82 (New Restrictions on Lobbying).
(7) 34 CFR part 85 (Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants)).
Section 304(e) of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (Pub. L. 103-227) (20 U.S.C. 5801
The Secretary has determined that grants awarded under section 304(e) will be used to support the development and implementation of comprehensive local improvement plans designed to help all children reach challenging academic standards. In particular, the Secretary encourages LEAs to address in their applications how their reform strategies might include enhanced preservice teacher education and professional development activities of educators that are directly connected to challenging standards.
Applicants that have already developed comprehensive improvement plans may propose activities funded through the grant that are aligned with and carry out parts of this plan. Where appropriate, LEAs should use funds awarded under this notice to build upon comprehensive reform strategies that have already been initiated with federal and other resources.
The authorizing statute—section 304(e) of the Act—permits the Secretary to fund LEA applications that are consistent with the provisions of Goals 2000. Grants under this competition will support the development and implementation of comprehensive local improvement plans to help
(1) Describe a process of broad-based community participation in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the local improvement plan;
(2) Address districtwide education improvement, directed at enabling all students to meet the State content standards and State student performance standards, including specific goals and benchmarks; reflect the priority of the State improvement plan (if there is a comprehensive State improvement plan) and include a strategy for—
(a) Improving teaching and learning, with strategies such as enhanced professional development and preservice education activities aligned to the standards;
(b) Improving governance, management, and accountability for performance; and
(c) Generating, maintaining, and strengthening parental and community involvement;
(3) Promote the flexibility of local schools in developing plans that address the particular needs of their school and community and are consistent with the local improvement plan; and
(4) Describe how the LEA will encourage and assist schools to develop and implement comprehensive school improvement plans that focus on helping all students reach State content standards and student performance standards.
An LEA that applies for funds under this program should indicate whether funds are being requested to (a) develop and implement a plan in accordance with the requirements of sections 309(a)(3) (B) through (E) of the Act; or (b) implement an existing comprehensive improvement plan that meets the requirements of sections 309(a)(3) (B) through (E) of the Act. (An applicant that received FY 1995 and 1996 funding or FY 1997 and 1998 funding under the previous two competitions must have completed the development of a plan that meets the stated requirements in order to be eligible for funding under this competition.)
An LEA seeking funds to both develop and implement a comprehensive plan must demonstrate evidence of a clear process that will result in a plan that meets the stated plan requirements. This evidence may include a description of how stakeholders will be involved in plan development and specific steps and timelines for developing the plan. Successful applicants will only be eligible to receive FY 2000 continuation funding if they have completed development of a plan that meets the plan requirements stated above.
An LEA that has already developed a comprehensive improvement plan may seek FY 1999 and 2000 funds to implement the plan. The applicant must demonstrate that its existing plan meets the plan requirements listed above. The applicant may do this, for example, by providing a description of how its plan addresses these requirements and the progress the applicant has made in implementing its plan. In addition, the applicant may demonstrate the comprehensiveness of the plan by providing evidence that the plan is coordinated with other LEA plans that, collectively, provide a framework for how federal and other funds are used to achieve the goals and objectives of the district.
An applicant should clearly explain the strategies that will be funded under this award and how these strategies are aligned with the comprehensive plan.
The Secretary recommends that applicants reserve in their budgets approximately $2,000 each year for activities that will be designed by the Secretary, in conjunction with grantees, to facilitate the sharing among grantees of information on successful comprehensive reform strategies.
The Secretary will use the following selection criteria and factors from 34 CFR 75.210 to evaluate applications under this competition.
The maximum score for all of the criteria is 100 points. The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in parenthesis with the criterion. The criteria and factors are as follows:
(1)
(a) The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project.
(b) In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the proposed project will provide services to or otherwise address the needs of students at risk of educational failure.
(ii) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses.
(2)
(a) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project.
(b) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the proposed project is part of a comprehensive effort to improve teaching and learning and support rigorous academic standards for students.
(ii) The extent to which the proposed project will be coordinated with similar or related efforts, and with other appropriate community, State, and Federal resources.
(iii) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period of Federal financial assistance.
(iv) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
(3)
(a) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project.
(b) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
(c) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The likelihood that the services to be provided by the proposed project will lead to improvements in the achievement of students as measured against rigorous academic standards.
(ii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project are focused on those with greatest needs.
(iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice.
(4)
(a) The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project.
(b) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
(c) In addition, the Secretary considers the qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel.
