Agricultural Marketing Service
Forest Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services Department
Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services Department
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
Employment and Training Administration
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
Coast Guard
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
The Department of Agriculture (Department) is adopting, as a final rule, without change, the provisions of an interim final rule that increased the quantity of Class 3 (Native) spearmint oil produced in the Far West that handlers may purchase from, or handle for, producers during the 1999-2000 marketing year. This interim final rule amended a prior interim final rule. When combined, the two interim final rules increased the Native spearmint oil salable quantity by 184,160 pounds from 1,125,755 pounds to 1,309,915 pounds, and the allotment percentage by 9 percent from 55 percent to 64 percent. The Spearmint Oil Administrative Committee (Committee), the agency responsible for local administration of the marketing order for spearmint oil produced in the Far West, recommended these actions to avoid extreme fluctuations in supplies and prices, and, thus, help to maintain stability in the Far West spearmint oil market.
June 21, 2000.
Robert J. Curry, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1220 SW Third Avenue, room 385, Portland, Oregon 97204-2807; telephone: (503) 326-2724, Fax: (503) 326-7440; or
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, room 2525-S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456; telephone (202) 720-2491; Fax: (202) 720-5698, or E-mail: Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.
This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 985 (7 CFR part 985), regulating the handling of spearmint oil produced in the Far West (Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and designated parts of Nevada, and Utah), hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (Department) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the provisions of the marketing order now in effect, salable quantities and allotment percentages may be established for classes of spearmint oil produced in the Far West. This rule continues an increase in the quantity of Native spearmint oil produced in the Far West that may be purchased from or handled for producers by handlers during the 1999-2000 marketing year, which ends on May 31, 2000. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing the Secretary would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
The U.S. production of spearmint oil is concentrated in the Far West, primarily Washington, Idaho, and Oregon (part of the area covered by the order). Spearmint oil is also produced in the Midwest. The production area covered by the order normally accounts for approximately 63 percent of the annual U.S. production of Scotch spearmint oil and approximately 93 percent of the annual U.S. production of Native spearmint oil.
This final rule adopts, without change, the provisions of an interim final rule published in the
The initial salable quantity and allotment percentages for Scotch and Native spearmint oils for the 1999-2000 marketing year were recommended by the Committee at its October 7, 1998 meeting. The Committee recommended salable quantities of 1,199,190 pounds and 1,125,755 pounds, and allotment percentages of 65 percent and 55 percent, respectively, for Scotch and Native spearmint oils. A proposed rule was published in the November 17, 1998 issue of the
The salable quantity is the total quantity of each class of oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle for, producers during a marketing year. The salable quantity calculated by the Committee is based on the estimated trade demand. The total salable quantity is divided by the total industry allotment base to determine an allotment percentage. Each producer is allotted a share of the salable quantity by applying the allotment percentage to the producer's individual allotment base for the applicable class of spearmint oil.
Sections 985.50, 985.51, and 985.52 provide the Committee authorization to consider and recommend salable quantities and allotment percentages for each class of spearmint oil for an ensuing marketing year. Section 985.51(b) provides the authority for the Committee to recommend that an increase in the salable quantity and allotment percentage for either or both classes of oil be considered.
Taking into consideration the following discussion on adjustments to the Native spearmint oil salable quantity, the 1999-2000 marketing year salable quantity of 1,125,755 pounds will, therefore, be increased to 1,309,915 pounds.
The original total industry allotment base for Native spearmint oil for the 1999-2000 marketing year was established at 2,046,828 pounds and was revised during the year to 2,046,214 pounds to reflect a loss of 614 pounds of base due to non-production of some producers' total annual allotments. The Committee has used this revised allotment base in computing the increases to the Native spearmint oil salable quantity.
By increasing the salable quantity and allotment percentage from 1,125,755 pounds to 1,309,915 pounds, and 55 percent to 64 percent, respectively, this final rule makes an additional amount of Native spearmint oil available by releasing such oil from the reserve pool. When applied to each individual producer, the additional 9 percent allotment percentage increase allows each producer to take up to an amount equal to 9 percent of their allotment base from their Native spearmint oil reserve. If a producer does not have any reserve pool oil, or has less than 9 percent of their allotment base in the reserve pool, the increase in allotment percentage will actually make less than such amount available to the market.
For the 1999-2000 marketing year, producers receiving 18,324 pounds of additional allotment through these increases did not have any Native spearmint oil in reserve. Thus, rather than the 184,160 additional pounds as computed in the two interim final rules, this action effectively makes an additional 165,836 pounds of Native spearmint oil available to the market.
(A) Estimated 1999-2000 Allotment Base—2,046,828 pounds. This is the figure the original 1999-2000 salable quantities and allotment percentages for both classes of spearmint oil were based on.
(B) Revised 1999-2000 Allotment Base—2,046,214 pounds. This is 614 pounds less than the estimated allotment base of 2,046,828 pounds. This is less because some producers failed to produce all of their previous year's allotment.
(C) Initial 1999-2000 Allotment Percentage—55 percent. This was recommended by the Committee on October 7, 1998.
(D) Initial 1999-2000 Salable Quantity—1,125,755 pounds. This figure is 55 percent of the estimated allotment base of 2,046,828 pounds.
(E) Initial Increase in Allotment Percentage—5 percent. This was recommended by the Committee on January 13, 2000.
(F) Initial Revision of the 1999-2000 Allotment Percentage—60 percent. This figure was derived by adding the initial increase in the allotment percentage of 5 percent to the initial 1999-2000 allotment percentage of 55 percent and was effective on February 11, 2000.
(G) Initial Computed Increase in the 1999-2000 Salable Quantity—102,311 pounds. This is the product of the revised 1999-2000 allotment base of 2,046,214 and the initial 5 percent increase.
(H) Initially Revised 1999-2000 Salable Quantity—1,228,066 pounds. This figure, effective on February 11, 2000, is the sum of the initial salable quantity of 1,125,755 pounds and the initial computed increase of 102,311 pounds, and is approximately 60 percent of the estimated 1999-2000 allotment base of 2,046,214 pounds.
(I) Additional Increase in the Allotment Percentage—4 percent. This percentage increase was recommended by the Committee at its February 23, 2000, meeting.
(J) Amended 1999-2000 Allotment Percentage—64 percent. This is the sum of the initial allotment percentage of 55 percent and the 5 and 4 percent increases, and was effective on March 25, 2000.
(K) Additional Computed Increase in the 1999-2000 Salable Quantity—81,849 pounds. This is the product of the revised 1999-2000 allotment base of 2,046,214 pounds and the additional 4 percent increase in the allotment percentage.
(L) Final 1999-2000 Salable Quantity as Revised by Both Interim Final Rules—1,309,915 pounds. This figure is the sum of the initial salable quantity of 1,125,755 and the combined (computed) increases of 102,311 pounds and 81,849 pounds, and is approximately 64 percent of the revised 1999-2000 allotment base of 2,046,214 pounds.
The Department, based on its analysis of available information, has determined that the salable quantity and allotment percentage for Native spearmint oil for the 1999-2000 marketing year should continue to be 1,309,915 pounds and 64 percent, respectively.
This rule continues to relax the regulation of Native spearmint oil and will allow producers to meet market needs and improve returns. In conjunction with the issuance of this rule, the Department has reviewed the Committee's revised marketing policy statement for the 1999-2000 marketing year. The Committee's marketing policy statement, a requirement whenever the Committee recommends implementing volume regulations or recommends revisions to existing volume regulations, meets the intent of section 985.50 of the order.
During its discussion of revising the 1999-2000 salable quantities and allotment percentages, the Committee considered: (1) The estimated quantity of salable oil of each class held by producers and handlers; (2) the estimated demand for each class of oil; (3) prospective production of each class of oil; (4) total of allotment bases of each class of oil for the current marketing year and the estimated total of allotment bases of each class for the ensuing marketing year; (5) the quantity of reserve oil, by class, in storage; (6) producer prices of oil, including prices for each class of oil; and (7) general market conditions for each class of oil, including whether the estimated season average price to producers is likely to exceed parity. Conformity with the Department's “Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders” has also been reviewed and confirmed.
This increase in the 1999-2000 marketing year Native spearmint oil salable quantity and allotment percentage allows for anticipated market needs for this class of oil. In determining anticipated market needs, consideration by the Committee was given to historical sales, and changes and trends in production and demand.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, the AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility.
There are 7 spearmint oil handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order and approximately 119 producers of Scotch spearmint oil and 105 producers of Native spearmint oil in the regulated production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $5,000,000, and small agricultural producers have been defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $500,000.
Based on the SBA's definition of small entities, the Committee estimates that 2 of the 7 handlers regulated by the order could be considered small entities. Most of the handlers are large corporations involved in the international trading of essential oils and the products of essential oils. In addition, the Committee estimates that 25 of the 119 Scotch spearmint oil producers and 7 of the 105 Native spearmint oil producers would be classified as small entities under the SBA definition. Thus, a majority of handlers and producers of Far West spearmint oil may not be classified as small entities.
The Far West spearmint oil industry is characterized by producers whose farming operations generally involve more than one commodity, and whose income from farming operations is not exclusively dependent on the production of spearmint oil. Crop rotation is an essential cultural practice in the production of spearmint oil for weed, insect, and disease control. A normal spearmint oil producing operation would have enough acreage for rotation such that the total acreage required to produce the crop would be about one-third spearmint and two-thirds rotational crops. An average spearmint oil producing farm would, thus, have to have considerably more acreage than would be planted to spearmint during any given season. To remain economically viable with the added costs associated with spearmint oil production, most spearmint oil producing farms would fall into the category of large businesses.
Small spearmint oil producers represent a minority of farming operations and are more vulnerable to market fluctuations. Such small farmers generally need to market their entire annual crop and do not have the resources to cushion seasons with poor spearmint oil returns. Conversely, large diversified producers have the potential to endure one or more seasons of poor spearmint oil markets because of stronger incomes from alternate crops which could support the operation for a period of time. Despite the advantage larger producers may have, increasing the Native salable quantity and allotment percentage will help both large and small producers by improving returns.
This rule finalizes an interim final rule that was published in the
The Committee considered alternatives to the increases based on projections and historical data available at both meetings. Recommendations at both meetings generally supported increases of 5 percent and 4 percent, respectively. The Committee reached its recommendations to increase the Native spearmint oil salable quantity by 102,311 pounds and 81,849 pounds, respectively, and the allotment percentage by 5 percent and 4 percent, respectively, after careful consideration of all available information. The Committee believes that the level attained in this final rule will achieve the objectives sought. Without the increases, the Committee believes the industry will not be able to meet market needs through the end of the current marketing year (May 31, 2000).
Annual salable quantities and allotment percentages have been issued for both classes of spearmint oil since the order's inception. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements have remained the same for each year of regulation. Accordingly, this action will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large spearmint oil producers and handlers. All reports and forms associated with this program are reviewed periodically in order to avoid unnecessary and duplicative information collection by industry and public sector agencies. The Department has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
The Committee's meetings were widely publicized throughout the spearmint oil industry and all interested persons were invited to attend and participate on all issues. Interested persons were also invited to submit information on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.
Interim final rules concerning this action were published in the
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at the following website: http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at the previously mentioned address in the
After consideration of all relevant matter presented, including that contained in the prior proposed and final rules in connection with the establishment of the salable quantities and allotment percentages for Scotch and Native spearmint oils for the 1999-2000 marketing year, both interim final rules increasing the 1999-2000 marketing year Native spearmint oil salable quantity and allotment percentage, the Committee's recommendations and other available information, it is found that to continue
Marketing agreements, Oils and fats, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Spearmint oil.
Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 7 CFR part 985 as published at 65 FR 15832 on March 24, 2000, and which amended the interim final rule published at 65 FR 6528 on February 10, 2000, is adopted as a final rule without change.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule; correction.
The Agricultural Marketing Service published in the
This correction is effective May 22, 2000.
Nicholas Memoli, Marketing Specialist, Order Formulation Branch, USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, Room 2971, South Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, (202) 690-1932, e-mail address Nicholas.Memoli@usda.gov.
In the final rule (DA-97-12) issued August 23, 1999, and published in the
Milk orders.
7 U.S.C. 601-674, and 7253.
In Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 600 to End, revised as of January 1, 2000, page 404, Part 707, Appendix C is corrected by adding Appendices A and B to the end to read as follows:
1.
i. The daily rate applied to a balance carried to five or more decimals. For example; .008219178%, 3.00% for a 365 day year, would be rounded to no less than .00822%.
ii. The daily dividends or interest earned carried to five or more decimals. For example; $.08219178082, daily dividends on $1,000 at 3% for a 365 day year, would be rounded to no less than $.08219.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
1.
i. May not be included in the balance for statements that are issued at the same time or less frequently than the account's compounding and crediting frequency. For
ii. Must be included in the balance for succeeding statements if a statement is issued more frequently than compounded dividends is credited on an account. For example, if monthly statements are sent for an account that compounds dividends daily and credits dividends quarterly, the balance for the second monthly statement would include dividends that had accrued for the prior month. Assume a credit union will pay $411.78 in dividends on 30 days of $100,000, $427.28 in dividends on 31 days of $100,411.78, and $415.23 in dividends on 30 days of $100,839.06. The balance (average daily balance in the account for the period) for the second 31 days is $100,411.78.
2.
3.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Gulfstream Model G-159 series airplanes, that requires an inspection to determine the type of pneumatic deicing boots, and an Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) revision only for those airplanes equipped with “modern” boots. This amendment is prompted by reports of inflight incidents and an accident that occurred in icing conditions where the airframe pneumatic deicing boots were not activated. The actions specified by this AD are intended to ensure that flightcrews activate the pneumatic wing and tail deicing boots at the first signs of ice accumulation. This action will prevent reduced controllability of the aircraft due to adverse aerodynamic effects of ice adhering to the airplane prior to the first deicing cycle.
June 26, 2000.
Information pertaining to this amendment may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia 30349.
Neil Berryman, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ACE-116A, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia 30349; telephone (770) 703-6098; fax (770) 703-6097.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to Gulfstream Model G-159 series airplanes was published as a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
The FAA has received information indicating that natural ice shedding, melting, or sublimation from the protected areas of the pneumatic deicing boot system of the wing and tail leading edge will eliminate most residual ice. In light of that information, the FAA has determined that a revision of the last bulleted paragraph of the airplane flight manual revision specified in paragraph (a) of the NPRM is necessary. Consequently, that paragraph has been revised from, “The wing and tail leading edge pneumatic deicing boot system may be deactivated only after leaving icing conditions and after the airplane is determined to be clear of ice,” to delete the phrase, “and after the airplane is determined to be clear of ice.”
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received.
The commenter, the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority, requests that the statement in the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) advising that a potential for adverse aerodynamic effects of ice adhering to the airplane exists should be addressed in more detail. The commenter explains that icing boots contaminated with dirt or in a deteriorated condition can induce such ice adhering to the airplane. The commenter points out that various cleaning and protection fluids are available that provide extended life to the deicing boots, protection of the boots against ultraviolet (UV) rays, and assistance in maintaining the boots in a clean condition. However, the commenter notes that not all maintenance programs schedule tasks effectively for the use of such cleaning and protection fluids. Therefore, the commenter requests that the FAA consider mandating a specific schedule to use such cleaning and protection products. The commenter states that such a required schedule should be required for airplanes equipped with either the “modern” or “older” boots.
The FAA does not concur with the commenter's requests. The FAA considers that normal wear and tear on the deicing boot materials is to be expected, and that the adhesion characteristics of the boot increases as the boot surface degrades over time. Operators have the responsibility to monitor the performance of the deicing boots installed on their airplanes, and to perform maintenance as required.
The FAA acknowledges that use of certain ice-phobic chemicals may provide an additional safety benefit. However, a variety of factors (
After careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.
The FAA estimates that 141 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.
The FAA estimates that it will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish the AFM revision, at the average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $16,920, or $120 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.
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, 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.
To ensure that flightcrews activate the wing and tail pneumatic deicing boots at the first signs of ice accumulation on the airplane, accomplish the following:
For the purposes of this AD, the following definitions of “older” and “modern” apply:
“Modern” pneumatic boot systems may be characterized by short segmented, small diameter tubes, which are operated at relatively high pressures [18-23 pounds per square inch (psi)] by excess bleed air that is provided by turbine engines. “Older” pneumatic boot systems may be characterized by long, uninterrupted, large diameter tubes, which were operated at low pressures by engine driven pneumatic pumps whose pressure varied with engine revolutions per minute (rpm). This low pressure coupled with long and large diameter tubes caused early de-ice systems to have very lengthy inflation and deflation cycles and dwell times. (Dwell time is the period of time that the boot remains fully expanded following the completion of the inflation cycle until the beginning of the deflation cycle.)
(a) Within 10 days after the effective date of this AD: Perform a visual inspection to determine if the types of pneumatic deicing boots installed are either “older” or “modern” boots.
(1) For those airplanes equipped with “older” pneumatic deicing boots, no further action is required by this AD.
(2) For those airplanes equipped with “modern” pneumatic deicing boots: Within 10 days after the inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD, revise the Limitations Section of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to include the following requirements for activation of the ice protection systems. This may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM.
“• Except for certain phases of flight where the AFM specifies that deicing boots should not be used (e.g., take-off, final approach, and landing), compliance with the following is required.
“• Wing and Tail Leading Edge Pneumatic Deicing Boot System, if installed, must be activated:
—At the first sign of ice formation anywhere on the aircraft, or upon annunciation from an ice detector system, whichever occurs first; and
—The system must either be continued to be operated in the automatic cycling mode, if available; or the system must be manually cycled as needed to minimize the ice accretions on the airframe.
• The wing and tail leading edge pneumatic deicing boot system may be deactivated only after leaving icing conditions.”
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate. The request shall be forwarded through an appropriate FAA Operations Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Atlanta ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Atlanta ACO.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(d) This amendment becomes effective on June 26, 2000.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd., Model 1124 and 1124A Westwind airplanes. This action requires a one-time X-ray inspection to detect missing rivets at the rib-to-spar connection of the aileron ribs, and corrective actions, if necessary. This action is necessary to prevent cracking of the aileron skin due to missing rivets, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the aileron and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Effective June 6, 2000.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 6, 2000.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before June 21, 2000.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-42-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 9-anm-iarcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2000-NM-42-AD” in the subject line and need not be submitted in triplicate.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Galaxy Aerospace Corporation, One Galaxy Way, Fort Worth Alliance Airport, Fort Worth, Texas 76177. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
Norman B. Martenson, Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2110; fax (425) 227-1149.
The Civil Aviation Administration of Israel (CAAI), notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd., Model 1124 and 1124A Westwind airplanes. The CAAI advises that rivets in the aileron structure have been reported missing. On one airplane, 5 of the 13 aileron ribs were missing rivets. Investigation revealed certain rivets may not have been installed during production. This condition, if not corrected, could result in reduced structural integrity of the aileron and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.
The manufacturer has issued Israel Aircraft Industries 1124 Westwind Alert Service Bulletin No. 1124-27A-145, dated March 24, 2000, which describes procedures for a one-time X-ray inspection to detect missing rivets at the rib to spar connection of the aileron ribs, left and right sides, at work stations (WS) 158.00 through WS 246.00. The CAAI classified this alert service bulletin as mandatory and previously issued Israeli airworthiness directive 57-00-02-06, dated February 24, 2000, in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Israel.
These airplane models are manufactured in Israel and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the CAAI has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the CAAI, 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
Operators should note that, although the alert service bulletin specifies that the Customer Support Group at Galaxy Aerospace Company may be contacted for disposition of certain conditions, this amendment would require the repair of those conditions to be accomplished in accordance with a method approved by either the FAA or the CAAI (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 AD, a repair approved by either the FAA or the CAAI would be acceptable for compliance with this AD.
Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
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 shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption
Submit comments using the following format:
• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific change to the AD is being requested.
• Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each request.
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 Number 2000-NM-42-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and that it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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 airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) 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 aileron skin due to missing rivets, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the aileron and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 200 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, perform a one-time X-ray inspection to detect missing rivets at the rib-to-spar connection of the aileron ribs, left and right sides, at work stations (WS) 158.00 to WS 246.00, in accordance with Israel 1124 Westwind Alert Service Bulletin No. 1124-27A-145, dated March 24, 2000.
(1) If all rivets are installed, no further action is required by this AD.
(2) If any rivet is missing, prior to further flight, replace the aileron with a new or serviceable aileron, in accordance with Israel Aircraft Industries 1124/1124A Westwind Maintenance Manual, or repair the aileron in accordance with a method approved by
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the International Branch, ANM-116.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(d) The inspection shall be done in accordance with 1124 Westwind (Israel Aircraft Industries) Alert Service Bulletin No. 1124-27A-145, dated March 24, 2000. 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 Galaxy Aerospace Corporation, One Galaxy Way, Fort Worth Alliance Airport, Fort Worth, Texas 76177. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
The subject of this AD is addressed in Israeli airworthiness directive 57-00-02-06, dated February 24, 2000.
(e) This amendment becomes effective on June 6, 2000.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Eurocopter France Model AS350B, BA, B1, B2, B3, D, and AS355E, F, F1, F2, and N helicopters that requires replacing certain circuit breakers. This amendment is prompted by the discovery of the loss of electrical continuity between the terminals of an installed circuit breaker. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent loss of electrical power to the emergency flotation gear or other optional installations and subsequent loss of the helicopter emergency flotation capability.
Effective June 26, 2000.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 26, 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.
Carroll Wright, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Rotorcraft Standards Staff, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone (817) 222-5120, fax (817) 222-5961.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD for Eurocopter France Model AS350B, BA, B1, B2, B3, D, and AS355E, F, F1, F2, and N 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 150 helicopters of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 0.25 work hour per helicopter to replace the circuit breakers, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $23 per helicopter. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $5,700, assuming the replacement of 150 circuit breakers.
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.
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 (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 loss of electrical power to the emergency flotation gear or other optional installations and subsequent loss of the helicopter emergency flotation capability, accomplish the following:
(a) On or before 200 hours time-in-service or within the next 3 calendar months, whichever occurs first:
(1) For Model AS350B, BA, B1, B2, B3, and D helicopters, inspect and if inoperable, replace the Crouzet single-pole circuit breakers installed in the flotation gear unit assembly and other optional installations for electrical continuity in accordance with section 2.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions contained in Eurocopter France Service Bulletin (SB) No. 01.00.47, dated November 10, 1998, except disregard the compliance times stated in paragraph 2.B.2) of the SB.
(2) For Model AS355E, F, F1, F2, and N helicopters, inspect and if inoperable, replace the Crouzet single-pole circuit breakers installed in the flotation gear unit assembly and other optional installations for electrical continuity in accordance with section 2.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions contained in SB No. 01.00.44, dated November 10, 1998, except disregard the compliance times stated in paragraph 2.B.2) of the SB.
(b) On or before July 1, 2000, replace all Crouzet single-pole circuit breakers in accordance with section 2.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable SB.
(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, 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.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the helicopter to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(e) The inspection and modification shall be done in accordance with section 2.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions contained in Eurocopter France Service Bulletin No. 01.00.44 or No. 01.00.47, both dated November 10, 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.
(f) This amendment becomes effective on June 26, 2000.
The subject of this AD is addressed in Direction Generale De L'Aviation Civile (France) AD 98-510-055(A) for the Model AS 355 helicopters and AD 98-511-074(A) for the Model AS 350 helicopters. Both DGAC AD's are dated December 16, 1998.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to Eurocopter France Model AS-350B, BA, B1, B2, and D, and Model AS-355E, F, F1, F2, and N helicopters and requires inspecting the main gearbox suspension bi-directional cross-beam (cross-beam) for cracks, and replacing the cross-beam if a crack is found. This amendment requires the same inspections as the existing AD, but adds the time intervals for performing repetitive dye-penetrant inspections on cross-beams with 5,000 or more hours time-in-service (TIS). This amendment is prompted by the discovery that time intervals for performing the required dye-penetrant inspections are not included in the existing AD. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent failure of the cross-beam that could lead to rotation of the main gearbox, resulting in severe vibrations and a subsequent forced landing.
Effective June 26, 2000.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations was previously approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 3, 1998 (63 FR 35128, June 29, 1998).
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
Jim Grigg, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, ASW-111, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone (817) 222-5490, fax (817) 222-5961.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 98-14-01, Amendment 39-10635 (63 FR 35128, June 29, 1998), which applies to Eurocopter France Model AS-350B, BA, B1, B2, and D, and Model AS-355E, F, F1, F2, and N 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 454 helicopters of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD. It will take approximately 0.5 work hour per helicopter to accomplish each visual inspection, with an estimated average of 150 visual inspections per helicopter; 3 work hours per helicopter to accomplish a dye-penetrant inspection, with an estimated average of 3 dye-penetrant inspections per helicopter; and 6 work hours per helicopter to replace the cross-beam, if necessary. The average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Parts will cost approximately $6,000 per cross-beam. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $5,175,600 to perform 150 visual inspections and an average of 3 dye-penetrant inspections per helicopter and to replace the cross-beam on all 454 helicopters.
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.
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 cross-beam that could lead to rotation of the main gearbox, resulting in severe vibrations and a subsequent forced landing, accomplish the following:
(a) For cross-beams having 2,000 or more hours time-in-service (TIS) or 10,000 or more operating cycles, whichever occurs first:
The Master Service Recommendations and the flight log contain accepted procedures that are used to determine the cumulative operating cycles on the rotorcraft.
(1) Within 30 hours TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 30 hours TIS or 150 operating cycles, whichever occurs first, visually inspect the cross-beam for cracks in accordance with paragraph 2.B.1) of Eurocopter France Service Bulletin No. 05.00.28, applicable to Model AS-350 helicopters, or Eurocopter France Service Bulletin No. 05.00.29, applicable to Model AS-355 helicopters, both dated May 26, 1997.
(2) If a crack is found, remove the cross-beam and replace it with an airworthy cross-beam.
(b) For cross-beams having 5,000 or more hours TIS:
(1) In addition to continuing the repetitive inspections of paragraph (a)(1), before further flight, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 550 hours TIS or 2,750 operating cycles, whichever occurs first, perform a dye-penetrant inspection in accordance with paragraph 2.B.2) of Eurocopter France Service Bulletin No. 05.00.28, applicable to Model AS-350 helicopters, or Eurocopter Service Bulletin No. 05.00.29, applicable to Model AS-355 helicopters, both dated May 26, 1996.
(2) If a crack is found, remove the cross-beam and replace it with an airworthy cross-beam.
(c) Prior to installing any replacement cross-beams, regardless of TIS or operating cycles, inspect the replacement cross-beam in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this AD.
(d) Modifying the helicopter in accordance with paragraph 2.B of the Accomplishment Instructions in Eurocopter Service Bulletin No. 63.00.07, applicable to Model AS-350B, BA, B1, B2, and D helicopters, or Eurocopter Service Bulletin No. 63.00.13, applicable to Model AS-355E, F, F1, F2, and N helicopters, both dated April 7, 1997, constitutes 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, 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.
(f) 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.
(g) The inspections and replacements, if necessary, shall be done in accordance with Eurocopter France Service Bulletin No. 05.00.28, applicable to Model AS-350 helicopters, and Eurocopter France Service Bulletin No. 05.00.29, applicable to Model AS-355 helicopters, both dated May 26, 1997. The incorporation by reference of those documents was previously approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 as of August 3, 1998 (63 FR 35128, June 29, 1998). 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.
(h) This amendment becomes effective on June 26, 2000.
The subject of this AD is addressed in Direction Generale De L'Aviation Civile (France) AD 96-156-071(B)R1 and AD 96-155-053(B)R1, both dated June 4, 1997.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) applicable to Eurocopter France Model SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2 and AS-365N3 helicopters. This action requires inspecting the installation of each window panel on the enlarged sliding door (door). If any window panel is installed on the outside of the door, this AD requires installing and sealing the window panel on the inside. This amendment is prompted by the loss of a window panel in flight that was incorrectly sealed with the window installed on the outside of the door. This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of a window panel in flight. The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent loss of a window panel, impact with a main rotor blade, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
Effective June 6. 2000.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before July 21, 2000.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, Attention: Rules Docket No. 99-SW-86-AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. You may also send comments electronically to the Rules Docket at the following address: 9-asw-adcomments@faa.gov.
Jim Grigg, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations Group, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0111, telephone (817) 222-5490, fax (817) 222-5961.
The Direction Generale De L'Aviation Civile (DGAC), the airworthiness authority for France, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on Eurocopter France Model SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2 and AS-365N3 helicopters. The DGAC advises of the need to visually inspect each window for correct mounting to prevent loss of a window in flight, impact with a main rotor blade, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
Eurocopter France has issued Telex Information No. 00097, dated November 9, 1999 (Telex). The Telex advises of the loss of a window panel in flight due to the window panel being sealed and positioned on the outside of the door. The Telex specifies visually inspecting the installation of each window panel and resuming flight if the window panels are inside the door. If the window panels are outside the door, the Telex specifies repositioning and resealing the window panels inside the door. The DGAC classified this Telex as mandatory and issued AD 1999-459-049(A), dated December 1, 1999, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters in France.
These helicopter models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. 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 these type designs 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 Eurocopter France Model SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2 and AS-365N3 helicopters of the same type designs registered in the United States, this AD is being issued to prevent loss of a window panel, impact with a main rotor blade, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. This AD requires visually inspecting each window panel for correct installation on the door. If the window panel is installed properly, no further action is required by this AD. If any window panel is installed outside the door, this AD also requires, before further flight, removing, installing inside the door, and resealing the window panel. The short compliance time involved is required because the previously described critical unsafe condition can adversely affect the structural integrity of the helicopter. Therefore, visually inspecting each window panel for correct installation on the door is required within 10 hours time-in-service and this AD must be issued immediately.
Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA estimates that 60 helicopters will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 0.25 work hour to accomplish the inspection and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures and assuming 10 windows are affected at $10 each for the seal and 1 hour to reinstall each window, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,600.
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 mailed 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-86-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and that it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
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 (b) 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 loss of a window panel, impact with a main rotor blade, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter, accomplish the following:
(a) Visually inspect each window panel in any enlarged sliding door (door) for correct positioning on the inside of the door. See Figure 1.
(1) If the window panel is installed on the inside of the door, no further action is required by this AD.
(2) If a window is installed on the outside, before further flight, remove the window and reinstall using a new seal.
The following optional procedure may be used to remove and reinstall a window, however, any procedure that results in the installation of a properly sealed airworthy window panel on the inside of the door is acceptable:
a. From inside the door, cut the seal (see Figure 1, item 3). Push the window out and remove remnants of the seal from the window panel and door structure.
b. Remove all traces of the sealing compound (see Figure 1, item 4) with methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), acetone, or equivalent.
c. Thoroughly dust the grooves of a new seal with talcum powder.
d. Fit the new seal to the window panel. The joint will be located in the lower center of the window panel. The clearance between the seal and the window panel should not exceed 0.04 inch.
e. Insert a 0.01-inch diameter cord (ripcord works well) into the seal slot. Position the cord such that the cord ends are on the top center of the panel).
f. Press the window panel and seal assembly against the door from the inside.
g. Gently pull outward on the cord ends, allowing the outer edge of the seal to pull over the door structure. Continue pulling cord around the window panel until complete.
h. Apply PR1222 sealant between the seal and the door structure. Wipe off any excess sealant.
Eurocopter Telex No. 00097, dated November 9, 1999, pertains to this AD.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, 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.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the helicopter to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(d) This amendment becomes effective on June 6, 2000.
The subject of this AD is addressed in The Direction Generale De L'Aviation Civile (France) AD 1999-459-049(A), dated December 1, 1999.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) for BHTC Model 222, 222B, 222U, and 230 helicopters that requires inspecting each flapping bearing to yoke attachment bolt (bolt) and replacing each bolt that shows thread damage, shank wear, or corrosion pitting with an airworthy bolt. This amendment is prompted by the discovery of a fractured bolt during a post-flight inspection. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent a fracture of a bolt, failure of the bearing and yoke interface, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
June 26, 2000.
Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Rotorcraft Standards Staff, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0111, telephone (817) 222-5122, fax (817) 222-5961.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD for BHTC Model 222, 222B, 222U, and 230 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 101 helicopters of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 3 work hours per helicopter to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $20 per bolt. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $20,200.
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 FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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 (b) 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 the fracture of a flapping bearing to yoke attachment bolt (bolt), failure of the bearing and yoke interface, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter, accomplish the following:
(a) Remove one bolt at a time and inspect each bolt located as shown in Figure 1.
For main rotor hubs installed on rotorcraft, the bolts may be removed, inspected, and installed one at a time.
Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Alert Service Bulletins 230-98-15, 222-98-83, and 222U-98-54, all dated October 12, 1998, pertain to the subject of this AD.
(i) Clean each bolt with a cloth dampened with methyl ethyl ketone, RHO SOLV756, Desoto 110, or equivalent.
(ii) Visually inspect each bolt and discard those that have thread damage, shank wear, or corrosion.
(iii) Apply corrosion preventative compound MIL-C-16173 GR2, or equivalent, to the shank of the bolt only.
(iv) Install, torque, and lockwire each bolt.
(v) Coat each bolt head and nut with corrosion preventative compound MIL-C-16173 GR1 or equivalent.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, 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.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the helicopter to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(d) This amendment becomes effective on June 26, 2000.
The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada (Canada) AD's CF-99-12 and CF-99-13, both dated April 21, 1999.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; establishment of effective date.
This action establishes the effective date for the establishment of a Class D surface area at Jackson Hole Airport, Jackson, WY. The contractual agreements to run the Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) under the FAA contract tower program have now been implemented. Operations at the ATCT will commence on May 15, 2000.
The effective date of FR Doc. 00-3382 is May 15, 2000.
Brian Durham, ANM-520.7, Federal Aviation Administration, Docket No. 99-ANM-11, 1601 Lind Avenue S.W., Renton, Washington, 98055-4056; telephone number: (425) 227-2527.
Airspace Docket No. 99-ANM-11, published in the
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (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) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The effective date on Airspace Docket 99-ANM-11 is hereby established as May 15, 2000.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing temporary regulations in the Delaware River, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for OPSAIL 2000 activities. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters before, during, and after OPSAIL 2000 events. This action will restrict vessel traffic in the Delaware River between Anchorage 9 (Mantua Creek anchorage) and the Benjamin Franklin Bridge.
This rule is effective from 8 a.m. on June 22, 2000 through 4 p.m. on June 23, 2000.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD05-00-002 and are available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Marine Safety Office/Group Philadelphia, One Washington Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19147 between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Lieutenant Junior Grade K. Codel, Coast Guard Marine Safety Office/Group Philadelphia, (215) 271-4991.
On March 28, 2000, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled OPSAIL 2000, Delaware River, Philadelphia, PA in the
Philadelphia OPSAIL 2000, Inc., is sponsoring OPSAIL 2000 activities in the Delaware River, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Planned events include the arrival of a number of international Tall Ships at Anchorage 9 (Mantua Creek anchorage) on June 22, 2000 and a Parade of Sail from that anchorage, upriver to the Benjamin Franklin Bridge on June 23, 2000.
The Coast Guard anticipates a large spectator fleet for this event. Operators should expect significant vessel congestion along the parade route.
The purpose of these regulations is to promote maritime safety and protect participants and the boating public immediately prior to, during, and after the scheduled event. The regulations will establish a clear parade route for the OPSAIL 2000 vessels, provide a safety buffer around the participating vessels while they are at anchor and in
It may be necessary for the Coast Guard to establish safety or security zones in addition to these regulations to safeguard dignitaries and certain vessels participating in the event. If the Coast Guard deems it necessary to establish such zones at a later date, the details of those zones will be announced separately via the
All vessel operators and passengers are reminded that vessels carrying passengers for hire or that have been chartered and are carrying passengers may have to comply with certain additional rules and regulations beyond the safety equipment requirements for all pleasure craft. When a vessel is not being used exclusively for pleasure, but rather is engaged in carrying passengers for hire or has been chartered and is carrying the requisite number of passengers, the vessel operator must possess an appropriate license and the vessel may be subject to inspection. The definition of the term “passenger for hire” is found in 46 U.S.C. 2101(21a). In general, it means any passenger who has contributed any consideration (monetary or otherwise) either directly or indirectly for carriage onboard the vessel. The definition of the term “passenger” is found in 46 U.S.C. 2101(21). It varies depending on the type of vessel, but generally means individuals carried aboard vessels except for certain specified individuals engaged in the operation of the vessel or the business of the owner/charterer. The law provides for substantial penalties for any violation of applicable license and inspection requirements. If you have any questions concerning the application of the above law to your particular case, you should contact the Coast Guard at the address listed in
Vessel operators are reminded they must have sufficient facilities on board their vessels to retain all garbage and untreated sewage. Discharge of either into any waters of the United States is strictly forbidden. Violators may be assessed civil penalties up to $25,000 or face criminal prosecution.
We recommend that vessel operators visiting the Philadelphia area for this event obtain an up to date edition of National Ocean Service Chart 12313 to avoid anchoring within a charted cable or pipeline area.
With the arrival of OPSAIL 2000 and spectator vessels in the Philadelphia area for this event, it will be necessary to curtail normal port operations to some extent. Interference will be kept to the minimum considered necessary to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters immediately before, during, and after the scheduled events.
The OPSAIL 2000 vessels are scheduled to arrive at Anchorage 9 (Mantua Creek anchorage) on June 22, 2000. The lead vessel is scheduled to begin the Parade of Sail at 9 a.m. on June 23, 2000, and will follow a parade route of approximately 8 nautical miles from that anchorage, upriver to the Benjamin Franklin Bridge. Two larger OPSAIL 2000 vessels which are unable to sail under the Walt Whitman Bridge will depart the Parade of Sail in the vicinity of the Schuylkill River and be berthed at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. The remainder of the OPSAIL 2000 vessels will be berthed along the Philadelphia, PA and Camden, NJ waterfronts as they complete the Parade of Sail.
The safety of parade participants and spectators will require that spectator craft be kept at a safe distance from the parade route during these vessel movements. The Coast Guard will be using safety zones along the parade route to keep all vessels not involved in the Parade of Sail a safe distance from the OPSAIL 2000 vessels. The parade route has been segmented in this rulemaking to facilitate the earliest possible reopening of the waterway once all OPSAIL 2000 vessels have cleared a particular segment of the route, but portions of the Delaware River will remain closed to all traffic until all of the OPSAIL 2000 vessels are safely moored at their assigned berths or have departed the event area.
The Coast Guard is temporarily modifying the existing anchorage regulations found at 33 CFR 110.157 to accommodate OPSAIL 2000 and spectator vessels. Anchorage 9 will be closed to all vessels except OPSAIL 2000 vessels that will be using it as the staging area for the Parade of Sail. Vessels will not be allowed to anchor in Anchorage 10 and Anchorage 11 to enable spectator vessels to safely follow the Parade of Sail. The southern portion of Anchorage 13, and the northern portion of Anchorage 12 will be closed because they are in the portion of the river that the OPSAIL 2000 vessels will be using to maneuver in preparation of mooring. The southern portion of Anchorage 12 will be designated exclusively for spectator vessels.
We did not receive any comments on the proposed rule. No changes were made to the proposed rule.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979).
We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.
The primary impact of these regulations will be on vessels wishing to transit the affected waterways during the Parade of Sail on June 23, 2000. Although these regulations prevent traffic from transiting portions of the Delaware River during the event, that restriction is limited in duration, affects only a limited area, and will be well publicized to allow mariners to make alternative plans for transiting the affected area. Moreover, the magnitude of the event itself will severely hamper or prevent transit of the waterway, even absent these regulations designed to ensure it is conducted in a safe and orderly fashion.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to operate or anchor in portions of the Delaware River in the vicinity of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The regulations will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities for the
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. No requests for assistance in understanding this rule were received.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of the Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13132 and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal Government's having first provided the funds to pay those costs. This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
We considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under
Anchorage grounds.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071; 49 CFR 1.46 and 33 CFR 1.05-1(g).
(d) Not withstanding paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, the following temporary regulations are in effect from 8 a.m. on June 22, 2000 until 4 p.m. on June 23, 2000 for OPSAIL 2000.
(1) Anchorage 9 will be closed to all vessels except OPSAIL 2000 vessels. “OPSAIL 2000 vessels” includes all vessels participating in Operation Sail 2000 under the auspices of the Marine Event Permit submitted for the Port of Philadelphia and approved by the Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
(2) No vessel may anchor in Anchorage 10, or Anchorage 13 south of the Benjamin Franklin Bridge, without permission of the Captain of the Port.
(3) No vessel may anchor in Anchorage 11 after 1 a.m. on June 23, 2000 without permission of the Captain of the Port.
(4) Anchorage 12:
(i) No vessel may anchor north of latitude 39°55′41″ N without permission of the Captain of the Port.
(ii) South of latitude 39° 55′ 41″ N is designated for the exclusive use of spectator vessels. “Spectator vessels” includes any vessel, commercial or recreational, being used for pleasure or carrying passengers, that is in the Port of Philadelphia to observe part or all of the events attendant to OPSAIL 2000.
33 U.S.C. 1225 and 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46. Section 165.100 is also issued under authority of Sec. 311, Pub. L. 105-383.
(a)
(2)
(3)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(c)
(2) No person or vessel may enter or navigate within these regulated areas unless authorized to do so by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Any person or vessel authorized to enter the regulated area must operate in strict conformance with any directions given by the Captain of the Port and leave the regulated area immediately if the Coast Guard Patrol Commander so orders.
(3) The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted on VHF Marine Band Radio, channels 13 and 16. The Captain of the Port can be contacted at telephone number (215) 271-4940.
(4) The Coast Guard Patrol Commander will notify the public of changes in the status of these zones by Marine Safety Radio Broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio, channel 22 (157.1 MHZ).
(d)
Postal Service.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the Rules of Practice in Proceedings Relative to False Representation and Lottery Orders to establish administrative procedures for issuing subpoenas and imposing the statutorily authorized civil penalties in proceedings conducted under 39 U.S.C. 3005(a).
May 22, 2000.
Diane M. Mego, Esq., (703) 812-1905.
On March 14, 2000, the Postal Service published in the
Comments on the proposed rule were due on or before April 13, 2000. Two comments were received. One commenter was concerned that the proposed time limits for requesting a subpoena do not give the subpoenaed party a reasonable opportunity to comply with a document request or to appear at the hearing. The proposed time limits are consistent with the time limits already provided in part 952 and, therefore, have not been revised in this final rule. However, the rule recognizes the possibility that further time may be needed, and the presiding officer, at his discretion, may waive the time limits in the appropriate circumstances.