(5) Adequacy of resources. (5 points)
(a) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project.
(b) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization.
(ii) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.
(iii) The potential for the incorporation of project purposes, activities, or benefits into the ongoing program of the agency or organization at the end of Federal funding.
(6)
(a) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project.
(b) In considering the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.
(ii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project.
(iii) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or others, as appropriate.
(7)
(a) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project.
(b) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible.
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.
This program is subject to the requirements of Executive order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs) and the regulations in 34 CFR Part 79. The objective of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and to strengthen federalism by relying on State processes and on State, areawide, regional, and local coordination for review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
Neither Oklahoma nor Montana has adopted State intergovernmental review processes. Therefore, State, areawide, regional, and local entities may submit comments directly to the Department.
Any comments submitted pursuant to the executive order must be mailed or hand-delivered by the date indicated in this notice to the following address: The Secretary, E.O. 12372—CFDA# 84.317, U.S. Department of Education, Room 7E200, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20202-0125.
Proof of mailing will be determined on the same basis as applications (see 34 CFR 75.102). Recommendations or comments may be hand-delivered until 4:30 p.m. (EST) on the date indicated in this notice.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ABOVE ADDRESS IS NOT THE SAME ADDRESS AS THE ONE TO WHICH THE APPLICANT SUBMITS ITS COMPLETED APPLICATION.
(a) If an applicant wants to apply for a grant, the applicant must—
(1) Mail the original and three copies of the application on or before the deadline date to: U. S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA # 84.317), Washington, DC 20202-4725
or
(2) Hand deliver the original and three copies of the application by 4:30 p.m. (Washington, DC time) on the deadline date to: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA# 84.317), Room #3633, Regional Office Building #3, 7th and D Streets, SW, Washington, DC.
(b) An applicant must show one of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary.
(c ) If an application is mailed through the U.S. Postal Service, the Secretary does not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
(1) The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, an applicant should check with its local post office.
(1) The Application Control Center will mail a Grant Application Receipt Acknowledgment to each applicant. If an applicant fails to receive the notification of application receipt within 15 days from the date of mailing the application, the applicant should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 708-9494.
(2) The applicant
The appendix to this application is divided into three parts, plus a statement regarding estimated public reporting burden and various assurances and certifications. These parts and additional materials are organized in the same manner that the submitted application should be organized. The parts and additional materials are as follows:
Part I: Application for Federal Assistance (Standard Form 424 (Rev. 4-88)) and instructions.
Part II: Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (Standard Form 524) and instructions.
Part III: Application Narrative.
Estimated Public Reporting Burden. Assurances—Non-Construction Programs (Standard Form 424B).
Certifications regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (ED 80-0013).
Certification regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion: Lower Tier Covered Transactions (ED 80-0014, 9/90) and instructions.
Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (Standard Form LLL) (if applicable) and instructions.
GEPA Section 427 Notice to All Applicants.
An applicant may submit information on a photostatic copy of the application and budget forms, the assurances, and the certifications. However, the application form, the assurances, and the certifications must each have an original signature. No grant may be awarded unless a completed application form has been received.
Marcia J. Kingman, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20202-6400, Telephone: (202) 401-0039, FAX: (202) 205-5870. This contact may also be reached via e-mail at marcia_kingman@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternate format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed in the preceding paragraph.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the application package in an alternate format, also, by contacting that person. However, the Department is not able to reproduce in an alternate format the standard forms included in the application package.
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the
The official version of this document is the document published in the
Section 304(e) of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, 20 USC 5884(b).
This disclosure form shall be completed by the reporting entity, whether subawardee or prime Federal recipient, at the initiation or receipt of a covered Federal action, or a material change to a previous filing, pursuant to title 31 U.S.C. section 1352. The filing of a form is required for each payment or agreement to make payment to any lobbying entity for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with a covered Federal action. Complete all items that apply for both the initial filing and material change report. Refer to the implementing guidance published
1. Identify the type of covered Federal action for which lobbying activity is and/or has been secured to influence the outcome of a covered Federal action.
2. Identify the status of the covered Federal action.
3. Identify the appropriate classification of this report. If this is a followup report caused by a material change to the information previously reported, enter the year and quarter in which the change occurred. Enter the date of the last previously submitted report by this reporting entity for this covered Federal action.
4. Enter the full name, address, city, State and zip code of the reporting entity. Include Congressional District, if known. Check the appropriate classification of the reporting entity that designates if it is, or expects to be, a prime or subaward recipient. Identify the tier of the subawardee, e.g., the first subawardee of the prime is the 1st tier. Subawards include but are not limited to subcontracts, subgrants and contract awards under grants.