The other commenter, however, believed that the language allowing the presiding officer to exercise his discretion in granting subpoenas outside the proposed time limits improperly created standardless discretion in the presiding officer that could violate the subpoenaed individual's due process rights. Contrary to the commenter's belief, the rule could never be fashioned to cover every possibility that could arise throughout a proceeding. Granting the presiding officer the right to exercise his discretion protects the parties' rights by allowing the presiding officer to conduct each proceeding fairly. Therefore, the discretion language has been adopted as proposed.
The second commenter was also concerned that the proposed rule exceeds the authority granted by the Act by allowing the presiding officer to issue the subpoena, permitting the Judicial Officer to seek enforcement of a subpoena, and not providing sufficient oversight for the issuance of subpoenas.
Two of the comments concern the right to delegate authority. The commenter questions authorizing the presiding officer to issue subpoenas when 39 U.S.C. 3016(a)(2) gives that authority to the Judicial Officer. The commenter points out that the Act specifies that the Postmaster General may delegate the subpoena authority in investigations, but does not contain similar provisions applicable to the Judicial Officer. The language relied on by the commenter with respect to investigative subpoenas appears to be a specific limitation on the right to delegate, however, rather than a grant of authority to delegate. By limiting the authority to approve a subpoena during an investigation to only the Postmaster General, the General Counsel or Deputy General Counsel, the Act assures that the subpoena authority remains with a high-level official. Absent a specific, legislative intent to limit the Judicial Officer's ability to delegate his authority, the subpoena authority is impliedly delegable to the presiding officer, a high-level and independent official under his supervision.
The commenter also questions the authority of the Judicial Officer to seek enforcement of a subpoena when 39 U.S.C. 3016(c)(1) gives that authority to the Postmaster General. However, the ability of the Postmaster General to delegate this enforcement authority is not limited by the statute. Further, the Postmaster General would be considered one of the parties to any proceeding conducted under part 952. Therefore, it makes sense that the authority to seek enforcement of a subpoena should be delegated to the Judicial Officer absent a specific limitation on that authority by Congress.
The final comment concerns the form and issuance of the subpoena. The commenter was concerned that the proposed language did not offer sufficient oversight of the subpoena process by allowing the presiding officer to enter the name of the witness and sign the subpoena, but otherwise allow the requesting party to complete the subpoena before service. The proposed rules provide sufficient oversight by requiring the requesting party to “state the reasonable scope and general relevance to the case of the testimony and any records sought,” which provides initial review by the presiding officer, and by allowing a motion to quash, which gives the presiding officer a further review if necessary. Furthermore, issuing subpoenas signed but otherwise in blank is a standard
With regard to the effective date, the Postal Service has determined that there is good cause to make the new regulations effective upon publication. The public interest in the enforcement of consumer protection laws would not be served by delaying the application of subpoena requirements to persons who are subject to false representation or lottery proceedings under 39 U.S.C. 3005(a).
The Postal Service hereby adopts the following amendments to 39 CFR part 952.
Administrative practice and procedure, False representations, Fraud, Lotteries, Penalties, Postal Service.
39 U.S.C. 204, 401, 3005, 3012, 3016.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(b)
(1) To cooperate and make available witnesses and evidence under its control as requested by the other party, without issuance of a subpoena, and
(2) To secure voluntary production of desired third-party records whenever possible.
(c)
(i) At the same time a request for deposition is filed; or
(ii) 15 days before a scheduled hearing where the attendance of a witness at a hearing is sought.
(2) A request for a subpoena shall state the reasonable scope and general relevance to the case of the testimony and of any records sought.
(3) The presiding officer, in his discretion, may honor requests for subpoenas not made within the time limitations specified in this paragraph.
(d)
(1) Quash or modify the subpoena if it is unreasonable and oppressive or for other good cause shown, or
(2) require the person in whose behalf the subpoena was issued to advance the reasonable cost of producing subpoenaed records. Where circumstances require, the presiding officer may act upon such a request at any time after a copy has been served upon the opposing party.
(e)
(2) The party at whose instance a subpoena is issued shall be responsible for the payment of fees and mileage of the witness and of the officer who serves the subpoena. The failure to make payment of such charges on demand may be deemed by the presiding officer as sufficient ground for striking the testimony of the witness and the evidence the witness has produced.
(f)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(i) Delivering a duly executed copy thereof to any partner, executive officer, managing agent, or general agent thereof, or to any agent thereof authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process on behalf of such partnership, corporation, association, or entity;
(ii) Delivering a duly executed copy thereof to the principal office or place of business of the partnership, corporation, association, or entity; or
(iii) Depositing such copy in the United States mails, by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, duly addressed to such partnership,
(5)
(i) delivering a duly executed copy to the person to be served; or
(ii) depositing such copy in the United States mails, by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, duly addressed to such person at his residence or principal office or place of business.
(6)
(g)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
We are approving a site-specific revision to the Minnesota particulate matter (PM) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for LTV Steel Mining Company (LTV), formerly known as Erie Mining Company, located in St. Louis County, Minnesota. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) submitted this SIP revision on September 29, 1998 in response to a request from LTV that EPA remove the Stipulation Agreement for Erie Mining Company from the State SIP. The rationale for the approval and other information are provided in this notice.
This action is effective on July 21, 2000 without further notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comments by June 21, 2000. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Written comments may be mailed to: Carlton Nash, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for inspection during normal business hours at the above address. (Please telephone Christos Panos at (312) 353-8328, before visiting the Region 5 office.)
Christos Panos, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Air and Radiation Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8328.
This supplementary information section is organized as follows:
We are approving MPCA's September 29, 1998 request for a site-specific revision to the Minnesota PM SIP. Specifically, we are approving the removal of the Stipulation Agreement for LTV Steel Mining Company, formerly known as Erie Mining Company, from the State PM SIP.
The State requested that EPA remove the Stipulation Agreement from the SIP because the Agreement was initially submitted as a SIP to: (a) Provide a variance from state SIP rules for three years; and (b) provide a mechanism to make the 90 percent control efficiency federally enforceable. In its submittal, MPCA concludes that the Stipulation Agreement was satisfied on LTV's part because the source modified their air pollution control equipment to achieve 90 percent control efficiency, tested the furnaces, and submitted opacity data to support a higher opacity limit during the specified time frame. Further, MPCA did not act on the adjusted opacity limit provided for in the Stipulation Agreement by not issuing a facility permit which would have finalized a revised opacity limitation.
At the time of the approval of the Stipulation Agreement, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter were based on the total suspended particulates (TSP) indicator. On July 1, 1987 EPA replaced TSP as the indicator for the PM ambient standard with a new indicator that includes only those particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers.
We are approving the current SIP submittal as a Direct Final
Further, although section 193 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (November 15, 1990) requires equivalent or greater emission reductions for modifications to control requirements in effect before the date of enactment of the 1990 Amendments, this requirement does not apply in this case because the area is designated attainment for PM and the Stipulation Agreement was not required for a nonattainment area plan. Additional information is available in our November 30, 1999 Technical Support Document (TSD).
On February 20, 1981 the State submitted to EPA a Stipulation Agreement for LTV as a revision to Minnesota's total suspended particulates (TSP) SIP. Emissions from 27 furnaces at LTV, located in St. Louis County, Minnesota, (designated a TSP attainment area), exceeded the State's opacity and particulate matter limitations. Therefore, MPCA and LTV entered into a Stipulation Agreement which would allow LTV to exceed the requirements of the State rules until December 31, 1983.
The Stipulation Agreement required LTV to implement a control strategy which would provide for 90 percent control, 5 percent more than required by the State rules, by December 31, 1983. An opacity limit was also to be
In this rulemaking action, EPA approves the removal of the Stipulation Agreement for LTV Steel Mining Company, formerly known as Erie Mining Company, from the State PM SIP. The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or allowing or establishing a precedent for any future implementation plan. Each request for revision to the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”
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, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to 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 officials 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. This action does not involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
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 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, because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order 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 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
Under sections 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 costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the 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 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. section 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 July 21, 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, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(53) On September 29, 1998, the State of Minnesota submitted a site-specific revision to the particulate matter (PM) SIP for LTV Steel Mining Company (LTV), formerly known as Erie Mining Company, located in St. Louis County, Minnesota. This SIP revision was submitted in response to a request from LTV that EPA remove the Stipulation Agreement for Erie Mining Company from the State SIP, as was approved by EPA in paragraph (c)(18) of this section. Accordingly the Stipulation Agreement for Erie Mining Company referenced in paragraph (c)(18) of this section is removed from the SIP without replacement.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; correction.
On April 12, 1999 (64 FR 17548), EPA published a direct final action approving revisions to the Iowa State Implementation Plan (SIP). This document makes corrections to the table of EPA-Approved Iowa Regulations. The state effective date is corrected to read May 13, 1998, and notations are added to or deleted from the “Comments” column.
This final rule is effective May 22, 2000.
Wayne Kaiser at (913) 551-7603.
In the part 52 table in subpart Q, § 52.820(c), which accompanied the April 12, 1999, document, the “state effective date” was listed as May 3, 1998. This action corrects the “state effective date” for all the rules listed, for which there has not been a subsequent revision and more current effective date, to May 13, 1998. Additionally, for rule 20.2, information has been added in the “Comments” column which specifies that certain portions of the rule are not SIP approved. Finally, we are deleting the notation in the “Comments” column for rule 25.1, which indicated that paragraph 25.1(12) was not SIP approved. All of rule 25.1 is SIP approved.
Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B),
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator 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
In reviewing SIP submissions, our role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), we have no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, we have taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the Executive Order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The EPA approves revisions to the South Dakota State implementation plan (SIP) which update the State's incorporation by reference of the Federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). The SIP revisions were submitted by the designee of the Governor of South Dakota on May 2, 1997 and on May 6, 1999. The State adopts the Federal NSPS by reference in subchapter 74:36:07 of the Administrative Rules of South Dakota (ARSD). The State also repealed a rule that required stack tests for asphalt batch plants, aside from the initial stack test required by the NSPS, to be performed if certain conditions existed. EPA approves the revisions to the ARSD 74:36:07 because the revisions are consistent with Federal regulations. This approval action does not extend to sources in Indian country.
This rule is effective on June 21, 2000.
Copies of the documents relative to this action are available for inspection during normal business hours at the Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466. Copies of the State documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection at the Air Quality Program, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Joe Foss Building, 523 East Capitol, Pierre, South Dakota 57501. Documents which are incorporated by reference are available for public inspection at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
Vicki Stamper, EPA Region VIII, (303) 312-6445.
We approve two revisions to the South Dakota's NSPS regulations in subchapter 74:36:07 of the ARSD, except for those sources located in Indian country. These revisions were submitted for approval as part of the SIP on May 2, 1997 and on May 6, 1999.
The State's May 2, 1997 and May 6, 1999 SIP submittals included revisions to other subchapters of the ARSD. We acted on most of those revisions submitted on May 2, 1997 in an October 19, 1998 rulemaking (see 63 FR 55804-55807). In this document, we only act on the revisions to ARSD 74:36:07. We will act on the revisions to the other subchapters of the ARSD included in these submittals in separate rulemakings.
EPA proposed to approve these revisions to South Dakota's NSPS in subchapter 74:36:07 of the ARSD in the September 21, 1999
In South Dakota's May 2, 1995 SIP submittal, the State adopted four new NSPS categories in subchapter 74:36:07 of the ARSD. Specifically, the State incorporated by reference the following subparts of the Federal NSPS in 40 CFR part 60 as in effect on July 1, 1995 unless otherwise stated: subpart Eb (pertaining to large municipal waste combustors) as promulgated by EPA on December 19, 1995 (59 FR 65419-65436); 40 CFR part 60, subpart RRR (pertaining to the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry reactor processes); 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU (pertaining to calciners and dryers in mineral industries); and 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW (pertaining to municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills) as promulgated by EPA on March 12, 1996 (61 FR 9918-29). The State also updated its existing NSPS subparts to incorporate by reference the July 1, 1995 version of the Federal NSPS.
In South Dakota's May 6, 1999 SIP submittal, the State adopted one new NSPS subpart in subchapter 74:36:07 of the ARSD: 40 CFR 60, subpart Ec (pertaining to hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators) as promulgated by EPA on September 15, 1997 (62 FR 48383-48390). The State also updated its incorporated by reference of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Eb (pertaining to municipal waste combustors) to reflect the version in effect as of July 1, 1997, and also updated its incorporation by reference of 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW (pertaining to MSW landfills) to reflect the version as revised on June 16, 1998 (63 FR 32750-32753). Last, the State repealed its additional provisions for asphalt batch plants in Section 74:36:07:11 of the ARSD. This section previously required stack tests at asphalt batch plants, aside from the initial stack test required by the NSPS, if certain conditions existed. The State repealed this section because it was repetitive with recent changes to the ARSD. The State still has the ability to require stack performance tests at any time to determine compliance with emission limits.
EPA approves these revisions to South Dakota's NSPS in ARSD 74:36:07 because the revisions ensure that the State's NSPS are up to date with the Federal NSPS.
We also believe the State met EPA's completeness criteria, including the public participation requirements of sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) of the Clean Air Act, for the adoption of these revisions to ARSD 74:36:07. Specifically, the State of South Dakota held a public hearing on November 20, 1996, after providing notice to the public, for the revisions to the ARSD submitted to EPA on May 2, 1997. For the SIP revisions submitted to EPA on May 6, 1999, the State held a public hearing on February 18, 1999, after providing notice to the public.
We publish a table in 40 CFR 60.4 for Region VIII States that identify which NSPS subparts have been adopted by the States and delegated and approved by EPA. In this document, we update that table to reflect the NSPS subparts delegated to South Dakota. We are also updating the address listed for the State of South Dakota in 40 CFR 60.4.
South Dakota is not authorized to carry out its NSPS program in Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. This includes, but is not limited to:
Lands within the exterior boundaries of the following Indian Reservations located within the State of South Dakota:
EPA held a public hearing on December 2, 1999, in Badlands National Park, South Dakota, and accepted public comments on the question of the location and extent of Indian country within the State of South Dakota. EPA also received written comments on the question of the location and extent of Indian country pursuant to our September 21, 1999 notice of proposed approval of South Dakota's NSPS revisions. In a forthcoming
We approve these revisions to South Dakota's NSPS in ARSD 74:36:07 because the revisions ensure that the State's NSPS are up to date with the Federal NSPS. However, our approval of these South Dakota SIP revisions does not extend to sources located in Indian Country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 and as further discussed in Section V. of this document.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator 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
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801
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 July 21, 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, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Air pollution control, Aluminum, ammonium sulfate plants, Beverages, Carbon monoxide, Cement industry, Coal, Copper, Drycleaners, Electric power plants, Fertilizers, Fluoride, Gasoline, Glass and glass products, Grains, Graphic arts industry, Household appliances, Insulation, Intergovernmental relations, Iron, Lead, Lime, Metallic and nonmetallic mineral processing plants, Metals, Motor vehicles, Natural gas, Nitric acid plants, Nitrogen dioxide, Paper and paper products industry, Particulate matter, Paving and roofing materials, Petroleum, Phosphate, Plastics materials and synthetics, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sewage disposal, Steel, Sulfur oxides, Tires,
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(18) On May 2, 1997 and on May 6, 1999, the designee of the Governor of South Dakota submitted revisions to the new source performance standards in subchapter 74:36:07 of the Administrative Rules of South Dakota (ARSD).
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Revisions to the Administrative Rules of South Dakota, Air Pollution Control Program, Chapter 74:36:07—New Source Performance Standards, subsections 74:36:07:01 through 74:36:07:10, 74:36:07:12 through 74:36:07:28, 74:36:07:31 through 74:36:07:33, and 74:36:07:43, effective December 29, 1996.
(B) Revisions to the Administrative Rules of South Dakota, Air Pollution Control Program, Chapter 74:36:07—New Source Performance Standards, subsections 74:36:07:06.02, 74:36:07:07.01, 74:36:07:11, and 74:36:07:43, effective April 4, 1999.
42 U.S.C. 7401-7601.
a. Revising the address listed for the State of South Dakota in paragraph (b)(QQ); and
b. In the table in paragraph (c) entitled “Delegation Status of New Source Performance Standards [(NSPS) for Region VIII]” by revising the entries for “Eb—Large Municipal Waste Combustors,” “Ec—Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators,” “UUU—Calciners and Dryers in Mineral Industries,” and “WWW—Municipal Solid Waste Landfills'; and removing the existing entry for “RRR—VOC Emissions from Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Reactor Process”and adding a new entry for “RRR—VOC Emissions from Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Reactor Processes” to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(QQ) State of South Dakota, Air Quality Program, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Joe Foss Building, 523 East Capitol, Pierre, SD 57501-3181.
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This action amends the operating permits regulations of EPA. Those regulations were originally promulgated on July 21, 1992. These amendments will extend up to December 1, 2001 all operating permits program interim approvals. This action will allow the time needed for permitting authorities to correct all remaining interim approval deficiencies and obtain full approval for their operating permits programs.
The regulatory amendments announced herein take effect on May 31, 2000. For those programs whose interim
Roger Powell, Mail Drop 12, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 (telephone 919-541-5331, e-mail: powell.roger@epa.gov).
On February 14, 2000, EPA published in the
The EPA did receive an adverse comment on the direct final rulemaking within the comment deadline. Accordingly, EPA published a
If an operating permits program administered by a State or local permitting authority under title V of the Clean Air Act (Act) does not fully meet, but does “substantially [meet],” the requirements of part 70, EPA may grant that program “interim approval.” Permits granted under an interim approval are fully effective and expire at the end of their fixed term, unless renewed under a part 70 program. See 40 CFR 70.4(d)(2). Many State and local permitting programs have been granted interim approval, with most final interim approval actions having occurred in 1995 and 1996. See 40 CFR part 70, Appendix A. To obtain full approval, a permitting authority must submit to EPA program revisions to correct all deficiencies that caused the operating permits program to receive interim approval. Such submittal must be made no later than 6 months prior to the expiration of the interim approval. See 40 CFR 70.4(f)(2).
On August 29, 1994 (59 FR 44460) and August 31, 1995 (60 FR 45530), EPA proposed revisions to its part 70 operating permits program regulations. Primarily, the proposals addressed changes to the system for revising permits, but a number of other proposed changes were also included. The preamble to the August 31, 1995 proposal noted the concern of many permitting authorities over having to revise their operating permits programs twice; once to correct interim approval deficiencies, and again to address the revisions to part 70. In the August 1995 preamble, the Agency proposed that States with interim approval “* * * should be allowed to delay the submittal of any program revisions to address program deficiencies previously listed in their notice of interim approval until the deadline to submit other changes required by the proposed revisions to part 70” (60 FR 45552).
On October 31, 1996 (61 FR 56368), EPA amended 40 CFR 70.4(d)(2) to permit the Administrator to grant extensions to interim approval expiration dates to allow permitting authorities the opportunity to combine program revisions directed at the correction of interim approval deficiencies as well as the adoption of the part 70 revisions. In this rulemaking, all interim approvals granted prior to the date of issuance of a memorandum announcing EPA's position on this issue (memorandum from Lydia N. Wegman to Regional Division Directors, “Extension of Interim Approvals of Operating Permits Programs,” June 13, 1996) were granted 10 month extensions from their different respective expiration dates.
The EPA then extended interim approval expiration dates for certain State and local permitting programs a second time, on August 29, 1997 (62 FR 45732). On July 27, 1998, EPA published a direct final rulemaking extending interim approval expiration dates a third time, this time covering all interim approved programs, until June 1, 2000. In each of these instances, delays in the expected promulgation of the final part 70 revisions past the previous interim approval expiration dates led EPA to grant the further extensions of the expiration deadlines. The Agency intended these extensions to provide State and local agencies time to apply to combine their program revisions and to allow EPA to take action on those requests.
Following discussions with various stakeholders and further deliberations concerning the revisions to the part 70 regulations, EPA is in the process of preparing a supplemental proposal to take comment on a series of possible part 70 revisions that arose out of those discussions and deliberations. The Agency anticipates publishing this supplemental proposal in the
To prevent interim approvals from expiring on June 1, 2000, and to enable permitting authorities to defer correction of interim approval deficiencies until their adoption of the expected part 70 revisions, EPA published a direct final rule on February 14, 2000 to extend all interim approval expiration dates until June 1, 2002 (65 FR 7290). Simultaneously, EPA published an accompanying proposal, also to extend interim approval expiration dates until June 1, 2002 (65 FR 7333).
The comment period for the February 14, 2000 proposal expired on March 15, 2000. During the comment period, EPA received two comment letters addressing that proposal.
The first commenter apparently misunderstood the mechanisms for allowing permitting authorities to combine program revisions. The comment addressed the fact that an interim approval expiration date of June 1, 2002 did not allow enough time to prepare program changes to address the expected revisions to part 70, which was projected for promulgation in late 2001.
The preamble of the direct final rulemaking on February 14, 2000 explained that after part 70 was revised, another interim approval expiration date extension of either 18 months or 2 years from the date of rulemaking revising part 70 would be available to
Prior extensions and the June 13, 1996 memorandum referenced above have been predicated upon the understanding that permitting authorities wishing to combine program revisions to meet the revised part 70 with program revisions to correct remaining interim approval deficiencies, were to request, within 30 days of promulgation of the part 70 revisions, an additional 18 month or 2 year extension of their interim approval deadline (65 FR 7291-7292). Accordingly, neither the direct final rule nor the proposal was intended to grant across-the-board extensions to interim approval deadlines sufficiently past the expected promulgation date of the part 70 revisions to allow the full cycle of State and local program revisions, submissions, and EPA approvals to occur.
The second commenter asserted that EPA's proposed action is contrary to the express terms of the Act and must be withdrawn. The commenter referred to Section 502(g) of the Act, which provides that “[a]n interim approval under [Section 502(g)] shall expire on a date set by the Administrator not later than 2 years after such approval, and may not be renewed.”
This commenter further argued that the existing 40 CFR 70.4(d)(2) does not justify an extension of interim approval deadlines until June 1, 2002. The commenter stated that to the extent that § 70.4(d)(2) allowed an extension of interim approvals by up to 10 months on an individual basis, EPA had already granted this 10-month extension in the October 31, 1996 rulemaking and that, at any rate, the proposed extension to June 1, 2002 was longer than 10 months.
This commenter also asserted that to the extent § 70.4(d)(2) allowed longer interim approval periods for States to combine program changes, this provision did not justify the proposed extension to June 1, 2002 because § 70.4(d)(2) contemplated such extensions only after the promulgation of part 70 revisions, which has not occurred. Moreover, the commenter noted that this provision authorized additional time “only once per State” and that EPA had already granted multiple extensions in the past.
Finally, the commenter argued that the continuing extension of interim approvals does not represent sound policy. That commenter stated that the deficiencies in State programs that warranted EPA granting interim, rather than full, approval often involved important substantive issues. Moreover, the commenter argued that no real hardship would be suffered by States required to undertake more than one program revision, noting that States regularly revise their regulations and statutes as part of the State implementation plan process. Finally, the commenter argued that any pursuit of administrative convenience could not override statutory requirements and the purpose of the permit program.
In consideration of these comments, and taking into account the further delays in promulgating the revisions to part 70 and the need for a supplemental part 70 proposal, EPA is abandoning the concept of allowing program revisions to correct interim approval deficiencies to be combined with program revisions necessary to conform to the provisions of expected future revisions to part 70. The Agency concludes that it is no longer appropriate to continue extending interim approval expiration dates in furtherance of this combination approach.
Notwithstanding the repeated extensions of interim approvals, EPA has, in the preambles to those previous extensions, consistently encouraged permitting authorities to correct their remaining interim approval deficiencies and not await promulgation of the part 70 revisions. Indeed, a number of State and local permitting authorities have corrected their deficiencies and have either received full approval or submitted corrections to EPA to gain full approval. Most permitting authorities with interim approved programs, however, have not corrected all remaining deficiencies.
The EPA also is aware of programs that have undertaken rulemakings during their interim approval period to correct some but not all outstanding deficiencies, with some deficiencies remaining that are unrelated to the expected part 70 revisions. Moreover, further inquiry has demonstrated that the significant majority of remaining interim approval deficiencies are unrelated to the issues addressed by the revisions proposed to part 70, with most deficiencies not being altered or affected by expected revisions to part 70. Accordingly, EPA believes it is appropriate to require correction of all interim approval deficiencies without regard to the possible future promulgation of the part 70 revisions.
At the same time, for State and local programs to have the opportunity to correct all interim approval deficiencies, and to provide EPA the opportunity to act on these submittals, this rulemaking extends the interim approval expiration deadline until December 1, 2001. Under part 70, State and local permitting authorities must submit corrections of all remaining interim approval deficiencies by no later than 6 months prior to this deadline, namely by no later than June 1, 2001, for EPA to treat these submissions as timely.
The Agency believes it is necessary to extend interim approval expiration deadlines until December 1, 2001 both to ensure that permitting authorities have the opportunity to correct remaining deficiencies, and to ensure that title V permit programs continue to be implemented effectively by State and local permitting authorities. The Agency believes that State and local agencies are well equipped to continue effective administration and enforcement of operating permits programs, and to ensure the issuance of permits designed to serve the important compliance benefits of the Act.
In the absence of the extension granted in this rulemaking, interim approved programs would expire on June 1, 2000, automatically placing into effect the part 71 Federal operating permits program for 88 State and local permitting authorities. This outcome would only hinder the effort to issue operating permits and bring about the important benefits of permits, since sources without already issued part 70 permits in those jurisdictions newly subject to the part 71 Federal operating permits program would need to re-apply for part 71 permits within 1 year after the June 1, 2000 effective date. Consequently, those sources would not be issued operating permits until well after the time they would have been under a preserved part 70 program.
Finally, EPA is well aware that many permitting authorities with interim approved programs have not undertaken program revisions to correct their remaining deficiencies under the expectation that an extension past the June 1, 2000 deadline would be granted to allow the opportunity to combine their program revisions as previously discussed. Accordingly, today's action prevents the disruption that would occur from imposing the Federal permitting program on affected State and local agencies on relatively short notice. At the same time, EPA is hereby providing clear notice that to avoid having their programs expire and be replaced by the Federal permitting program, permitting authorities must
Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.A., 551-59, 701-06) requires that EPA allow at least 30 days from the publication of a substantive rule before it becomes effective unless EPA determines there is good cause for a shorter deadline. The primary purpose of the delayed effective date is to give citizens a reasonable time to prepare to comply with, or take other action regarding, a rule. The Agency has determined that good cause exists for making this rulemaking effective on May 31, 2000 since delaying the effective date of the rulemaking would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, and lead to serious dislocation in government programs.
The compelling argument for making this rulemaking effective on May 31, 2000 is that it must take effect before June 1, 2000 or it will fail to fulfill its intended function to prevent interim approval programs from expiring and being replaced by the Federal permitting program. On June 1, 2000, all interim approvals will expire and cannot be re-established after that date. As discussed above, expiration of State and local interim approved programs would frustrate the ongoing implementation of the title V permits program by permitting authorities and be contrary to the public interest. It would also force currently un-permitted sources to resubmit permit applications at the Federal level, even though they would have otherwise soon obtained State-issued permits. In light of the scale of such a disruption to State programs, it would be impracticable for EPA to be able to undertake substitute permitting responsibilities on such an expeditious basis to make up for the lost time. Finally, having to assume permitting responsibilities would also divert EPA resources from efforts to assist State and local agencies in correcting their programs, and from EPA's recent commencement of the Federal permitting program for sources located in Indian country.
The docket for this regulatory action is A-93-50. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information submitted to, or otherwise considered by, EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The principal purposes of the docket are: (1) To allow interested parties a means to identify and locate documents so that the parties can effectively participate in the rulemaking process and (2) to serve as the record in case of judicial review (except for interagency review materials). The docket is available for public inspection at EPA's Air Docket, which is listed under the
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether each regulatory action is “significant,” and therefore subject to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the Order. The Order defines “significant” regulatory action as one that is likely to lead to a rule that may:
1. Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.
2. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.
3. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligation of recipients thereof.
4. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that this action is not a “significant” regulatory action because it does not substantially change the existing part 70 requirements for States or sources; requirements which have already undergone OMB review. Rather than impose any new requirements, this action only extends an existing deferral of those requirements. As such, this action is exempted from OMB review.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In developing the original part 70 regulations, the Agency determined that they would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Similarly, the same conclusion was reached in an initial regulatory flexibility analysis performed in support of the proposed part 70 revisions (a subset of which constitutes the action in this rulemaking). This action does not substantially alter the part 70 regulations as they pertain to small entities and accordingly will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Rather, it leaves existing State and local permitting programs in place, whereas absence of EPA action would cause them to expire and be replaced by a new Federal permitting program.
The OMB has approved the information collection requirements contained in part 70 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
The EPA has determined that the action in this rulemaking does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, in any one year. Although the part 70 regulations governing State operating permit programs impose significant Federal mandates, this action does not amend the part 70 regulations in a way that significantly alters the expenditures resulting from these mandates. Therefore, the Agency concludes that it is not required by section 202 of the UMRA of 1995 to provide a written statement to accompany this regulatory action.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1977), applies to any rule that EPA determines (1) Is “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 final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and it does not address an environmental health or safety risk that would have a disproportionate effect on children.
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under 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.
If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their concerns and the agency's position supporting the need to issue the regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA must include a certification from the agency's Federalism Official stating that EPA has met the requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely manner.
This rule change 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. This rule change will not create new requirements but will only extend an existing deferral to allow permitting authorities to more efficiently revise their operating permits programs. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to OMB, 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 officials 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.”
This rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments because it applies only to State and local permitting programs. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Operating permits.
1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401,
Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
The Acting Director of Defense Procurement has issued a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to remove obsolete definitions pertaining to research and development efforts. The rule replaces the obsolete definitions with a reference to the current definitions pertaining to research and development found in the DoD Financial Management Regulation.
May 22, 2000.
Ms. Susan Schneider, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, PDUSD(AT&L)DP(DAR), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone (703) 602-0326; telefax (703) 602-0350. Please cite DFARS Case 2000-D401.
This final rule revises DFARS 235.001 to remove obsolete definitions pertaining to research and development and to replace the definitions with a reference to those in the DoD Financial Management Regulation (DoD 7000.14-R).
This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.
This final rule does not constitute a significant revision within the meaning of FAR 1.501 and Public Law 98-577 and publication for public comment is not required. However, DoD will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subpart in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should cite DFARS Case 2000-D401.
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Government procurement.
41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.
“Research and development” means those efforts described by the Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) budget activity definitions found in the DoD Financial Management Regulation (DoD 7000.14-R), Volume 2B, Chapter 5.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
The Acting Director of Defense Procurement is adopting as final, without change, an interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement Section 2812 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. Section 2812 provides that DoD may enter into utility service contracts related to the conveyance of a utility system for periods not to exceed 50 years.
May 22, 2000.
Ms. Melissa Rider, Defense Acquisition
DoD published an interim rule at 65 FR 2058 on January 13, 2000. The rule added a new section at DFARS 241.103 to implement Section 2812 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65). Section 2812 amended 10 U.S.C. 2688 to provide authority for DoD to enter into utility service contracts related to the conveyance of a utility system for periods not to exceed 50 years. DoD received no public comments on the interim rule. The interim rule is converted to a final rule without change.
This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.
DoD certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Government procurement.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
The Acting Director of Defense Procurement has issued a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to remove the requirement for contractors to comply with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-73 when performing audit services for DoD. OMB rescinded Circular No. A-73 on May 22, 1995.
May 22, 2000.
Ms. Sandra Haberlin, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, PDUSD (AT&L) DP (DAR), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone (703) 602-0289; telefax (703) 602-0350. Please cite DFARS Case 2000-D007.
On March 7, 1995, OMB published a notice of proposed rescission of OMB Circular No. A-73, Audit of Federal Operations and Programs (60 FR 12581). The circular contained audit practices and extended the application of certain principles of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (Public Law 100-504) (IG Act) to Federal agencies not covered by the IG Act. The March 7, 1995 notice stated that the circular was unnecessary. The audit practices in the circular had become common practices throughout the Federal Government, and the IG Act had been expanded in 1988 to cover almost all Federal entities of significant size. The notice further stated that the rescission would take place on May 22, 1995, unless OMB received comments that raised significant concerns regarding the proposed rescission. OMB rescinded the circular on May 22, 1995.
Therefore, this final rule revises the clause at DFARS 252.237-7001, Compliance with Audit Standards, to remove the requirement for contractors performing audit services to comply with OMB Circular No. A-73.
This rule was not subject to OMB review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.
This final rule does not constitute a significant revision within the meaning of FAR 1.501 and Public Law 98-577 and publication for public comment is not required. However, DoD will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subpart in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should cite DFARS Case 2000-D007.
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Government procurement.
41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.)
As prescribed in 237.270(d)(2), use the following clause:
The Contractor, in performance of all audit services under this contract, shall comply with “Government Auditing Standards” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final 2000 fishing quotas for Atlantic surf clams, ocean quahogs, and Maine mahogany quahogs.
NMFS issues these final quotas for the Atlantic surf clam, ocean quahog, and Maine mahogany quahog fisheries for the 2000 fisheries. This action is necessary to comply with the regulations governing these fisheries that require NMFS to publish annual quotas for each species for each fishing year. The intent of this action is to specify allowable harvest levels of Atlantic surf clams and ocean quahogs from the exclusive economic zone and an allowable harvest level of Maine mahogany quahogs from the waters north of 43°50′N. latitude for the fishing year 2000.
Effective May 22, 2000 through December 31, 2000.
Copies of supporting documents including the Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA), and the Essential Fish Habitat Assessment are available from: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298. The EA/RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet at
Myles Raizin, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9104,
The Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog Fisheries (FMP) directs the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, in consultation with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), to specify quotas for surf clams and ocean quahogs on an annual basis from a range that represents the optimum yield (OY) for each fishery. It is the policy of the Council that the levels selected allow fishing to continue at that level for at least 10 years for surf clams and 30 years for ocean quahogs. While staying within this constraint, the Council policy is to also consider the economic benefits of the quotas. As specified in Amendment 10 to the FMP, the Maine mahogany quahog quota is in addition to the quota specified for the ocean quahog fishery.
Detailed background information regarding the development of these quotas was provided in the proposed rule published on January 4, 2000, (65 FR 275), and is not repeated here. The comment period for that rule ended on February 2, 2000. No comments were received, and the final quot as, unchanged from those in the proposed rule, are shown below.
This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under E.O. 12866.
Because this rule only establishes year-long quotas to be used for the sole purpose of closing the fishery when the quotas are reached and does not establish any requirements for which a regulated entity must come into compliance, it is unnecessary to delay for 30 days the effective date of this rule. Therefore, the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(5), finds good cause not to delay the effective date of this rule.
NMFS completed a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) that contains the items specified in 5 U.S.C. 604(a). The FRFA is as follows:
This rule is needed to establish allowable harvest levels of Atlantic surf clams and ocean quahogs from the exclusive economic zone and an allowable harvest level of Maine mahogany quahogs from the waters north of 43°50′N. lat. in 2000. The intent of this action is to comply with the regulations governing these fisheries that require the National Marine Fisheries Service to publish annual quotas for each species for each fishing year to conserve and manage the resource in compliance with the regulations, fishery management plan, and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
There were no public comments submitted in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA). No changes were made to the proposed rule.
In 1998, a total of 47 vessels reported harvesting surf clams or ocean quahogs from Federal waters under an Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) system. Average 1998 gross income for surf clam harvests was $65,919 per vessel, and $685,573 per vessel for ocean quahog harvests. In the small artisanal fishery for Maine mahogany quahogs in Maine, 39 vessels reported harvests in the clam logbooks, with an average value of $48,629 per boat. All of these vessels readily fall within the definition of a small business. From 9 to 12 processors participate in the surf clam and ocean quahog fisheries. However, 3 firms are responsible for the vast majority of purchases in the ex-vessel market and sale of processed clam products in appropriate wholesale markets. In 1999, surf clam allocation holders totaled 107
No additional costs of compliance, including those associated with recordkeeping and reporting, would result from the implementation of the selected or alternative quotas.
A review of the impacts identified by the regulatory flexibility analysis indicates that the impacts associated with the preferred alternative will not have significant economic impacts on small entities.
NMFS considered four alternatives to the selected 2000 surf clam quota. The selected quota and all alternatives fall within the range of OY established by the FMP. The selected quota (4.5 million bu (2.387 million hL)) is the same quota as was adopted for 1999, is 8 percent greater than the actual harvest in 1998 and so provides no restraint on the fishery, and may decrease ex-vessel prices due to a lessened demand in the fishery. There is a moderate risk that some allocation holders might not be able to market their share of the surf clam allocation. This risk is considered acceptable in order to provide a quota large enough to allow for some increase in demand for the product, while not setting it so high as to force some allocation holders out of business. There were two alternatives with quotas smaller than the one selected. The alternative with the smallest quota represents the minimum OY provided under the FMP (1.85 million bu (0.985 million hL)), a 22-percent decrease from the 1998 actual harvest. This quota was not selected because, at this quota level, the price per bushel would increase, however, overall revenues would fall because it is not likely the increased price would compensate for the reduction in amount of sales. The alternative with the same quota as the harvest level in 1998 actual harvest (2.365 million bu (1.259 million hL)) was not selected because it provided no opportunity for an increase in demand of surf clams, even though prices to fishermen for surf clams would likely be higher due to the restriction on the fishery. The alternatives with quotas larger than the selected quota (2.70 million bu (1.437 million hL) and 3.4 million bu (1.810 million hL)) representing a 14-percent increase from the 1998 actual catch and the maximum allowable quota allowed by the FMP would very likely depress ex-vessel prices. This would increase the risk of business failure for allocation holders not associated with a processor, as vertically integrated companies are expected to buy product from vessels using allocations they control before buying product outside the company.
NMFS considered four alternatives to the selected 2000 ocean quahog quota. The selected quota and all alternatives fall within the range of OY established by the FMP. The selected quota (4.5 million bu (2.396 million hL)), the same quota as was adopted for 1999, is 16 percent greater than the actual harvest in 1998 and so provides no restraint on the fishery. There is no expected change in ex-vessel prices in the fishery as a result of the quota. There were two alternatives with quotas smaller than the one selected. The alternative with the smallest quota represents the minimum OY provided under the FMP (4.0 million bu (2.130 million hL)), a 3-percent increase from the 1998 actual harvest. The next smaller quota alternative represents a 6-percent decrease from the 1999 quota, but a 9-percent increase from the actual harvest in 1998. Pending the outcome of additional assessments on the status of the resource to determine if reductions in the quota were indicated, and that none of these quotas was constraining to the current fishery, these alternatives were not selected. Two alternatives above the selected quota were also considered, 6.0 million bu (3.194 million hL), the maximum OY allowed by the FMP, and 4.75 million bu (2.529 million hL), a 6-percent increase from the 1999 quota and a 22-percent increase from the actual harvest in 1998. Both of these alternatives were not selected because of concerns that upcoming stock assessments might recommend reduced quotas and that the fishery would most likely not be able to utilize such and increase in the quota, anyway.
NMFS maintained the quota for the Maine mahogany quahog fishery at the 1999 level of 100,000 Maine bu (35,240 hL). Landings in 1998 totaled less than 75,000 Maine bu (26,430 hL) and 1999 landings were also expected to be less than the quota. Setting the quota at this level does not appear to either constrain the fishery or endanger the resource. Pending a survey of the resource in the Gulf of Maine, decreasing the quota in the face of steady catches under the quota would constrain the fishery to no purpose and increasing the quota when it could not likely be taken and without a scientific basis to do so is not justified.
A copy of the IRFA is available from the Northeast Regional Office (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
This rule would decrease the assessment rate for cherries that are utilized in the production of tart cherry products other than juice, juice concentrate, or puree from $0.00225 to $0.0017 per pound. It also would decrease the assessment rate for cherries utilized for juice, juice concentrate, or puree from $0.001125 to $0.00085 per pound. Both assessment rates are established for the Cherry Industry Administrative Board (Board) under Marketing Order No. 930 for the 2000-2001 and subsequent fiscal periods. The Board is responsible for local administration of the marketing order which regulates the handling of tart cherries grown in the production area. Authorization to assess tart cherry handlers enables the Board to incur expenses that are reasonable and necessary to administer the program. The fiscal period begins July 1 and ends June 30. The assessment rate would remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.
Comments must be received by June 21, 2000.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, room 2525-S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456; Fax: (202) 720-5698, or E-mail: moab.docketclerk@usda.gov. Comments should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue of the
Patricia A. Petrella or Kenneth G. Johnson, DC Marketing Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, Suite 5D03, Unit 155, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, Maryland 20737, telephone: (301) 734-5243; or George Kelhart, Technical Advisor, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, room 2525-S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456; telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-5698.
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room 2525-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456; telephone (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-5698, or E-mail: Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 930 (7 CFR part 930) regulating the handling of tart cherries grown in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The marketing agreement and order are effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (Department) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, tart cherry handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as issued herein would be applicable to all assessable tart cherries beginning July 1, 2000, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing the Secretary would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule would decrease the assessment rate established for the Board for the 2000-2001 and subsequent fiscal periods for cherries that are utilized in the production of tart cherry products other than juice, juice concentrate, or puree from $0.00225 to $0.0017 per pound of cherries. The assessment rate for cherries utilized for juice, juice concentrate, or puree would also be decreased from $0.001125 to $0.00085 per pound.
The tart cherry marketing order provides authority for the Board, with the approval of the Department, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Board are producers and handlers of tart cherries. They are familiar with the Board's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
For the 1999-2000 fiscal period, the Board recommended, and the Department approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended or terminated by the Secretary upon recommendation and information submitted by the Board or other information available to the Secretary.
The Board met on March 2, 2000, and unanimously recommended 2000-2001 expenditures of $455,000 and an assessment rate of $0.0017 per pound for cherries that are utilized in the production of tart cherry products other than juice, juice concentrate, or puree, and an assessment rate of $0.00085 per pound of cherries utilized for juice, juice concentrate, or puree. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $497,780. The assessment rates of $0.0017 and $0.00085 are lower than the rates currently in effect. The decreased assessment rates were recommended because the Board expects the 2000 crop to be large, wants to reduce handler costs, and wants to keep its monetary reserve within the authorized maximum of approximately one year's operational expenses specified in section 930.42(a) of the order. The decreased assessment rates together with funds from the Board's operating reserve and interest income are expected to generate enough income to meet the Board's reduced operating expenses in 2000-2001.
The major expenditures recommended by the Board for the 2000-2001 fiscal period include $175,000 for personnel, $120,000 for compliance, and $75,000 for Board meetings. Budgeted expenses for these items in 1999-2000 were $222,780 for personnel, $100,000 for Board meetings, and $100,000 for compliance.