5. If the organization filing the report in item 4 checks “Subawardee,” then enter the full name, address, city, State and zip code of the prime Federal recipient. Include Congressional District, if known.
6. Enter the name of the federal agency making the award or loan commitment. Include at least one organizational level below agency name, if known. For example, Department of Transportation, United States Coast Guard.
7. Enter the Federal program name or description for the covered Federal action (item 1). If known, enter the full Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for grants, cooperative agreements, loans, and loan commitments.
8. Enter The most appropriate Federal identifying number available for the Federal action identified in item 1 (e.g., Request for Proposal (RFP) number; Invitations for Bid (IFB) number; grant announcement number; the contract, grant, or loan award number; the application/proposal control number assigned by the Federal agency). Included prefixes, e.g., “RFP-DE-90-001.”
9. For a covered federal action where there has been an award or loan commitment by the Federal agency, enter the Federal amount of the award/loan commitment for the prime entity identified in item 4 or 5.
10. (a) Enter the full name, address, city, State and zip code of the lobbying registrant under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 engaged by the reporting entity identified in item 4 to influence the covered Federal action.
(b) Enter the full names of the individual(s) performing services, and include full address if different from 10(a). Enter Last Name, First Name, and Middle Initial (MI).
11. The certifying official shall sign and date the form, print his/her name, title, and telephone number.
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act, as amended, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is OMB No. 0348-0046. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 minutes per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0348-0046), Washington, DC 20503.
The purpose of this enclosure is to inform you about a new provision in the Department of Education's General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) that applies to applicants for new grant awards under Department programs. This provision is Section 427 of GEPA, enacted as part of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-382).
Section 427 of GEPA affects applicants for new grant awards under this program. ALL APPLICANTS FOR NEW AWARDS MUST INCLUDE INFORMATION IN THEIR APPLICATIONS TO ADDRESS THIS NEW PROVISION IN ORDER TO RECEIVE FUNDING UNDER THIS PROGRAM.
Section 427 requires each applicant for funds (other than an individual person) to include in its application a description of the steps the applicant proposes to take to ensure equitable access to, and participation in, its Federally-assisted program for students, teachers, and other program beneficiaries with special needs. This provision allows applicants discretion in developing the required description. The statute highlights six types of barriers that can impede equitable access or participation: gender, race, national origin, color, disability, or age. Based on local circumstances, you should determine whether these or other barriers may prevent your students, teachers, etc. from such access or participation in, the Federally-funded project or activity. The description in your application of steps to be taken to overcome these barriers need not be lengthy; you may provide a clear and succinct description of how you plan to address those barriers that are applicable to your circumstances. In addition, the information may be provided in a single narrative, or, if appropriate, may be discussed in connection with related topics in the application.
Section 427 is not intended to duplicate the requirements of civil rights statutes, but rather to ensure that, in designing their projects, applicants for Federal funds address equity concerns that may affect the ability of certain potential beneficiaries to fully participate in the project and to achieve to high standards. Consistent with program requirements and its approved application, an applicant may use the Federal funds awarded to it to eliminate barriers it identifies.
The following examples may help illustrate how an applicant may comply with Section 427.
(1) An applicant that proposes to carry out an adult literacy project serving, among others, adults with limited English proficiency, might describe in its application how it intends to distribute a brochure about the proposed project to such potential participants in their native language.
(2) An applicant that proposes to develop instructional materials for classroom use might describe how it will make the materials available on
(3) An applicant that proposes to carry out a model science program for secondary students and is concerned that girls may be less likely than boys to enroll in the course, might indicate how it intends to conduct “outreach” efforts to girls, to encourage their enrollment.
We recognize that many applicants may already be implementing effective steps to ensure equity of access and participation in their grant programs, and we appreciate your cooperation in responding to the requirements of this provision.
The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to vary from 1 to 3 hours per response, with an average of 1.5 hours, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202-4651.
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 1810-0594. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 30 hours (or minutes) per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202-4651. If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to: Goals 2000, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, FOB-6 Room 3E213, Washington, DC 20202-6400.
Before preparing the Application Narrative, an applicant should read carefully the description of the program, the background of the program, application requirements, and the selection criteria the Secretary will use to evaluate these applications.