The order provides that when an assessment rate based on the number of pounds of tart cherries handled is established, it should provide for differences in relative market values for various cherry products. The discussion of this provision in the order's promulgation record indicates that proponents testified that cherries utilized in high value products such as frozen, canned, or dried cherries should be assessed one rate while cherries used to make low value products such as juice concentrate or puree should be assessed at one-half that rate.
Data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) states that for 1998, tart cherry utilization for juice, wine, or brined uses was 28.3 million pounds for all districts covered under the order. The total processed amount for 1998 was 303.8 million pounds. Juice, wine, and brined tart cherries represented less than 10 percent of the total processed crop, and about 8 percent over the last three seasons (1996 through 1998).
In deriving the recommended assessment rates, the Board estimated assessable tart cherry production for the crop year at 260 million pounds. It further estimated that about 245 million pounds of the assessable poundage would be utilized in the production of high-valued products, like frozen, canned, or dried cherries, and that about 15 million pounds would be utilized in the production of low-valued products, like juice, juice concentrate, or puree. Potential assessment income from the high valued products would be approximately $416,500 (245 million pounds × $0.0017 per pound). The potential income from tart cherries utilized for juice, juice concentrate, or puree would be $12,750 (15 million pounds × $0.00085 per pound). Therefore, total assessment income for 2000-2001 is estimated at $429,250. This amount plus adequate funds in the reserve and interest income would be sufficient to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve (currently $300,000) would be kept within the approximately one year's operational expenses permitted by the order (7 CFR 930.42(a)).
The proposed assessment rates would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by the Secretary upon recommendation and information submitted by the Board or other available information.
Although the assessment rates would be in effect for an indefinite period, the Board would continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Board meetings are available from the Board or the Department. Board meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. The Department would evaluate Board recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Board's 2000-2001 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by the Department.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities and has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) would allow AMS to certify that regulations do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. However, as a matter of general policy, AMS' Fruit and Vegetable Programs (Programs) no longer opt for such certification, but rather perform regulatory flexibility analyses for any rulemaking that would generate the interest of a significant number of small entities. Performing such analyses shifts the Programs' efforts from determining whether regulatory flexibility analyses are required to the consideration of regulatory options and economic or regulatory impacts.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 900 producers of tart cherries in the production area and approximately 40 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers have been defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts less than $500,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $5,000,000. The majority of tart cherry producers and handlers may be classified as small entities.
This rule would decrease the assessment rate established for the Board and collected from handlers for the 2000-2001 and subsequent fiscal periods for cherries utilized in the production of tart cherry products other than juice, juice concentrate, or puree from $0.00225 to $0.0017 per pound, and the assessment rate for cherries utilized for juice, juice concentrate, or puree from $0.001125 to $0.00085 per pound. The Board unanimously recommended 2000-2001 expenditures of $455,000 and the reduced assessment rates. The quantity of assessable tart cherries for the 2000-2001 crop year is estimated at 260 million pounds. Assessment income, based on this crop, along with interest income and reserves would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.
The major expenditures recommended by the Board for the 2000-2001 fiscal period include $175,000 for personnel, $120,000 for compliance, and $75,000 for Board meetings. Budgeted expenses for these items in 1999-2000 were $222,780 for personnel, $100,000 for Board meetings, and $100,000 for compliance.
Decreased assessment rates were recommended by the Board because the Board expects the 2000 crop to be large, wants to reduce handler costs, and
The Board discussed the alternative of continuing the existing assessment rates, but concluded that the Board should operate as efficiently as possible and the amount collected could cause the operating reserve to exceed what is actually needed. In deriving the recommended assessment rates, the Board estimated assessable tart cherry production for the crop year at 260 million pounds. It further estimated that about 245 million pounds of the assessable poundage would be utilized in the production of high-valued products, like frozen, canned, or dried cherries, and that about 15 million pounds would be utilized in the production of low-valued products, like juice, juice concentrate, or puree. Potential assessment income from the high valued products would be approximately $416,500 (245 million pounds × $0.0017 per pound). The potential income from tart cherries utilized for juice, juice concentrate, or puree would be $12,750 (15 million pounds × $0.00085 per pound). Therefore, total assessment income for 2000-2001 is estimated at $429,250. This amount plus adequate supplies in the reserve would be sufficient to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve (currently $300,000) would be kept within the approximately one year's operational expenses permitted by the order (7 CFR 930.42(a)).
This action would decrease the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers, and may reduce the burden on producers. In addition, the Board's meeting was widely publicized throughout the tart cherry industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Board deliberations on all issues. Like all Board meetings, the March 2, 2000, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit information on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.
This action would impose no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large tart cherry handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
The Department has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at the following web site: http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at the previously mentioned address in the
A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed rule. Thirty days is deemed appropriate because: the 2000-2001 fiscal period begins on July 1, 2000, and the rate of assessment applies to all assessable tart cherries handled during the fiscal period.
Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tart cherries.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 930 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 930 continues to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
2. Section 930.200 is revised to read as follows:
On and after July 1, 2000, the assessment rate imposed on handlers shall be $0.0017 per pound of cherries handled for tart cherries grown in the production area and utilized in the production of tart cherry products other than juice, juice concentrate, or puree. The assessment rate for juice, juice concentrate, and puree products shall be $0.00085 per pound.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking
This notice proposes to amend the Class E surface area at Kearney Municipal Airport, Kearney, NE. The FAA has received a request to amend the hours of Class E surface area from part time to full time. An increase in Part 121 and other Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations have made this request necessary. The intended effect of this rule is to amend the Class E surface area from part time to full time.
Comments must be received on or before July 10, 2000.
Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager, Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, ACE-520, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, Docket Number 00-ACE-11, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Regional Counsel for the Central Region at the same address between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours in the office of the Manager, Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, at the address list above.
Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, ACE-520A, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2524.
Interested parties invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written, data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Public Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-230, 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-3484. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which describes the procedures.
The FAA is considering an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend the Class E surface area at Kearney Municipal Airport, Kearney, NE. The FAA has received a request to amend the Class E surface area from part time to full time. The intended effect of this action is to provide segregation of aircraft operating under IFR from aircraft operating in visual weather conditions. The area would be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts thereby enabling pilots to circumnavigate the area or otherwise comply with IFR procedures. Class E airspace areas designated as a surface area for an airport are published in paragraph 6002 of FAA Order 7400.9G, dated September 10, 1999, and effective September 16, 1999, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation (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) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of a small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 10, 1999, and effective September 16, 1999, is amended as follows:
Within a 4.2-mile radius of Kearney Municipal Airport and within 3.1 miles each side of the 194° radial of the Kearney VOR extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 9.2 miles south of the VOR and within 3.1 miles each side of the 329° radial of the Kearney VOR extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 10 miles northwest of the VOR and within 3.1 miles each said of the 360° radial of the Kearney VOR extending form the 4.2-mile radius to 10 miles north of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This notice proposes to establish Class E airspace area at Lamoni Municipal Airport, Lamoni, IA. The Federal Aviation Administration has developed Area Navigation (RNAV) Runway (RWY) 17 and RNAV RWY 35 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) to serve Lamoni Municipal Airport, Lamoni, IA. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is needed to accommodate aircraft executing the SIAPs. This proposal would create controlled airspace at Lamoni Municipal Airport. The intended effect of this rule is to provide controlled airspace for aircraft executing the SIAPs at the Lamoni Municipal Airport.
Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2000.
Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to; Manager, Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, ACE-520, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, Docket Number 00-ACE-10, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Regional Counsel for the Central Region at the same address between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours in the office of the Manager, Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, at the address listed above.
Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, ACE-520C, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Airspace Docket No. 00-ACE-10.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the Rules Docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Public Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-230, 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-3484. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-22A, which describes the procedures.
The FAA is considering an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to establish Class E airspace at Lamoni Municipal Airport, Lamoni, IA. The FAA has developed RNAV RWY 17 and RNAV RWY 35 SIAPs to serve the Lamoni Municipal Airport, Lamoni, IA. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL is needed to contain aircraft executing these SIAPs. The intended effect of this action is to provide segregation of aircraft operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) from aircraft operating in visual weather conditions. The area would be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts thereby enabling pilots to circumnavigate the area or otherwise comply with IFR procedures. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9G, dated September 10, 1999, and effective September 16, 1999, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation: (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) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposed to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 10, 1999, and effective September 16, 1999, is amended as follows:
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Lamoni Municipal Airport.
Marine Sanctuaries Division (MSD), Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Proposed rule; Notice of withdrawal; Notice of availability of Draft Environmental Assessment.
NOAA proposes to amend the regulations governing activities in the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (GFNMS or Sanctuary) to prohibit the operation of motorized personal watercraft (MPWC) within the boundaries of the GFNMS. This proposed action responds to a petition from the Environmental Action Committee (EAC) of West Marin, California.
This document also responds to comments received in response to a proposed rule that NOAA published on April 23, 1999, concerning operation of
Comments on the proposed rule or DEA must be received by June 21, 2000. A public hearing on this proposed rule will be held on June 12, 2000 at 6:30 p.m. at the address listed below.
Comments should be sent to Ed Ueber, Sanctuary Manager, Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, Ft. Mason, Building 201, San Francisco, California 94123; fax: (415) 561-6616. Comments received will be available for public inspection at the above address. A public hearing on the proposed rule will be held at the Bear Valley Visitor's Center at the Point Reyes National Seashore, Inverness, California, on June 12, 2000 at 6:30 p.m. The DEA may be obtained from the Sanctuary address indicated above.
Ed Ueber at (415) 561-6622.
In recognition of the national significance of the unique marine environment of the Gulf of the Farrallones, California, the GFNMS was designated in January, 1981. The GFNMS regulations at 15 CFR Part 922, Subpart H prohibit a relatively narrow range of activities to protect Sanctuary resources and qualities.
On April 18, 1996, the Environmental Action Committee (EAC) of West Marin, California, petitioned the GFNMS to ban the use of MPWC in the Sanctuary. Operation of MPWC is currently not regulated by the Sanctuary. The EAC identified a number of concerns regarding the use of MPWC within the Sanctuary. In its petition, the EAC asserted that: MPWC are completely incompatible with the existence of a marine sanctuary; pose a danger to the biological resources of the sanctuary, such as marine mammals, wildfowl, kelp beds, anadromous fish, and other marine life; create noise, water and air pollution; and threaten mariculture and other commerce throughout the Sanctuary. The EAC also stated that MPWC create a hazard for other Sanctuary users, including swimmers, sailboats, windsurfers, open-water rowing shells and kayaks. NOAA also received 195 letters from members of the public in response to media publicity about the petition. Sixty-four percent opposed regulation of MPWC; 33% supported the EAC's requested ban; one percent expressed no clear opinion.
To supplement existing information on the use and impacts of MPWC, NOAA published a Notice of Inquiry/Request for Information in the
Responses to and investigation of the specific questions in the August, 1997 notice revealed that: (1) The number of MPWC currently being operated in Sanctuary waters is believed by the proprietors of Lawson's Landing, the primary MPWC launch site in Sanctuary waters, to be less than 200 launches per year by approximately 20 users; (2) the use of MPWC in Sanctuary waters is believed to be increasing; (3) there are two established MPWC launch sites in the Sanctuary, at Bodega Harbor and Lawson's Landing; (4) the areas in the Sanctuary where MPWC are operated are in the vicinity of the mouth of Tomales Bay and the area outside Bodega Harbor—over 95% of MPWC operation that occurs in the Sanctuary occurs in these areas; (5) April through November appear to be the times of highest use of MPWC in Sanctuary waters; (6, 7, and 8) numerous studies, technical articles, and personal documentation such as photos, letters and logs of the impacts of MPWC on marine resources and other users were received and collected.
The following were identified during NOAA's review of this issue: (1) Water-based recreational activity is increasing in the United States; (2) water-based recreational activity has impacted coastal habitats, seabirds, marine mammals and fish; (3) operation of MPWC is a relatively new and increasingly popular water sport; (4) MPWC, are different from other types of motorized watercraft in their structure (smaller size, shallower draft, two-stroke engine, and exhaust venting to water as opposed to air) and their operational impacts (operated at faster speeds, operated closer to shore, make quicker turns, stay in a limited area, tend to operate in groups, and have more unpredictable movements); (5) MPWC have been operated in such a manner as to create a safety hazard to other resource users in the vicinity; (6) MPWC may interfere with marine commercial users; (7) MPWC have disturbed natural quiet and aesthetic appreciation; (8) MPWC have interfered with other marine recreational uses; (9) MPWC have impacted coastal and marine habitats; (10) MPWC have disturbed waterfowl and seabirds; (11) MPWC have disturbed marine mammals; (12) MPWC may disturb fish; (13) other jurisdictions have had problems with MPWC and have proposed and implemented various means of attempting to solve the problems; (14) the Sanctuary has sensitive areas that were deemed worthy of protection by the designation of a National Marine Sanctuary, including five State designated Areas of Special Biological Significance and four semi-enclosed estuarine areas; and (15) MPWC present a present and potential threat to resources and users of the GFNMS.
Based on this information, the NMSP published a proposed rule to prohibit operation of MPWC from the mean high tide line seaward to 1000 yards. The proposed rule was geared toward protecting Sanctuary resources and minimizing user conflict in the nearshore areas. NOAA received 53
The waters of the Sanctuary are home to a rich diversity of marine biota and provide critical habitat for seabirds, marine mammals, fishes, invertebrates, sea turtles and marine flora. The importance and uniqueness of Sanctuary waters has been internationally recognized by the incorporation of Sanctuary waters into the United Nations' Man in the Biosphere system as part of the Golden Gate Biosphere Reserve, and the desigantion of Bolinas Lagoon as a RAMSAR site (the Convention for Wetlands of International Significance). The National Marine Fisheries Service is considering areas within the Sanctuary for designation as Essential Fish Habitat as mandated by the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (James Bybee, NOAA, pers. comm., 7 January 2000).
Among the hundreds of bird species that reside in or migrate through the Sanctuary, many species are endangered, threatened or of special concern. These include the following species, which are found in the Sanctuary and on the Farallon Islandds:
There are at least twelve critical marine band nesting areas along the shoreline of the Sanctuary. More than twelve species of marine birds breed within the Sanctuary and the nesting population on the Farallon Islands comprises the largest concentration of breeding marine birds in the continental U.S. During nesting and rearing of young, these sea birds are especially dependent on the Sanctuary's offshore waters for food.
Thirty-free species of marine mammals have been observed in the Sanctuary including one mustelid, six species of pinnipeds and twenty-six species of cetaceans. About 20% of the state's breeding population of harbor seals live within the boundaries of the Sanctuary, and northern fur seals are starting to recolonize historic pupping sites within the Sanctuary for the first time since 1820. Of the twenty-six species of cetaceans that occur in Sanctuary waters, nineteen are migratory, and seven are considered resident species. Many of these marine mammals occur in large concentrations and are dependent on the productive and secluded habitat of the Sanctuary's waters and adjacent coastal areas for breeding, pupping, hauling-out, feeding, and resting during migration. Three areas in the Sanctuary have been identified as critical feeding areas for the threatened Stellar sea lion, including the nearshore areas around Point Reyes, the northern half of Tomales Bay and areas adjacent to the Farallon Islands. Harbor seals, elephant seals, California sea lions, Dall's porpoise, harbor porpoise and gray whales are common residents in Sanctuary waters. Gray whales pass through the Sanctuary twice a year on their migration route between winter calving grounds in Mexico and summertime feeding areas in Alaska. In recent years, individuals have remained in the Gulf of the Farallones to feed instead of proceeding to the feeding grounds in Alaska. Some individuals have acclimated to conditions in the Sanctuary and are now year round residents. In 1999, unprecedented numbers of gray whales were foraging in Bodega Bay. Southern sea otter populations are also recovering from near extinction and recolonizing areas within their historic range. Sitings of sea otters in the GFNMS have increased from two individuals in 1992 to 20 animals in 1998 (Dr. Sarah Allen pers. comm. July 1999). It is imperative that these animals, be protected in an area which may be providing new opportunity for the species survival (Anonymous 1990).
Other populations of marine mammals are also recovering after years of human exploitation. As populations begin to rebound, individuals are expanding the populations distribution back into historic ranges. In many instances, such as the gray whales, sea otters, northern fur seals and elephant seals, animals are using feeding areas and haul outs that have not been utilized for decades. It is important for the Sanctuary to provide habitat that was historically available and allow these populations to return to their natural abundance and distribution levels. Four species of endangered sea turtles are also known to reside in or migrate through Sanctuary waters. A listing of all threatened and endangered marine mammals and sea turtles follows.
Because of its unique geology and geography, the biological diversity found within the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary rivals any location along the Pacific coast. Fueled by the strongest coastal upwelling in North America (Bakun 1973), abundant biological resources thrive in the productive waters of the Gulf's broad, shallow continental shelf. A counter-clockwise eddy that swirls south of Point Reyes in the Gulf of the Farallones concentrates the products of upwelling (Wing
The protected bays and coastal wetlands of the Sanctuary, such as Bodega Bay, Tomales Bay, Drakes Bay, Bolinas Lagoon, Estero Americano and Estero de San Antonio, provide diverse habitats including intertidal mudflats, send flats, salt marshes, submerged rocky terraces, and shallow subtidal areas. These areas support large populations of benthic fauna and concentrations of burrowing organisms and organisms living on marine plants. Submerged eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds are prevelant in the northern portion of Tomales Bay and provide crucial feeding habitat for more than 50 resident, breeding, and migratory bird species. These eelgrass beds are also important for many marine invertebrates and for the developing egg masses of herring and other fishes. It is estimated that approximately 30 million herring annually spawn on the eelgrass beds of Tomales Bay (Fox 1997). The shallow protected bays and estuaries are also important habitat for anadromus fish, surfperches, sharks, rays and flatfish. Over 150 species of fish are found in the Sanctuary including the federally endangered winter-run Chinook salmon and the federally threatened coho salmon, spring run Chinook salmon, steelhead trout and tidewater goby.
The nearshore coastal waters of the Sanctuary are sensitive biological habitats where myriad marine invertebrates and algae reside, where bird rookeries and pinniped haulout sites are present, where many critical nursery and food source habitats for wildlife are located, and where many nearshore users of the Sanctuary's water tend to concentrate.
The nearshore waters of the Sanctuary are the areas most heavily used for recreation. Areas such as Bodega Bay and Tomales Bay are used for sailing, canoeing, rowing, kayaking and swimming. These activities are often conducted close to shore and may be dependent on calm waters. The ability of MPWC to go very close to shore (due to their shallow draft) and move in unpredictable ways may be detrimental to the safety and aesthetic experience of those conducting these more benign recreational activities.
The offshore waters of the Sanctuary provide entrance and egress for commercial shipping traffic using ports in San Francisco Bay. Tankers and container ships traverse the Sanctuary in shipping lanes, which funnel traffic in northbound and southbound directions. These offshore waters also support active sport and commercial fisheries. Small skiffs and larger commercial vessels move at constant speeds or drift through the Sanctuary waters fishing for salmon and albacore. Rockfish and urchin boats fish high spots and reefs closer to shore. On the softer sediment of the continental shelf, crab fishermen lay out rows of crab pots each one identified with a buoy at the surface. All of these activities have gear in the water that extends some distance from the boat and the gear is not readily apparent to the casual observer. Most fishermen are aware of how other gear types are deployed and operated. In cases where the potential for conflict arises, most boats operating offshore have navigation equipment and radios to communicate with each other. Commercial whale watching and seabird operators regularly use the offshore area of the Sanctuary for wildlife viewing opportunities. These offshore areas provide important habitat for feeding blue whales, humpback whales, gray whales, harbor porpoise, Steller sea lions, Pacific white sided dolphins, Dall's porpoise, California sea lions, common murres, Cassin's auklets, rhinoceros auklets, three species of cormorants, two species of grebes, tufted puffins, pigeon guillemots, marbled murrelets, black footed albatross, storm petrels, shearwaters, fulmars and many species of seabirds and marine mammals that are less abundant.
Ten percent of California's threatened coho salmon population use the outer Sanctuary and Tomales Bay during the ocean phase of their life history before returning to Lagaunitas creek and other creeks on the spawning migration which completes their life cycle. Newly listed populations of chinook salmon also use the Gulf of the Farallons as adults before returning to the Sacramento River drainage to spawn. Because of the significant biological diversity found within the Sanctuary including 11 federally endangered and 7 threatened species of birds, fish, turtles, and marine mammals and the importance of Sanctuary habitats for maintaining these populations, NOAA as the public trustee agency for these resources takes a precautionary approach to their protection. The potential for adverse environmental impacts from MPWC operation poses an unacceptable risk to the health of these resources, and because of the high potential for user conflicts, NOAA has decided to prohibit MPWC from operating within the boundaries of the GFNMS, including waters surrounding the Farallon Islands. The restricted areas include Drakes Bay, Tomales Bay, Bolinas Lagoon, Estero Americano, Estero de San Antonio, Bodega Bay, and all other areas within Sanctuary boundary.
As of 1 November 1998, launching MPWC from Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS) of Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) was prohibited (U.S. Dept. of Interior 1998 a & b). On 25 October 1999, after NOAA published its April 23, 1999 proposed rule, Marine County banned the use of MPWC within three statute miles of the ocean shore line as well as all tributaries flowing into the ocean up to seven miles
Historically, there were four MPWC launch sites used to access Sanctuary waters—Lawson's Landing at Dillon Beach, Millerton Point Park, Inverness, and Bodega Harbor. As of 1 November 1998, launching MPWC from Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) or Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS) is prohibited (U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1998 a & b). Millerton Point Park and Inverness are within GGNRA and PRNS boundaries, respectively, and therefore can no longer be used. As a result of the Marin County ordinance, Lawson's Landing is no longer a legal launch site for MPWC, and Tomales Bay and portions of Bodega Bay are now off limits to MPWC. Also, all coastal waters within three miles of shore in Marin County are off limits to MPWC operation. This area overlays the eastern edge of the GFNMS. The only remaining legal MPWC launch site into the Sanctuary is now from Bodega Harbor in Sonoma County, which is not within the jurisdictional boundary of the Marin County ordinance.
With Marin County's recent action banning MPWC operation (Marin County ordinance 3302) within three miles of its shore, if NOAA were to maintain the previously proposed 1000 yard buffer, MPWC would be able to exit Bodega Harbor and operate only in a 0.4 square mile area in Bodega Bay. This area lies in the vessel access route in front of the entrance to Bodega Harbor creating a potential hazard for vessels going in and out of Bodega Harbor. Fog and low visibility are a part of the typical weather pattern for this area during most of the year. If MPWC entered the Sanctuary from a vessel or from a launch site north of the Sanctuary such as the Salmon Creek area (four miles south) they would be operating in the gray whale migration corridor and in important feeding and resting areas for marine mammals and seabirds. This transit from the north into the Sanctuary would also take them through a state marine preserve at Horseshoe Cove which is also designated an Area of Special Biological Significance (ABS). Through only a small portion of the ABS is in the Sanctuary, within the 1000 yard zone, such activity by MPWC could have negative effects on Sanctuary resources.
If the Sanctuary takes no action, MPWC could depart from Bodega Habor. After leaving the harbor, they could turn due west, to avoid Marin County's restricted area, and pass over the dangerous Bodega rock shoal to get offshore. Because of the shallow water over the shoal, ocean swells build and break unpredictably in this area. In the past, several boats have capsized and people have died in this unpredictable and dangerous area. Beyond the shoal, MPWC could exit the Sanctuary at Bodega Head by going north or get into the Sanctuary's offshore waters by continuing west. Both require passing in the vicinity of the state's ABS mentioned earlier. MPWC would then be operating in the same biologically rich area including the gray whale migration corridor.
Another option would be for MPWC to use the nearshore shore areas in Bodega Bay. Because of the Marin County ban, MPWC users would be restricted to the northern crescent of Bodega Bay adjacent to the county recreational area at Doran Beach. Doran Beach offers camping and attracts large weekend crowds on hot days. The protected nature of Doran Beach, in the lee of Bodega Head makes it a popular spot for swimming and other water sport activities. Recreational fisherman in small skiffs use this area for sportfishing and crabbing. Two public launch sites in Bodega Harbor offer easy access to these protecting nearshore waters. On windy days, the nearshore area off Doran Beach is a popular spot for windsurfers and sailboats. Operation of MPWC in this area increases the potential for conflict with other recreational users. The ability of MPWC to operate very close to shore (due to the shallow draft) and move in unpredictable ways may be detrimental to the safety and aesthetic experience of those conducting more benign recreational activities. NOAA believes that MPWC operation in offshore and nearshore areas of the Sanctuary creates a user conflict that can be avoided by prohibiting the use of MPWC in the Sanctuary. Operating MPWC in the nearshore area of Bodega Bay also places MPWC in an environmentally sensitive habitat close to observed gray whale feeding areas.
After considering the comments in response to NOAA's April 23, 1999, proposed rule, reviewing new MPWC regulations for agencies with contiguous and overlapping jurisdictional boundaries, and considering the increased sitings for federally threatened southern sea otters and numbers of gray whales feeding in Bodega Bay, new listings for salmon and steelhead, and requirements for the protection of the Sanctuary's biological resources, the Sanctuary has determined that a total ban on MPWC is necessary to adequately protect Sanctuary resources. This proposed rule would ensure that Sanctuary resources and qualities are not adversely impacted and would help avoid conflicts among various users in the Sanctuary. A total ban on MPWC within the GFNMS is the most effective, safe and enforcement regulations that ensures Sanctuary resource protection.
The following is a summary of comments received on the Request for Information, and NOAA's responses.
Against Regulations:
Another recent change (1997, 1998, & 1999) has been that gray whales are staying in GFNMS during the summer and feeding in Bodega Bay and around the Farallon Islands. This new behavior in Bodega has increased from zero (0) in 1994 to at least 12 animals in 1999. Gray whales and MPWCs use the same areas, but whales have not been seen when MPWCs are using the area. Other animals of concern are Guadalupe fur seals (threatened) which have been seen on the Farallon Islands since 1993. This is a new species for this area. Steller sea lions (threatened) haul out and use the Farallon Islands and Point Reyes area transit all areas of the Sanctuary.
The latest (July 1999) uncommon behavior observed was for the endangered blue whales. These animals have almost always been observed offshore over depths greater than 100 fathoms. This year blue whales have been consistently seen within the area east of the Farallon Islands over depths of 40 to 50 fathoms and in July 1999 blue whales were seen one nautical mile off Chimney Rock over a depth of 20 fathoms.
Humpback whales have also been present one to two miles off Pt. Reyes. The observations of all these marine mammals (four are threatened and endangered species) were in areas outside of 1,000 yards. These animals require protection from MPWC in order to allow alternatives for them as populations move or increase and other areas are abandoned or become fully utilized.
As stated clearly by the MPWC industry in their comments, existing laws are not being followed by all MPWC operators and are also not enforced. Interactions of MPWCs with marine mammals, as well as with shore birds, wading birds and swimmers, are already illegal under federal, state or local statute, but still occur. A total prohibition will provide a clear and simple enforceable rule within the GFNMS.
Research has demonstrated that impacts resulting from MPWC use tend to be concentrated locally, producing more geographically limited, yet potentially more severe effects than would occur with other motorboats which are less maneuverable than MPWC [See DEA, Section III, Summary of Effects of MPWC on Marine Resources, for an expanded discussion (Snow, 1989).]
For Regulation:
Researchers note that MPWC may be disruptive to marine mammals when they change speed and direction frequently, are unpredictable, and may transit the same area repeatedly in a short period of time. In addition, because MPWC lack low-frequency long distance sounds underwater, they do not signal surfacing mammals or birds of approaching danger until they are
Amendments to the GFNMS regulations are proposed in this rulemaking as follows:
The addition to 15 CFR 922.82(a) of a prohibition against operation of MPWC in the Sanctuary. The prohibition would include an exception for the use of MPWC for emergency search and rescue and law enforcement (other than training activities) by Federal, State and local jurisdictions.
An amendment to 15 CFR 922.81 to add a definition of “motorized personal watercraft.” “Motorized personal watercraft” would be defined as “a vessel which uses an inboard motor powering a water jet pump as its primary source of motive power and which is designed to be operated by a person sitting, standing, or kneeling on the vessel, rather than the conventional manner of sitting or standing inside the vessel”.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that the proposed rule, if adopted as proposed, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, as follows:
The proposed rule would amend the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (GFNMS or Sanctuary) regulations to prohibit the operation of motorized personal watercraft in the Sanctuary. The proposed rule would ensure that Sanctuary resources and qualities are not adversely impacted and would help avoid conflicts among various users of the Sanctuary.
There is currently one legal launch location for MPWC operation in the Sancturary at Bodega Harbor in Sonoma County. Combined data from Marin County and Sonoma County estimates 20 MPWC users and approximately 200 launches per year. With the Marin County ban issued in October of 1999, it's estimated the Sonoma County parks would lose a launch fee of $5 dollars per launch for an estimated 100 launches form Bodega Harbor for a total loss of $500 dollars. This is a minor portion of the total revenues for the County park at Doran Beach. Consequently, the rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was not prepared.
This proposed rule would not impose an information collection requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3500
NOAA has concluded that this regulatory action does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. A draft environmental assessment has been prepared. It is available for comment from the address listed at the beginning of this notice.
Administrative practice and procedure, Coastal zone, Education, Environmental protection, Marine resources, Penalties, Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, 15 CFR Part 922, Subpart H, is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 922 continues to read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1431
2. Section 922.18 is amended by adding the following definition, in the appropriate alphabetical order.
3. Section 922.82 is amended by adding new paragraph (a)(7) as follows:
(a) * * *
(7) Operation of motorized personal watercraft, except for the operation of motorized personal watercraft for emergency search and rescue mission or law enforcement operations (other than routine training activities) carried out by National Park Service, U.S. Coast Guard, Fire or Police Departments or other Federal, State or local jurisdictions.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
We are proposing to approve a site specific revision to the Minnesota particulate matter (PM) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for LTV Steel Mining Company, formerly known as Erie Mining Company, located in St. Louis County, Minnesota. In its submittal, the State has requested that we remove the Stipulation Agreement for Erie Mining Company from the Minnesota SIP. In the final rules section of this
Comments must be received by June 21, 2000.
Written comments should be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590.
Christos Panos, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson
For additional information, see the Direct Final rule which is located in the Rules section of this
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of intent to delete the Schofield Army Barracks site from the National Priorities List.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 announces the intent to delete the Schofield Army Barracks site (“the site”) from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA and the State of Hawaii Department of Health have determined that the remedial action for the site has been successfully executed.
Comments concerning the proposed deletion of the Site from the NPL may be submitted on or before June 21, 2000.
Comments may be mailed to: Mark Ripperda, USEPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Mail Code SFD-8-3.
Comprehensive information on this site is available through the Region 9 public docket which is available for viewing by appointment only. Appointments for copies of the background information from the Regional public docket should be directed to the EPA Region 9 docket office at the following address: Superfund Records Center, USEPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
The deletion docket is also available at the following locations on Oahu: Wahiawa Public Library, 820 California Avenue, Wahiawa, Hawaii 96786; and Directorate of Public Works, Environmental Division, Bldg 105, 3rd Floor, Wheeler Army Airfield, Hawaii.
Mark Ripperda, USEPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Mail Code SFD-8-3; phone (415) 744-2408.
The U.S. EPA Region IX announces its intent to delete the Schofield Army Barracks site in Honolulu County, Hawaii, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment and maintains the NPL as the list of these sites. EPA and the State of Hawaii Department of Health have determined that the remedial action for the site has been successfully executed.
EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this site for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the
Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses the procedures EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Schofield Army Barracks site and explains how the site meets the deletion criteria.
Section 300.425(e)(1) of the NCP provides that releases may be deleted from, or recategorized on the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making a determination to delete a release from the NPL, EPA shall consider, in consultation with the appropriate State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:
(i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required; or
(ii) All appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or
(iii) The Remedial Investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, remedial measures are not appropriate.
Even if a site is deleted from the NPL, where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, EPA's policy is that a subsequent review of the site will be conducted at least every five years after the initiation of the remedial action at the site to ensure that the site remains protective of public health and the environment. If new information becomes available which indicates a need for further action, EPA may initiate additional remedial actions. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the site may be restored to the NPL without application of the Hazard Ranking System.
In the case of Schofield Army Barracks, the selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment. The Army will maintain the landfill cover and the water treatment system, and will perform long-term groundwater monitoring. The first five-year review will be conducted by EPA, the State of Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH), and the Army in the year 2002. Reviews will be conducted every five years thereafter.
The following procedures were used for the intended deletion of this site: (1) All appropriate response under CERCLA has been implemented and no further action by EPA or the Army is appropriate; (2) HDOH has concurred with the proposed deletion decision; (3) a notice has been published in the local newspapers and has been distributed to appropriate federal, state, and local officials and other interested parties announcing the commencement of a 30-day public comment period on EPA's Notice of Intent to Delete; and (4) all relevant documents have been made available in the local site information repositories.
Deletion of the site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. The NPL is designed primarily for
EPA's Regional Office will accept and evaluate public comments on EPA's Notice of Intent to Delete before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, the Agency will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public comments received.
A deletion occurs when the Regional Administrator places a final Notice of Deletion in the
The following site summary provides the Agency's rationale for the proposal to delete this site from the NPL.
Schofield Barracks was established in 1908 to provide a base for the Army's defense of Pearl Harbor and the entire Island of Oahu. Initial construction of the post occurred between 1909 and 1917.
Schofield Barracks is headquarters for the 25th Infantry Division and 45th Support Group, and currently houses approximately 21,000 individuals. General operations performed at Schofield Barracks include administration, training, and small-scale industrial operations (vehicle repair and maintenance, weapons refinishing, laundering, electrical equipment service, sewage treatment, and municipal activities).
Schofield Barracks is in the north-central plateau of the Island of Oahu in the State of Hawaii. Schofield Barracks encompasses a total area of approximately 27.7 square miles and is divided into two sections, the East Range and the Main Post. Wheeler Army Airfield lies between the two Schofield Barracks sections. The town of Wahiawa is immediately north of the East Range. The town of Mililani is approximately 2 miles south of the East Range.
The recent history of reported groundwater contamination at Schofield Barracks began in April 1985, when the Army informed the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) that the industrial solvent trichloro-ethylene (TCE) was detected in wells supplying drinking water to Schofield Barracks at a concentration of approximately 30 parts per billion (ppb). In response to the detection of TCE in the water-supply wells, the Army installed an air-stripper treatment system in 1986 to remove TCE from the drinking water.
Schofield Barracks was placed on the NPL in September 1990 because of the risk posed to human health by the TCE contamination in a major drinking water aquifer. The Remedial Investigation identified two distinct plumes of TCE at Schofield; one originating from the on-base landfill and a larger plume originating in the East Range, several miles up-gradient from Schofield's municipal water supply wells. The East Range is a mountainous area marked by numerous deep ravines and heavy tropical vegetation. A distinct source was not found, though the general area of the source was defined by the monitoring well network and concentrations within the plume. The risk assessment concluded that the only risk to human health and the environment at Schofield under CERCLA was posed by the contaminated groundwater.
Overall, the remedial investigations and feasibility studies evaluated possible actions for four areas of the site: Operable Unit 1 (OU1) included the 10 most likely sources of the TCE contamination. Operable Unit 2 (OU2) included the groundwater plumes. Operable Unit 3 (OU3) included 34 additional possible sources of surface and subsurface contamination. Operable Unit 4 (OU4) included the Former Schofield Barracks Sanitary Landfill.
The Record of Decision (ROD) for OU1, the most likely source areas, was signed by EPA on January 24, 1996. The ROD for OU3, the other possible source areas, was signed by EPA on November 8, 1996. Both RODs selected no action for these operable units because the remedial investigations showed that those areas were not currently sources of contamination to the groundwater. The remedial investigations produced no evidence that any of the sites in operable units 1 or 3 were originally sources of groundwater contamination. None of the sites in operable units 1 and 3 posed unacceptable risks to human health or the environment.
This operable unit consists of groundwater under Schofield Barracks that is contaminated with TCE. The Army, EPA and HDOH considered whether this contamination could be remedied within the aquifer or treated at the wellhead prior to the water being distributed for public use. The objectives for remediation are reducing risks to human health and the environment and satisfying applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). EPA determined that the federal drinking water standards, known as maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), are relevant and appropriate requirements within the aquifer. However, EPA may waive an ARAR where a selected remedy protects human health and the environment and it is technically impracticable to satisfy the requirement.
Remediation within the aquifer can be pursued either through natural attenuation or with some type of active treatment. While natural attenuation appears effective at confining the plume to its current configuration, the concentrations of TCE within the plume are decreasing too slowly for it to be considered a viable remedy. Active treatment of the groundwater is not practicable because of the hydrogeological conditions at the site. The depth to the water table is over 500 feet, the aquifer is composed of fractured volcanic rock, the aquifer is over 1000 feet thick, and approximately 120 million gallons of groundwater flow through the aquifer per day. Because of these conditions, the Army, EPA and HDOH concluded that treating the groundwater to achieve the MCL for TCE within the aquifer is technically impracticable. Therefore, EPA granted a technical impracticability (TI) waiver to this ARAR for OU2. However, the final remedy is fully protective of human health and the environment because the water will be treated before being distributed for public use.
The ROD for OU2, the groundwater aquifer, was signed by EPA on February 7, 1997. The selected remedy included the following actions:
• Continued treatment of contaminants in the Schofield Barracks Water Supply Wells by air stripping at the wellhead;
• The Army must consult with EPA and DOH prior to abandoning the water supply wells, because production at these wells may help to control plume migration;
• The Army must conduct semi-annual sampling and analysis of water supply wells, agricultural wells and monitoring wells in the region;
• The Army prepared plans to implement the contingency of wellhead treatment on water supply wells throughout the region. The Army will be required to install treatment systems on any wells that are impacted by the plume from Schofield Barracks above
• The Army must upgrade the treatment system or pay any incremental costs caused by contamination from Schofield Barracks at wells that already have a treatment system in place;
• Conduct five year reviews with the State of Hawaii and EPA.
The following actions were taken to implement the remedy decision for OU2:
• The Army installed air-stripper treatment units on their four contaminated municipal water supply wells at Schofield and will continue to operate the treatment system as long as contaminants in the influent water are above maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) specified in the Safe Drinking Water Act.
• The Army has sampled drinking water wells, agricultural wells and monitoring wells semi-annually throughout the central plateau area of Oahu since 1993 and will continue to do so until such time as the Army, EPA and HDOH agree that contaminant levels throughout the plume are below action levels.
• The groundwater contaminant plume appears to be confined by a system of dike impoundments and natural attenuation. The EPA, HDOH and the Army believe that it will not impact any additional down-gradient wells. Therefore, the contingency remedy for additional wellhead treatment is not expected to be needed.
• Institutional controls have been implemented that will restrict the placement of new drinking water wells into the contaminant plume. The Honolulu Board of Water Supply controls the installation of drinking water wells via a permit process. They will require the installation of wellhead treatment, paid for by the Army, on any wells that are drilled into the plume area.
The ROD for OU4, the landfill, was signed by EPA on September 26, 1996. The selected remedy included the following actions:
• Access restrictions and site security to limit human exposure to the landfill contents, prevent trespassing, and protect the integrity of the cap;
• Semi-annual ground water monitoring to monitor the effectiveness of the landfill site cap and determine groundwater flow directions in the vicinity of the landfill;
• Regrade the existing landfill cover;
• Remove Guinea grass from the existing cover and revegetate to improve future cap maintenance;
• Perform long-term maintenance of the landfill cover;
• Maintain existing passive landfill gas venting; and
• Install additional gas monitoring points at the perimeter of the landfill.
The following actions were taken to implement the remedy decision for OU4:
• The Army installed chain-link fence around the perimeter of the accessible portions of the landfill as an access restriction and has installed signs warning of potential health risks. The Former Landfill is part of a military installation that has a guard stationed at the entrances to monitor access to the installation 24 hours per day.
• The Army completed regrading the cover, installing nine new multi-level gas probes, stabilizing the sideslopes, and replacing and improving the vegetative cover in June 1998.
• The Army has conducted semi-annual groundwater monitoring and quarterly gas probe monitoring since the completion of the remedial action in June 1998. The groundwater monitoring is conducted as part of the OU2 work and it shows that the groundwater plume around the landfill is stable and at low levels of TCE concentration. The gas probe monitoring typically detects methane in four out of the 27 gas probe sampling points. The highest detection during the February 2000 monitoring event was 0.2 percent, which is well below the acceptable limit of 5 percent.
On July 21, 1998, the Army, EPA and HDOH, conducted a final inspection and determined that the remedial action had been successfully executed for all OUs. EPA reclassified Schofield Barracks to construction complete status in September 1998.
The Army is responsible for conducting long-term maintenance and upkeep of the landfill cover and for monitoring landfill gas, groundwater, and drinking water wells, in accordance with the approved Long-Term Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring Plans for OUs 2 and 4.
CERCLA requires a five-year review of all sites with hazardous substances remaining above the health-based levels for unrestricted use of the site. Since the cleanup of the site utilized containment of hazardous materials within the landfill and wellhead treatment for drinking water, the five-year review process will be used to ensure that human health and the environment remain protected in the future. The first five-year review is scheduled for the year 2002.
The Army published its final Community Relations Plan on January 31, 1997, after interviews with local residents and officials. An information repository was established at the Wahiawa Public Library and all reports and fact sheets were sent to the repository as they were completed.
The Army conducted public meetings prior to completing each of the four Records of Decision, and the public had no negative comments about any of the actions at Schofield.
EPA has determined that all appropriate responses under CERCLA at Schofield Army Barracks have been completed, and that no further CERCLA response is appropriate to protect human health and the environment. The Hawaii Department of Health concurred with the proposed deletion of the site from the NPL in a letter dated March 13, 2000. Therefore, EPA proposes to delete the site from the NPL. Documents supporting this action are available from the docket at the Region 9 office and in the Army's docket on Oahu.
Office of Inspector General (OIG), HHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This proposed rule would set forth a new safe harbor, as authorized under section 14 of the Medicare and Medicaid Patient and Program Protection Act of 1987, to protect certain arrangements involving hospitals that replenish drugs and medical supplies used by ambulance providers when
To assure consideration, public comments must be delivered to the address provided below by no later than 5 p.m. on July 21, 2000.
Please mail or deliver your written comments to the following address: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, 330 Independence Avenue, SW, Room 5246, Attention: OIG-62-P, Washington, DC 20201.
Because of staffing and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission. In commenting, please refer to file OIG-62-P.
Vicki L. Robinson, Senior Counsel, Office of Counsel to the Inspector General, (202) 619-0335.