The narrative should encompass each function or activity for which funds are being requested and should—
1. Begin with an Abstract that summarizes the proposed project;
2. Describe the proposed project in light of the application requirements and each of the selection criteria in the order in which the criteria are listed in the application; and
3. Include any other pertinent information that might assist the Secretary in reviewing the application.
The Secretary strongly requests the applicant to limit the Application Narrative to no more than 20 pages (double-spaced, typed on one-side only, using font no smaller than 11 point). The Department has found that successful applications for similar programs generally meet this page limit. In addition to the Application Narrative, the applicant must include the cover form (SF-424), budget forms and budget narrative, assurances, and a statement regarding how the application meets the requirements of GEPA 427. Any supplemental attachments should be limited to those that are crucial to supporting the integrity of the applicant's project and how it has met application requirements.
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 places new management expectations and requirements on Federal departments and agencies by creating a framework for more effective planning, budgeting, program evaluation, and fiscal accountability for Federal programs. The intent of the Act is to improve public confidence by holding departments and agencies accountable for achieving program results. Departments must set program goals and objectives and measure and report on their achievements. One important source of program information on successes and lessons learned is the project evaluation and other information collected under individual grants.
The U.S. Department of Education supports the GPRA initiative that all agencies be held accountable for program success and is committed to forging a partnership with grantees that will ensure accountability in the use of Goals 2000 funds. To assist grantees in the process of creating an instrument for evaluating program goals and achievements, the form titled “Performance Measures Template” is included in the application package. The Template identifies the key components for measuring performance (Performance Objective, Baseline, Source of Data, Outcome) and gives an example of each component. Applicants are encouraged to incorporate the components of the objectives described in their performance plans into the template; applicants may also use another similar format. It is important, however, that all applications are not only developed to achieve successful project outcomes, but that they also include a process to measure progress toward attaining those outcomes.
The performance measures will be used during the life of the grant to ensure that project outcomes are achieved. Progress will be assessed via regularly scheduled communication, which may include telephone calls, letters, and site visits, between Department staff and the project director. Where sufficient progress is not being achieved, the Department and the grantee will work together to identify strategies and resources to overcome challenges and resolve problems. When necessary, the Department and the grantee may modify the performance measures.
The following questions and answers have been prepared to assist local educational agencies (LEAs) as they apply for and use funds available under Goals 2000, and as they develop and implement their local comprehensive improvement plans. This guidance should be read as a supplement to the Application Notice, and does not replace any of the information contained in the Notice. Please read the Notice carefully to ensure that your application addresses all requirements.
In 1994, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act was signed into law. The purpose of the Act is “to improve the quality of education for all students by improving student learning through a long-term, broad-based effort to promote coherent and coordinated improvements in the system of education throughout the Nation at the State and local levels.” Through Title III of this Act, states receive funding to develop and implement comprehensive plans for improving education and provide subgrants to districts to develop and implement plans that are coordinated with the state plan. In 1995, the states of Montana and Oklahoma elected to not participate in Goals 2000.
On April 26, 1996, the President signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, which amended portions of Titles II and III of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Under the Goals 2000 amendments, LEAs in a state that was not participating in Goals 2000 as of October 25, 1995 may apply directly to the Department for a portion of their state's Goals 2000 allotment, if the state educational agency (SEA) approves participation of its LEAs in the program. The Montana and Oklahoma SEAs have allowed their LEAs to participate in the competition for funding. The grants will be made for a two-year period.
• Who is eligible to apply for funding?
Eligible applicants are LEAs as defined in Section 14101(18) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. In general, if an agency is defined as an LEA for funding purposes, it meets the requirement of eligibility for this federal grant competition.
• How do eligible LEAs apply for funding?
The Secretary has published a notice in the
• How much funding is available for awards?
For LEAs in Oklahoma, the amounts available from the State's FY 1999 and 2000 allotments are $5,410,428 and $5,376,407 (estimated), respectively. For LEAs in Montana, the amounts are $1,890,358 and $1,878,472 (estimated).
• How much funding can applicants request?
Included in the notice is an estimate of how many awards could be made with an estimated average award amount. These are only estimates.
The funding range provided is based on the allocations made to Montana and Oklahoma Goals 2000 grantees in the most recent competition (1998). The amount of funding an applicant requests should be related to factors such as the number of students in the district(s), the number of students in poverty or otherwise educationally disadvantaged in the district(s), the needs and proposed activities of the district in terms of implementing comprehensive standards-based reform, the expected results of such activities, and other factors that create a higher need for funds, such as high mobility of the student population and extreme isolation from other resources. Please understand that the funding provided is not for the purpose of implementing a district's entire comprehensive improvement plan. Rather, the funding is coordinated with other Federal, State, and local resources to enable the district to implement an aligned, standards-based reform plan that is designed to raise the achievement levels of all students and simultaneously narrow the gap in achievement levels by different populations within the district.