Section 1128B(b) of the Social Security Act (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(b)) provides criminal penalties for individuals or entities that knowingly and willfully offer, pay, solicit or receive remuneration in order to induce the referral of business reimbursable under the Federal or State health care programs. The offense is classified as a felony and is punishable by fines of up to $25,000 and imprisonment for up to five years. Violations of the anti-kickback statute may also result in the imposition of a civil money penalty (CMP) under section 1128A(a)(7) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7a(a)(7)) or program exclusion under section 1128(b)(7) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7(b)(7)).
The types of remuneration covered specifically include kickbacks, bribes and rebates, whether made directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind. In addition, prohibited conduct includes not only the payment of remuneration intended to induce referrals of patients, but also the payment of remuneration intended to induce the purchasing, leasing or ordering of any good, facility, service or item reimbursable by any Federal or State health care program.
Since the statute on its face is so broad, concern had been expressed that some relatively innocuous commercial arrangements were technically covered by the statute and therefore were subject to criminal prosecution. As a response to the above concern, section 14 of the Medicare and Medicaid Patient and Program Protection Act of 1987, Public Law 100-93, specifically required the development and promulgation of regulations, the so-called “safe harbor” provisions, designed to specify various payment and business practices which, although potentially capable of inducing referrals of business under the Federal and State health care programs, would not be treated as criminal offenses under the anti-kickback statute. Beginning in July 29, 1991, we have published in the
Health care providers and others may voluntarily seek to comply with these provisions so that they have the assurance that their business practices are not subject to any enforcement action under the anti-kickback statute, the CMP provision for anti-kickback violations or program exclusion authority related to kickbacks. In giving the Department the authority to protect certain arrangements and payment practices under the anti-kickback statute, Congress intended the safe harbor regulations to be evolving rules that would be updated periodically to reflect changing business practices and technologies in the health care industry.
The OIG has issued four advisory opinions regarding arrangements between hospitals and other facilities providing emergency medical supplies,
In OIG Advisory Opinion 97-6 (October 8, 1997), we responded to a request for an advisory opinion involving an ambulance replenishing arrangement that presented a specific set of facts clearly implicating the anti-kickback statute. The arrangement, as presented in the facts certified by the requesting party, contained no appropriate safeguards against fraud and abuse of the Federal health care programs and their beneficiaries. Accordingly, we concluded that the arrangement potentially violated the anti-kickback statute.
Subsequently, in 1998, we received several additional advisory opinion requests that involved ambulance replenishing arrangements, and issued three additional advisory opinions
Since the release of OIG Advisory Opinion 98-14 in October 1998, the OIG has received no further advisory opinion requests on the topic of ambulance replenishing and few informal follow-up inquiries regarding these arrangements.
The OIG believes that, in general, the ambulance and hospital industries understand the distinction between the first unfavorable advisory opinion and the subsequent three favorable opinions and are generally able to assess and structure arrangements accordingly. However, the OIG is aware of anecdotal reports that some receiving facilities are curbing or eliminating ambulance replenishing programs in order to cut emergency room costs, while other receiving facilities feel pressured to participate in ambulance replenishment arrangements. Some receiving facilities would like to implement or continue operating replenishing programs, but are concerned about possible liability under the anti-kickback statute.
We continue to believe that properly structured replenishing arrangements serve a significant public interest by providing a means of ensuring that ambulances are fully stocked with current medications, sanitary linens and
In an effort to further assure those providers engaged in innocuous and beneficial replenishing arrangements, we are proposing a new safe harbor under § 1001.952 of our regulations to protect certain arrangements between receiving facilities (including hospitals) and ambulance companies under which the receiving facilities replenish ambulances with drugs and medical supplies used during the transport of
The first new proposed safe harbor would protect replenishing arrangements where an ambulance provider pays the receiving facility fair market value, based on an arms-length transaction, for replenished drugs or supplies (including linens) used in connection with the transport of an emergency patient. Payment would not need to be made at the time of the replenishing, provided commercially reasonable and appropriate payment arrangements have been made in advance. For linens, an exchange of a comparable quantity of laundered linens for soiled linens would be considered fair market value, notwithstanding any economic value attributable to the laundering of linens by receiving facilities, which often have specialized laundering equipment needed for compliance with sanitation requirements. A non-profit receiving facility would be protected under this safe harbor if it sells replenished drugs or medical supplies to a non-profit ambulance provider at cost in order to comply with the Non-Profit Institutions Act.
The second proposed safe harbor would protect remuneration in the form of contemporaneous replenishing of drugs or medical supplies (including linens) used during an emergency transport of a patient to the receiving facility, even if the replenishing is for free or at reduced prices. We are proposing that the following seven conditions be met in order to qualify for protection under this safe harbor:
(1) Receiving facilities must provide replenishing on an equal basis for all ambulance providers who bring emergency patients to the receiving facility. This condition is intended to prevent receiving facilities from inappropriately using replenishing to attract or reward high referring ambulance providers.
(2) The replenishing arrangement must be part of a comprehensive and coordinated effort to improve the EMS delivery system in the relevant service area and must be open to all emergency ambulance providers and receiving facilities operating in the service area. It must be implemented with the participation of, and monitored by, a regional EMS Council or functionally similar entity, organization or association (the Oversight Entity). The Oversight Entity must be a non-profit entity composed of representatives of a broad array of participants in a service area's emergency medical system, such as hospitals, ambulance providers, emergency room physicians and nurses, public safety organizations, paramedics, local educational institutions and community residents. The involvement of a wide range of representatives of the local EMS community provides substantial assurance that the replenishment arrangement is intended to benefit the local community, rather than a single provider or group of providers. Participation in the Oversight Entity should be open to all interested parties in the service area on equal terms and conditions,
We recognize that the size, composition, structure and scope of activities of Oversight Entities may necessarily vary depending on the size and resources of the particular service area. We would expect, for example, an Oversight Entity in a small rural area with one hospital, a few physicians and one ambulance provider to look and operate differently than one in a densely populated urban area with several hospitals, a number of transport providers and diverse physicians, teaching facilities, Government agencies and the like. Oversight Entities should be part of a comprehensive and coordinated regional EMS system appropriate to the size and resources of the service area. We are not specifying any particular structure or legal form for the Oversight Entity; it must simply be functionally similar to a regional EMS Counsel. The participants in the Oversight Entity should be representative of the service area's EMS system. We are specifically soliciting comments on our proposal that safe harbored replenishing arrangements must be a part of a comprehensive and consolidated regional EMS system.
(3) The replenishing arrangement must be memorialized in writing, whether through a contract signed under the auspices of the Oversight Entity by all participating ambulance providers and receiving facilities or by a generally applicable plan or protocol promulgated or approved by the Oversight Entity. The replenishing arrangement must in practice comport with the terms of the written documentation.
(4) The receiving facility must not bill any Federal health care program or Federal program beneficiary for the replenished drugs or supplies, or write off such drugs or supplies as bad debt. The purpose of this requirement is to
(5) In order to prevent “double dipping,” ambulance providers may not bill any Federal health care program or Federal beneficiary
(6) The receiving facility and the ambulance provider must maintain records of the replenished drugs or supplies and make those records available to the Secretary upon request.
(7) The receiving facility and ambulance provider must otherwise comply with all Federal, State and local laws regulating emergency medical care and the provision of drugs and medical supplies, including laws relating to the handling of controlled substances such as morphine.
Nothing in this preamble or the proposed regulations is intended to express any view as to the appropriate billing of the Federal health care programs for supplies used during emergency transport services. Parties seeking to comply with these proposed safe harbors would still need to comply with all relevant billing and claims filing rules. The fifth and sixth conditions described above for the second proposed safe harbor merely set forth criteria for determining whether a particular arrangement qualifies for safe harbor protection under the anti-kickback statute; the conditions do not purport to establish any reimbursement rule. Questions regarding reimbursement under the Medicare and Medicaid programs should be addressed to the Health Care Financing Administration or the party's relevant fiscal intermediary or carrier.
As with the existing safe harbor provisions currently codified in § 1001.952, compliance with these proposed safe harbors would be voluntary. Failure to fit into one of these safe harbors would not mean that an ambulance replenishment arrangement is
Section 205 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, Public Law 104-191, established certain criteria that the Secretary may consider when modifying or establishing safe harbors to the anti-kickback statute. We indicated our intent to consider these criteria in evaluating proposals for new safe harbors in our Notice of Intent to Develop Regulations (61 FR 69061; December 31, 1996). We have considered these criteria in developing this proposed rulemaking, and we believe, for the reasons described above, that the proposed safe harbor for certain ambulance replenishing arrangements is likely to: (l) Increase or have no effect on access for needy patients to health care services; (2) increase the quality of health care services for needy patients; (3) have little or no effect on the cost of Federal health care programs; (4) have little or no effect on competition; and (5) have little or no effect on the quantity of services provided in underserved areas. We further believe the proposed safe harbor contains safeguards that limit the potential for overutilization and assure that patients retain their freedom of choice of service providers.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and has determined that it does not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action. Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when rulemaking is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits, including potential economic, environmental, public health, safety distributive and equity effects. Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, Public Law 104-4, requires that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits on any rulemaking that may result in an expenditure by State, local or tribal Government, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. Further, Executive Order 13132, Federalism, requires agencies to determine if a rule will have a significant affect on States, on their relationship with the Federal Government, and on the distribution of power and responsibility among the various levels of government.
In addition, under the Small Business Enforcement Act (SBEA) of 1996, if a rule has a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small businesses, the Secretary must specifically consider the economic effect of a rule on small business entities and analyze regulatory options that could lessen the impact of the rule. In addition, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, if a rule has a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small businesses, the Secretary must specifically consider the economic effect of a rule on small business entities and analyze regulatory options that could lessen the impact of the rule.
Executive Order 12866 requires that all regulations reflect consideration of alternatives, costs, benefits, incentives, equity and available information. Regulations must meet certain standards, such as avoiding unnecessary burden. We believe that this proposed rule would have no significant economic impact. The proposed safe harbor provisions set forth in this rulemaking are designed to permit individuals and entities to freely engage in business practices and arrangements that encourage competition, innovation and economy. As indicated above, in doing so, these regulations impose no requirements on any party. Health care providers and others may voluntarily seek to comply with these provisions so that they have the assurance that their business practices are not subject to any enforcement actions under the anti-kickback statute. We believe that any aggregate economic effect of these safe harbor regulations would be minimal and would impact only those limited few who engage in prohibited behavior in violation of the statute. As such, we believe that the aggregate economic impact of these proposed regulations is minimal and would have no effect on the economy or on Federal or State expenditures
Additionally, in accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, we believe that there are no significant costs associated with these proposed safe harbor guidelines that would impose any mandates on State, local or tribal governments, or the private sector that will result in an expenditure of $100 million or more in any given year. Further, in reviewing this rule under the threshold criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, we have determined that this rule would not significantly affect the rights, roles and responsibilities of States, and that a full analysis under these Acts are not necessary.
Further, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996, which amended the RFA, we are required to determine if this rule will have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities and, if so, to identify regulatory options that could lessen the impact. While
In accordance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, we are required to solicit public comments, and receive final OMB approval, on any information collection requirements set forth in rulemaking. While compliance with the provisions in this safe harbor rule would be voluntary, proposed § 1001.952(v)(3) contains information collection requirements that would require approval by OMB. As such, we are required to solicit public comments under section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA on these requirements. Specifically, in order to qualify for safe harbor protection for ambulance restocking arrangements under § 1001.952(v)(3), the regulations would require that replenishing agreements be set forth in writing in the form of (1) a contract signed under the auspices of the oversight entity by all participating ambulance providers and receiving facilities or (2) a generally applicable plan or protocol promulgated or approved by the oversight entity. There is no obligation to submit these agreements to the Secretary, however, in order to achieve initial compliance with the safe harbor. In addition, to qualify for safe harbor protection for ambulance restocking arrangements under § 1001.952(v)(3), the receiving facility and the ambulance provider must maintain records of the replenished drugs and medical supplies (including linens) and make those records available to the Secretary promptly upon request. However, as indicated above, the safe harbor does
In accordance with the PRA requirements, we are inviting comments 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 estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on parties, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. As part of the OMB approval for the collection of information contained in this rule, we are soliciting public comments on this requirement, thereby initiating the normal PRA clearance.
The aggregate information burden for the information collection requirements contained in this proposed rulemaking is set forth below.
Comments on these paperwork reduction requirements may be submitted to the above-cited individual within 60 days following the
Comments will be available for public inspection June 5, 2000 in Room 5518, Office of Counsel to the Inspector General, at 330 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC on Monday through Friday of each week (Federal holidays excepted) between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., (202) 619-0089.
Because of the large number of items of correspondence we normally receive on
Administrative practice and procedure, Fraud, Grant programs—health, Health facilities, Health professions, Maternal and child health, Medicaid, Medicare.
Accordingly, 42 CFR part 1001 would be amended as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for part 1001 would continue to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 1302, 1320a-7, 1320a-7b, 1395u(h), 1395u(j), 1395u(k), 1395y(d), 1395y(e), 1395cc(b)(2)(D), (E) and (F), and 1395hh; and sec. 2455, Pub.L. 103-355, 108 Stat. 3327 (31 U.S.C. 6101 note).
2. Section 1001.952 would be amended by republishing the introductory text and by adding a new paragraph (v) to read as follows:
The following payment practices shall not be treated as a criminal offense under section 1128B of the Act and shall not serve as the basis for an exclusion:
(v)
(2)(i) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (v)(2)(ii) of this section, the ambulance provider pays the receiving facility fair market value, based on an arms-length transaction, for the replenished drugs or medical supplies (including linens). A non-profit receiving facility will be deemed to meet this standard if it sells replenished drugs or medical supplies to a non-profit ambulance provider at cost in order to comply with the Non-Profit Institutions Act (15 U.S.C. 13(c)), exception to the Robinson-Patman Act (15 U.S.C. 3(a)-(f)).
(ii) If payment is not made contemporaneously with the replenishing of the drugs or medical supplies (including linens), the receiving facility and the ambulance provider make commercially reasonable payment arrangements in advance.
(3)(i) The receiving facility replenishes drugs and medical supplies (including linens) on an equal basis for all ambulance providers who bring emergency patients to the receiving facility.
(ii) The replenishing arrangement must be implemented with the participation of, and monitored by, an oversight entity (as defined in paragraph (v)(4)(ii) of this section) as part of a comprehensive and coordinated regional emergency medical system appropriate to the size and resources of the service area and must be open and available to all emergency ambulance providers and receiving facilities in the service area.
(iii) The replenishing arrangement must be memorialized in writing. The writing may be in the form of—
(A) A contract signed under the auspices of the oversight entity by all participating ambulance providers and receiving facilities or
(B) A generally applicable plan or protocol promulgated or approved by the oversight entity.
(iv) The receiving facility refrains from billing any Federal health care program or Federal health care program beneficiary for the replenished drugs or medical supplies (including linens) and does not write off the cost of such drugs or medical supplies (including linens) as bad debt.
(v) The ambulance provider refrains from billing any Federal health care program or Federal health care program beneficiary
(vi) The receiving facility and the ambulance provider maintain records of the replenished drugs and medical supplies (including linens) and make those records available to the Secretary promptly upon request.
(vii) The receiving facility and the ambulance provider otherwise comply with all Federal, State and local laws regulating emergency medical care and the provision of drugs and medical supplies, including, but not limited to, laws relating to the handling of controlled substances.
(4) For purposes of paragraph (v)(3) of this section—
(i) A “receiving facility” is a hospital or other facility that provides emergency medical services; and
(ii) An “oversight entity” is a regional emergency medical services council or functionally similar entity, association or organization that—
(A) Is described in section 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code and exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of that Code;
(B) Includes, or is composed of, representatives of a broad array of participants in a service area's emergency medical system (
(C) Is open to all interested parties in the service area on equal terms and conditions; and
(D) Has as its mission the improvement of the emergency medical services delivery system in the relevant service area.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Proposed rule with request for comments.
The Acting Director of Defense Procurement is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to revise and relocate policy on the level of approval required to except a contract from certain restrictions of the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act. The policy is moved from the Pollution Control and Clean Air and Water subpart to the Debarment, Suspension, and Ineligibility subpart of the DFARS, because the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart on Pollution Control and Clean Air and Water has been removed.
Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before July 21, 2000, to be considered in the formation of the final rule.
Interested parties should submit written comments on the proposed rule to: Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, Attn: Ms. Sandra G. Haberlin, PDUSD (AT&L) DP (DAR), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telefax (703) 602-0350.
E-mail comments submitted via the Internet should be addressed to: dfars@acq.osd.mil
Please cite DFARS Case 2000-D004 in all correspondence related to this proposed rule. E-mail correspondence should cite DFARS Case 2000-D004 in the subject line.
Ms. Sandra G. Haberlin, (703) 602-0289.
On December 27, 1999, Item I of Federal Acquisition Circular 97-15 (64 FR 72415) removed Subpart 23.1, Pollution Control and Clean Air and Water, from the FAR. Subpart 23.1 contained policy pertaining to entities that are ineligible for contract award due to a violation of the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act. The FAR text was deemed unnecessary, because contracting officers can use the General Services Administration List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Nonprocurement Programs to ensure that they do not award contracts to ineligible entities. In accordance with Environmental Protection Agency regulations at 40 CFR 32.215(b), FAR Subpart 23.1 permitted an agency head to except a contract from the prohibition on award to a Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act violator if it was in the paramount interest of the United States to do so. DFARS Subpart 223.1 limited delegation of this exception authority to a level no lower than an official who is appointed by and with the advice of the Senate.
This DFARS rule proposes to—
1. Remove the text from DFARS Subpart 223.1, since FAR Subpart 23.1 no longer exists; and relocate the text to DFARS 209.405(b), since the corresponding text at FAR 9.405(b) addresses matters relating to entities on the List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Nonprocurement Programs;
2. Retain a limitation on delegation of the exception authority, but lower the permitted level of delegation to a level no lower than a general or flag officer or a member of the Senior Executive Service; and
3. Designate the text already located at DFARS 209.405 as 209.405(a), and amend the text to clarify that the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 2393 regarding a “compelling reason” determination apply only to the conduct of business with entities that are debarred or suspended.
This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.
The proposed rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR Parts 209 and 223 are proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Parts 209 and 223 continues to read as follows:
41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.
2. Section 209.405 is revised to read as follows:
(a) Under 10 U.S.C. 2393(b), when a department or agency determines that a compelling reason exists for it to conduct business with a contractor that is debarred or suspended from procurement programs, it must provide written notice of the determination to the General Services Administration, Office of Acquisition Policy. Examples of compelling reasons are—
(1) Only a debarred or suspended contractor can provide the supplies or services;
(2) Urgency requires contracting with a debarred or suspended contractor;
(3) The contractor and a department or agency have an agreement covering the same events that resulted in the debarment or suspension and the agreement includes the department of agency decision not to debar or suspend the contractor; or
(4) The national defense requires continued business dealings with the debarred or suspended contractor.
(b)(i) The Procurement Cause and Treatment Code “H” annotation in the GSA List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Nonprocurement Programs identifies contractors that are declared ineligible for award of a contract or subcontract because of a violation of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7606) or the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1368).
(ii) Under the authority of 40 CFR 32.215(b), the agency head may grant an exception permitting award to a Code “H” ineligible contractor if it is in the paramount interest of the United States.
(A) The agency head may delegate this exception authority to a level no lower than a general or flag officer or a member of the Senior Executive Service.
(B) The official granting the exception must provide written notice to the Environmental Protection Agency debarring official.
3. Subpart 223.1 is removed.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Proposed rule with request for comments.
The Acting Director of Defense Procurement is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement Section 813 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. Section 813 requires DoD to review its profit guidelines to consider whether appropriate modifications, such as placing increased emphasis on technical risk as a factor for determining appropriate profit margins, would provide an increased profit incentive for contractors to develop and produce complex and innovative new technologies.
Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before July 21, 2000, to be considered in the formation of the final rule.
Interested parties should submit written comments on the proposed rule to: Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, Attn: Ms. Amy Williams, PDUSD(AT&L) DP(DAR), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telefax (703) 602-0350.
E-mail comments submitted via the Internet should be addressed to: dfars@acq.osd.mil
Please cite DFARS Case 2000-D300 in all correspondence related to this proposed rule. E-mail correspondence should cite DFARS Case 2000-D300 in the subject line.
Ms. Amy Williams, (703) 602-0288.
This rule proposes amendments to the profit policy in DFARS Subpart 215.4 to implement Section 813 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65). DoD published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on February 10, 2000 (65 FR 6574), posted a preliminary draft on potential changes on the Defense Procurement Internet web site, and held a public meeting on February 23, 2000. Representatives from Government and industry participated in the public meeting.
The proposed rule amends the weighted guidelines method of profit computation at DFARS 215.404-71 to combine the management and cost control elements of the performance risk factor; to establish a new “technology incentive” range for technical risk; and, based on comments received at the public meeting, to slightly modify some of the cost control standards. In addition, the rule amends DFARS 215.404-4(b) to clarify that DoD departments and agencies must use a structured approach for developing a prenegotiation profit or fee objective on any negotiated contract action when cost or pricing data is obtained.
This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.
The proposed rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR part 215 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 215 continues to read as follows:
41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.
2. Section 215.404-4 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) introductory text to read as follows:
(b) * * * (1) Departments and agencies must use a structured approach for developing a prenegotiation profit or fee objective on any negotiated contract action when cost or pricing data is obtained, except for cost-plus-award-fee contracts (see 215.404-74) or contracts with Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) (see 215.404-75). There are three structured approaches—
3. Section 215.404-71-2 is revised to read as follows:
(a)
(1) Technical—the technical uncertainties of performance.
(2) Management/cost control—the degree of management effort necessary—
(i) To ensure that contract requirements are met; and
(ii) To reduce and control costs.
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(d)
(i) Technology being applied or developed by the contractor;
(ii) Technical complexity;
(iii) Program maturity;
(iv) Performance specifications and tolerances;
(v) Delivery schedule; and
(vi) Extent of a warranty or guarantee.
(2)
(A) Items are being manufactured using specifications with stringent tolerance limits;
(B) The efforts require highly skilled personnel or require the use of state-of-the-art machinery;
(C) The services and analytical efforts are extremely important to the Government and must be performed to exacting standards;
(D) The contractor's independent development and investment has reduced the Government's risk or cost;
(E) The contractor has accepted an accelerated delivery schedule to meet DoD requirements; or
(F) The contractor has assumed additional risk through warranty provisions.
(ii) Extremely complex, vital efforts to overcome difficult technical obstacles that require personnel with exceptional abilities, experience, and professional credentials may justify a value significantly above normal.
(iii) The following may justify a maximum value—
(A) Development or initial production of a new item, particularly if performance or quality specifications are tight; or
(B) A high degree of development or production concurrency.
(3)
Indicators are—
(A) Acquisition is for off-the-shelf items;
(B) Requirements are relatively simple;
(C) Technology is not complex;
(D) Efforts do not require highly skilled personnel;
(E) Efforts are routine;
(F) Programs are mature; or
(G) Acquisition is a follow-on effort or a repetitive type acquisition.
(ii) The contracting officer may assign a value significantly below normal for—
(A) Routine services;
(B) Production of simple items;
(C) Rote entry or routine integration of Government-furnished information; or
(D) Simple operations with Government-furnished property.
(4)
(i) The contracting officer may assign values within the technology incentive range when contracting performance includes the introduction of new, significant technological innovation. Use the technology incentive range only for the most innovative contract efforts. Innovation may be in the form of—
(A) Development or application of new technology that fundamentally changes the characteristics of an existing product or system and that results in increased technical performance, improved reliability, or reduced costs; or
(B) New products or systems that contain significant technological advances over the products or systems they are replacing.
(ii) When selecting a value within the technology incentive range, the contracting officer should consider the relative value of the proposed innovation to the acquisition as a whole. When the innovation represents a minor benefit, the contracting officer should consider using values less than the norm. For innovative efforts that will have a major positive impact on the product or program, the contracting officer may use values above the norm.
(e)
(1) The contracting officer should evaluate—
(i) The contractor's management and internal control systems using contracting office information and reviews made by field contract administration offices or other DoD field offices;
(ii) The management involvement expected on the prospective contract action;
(iii) The degree of cost mix as an indication of the types of resources applied and value added by the contractor;
(iv) The contractor's support of Federal socioeconomic programs;
(v) The expected reliability of the contractor's cost estimates (including the contractor's cost estimating system);
(vi) The contractor's cost reduction initiatives (
(vii) The adequacy of the contractor's management approach to controlling cost and schedule; and
(viii) Any other factors that affect the contractor's ability to meet the cost targets (
(2)
(A) The contractor's value added is both considerable and reasonably difficult;
(B) The effort involves a high degree of integration or coordination;
(C) The contractor has a substantial record of active participation in Federal socioeconomic programs;
(D) The contractor provides fully documented and reliable cost estimates;
(E) The contractor has an aggressive cost reduction program that has demonstrable benefits;
(F) The contractor uses a high degree of subcontract competition (
(G) The contractor has a proven record of cost tracking and control; or
(H) The contractor aggressively seeks process improvements to reduce costs.
(ii) The contracting officer may justify a maximum value when the effort—
(A) Requires large scale integration of the most complex nature;
(B) Involves major international activities with significant management coordination (
(C) Has critically important milestones.
(3)
(A) The program is mature and many end item deliveries have been made;
(B) The contractor adds minimum value to an item;
(C) The efforts are routine and require minimal supervision;
(D) The contractor provides poor quality, untimely proposals;
(E) The contractor fails to provide an adequate analysis of subcontractor costs;
(F) The contractor does not cooperate in the evaluation and negotiation of the proposal;
(G) The contractor's cost estimating system is marginal;
(H) The contractor has made minimal effort to initiate cost reduction programs;
(I) The contractor's cost proposal is inadequate; or
(J) The contractor has a record of cost overruns or another indication of unreliable cost estimates and lack of cost control.
(ii) The following may justify a value significantly below normal—
(A) Reviews performed by the field contract administration offices disclose unsatisfactory management and internal control systems (
(B) The effort requires an unusually low degree of management involvement.
4. Section 215.404-702 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(1)(iii) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Do not assign a value from the technology incentive designated range.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Proposed rule.
This is a proposed rule to amend the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to require NASA contractors to display “hotline posters”on contracts exceeding $5,000,000 and performed at contractor facilities in the United States.
Comments should be submitted on or before July 21, 2000.
Interested parties should submit written comments to Paul Brundage, NASA Headquarters Office of Procurement, Contract Management Division (Code HK), Washington, DC 20456-0001. Comments may also be submitted by email to pbrundage@hq.nasa.gov.
Paul Brundage, (202) 358-0481.
NASA's Office of Inspector General (IG) has requested that NASA contractors be required to display “hotline posters” in contractor facilities performing work on some NASA contracts. Foreign contracts and contracts less than $5,000,000 would be exempt. This proposed rule would require contractors to obtain from the NASA IG “hotline posters” and to post them in facilities where and when work is performed on an applicable NASA contract. By waiver from Part 12, NASA might also impose this requirement on a case-by-case basis in contracts for commercial items when unusual circumstances warrant. An example of such circumstances might include procurements involving extraordinary concerns about the safety of human life.
This proposed rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because this proposed rule does not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Government procurement.
Accordingly, 48 CFR Parts 1803 and 1852 are proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Parts 1803 and 1852 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1).
2. Add Subpart 1803.70 to read as follows:
NASA requires contractors to display NASA hotline posters prepared by the NASA Office of Inspector General on those contracts specified in 1803.7001, so that employees of the contractor having knowledge of waste, fraud, or abuse, can readily identify a means to contact NASA's IG.
Contracting officers must insert the provision at 1852.203-70, Display of Inspector General Hotline Posters, in solicitations and contracts expected to exceed $5,000,000 and performed at contractor facilities in the United States.
3. Add section 1852.203-70 to read as follows:
As prescribed in 1803.7001, insert the following clause:
(a) The Contractor shall display prominently in common work areas within business segments performing work under this contract, Inspector General Hotline Posters available under paragraph (b) of this clause.
(b) Inspector General Hotline Posters may be obtained from NASA Office of Inspector General, Code W, Washington, DC, 20546-0001, (202) 358-1220.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of hearings.
The FMCSA is announcing the second through seventh public hearings for interested persons to present comments and views on the FMCSA's proposed revisions to its hours-of-service regulations (65 FR 25540, May 2, 2000). This action is necessary to inform the public about the dates, times, and locations of the hearings. The FMCSA hopes to hear from the public, specifically drivers of trucks and buses, about how the proposed hours-of-service regulations would improve highway safety and affect their professional, personal, and family life. All oral presentations will be transcribed and placed in the rulemaking docket for the FMCSA's consideration.
The second hearing will be June 7 and 8 in Ontario, CA. Subsequent hearings will be June 12 and 13 in Golden, CO; June 15 and 16 in Kansas City, MO; June 20 and 21 in Indianapolis, IN; June 26 and 27 in Vernon, CT; and June 29 and 30 in Atlanta, GA. All will begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 5 p.m.
The second session will be at the Ontario Convention Center, Meeting Room 104B, 2000 Convention Center Way, Ontario, CA. The third will be held at Auditorium 2, Jefferson County Fairgrounds, 15200 West Sixth Avenue, Golden, CO. The fourth will be at the Wagstaff Theater, American Royal Center Complex, 1701 American Royal Court, Kansas City, MO. The fifth will be at the Union Federal Southwest Pavilion, Indiana State Fairgrounds, 1202 East 38th Street, Indianapolis, IN. The sixth will be at the Quality Inn Conference Center, 51 Hartford Turnpike (Route 83, I-84, Exit 63), Vernon, CT. The seventh will be at the Atlanta South Truck Stop, 122 Truck Stop Way (I-75, Exit 201), Jackson, GA.
Internet users may access all comment received by the U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL):
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded by using a computer, modem and suitable communications software from the Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet users may reach the Office of the Federal Register's web page at http://www.
The notice for the first hearing was published May 5, 2000 (65 FR 26166). The first hearing will be in Washington, DC on May 31 and June 1 at the DOT headquarters, Room 2230, 400 Seventh Street, SW 20590.
If you need special accommodations, such as sign language interpretation, please contact Mr. Stanley Hamilton, Office of Regulatory Development, (202) 366-0665.
Oral comments should be limited to 10 minutes or less. Written comments must be sent to: Docket Clerk, Attn: DOT Docket No. FMCSA-97-2350, U.S. DOT Dockets, Department of Transportation, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Persons who require acknowledgment of the receipt of their comments must enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard. Comments may be reviewed at the above address from 9 a.m. through 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
49 U.S.C. 322, 31502, and 31136; and 49 CFR 1.73.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed reapportionment of Pacific halibut bycatch mortality allowance specified for the nontrawl fishery categories; request for comments.
NMFS proposes the reapportionment of the 2000 halibut bycatch mortality allowance specified for the Pacific cod hook-and-line fishery category to the other nontrawl fishery category in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to allow the harvest of species constrained by the other nontrawl halibut bycatch mortality
Comments on this action must be received at the following address no later than 4:30 p.m., A.l.t., June 6, 2000.
Comments may be mailed to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn: Lori Gravel. Hand delivery or courier delivery of comments may be sent to the Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Room 453, Juneau, AK 99801. The final environmental assessment and final regulatory flexibility analysis prepared for the final 2000 total allowable catch specifications may be obtained from the same address.
Andrew Smoker, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the 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 at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The BSAI halibut prohibited species catch (PSC) limit for nontrawl gear is an amount of halibut equivalent to 900 metric tons (mt) of halibut mortality (§ 679.21(e)(2)(i)). The Final 2000 Harvest Specifications of Groundfish for the BSAI established the apportionment of the nontrawl halibut PSC limit to bycatch allowances for the Pacific cod hook-and-line and other nontrawl fisheries was established as 748 mt and 84 mt respectively (65 FR 8282, February 18, 2000). As of April 22, 2000, 593 mt remain in the total 2000 halibut bycatch mortality allowance for the hook-and-line Pacific cod fishery. The other non-trawl fishery opened on May 1, 2000.
The hook-and-line fishery for Pacific cod will reopen on September 1, 2000, and is projected to take as much as 300 mt of halibut mortality for the remainder of 2000. The directed fishery for Greenland turbot, a constituent and primary fishery of the other nontrawl category, may require an estimated 150 mt of halibut mortality to fully harvest the remaining directed fishing allowance of Greenland turbot.
NMFS has determined that a reapportionment of 75 mt of halibut bycatch mortality allowance from the hook-and-line Pacific cod to the other nontrawl fishery category is necessary to promote achieving the optimum yield harvest of the BSAI nontrawl fisheries. This reapportionment is based on the best available scientific information pertaining to bycatch rates reported by NMFS-certified observers.
Therefore, in order to provide greater opportunity to harvest the BSAI Greenland turbot total allowable catch (TAC) while not jeopardizing the opportunity to harvest the amount of the Pacific cod TAC allocated to hook-and-line vessels, NMFS proposes to increase the halibut bycatch mortality allowance specified for the other nontrawl fishery category by 75 mt and reduce the halibut bycatch mortality allowance specified for the Pacific cod hook-and-line fishery by the same amount. The halibut bycatch mortality specifications for the 2000 BSAI nontrawl fisheries are listed in Table 7 of the final 2000 harvest specifications (65 FR 8282, February 18, 2000). To accommodate the proposed action, the 2000 BSAI final harvest specifications would be amended by adding the following Table 7A.
NMFS invites public comments on its proposal to reallocate the projected unused amount of halibut mortality from the hook-and-line Pacific cod fishery to the other nontrawl fishery category.
This action is authorized under 50 CFR 679.21(e)(4) and is exempt from OMB review under E.O. 12866.
NMFS prepared an environmental assessment (EA) and final regulatory flexibility assessment (FRFA) for the 2000 harvest specifications (See
16 U.S.C. 773
Office of the Secretary, USDA.
Notice of Intent to Reestablish the Advisory Committee on Universal Cotton Standards.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is proposing to reestablish an advisory committee to review official Universal Standards for American Upland cotton prepared by USDA and make recommendations regarding the establishment or revision of the standards.
Comments must be received by June 21, 2000.
Send written comments to: Norma McDill, Cotton Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, Rm 2641-S, Washington, DC 20250-0224. Comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the above office in Rm 2641-South Building, 14th & Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC.
Norma McDill, 202-720-2145.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) , notice is hereby given that the Secretary of Agriculture intends to reestablish the Advisory Committee on Universal Standards composed of foreign and domestic representatives of the cotton industry. The purpose of the committee is to review official Universal Standards for U.S. Upland cotton prepared by USDA and make recommendations regarding the establishment or revision of the standards established under the United States Cotton Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 51
The Secretary has determined that the work of the committee is in the public interest and is in connection with the duties of the Department of Agriculture. No other advisory committee in existence is capable of advising and assisting the Department on the task assigned, nor does the Department have an alternative means to obtain the technical and practical expertise needed from private industry.
Equal opportunity practices, in line with USDA policies, will be followed in all appointments to the committee. To ensure that the recommendations of the committee have taken into account the needs of diverse groups served by the Department, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.
Balanced committee membership would be attained domestically and internationally through the following committee composition.
The U.S. cotton industry's committee membership will be comprised of 12 producers and ginners, 6 representatives of merchandising firms, and 6 representatives of textile manufacturers. These representatives will be appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture.
Each member will have one vote. Accordingly, voting privileges will be divided as follows: (1) U.S. cotton producers and ginners—12 votes; (2) U.S. merchandising firms—6 votes; (3) U.S. textile manufacturers—6 votes.
There will be 2 committee members from each of the foreign signatory associations. These committee members will be designated by the respective associations. Voting privileges will be divided as follows: (1) Foreign signatory merchant associations—6 votes; (2) Foreign signatory spinner associations—6 votes.
A thirty-day comment period is provided for interested persons to comment on this action.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request an extension for a currently approved information collection for Papayas Grown in Hawaii, Marketing Order No. 928.
Comments on this notice must be received by July 21, 2000.
Contact Valerie L. Emmer-Scott, Marketing Specialist, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, room 2525-S., P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456; Tel: (202) 205-2829, Fax: (202) 720-5698, or E-mail: moabdocket_clerk@usda.gov.
Small businesses may request information on this notice by contacting Jay Guerber, Regulatory Fairness Representative, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, room 2525-S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, D.C., 20090-6456; telephone (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-5698, or E-mail: Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.
The information collection requirements in this request are essential to carry out the intent of the Act, to provide the respondents the type of service they request, and to administer the program, which has operated since 1971.
The papaya marketing order regulates the handling of papayas grown in Hawaii, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order authorizes production and marketing research and development projects, including paid advertising. The research and promotion activities are paid for by assessments on handlers of papaya.
The order, and rules and regulations issued thereunder, authorize the Papaya Administrative Committee (committee), the agency responsible for local administration of the order, to require handlers and growers to submit certain information. Much of this information is compiled in aggregate and provided to the industry to assist in marketing decisions.
The committee has developed forms as a means for persons to file required information with the Committee relating to papaya supplies, shipments, dispositions, and other information needed to effectively carry out the purpose of the Act and order. Papayas may be shipped year-round and these forms are utilized accordingly. A USDA form is used to allow growers to vote on amendments to or continuance of the marketing order. In addition, papaya growers and grower/handlers who are nominated by their peers to serve as representatives on the committee must file nomination forms with the Secretary.
Formal rulemaking amendments to the order must be approved in referenda conducted by the Secretary. Also, the Secretary may conduct a continuance referendum to determine industry support for continuation of the order. Handlers are asked to sign an agreement to indicate their willingness to abide by the provisions of the order whenever the order is amended. These forms are included in this request. The forms covered under this information collection require the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the requirements of the order, and their use is necessary to fulfill the intent of the Act as expressed in the order, and the rules and regulations issued under the order.
The information collected is used only by authorized representatives of the USDA, including AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Programs' regional and headquarter's staff, and authorized employees of the committee. Authorized committee employees and the industry are the primary users of the information, and AMS is the secondary user.
Comments should reference OMB No. 0581-0102 and the Papaya Marketing Order No. 928, and be mailed to Docket Clerk, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, Room 2525-S, Washington, D.C. 20090-6456; Fax (202) 720-5698; or E-mail: moabdocket_clerk@usda.gov. Comments should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue of the
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request an extension for and revision to a currently approved information collection for the National Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Programs.
Comments on this notice must be received on or before July 21, 2000 to be assured of consideration.
These programs carry out projects relating to research, consumer information, advertising, sales promotion, producer information, market development, and product research to assist, improve, or promote the marketing, distribution, and utilization of their respective commodities. Approval of the programs is required through referendum of those who would be covered. Industry boards administer the programs. These boards usually composed of producer, handler, processor, and in some cases, importer and public members, are appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture to administer the programs. The funding for such programs is from assessments on designated industry segments. The appointed boards are responsible for collecting assessments from the affected persons covered under these programs.
The Secretary also approves the boards' budgets, plans, and projects. These responsibilities have been delegated to the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). The applicable commodity program areas within AMS have direct oversight of the respective programs.
The information collection requirements in this request are essential to carry out the intents of the various Acts authorizing such programs, thereby providing a means of administering the programs. The objective in carrying out this responsibility includes assuring the following: (1) Funds are collected and properly accounted for; (2) expenditures of all funds are for the purposes authorized by the enabling legislation; and (3) the board's administration of the programs conforms to USDA policy. The applicable commodity programs within AMS have direct oversight of these freestanding programs. The forms covered under this collection require the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the requirements of the respective orders, and their use is necessary to fulfill the intents of the Acts as expressed in the orders. The information collected is used only by authorized employees of the various boards and authorized employees of USDA.
The boards administering the various programs utilize a variety of forms to carry out the responsibilities. Such forms may include reports concerning status information such as handler and importer reports; transaction reports; exemption from assessment forms and reimbursement forms; forms and information concerning referenda including ballots; forms and informaiton concerning board nominations and selection and acceptance statements; certification of industry organizations; and recordkeeping requirements. The forms and information covered under this information collection require the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the requirements of the programs and their use is necessary to fulfill the intent of the applicable authorities.
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 the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to A. Lee Cliburn, Program Appraisal Staff, Cotton Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 96456, Rm. 2633-South Building, Washington, DC 20090. All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Southwest Oregon PIEC Advisory Committee will meet on June 8, 2000 in Roseburg, Oregon at the Roseburg Bureau of Land Management Office at 777 NW Garden Valley Blvd. The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and continue until 5 p.m. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Forest Service Roadless Initiative; (2) Public Comment; (3) Implementation Monitoring; (4) Refinement of Province Dead and Wood Policy; and (4) Current issues as perceived by Advisory Committee members.
Direct questions regarding this meeting to Roger Evenson, Province Advisory Committee Coordinator, USDA, Forest Service, Umpqua National Forest, 2900 NW Stewart Parkway, Roseburg, Oregon 97470, phone (541) 957-3344.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in Tennessee, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Notice of Availability of proposed changes in Section IV of the FOTG of the NRCS in Tennessee for review and comment.
It is the intention of NRCS in Tennessee to issue a revised conservation practice standard, Filter Strip (Code 393), in Section IV of the FOTG.
Comments will be received on or before June 21, 2000.
Inquire in writing to James W. Ford, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 675 U.S. Courthouse, 801 Broadway, Nashville, Tennessee 37203. Copies of the practice standards will be made available upon written request.
Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after enactment of the law to NRCS state technical guides used to perform highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law shall be made available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days, the NRCS in Tennessee will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS in Tennessee regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of change will be made.
NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of first request for panel review.
On May 12, 2000, Nycomed Amersham Canada Limited filed a First Request for Panel Review with the Canadian Section of the NAFTA Secretariat pursuant to Article 1904 of the North American Free Trade Agreement. A second request was filed by Bracco Diagnostics Inc. and Bracco Diagnostics Canada Inc. Panel review was requested of the final determination made by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, respecting Certain Contrast Media Used for Radiographic Imaging, Originating in or Exported from the United States of America (Including Puerto Rico). This determination was published in the
Caratina L. Alston, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.
Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade Agreement (“Agreement”) establishes a mechanism to replace domestic judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine whether it conforms with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination.
Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada and the Government of Mexico established
A first Request for Panel Review was filed with the Canadian Section of the NAFTA Secretariat, pursuant to Article 1904 of the Agreement, on May 12, 2000, requesting panel review of the final determination described above.
The Rules provide that:
(a) A Party or interested person may challenge the final determination in whole or in part by filing a Complaint in accordance with Rule 39 within 30 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Complaint is June 12, 2000);
(b) A Party, investigating authority or interested person that does not file a Complaint but that intends to appear in support of any reviewable portion of the final determination may participate in the panel review by filing a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule 40 within 45 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Notice of Appearance is June 26, 2000); and
(c) The panel review shall be limited to the allegations of error of fact or law, including the jurisdiction of the investigating authority, that are set out in the Complaints filed in the panel review and the procedural and substantive defenses raised in the panel review.
NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of First Request for Panel Review.
On May 4, 2000, Agromex Fertilizantes, S.A. de C.V. filed a First Request for Panel Review with the Mexican Section of the NAFTA Secretariat pursuant to Article 1904 of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Panel review was requested of the final antidumping investigation determination made by the Secretaria de Comercio y Fomento Induustrial, respecting Urea, Originating in the United States of America and the Russian Federation. This determination was published in the Diario Official, on
Caratina L. Alston, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20230, (202) 482-5438.
Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade Agreement (“Agreement”) establishes a mechanism to replace domestic judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine whether it conforms with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination.
Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada and the Government of Mexico established Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews (“Rules”). These Rules were published in the
A first Request for Panel Review was filed with the Mexican Section of the NAFTA Secretariat, pursuant to Article 1904 of the Agreement, on May 4, 2000, requesting panel review of the final determination described above.
The Rules provide that:
(a) A Party or interested person may challenge the final determination in whole or in part by filing a Complaint in accordance with Rule 39 within 30 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Complaint is June 5, 2000);
(b) A Party, investigating authority or interested person that does not file a Complaint but that intends to appear in support of any reviewable portion of the final determination may participate in the panel review by filing a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule 40 within 45 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Notice of Appearance is June 19, 2000); and
(c) The panel review shall be limited to the allegations of error of fact or law, including the jurisdiction of the investigating authority, that are set out in the Complaints filed in the panel review and the procedural and substantive defenses raised in the panel review.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and its advisory committees will hold public meetings.
The Council and its advisory committees will meet in Portland, OR the week of June 5, 2000. See
All meetings will be held at the Doubletree Hotel-Portland Downtown, 310 SW. Lincoln, Portland, OR.
Council staff, telephone: 907-271-2809.
The Advisory Panel will begin at 8:00 a.m., Monday, June 5, and continue through Thursday, June 8. The Scientific Committee will begin at 8:00 a.m. on Monday, June 5, and continue through Wednesday, June 7.
The Council will begin their plenary session at 8:00 a.m. on Wednesday, June 7, continuing through Monday, June 12. All meetings are open to the public except Executive Sessions which may be held during the week to discuss litigation and/or personnel matters.
1. Reports
(a) Executive Director's Report.
(b) State Fisheries Report by Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game.
(c) NMFS Management Report.
(d) Enforcement and Surveillance reports by NMFS and the Coast Guard.
2. Observer Program:
(a) Final action on regulatory amendments.
(b) Observer Committee Report.
3. American Fisheries Act:
(a) Final action on inshore cooperative structure.
(b) Initial review of groundfish processor sideboards and excessive share caps.
(c) Review crab processing capacity and activities during 2000 opilio season.
(d) Review methods for allocating pollock to inshore cooperatives, calculations of Pacific cod sideboards, and crab sideboard exemptions.
(e) Status report on development of Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the American Fisheries Act.
4. Steller Sea Lion Protection:
(a) Status report on Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives for Pacific cod.
(b) Report on Russian sea lion research and management.
5. Staff Tasking:
(a) Review current tasking and proposals received; direction to staff on new amendments/analyses.
(b) Determine next steps for rationalization of Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod.
(c) Provide staff direction on development of Gulf of Alaska cooperatives.
(d) Provide staff direction for next steps in essential fish habitat stakeholder process; determine need for revisions to crab fishery management plan and halibut regulations to protect corals and sponges.
6. Magnuson-Stevens Act Reauthorization Issues:
Review current legislative proposals and recommendations from Council Chairmen's meeting.
7. Groundfish Management:
(a) Status report on development of groundfish Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
(b) Initial review of amendment to revise process for setting annual fishery specifications.
8. Crab Management:
(a) Final action on rebuilding plans for St. Matthew blue and Opilio crabs.
(b) Updates on crab cooperatives and permit buyback program.
(c) Crab Interim Action Committee report on appeals.
Advisory Meetings
1. Inshore cooperative structure and groundfish processing sideboards and excessive share caps.
2. Observer program changes.
3. Groundfish Management:
(a) Status report on development of groundfish Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement; and
(b) Initial review of amendment to revise process for setting annual fishery specifications.
4. Steller sea lion protection.
5. Review of halibut charter individual fishing quota program analytical outline.
Other Committee/Workgroup & Industry Meetings
During the meeting week, the following groups will hold meetings to discuss various agenda issues of interest:
Other committees and workgroups may hold impromptu meetings throughout the meeting week. Such meetings will be announced during regularly-scheduled meetings of the Council, Advisory Panel, and SSC, and will be posted at the hotel.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action of address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Helen Allen at 907-271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Receipt of application for amendment.
Notice is hereby given that Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Mammal Laboratory, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE, Seattle, WA 98115 has requested an amendment to scientific research Permit No. 782-1446.
Written or telefaxed comments must be received on or before June 21, 2000.
The amendment request and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/713-2289);
Alaska Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, P.O. Box. 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668 (907/586-7221); and
Northwest Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE, BIN C15700, Seattle, WA 98115-0070 (206/526-6150).
Southwest Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA,501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213 (562/980-4021).
Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this request should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Documentation Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13130, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular amendment request would be appropriate.
Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301) 713-0376, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Please note that comments will not be accepted by e-mail or other electronic media.
Simona Roberts or Ruth Johnson, 301/713-2289.
The subject amendment to Permit No. 782-1446, issued on May 8, 1998 (63 FR 27265) is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
Permit No. 782-1446 authorizes the permit holder to conduct aerial, ground and boat surveys annually for stock assessment of harbor seals (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Interior.
Issuance of permit.
Notice is hereby given that Museum of Natural History Collections, Department of Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 [Principal Investigator: Jeff Davis] has been issued a permit to take collect, import/export marine mammal specimens of the Orders Cetacea, Pinnipedia and Sirenia for purposes of scientific research and for deposit into a museum collection.
The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/713-2289); and
Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213 (562/980-4001)
Ruth Johnson, 301/713-2289.
On October 8, 1999, notice was published in the
Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which is the subject of this permit, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Guidelines for Economic Analysis of Fishery Management Actions (Guidelines) provide guidance on meeting the procedural and analytical requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act(RFA)for regulatory actions of federally managed fisheries. Specifically, the guidelines include a general framework for conducting economic analyses of regulatory actions; recommend that a preliminary regulatory economic evaluation be conducted early in the regulatory process to provide information on the impacts of proposed measures to the public and decision makers; outline the process for doing the regulatory impact review for meeting analytical requirements, including information requirements, analytical procedures, and methodologies; outline the steps for fulfilling the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act; discuss the relationship of the Regulatory Flexibility Act to other applicable law; and identify ways of involving small entities in the rulemaking process.
Comments and information must be received no later than June 21, 2000.
Comments on the guidelines should be addressed to Theo R. Brainerd, Regulatory Services Division (Stn. 13212), Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NOAA/NMFS, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.
Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to 301-713-0696. A copy of the draft guidelines is available through the internet at: <<http: //www.nmfs.gov/sfa/>> under “Proposed & Final Rules, and Documents for Public Comment.”
Theo R. Brainerd, NMFS, 301-713-2337.
The objective of E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) is to improve the Federal regulatory system. NMF complies with E.O. 12866 by preparing a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) which includes an analysis of the economic effects of the proposed action and alternative actions. The RIR is intended to assist Councils and the NMFS in selecting the regulatory approach that maximizes net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts, and equity issues), unless a statute requires another regulatory approach.
The purpose of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601
In comparison to the previous RIR/RFAA guidelines, these guidelines:
Incorporate the revisions to the Regulatory Flexibility Act made by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act;
Revise the basis the agency will use to certify that a proposed regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
Place greater emphasis on the need for the Councils and NMFS to have draft analyses early in the FMP development process and final analyses available prior to a decision on the preferred course of action. These analyses would also be a source of information for public comment on the expected effects of the alternatives under consideration;
Provide recommendations concerning key topic areas and organization for the regulatory analyst to consider when developing and revising the regulatory analysis; and
Based on the growing regulatory emphasis on protected resources and habitat, recommend that analysts highlight, where appropriate, the effects on the non-consumptive uses of fishery, other living marine resources, and the ecological benefits derived from these resources and their habitats.
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs adjusting limits.
May 22, 2000.
Naomi Freeman, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards of each Customs port, call (202) 927-5850, or refer to the U.S. Customs website at http://www.customs.ustreas.gov. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, call (202) 482-3715.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted for special shift.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see
Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel, the directive issued to you on September 13, 1999, by the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That directive concerns imports of certain cotton, wool and man-made fiber textile products, produced or manufactured in the Dominican Republic and exported during the twelve-month period which began on January 1, 2000 and extends through December 31, 2000.
Effective on May 22, 2000, you are directed to adjust the current limits for the following categories, as provided for under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing:
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs reducing limits.
May 23, 2000.
Ross Arnold, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards of each Customs port, call (202) 927-5850, or refer to the U.S. Customs website at http://www.customs.gov. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, call (202) 482-3715.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
The current limits for certain categories are being reduced for carryforward used.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see
Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel, the directive issued to you on October 4, 1999, by the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That directive concerns imports of certain cotton, wool, man-made fiber, silk blend and other vegetable fiber textiles and textile products, produced or manufactured in Indonesia and exported during the twelve-month period which began on January 1, 2000 and extends through December 31, 2000.
Effective on May 23, 2000, you are directed to reduce the limits for the categories listed below, as provided for under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing:
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception to the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs adjusting limits.
May 23, 2000.
Naomi Freeman, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards of each Customs port, call (202) 927-5850, or refer to the U.S. Customs website at http://www.customs.gov. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, call (202) 482-3715.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted, variously, for carryover, carryforward, swing and special shift.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see
Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel, the directive issued to you on December 14, 1999, by the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That directive concerns imports of certain cotton, wool, man-made fiber, silk blend and other vegetable fiber textiles and textile products, produced or manufactured in Romania and exported during the twelve-month period beginning on January 1, 2000 and extending through December 31, 2000.
Effective on May 23, 2000, you are directed to adjust the current limits for the following categories, as provided for under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing:
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
The goal of this grant competition is to provide assistance to local educational agencies (LEAs) on behalf of eligible schools to support media
Many studies have explored the relationship between children's viewing of violence through the media and their engaging in violent behavior. While there is little consensus among these studies regarding the impact that the electronic media have on youth violence, the Secretary believes that instruction that helps young people to critically analyze media messages about violence can help to prevent youth violence. Accordingly, this grant competition focuses on media literacy projects that include opportunities for youth to engage in non-violent, innovative arts programming. These projects will support model partnerships between schools and arts-based organizations to demonstrate new methods of improving the interpretive and creative skills of young people in dealing with the media arts. Young people will learn how to interpret the messages they receive on a daily basis through the media, and also how to engage in the creative process in developing better alternatives to media programming that include violent content.
Today's students—tomorrow's citizens and leaders in our democracy—will need a different set of understandings and skills in communications if they are to succeed in the global society and economy that are fueled by new media technologies. CD-ROMs, video games, music videos, interactive communications facilitated by personal computers, and the World Wide Web, as well as such older electronic media as television shows, movies, and recorded music, command an increasing amount of the attention and time of our children. We must help them learn to “read” and evaluate images as well as text. These technologies can be used to create and communicate ideas that portray alternatives to violence, drug use, and disrespect.
Potential applicants are reminded that, under the absolute priority published elsewhere in this notice, the Secretary will only fund under this competition media literacy projects in
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. Funding estimates are for the first year of the project period only. Funding for the second and third years is subject to the availability of funds and the approval of continuation awards (34 CFR 75.253).
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-888-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative 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
To use the PDF you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader, 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
20 U.S.C. 8091.
Department of Energy.
Notice.
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 2000-2, concerning the control of safety system configuration, was published in the
Comments, data, views, or arguments concerning the Secretary's response are due on or before June 21, 2000.
Send comments, data, views, or arguments concerning the Secretary's response to: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004.
Mr. Steve Cary, Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Department of Energy (DOE) acknowledges receipt of Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) Recommendation 2000-2, issued on March 8, 2000, regarding safety systems vital to the protection of the public, workers, and the environment. Along with the analysis contained in the March 2000 assessment prepared by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health on the impact of safety program weaknesses upon ventilation and confinement ventilation systems that perform safety functions, the DOE has completed a preliminary analysis of the issues raised in the Board's recommendation. The conclusions drawn from both of these analyses are consistent with the safety issues described in Recommendation 2000-2.
The Department accepts the recommendations contained in Recommendation 2000-2 and will develop an implementation plan to accomplish the following actions:
1. Development of expert-based guidelines for surveying and assessing confinement ventilation systems and implementation of a plan to identify and correct root cause deficiencies.
2. Incorporation of open commitments remaining in the action plan addressing safety issues related to High Efficiency Particulate Air filters.
3. Evaluation of existing practices and industry models for use in establishing a cognizant system engineer concept to strengthen the engineering resources available for facility configuration management.
4. Assessment of the availability and sufficiency of DOE expertise, identification of actions necessary to ensure expertise can be brought to bear in the life-cycle management of vital safety systems and that Federal technical expertise on safety systems is available to interface with operating contractors when significant system problems arise.
5. Review of line oversight of contractor programs to determine whether safety systems, as well as programs essential to system operability, are being included in those programs. As necessary, identify corrective actions to improve implementation of line oversight programs.
I have asked Mr. Steven Cary, Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health, to serve as the responsible manager for this recommendation. Mr. Cary will be the principal point of contact with the Board for this recommendation, and he will work with you and your staff to develop an acceptable implementation plan that meets our mutual expectations. If you have questions, please contact him at (202) 586-6151.
Yours sincerely,
Department of Energy.
Notice of Open Meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Nevada Test Site. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Wednesday, June 7, 2000: 6:30 p.m.-9 p.m.
Amargosa Valley Community Center, 821 E. Farm Road, Amargosa Valley, NV 89020.
Kevin Rohrer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-8513, phone: 702-295-0197.
1. Discussion and review of additional underground water test area funding. Copies of the final agenda will be available at the meeting. Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Committee either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Kevin Rohrer, at the telephone number listed above. Requests must be received 5 days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business.
Department of Energy.
Notice of Open Meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental
Thursday, June 1, 2000, 6 p.m.—9:30 p.m.
College Hill Library, Front Range Community College, 3705 West 122th 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.
Take notice that on May 10, 2000, Canyon Creek Compression Company (Canyon) tendered for filing to be a part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No.1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing, to be effective June 1, 2000.
Canyon states that these tariff sheets are being filed in compliance with the Commission's Order No. 587-G issued April 16, 1998 in Docket No. RM96-1-008, which order relates to interstate pipelines' business transactions using Internet communication as well as to various issues relating to the standardization of these business communications using the Internet.
Canyon requested any waivers which may be required for the tendered tariff sheets to become effective June 1, 2000, consistent with Order Nos. 587-G and 587-I.
Canyon states that copies of the filing have been mailed to its customers, interested state commissions and all parties set out the Commission's official service list in Docket No. RM96-1.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with 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. 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 pubic 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 May 12, 2000, French Broad Electric Membership Corporation (FBEMC) filed a complaint against Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) alleging that CP&L's rate for capacity charged to FBEMC for requirements service under a bundled Power Supply Agreement is unjust and unreasonable. FBEMC requests that the Commission establish hearing procedures to determine the just and reasonable rate to be effective 60 days after the filing of the complaint, direct CP&L to refund excessive amounts previously collected from FBEMC, and establish a refund effective date of 60 days after the filing of the complaint.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or protests must be filed on or before June 1, 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 proceeding. 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 in the Public Reference Room. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222) for assistance. Answers
Take notice that on May 10, 2000, High Island Offshore System, L.L.C. (HIOS), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the revised tariff sheets listed in Appendix A to the filing. HIOS proposes that the foregoing tariff sheets be made effective on June 1, 2000.
HIOS states this filing is made to reflect ministerial tariff changes resulting from the assumption of operating duties by the El Paso Energy Partners Operating Company (EPNOC). HIOS further states that the instant filing specifically modifies the company's address, telephone numbers and personnel titles and designations from its currently effective tariff to conform with the changes due to the assumption of operating duties by EPNOC. HIOS further states that the changes effected by this filing are purely ministerial.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with 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. 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 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 May 10, 2000, Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission LLC (KMIGT) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, the following revised tariff sheets, to be effective June 1, 2000:
KMIGT states that the purpose of this filing is to make the changes in KMIGT's Tariff related to Internet communication. KMIGT has also updated related tariff references regarding electronic communications.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with 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. 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 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 May 10, 2000, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America (Natural) tendered for filing to be a part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing, to be effective June 1, 2000.
Natural states that these tariff sheets are being filed in compliance with the Commission's Order No. 587-G issued April 16, 1998 in Docket No. RM96-1-008, which order relates to interstate pipelines' business transactions using Internet communication as well as to various issue relating to the standardization of these business communications using the Internet.
Natural requested any waivers which may be required for the tendered tariff sheets to become effective June 1, 2000, consistent with Order Nos. 587-G and 587-I.
Natural states that copies of the filing have been mailed to its customers, interested state commissions and all parties set out on the Commission's official service list in Docket No. RM96-1.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with 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. 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 in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/
Take notice that on May 5, 2000, the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) Participants Committee submitted the Fifty-Third Agreement Amending the New England Power Pool Agreement (Fifty-Fourth Agreement) which addresses affiliation and representation issues raised by end user applications for membership in NEPOOL.
A July 1, 2000 effective data has been requested.
The NEPOOL Participants Committee states that copies of these materials were sent to the New England state governors and regulatory commissions and the NEPOOL Participants.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before May 26, 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 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 May 12, 2000, Questar Pipeline Company (Questar) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Sheet No. 117, First Revised Volume No. 1, to be effective June 12, 2000.
Questar pursuant to prior Commission authority, provides underground natural-gas storage service at three aquifer storage reservoirs, Leroy, Coalville and Chalk Creek. Questar's currently effective tariff requires that working gas from these reservoirs be withdrawn to the extent practicable at the conclusion of the withdrawal period, beginning no later than March 1 of each year, and allows reinjection late in the fall.
Questar's only storage customer utilizing the aquifer reservoirs, Questar Gas Company (QGC), requested that it be allowed, but not required to, leave working gas in both the Leroy and Coalville storage aquifers during the summer months. Upon Questar's and QGC's joint engineering analysis, the parties ascertained that leaving approximately 50 percent of the working gas in place at two of its storage reservoirs, Leroy and Coalville and allowing QGC to inject and withdraw working gas between the end of the withdrawal period and beginning of the injection period, may be beneficial for QGC. Injecting and withdrawing natural gas in and out of these two reservoirs year round, improves reservoir performance and provides QGC with more accommodation and flexible storage service. Questar Pipeline has determined that making the change requested by QGC will not adversely affect the storage reservoirs' operations. Further, since QGC is the only customer using these storage reservoirs, this change will not affect other customers. Therefore, in response to QGC's request, Questar proposed modifications to its tariff that it believes will allow for more efficient and productive usage of the Leroy and Coalville storage reservoirs.
Questar states that a copy of this filing has been served upon Questar's customers, the Public Service Commission of Utah and the Public Service Commission of Wyoming.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with 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. 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 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).
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company's Saluda Project's license expires in August 2007. The hydropower project and its reservoir, Lake Murray, are located in Saluda, Lexington, Newberry and Richland Counties, South Carolina. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will hold two public information meetings to familiarize the public with the Commission's hydropower licensing program. Commission staff will give an overview of the Commission and its licensing procedures. There will be an opportunity for questions and answers.
Interested persons are invited to attend either or both meetings scheduled as follows:
Auditorium, Irmo Elementary School, 7401 Gibbes Street, Irmo, SC 29063; (803) 732-8278.
Please direct any questions regarding these meetings to either Jack Hannula, Commission Licensing Team Leader, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
Take notice that on May 12, 2000, Southern Natural Gas Company (Southern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective July 1, 2000:
Southern states that the purpose of this filing is to revise Section 6.2 of the General Terms and Conditions to its tariff by expanding the rights of delivery point operators to consolidate multiple measurement stations into one delivery point.
Southern states that copies of the filing will be served upon its shippers and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with 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. 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 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 May 11, 2000, Trailblazer, Pipeline Company (Trailblazer) tendered for filing to be a part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing, to be effective June 1, 2000.
Trailblazer states that these tariff sheets are being filed in compliance with the Commission's Order No. 587-G issued April 16, 1998 in Docket No. RM96-1-008, which order relates to interstate pipelines' business transactions using Internet communication as well as to various issues relating to the standardization of these business communications using the Internet.
Trailblazer requested any waivers which may be required for the tendered tariff sheets to become effective June 1, 2000, consistent with Order Nos. 587-G and 587-I.
Trailblazer states that copies of the filing have been mailed to its customers, interested state commissions and all parties set out on the Commission's official service list in Docket No. RM96-1.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with 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. 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 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 May 10, 2000, U-T Offshore System, L.L.C. (UTOS), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, the revised tariff sheets listed in Appendix A to the filing. UTOS proposes that the foregoing tariff sheets be made effective on June 1, 2000.
UTOS states this filing is made to reflect ministerial tariff changes resulting from the assumption of operating duties by the El Paso Energy Partners Operating Company (EPNOC). UTOS further states that the instant filing specifically modifies the company's address, telephone numbers and personnel titles and designations from its currently effective tariff to conform with the changes due to the assumption of operating duties by EPNOC. UTOS further states that the changes effected by this filing are purely ministerial.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with 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. 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 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 May 11, 2000, Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets listed to become effective June 1, 2000:
Williston Basin states that the revised tariff sheets are being filed in compliance with the requirements of Commission Order No. 637 issued February 9, 2000 in Docket Nos. RM98-10-000 and RM98-12-000. Specifically, the changes proposed reflect revisions to applicable sections of Williston Basin's FERC Gas Tariff to remove the price cap for short-term capacity releases and to revise the applicability of right of first refusal to incorporate the requirements of the Commission's Order.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with 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. 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 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).
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should be indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
The Point “A” Development consists of the following existing facilities: (1) A 2,800-foot-long earthen dam comprised of a gated concrete spillway section; (2) a 700-acre reservoir at a normal water surface elevation of 170 feet msl; (3) a powerhouse, integral with the dam, containing three generating units with a total installed capacity of 5,200 kW, (4) a 0.39-mile-long, 46-kV transmission line; and (5) other appurtenances.
The Gantt Development consists of the following existing facilities: (1) A 1,562-foot-long earthen dam comprised of a gated concrete spillway section; (2) a 2,767-acre reservoir at a normal water surface elevation of 198 feet msl; (3) a powerhouse, integral with the dam, containing two generating units with a total installed capacity of 3,050 kW, and (4) other appurtenances.
m. Each application for a new license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by April 30, 2003.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
May 15, 2000, 65 FR 30985.
May 17, 2000, 10 a.m.
The following Docket No. and Company has been added as Item CAE-34 on the Agenda scheduled for May 17, 2000 meeting.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the membership of the EPA Performance Review Board.
May 22, 2000.
Karen Stinson, Executive Resources and Special Programs, 3650, Office of Human Resources and Organizational Services, Office of Administration and Resources Management, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20460 (202) 260-1373.
Section 4314 (c) (1) through (5) of Title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more SES performance review boards. This board shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, along with any recommendations to the appointment authority relative to the performance of the senior executive.
Members of the EPA Performance Review Board are:
Members of the Inspector General Subcommittee to the EPA Performance Review Board are:
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that a subcommittee of the US EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) will hold a public meeting on the date and time noted. All times noted are Eastern Standard Time. SAB meetings are open to the public, however, seating is limited and available on a first come basis.
The Subcommittee on the Diffusion and Adoption of Innovations in Environmental Protection of the Science Advisory Board's (SAB) Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) will conduct a public teleconference meeting on June 5, 2000 between the hours of 1 and 3 (Eastern Standard Time). The meeting will be coordinated through a conference call connection in room 6013 in the USEPA, Ariel Rios Building North, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20004. The public is encouraged to attend the meeting in the conference room noted above, however, the public may also attend through a telephonic link if lines are available. Additional instructions about how to participate in the conference call can be obtained by calling Ms. Diana Pozun one week prior to the meeting (May 28, 2000) at (202) 564-4544, or via e-mail at
The workshop will be a consultative Workshop on the Diffusion and Adoption of Innovations in Environmental Protection. The purpose of the workshop is to identify how the use of data, theories, and research methods derived from the study of the social process of diffusion and adoption of innovations may improve the adoption of innovative approaches to environmental protection: (a) Within EPA; (b) by state, tribal, and local government partners; and (c) by corporate and non-governmental organization partners in environmental protection. EPA program offices will consider the advice of the workshop panel members in developing strategies to encourage adoption of new strategies for environmental protection especially in the areas of watershed protection, pollution prevention and EPA's Multimedia Strategy for Priority Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) Pollutants, and use of social science tools and cultural profiling.
(a) What are the different principal process models available for understanding the diffusion process and are some of them more appropriate to the EPA program areas under discussion than others?
(1) What is the role of information and information flow in diffusion and adoption of innovations? How critical are they and how can EPA learn to make them more effective?
(2) What have we learned about designing appropriate incentives for facilitating the adoption process?
(3) How important are social networks to the process of diffusion and adoption of innovation? How can EPA recognize and use them?
(4) What can EPA learn from diffusion efforts undertaken by other partners in environmental protection (state and local agencies, tribes, non-governmental organizations, and corporations)?
(b) What are the principal barriers to diffusion and adoption of innovations in selected EPA program areas? Are there some characteristics intrinsic to certain innovations that make them difficult to diffuse?
(c) How can EPA effectively measure the success of its efforts to encourage diffusion and adoption of innovations?
(a) U.S. EPA. 1996. Watershed Approach Framework, (EPA840-S-96-001), Office of Water (4501F), U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, on the Internet at
(b) U. S. EPA. 1997. Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation, (EPA841-R-97-011), Office of Water (4503F), U.S. EPA, Washington, DC., on the Internet at
(c) U. S. EPA. 1997. Top 10 Watershed Lessons Learned, (EPA840-F-97-001), Office of Water (4501F), U.S. EPA, Washington, DC., on the Internet at
(d) Office of Wetlands, Oceans, & Watersheds, Features, on the Internet at
The following documents related to EPA's Multimedia Strategy for Priority Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) Pollutants are available from Thomas Murray, telephone (202)260-1876; or via email at
(a) Issue Statement.
(b) Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals Initiative, description on the Internet at
The following documents related to Social Science Tools: Cultural Profiling are available via mail or email from Theresa Trainor, telephone (202) 260-3009; or via e-mail at
(a) The Social Sciences and Environmental Protection: Experiences and Opportunities at the U.S. EPA (Mark Wamsley, July 1999).
(b) Community Cultural Profiling Guide: Understanding a Community's Sense of Place Fact Sheet.
(c) Community Profile of Nebraska's Central Platte River Region, A joint project between The Nature Conservancy and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, November 1, 1999.
It is the policy of the Science Advisory Board to accept written public comments of any length, and to accommodate oral public comments whenever possible. The Science Advisory Board expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written statements. Oral Comments: In general, each individual or group requesting an oral presentation at a face-to-face meeting will be limited to a total time of ten minutes. For teleconference meetings, opportunities for oral comment will usually be limited to no more than three minutes per speaker and no more than fifteen minutes total. Deadlines for getting on the public speaker list for a meeting are given above. Speakers should bring at least 35 copies of their comments and presentation slides for distribution to the reviewers and public at the meeting.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of Proposed Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue, Nahant Marsh Site, Davenport, Iowa.
Notice is hereby given that a proposed agreement and covenant not to sue regarding property which the City of Davenport, Iowa intends to purchase at the Nahant Marsh Superfund Site, was signed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) on December 30, 1999, and by the United States Department of Justice on April 13, 2000. The property that is the subject of this agreement is owned by the Scott County Sportsmen's Association and is located at 4740 Wapello Avenue, Davenport, Iowa.
EPA will receive, on or before June 21, 2000, written comments relating to the proposed agreement and covenant not to sue.
Comments should be addressed to E. Jane Kloeckner, Senior Assistant Regional Counsel, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII, 901 N. Fifth Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101 and should refer to the Nahant Marsh Superfund Site.
The proposed agreement and covenant not to sue (Agreement) may be examined or obtained in person or by mail at the office of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 901 No. Fifth Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101, (913) 551-7010. In requesting a copy, please refer to the reference case and enclose a check in the amount of $14.25 (25 cents per page reproduction costs), payable to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
The Nahant Marsh Site is part of a unique wetland located along the Upper Mississippi River. Soil and sediments at the Nahant Marsh site were contaminated with hazardous substances attributable to historic shooting range operations at the Scott County Sportsmen's Association Trap and Skeet Shooting Club facility. EPA investigations at the Site indicated a severe, acute ecological threat due to the lead shot contamination in the sediments. A threat to recreational users at the Site was also present due to the lead shot in the soil. EPA conducted a removal action at the Site in 1999 to mitigate these threats. The proposed agreement concerns the sale of the Association's facility and land.
EPA entered into a Consent Decree with the Scott County Sportsmen's Association to resolve the Association's liability under CERCLA for their operations which caused the release of hazardous substances at the facility. The Consent Decree settles claims by the United States, against Scott County Sportsmen's Association (SCSA) under Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9607. The Complaint of the United States seeks past and future CERCLA response costs incurred by EPA connection with the Nahant Marsh Superfund Site (the Site) and for damages for injuries to natural resources at the Site as determined by the Department of the Interior (Interior) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Natural Resource Trustee.
The Consent Decree requires SCSA to record a conservation easement for its property at the Site in favor of the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation (INHF) for preservation of the land as a reserve for wildlife and to prevent residential, commercial and industrial development of the land. The SCSA is required to transfer ownership of its property at the Site to the City of Davenport, Iowa (the City), and notify EPA of the transfer. The SCSA has no assets other than the property it owns within the Site. All proceeds from the sale will be paid to the United States. The Consent Decree with SCSA is also subject to public comment pursuant to a separate
Pursuant to the Agreement with the City of Davenport that is the subject of this
Notice is hereby given that a final determination has been made by the Regional Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), pursuant to section 312(f) of Public Law 92-500, as amended by Public Law 95-217 and Public Law 100-4 (the Clean Water Act), that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the waters of the Shrewsbury River, County of Monmouth, State of New Jersey. A Notice of Receipt of Petition and Tentative Determination was published in the
Comments were received from four individuals, one supporting and three objecting to the establishment of the Shrewsbury River No Discharge Area. These individuals are as follows:
One individual stated that his boating experience on the Manasquan River and the Shark River has been that the pumpouts located in the No Discharge Area are accessible but are not readily available. This individual attempted on five different occasions to have his holding tank pumped out and was not successful. He wonders how EPA and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) intend to enforce an additional No Discharge Area if the agencies have not addressed the current problems on the Manasquan River and the Shark River. In response to these comments, EPA acknowledges that pumpout facilities will occasionally be out of service, but this fact does not require a fundamental change to the No Discharge Area program. The commenter did not provide the specifics regarding these attempted pumpouts, such as whether all five attempts were at the same pumpout, the dates that these attempts occurred or the circumstances which prevented him from using the pumpouts. Another commenter stated that the Shark River pumpouts were not available beginning late August 1999. The commenter stated that this forced boaters to discharge their holding tanks into the Shark River. In response, EPA and NJDEP have attempted to get problems corrected when they are brought to our attention. Also, for the Shrewsbury River, the application documents that all of the existing pumpouts are expected to be available for the entire boating season.
Several commenters objected to the vessel population numbers and the calculations used to estimate the number of pumpouts needed based on the vessel population. They feel that the vessel population at private docks is too low and that peak occupancy rates are too low. The commenters also stated that the equations are old, outdated and need to be reevaluated. In response, the vessel population numbers are based on survey done by the local environmental commissions. These surveys were conducted on the water using visual observations to count the boats at private docks. The methods used to estimate the vessel populations are standard procedures established in the 1994 Clean Vessel Act Grant Program and the 1994 EPA guidance document entitled “Protecting Coastal Waters from Vessel and Marina Discharges” and have been accepted by EPA as valid numbers. Regarding the equations used to estimate the numbers of pumpouts to service the vessel population in the Shrewsbury, two different methods were used to calculate the number of pumpouts needed, which is between two and four pumpouts. There are five pumpouts currently available and another three facilities have been proposed. Based on the information provided by the commenters, no revision was made to the calculations.
Another comment concerned the lack of dump stations for disposal of waste from portable toilets. In response, EPA notes that the pumpouts which received Clean Vessel Act grant monies came equipped with wand systems. The wands permit the portable toilets to be pumped out in a safe and sanitary manner.
Another commenter asked what a boater returning after 6 p.m., when all the facilities have closed, should do to pump out a holding tank. In response, the boater has three options: they can pump the holding tank prior to the next trip out during business hours; they can pump out at a facility on the Navesink River such as Marine Park which is open 24 hours a day; or they can discharge the holding tank if they are beyond the three mile limit. The same commenter stated that there are many commercial fishing vessels “in the area” that operate year round and questioned how such an operator would pump out in the off season. In response, EPA acknowledges that there are some vessels which operate off season “in the area”, but we note that the commenter has not documented that such vessels are active on the Shrewsbury River. The application provided did not identify any off season commercial vessels which are based in or active on the Shrewsbury River.
Another comment recommended that current laws should be enforced by the State of New Jersey and the New Jersey Marine Police instead of proceeding with this No Discharge Area proposal. In response, EPA is obligated to act on the application submitted, and we are without authority to require the state and local applicants to implement alternate approaches.
Another comment relates to the scheduling of a press event for May 11, 2000 while the comment period was still open. In response, the tentative scheduling of the event in advance of a final determination is required due to the busy schedules of EPA and NJDEP senior managers. In the event that a final determination had not been made or that the final determination was to deny the request, the press event would be
Another comment concerned a survey of the boats registered in the State of Maryland indicating that 5.2% of the vessels were equipped with either a Type I or Type II Marine Sanitation Device (MSD). This commenter stated that little if any environmental benefit would be gained by elimination of these flow through discharges. In response, EPA contends that elimination of any source of pollutants results in an environmental benefit. This individual also stated that it is a well known fact that the existing, national prohibition on the discharge of untreated vessel sewage waste is not enforced. In response, EPA notes that New Jersey has prosecuted two boat captains criminally for discharging vessel waste. New Jersey conducted an investigation of the fishing fleet operating out of the Belmar Marina and found one boat that was discharging into the Shark River, a designated No Discharge Area. Further, it must be noted that EPA's decision in this matter is limited to the adequacy and availability of pumpout facilities, and these comments are not relevant to this specific decision.
A comment was received that contends the establishment of a No Discharge Area makes the use of Type I and Type II MSDs illegal. In response, this is not the case. The discharge of sewage from any vessels while inside the Area is prohibited. The use of a Type I or Type II MSD is not illegal once outside the No Discharge Area.
One individual advocated enforcing the existing laws, revising the standards for Type I and Type II MSDs to reflect the current state of the art technology and establishment of No Discharge Areas only where scientific evidence shows that boats discharging sewage are the cause of the water quality problems. In response, EPA agrees that existing laws should be enforced. EPA also agrees that technology-based standards should be determined by the best technology available. EPA Headquarters is currently considering a review of the technology for this purpose. We disagree that No Discharge Areas should only be established in areas where boaters have been determined to be the source of water quality problems. EPA supports the reduction of all known sources of pollution to address water quality impairment problems. These sources should include point and non-point sources alike.
One comment received supports the establishment of the No Discharge Area.
This petition was made by the NJDEP in cooperation with the North Coast Regional Environmental Planning Council (NCREPC), New Jersey Marine Sciences, Marine Trades Association of New Jersey, Monmouth County Planning Board, Monmouth County Environmental Council and Monmouth County Board of Health. Members of the NCREPC include the Borough of Eatontown, the Borough of Fair Haven, the Borough of Little Silver, the City of Long Branch, the Borough of Monmouth Beach, the Borough of Oceanport, the Borough of Red Bank, the Borough of Rumson, the Borough of Sea Bright, the Borough of Shrewsbury, the Township of Shrewsbury, the Borough of Tinton Falls, and the Borough of West Long Branch. Upon receipt of this affirmative determination in response to this petition, NJDEP will completely prohibit the discharge of sewage, whether treated or not, from any vessel in Shrewsbury River in accordance with section 312(f)(3) of the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR 140.4(a).
The Shrewsbury River is located in Monmouth County, New Jersey, and is part of the Atlantic Coastal Drainage Basin. The Shrewsbury River drains approximately 27 square miles of urban/suburban residential development and agricultural lands. The Shrewsbury River runs easterly from Eatontown, Tinton Falls, and West Long Branch, New Jersey and then joins the Navesink River and empties into Sandy Hook Bay. The No Discharge Area will include the navigable waters of the Shrewsbury River and all its tributaries downstream to the point where the Route 36 Bridge crosses the river. The eastern boundary of the Area is a line from Lat./Long. 73°58′45″, 40°22′40″ to Lat./Long. 73°58′58″, 40°23′04″. The western boundary of the Area is at Lat./Long. 74°06′48″, 40°19′12″.
Information submitted by the State of New Jersey and the Shrewsbury Regional Environmental Planning Council states that there are six existing pumpout facilities at five different locations available to service vessels which use the Shrewsbury River. Atlantis Yacht Club, located at 66 River Avenue, Monmouth Beach, operates a stationary pumpout. The pumpout is available from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. beginning April until October and is operated by the marina staff. A $5.00 fee is charged for the use of the pumpout. Carriage House Marina, located at 1200 Ocean Avenue, Sea Bright, operates a stationary pumpout and a portable pumpout. The pumpouts are available from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. beginning May until October and is operated by the marina staff. A fee of $5.00 is charged for the use of the pumpout. Channel Club Marina, located at Channel Drive, Monmouth Beach, operates a stationary pumpout. The pumpout is available from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. beginning May until October and is operated by the marina staff. No fee is charged for use of the pumpout. Navesink Marina, located at 1410 Ocean Avenue, Sea Bright, operates a stationary pumpout. The pumpout is available from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. beginning April until October and is operated by the marina staff. A $5.00 fee is charged for the use of the pumpout. Oceanport Landing, located at 417 River Street, Oceanport, operates a portable pumpout. The pumpout is available from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. beginning April until September and is operated by the marina staff. A $5.00 fee is charged for use of the pumpout. In the case of slip holders and residents of Oceanport, the $5.00 fee is waived. None of the facilities have draft restrictions which would exclude boats access to the pumpouts.
Vessel waste generated from the pumpout facilities within the No Discharge Area is discharged into municipal sewer lines and is conveyed to the Northeast Monmouth Regional Sewage Authority (NJPDES Permit No. NJ0024520) at 1 Highland Avenue in Monmouth Beach for treatment.
According to the State's petition, the maximum daily vessel population for the waters of Shrewsbury River is approximately 2115 vessels. This estimate is based on (1) vessels docked at marinas and yacht clubs (1303 vessels), (2) vessels docked at non-marina facilities (584 vessels) and (3) transient vessels (228 vessels). The vessel population based on length is 2240 vessels less than 26 feet in length, 700 vessels between 26 feet and 40 feet in length and 175 vessels greater than 40 feet in length. Based on number and size of boats, and using various methods to estimate the number of holding tanks, it is estimated that between two and four pumpouts are needed for the Shrewsbury River. As previously stated, five pumpout facilities are currently available to service the boating population. Additionally, three additional pumpouts have applied for pumpout grant funding.
The EPA hereby makes a final affirmative determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the Shrewsbury River in the County of Monmouth, New Jersey.
The States of Utah and Arizona have submitted a joint application to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prohibit the discharge of sewage from all vessels into Lake Powell. Section 312(f)(3) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1322(f)(3), allows States to prohibit discharges of sewage, whether treated or not, into some or all of their waters, except that no such prohibition shall apply until the EPA determines that adequate facilities are reasonably available for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels on the waters to be covered by the prohibition.
For the reasons explained below, the EPA proposes to make an affirmative determination that adequate facilities exist, meaning that the States' complete prohibition of sewage discharges from vessels on Lake Powell would become effective. The EPA officials authorized to make this determination are the undersigned Regional Administrators for EPA Regions VIII and IX. (Region VIII includes Utah, and Region IX includes Arizona.) Before making this determination, however, the EPA is publishing this notice in order to announce that it has received this application and to provide any interested member of the public with an opportunity to comment on the application and/or the EPA's proposed determination.
Utah and Arizona submitted their joint application to the EPA in January of 2000 in cooperation with the Navajo Nation and the National Park Service, Glen Canyon National Recreational Area. According to the application, jurisdictional and enforcement authority for Lake Powell will reside with the respective States and the National Park Service. The Utah Department of Environmental Quality, the Utah Department of Natural Resources, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, the Arizona Department of Fish and Game and the National Park Service, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area will all be the enforcing agents should this application be approved. The United States Coast Guard also will be asked to continue its enforcement role.
The joint application states that Lake Powell is 186 miles long, with approximately 2000 miles of shore line. It receives 2.5 million visitors annually, with 4.3 million visitor days. Approximately 95% of the Lake is in Utah and 5% is in Arizona. The Navajo Nation bounds on the southeast portion of Lake Powell, but the jurisdiction of the Navajo Nation is not affected by the application of Utah and Arizona.
As described in more detail in the States' application, there are six authorized vessel entry/take-out points on the Lake: Wahweap, Stateline, Hite, Bullfrog, Hall's Crossing, and Antelope Point. The first five locations have major pumpout facilities. Due to the geomorphology of the Lake, it is nearly impossible to remove or launch a vessel from any other point on the Lake. A major water accessible vessel pumpout facility is also located at Dangling Rope. Each major facility has multiple pumps. In addition, eight supplemental mechanically operated floating pump out facilities are located at various areas on the Lake. These pumps are: Warm Creek Bay, located in Warm Creek Bay; Dominiquez Butte, near Lake Powell Channel Mile Marker 22; Rock Creek, near Lake Powell Channel Mile Marker 35; Oak Bay, located near Lake Powell Channel Mile Marker 51; Escalante, located near Lake Powell Channel Mile Marker 68A; Rincon, near Lake Powell Channel Mile Marker 77A; Hall's Creek Bay, located in Hall's Creek Bay on the Eastside; and Forgotten Canyon, near Lake Powell Channel Mile Marker 106. There are sixty-nine pumpouts on the Lake. All the facilities identified above are operational 24 hours per day. None of the facilities identified will exclude any vessel because of insufficient water depth adjacent to the facility. There are no fees to pump out at any facility. Treatment of all wastes from the pumpout facilities is to be in conformance with Federal law.