• How long should the application be?
As stated in the notice, the application narrative should not exceed 20 pages in length. Attachments, other than those that are required, should be kept to only those that are essential.
• How long will it take for the Department to review the application? Who will review the applications and how will they be reviewed? When will the awards be made?
The deadline for applications is the date announced in the
• What are the reporting requirements? What are the future oversight activities by the federal government for successful applicants?
LEAs are required to submit an annual report each year describing their activities and accomplishments. This information must demonstrate that the LEA is making substantial progress towards achieving its goals and objectives in order to receive second year funding. Applicants that needed to complete development of a local comprehensive improvement plan in
In addition to report requirements, Department staff may call, visit, and/or convene multiple grantees to facilitate the use of best practices, learn what strategies are working and aren't working, and verify that the grant is being implemented according to the application. The applicant is subject to a financial audit, as is the case with any grant of federal funds.
• Will new applicants be given a competitive preference over applicants that previously received Goals 2000 funding?
No. However, the Secretary is particularly interested in receiving applications from LEAs that have not previously received Goals 2000 funding. An applicant may not receive funding to develop a local comprehensive plan for more than one year. Therefore, applicants that have previously received Goals 2000 funds must have developed the required local comprehensive plan in order to be eligible for funding in this competition. Other applicants can be funded to develop and then implement plans that meet the plan requirements.
• In the application notice, there is the requirement that local comprehensive plans “address districtwide education improvement, directed at enabling all students to meet the State content standards and State student performance standards, including specific goals and benchmarks; reflect the priority of the State improvement plan (if there is a comprehensive State improvement plan).” What does this requirement mean within the particular contexts of Montana and Oklahoma?
The Office of Public Instruction (OPI) is implementing a statewide initiative for school improvement in Montana. This initiative lays out a framework for how the SEA will support districts and schools as they further student learning. The plan consists of five elements: Standards, Accreditation, Assessment, Education Profile, and Professional Development/Teacher Certification. Applicants should be aware of and align with the efforts that the State is taking within each of these project components, where appropriate. The State has informed us that as part of the standards work, the Montana Board of Public Education and OPI, in partnership with various educational organizations, has developed content and performance standards in Reading, Mathematics, World Language, Technology, Science, Writing, Health Enhancement, Speaking and Listening, Media Literacy, and Literature. The Board of Education is currently revising and preparing content and performance standards in Social Science, Workplace Competencies, and Library.
Pursuant to the application requirement that districts address districtwide improvements to meet these standards and Rule 10.55.603 of the Montana Standards of Accreditation, OPI plans to provide guidance to districts to incorporate the new content and performance standards into the curriculum, establish curriculum and assessment development processes, and meet the other requirements of the State accreditation standards. In the comprehensive improvement plan required through Goals 2000, an applicant should include other strategies to implement the standards, such as through professional development activities that are aligned to the standards (see the application notice for the specific types of strategies that must be addressed in the plan). Strategies such as professional development are critical to helping teachers develop instructional approaches to assist students meet the standards, demonstrate exemplary performance that meets the standards, and use data to determine what instructional approaches are working. The funding available through Goals 2000 can assist districts to take these critical steps to implement the state standards.
The State of Oklahoma requires all districts to develop a Comprehensive Local Education Plan (CLEP) to address school improvement. In their plans, districts review implementation of the state-mandated content standards, Priority Academic Student Skills (PASS), and state performance standards as measured through the Oklahoma School Testing Program (OSTP).
Districts should address school reform identified in their CLEP in the goals 2000 application and focus on implementation of district reform. While the CLEP forms the basis of a school improvement plan, it may not fully meet the application requirements contained in the notice. (See Application Requirements section.) For example, a plan developed under Goals 2000 by a school district would include strategies for improving governance and management. Additional materials would need to be provided by the applicant to address those elements not included in the CLEP.
• How should the local comprehensive plan be related to planning requirements for all programs, federal, state, or local?
The comprehensive plan Goals 2000 supports should be the sole comprehensive plan for the district. It is not a plan for use of Goals 2000 funds; rather, it describes how the district intends to improve its schools, using all resources it has available. It is the district's framework for reform.
Other plans the district may have should fit in under the general comprehensive plan. For instance, most districts will have consolidated plans describing how they will use Federal funds provided by the programs included in the consolidation (or individual plans for each of the programs). These plans should describe how Federal funds will be used to support the comprehensive plan—the Federal contribution. Likewise, technology plans could describe, in greater detail, the role of technology in the comprehensive plan.
• How should Goals 2000 funds be used in relation to other funding sources to support the comprehensive plan?
The local comprehensive plan should provide direction for how the district uses all resources available to it. Goals 2000 resources should be focused on plan development and on implementation activities for which other funds are not available. Other resources that are targeted to a particular strategy should be accounted for first. The district can then determine the best use of the limited Goals 2000 funds. For instance, Title III funds, Technology Literacy Challenge Funds (TLCF), are for the purpose of improving the use of technology in the classroom. TLCF money could be used to provide professional development in teaching standards through the use of instructional technology. Goals 2000 funds could be used to help align curriculum with the new standards. The alignment of funds creates the potential for a greater systemic impact. Districts should consider the best use of Goals 2000 funds in the context of the local comprehensive plan, State plan/initiatives, and available resources. For instance, in Montana, other possible uses of Goals 2000 funds could be to aggregate standardized test data at the district level, disaggregate data by gender, race, socioeconomic status, etc., and thereby help districts develop a means for being eligible for Performance-Based Accreditation.
• The application requires that an applicant have a comprehensive
If an applicant does not have a comprehensive improvement plan that meets all of the plan requirements, its primary focus in the first year should be to develop the additional components of its plan to make it complete. In addition to these plan development activities, the applicant may use funds to implement some of the completed portions of its plan that will not be greatly affected by the other portions being developed. For instance, a district that has completed development of its standards and assessments (or uses those the state has developed) may wish to begin professional development of staff in relation to the standards while the parent involvement component of its plan is being developed.
Plan development and plan implementation are not intended to be entirely distinct activities. Once a plan has been developed that meets the plan requirements of Goals 2000, continual revision of this plan should be seen as a natural part of implementing the plan. Revisions should be informed by data collected on student performance and the effectiveness of various strategies. It is anticipated that districts may already have plans that address at least some of the requirements of Goals 2000. These plans that are already in place should serve as a starting point for continued plan development; a district need not start from scratch in developing a plan to meet the requirements. When applying for Goals 2000 funds, a district should clearly identify the status of its plans in relation to the plan requirements and the steps it will take to complete its comprehensive plan.
• What should applicants consider in determining whether to apply as a member of a consortium of districts rather than as a single district?
By working together with other districts as a consortium, a district can make better use of limited resources, improve continuity of services for students, or broaden the expertise that contributes to developing and implementing a particular set of strategies. A small district that does not have a broad base of resources could form a consortium with several other districts to create a single plan or implement a common component of individual district plans, such as professional development activities designed to help teachers create and use classroom assessments aligned to the standards. Another potentially strong consortium is one between districts that share the same students, such as an elementary district that feeds into a high school district or two K-12 district where students frequently move back and forth between the districts.
Applying in consortium provides participating districts with an opportunity to present a stronger need for funding, have higher quality strategies, and have a stronger case to meet other selection criteria for this competition. However, the purposes for a consortium, its benefit to the districts, and the commitment by participating districts should be clear. In order to meet the application requirements, a consortium application should state whether a single plan is being developed and implemented or whether a common strategy is being implemented across plans being developed and implemented within the individual districts participating in the consortium. For consortia wishing to implement existing plans, each district in a consortium should demonstrate that it has a plan to meet the plan requirements of Goals law.
• How should an applicant use the Performance Measures Template included in the application package?
Applicants should have clear and appropriate performance objectives related to the specific activities proposed in the grant. A process for measuring progress towards attaining these objectives should also be identified as well as a means for stating outcomes. Applicants are encouraged to incorporate the components of the performance measures into the template, but they may also use another, similar format. (Refer to Performance Measures and Performance Measures Template in application package.)
• Are applicants for Goals 2000 funds allowed to use grant funds to pay a consultant for writing a grant application?
No. According to a provision in the Education Department General Administrative Regulation (EDGAR, 75.515), grantees are prohibited from utilizing grant funds to pay a consultant for writing a grant application. Consultants may be used when there is a need in the approved project for services that cannot be met by an employee; however, paying a consultant to write a grant application does not meet this criterion.