The States of Utah and Arizona, the Navajo Nation, and the National Park Service have stated that the complete prohibition of discharge from all vessels of any sewage, treated or not, into Lake Powell is necessary. Numerous beach closures have occurred because of fecal coliform bacterial contamination over the last several years. While it has not been demonstrated that these closures are due solely to vessel sewage, such discharges may be the cause of the closures. Prevention of discharge of human wastes to the waters of the Lake is critically important to protect public health and water quality of this important national resource.
The joint application also provides the following information regarding vessel use on Lake Powell:
For more information about the requirements for state applications for complete prohibitions of sewage discharges pursuant to section 312(f)(3) of the Clean Water Act, please see 40 CFR 140.4(a). Copies of the application letters from the States of Utah and Arizona are available for public inspection and copying at the EPA's Denver, Colorado office. The person to contact for information is Douglas Johnson (8EPR-EP), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Denver, CO, 80202-2466 or by telephone at (303) 312-6834. If you are interested in commenting on this application, please address your comments to Mr. Johnson and be sure that your comments are received by the EPA no later than July 6, 2000.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has received Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the following public information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 96-511. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Not withstanding any other provisions of law, 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. Questions concerning the OMB control numbers and expiration dates should be directed to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, (202) 418-0214.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice of information collection to be submitted to OMB for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
In accordance with requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the FDIC hereby gives notice that it plans to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for OMB review and approval of the information collection system described below.
Estimated annual number of respondents: 5,800.
Estimated time per response:
Average annual burden hours: 2,900 hours.
Information about this submission, including copies of the proposed collection of information, may be obtained by calling or writing the FDIC contact listed above.
The collection of information is used by FDIC bank examiners to assure that insured nonmember banks comply with 12 CFR Part 326 (Minimum Security Devices and Procedures for Insured Nonmember Banks), which implements the Bank Protection Act of 1968 and to review bank security programs.
Federal Election Commission.
Announcement of Changes to the Computerized Magnetic Media Requirements for Presidential Primary, General Election and Convention Committees.
The Commission has revised its document entitled “Computerized Magnetic Media Requirements for Title 26 Candidates/Committees Receiving Federal Funding” (“CMMR”). The CMMR sets forth technical standards designed to ensure the compatibility of magnetic media provided for Commission use during the matching fund submission process and mandatory audits of these publicly-funded campaign committees.
April 13, 2000.
Rick Halter, Deputy Assistant Staff Director, or Charles Ratcliff, Data Systems Development Division; 999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463; (202) 694-1200 (Mr. Halter), (202) 694-1295 (Mr. Ratcliff), or (800) 424-9530 (toll free).
On June 21, 1990, the Federal Election Commission adopted a document entitled “Computerized Magnetic Media Requirements for Title 26 Candidates/Committees Receiving Federal Funding” (“CMMR”). The CMMR was revised on
The CMMR sets forth technical standards designed to ensure the compatibility of magnetic media provided for Commission use during the matching fund submission process, which is also discussed in the Commission's “Guideline for Presentation in Good Order” (“PIGO”), and the mandatory audits of publicly-funded presidential campaign and convention committees. Each presidential candidate and convention committee must agree to maintain and provide computerized magnetic media in the format prescribed by the CMMR, if the committee maintains or uses computerized information containing any specified categories of data.
Until this latest revision, the CMMR included file format specifications for records of disbursements. While the same information is still required, no particular format is now specified.
The CMMR has also been revised to reflect technological advances in computer software since the 1996 revisions. It thus provides campaigns with more options than the previous version of the CMMR. The Commission continues to encourage committees to provide samples of their magnetic tape or magnetic diskettes, so that the Commission may determine whether the samples comply with the specifications established.
The CMMR is included as Appendix 2 to the Commission's
Please note that the technical requirements found in the CMMR are not intended to promote or discourage the use of any particular computer system or software. The Commission believes that committees should have as much discretion as possible in selecting the computer equipment they wish to use, determining what types of financial records and information should be computerized, and deciding how the computerized information is maintained. However, committees are expected to present this financial information to the Commission in the format specified in the CMMR.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Kansas (FEMA-1327-DR), dated May 3, 2000, and related determinations.
May 11, 2000
Madge Dale, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3772.
The notice of a major disaster for the State of Kansas is hereby amended to include the Public Assistance program for the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 3, 2000:
Labette and Neosho Counties for Public Assistance.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Missouri (FEMA-1328-DR), dated May 12, 2000, and related determinations.
May 12, 2000.
Madge Dale, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3772.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated May 12, 2000, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Missouri, resulting from severe thunderstorms and flash flooding on May 6-7, 2000, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, P.L. 93-288, as amended (“the Stafford Act”). I, therefore, declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of Missouri.
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes, such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and Hazard Mitigation in the designated areas and any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act you may deem appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. If Public Assistance is later requested and warranted, Federal funds provided under that program will also be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the authority vested in the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency under Executive Order 12148, I hereby appoint Peter Martinasco of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.
I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Missouri to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:
Crawford, Franklin, Gasconade, Jefferson, St. Charles, Ste. Genevieve, St. Francois, St. Louis County, Warren and Washington Counties for Individual Assistance.
All counties within the State of Missouri are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New Mexico (FEMA-1329-DR), dated May 13, 2000, and related determinations.
May 13, 2000.
Madge Dale, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3772.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated May 13, 2000, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of New Mexico, resulting from a severe forest fire beginning on May 5, 2000, and continuing is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, P.L. 93-288, as amended (“the Stafford Act”). I, therefore, declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of New Mexico.
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes, such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and Hazard Mitigation in the designated areas and any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act you may deem appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. If Public Assistance is requested and is determined to be warranted, Federal funds provided under that program will also be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the authority vested in the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency under Executive Order 12148, I hereby appoint Mark S. Ghilarducci of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.
I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of New Mexico to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:
Bernalillo, Cibola, Los Alamos, McKinley, Mora, Rio Arriba, Sandoval, San Juan, San Miguel, Santa Fe, Taos, and Torrance Counties for Individual Assistance.
All counties within the State of New Mexico are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New Mexico (FEMA-1329-DR), dated May 13, 2000, and related determinations.
May 16, 2000.
Madge Dale, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3772.
The notice of a major disaster for the State of New Mexico is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 13, 2000. Act (42 U.S.C. 5121
Chaves, DeBaca, Dona Ana, Eddy, Guadalupe, Lincoln, Otero, Sierra, and Socorro Counties for Individual Assistance.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an emergency for the State of New Mexico (FEMA-3154-EM), dated May 10, 2000, and related determinations.
May 10, 2000.
Madge Dale, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3772.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated May 10, 2000, the President declared an emergency under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas of the State of New Mexico, resulting from severe fire threats on May 10, 2000, and continuing is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, P.L. 93-288, as amended (“the Stafford Act”). I, therefore, declare that such an emergency exists in the State of New Mexico.
You are authorized to coordinate all disaster relief efforts which have the purpose of alleviating the hardship and suffering caused by the emergency on the local population, and to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act to save lives, protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated areas. You are further authorized to identify, mobilize, and provide at your discretion, equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of the emergency and such other forms of assistance under Title V of the Stafford Act, as you may deem appropriate. In addition, you are authorized to provide emergency protective measures (Category B). This assistance excludes regular time costs for subgrantees regular employees. Assistance under this emergency is authorized at 75 percent Federal funding for eligible costs.
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes, such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the authority vested in the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency under Executive Order 12148, I hereby appoint Mark S. Ghilarducci of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.
I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of New Mexico to have been affected adversely by this declared emergency:
The counties of Los Alamos, Sandoval and Santa Fe for assistance as specified in the declaration letter quoted above.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency for the State of New Mexico, (FEMA-3154-EM), dated May 10, 2000, and related determinations.
May 11, 2000.
Madge Dale, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3772.
The notice of an emergency for the State of New Mexico is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of May 10, 2000:
Rio Arriba County for assistance as specified in the May 10, 2000, declaration letter.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Notice.
FEMA gives notice of approval of the State of Rhode Island Ingestion Pathway Plan in support of the overall emergency preparedness for the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant and Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.
This certification and approval are effective as of April 14, 2000.
Regional Director, FEMA Region I, 442 J.W. McCormack POCH Boston, and Massachusetts 02109. Please refer to Docket No. FEMA-REP-1-RI-1.
In accordance with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Rule 44 CFR, Part 350, the State of Rhode Island submitted its ingestion pathway plan in support of the overall emergency preparedness for the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant and Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. The plan was submitted to the Regional Director of FEMA Region I for review and approval on April 3, 1996. The Regional Director forwarded a recommendation for formal approval of the Rhode Island Plan to FEMA Headquarters for review and approval on November 29, 1999, in accordance with Section 350.11. This evaluation was based on a review of the plan; the joint exercise conducted on August 10-11, 1999, in accordance with section 350.9 for the exercise for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station; and, a report of the public meeting held on March 20, 2000, to discuss the portion of the State of Rhode Island's plan and the Millstone
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board).
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) (collectively, the “agencies”), hereby give notice that they plan to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requests for review of the information collection system described below. The Agencies may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The Agencies, under the auspices of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), propose to extend without revision the following currently approved information collection: the Country Exposure Report for U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks (FFIEC 019). However, minor clarifications are proposed to the instructions. The Board is publishing the request for extension on behalf of the agencies. At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine whether the FFIEC and the agencies should modify the information collections. The Board will then submit the reports to OMB for review and approval.
Comments must be submitted on or before July 21, 2000.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to any or all of the agencies. All comments should refer to the OMB control number and will be shared among the agencies.
Additional information or a copy of the collection may be requested from:
Proposal to extend for three years with minor instructional clarification the following currently approved collection of information:
This information collection is mandatory: 12 U.S.C. 3105 and 3108 for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; sections 7 and 10 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1817, 1820) for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; and the National Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 161) for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency). This information collection is given confidential treatment. (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)). Small businesses (that is, small U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks) are affected.
All individual U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks that have more than $30 million in direct claims on residents of foreign countries must file the FFIEC 019 report quarterly. Currently, all respondents report adjusted exposure amounts to the five largest countries having at least $20 million in total adjusted exposure. The Agencies collect this data to monitor the extent to which such branches and agencies are pursuing prudent country risk diversification policies and limiting potential liquidity pressures. No changes are proposed to the FFIEC 019 reporting form, however, minor clarifications are proposed to the instructions.
The instructional clarifications to the FFIEC 019 report that are the subject of this notice have been approved by the Agencies for implementation as of the September 30, 2000, report date. The proposed clarifications involve the treatment of credit derivatives as guarantees.
Comments are invited on:
a. Whether the information collections are necessary for the proper performance of the agencies' functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the agencies' estimates of the burden of the information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collections on respondents,
e. Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be shared among the agencies and will be summarized or included in the agencies' requests for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Written comments should address the accuracy of the burden estimates and ways to minimize burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology as well as other relevant aspects of the information collection request.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 16, 2000.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than June 5, 2000.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 16, 2000.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 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 June 15, 2000.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 16, 2000.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. 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 the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 5, 2000.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 16, 2000.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
Notice of opportunity to participate and obtain co-sponsorship in agency public awareness campaign.
The FTC seeks to identify organizations interested in participating in the FTC's public awareness campaign concerning the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act and the FTC Rule that implements the Act. Participation by such organizations will involve the development and dissemination of informational materials co-sponsored by the FTC. Interested parties should submit a written statement explaining their interest and qualifications.
The FTC has not established a deadline, but it encourages interested organizations to submit the requested statement as early as possible.
Mr. Randy Satterfield, (202) 326-3407, Office of Consumer and Business Education, Bureau of Consumer Protection, FTC, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580, or rsatterfield@ftc.gov.
Effective April 21, 2000, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule, 16 CFR Part 312, issued by the FTC to implement the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), 15 U.S.C. 6501
To promote greater public awareness of the Rule and the COPPA, the FTC has initiated a Children's Online Privacy Protection Act Communications Campaign (“COPPA Communications Campaign”). The Campaign is designed to provide parents, guardians, youngsters, teachers, and other members of the public with information about privacy on the Internet and the law's protections. The Campaign will help parents understand the legal obligations of Web site operators under the COPPA as well as options that parents have for protecting their children's personal information. You can visit the Campaign's Web site at the following Internet address: www.ftc.gov/kidzprivacy.
The Commission believes that encouraging the active involvement of a wide variety of corporations, associations, organizations, and other entities in this effort will lead to a broad and effective educational campaign. Thus, as part of its Campaign, the FTC is seeking to foster the efforts of other public and private for-profit and non-profit organizations in the development and dissemination of informational materials about COPPA and the FTC's Rule, by allowing such organizations to list the FTC as a co-sponsor in connection with their materials, subject to FTC staff review and approval of such materials. (Interested organizations should note at the outset that this co-sponsorship program will not be funded or supported by agency grant, contract, or otherwise, so each organization is expected to bear its own costs of participation.)
The Commission requests that organizations interested in pursuing such co-sponsorship opportunities submit a written statement to the FTC contact listed above, describing the background and nature of the organization's interest or role in children's privacy and/or the Internet, and the organization's experience and expertise in developing and disseminating public information materials addressing those issues. The statement must also describe the organization's ability to reach the target audiences discussed above, including the organization's financial, managerial, and operational capacity and resources for the printing, production, and distribution of brochures or booklets, public service spots, videos, Web-based promotions, posters, flyers, advertising, etc. The statement must also include any other information that may be relevant, such as pertinent individual or organizational affiliations and the potential, if any, for apparent or actual conflicts of interest. In addition, the statement must expressly acknowledge the organization's understanding and agreement that FTC co-sponsorship, if any, of the organization's activities would not be funded or supported by agency grant, contract, or otherwise, would not create any financial or property right in any natural or artificial person, and would be subject to FTC review and approval of the public information materials or activities to be co-sponsored. Finally, an authorized representative of the organization must sign the statement. The FTC will consider the organization's statement and other information made available to or obtained by the agency in determining whether it should co-sponsor or continue to co-sponsor a particular organization's public information efforts.
By direction of the Commission.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 639-7090. Send written comments to CDC, Desk Officer; Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235; Washington, DC 20503. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.
1. Evaluation of Viral Hepatitis Educational Materials—New—National Center for Infectious Disease (NCID). The purpose of the proposed study is to assess the usefulness of hepatitis educational materials developed and distributed by the Hepatitis Branch, CDC. Annually, 125,000—200,000 Americans are infected with hepatitis A virus (HAV) and results in approximately 100 deaths. The estimated cost associated with HAV infections is estimated at $200 million a year in medical care and lost work days. An estimated 1 million to 1.25 million Americans are chronically infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV) and 4,000 to 5,000 die each year due to resultant cirrhosis and liver cancer. The estimated cost associated with HBV infections is estimated at $700 million a year in medical care and lost work days. It is estimated that 3.9 million
The annual burden hours are estimated to be 2403.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2000 funds for a cooperative agreement research program for Optimizing Strategies to Provide STD Partner Services. CDC is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objective of “Healthy People 2010”, a national activity to reduce morbidity and mortality and improve the quality of life. This announcement is related to the focus area(s) of Sexually Transmitted Diseases. For the conference copy of “Healthy People 2010”, visit the Internet site: http://www.health.gov/healthypeople. The goal of this cooperative agreement research program is to develop and evaluate the delivery of cost-effective, innovative, and confidential approaches to providing effective partner services within a time frame that interrupts the chain of STD transmission. Partner services (PS) are a critical component of STD control and prevention in public health practice.
Initially, this process was named “contact tracing,” but was renamed “partner notification” in the past two decades. Three primary strategies for partner notification are described in the literature, although other variations are also employed. The most common strategies are patient referral (patients are encouraged to notify sexual partners); provider referral, (health care staff, traditionally in the health department, notify partners); or contract referral (a time limit is agreed upon for patient referral, after which provider referral is initiated). In this program announcement, “partner services” is used to describe the constellation of services that should be provided to the sexual partners of individuals in whom a sexually transmitted disease has been detected and treated.
The purpose of PS is to break the chain of infection and re-infection that can occur when a STD is treated in only a part of a sexual dyad or network. STDs are often asymptomatic, many infected individuals are unaware of their infection, thus symptom-driven patient presentation for diagnosis and treatment fails to reach many people with STDs. PS may shorten the duration of infection in many additional individuals by identifying, treating, and counseling the sex partners of patients with STDs. Furthermore, PS offers a unique opportunity to assist at-risk, infected and uninfected people to adopt safer behaviors that will enable them to remain STD-free and is a key component of public health practice. The objectives of partner services include identifying, locating, notifying, testing, treating, and providing counseling to reduce STD risk for the sex partners of an individual diagnosed with chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, trichomoniasis, herpes, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
Despite the importance of partner services in public health practice, relatively little scientific information is available on the impact on disease transmission or cost effectiveness of various approaches, particularly for STDs that are treated in the private sector. Another limitation of the current science base is that existing data on partner services has been generated from federal, state, and local public health programs that have a legal responsibility to provide PS. This information does not reflect partner services in other clinical settings where the majority of STD diagnosis and treatment take place. At least half of STD care is sought from private providers. Therefore, further research across the full spectrum of STD treatment providers with respect to PS is clearly needed. Current data from a national survey of providers suggests that the most common method of notification in the private sector is patient referral, although the rate of new infections uncovered in the private sector from this method is not known. Fewer than 5 percent of providers reported engaging in provider referral and less than 50 percent consistently reported patients' names to health departments after a diagnosis of chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, or HIV infection. Case reporting from providers and from laboratories enables the local health department to provide partner services. However, providers may also diagnose and treat presumptively without performing a laboratory test, and relatively little is known about case reporting or partner services following presumptive treatment.
Provider-perceived barriers to offering partner services include concerns about negative effects on relationships with patients and their partners, lack of training and time for these activities, and lack of reimbursement.
Nevertheless, providers agreed that PS could promote appropriate behavior and attitude change, and reduce (re)infection rates. In summary, this survey confirmed that the effectiveness of PS in the private sector is unknown and reporting of names to agencies that conduct PS is limited.
Current methods of PS require substantial time and effort from public health staff, although data estimating the magnitude of the reduction in STD incidence or prevalence within communities that is attributable to PS are currently lacking. Recent advances in STD detection and treatment, information system hardware and software, and behavioral interventions offer an unprecedented opportunity to:
(1) Design and evaluate innovative strategies that increase the effectiveness of partner elicitation;
(2) Improve the timely connection of partners with appropriate detection, treatment, and counseling services;
(3) Intervene to lower STD risk among sex partners; and
(4) Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of new methods in comparison to current strategies.
This is likely to require complex evaluation that moves from the index patient to the patient-partner dyad, to sexual networks, and to community levels of evaluation.
CDC envisions that data from this research program will be used to design cost-effective strategies that
(a) Augment the effectiveness of PS in the public and private sectors;
(b) Reduce the incidence and the prevalence of curable STDs; and
(c) Utilize the opportunities inherent in partner services to lower partners' risk behaviors.
Incidence and prevalence reductions should be demonstrably attributable to innovations in PS.
This program has four general objectives:
1. To develop, apply, and evaluate confidential and innovative partner services across a variety of practice settings using new techniques or technologies and to assess their effectiveness and acceptability in comparison with current PS methods;
2. To develop and assess the feasibility of policy level interventions that may be needed to make innovative strategies feasible;
3. To assess the cost-effectiveness of proposed alternatives in comparison with current methods of partner services; and
4. To develop mathematical models that assess the impact of current and alternative partner service approaches on rates of incident and prevalent infections.
Applications may be submitted by public and private nonprofit and for-profit organizations; governments and their agencies; that is, universities, colleges, research institutions, managed care organizations, hospitals; State and local governments or their bona fide agents; and federally recognized Indian tribal governments, Indian tribes, or Indian tribal organizations. Eligible applicants should collaborate with their local or state health department because this linkage is critical to the successful conduct of this research.
Public Law 104-65 states that an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that engages in lobbying activities is not eligible to receive Federal funds constituting an award, grant, cooperative agreement, contract, loan, or any other form.
Approximately $750,000 is available in FY 2000 to fund the first year of approximately 2-3 awards. It is expected that the average award will be $250,000, ranging from $100,000 to $350,000. It is expected that the awards will begin by September 30, 2000 and will be made for a 12-month budget period for a maximum project period of four years. Funding estimates may change. Continuation awards within an approved project period will be based on satisfactory progress as evidenced by required reports and on the availability of funds.
Funding preference will be given:
1. To applicants with access to subjects in public and private settings where STDs are diagnosed and treated;
2. To achieve geographic distribution;
3. To applications that address more than one STD;
4. To applications that involve collaboration with health departments; and
5. To applications that incorporate a mix of provider settings where chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, trichomoniasis, herpes, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are detected and treated.
Collaborative partnerships are strongly encouraged with managed care organizations, private practice settings, family planning clinics, or community and migrant health centers in addition to traditional public STD clinics.
In conducting activities to achieve the purpose of this program, the recipient will be responsible for the activities under 1. (Recipient Activities), and CDC will be responsible for the activities listed under 2. (CDC Activities).
a. Design and conduct research to address the study question(s) as listed below. Applicants may address one or more of the study questions listed and are encouraged to address at least two.
(1) In comparison to current strategies, what innovative methods can be developed and evaluated to increase the timeliness, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of partner services across a variety of practice settings?
PS interventions should be tailored to patient, partner, or provider characteristics, to specific STDs, and to different practice settings in order to produce the most effective partner services. It is also important to assess methods that increase patient's cooperation, recall, and accuracy with respect to (a) providing names and locating information for partners or (b) following through with patient referral. Evaluation of the barriers that inhibit patients from naming partners or delivering patient referral in conjunction with interventions that overcome those barriers and increase the proportion of partners who receive medical evaluation, treatment, and counseling are encouraged. Development and evaluation of strategies that promote the timely and appropriate delivery of partner services are encouraged. There is also interest in identifying methods for delivering partner services that promote changes in partners' risk behaviors and how this may vary by whether or not the exposed partner had acquired an STD.
For new strategies, techniques, or technologies, identify how they can be implemented in public and private health care settings. Evaluations should address to what extent and how the use of the new technologies or techniques increase the productivity of staff and reduce the barriers to timely and effective partner services for staff, patients, and partners.
Finally, there is programmatic interest in assessing the cost-effectiveness of innovative strategies, new techniques, and new technologies. Such interest includes accurately determining the incremental cost of identifying and locating partners and infections using innovative strategies and their comparison with the cost of current strategies. Cost-effectiveness measures should include research, training, and program costs separately so that implementation can be examined independently of research costs.
Applications that combine some or all of the above elements are encouraged. Preference will be given to applications that:
(a) Propose the development, implementation, and evaluation of innovative strategies;
(b) Present a detailed plan for measuring and evaluating outcomes;
(c) Will be able to identify which elements of a proposed strategy account for its effectiveness;
(d) Make the incremental value of the strategy visible; and
(e) Incorporate technology transfer to settings where STDs are diagnosed and treated.
(f) Compare proposed innovative strategies with traditional methods of partner services and clarify whether
(2) What policy level interventions can be developed, implemented, and evaluated to promote partner services across a broad spectrum of health care settings?
This may include identification of the policy sources, their policy function (advisory, regulatory, implementation), and the introduction and evaluation of policy-level changes that promote the improved delivery of partner services. There is interest in funding interventions that can produce the necessary policy changes, including linking the process of such interventions with specific outcomes (
(3) Apply mathematical models to assess the impact of current and alternative partner service approaches on rates of incident and prevalent infections?
The application of mathematical models to assess which current strategies and proposed alternatives may be most valuable in increasing the timeliness and effectiveness of partner services are also encouraged. Consideration will be given to the use of existing databases. The use of cost-effectiveness data as part of a model (or series of models) is encouraged.
b. Evaluate and analyze the research data.
c. Disseminate study findings through presentations at scientific meetings and publications in peer-reviewed journals.
A cooperative agreement reflects an assistance relationship between the Federal Government and the recipient in which substantial programmatic involvement is anticipated about the scientific or technical management of an activity during its performance. The CDC program office will:
a. Provide up-to date scientific information, technical assistance, and guidance in the design and conduct of the research.
b. As needed, assist in the development of a research protocol for local IRB review at cooperating institutions participating in the research project. The CDC IRB will review and approve the protocol initially and on at least an annual basis until the research project is completed.
c. As needed, assist in data analysis and the preparation of manuscripts.
d. Convene meetings of all grantees for the exchange of information.
Applications must be developed in accordance with the information contained in this program announcement, the PHS 398 Grant Application, and the instructions provided in this section. Your application will be evaluated on the criteria listed, so it is important to follow them in laying out your program plan.
The program narrative for sections 1-5 below should be no more than 25 single-spaced pages, printed on one side, with one-inch margins, and 10 or 12 cpi typeface. All pages, including appendices, should be numbered sequentially. The narrative must contain the following sections in the order presented below:
For planning purposes, a letter of intent to apply is requested and needed to staff the review panels, but not required, from potential applicants. Your letter of intent should include the following information: Program Announcement Number [00080], name and address of institution; name address, and telephone number of contact person; and specific objectives to be addressed by the proposed project.
The letter of intent must be submitted on or before June 12, 2000 to the Grants Management Specialist identified in the “Where to Obtain Additional Information” section of this announcement.
Applicants should submit five copies of PHS-398 (OMB Number 0925-0001) and adhere to the instructions on the Errata Instruction Sheet for PHS 398.
Forms are available at the following Internet address: www.cdc.gov/...Forms, or in the application kit. On or before July 14, 2000 submit the application to the Grants Management Specialist identified in the “Where to Obtain Additional Information” section of this announcement.
(a) Received on or before the deadline date; or
(b) Sent on or before the deadline date and received in time for distribution to the review panel. (Applicants must request a legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark or obtain a legibly dated receipt from a commercial carrier or U.S. Postal Service. Private metered postmarks shall not be acceptable as proof of timely mailing.)
Upon receipt, applications will be reviewed by CDC for completeness and responsiveness to the purpose of this request for applications (RFA) (as described in Section A), and as outlined under Eligible Applicants and Program Requirements (Items A to B). Incomplete applications and applications that are not responsive will be returned to the applicant without further consideration. It is important that the applicant's abstract reflects the project's focus, because the abstract will be used to help determine the responsiveness of the application.
All proposals will be independently reviewed for scientific merit by no less than three reviewers with appropriate expertise using current National Institutes of Health (NIH) review criteria to evaluate the methods and scientific quality of the proposal. Factors to be considered will include:
1. The specific aims of the research project,
2. The background of the proposal, i.e., the basis for the present proposal, the critical evaluation of existing knowledge, and identification of specific knowledge gaps which the proposal is intended to fill. (10 percent)
3. The significance and innovation from scientific and programmatic standpoints of the proposed research, including the adequacy of the theoretical and conceptual framework for the research. (20 percent)
4. The adequacy of the proposed research design, approaches, and methodology to carry out the research, including quality assurance procedures, plan for data management, statistical analysis plan, and evaluation plan. (40 percent)
5. The extent to which the research will lead to feasible, cost-effective interventions. (10 percent)
6. Qualifications and appropriateness of the proposed personnel to accomplish the proposed activities as well as the degree of commitment and cooperation of proposed collaborators and organizations (as evidenced by letters detailing the nature and extent of the involvement). (10 percent)
7. Research Capacity—adequacy of existing and proposed facilities and resources. (5 percent)
8. Gender and minority issues. Does the application include:
a. The proposed plan for the inclusion of both sexes and racial and ethnic minority populations for appropriate representation.
b. The proposed justification when representation is limited or absent.
c. A statement as to whether the design of the study is adequate to measure differences when warranted.
d. A statement as to whether the plans for recruitment and outreach for study participants include the process of establishing partnerships with community(ies) and recognition of mutual benefits.
9. Human Subjects—What are the strategies for the recruitment and retention of human subjects? Are the procedures proposed adequate for the protection of human subjects and are they fully documented? Are all procedures in compliance with applicable published regulations and 45 CFR 46?
10. The reasonableness of the proposed budget to the proposed research and demonstration program. Applications that propose to address more than one of the study questions described in Section D: Program Requirements should include a separate budget breakdown for each study question to be addressed.
Final awards will be determined by the Director of the Division of STD Prevention (DSTD) based on priority scores assigned by the independent review group appointed by CDC, consultation with DSTD senior staff, the match between the proposal and the program announcement, the relevance and balance of proposed research relative to DSTD priorities, and the availability of funds.
Provide CDC with an original plus two copies of:
1. Progress reports annually, no later than 90 days after the end of the budget period;
2. Financial status report, no later than 90 days after the end of the budget period; and
3. Final financial and performance reports, no more than 90 days after the end of the project period.
Send all reports to the Grants Management Specialist identified in the “Where to Obtain Additional Information” section of this announcement.
The following additional requirements are applicable to this program. For a complete description of each, see Attachment I in the application kit.
This program is authorized under section 318 of the Public Health Service Act, [42 U.S.C. Section 247c, as amended. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number is 93.978.
To receive additional written information and to request an application kit, call 1-888-GRANTS4 (1-888 472-6874). You will be asked to leave you name and address and will be instructed to identify the Announcement number of interest.
To obtain additional information, contact: Kang W. Lee, Grants Management Specialist, Procurement and Grants Office, Grants Management Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Room 3000, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341-4146; Telephone number (770) 488-2733; FAX number (770) 488-2847; Email address kil8@cdc.gov.
See also the CDC home page on the Internet: http://www.cdc.gov.
For program technical assistance, contact: Janet S. St. Lawrence, Division of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Mail Stop E44, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA 30333, (404) 639-8298; FAX: (404) 639-8622; Email address: nzs4@cdc.gov.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2000 funds for a cooperative agreement program for Project CHOICES (Changing High-risk AlcOhol Use and Increasing Contraception Effectiveness Study) Efficacy Study. The purpose of the study is to establish efficacy of Project CHOICES, a behavioral intervention approach to reducing alcohol-exposed pregnancies, in a multi-site, randomized clinical trial. Project CHOICES targets non-pregnant women at high risk for an alcohol-exposed pregnancy with a dual focused intervention aimed at reducing risk drinking and engaging in effective contraception until risk drinking is resolved. High-risk women will be accessed in high prevalence, community-based settings. CDC is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of “Healthy People 2010,” a national activity to reduce morbidity and morality and improve the quality of life.
This announcement is related to the focus areas of Substance Abuse: Alcohol and Other Drugs; and Maternal, Infant, and Child Health. For the conference copy of “Healthy People 2010,” visit the internet site: ≤http://www.health.gov/healthypeople>
Eligible applicants are limited to those previously funded under Program Announcement No. 746: Nova Southeastern University, The University of Texas—Houston, and Virginia Commonwealth University.
These applicants have been funded by CDC since 1997 to develop and implement the Project CHOICES Feasibility Study. This new cooperative agreement would allow the grantees to implement the study as a clinical trial.
Public Law 104-65 states that an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that engages in lobbying activities is not eligible to receive Federal funds constituting an award, grant, cooperative agreement, contract, loan, or any other form.
Approximately $900,000 is available in FY 2000 to fund approximately 3 awards. It is expected that the average award will be $300,000, ranging from $250,000 to $350,000. It is expected that the awards will begin on or about September 30, 2000, and will be made for a 12-month budget period within a project period of up to 3 years. Funding estimates may change.
Continuation awards within an approved project period will be made on the basis of satisfactory progress as evidenced by required reports and the availability of funds.
Project CHOICES targets non-pregnant, fertile women, 18-44 years of age, who are moderate to heavy alcohol consumers. Potentially high prevalence populations of targeted women have been defined from previous studies, including the Project CHOICES Feasibility Study which is currently underway. Applicants must select from the following list of high prevalence populations two settings in which they will conduct the Project CHOICES Efficacy Study: A jail; an alcohol and drug treatment center; an Obstetrical-Gynecological clinic; a Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Clinic; a media-recruited population of high-risk women; a Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) clinic; or an HMO. Applicants will then implement a behavior intervention protocol drawn from the Project CHOICES Feasibility study in two selected settings. Applicants must demonstrate the ability to maintain a minimum of 200 women from each selected setting (to be equally randomized to experimental and control groups) in the clinical study.
In conducting activities to achieve the purpose of this program, the recipient will be responsible for the activities under 1. (Recipient Activities), and CDC will be responsible for the activities listed under 2. (CDC Activities).
a. Refine Project CHOICES protocol and implement as a clinical trial in two diverse settings.
b. Recruit and train staff in a timely manner to ensure study implementation within the 3-year project period.
c. Implement appropriate quality assurance procedures to assure that protocols for the efficacy study are being properly implemented.
d. Develop manuscripts and presentations describing the Project CHOICES Efficacy Study, results and recommendations.
a. Assist in the development of a research protocol for Institutional Review Board (IRB) review by all cooperating institutions participating in the research project.
b. The CDC IRB will review and approve the protocol initially and on at least an annual basis until the research project is completed.
c. Assist in the overall coordination of the implementation and evaluation of the intervention protocol.
d. Provide current scientific information, and ensure adherence to appropriate scientific standards including human subject regulations.
Use the information in the Program Requirements, Other Requirements, and Evaluation Criteria sections to develop the application content. Your application will be evaluated on the criteria listed, so it is important to follow them in laying out the program plan. The narrative should be no more than 25 double-spaced pages (excluding attachments), printed on one side, with one inch margins, and unreduced font. Do not include any spiral or bound materials or pamphlets.
Program Narrative (not to exceed 25 pages):
The Program narrative should follow the PHS-398 (Rev. 4/98) application and Errata sheet, and should include the following information:
1. A demonstrated understanding of the problem of FAS and other prenatal alcohol-related conditions, and the role of brief intervention and treatment approaches to preventing these disorders; a justification of the need for the proposed study and the grantee's rationale for targeting the two selected settings as ones in which high prevalence populations of women at risk for a alcohol-exposed pregnancy can be accessed; and a description of how this study addresses Health People 2010 Objectives and the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine report: Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: Diagnosis, Epidemiology, Prevention and Treatment.
2. Specific, measurable, and time-framed objectives.
3. A detailed plan describing the approach to be taken in implementing
4. A description of the cooperative agreement's principal investigator's role and responsibilities.
5. A description of all the project staff regardless of their funding source. It should include their title, qualifications, experience, percentage of time each will devote to the study, as well as that portion of their salary to be paid by the cooperative agreement.
6. A description of the involvement of other entities that will relate to the proposed project, (
7. A detailed first year's budget for the cooperative agreement with future annual projections, if relevant. Awards will be made for a project period of up to three years.
An applicant organization has the option of having specific salary and fringe benefit amounts for individuals omitted from the copies of the application which are made available to outside reviewing groups. To exercise this option: on the original and five copies of the application, the applicant must use “asterisks” to indicate those individuals for whom salaries and fringe benefits are not shown; the salaries and fringe benefits subtotals must still be shown. In addition, the applicant must submit an additional copy of page four (Form PHS-398), completed in full, with the asterisks replaced by the salaries and fringe benefits. This budget page will be reserved for internal staff use only.
Submit the original and 5 copies of PHS 398 (OMB Number 0925-0001). Adhere to the instructions on the Errata Instruction Sheet for PHS-398. Forms are available at the following Internet address: www.cdc.gov, or in the application kit.
On or before July 17, 2000, submit the application to the Grants Management Specialist identified in the “Where to Obtain Additional Information” section of this announcement.
(a) Received on or before the deadline date; or
(b) Sent on or before the deadline date and received in time for submission to the independent review group. (Applicants must request a legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark or obtain a legibly dated receipt from a commercial carrier or U.S. Postal Service. Private metered postmarks shall not be acceptable as proof of timely mailing.)
Each application will be evaluated individually against the following criteria by an independent review group appointed by CDC.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Also to be evaluated under this section is the degree to which the applicant has met the CDC Policy requirements regarding the inclusion of women, ethnic, and racial groups in the proposed research. This includes:
(a) The proposed plan for the inclusion of women and racial and ethnic minority populations for appropriate representation;
(b) The proposed justification when representation is limited or absent;
(c) A statement as to whether the design of the study is adequate to measure differences when warranted; and
(d) A statement as to whether the plans for recruitment and outreach for study participants include the process of establishing partnerships with community(ies) and recognition of mutual benefits.
5.
6.
7.
Provide CDC with original plus two copies of:
1. Semiannual progress reports;
2. Financial status report, no more than 90 days after the end of the budget period; and
3. Final financial and performance reports, no more than 90 days after the end of the project period.
Send all reports to the Grants Management Specialist identified in the “Where to Obtain Additional Information” section of this announcement.
The following additional requirements are applicable to this program. For a complete description of each, see Attachment 1 in the application kit.
This program is authorized under sections 301 and 317 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. sections 241 and 247b, as amended. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number is 93.283.
This and other funding opportunities may be found on the CDC home page on the Internet: http://www.cdc.gov.
To receive additional written information and to request an application kit, call 1-888-GRANTS4 (1-888-472-6874). You will be asked to leave your name and address and will be instructed to identify the Announcement number of interest.
If you have questions after reviewing the contents of all the documents, business management technical assistance may be obtained from:
William Paradies, Grants Management Specialist, Grants Management Branch, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2920 Brandywine Road, Room 3000, Atlanta, GA 30341-4146; Telephone number: (770) 488-2721; Email address: wep2@cdc.gov.
For program technical assistance, contact:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2000 funds for a cooperative agreement program for developing and improving birth defects surveillance and using surveillance data to develop birth defects prevention programs and activities to improve the access of children born with birth defects to health services and early intervention programs. CDC is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of “Healthy People 2010”, a national activity to reduce morbidity and mortality and improve the quality of life. This announcement is related to the focus areas of Substance Abuse, Environmental Health, and Maternal, Infant, and Child Health. For the conference copy of “Healthy People 2010”, visit the internet site: http://www.health.gov/healthypeople.
The purpose of the program is to support (1) the development, implementation, expansion, and evaluation of State based birth defects surveillance systems; (2) the development and implementation of State based programs to prevent birth defects; and (3) the development and implementation of activities to improve the access of children with birth defects to health services and early intervention programs.
Applicants will be limited to those not currently involved in CDC Program Announcement 051 (Cooperative Agreements for Enhanced State-Based Birth Defects Surveillance and Use of Surveillance Data to Guide Prevention and Intervention Programs) and Program Announcement 643 (Centers of Excellence to Provide Surveillance, Research, Services, and Evaluation Aimed at Prevention of Birth Defects). See Attachment 1 for a list of the States funded under these program announcements.
Assistance will be provided only to the health departments of States or their bona fide agents, including the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, federally recognized Indian tribal governments, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau. The eligible States are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Applicants may apply under one of two categories:
In the cover letter to the application, please state the category (1 or 2) for which you are applying.
Public Law 104-65 states that an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which engages in lobbying activities is not eligible to receive Federal funds constituting an award, grant, cooperative agreement, contract, loan, or any other form.
Approximately $800,000 is available in FY 2000 to fund approximately 3-6 awards in Category 1 and 3-6 awards in Category 2. It is expected that the average award will be $100,000, ranging from $50,000 to $150,000. The awards will begin on or about September 30, 2000, and will be made for a 12-month budget period within a project period of up to 3 years. Funding estimates may change.
Continuation awards within an approved project period will be made on the basis of satisfactory progress as evidenced by required reports and the availability of funds.
These awards may be used for personnel services, equipment, travel, and other costs related to project activities. Project funds may not be used
In conducting activities to achieve the purpose of this program, Category 1 recipients will be responsible for the activities under 1. Recipient activities for States with no birth defects surveillance systems; Category 2 recipients will be responsible for the activities under 2. Recipient activities for States with newly implemented or ongoing surveillance systems; and CDC will be responsible for the activities under 3. CDC activities.
1. Category 1—Recipient Activities for States with no birth defects surveillance systems:
a. Develop and begin implementation of a State based surveillance system to ascertain cases and generate timely population-based data of major birth defects occurring in the State.
b. Analyze the surveillance data generated by the system in a timely fashion including rates and trends of major birth defects.
c. Disseminate data and collaborate with appropriate organizations within the State and with other States.
d. Develop and implement a plan to evaluate the surveillance methodology used.
e. Develop a plan and begin implementation of a birth defects prevention program (
f. Develop a plan to evaluate the intervention or prevention activities.
2. Category 2—Recipient Activities for States with newly implemented or ongoing surveillance systems:
a. Broaden methodologies and approaches which will improve, sustain, and expand the capacity of the existing State based surveillance system to ascertain cases and generate timely population-based data of major birth defects occurring in the State.
b. Analyze the surveillance data generated by the system in a timely fashion including rates and trends of major birth defects.
c. Disseminate data and collaborate with appropriate organizations within the State and with other States.
d. Develop and implement a plan to evaluate the surveillance methodology used.
e. Develop a plan and begin implementation of a birth defects prevention program (
f. Develop a plan to evaluate the intervention or prevention activities.
3. CDC Activities.
a. Assist, if requested, in designing, developing, and evaluating methodologies and approaches used for State based birth defects surveillance.
b. Assist, if requested, in analyzing surveillance data related to birth defects.
c. Assist, if requested, in designing plans for prevention programs and plans to improve the access of children with birth defects to health services and intervention programs.
d. Provide, if requested, a reference point for sharing regional and national data and information pertinent to the surveillance and prevention of birth defects.
Use the information in the Program Requirements, Other Requirements, and Evaluation Criteria sections to develop the application content. Your application will be evaluated on the criteria listed, so it is important to follow them in describing the program plan.
The applicant should provide a detailed description of first-year activities and briefly describe future-year objectives and activities. The application must contain the following:
1. Cover Letter: A one page cover letter should indicate whether the applicant is applying for Category 1 or Category 2.
2. A one-page, single-spaced, typed abstract in 12 point font must be submitted with the application. The heading should include the title of the grant program, project title, organization, name and address, project director and telephone number. The abstract should clearly state which option the applicant is applying for: Category 1 or Category 2. The abstract should briefly summarize the program for which funds are requested, the activities to be undertaken, and the applicant's organization structure. The abstract should precede the Program Narrative. A table of contents that provides page numbers for each of the following sections should be included. All pages must be numbered.
3. Narrative: The narrative should be no more than 20 double-spaced pages printed on one side, with one inch margins, and unreduced font (12 pitch). The required detailed budget and detailed budget justification are not considered to be part of the Program Narrative. The narrative must contain the following sections:
a. Understanding the Problem and Current Status;
b. Impact on State based Birth Defects Surveillance;
c. Use of Surveillance Data for Prevention and Intervention;
d. Organizational and Program Personnel Capability;
e. Human Subjects Review;
4. Budget and Budget Justification—Provide a detailed budget which indicates the anticipated costs for personnel, fringe benefits, travel, supplies, contractual, consultants, equipment, indirect, and other items.
Submit the original and two copies of PHS 5161-1 (OMB Number 0937-0189). On or before July 20, 2000, submit the application to the Grants Management Specialist identified in the “Where to Obtain Additional Information” section of this announcement. Forms are available at the following Internet address: www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/forminfo.htm or in the application kit.