• May local funds (other than federal grant funds) be used to hire a consultant to develop a grant proposal?
Yes; however, the local district should be aware that occasionally consultants use boilerplate applications. Such applications are inconsistent with the aim of Goals 2000 grants which is to support local school reform built on assessment, planning, and improvement efforts that are tied to individual districts.
For assistance with application requirements: Marcia J. Kingman, Goals 2000/TLCF, U.S. Department of Education, Phone: (202) 401-3900, Fax: (202) 205-5870, e-mail:
For assistance with state initiatives: Dr. Katie Dunlap, Assistant State Superintendent, Oklahoma State Department of Education, Phone: (405) 521-4513, Fax: (405) 521-2971,
Nancy Coopersmith, Administrator, Department of Curriculum Services, Montana Office of Public Instruction, Phone: (406) 444-5541, Fax: (406) 444-1373, e-mail:
For assistance with standards-based reform: Dr. Belinda Biscoe, Director, Region VII Comprehensive Center, University of Oklahoma, College of Continuing Education, Phone: (405) 325-1729, Fax: (405) 325-1824, e-mail:
For assistance with integrating technology with standards-based reform: Dr. Jerry Chafin, Director, South Central Regional Technology In Education Consortium, Phone: (785) 864-0699, Fax: (785) 864-0704, e-mail:
For assistance with understanding and linking to other federal resources:
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Proposed rule.
We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) propose to amend our regulations governing Abandoned Mine Land (AML) reclamation fee reporting to allow for the electronic filing of the information required on the OSM-1 Form.
Written comments: We will accept written comments on the proposed rule until 5 p.m., Eastern time, on April 17, 2000.
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of the following methods. You may mail or hand-deliver comments to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Administrative Record, Room 101, 1951 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20240. You may also submit comments to OSM via the Internet at: osmrules@osmre.gov.
You may submit a request for a public hearing orally or in writing to the person and address specified under
Mr. Sean Spillane, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Denver Federal Center, Building 20, Room B-2005, Denver, Colorado 80225; Telephone 303-236-0330, Ext 278. E-mail: sspillan@osmre.gov.
Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) created the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund (fund) in response to concern over extensive environmental damage caused by past coal mining activities. Money from the fund is used to reclaim abandoned and inadequately reclaimed mining areas where there is no continuing reclamation responsibility by any person under state or federal law. The fund is financed by a reclamation fee assessed on every ton of coal sold, used, or transferred at the rate of 35 cents per ton of surface mined coal, 15 cents per ton of underground mined coal, and 10 cents per ton for lignite. The reclamation fee must be paid to OSM once every calendar quarter.
The authority to collect the reclamation fee at the above rate is due to expire in 2004. After that date, the fee will be established and collected at a rate sufficient to allow the Secretary to transfer from the fund to the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund the sum necessary to fulfill the responsibilities under section 402(h) of SMCRA.
OSM administers the AML program and fund. Reclamation is accomplished through grants to approved state and tribal AML reclamation programs. These AML reclamation programs are implemented through regulations in 30 CFR subchapter R and through implementing guidelines published in the
Section 402(b) of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 1232(b), requires companies to pay a reclamation fee on coal sold, used, or transferred no later than 30 days after the end of each calendar quarter. SMCRA and the implementing regulations also require all operators of coal mining operations to submit a statement identifying:
(1) The permittee;
(2) The operator in addition to the permittee;
(3) The owner of the coal;
(4) The person purchasing the coal;
(5) The amount of coal sold, used, or transferred during the calendar quarter;
(6) The type of coal;
(7) The method of coal removal;
(8) The preparation plant, tipple, or loading point for the coal;
(9) The permit number required under section 506 of SMCRA; and
(10) The Mine Safety and Health Administration identification number.
Each quarterly report must also contain a notification of any changes in the information required by section 402(c) of SMCRA since the date of the preceding quarterly report. The accuracy of the report must be sworn to by the operator and notarized. The operator is responsible for the information provided and subject to the sanctions provided for in section 402(d)(1) of SMCRA. See 30 U.S.C. 1232(c) and 30 CFR 870.15.
Currently, our regulations at 30 CFR 870.15(b) require that the operator use the OSM-1 Form to report the required information when paying the AML fee. A paper copy of the OSM-1 Form must be used and submitted. There is no provision for filing the OSM-1 Form electronically. By this rulemaking, we propose to accept future quarterly filings of the OSM-1 Form by approved electronic transmission in place of paper filings. Under current procedures, OSM uses information technology to reduce the reporting burden on those filing the OSM-1 Form. When the OSM-1 Form is mailed to a respondent, the majority of the information on the OSM-1 Form (i.e., company name, address, contact person, telephone number, permit number, MSHA ID, etc.) is already pre-printed on the OSM-1 before it is mailed to the respondent, thus reducing the time to complete the form. We expect to develop a computer-based electronic form that will also contain the company information. The respondent would only need to update changes, add the missing information, and send the electronic version of the OSM-1 Form back to OSM.
The electronic filing of the OSM-1 Form would be an option available to the reporting entity. However, because of the notary requirement in SMCRA, and because we are not aware of any means by which a document may be electronically notarized and transmitted, the operator (or entity reporting for the operator) would be required to print out and maintain on file, a properly notarized paper copy of the OSM-1 Form for review by OSM's Fee Compliance auditors.
We believe that the option of electronically transmitting data may result in some savings to those in industry who choose to use it and to the government. We hope that as electronic commerce becomes more sophisticated
We are proposing this rule under the authority of section 413(a) of SMCRA which gives the Secretary authority to do all things necessary or expedient, including the promulgation of rules, to implement and administer the provisions of Title IV of SMCRA.
Any person interested in participating at a hearing should inform Mr. Sean Spillane (see
The public hearing will continue on the specified date until all persons scheduled to speak have been heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after all persons scheduled to speak and persons present in the audience who wish to speak have been heard. To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we ask that you give us a written copy of your testimony.
This document is not a significant rule and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
a. This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities.
Approximately 1,021 respondents submit the OSM-1 Form covering more than 3,900 permits 4 times a year. The proposed rule would give respondents the option of submitting the reports electronically. Because electronic filing under the proposed rule is optional and because the requirement to file the information already exists, any increase in costs that may result would be negligible.
b. This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. The rule merely provides the option of transmitting the required information electronically.
c. This rule does not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients.
d. This rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues.
The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more for the reasons stated above.
b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions because the rule does not impose major new requirements on the coal mining industry or consumers.
c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S. based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises for the reason stated above.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the fact that the rule will not have an impact on the use or value of private property and so, does not result in significant costs to the government.
This proposed rule does not have Federalism implications. It would 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 previously stated, the proposed rule would provide coal operators with the option of electronically filing reports which they are currently required to file in paper form with OSM. States are not involved in the process.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
The information collection authority for this rulemaking has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501
OSM has reviewed this proposed rule and determined that it is categorically excluded from the National Environmental Policy Act process in accordance with the Departmental Manual 516 DM 2, Appendix 1.10.
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this proposed rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the proposed rule clearly stated? (2) Does the proposed rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the format of the proposed rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided into more (but shorter) sections? (A “section” appears in bold type and is preceded by the symbol “§ ” and a numbered heading; for example, § 773.15). (5) Is the description of the proposed rule in the
Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this proposed rule easier to understand to: Office Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240. You may also e-mail the comments to this address: exsec@ios.doi.gov .
Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Accordingly, 30 CFR part 870 is proposed to be amended as set forth below.
1. The authority citation for part 870 continues to read as follows:
30 U.S.C. 1201
2. Section 870.15 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (b), remove the first sentence and add three new sentences in its place; and
b. Revise paragraph (d)(1)(iv) to read as follows:
(b) Each operator must use mine report Form OSM-1 (or any approved successor form) to report the tonnage of coal sold, used, or transferred. The report must also include the name and address of any person or entity who, in a given quarter, is the owner of 10 percent or more of the mineral estate for a given permit, and any entity or individual who, in a given quarter, purchases ten percent or more of the production from a given permit during the applicable quarter. The operator can file a report under this section either in paper format or in electronic format as specified in § 870.17. * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Use OSM's approved form or approved electronic form to report coal tonnage sold, used, or for which ownership was transferred, to the address indicated in the Instructions for Completing the OSM-1 Form.
3. Section 870.17 is added to read as follows:
You, the operator, may submit a quarterly electronic OSM-1 Form in place of a quarterly paper OSM-1 Form. Submitting the OSM-1 Form electronically is optional. If you submit your form electronically, you must:
(a) Use a methodology and medium approved by OSM; and
(b) Maintain a properly notarized paper copy of the identical OSM-1 Form for review and approval by OSM's Fee Compliance auditors. (This is needed to comply with the notary requirement in the Act.)