Deadline: Applications shall be considered as meeting the deadline if they are either:
(a) Received on or before the deadline date; or
(b) Sent on or before the deadline date and received in time for submission to the independent review group. (Applicants must request a legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark or obtain a legibly dated receipt from a commercial carrier or U.S. Postal Service. Private metered postmarks shall not be acceptable as proof of timely mailing.)
Late Applications: Applications which do not meet the criteria in (a) or (b) above are considered late applications, will not be considered, and will be returned to the applicant.
Each application will be evaluated individually against the following criteria by an independent review group appointed by CDC.
1. Applicant's understanding of the problem (10 percent):
The extent to which the applicant has a clear, concise understanding of the requirements, objectives, and purpose of the cooperative agreement. The extent to which the application reflects an understanding of the purpose and complexities of birth defects surveillance as it relates to their State.
2. Impact on State based birth defects surveillance (35 percent):
The extent to which the applicant describes the anticipated level of impact this cooperative agreement will have on birth defects surveillance activities in the State. The current and proposed activities evaluated in this element are specific for Category 1 and Category 2.
a. Evaluation criteria for category 1 (States with no birth defects surveillance systems):
(1) Plans for developing State based birth defects surveillance;
(2) Methods of case ascertainment;
(3) Timeliness of case ascertainment;
(4) Level of coverage of the population;
(5) Specific birth defects ascertained; and
(6) Plans for analyzing and reporting surveillance data to appropriate State, local, and federal health officials.
b. Evaluation criteria for category 2 (States with newly implemented or ongoing birth defects surveillance systems):
(1) Plans for improving/expanding State based birth defects surveillance;
(2) Methods of case ascertainment;
(3) Timeliness of case ascertainment;
(4) Level of coverage of the population;
(5) Specific birth defects ascertained;
(6) Plans for analyzing and reporting surveillance data to appropriate State, local, and federal health officials.
Also included in this criteria is the degree to which the applicant has met the CDC Policy requirements regarding the inclusion of women, ethnic, and racial groups in the proposed research. This includes:
1. The proposed plan for the inclusion of both sexes and racial and ethnic minority populations for appropriate representation.
2. The proposed justification when representation is limited or absent.
3. A statement as to whether the design of the study is adequate to measure differences when warranted.
4. A statement as to whether the plans for recruitment and outreach for study participants include the process of establishing partnerships with community(ies) and recognition of mutual benefits.
3. Use of the surveillance data for prevention and intervention (35 percent):
The extent to which the applicant describes the plans for using surveillance data to develop and implement programs to prevent birth defects and/or activities to improve the access of children with birth defects to health services and early interventions.
a. Develop a plan for working with appropriate partners in the State to develop prevention or intervention programs.
b. Describe methods or a plan for sharing surveillance data with programs or agencies that will use the data for prevention or intervention.
4. Organizational and program personnel capability (20 percent):
The extent to which the applicant has the experience, skills, and ability to develop and improve birth defects surveillance and use surveillance data to develop prevention or intervention programs. The adequacy of the present staff and capability to assemble competent staff to implement a birth defects surveillance system and develop programs for prevention or intervention. To the extent possible, the applicant shall identify all current and potential personnel who will work on this cooperative agreement including qualifications and specific experience as it relates to the requirements set forth in this announcement.
5. Human Subjects Review (not scored):
Does the application adequately address the requirements of Title 45 CFR Part 46 for the protection of human subjects?
6. Budget justification and adequacy of facilities (not scored):
The budget will be evaluated for the extent to which it is reasonable, clearly justified, and consistent with the intended use of the cooperative agreement funds. The applicant shall describe and indicate the availability of facilities and equipment necessary to carry out this project.
Provide CDC with original plus two copies of:
1. Semiannual progress reports;
2. Financial status report, no more than 90 days after the end of the budget period; and
3. Final financial status and performance reports, no more than 90 days after the end of the project period.
Send all reports to the Grants Management Specialist identified in the “Where to Obtain Additional Information” section of this announcement.
The following additional requirements are applicable to this program. For a complete description of each, see Attachment 2 in the application kit.
This program is authorized under sections 301(a), 311 and 317 (c) of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 241(a), 243, and 247 (b-4)], as amended. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number is 93.283.
For this and other CDC funding opportunities, refer to the CDC home page on the Internet: http://www.cdc.gov. To receive additional written information and to request an application kit, call 1-888-GRANTS4 (1-888-472-6874). You will be asked to leave your name and address and will be instructed to identify the Announcement number of interest.
If you have questions after reviewing the contents of all the documents, business management technical assistance may be obtained from: William A. Paradies, Grants Management Specialist, Grants Management Branch, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341-4146, Telephone: (770) 488-2721, E-mail address: WParadies@cdc.gov
Programmatic technical assistance may be obtained from: Larry D. Edmonds, State Services, Birth Defects and Pediatric Genetics Branch, Division of Birth Defects, Child Development, Disability and Health, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 4770 Buford Highway NE., Mailstop F-45, Atlanta, GA 30341-3724, Telephone: (770) 488-7170, E-mail address: LEdmonds@cdc.gov
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 Federal advisory committee meetings.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Children's Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, ACF, DHHS.
Correction/cancellation.
This document contains a correction to the Notice that was published in the
The purposes of operating and maintaining a National Adoption Information Exchange System to bring together children who would benefit from adoption and qualified prospective adoptive parents who are seeking children and to conduct national recruitment efforts in order to reach prospective parents for children awaiting adoption will be combined with the task of continuing to develop an Internet-based photo listing system. Upon further consideration, it has been decided that separating the photo listing service from the exchange and database, upon which it depends, would cause serious confusion to State child welfare agencies, would undermine the integrity of what is a single effort to assist States in inter-jurisdictional recruitment of families, and would pose the possibility of supporting duplicative projects. Because the grant for the photo-listing service will be awarded following directions from Congress, the competition for the exchange alone is being canceled.
In accordance with the Department's Grants Policy Directive (GPD) 2.04(F), and ad hoc review will be done on the noncompetitive application for the combined exchange and photo-listing activities and a notification of the intent to award the grant will be published in the
The complete corrected current availability of funds announcement package is posted on the Children's Bureau website:
The ACYF Operations Center at 1-800-351-2293 or send an email to
Administration on Children, Youth and Families, ACF, DHHS.
Fiscal Year 2000 Discretionary Announcement for the Early Childhood Higher Education Faculty Initiative and Request for Application.
Statutory Authority 42 U.S. 9801, et. seq., The Head Start Act, as amended.
Catalog of Federal Deomestic Assistance (CFDA): 93.600 Head Start Act as amended.
The Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families announces the availability of $1 million in funds to support one early childhood faculty initiative through a cooperative agreement. The cooperative agreement will be funded to provide opportunities for faculty in higher education to enhance their skills, knowledge and effectiveness as they teach teachers in Head Start and Early Head Start programs in order to insure better outcomes for children. A cooperative agreement is a form of Federal financial assistance that allows substantial Federal involvement in the activities for which funds are awarded.
In order to satisfactorily compete under this announcement, it will be necessary for potential applicants to read the full announcement which is available through the Head Start Bureau's website:
The closing date and time for the receipt of applications is 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time Zone) on July 11, 2000. Applications received after the closing date will be classified as late.
Mail applications to: ACYF Operations Center, Attention: Early Childhood Higher Education Faculty Development Initiative Application, 1815 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22209 (1-800-351-2293). Prior to preparing and submitting an application, in order to satisfactorily compete under this announcement, it will be necessary for potential applicants to read the full announcement which is available through the Head Start Bureau's website:
ACYF Operations Center at: 1815 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22209 (1-800-351-2292) or telephone: 1-800-351-2293- or E-mail:hs@lcgnet.com.
The purpose of this announcement is to request applications for the design, implementation and management oversight for conducting Early Childhood Higher Education Faculty Initiative. The result of this initiative will be to improve the quality and effectiveness of child outcomes in Head Start and Early Head Start and other early childhood development programs nationwide. This cooperative agreement will be for a five year project period.
Applications received by the due date will be reviewed and scored competitively. Experts in the field, generally persons from outside the Federal government, will use the evaluation criteria listed below.
The extent to which the application identifies relevant physical, economic, social, financial, institutional or other problems requiring a grant; demonstrates the need for assistance; states the principal and subordinate objectives of the project; provides supporting documentation or other testimonies from concerned interests other than the applicant.
The extent to which the application identifies the results and benefits to be derived; describes the anticipated contribution to policy, practice, theory and/or research; specific benefits should be described for faculty preparing Head Start and Early Head Start teachers, home visitors, and their supervisors and the whole early childhood community working with children birth through five.
The extent to which the application outlines an acceptable plan of action pertaining to the scope of the project which details how the proposed work will be accomplished, including a timeline; list of each organization, consultants, including the evaluation process, or other key individuals who will work on the project along with a short description of the nature of their effort or contribution; assures the adequacy of time devoted to the project by key staff, the key staff should be knowledgeable of Head Start and Early Head Start, the applicant must fully describe the approach and/or methodology and delineate the relationship of each task to the accomplishment of the proposed objectives. There should be evidence that the planned approach reflects sufficient input from collaborating partners.
The extent to which the project's costs are reasonable in view of the activities to be carried out and the anticipated outcomes. The annual budget should include the cost for staff members to attend required conferences in the Washington, DC area.
This program is covered under Executive Order 12372,
State/territory participation in the intergovernmental review process does not signify applicant eligibility for financial assistance under a program. A potential applicant must meet the eligibility requirements of the program for which it is applying prior to submitting an application to its SPOC, if applicable, or to ACF.
The following jurisdictions have elected not to participate in the Executive Order process: Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, American Samoa and Palau. Applicants from these jurisdictions or for projects administered by federally-recognized Indian Tribes need take no action in regard to E.O. 12372. Although the jurisidictions listed above no longer participate in the process, entities which have met the eligibility requirements of the program are still eligible to apply for a grant even if a State, Territory, Commonwealth, etc. does not have a SPOC. All remaining jurisdictions participate in the Executive Order process and have established SPOCs. Applicants from participating jurisdictions should contact their SPOC as soon as possible to alert them of the prospective applications and receive instructions .
Applicants must submit any required material to the SPOCs as soon as possible so that the program office can obtain and review SPOC comments as part of the award process. The applicant must submit all required materials, if any, to the SPOC and indicate the date of this submittal (or the date of contact if no submittal is required) on the Standard Form 424, item 16a.
Under 45 CFR 100.8(a)(2), a SPOC has 60 days from the application deadline to comment on proposed new or competing continuation awards.
SPOCs are encouraged to eliminate the submission of routine endorsements as official recommendations. Additionally, SPOCs are requested to clearly differentiate between mere advisory comments and those offical State process recommendations which may trigger the “accommodate or explain” rule. A list of the Single State Point of Contacts for each State and Territory can be found on the following website:
When comments are submitted directly to ACF, they should be addressed to: William Wilson, Head Start Bureau, Office of Grants Management, 330 C. Street, SW, Washington, DC 20447. ATTN: Early Childhood Higher Education Faculty Initiative
Administration for Children and Families, DHHS.
Notice of open meeting.
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), notice is given of the date for the ninth meeting of the Medical Child Support Working Group (MCSWG). The Medical Child Support Working Group was jointly established by the Secretaries of the Department of Labor (DOL) and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) under section 401(a) of the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998. The purpose of the MCSWG is to identify the impediments to the effective enforcement of medical support by State child support enforcement agencies, and to submit to the Secretaries of DOL and DHHS a report containing recommendations for appropriate measures to address those impediments.
The ninth meeting of the MCSWG will be held on Thursday, June 8, 2000, from 10:30 pm to approximately 12:30 pm.
The meeting will be held in the sixth floor conference room of the Aerospace Building, 901 D Street, SW, Washington, DC. All interested parties are invited to attend this public meeting. Seating may be limited and will be available on a first-come, first-serve basis. Persons needing special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other special accommodation, should contact the Executive Director of the Medical Child Support Working Group, Office of Child Support Enforcement, at the address listed below.
Ms. Samara Weinstein, Executive Director, Medical Child Support Working Group, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Fourth Floor East, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW, Washington, DC 20447 (telephone (202) 401-6953; fax (202) 401-5559; e-mail: sweinstein@acf.dhhs.fov). These are not toll-free numbers. The date, location and time for subsequent MCSWG meetings will be announced in advance in the
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2) (FACA), notice is given of meetings of the Medical Child Support Working Group (MCSWG). The Medical Child Support Working Group was jointly established by the Secretaries of the Department of Labor (DOL) and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) under section 401(a) of the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-200).
The purpose of the MCSWG is to identify the impediments to the effective enforcement of medical support by State child support enforcement agencies, and to submit to the Secretaries of DOL and DHHS a report containing recommendations for appropriate measures to address those impediments. This report will include: (1) Recommendations based on assessments of the form and content of the National Medical Support Notice, as issued under proposed regulation; (2) appropriate measures that establish the priority of withholding of child support obligations, medical support obligations, arrearages in such obligations, and in the case of a medical support obligation, the employee's portion of any health care coverage premium, by such State agencies in light of the restrictions on garnishment provided under title III of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1671-1677); (3) appropriate procedures for
The membership of the MCSWG was jointly appointed by the Secretaries of DOL and DHHS, and includes representatives of: (1) DOL; (2)DHHS; (3) State Child Support Enforcement Directors; (4) State Medicaid Directors; (5) employers, including owners of small businesses and their trade and industry representatives and certified human resource and payroll professionals; (6) plan administrators and plan sponsors of group health plans (as defined in section 607(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1167(1)); (7) children potentially eligible for medical support, such as child advocacy organizations; (8) State medical child support organizations; and (9) organizations representing State child support programs.
Minutes of all public meetings and other documents made available to the MCSWG will be available for public inspection and copying at both the DOL and the DHHS. At DHHS, these documents will be available at the MCSWG Executive Director's Office, Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Aerospace Building, Fourth Floor-East, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW, Washington, DC from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Questions regarding the availability of documents from DHHS should be directed to Andrew J. Hagan, OCSE (telephone (202) 401-5375). This is not a toll-free number. Any written comments on the minutes should be directed to Ms. Samara Weinstein, Executive Director of the Working Group, as shown above.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability; extension of comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is extending to July 3, 2000, the comment period for a notice published in the
Submit written comments on the notice of availability by July 3, 2000.
Submit written comments to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, or via e-mail to “FDADockets@oc.fda.gov”. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
Marquita B. Steadman, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HF-26), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-6733.
In the
Since publication of the April 3, 2000,
Although the agency has reviewed the requests asking for extensions of the comment period, the longest of which is for an additional 1 year, FDA does not believe that such a lengthy delay is in the best interest of the public health. FDA believes that delaying the receipt of comments for more than an additional 45 days (for a total of 90 days) is too long given the public health concerns at issue.
Interested persons may, on or before July 3, 2000, submit written comments to the Dockets Management Branch (address above). You may also send comments to the Dockets Management Branch via e-mail to “FDADockets@oc.fda.gov”. You should annotate and organize your comments to identify the specific issues to which they refer. You must submit two copies of comments, identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document, except that you may submit one copy if you are an individual. You may review received comments in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
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 purpose of the Black Lung Clinics Program (BLCP) is to stimulate and encourage local public and private agencies to improve the health status of coal workers and to increase coordination with other programs to assist the coal worker population. The goal of the BLCP is to provide services to minimize the effects of respiratory and pulmonary impairments of coal miners. Grantees provide specific diagnostic and treatment procedures required in the management of problems associated with black lung disease which improve the functional status, i.e., “quality of life”, of the miner and reduces economic costs associated with morbidity and mortality arising from pulmonary diseases.
This request is for approval of the application requirements which are included in the program guidelines and the program regulation (42 CFR 55a.201 and 55a.301). Grantees must submit applications annually for continued grant support. The regulations outline the requirements for grant applications for States (55a.201) and entities other than States (55a.301). The program guidelines further elaborate on these requirements.
The grant application form is cleared under another OMB approval (OMB No.
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.
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Cancellation of Notice of Availability of Funds.
This notice rescinds the Notice of Availability of funds in notice FR Doc. 99-21257, Part II, in the issue of Wednesday, August 18, 1999 on the following page, 45016, in column 2, last line, “Special Projects of National Significance. In the table on page 45019, in the section HIV/AIDS Programs, under “Special Projects of National Significance (SPNS).” On page 45032, in column 3, from heading “Special Projects of National Significance (SPNS)” through to bottom of this column.
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice of Availability of Funds.
The Health Resources and Services Administration's (HRSA) Office of Special Programs (OSP), Division of Transplantation (DoT) announces that applications will be accepted for fiscal year (FY) 2000 for grants to support projects demonstrating model interventions to increase organ and tissue donation. The grant program will assist qualified organ procurement organizations (OPOs) and other private non-profit entities eligible for funds under Section 371(a)(3) of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act , 42 U.S.C. 273(a)(3), as amended. HRSA/OSP/DoT invites applications from consortia of institutions/organizations to participate in the FY 2000 grant program.
The estimated total funds available for the first year of support (direct and indirect costs) for all awards made under this grant program in FY 2000 will be up to $1.5 million. HRSA anticipates funding 8-10 projects. It is anticipated that the cost range for each project year will be $100,000-$300,000 per award; however, projects that fall outside that range also will be considered. The total project period for applications submitted in response to this program announcement may not exceed three years.
Eligible applicants are consortia consisting at a minimum of the following two types of organizations/institutions: (1) At least one organization/institution with demonstrated expertise and experience in research and evaluation design and methods in the behavioral and social sciences; and (2) at least one organization/institution with demonstrated expertise and experience in organ donation, including but not limited to: OPOs, hospitals, and other health care organizations; national or regional associations; community-based service organizations; and public health or other government agencies. One member of each consortium shall serve as the primary applicant institution, which is required to be a private non-profit institution.
A letter of intent to submit an application is requested by June 8, 2000. Applications for this announced grant must be postmarked no later than July 11, 2000 to be considered for competition. Applications shall be considered as meeting the deadline if they are: (1) received on or before the deadline date; or (2) postmarked on or before the deadline date and received in time for orderly processing and submission to the review committee. Applications received with a postmark after 7-11-2000 will not be accepted.
Application kits, which include detailed instructions, are available through the HRSA Grant Application Center (telephone: 1-877-477-2123, or e-mail: hrsagac@hrsa.gov). The program announcement also can be obtained by accessing any of the following three Web sites: www.hrsa.gov, www.hrsa.gov/osp/dot, or www.organdonor.gov. Letters of intent to submit an application should be mailed to Dr. Mary L. Ganikos, Chief, Education Branch, DoT, OSP, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Parklawn Building, Room 7C-22, Rockville, Maryland 20857. All applications must be mailed or delivered to HRSA Grants Application Center, 1815 N. Fort Meyer Drive, Suite 300 Arlington, VA 22209.
Additional information may be obtained from Dr. Mary L. Ganikos, at the address above or via the following contact information: telephone—(301) 443-7577; fax—(301) 443-1267; or e-mail—mganikos@hrsa.gov.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463), announcement is made of the following National Advisory body scheduled to meet during the month of June 2000.
The meeting is open to the public on Wednesday, June 14, 2000, from 9 a.m.-10 a.m., and closed for the remainder of the meeting.
Anyone wishing to obtain a roster of members, minutes of meetings, or other relevant information should write or contact Gontran Lamberty, Dr. P.H., Executive Secretary, Maternal and Child Health Research Grants Review Committee, Room 18A-55, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, or by telephone at (301) 443-2190.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice; technical corrections.
This notice announces technical corrections to the monthly per unit fee amounts for use in determining the on-going administrative fee for public housing agencies (PHAs) administering the housing choice voucher program, and the rental certificate and moderate rehabilitation programs (including Single Room Occupancy and Shelter Plus Care) during Federal Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 published February 25, 2000 in the
May 22, 2000.
Gerald J. Benoit, Director, Real Estate and Housing Performance Division, Office of Public and Assisted Housing Delivery, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 4210, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone number (202) 708-0477 (this is not a toll-free telephone number). Hearing or speech impaired individuals may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
This technical amendment corrects an error in the
In addition to the above change, this notice transmits changes to the monthly Administrative Fees Amounts on the fee tables. The administrative fee revisions are in Appendix A. These changes are to correct a computer programming error that caused a small reduction in the fees in the listed areas. The metropolitan FMR areas that have changed are listed below with the
Aurburn-Opelika, AL-MSA, Corvallis, OR-MSA, and Culpepper County, VA were omitted from the administrative fee schedule for FY 2000 published in the February 25, 2000
The metropolitan areas that have changes and their page numbers in the February 25, FY 2000
The following applicants have applied for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
The applicant requests a permit to export blood samples from Indian Rhino (
The applicant requests a permit to import blood and tissue samples from Brown hyaena (
The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
The applicant requests a permit to import 140 live Panamanian golden frogs (
The applicant requests a permit to import one captive-born male and one captive-born female African wild dog (
The applicant requests a permit to import the prey remains of Diana monkey (
The applicant requests a permit to export hair, blood, and tissue samples from one male captive born Goeldi's monkey (
The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
The public is invited to comment on the following application for a permit to conduct certain activities with marine mammals. The application was submitted to satisfy requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972,
The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear (
The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear (
The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear (
The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear (
The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear (
The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear (
The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear (
The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear (
The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear (
Written data or comments should be submitted to the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203 and must be received by the Director
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review,
Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1505.2), the National Park Service (NPS) is announcing the Record of Decision on the Final General Management Plan (GMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Missouri National Recreational River (MNRR), 59-Mile District. The MNRR is located in portions of Clay, Union, and Yankton counties, South Dakota and Cedar, Dixon, and Knox counties, Nebraska.
More specifically, the NPS is reinstating a Record of Decision previously suspended by the bureau. After the Record of Decision was originally signed, it was discovered that the FEIS was inadvertently not filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as required by 40 CFR 1506.9. Accordingly, the NPS suspended the Record of Decision (see 65 FR 10542), suspended implementation of the GMP, filed the FEIS with EPA, and reopened the required 30-day period of no-action.
The Regional Director, National Park Service, Midwest Region, and the District Engineer, Omaha District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approved the Record of Decision on December 17, 1999. That Record of Decision was reinstated effective April 10, 2000.
Paul Hedren, Superintendent, Missouri National Recreational River, P.O. Box 591, O'Neill, Nebraska 68763, or by e-mail to MNRR_Superintendent@nps.gov, or call 402-336-3970.
The EPA published its notice of availability for the FEIS in the
National Park Service, Interior.
Amended Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the General Management Plan, Niobrara National Scenic River, Nebraska.
The National Park Service will prepare a General Management Plan (GMP) and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Niobrara National Scenic River (hereinafter, “the Park”), Nebraska, in accordance with section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), and a court decision invalidating a similar 1996 GMP/EIS and ordering a new one. This notice is being furnished as required by NEPA Regulation 40 CFR 1501.7, and serves to amend the Notice of Intent as published in the
To facilitate sound planning and environmental assessment in the preparation of this EIS, the National Park Service intends to both validate information previously acquired for the 1996 GMP/EIS, and obtain suggestions and information from other agencies and the public on several court-driven issues to be addressed in the new EIS. The National Park Service will scope this GMP/EIS via the media, a newsletter, and through a World Wide Web page. Comments and participation in this scoping process are invited.
A project newsletter is being prepared, which is expected to be ready by the end of May 2000. The newsletter will contain specific information about how to provide input to the scoping phase of this project. Availability of the newsletter will be announced through local and regional media outlets. The newsletter will be sent to all addressees of record in the planning of the park's 1996 GMP/EIS, and to others who request the newsletter. To request a copy of the newsletter and to be added to the project mailing list, contact the park superintendent at 402-336-3970 or by writing to one of the addresses below.
Written comments and information should be directed to Superintendent, Niobrara National Scenic River, P.O. Box 591, O'Neill, Nebraska 68763; or by email, niob_gmp@nps.gov.
Superintendent, Niobrara National Scenic River, at either of the above addresses or at telephone number 402-336-3970.
Since the original notice of intent was published in February 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit overturned the boundaries for the Niobrara National Scenic Riverway which has been established as part of a 1996 General Management Plan (GMP) for the park. A federal district court had overturned that GMP and associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in a separate ruling. However, the district court ruling had retained the section of the GMP pertaining to the park's boundary. Therefore, the original notice of intent for the current project implied that boundaries were not within the scope of issues that would be addressed in the forthcoming GMP/EIS rewrite. The decision of the Court of Appeals has expanded the scope to include the park boundary.
The broad array of issues identified in the 1996 GMP/EIS, including land ownership, landscape conservation, water resource protection, hunting, fishing, and trapping, and visitor education and protection appear valid but reaffirmation will be sought through scoping. Specific examples of other issues that will be addressed in the GMP are: (1) the extent and manner in which partnerships can and will be employed to achieve management objectives, (2)
The new GMP will set forth a management concept for the park; establish plans for resource conservation, public use, and development; and identify strategies for resolving issues and achieving management objectives. It is expected that the GMP will guide park management for a period of fifteen to twenty years.
The GMP/EIS will investigate alternatives ranging from no-action to a variety of management approaches designed to guide public use and protect natural and cultural resources.
The environmental review of the GMP for the Niobrara National Scenic River will be conducted in accordance with requirements of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321
The National Park Service estimates the draft GMP and draft EIS will be available to the public in early 2001.
In accordance with Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190, as amended), the National Park Service (NPS) is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for a General Management Plan Amendment, a Wilderness Management Plan, a Resource Management Plan (Cultural and Natural) and a Commercial Services Plan. The DEIS will evaluate the environmental consequences associated with the proposed actions and the other alternatives on management of wilderness, cultural and natural resources, and commercial services.
A public scoping meeting will be scheduled this summer. Time and place of the public meeting will be publicized in area newspapers. The DEIS will be available sometime in late summer.
To provide comments on this planning effort and to receive copies of the DEIS, please contact: Art Frederick, Superintendent, Cumberland Island National Seashore, P.O. Box 806, St. Marys, Georgia 31558, Telephone: (912) 882-4336.
Since June 1996 the NPS has been engaged in a process to determine the management of the island's wilderness. During the discussions concerning wilderness management, the NPS realized that the planning effort should broaden its focus. As a result the NPS has prepared a series of plans addressing the management of wilderness, cultural resources, natural resources, and commercial services.
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 for us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your 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.
National Park Service.
Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
The National Park Service will prepare a General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/EIS) for Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve.
A General Management Plan sets forth the basic management philosophy for a unit of the National Park System and provides the strategies for addressing issues and achieving identified management objectives for that unit. In the GMP/EIS and its accompanying public review process, the National Park Service will formulate and evaluate the environmental impacts of a range of alternatives to address distinct management strategies for the park, including resource protection and visitor use. The plan will guide the management of natural and cultural resources and visitor use of those resources for the next 15-20 years. Development concept plans for selected facilities may be included with the GMP.
Scoping is the term given to the process by which the scope of issues to be addressed in the GMP/EIS is identified. Representatives of Federal, State and local agencies, American Indian tribes, private organizations and individuals from the general public who may be interested in or affected by the proposed GMP/EIS are invited to participate in the scoping process by responding to this Notice with written comments.
All comments received will become part of the public record and copies of comments, including any names and home addresses of respondents, may be released for public inspection. Individual respondents may request that their home addresses be withheld from the public record, which will be honored to the extent allowable by law. Requests to withhold names and/or addresses must be stated prominently at the beginning of the comments. Anonymous comments will not be considered. Submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public inspection in their entirety.
Among the major issues likely to be addressed in the Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve GMP/EIS are (1) resource information and protection, including a land protection plan, (2) cooperation with associated partners and interests, (3) interpretation, (4) visitor use and services, and (5) park administration. A full range of alternatives, including “no action”, will be considered in the GMP/EIS to address these and other issues that may emerge during the planning process. The draft GMP/EIS is expected to be available for public review by the spring of 2001.
Because the responsibility for approving the GMP/EIS has been delegated to the National Park Service,
Public scoping meetings will be held on Tuesday, June 20, 2000, 6:30-8:30 p.m. at the REI Seattle Flagship Store, Second Floor Meeting Room, 222 Yale Avenue North, Seattle, WA, and Wednesday, June 21, 2000, 2:30-5:00 p.m. and again at 7:00-9:00 p.m., at the Coupeville Recreation Hall, 901 NW Alexander Street, Coupeville, WA. Written comments on the scope of the issues and alternatives to be analyzed in the GMP/EIS should be received no later than August 15, 2000.
Written comments concerning the GMP/EIS should be sent to Reserve Manager, Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve, P.O. Box 774, Coupeville, WA 98239-0774, or e-mail to ebla_administration@nps.gov.
Reserve Manager, Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve, at (360) 678-6084, or NPS Reserve Liaison at (206) 220-4138.
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (PL 92-463) that the Boston Harbor Islands Advisory Council will meet on Wednesday, June 7, 2000. The meeting will convene at 4 p.m. at the United States Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Jury Room II, Boston, Massachusetts.
The Advisory Council was appointed by the Director of National Park Service pursuant to Public Law 104-333. The 28 members represent business, educational, cultural, and environmental entities; municipalities surrounding Boston Harbor; Boston Harbor advocates; and Native American interests. The purpose of the Council is to advise and make recommendations to the Boston Harbor Islands Partnership with respect to the development and implementation of a management plan and the operation of the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area.
The Agenda for this meeting is as follows:
1. Approval of minutes from March 2, 2000.
2. Discuss and plan reportcard.
3. Discussion on the draft General Management Plan.
The meeting is open to the public. Further information concerning Council meetings may be obtained from the Superintendent, Boston Harbor Islands. Interested persons may make oral/written presentations to the Council or file written statements. Such requests should be made at least seven days prior to the meeting to: Superintendent, Boston Harbor Islands NRA, 408 Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA, 02110, telephone (617) 223-8667.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix (1988), that the National Preservation Technology and Training Board that was scheduled to meet May 22, 2000, in Santa Fe, New Mexico is cancelled.
The Board was to meet Monday, May 22 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. in the DeVargas room of the Hotel St. Francis, 201 Don Gasper Avenue, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Matters to be discussed were to include, officer and committee reports; consideration of present and future NCPTT programs; consideration of NCPTT mission and long-range plan, assess the accomplishment of the board's first six years; and the election of officers for two-year terms. The board meeting will be rescheduled at a later time.
Persons wishing more information concerning this meeting, or who wish to submit written statements, may do so by contacting Mr. E. Blaine Cliver, Chief, HABS/HAER, National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240, telephone: (202) 343-9573.
Notice is hereby given that on May 5, 2000, the United states lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Southern district of Texas in
The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree for 30 days following publication of this Notice. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
Notice if hereby given that on May 3, 2000, a proposed Consent Decree in
This consent decree represents a settlement of claims brought against the following twenty-four defendants under section 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607, for the recovery of costs incurred by the United States in responding to the release or threatened release of hazardous substances at and from the Tri-County/Elgin Landfill Superfund Site in Elgin, Illinois: Cedar Woods Apartments, Inc.; Clarence Davids & Company; Eaton's Red Wood Inn; Elgin Academy; Elgin Public School District 46; Elgin Rehabilitation Center; Elgin Turners; The Famous Chili Pub, Ltd.; Genoa-Kingston Community Unit School District #424; Golf Rose Animal Hospital; Hamphire Grade School and Hampshire High School (Community Unit School District 300); Hiawatha Public School; Jewel Food Stores; Judson College; Olde Towne Animal Hospital; Pal Joey's Restaurant and Lounge; Rand Grove Partnership, an Illinois Partnership (owner and operator of Rand Grove Village Apartments); Red Lobster Inns of America, Inc. (n/k/a/ GMRI, Inc.), a Florida Corporation; West Chicago School District #33; St. Joseph Hospital; Town & Country Gardens; Vavrus & Associates; Village of Carol Stream; and Village Squire.
The United States Postal Service is also a party to the proposed Consent Decree. Through the Consent Decree, the United States Postal Service would resolve potential contribution claims that may be asserted against the United States due to alleged liability on behalf of the United States Postal Service.
Under the proposed settlement, the defendants and the United States Postal Service will collectively pay $168,069.42.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The Consent Decree may be examined at the office of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois. A copy of the Consent Decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611. In requesting a copy, please enclose a check in the amount of $13.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost, 52 pages) payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Notice is hereby given, in accordance with 28 CFR 50.7, that on May 11, 2000, the United States lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, in
Under the proposed Consent Decree Enzyme Bio-Systems will pay the United States a $46,100 civil penalty, Additionally, the proposed Consent Decree provides for the implementation of a Supplemental Environmental Project (“SEP”) that requires expenditures of at least $850,000. The SEP involves Enzyme Bio-Systems: purchasing a pretreatment plant previously abandoned by the City of Beloit; installing and operating a reverse osmosis membrane treatment system capable of treating 25,000 gallons per day of high strength BOD; hauling the BOD filtrate off site for application as a soil conditioner, possible fertilizer substitute, or other environmentally beneficial reuse; petitioning the City to reduce Enzyme Bio-Systems' allowable effluent limits set forth in its Industrial Discharge Permit; and providing EPA with a SEP completion report and quarterly progress reports. This pollution reduction/prevention SEP will reduce the BOD load to the Beloit POTW, reduce the use of artificial chemical fertilizers by the potential land application of the BOD filtrate as fertilizer, and result in revenue to the City of Beloit for the purchase of its abandoned pretreatment facility. Because the technology of the reverse osmosis membrane system is very innovative and carries a risk of technological impracticability, if the pilot studies demonstrate that the membrane system cannot effectively filter high strength BOD filtrate, then Enzyme Bio-Systems can elect to pay an optional additional civil penalty in lieu of completing its obligations under the SEP requirements.
The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree for 30 days after publication of this Notice. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on April 18, 2000, a proposed Consent Decree in
The Consent Decree requires SCSA to record a conservation easement for its 78-acre property at the Site in favor of the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation (INHF) for preservation of the land as a reserve for wildlife and to prevent residential, commercial and industrial development of the land. The SCSA is required to transfer ownership of its property at the Site to the City of Davenport, Iowa (the City), and notify EPA of the transfer. All proceeds from the sale of the Property will be paid to the United States. The City agrees to pay the purchase price of $86,000 to EPA (which will receive $81,000) and to Interior (which will receive $5,000) pursuant to a proposed Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue, or Prospective Purchaser Agreement, entered into between the United States and the City. Under the terms of the Prospective Purchaser Agreement, the City will also place a restrictive covenant on the land that restricts residential development.
In exchange for its commitments under the Consent Decree, Defendant SCSA will receive a covenant not to sue pursuant to Sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 AND 9607(a), for response actions and response costs relating to the Site. Defendant SCSA will also receive a covenant not to sue for natural resource damages under CERCLA.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to
The Consent Decree may be examined at the office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, U.S. Courthouse Annex, 110 East Court Avenue, Suite 286, Des Moines, Iowa 50309. The Consent Decree may also be examined at the office of Region VII of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. A copy of the Consent Decree may also be obtained by mail from the Department of Justice Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044. In requesting a copy, please enclose a check in the amount of $15.00 (with exhibits) (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the Consent Decree Library. If requesting a copy of the Consent Decree exclusive of exhibits, please enclose a check in the amount of $7.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the Consent Decree Library.
The Department of Justice proposes to modify the Office of the Inspector General Investigative Records System, JUSTICE/OIG-001, last published in the
New routine use (i) will permit the Department to share information about investigations with complainants and victims in order to inform them about the progress and results of investigations arising from the matters of which they complained or were the victim.
In addition, two current routine uses are being revised. First, routine use (a) relating to disclosures of records indicating a violation or potential violation of law or contract to those entities responsible for investigating, prosecuting or enforcing those laws or contracts is being revised to make it clear that disclosure extends both to records that indicate such a violation or potential violation standing alone and to records that do so only when viewed in combination with other documents. Second, routine use (d) relating to disclosures made to other entities in connection with the assignment, hiring, retention, issuance or revocation of a security clearance, reporting of an investigation, letting of a contract, or the issuance or revocation of a license, grant, or other benefit to an individual by those entities is being modified in two respects: (1) To eliminate the requirement that information may be released only upon the request of a specified entity and (2) to permit information pertinent to the issuance or retention of a professional license to be shared with the relevant professional licensing organization.
Finally, the Department is making minor revisions to the ‘System Location,’ ‘Retirevability,’ ‘System Manager and Address,’ and ‘Retention and Disposal’ sections to reflect current conditions. A typographical error in routine use (h) as it was originally published in the
5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11) provide that the public be given thirty days in which to comment on these proposed changes. Any comments must be submitted in writing to Mary Cahill, Management Analyst, Management and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530 by June 21, 2000.
As required by 5 U.S.C. 552(r) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) implementing regulations, the Department of Justice has provided a report on the proposed changes to OMB and the Congress.
A modified system description is set forth below.
Office of the Inspector General Investigative Records.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001 and 1425 New York Ave., NW, Suite 7100, Washington, DC 20530. During the course of an investigation, records are also kept in the investigations field offices, the addresses of which are listed on the OIG's website at http://www.usdoj.gov/org.
(a) In the event that a record, either by itself or in combination with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general stature or particular program statute, or by rule, regulation, or order pursuant thereto, or a violation or potential violation of a contract, the relevant record may be disclosed to the appropriate agency, whether Federal, state, local, foreign, or international, charged with the responsibility or investigating or prosecuting such violation, enforcing or implementing such statute, rule, regulation, or order, or with enforcing such contract.
(d) A record may be disclosed to a Federal, State, local, foreign, or international agency, or other public authority or professional licensing organization, in connection with the assignment, hiring, or retention of an individual, the issuance or revocation of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an individual, the letting of a contract, or the issuance or revocation of a license, grant, or other benefit by such an entity, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to that entity's decision on the matter. No disclosure will be made under this paragraph unless the Inspector General or his designee determines that the information is sufficiently reliable to support a referral to another office within the Department of Justice or to another Federal, state, or local agency for criminal, civil, administrative, personnel, or regulatory action.
(h) Information permitted to be released to the news media and the public pursuant to 28 CFR 50.2 may be made available, unless it is determined that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
(i) Information may be disclosed to complainants and victims to the extent necessary to provide them with information concerning the progress or results of the investigation or case arising from the matters of which they complained or were the victim.
Each OIG investigation is assigned a case number and all records relating to a particular investigation are filed and retrieved by that case number. In some instances, records may also be retrievable by the surnames of subjects, witnesses, and/or complaintants.
Records in this system are retained and disposed of in accordance with the schedule approved by the Archivist of the United States, Job Number NI-60-97-4.
Office of the General Counsel, Office of the Inspector General, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 4261, Washington, DC 20530-0001.
Petitions for transitional adjustment assistance under the North American Free Trade Agreement-Transitional Adjustment Assistance Implementation Act (Public Law 103-182), hereinafter called (NAFTA-TAA), have been filed with State Governors under Section 250(b)(1) of Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, are identified in the Appendix to this Notice. Upon notice from a Governor that a NAFTA-TAA petition has been received, the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance (DTAA), Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Department of Labor (DOL), announces the filing of the petition and takes action pursuant to paragraphs (c) and (e) of Section 250 of the Trade Act.
The purpose of the Governor's actions and the Labor Department's investigations are to determine whether the workers separated from employment on or after December 8, 1993 (date of enactment of Pub. L. 103-182) are eligible to apply for NAFTA-TAA under Subchapter D of the Trade Act because of increased imports from or the shift in production to Mexico or Canada.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing with the Director of DTAA at the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) in Washington, DC provided such request if filed in writing with the Director of DTAA not later than June 1, 2000.
Also, interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the petitions to the Director of DTAA at the address shown below not later than June 1, 2000.
Petitions filed with the Governors are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, DTAA, ETA, DOL, Room C-4318, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210.
By application dated April 24, 2000, petitioners requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on April 7, 2000, and published in the Federal Register on April 21, 2000 (64 FR 21474).
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18 (c) reconsideration may be granted under the following circumstances:
(1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered that the determination complained of was erroneous;
(2) If it appears that the determination complained of was based on a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
(3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a mis-interpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision.
The April 7, 2000, denial of TAA for workers engaged in employment related to the fabrication and assembly of large oil production modules at Alaska Petroleum Contractors, Alpine Project Kenai, Kenai, Alaska, was based on the finding that the “contributed importantly” test of the worker group eligibility requirements of section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974 was not met. The contributed importantly test is generally determined by a survey of the major declining customers of the subject firm. The Department conducted a survey of the sole customer of Alaska Petroleum Contractors, Alpine Project Kenai, Kenai, Alaska. The customer did not import oil production modules during the time period relevant to the investigation.
The petitioners assert that many U.S. companies bid on the construction of offshore drilling platforms which was awarded to a Korean producer. They add that Alaska Petroleum Contractors would have been able to build this project or continue with planned work and deliver on site, except for cheaper foreign labor and material offered by the Koreans and the drop in crude oil prices
The subject firm did not bid on the project identified by the petitioners. The Alpine Project Kenai, Kenai, Alaska, was scheduled for a specific period of time and employee layoffs were the result of the completion of that project. The workers were not engaged in the production of oil, therefore, any increase in imports of crude oil is not a basis for worker group certification for the workers of the subject firm. The Department is required to examine the imports of articles of like or directly competitive with those produced by the workers firm. In this case oil production modules.
After review of the application and investigative findings, I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on February 22, 2000, in response to a petition filed on the same date on behalf of workers at Bugbee & Niles Company, Incorporated, Providence, Rhode Island.
The company official submitting the petition 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 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on March 30, 2000, applicable to workers of Calvin Klein, New York, New York. The notice was published in the
At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers produce women's sportswear. New findings show that there was a previous certification, TA-W-33,830, issued on March 10, 2000, for workers of Calvin Klein, New York, New York who were engaged in employment related to the production of women's sportswear. That certification expired March 10, 2000. To avoid an overlap in worker group coverage, the certification is being amended to change the impact date from February 1, 1999 to March 11, 2000, for workers of the subject firm.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-37,335 is hereby issued as follows:
“All workers of Calvin Klein, New York, New York who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after March 11, 2000 through March 30, 2002 are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.”
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 February 25, 1998, applicable to workers of Glenbrook Nickel Company, Riddle, Oregon. The notice was published in the
At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged in the production of ferronickel. New information received from the company shows that Cominco Ltd and Cominco American are the owners of the Glenbrook properties. In 1998, Glenbrook Nickel Company became known as Cominco Ltd., Cominco American,—Glenbrook Operations. Information also shows that workers separated from employment at Glenbrook Nickel Company had their wages reported under a separate unemployment insurance (UI) tax account for Cominco Ltd., Cominco American,—Glenbrook Operations.
Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to properly reflect this matter.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-34,244 and TA-W-344,244A are hereby issued as follows:
All workers of Cominco Ltd., Cominco American,—Glenbrook Operations (Formerly Glenbrook Nickel Company), Riddle, Oregon and Coos Bay, Oregon who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after January 30, 1997 through February 25, 2000 are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
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 December 11, 1997, applicable to workers of Herman Katz Enterprises, d/b/a H.K. Company, New York, New York. The notice was published in the
At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged in the production of lace and performed office, administration, warehousing and distribution services. The company reports that in October, 1997, Herman Katz Enterprises, d/b/a H.K. Company “became known as Katz Lace Corporation”. Worker separations continued to occur at the subject firm until its closing in November, 1999.
Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification determination to correctly identify the new title name to read “Herman Katz Enterprises, d/b/a H.K. Company, now know as Katz Lace Corporation”, New York, New York.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Herman Katz Enterprises, d/b/a H.K. Company, now known as Katz Lace Corporation who were adversely affected by increased imports.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-33, 947 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of Herman Katz Enterprises, d/b/a H.K. Company, now known as Katz Lace Corporation, New York, New York who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 7, 1996 through December 11, 1999 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 show below, not later than June 1, 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 June 1, 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.
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 June 1, 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 June 1, 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.
National Archives and Records Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) announces a meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress. The committee advises NARA on the full range of programs, policies, and plans for the Center for Legislative Archives in the Office of Records Services.
June 12, 2000, from 10 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
United States Capitol Building, Room S-211.
Michael L. Gillette, Director, Center for Legislative Archives, (202) 501-5350.
The meeting is open to the public.
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 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 Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meetings:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-50 issued to AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, (the licensee) for operation of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), located in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.
The proposed amendment would remove the individual control building isolation and recirculation damper numbers from Technical Specification (TS) 4.12.1.3, and instead refer to the “required” dampers. The requirement to test these dampers remains the same. The Bases have been modified to indicate that the damper numbers for control building isolation and recirculation are contained in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
Before issuance of the proposed 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.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:
1. Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed amendment is an administrative change which removes an unnecessary level of detail from the Technical Specifications, and is consistent with NRC Revised Standard Technical Specifications (NUREG-1430, Rev.1). The TMI Unit 1 UFSAR currently identifies and describes the control building isolation and recirculation dampers required for emergency operation and their design function. TMI Unit 1 control room habitability requirements are not affected. The proposed amendment does not affect the existing surveillance frequency or the operability requirements for the required dampers. Therefore, the proposed amendment has no affect on the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. The proposed amendment is an administrative change which removes an unnecessary level of detail from the Technical Specifications, and is consistent with NRC Revised Standard Technical Specifications (NUREG-1430, Rev. 1). TMI Unit 1 control room habitability requirements are not affected. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The proposed amendment is an administrative change which removes an unnecessary level of detail from the Technical Specifications, and is consistent with NRC Revised Standard Technical Specifications (NUREG-1430, Rev.1). The existing Technical Specification surveillance frequency and operability requirements for required isolation and recirculation dampers are maintained. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not reduce any margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of the 30-day notice period. However, should circumstances change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will consider all public and State comments received. Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.
By June 21, 2000, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is available 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). If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing
As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors: (1) The nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by the above date. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to Edward J. Cullen, Jr., Esquire, PECO Energy Company, 2301 Market Street (S23-1), Philadelphia, PA 19103, attorney for the licensee.
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated May 4, 2000, as supplemented May 9, 2000, which are 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).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
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.
Suzy Barker, 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 Monday, April 10, 2000 (65 FR 19034). Individual authorities established or revoked under Schedules A and B and established under Schedule C between March 1, 2000, and March 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 as of June 30 will also be published.
The following Schedule A authority was established during the month of March:
Up to 37 positions established to create the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigations Board. No new appointments may be made under this authority after December 31, 2000. Effective March 20, 2000.
No Schedule A authorities were revoked during the month of March 2000.
The following Schedule B authority was established during the month of March 2000:
Positions, grades GS-5 through 9, of Treasury Enforcement Agent in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; and Treasury Enforcement Agent, Pilot, Marine Enforcement Officer, and Aviation Enforcement Officer in the U.S. Customs Service. Service under this authority may not exceed 3 years. Effective March 20, 2000.
No Schedule B authorities were revoked during the month of March 2000.
The following Schedule C authorities were established during March 2000:
Confidential Assistant to the Administrator, Animal and Plant Inspection Service. Effective March 9, 2000.
Confidential Assistant to the Director, Legislative Affairs and Public Affairs Staff. Effective March 9, 2000.
Confidential Assistant to the Administrator, External Affairs Staff. Effective March 21, 2000.
Deputy Press Secretary to the Press Secretary. Effective March 21, 2000.
Confidential Assistant to the Administrator, Rural Utilities Service. Effective March 21, 2000.
Confidential Assistant to the Administrator, Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. Effective March 24, 2000.
Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Public Affairs. Effective March 10, 2000.
Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Public Affairs and Press Secretary. Effective March 14, 2000.
Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Sustainable Development and Intergovernmental Affairs. Effective March 15, 2000.
Director, Cooperative Threat Reduction to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Strategy and Threat Reduction). Effective March 31, 2000.
Confidential Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Intergovernmental and Interagency Affairs. Effective March 8, 2000.
Confidential Assistant to the Director, Scheduling and Briefing Staff. Effective March 15, 2000.
Confidential Assistant to the Chief of Staff. Effective March 16, 2000.
Deputy Director, Scheduling and Briefing Staff to the Director Scheduling and Briefing Staff. Effective March 28, 2000.
Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary, Office of Vocational and Adult Education. Effective March 30, 2000.
Special Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Technologies. Effective March 2, 2000.
Staff Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Effective March 8, 2000.
Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Economic Impact and Diversity. Effective March 8, 2000.
Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Scheduling and Advance. Effective March 16, 2000.
Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Scheduling and Advance. Effective March 17, 2000.
Special Assistant to the Director, Scheduling and Briefing. Effective March 28, 2000.
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental and External Affairs to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. Effective March 30, 2000.
Confidential Assistant (Scheduling) to the Director of Scheduling and Advance. Effective March 2, 2000.
Director of Speechwriting to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (Media). Effective March 16, 2000.
Special Assistant to the Advisor for Management Reform and Operations. Effective March 8, 2000.
Director, Office of Insured Health Care Facilities to the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner. Effective March 16, 2000.
Senior Intergovernmental Relations Officer to the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental Relations. Effective March 17, 2000.
Secretary (Office Automation) to the United States Attorney General, Nevada. Effective March 7, 2000.
Special Assistant to the Director, Violence Against Women Office. Effective March 8, 2000.
Special Assistant to the Assistant Attorney General. Effective March 14, 2000.
Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Public Liaison. Effective March 15, 2000.
Intergovernmental Officer to the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. Effective March 22, 2000.
Chief of Staff to the Assistant Secretary, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. Effective March 22, 2000.
Associate Director to the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. Effective March 24, 2000.
Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Labor. Effective March 24, 2000.
Foreign Affairs Officer to the Under Secretary for Global Affairs. Effective March 7, 2000.
Special Assistant to the Chief of Protocol. Effective March 16, 2000.
Foreign Affairs Officer to the Deputy Director. Effective March 31, 2000.
Special Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy. Effective March 15, 2000.
Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff. Effective March 2, 2000.
Special Assistant to the Deputy Administrator. Effective March 10, 2000.
Public Affairs Specialist to the Associate Administrator for Public Affairs. Effective March 30, 2000.
Confidential Assistant to the Member (Commissioner), Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Effective March 8, 2000.
Public Affairs Specialist to the Associate Director for Communication. Effective March 17, 2000.
Staff Assistant to the Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy. Effective March 16, 2000.
Staff Assistant to the Deputy Director, Supply Reduction. Effective March 23, 2000.
Secretary to the Director, Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations. Effective March 15, 2000.
Senior Advisor for Communications and Public Liaison to the Associate Administrator for Marketing and Customer Service. Effective March 9, 2000.
Press Officer and Senior Advisor to the Assistant Administrator for Public Communications. Effective March 27, 2000.
Staff Assistant to the Commissioner. Effective March 8, 2000.
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 meetings will start at 10 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.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Notice of change to reduction-in-force (RIF) procedures to recognize performance based on the average of the last three annual performance scores in the most recent 4-year period as a criterion to establish retention registers.
5 U.S.C. 4703 authorizes OPM to conduct demonstration projects that experiment with new and different personnel management concepts to determine whether such changes in personnel policy or procedures would result in improved Federal personnel management.
Public Law 103-337, October 5, 1994, permits the Department of Defense (DoD), with the approval of OPM, to carry out personnel demonstration projects at S&T Reinvention Laboratories. This notice identifies a revision to the ERDC plan where an average of three annual performance scores is used instead of a single performance score to determine an employee's retention standing in a reduction in force.
This revision to the ERDC demonstration project will be implemented May 22, 2000.
ERDC: Dr. C.H. Pennington, U.S. Army Engineer Research & Development Center, ATTN: CEERD-ZT-E, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-6199, phone 601-634-3549.
OPM: Ms. Joan M. Jorgenson, U. S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW Room 7458, Washington, DC 20415, phone 202-606-1315.
OPM approved and published the final plan in the
A. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) final publication on Tuesday, March 3, 1998, Volume 63, Number 41, Part IV.
WES correction and re-publication on Wednesday, March 25, 1998, Volume 63, Number 57, Part V.
B. Publication of amendment to expand coverage of the WES project to include the Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Cold Regions Research & Engineering Laboratory, and Topographic Engineering Center. Published in the
The WES demonstration project was renamed the ERDC demonstration project following consolidation of the Army Corps of Engineers' laboratories.
C. Publication of an amendment to include competitive examining and Distinguished Scholastic Achievement Appointment authorities as part of the ERDC plan. Published in the
This demonstration project involves simplified job classification, pay banding, a performance-based compensation system, employee development provisions, and modified RIF procedures.
The action to combine all Corps of Engineers laboratories into the ERDC and expand coverage of the WES Personnel Management Demonstration Project to the entire ERDC prompted a review of the provisions of the project to assure acceptance by all levels of management, employees, and bargaining units. The review revealed that the best interests of all involved would be better served by revising the manner in which performance is recognized in RIF procedures to allow for performance based on a longer period than that represented by a single performance score.
The Department of the Army established the personnel management demonstration projects to be generally similar to the system in use at the Navy personnel demonstration project known as China Lake. The projects and this amendment are built upon the concepts of linking performance to pay for all covered positions; simplifying paperwork in the processing of classification and other personnel actions; emphasizing partnerships among management, employees, and unions; and delegating other authorities to line managers.
The demonstration project at the ERDC attempts to provide managers with the authority, control and flexibility to achieve quality laboratories and quality products. These goals are met by employing the best candidates and ensuring the best employees are retained in the event of a reduction in force. The purpose of this amendment is to revise the procedures to recognize employee performance in establishing retention registers by basing the criterion on the average of the last three annual performance scores in the most recent 4-year period instead of the last single performance score. This considers employee performance over a longer period of time. Other basic provisions of the approved plan are unchanged.
This project is built upon the concepts of linking performance to pay, simplifying paperwork in the processing of classification and other personnel actions, emphasizing partnerships among management, employees and unions, and delegating certain authorities to line managers. Pay for performance is accomplished by assigning a numerical score to an employee's performance at the end of the annual rating cycle and using the score to determine the employee's pay increase. Currently, the score is also used to determine in part an employee's retention standing in the event of a reduction in force. For RIF purposes, this amendment proposes instead to recognize employee performance by averaging the last three performance scores rather than using only the last performance score.
The
Retention registers will be established based on the following criteria listed in order of priority: Tenure status (Tenure I—career, Tenure II—career conditional, Tenure III—modified term); veterans' preference; the average of the last three annual employee performance scores in the most recent 4-year period; and service computation date.
The use of three performance scores recognizes that an employee's performance may vary from one year to the next because of unforeseen circumstances such as an illness, relocation, a change in workload, or reorganization. The amendment incorporates the recommendations of management, employees and unions, ensures the very best employees are retained in the event of a RIF, and continues to support the objectives of the ERDC personnel management demonstration project.
Postal Service.
Notice of amendments to existing systems of records.
The purpose of this document is to publish notice of amendments to two Privacy Act systems of records. The amendments conform to a rule change published in the
Any interested party may submit written comments on the proposed addition and modification. This proposal will become effective without further notice on June 21, 2000, unless comments received on or before that date result in a contrary determination.
Written comments on this proposal should be mailed or delivered to Administration and FOIA, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, RM 8141, Washington, DC 20260-5202. Copies of all written comments will be available at the above address for public inspection and photocopying between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Betty Sheriff, (202) 268-2608.
Information about customers who use post office box service is maintained within Privacy Act system of records USPS 010.020, Collection and Delivery Records—Boxholder Records. In the past, the Postal Service has disclosed to the general public, upon request, the name, address, and telephone number of the holder of a post office box being used for the purpose of doing or soliciting business with the public. To provide a greater degree of privacy and security to the growing number of small business owners who operate out of their homes, that provision has been repealed. As a result, routine use No. 1 is deleted. The rule change referenced above also repeals a provision allowing disclosure of boxholder information in response to oral requests from law enforcement agencies made through the Postal Inspection Service, in the course of a criminal investigation, necessitating the deletion of routine use No. 4. The remaining routine use Nos. 2, 3, and 5 are redesignated as routine uses 1 through 3, respectively, and the “Note” preceding them is amended to delete the explanation as to when copies of PS Form 1093 may be provided (now incorporated into the routine use) and to succeed the routine uses as an exception. Under the exception, disclosure is not authorized by the routine uses if the individual boxholder has filed a protective order with the postmaster, unless the party seeking the information submits an order of a court of competent jurisdiction requiring disclosure.
Information about customers who use commercial mail receiving agency (CMRA) services, and the agents who provide those services, is maintained within Privacy Act system of records USPS 010.050, Collection and Delivery Records—Delivery of Mail Through Agents. Each applicant for delivery of mail to a CMRA is required to complete and sign PS Form 1583, Application for Delivery of Mail Through Agent. Information collected by PS Form 1583 includes the name, address, and telephone number of the agent and the addressee and, drivers license, or other forms of identification. In addition, the owner or manager of a CMRA is required to complete PS Form 1583-A, Application to Act as a Commercial Mail Receiving Agency, which includes the owner/manager's home address and telephone number. This notice amends the categories of records segment of the system notice to note the collection of additional information as a result of revision of PS Form 1583 and adoption of the new PS Form 1583-A.
Consistent with past practice, information provided by a CMRA customer on PS Form 1583 will not be available to the public. A review of the general routine uses (those applied to most Postal Service systems of records to enable the routine conduct of postal business) applied to system of records USPS 010.050 has resulted in the deletion of three routine uses. These routine uses permit disclosure to: an auditor of Postal Service finances, the Office of Management and Budget for review of private relief legislation, and labor organizations for collective bargaining purposes. Since such disclosures of information covered by this system should be unnecessary for those purposes, the routine uses are deleted. Under the remaining routine uses, the Postal Service will not disclose the name or address of a customer who has submitted an appropriate court order of protection unless the requester obtains an order of a court of competent jurisdiction that requires the disclosure notwithstanding the existence of the protective order.
In addition to the above, the Purpose statement for system USPS 010.050 is enhanced by adding objectives directly related to the longstanding purpose for which records in this system are collected.
The amendments proposed by this notice are not expected to diminish individual privacy rights. In fact, the amendments are intended to enhance the privacy of small business owners operating out of the home and of individuals such as battered individuals and stalking victims who feel they may be at risk of harm if their physical location is not kept private. In the interest of those protections, certain routine uses have been deleted to reduce the number of situations in which disclosure may be made outside of the Postal Service and to strengthen assurances of privacy.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(11), interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, or arguments on this proposal. A report of the amendments has been sent to Congress and to the Office of Management and Budget for their evaluation.
For the above reasons, the Postal Service proposes the following amendments. USPS Privacy Act system 010.020 was last published in its entirety in the
Collection and Delivery Records—Boxholder Records, 010.020.
[CHANGE TO READ:]
General routine use statements a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, j, and m listed in the prefatory statement at the beginning of the Postal Service's published system notices apply to this system. A copy of PS Form 1093 may be furnished pursuant to any of the general routine uses. Other routine uses are as follows:
1. Subject to the exception noted below, disclosure of boxholder information may be made to a federal, state, or local government agency upon prior written certification that the information is required for the performance of its duties. A copy of PS Form 1093 may be furnished.
2. Subject to the exception noted below, the name or address of the holder of a post office box may be disclosed to a person empowered to serve legal process, or the attorney for a party in whose behalf service will be made, or a party who is acting
3. Subject to the exception noted below, disclosure of boxholder information may be made, on prior written certification from a foreign government agency citing the relevance of the information to an indication of a violation or potential violation of law and its responsibility for investigating or prosecuting such violation, and only if the address is (a) outside the United States and its territories, and (b) within the territorial boundaries of the requesting foreign government. A copy of PS Form 1093 may be furnished.
Collection and Delivery Records—Delivery of Mail Through Agents, 010.050.
Records contain the name, address, and telephone number of the agent and of the addressee, the signatures of both parties, and copies of forms of identification of the addressee.
[CHANGE TO READ:]
a. Serves as the written authority for delivery of mail to the addressee's agent.
b. Promotes security of the mail.
c. Protects postal customers from mail fraud and identity theft.
[CHANGE TO READ:]
General routine use statements a, b, c, d, e, f, and g listed in the prefatory statement at the beginning of the Postal Service's published system notices apply to this system. Other routine uses are as follows:
1. Information may be disclosed for the purpose of identifying an address as an address of an agent to whom mail is delivered on behalf of other persons. This routine use does not authorize the disclosure of the identities of persons on behalf of whom agents receive mail.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The CBOE proposes to require each CBOE member subject to Commission Rule 15c3-1 (the “net capital rule”) to designate a Financial/Operations Principal (“FINOP”) and to register the FINOP with the Exchange. Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.
(a) No change.
(b) Registration Fees. Member organizations (
(i) For each new RR
(ii) For the maintenance of each RR
(iii) For an RR or ROP who transfers from another organization,
(b)
In its filing with the Commission, the CBOE 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 CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to require each individual member or member organization subject to Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1, the net capital rule,
Proposed Rule 3.6A provides that the duties of a FINOP include taking appropriate actions to ensure that the member complies with applicable financial and operational requirements under the CBOE's Rules and the Act, including but not limited to requirements relating to the submission of financial reports and the maintenance of books and records. Additionally, each FINOP would be required to complete successfully the Financial and Operations Principal Examination (Series 27 Exam). Each FINOP designated by a member would also be required to be registered in that capacity with the Exchange in a form and manner prescribed by the Exchange.
Proposed Rule 3.6A also provides that a FINOP of a member could be a full-time employee of the member or, with the prior written approval of the
The Exchange states that its proposal to require designation of a FINOP is comparable to requirements of other securities self-regulatory organizations, such as the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
The Exchange also states that it intends to monitor firms for compliance with the requirements relating to FINOPs during the course of the Exchange's financial examination program for CBOE member organizations for which CBOE is the designated examining authority.
To promote ease of reference by CBOE members, the Exchange also proposes to set forth in Rule 3.6A and its Interpretations certain existing requirements with respect to associated persons required to be registered with the Exchange under Chapter IX of CBOE's Rules. Accordingly, Rule 3.6A(b) lists the persons that have associated person status under Chapter IX, and cross-references the primary CBOE Rule concerning each of those persons. These persons include Registered Options Principals with Rule 9.2 as the primary CBOE rule, Registered Representatives (Rule 9.3), Senior Registered Options Principals (Rule 9.8), and Compliance Registered Options Principals (Rule 9.8).
The Interpretations to Rule 3.6A reference certain existing requirements applicable to individuals having associated person status under Chapter IX and provide that these requirements shall be applicable to each FINOP. Thus, Interpretation .01 provides that each person having associated person status as described in Rule 3.6A (including a FINOP) shall, in a form and manner prescribed by the Exchange, submit to the Exchange a Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer (Form U-4) and promptly submit to the Exchange any required amendments to Form U-4. Interpretation .02 provides that any member that discharges or terminates the employment or retention of an associated person enumerated in Rule 3.6A shall comply with the termination filing requirements set forth in CBOE Rules 9.3(b) and 9.3(c).
The Exchange will allow members subject to Rule 15c3-1 under the Act six months from the date of approval of this rule filing by the Commission in which to designate a FINOP in accordance with Rule 3.6A. The purpose of that time period is to provide the Exchange with an opportunity to notify the Exchange's membership of the new requirement and to provide members that do not currently employ or retain an individual who functions as a FINOP a reasonable period of time in which to employ or retain such an individual.
The Exchange also proposes to amend existing CBOE Rule 2.22(b) to assess application, maintenance, and transfer registration fees with respect to the designation of FINOPs. These fees would be the same as those that the Exchange assesses on Registered Representatives and Registered Options Principals under Rule 2.22(b).
The Exchange states that the proposed rule change would enhance compliance with financial and operational requirements under CBOE's Rules and the Act and make it easier for the Exchange's membership to reference registration requirements under CBOE's Rules. Accordingly, the proposed rule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The CBOE represents that the proposed rule change (i) would not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest, (ii) would not impose any significant burden on competition, and (iii) would not become operative for 30 days from the date it was filed. In addition, the Exchange provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change. For the foregoing reasons, this rule filing qualifies for expedited approval as a “non-controversial” rule change under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 16, 2000, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD” or “Association”), through its wholly owned subsidiary NASD Regulation, Inc. (“NASD Regulation”), filed with 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 was published for comment in the
Some NASD disciplinary decisions are currently available in electronic legal research databases, such as Westlaw, Lexis-Nexis, and Books on Screen. Interpretative Material 8310-2 (the “Interpretation”) permits the NASD to release any disciplinary decision: (1) Imposing a suspension, cancellation or expulsion of a member; (2) imposing a suspension or revocation of the registration of any associated person; (3) imposing a suspension or barring a member or associated person from association with all members; (4) imposing monetary sanctions of $10,000 or more on a member or associated person; (5) containing on alleged violation of a Designated Rule; or (6) deemed by the President of NASD Regulation to involve a significant policy or enforcement determination where the release of information would be in the public interest.
The Association is proposing to amend the Interpretation to provide for the publication of all final, litigated decisions issued by the OHO, the NAC, and the NASD Board, regardless of sanctions imposed. However, the names of the parties and other identifying information mentioned in the decisions that do not meet the current enumerated publication criteria, as outlined in the Interpretation (listed above), will be redacted from these decisions. Settlements, Letters of Acceptance, Waivers and Consents (“AWCs”), and Minor Rule Violation Plan letters are excluded from this proposal. The proposed rule change will not have any impact on the information contained in or disclosed by the Central Registration Depository system. The NASD will make available all decisions covered under this proposal that were issued after August 7, 1997, the effective date of the most recent significant changes to the NASD Code of Procedure.
The Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
The Commission believes that providing the public with this expanded information on disciplinary decisions will provide a clearer picture of the Association's current application and interpretation of its substantive and procedural rules. The NASD will make the information available to vendors of legal research databases. Members will have additional insight into how NASD rules are enforced, making it easier for them to comply with the rules.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Los Angeles County and the contiguous counties of Kern, Orange, San Bernardino, and Ventura in the State of California constitute a disaster area as a result of severe storms that occurred on April 18, 2000. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on July 10, 2000 and for economic injury until the close of business on February 9, 2001 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster
The interest rates are:
The numbers assigned to this disaster are 325311 for physical damage and 9H3200 for economic injury.
New London County and the contiguous counties of Hartford, Middlesex, Tolland, and Windham in Connecticut, and Kent and Washington Counties in Rhode Island constitute an economic injury disaster loan area as a result of a fire that occurred on March 6, 2000 in the Village of Mystic, in the Town of Groton. Eligible small businesses and small agricultural cooperatives without credit available elsewhere may file applications for economic injury assistance as a result of this disaster until the close of business on February 2, 2001 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 1 Office, 360 Rainbow Blvd, South, 3rd Floor, Niagara Falls, NY 14303.
The interest rate for eligible small businesses and small agricultural cooperatives is 4 percent.
The economic injury number for the State of Rhode Island is 9H2600.
As a result of the President's major disaster declaration on May 3, 2000, I find that Crawford, Labette, and Neosho Counties in the State of Kansas constitute a disaster area due to damages caused by severe storms and tornadoes that occurred April 19-20, 2000. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on July 2, 2000, and for loans for economic injury until the close of business on February 5, 2001 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 3 Office, 4400 Amon Carter Blvd., Suite 102, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small businesses located in the following contiguous counties may be filed until the specified date at the above location: Allen, Bourbon, Cherokee, Montgomery, Wilson, and Woodson Counties in Kansas; Barton, Jasper, and Vernon Counties in Missouri; and Craig and Nowata Counties in Oklahoma.
The interest rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 325212. For economic injury the numbers are 9H2200 for Kansas, 9H2300 for Missouri, and 9H2400 for Oklahoma.
The South Atlantic States, Regulatory Fairness Board will hold a public hearing on June 22, 2000, at Morgan State University, Main Lecture Hall, Schaefer Building, located at 5200 Perring Parkway, Room 241, Baltimore, Maryland to receive comments and testimony from small businesses and representatives of trade associations concerning federal regulatory enforcement or compliance activities. Transcripts of these proceedings will be posted on the Internet. These transcripts are subject only to limited review by the National Ombudsman. For further information, call Elestine Harvey (312) 353-0880.
Social Security Administration.
Notice of finding regarding the Social Insurance System of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Section 202(t)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(t)(1)) prohibits payment of monthly benefits to any individual who is not a United States citizen or national for any month after he or she has been outside the United States for 6 consecutive months, and prior to the first month thereafter for all of which the individual has been in the United States. This prohibition does not apply to such an individual where one of the exceptions described in sections 202(t)(2) through 202(t)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(t)(2) through 402(t)(5)) affects his or her case.
Section 202(t)(2) of the Social Security Act provides that, subject to certain residency requirements of section 202(t)(11), the prohibition
(a) Pays periodic benefits, or the actuarial equivalent thereof, on account of old age, retirement, or death; and
(b) Permits individuals who are United States citizens but not citizens of that country and who qualify for such benefits to receive those benefits, or the actuarial equivalent thereof, while outside the foreign country regardless of the duration of the absence.
The Commissioner of Social Security has delegated the authority to make such a finding to the Associate Commissioner for International Programs. Under that authority, the Associate Commissioner for International Programs has approved a finding that Bosnia and Herzegovina, as of April 7, 1992, has social insurance systems of general application which:
(a) Pay periodic benefits, or the actuarial equivalent thereof, on account of old age, retirement, or death; and
(b) Permit United States citizens who are not citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina and who qualify for the relevant benefits to receive those benefits, or their actuarial equivalent, while outside of Bosnia or Herzegovina, regardless of the duration of the absence of these individuals from Bosnia and Herzegovina.
On April 7, 1992, the United States recognized the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Before that time, it was considered to be part of the former Socialist Federal Yugoslav Republic which had a system that was determined to meet section 202(t)(2) of the Social Security Act as of March 25, 1959.
Although it was ascertained at the time of independence that the old Yugoslav law was still in effect in Bosnia and Herzegovina, it could not be determined to what extent the war had affected the actual operation of the social insurance system (as contact with appropriate foreign officials was not possible at that time). Thus, citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina receiving U.S. Social Security benefits under the social insurance exception had their payments suspended in 1995 pending a decision as to whether the system continued to meet the provisions of section 202(t)(2) as of April 7, 1992.
Since March 1994, the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina has been comprised of two territories, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Srpska. The country of Bosnia and Herzegovina had in effect as of April 7, 1992, a social insurance system which met the requirements of section 202(t)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(t)(2)). The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina had in effect as of August 1, 1998, a social insurance system which met the requirements of section 202(t)(2) of the Social Security Act and the Republic of Srpska had in effect, as of January 1, 1994, a social insurance system which met the requirements of section 202(t)(2) of the Social Security Act. The Federation and the Republic are part of the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina and their social insurance systems are derived from, and replaced, the national social insurance system.
Donna Powers, Room 1104, West High Rise Building, P.O. Box 17741, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235; (410) 965-3568.
Social Security Administration (SSA).
Notice of a minor non-substantive change to an existing system of record.
In accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (e)(11)), we are issuing public notice of our intent to make a minor non-substantive change to an existing system of records entitled the Supplemental Security Income Record and Special Veterans Benefits(SSR/SVB), SSA/OSR, 60-0103. We invite public comments on this proposal.
These changes are effective May 22, 2000.
Interested individuals may comment on this publication by writing to the SSA Privacy Officer, Social Security Administration, 3-F-1 Operations Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401. All comments received will be available for public inspection at the above address.
Ms. Pamela McLaughlin, Social Insurance Program Specialist, Social Security Administration, Room 3-C-2 Operations Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, telephone (410) 965-3677.
The Supplemental Security Income Record and Special Veterans Benefits(SSR/SVB), SSA/OSR, 60-0103 maintains eligibility information about applicants and recipients of payments under titles VIII and XVI of the Social Security Act. (See the Categories of individuals covered by the system and Categories of records in the system in the notice below for a complete description of the individuals and records covered by the system of records.) The information maintained includes “income” data which in some cases could constitute “returns or return information” within the scope of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), as amended.
We, therefore, are amending the section of the
Supplemental Security Income Record and Special Veterans Benefits, SSA/OSR.
None.
Social Security Administration, Office of Telecommunications and Systems Operations, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235.
Records also may be located in the Social Security Administration (SSA) Regional and field offices (individuals should consult their local telephone directories for address information).
This file contains a record for each individual who has applied for supplemental security income (SSI) payments, including individuals who have requested an advance payment;
This file contains data regarding SSI eligibility; citizenship; residence; Medicaid eligibility; eligibility for other benefits; alcoholism or drug addiction data, if applicable (disclosure of this information may be restricted by 21 U.S.C. 1175 and 42 U.S.C. 290dd-3 and ee-3); income data; resources; payment amounts, including overpayment amounts and date and amount of advance payments; living arrangements; case folder location data; appellate decisions, if applicable; SSN used to identify a particular individual, if applicable; information about representative payees, if applicable; and a history of changes to any of the persons who have applied for SSI payments. For eligible individuals, the file contains basic identifying information, income and resources (if any) and, in conversion cases, the State welfare number.
The information maintained in this system of records is collected from the applicants for title VIII SVB, and other systems of records maintained by SSA. The information maintained includes a data element indicating this is a title VIII SVB claim. It will also include: Identifying information such as the applicant's name, Social Security number (SSN) and date of birth (DOB); telephone number (if any); foreign and domestic addresses; the applicant's sex; income data, payment amounts (including overpayment amounts); and other information provided by the applicant relative to his or her entitlement for SVB.
If the beneficiary has a representative payee, this system of records includes data about the representative payee such as the payee's SSN; employer identification number, if applicable; and mailing address.
Sections 1602, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615, 1616, 1631, 1633, 1634 of title XVI and title VIII of the Social Security Act (the Act).
SSI records begin in Social Security field offices where an individual or couple files an application for SSI payments. SVB records begin in Social Security field offices and Veterans Affairs Regional Office (VARO) where an individual files an application for SVB payments. The SSI and SVB applications contain data which may be used to prove the identity of the applicant, to determine his/her eligibility for SSI or SVB payments and, in cases where eligibility is determined, to compute the amount of the payment. Information from the application, in addition to data used internally to control and process SSI and SVB cases, is used to create the Supplemental Security Income Record (SSR). The SSR also is used as a means of providing a historical record of all activity on a particular individual's or couple's record.
In addition, statistical data are derived from the SSR for actuarial and management information purposes.
Disclosure may be made for routine uses as indicated below. However, disclosure of any information constituting ‘returns or return information’ within the scope of the Internal Revenue Code will not be disclosed unless disclosure is authorized by that statute.
(1) To the Department of the Treasury to prepare SSI, Energy Assistance, and SVB checks to be sent to claimants or beneficiaries.
(2) To the States to establish the minimum income level for computation of State supplements.
(3) To the following Federal and State agencies to prepare information for verification of benefit eligibility under section 1631(e) of the Act: Bureau of Indian Affairs; Office of Personnel Management; Department of Agriculture; Department of Labor; Immigration and Naturalization Service; Internal Revenue Service; Railroad Retirement Board; State Pension Funds; State Welfare Offices; State Worker's Compensation; Department of Defense; United States Coast Guard; and Department of Veterans Affairs.
(4) To a congressional office in response to an inquiry from that office made at the request of the subject of a record.
(5) To the appropriate State agencies (or other agencies providing services to disabled children) to identify title XVI eligibles under the age of 16 for the consideration of rehabilitation services in accordance with section 1615 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1382d.
(6) To contractors under contract to SSA or under contract to another agency with funds provided by SSA for the performance of research and statistical activities directly relating to this system of records.
(7) To State audit agencies for auditing State supplementation payments and Medicaid eligibility consideration.
(8) To State agencies to effect and report the fact of Medicaid eligibility of title XVI recipients in the jurisdiction of those States which have elected Federal determinations of Medicaid eligibility of title XVI eligibles and to assist the States in administering the Medicaid program.
(9) To State agencies to identify title XVI eligibles in the jurisdiction of those States which have not elected Federal determinations of Medicaid eligibility in order to assist those States in establishing and maintaining Medicaid rolls and in administering the Medicaid program.
(10) To State agencies to enable those agencies which have elected Federal administration of their supplementation programs to monitor changes in applicant/recipient income, special needs, and circumstances.
(11) To State agencies to enable those agencies which have elected to administer their own supplementation programs to identify SSI eligibles in order to determine the amount of their monthly supplementary payments.
(12) To State agencies to enable them to assist in the effective and efficient administration of the SSI program.
(13) To State agencies to enable those which have an agreement with SSA to carry out their functions with respect to Interim Assistance Reimbursement pursuant to section 1631(g) of the Act.
(14) To State agencies to enable them to locate potentially eligible individuals and to make eligibility determinations for extensions of social services under the provisions of title XX of the Act.
(15) To State agencies to assist them in determining initial and continuing eligibility in their income maintenance programs and for investigation and prosecution of conduct subject to criminal sanctions under these programs.
(16) To the United States Postal Service for investigating the alleged theft, forgery or unlawful negotiation of SSI and SVB checks.
(17) To the Department of the Treasury for investigating the alleged theft, forgery or unlawful negotiation of SSI and SVB checks.
(18) To the Department of Education for determining the eligibility of applicants for Basic Educational Opportunity Grants.
(19) To Federal, State or local agencies (or agents on their behalf) for administering cash or non-cash income maintenance or health maintenance programs (including programs under the Act). Such disclosures include, but are not limited to, release of information to:
(a) The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) upon request for determining eligibility for, or amount of, DVA benefits or verifying other information with respect thereto in accordance with 38 U.S.C. 5106;
(b) The RRB for administering the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act;
(c) State agencies to determine eligibility for Medicaid;
(d) State agencies to locate potentially eligible individuals and to make determinations of eligibility for the food stamp program;
(e) State agencies to administer energy assistance to low income groups under programs for which the States are responsible; and
(f) Department of State and its agents to assist SSA in administering the Social Security Act in foreign countries, the American Institute on Taiwan and its agents to assist in administering the Social Security Act in Taiwan, the VA, Philippines Regional Office and its agents to assist in administering the Social Security Act in the Philippines, and the Department of Interior and its agents to assist in administering the Social Security Act in the Northern Mariana Islands.
(20) To IRS, Department of the Treasury, as necessary, for the purpose of auditing SSA's compliance with safeguard provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) of 1986, as amended.
(21) To the Office of the President for the purpose of responding to an individual pursuant to an inquiry received from that individual or a third party on his/her behalf.
(22) Upon request, information on the identity and location of aliens may be disclosed to the DOJ (Criminal Division, Office of Special Investigations) for the purpose of detecting, investigating and, where necessary, taking legal action against suspected Nazi war criminals in the United States.
(23) To third party contacts such as private collection agencies and credit reporting agencies under contract with SSA and State motor vehicle agencies for the purpose of their assisting SSA in recovering overpayments.
(24) Information may be disclosed to contractors and other Federal agencies, as necessary, for the purpose of assisting SSA in the efficient administration of its programs. We contemplate disclosing information under this routine use only in situations in which SSA may enter a contractual or similar agreement with a third party to assist in accomplishing an agency function relating to this system of records.
(25) Non-tax return information which is not restricted from disclosure by Federal law may be disclosed to General Services Administration and National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for the purpose of conducting records management studies with respect to their duties and responsibilities under 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906, as amended by NARA Act of 1984.
(26) To the DOJ, a court or other tribunal, or another party before such tribunal when:
(a) SSA, any component thereof,
(b) Any SSA employee in his/her official capacity;
(c) Any SSA employee in his/her individual capacity where DOJ (or SSA where it is authorized to do so) has agreed to represent the employee; or
(d) The United States or any agency thereof where SSA determines that the litigation is likely to affect the operations of SSA or any of its components is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and SSA determines that the use of such records by DOJ, the court, or other tribunal, is relevant and necessary to the litigation, provided, however, that in each case, SSA determines that such disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected.
Wage and other information which are subject to the disclosure provisions of the IRC (26 U.S.C. 6103) will not be disclosed under this routine use unless disclosure is expressly permitted by the IRC.
(27) To representative payees, when the information pertains to individuals for whom they serve as representative payees, for the purpose of assisting SSA in administering its representative payment responsibilities under the Act and assisting the representative payees in performing their duties as payees, including receiving and accounting for benefits for individuals for whom they serve as payees.
(28) To third party contacts (e.g., employers and private pension plans) in situations where the party to be contacted has, or is expected to have, information relating to the individual's capability to manage his/her affairs or his/her eligibility for, or entitlement to, benefits under the Social Security program when:
(a) The individual is unable to provide information being sought. An individual is considered to be unable to provide certain types of information when:
(i) He/she is incapable or of questionable mental capability;
(ii) He/she cannot read or write;
(iii) He/she cannot afford the cost of obtaining the information;
(iv) He/she has a hearing impairment, and is contacting SSA by telephone through a telecommunications relay system operator;
(v) A language barrier exists; or
(vi) The custodian of the information will not, as a matter of policy, provide it to the individual; or
(b) The data are needed to establish the validity of evidence or to verify the accuracy of information presented by the individual, and it concerns one or more of the following:
(i) His/her eligibility for benefits under the Social Security program;
(ii) The amount of his/her benefit payment; or
(iii) Any case in which the evidence is being reviewed as a result of suspected fraud, concern for program integrity, quality appraisal, or evaluation and measurement activities.
(29) To Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) for use in its program studies of, and development of enhancements for, State vocational rehabilitation programs. These are programs to which applicants or beneficiaries under titles II and or XVI of the Act may be referred. Data released to RSA will not include any personally identifying information (such as names or SSNs).
(30) Addresses of beneficiaries who are obligated on loans held by the Secretary of Education or a loan made in accordance with 20 U.S.C. 1071,
(31) To student volunteers and other workers, who technically do not have the status of Federal employees, when they are performing work for SSA as authorized by law, and they need access to personally identifiable information in SSA records in order to perform their assigned Agency functions.
(32) To Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and private security contractors, as appropriate, if information is necessary:
(a) To enable them to protect the safety of SSA employees and customers, the security of the SSA workplace and the operation of SSA facilities, or
(b) To assist investigations or prosecutions with respect to activities that affect such safety and security or activities that disrupt the operation of SSA facilities.
(33) Corrections to information that resulted in erroneous inclusion of individuals in the Death Master File (DMF) may be disclosed to recipients of erroneous DMF information.
(34) Information as to whether an individual is alive or deceased may be disclosed pursuant to section 1106(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1306(d)), upon request, for purposes of an epidemiological or similar research project, provided that:
(a) SSA determines in consultation with the Department of Health and Human Services, that the research may reasonably be expected to contribute to a national health interest;
(b) The requester agrees to reimburse SSA for the costs of providing the information; and
(c) the requester agrees to comply with any safeguards and limitations specified by SSA regarding rerelease or redisclosure of the information.
Records are maintained in magnetic media (
Records are indexed and retrieved by SSN.
System security for automated records has been established in accordance with the Systems Security Handbook. This includes maintaining all magnetic tapes and magnetic disks within an enclosure attended by security guards. Anyone entering or leaving that enclosure must have special badges which are only issued to authorized personnel. All authorized personnel having access to the magnetic records are subject to the penalties of the Privacy Act. The microfiche are stored in locked cabinets, and are accessible to employees only on a need-to-know basis. All SSR State Data Exchange records are protected in accordance with agreements between SSA and the respective States regarding confidentiality, use, and redisclosure.
Original input transaction tapes received which contain initial claims and posteligibility actions are retained indefinitely although these are processed as received and incorporated into processing tapes which are updated to the master SSR tape file on a monthly basis. All magnetic tapes appropriate to SSI information furnished to specified Federal, State, and local agencies for verification of eligibility for benefits and under section 1631(e) are retained, in accordance with the PA accounting requirements, for at least 5 years or the life of the record, whichever is longer.
Director, Division of Supplemental Security Income Systems, Office of Systems Requirements, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235.
An individual can determine if this system contains a record about him/her by writing to or visiting any Social Security field office and providing his or her name and SSN. (Individuals should consult their local telephone directories for Social Security office address and telephone information.) Applicants for SVB who reside in the Philippines should contact VARO, Philippines. (Furnishing the SSN is voluntary, but it will make searching for an individual's record easier and prevent delay.)
An individual requesting notification of records in person need not furnish any special documents of identity. Documents he/she would normally carry on his/her person would be sufficient (e.g., credit cards, driver's license, or voter registration card). An individual requesting notification via mail or telephone must furnish a minimum of his/her name, date of birth and address in order to establish identity, plus any additional information specified in this section. These procedures are in accordance with SSA Regulations (20 CFR 401.40(c)).
Same as notification procedures. Requesters should also reasonably specify the record contents being sought. An individual who requests notification of, or access to, a medical record shall, at the time he or she makes the request, designate in writing a responsible representative who will be willing to review the record and inform the subject individual of its contents at the representative's discretion. A parent or guardian who requests notification of, or access to, a minor's medical record shall at the time he or she makes the request designate a physician or other health professional (other than a family member) who will be willing to review the record and inform the parent or guardian of its contents at the physician's or health professional's discretion. These procedures are in accordance with SSA Regulations (20 CFR 401.40(c) and 401.55).
Same as notification procedures. Requesters should also reasonably identify the record, specify the information they are contesting and state the corrective action sought and the reasons for the correction with supporting justification showing how the record is incomplete, untimely, inaccurate or irrelevant. These procedures are in accordance with SSA Regulations (20 CFR 401.65).
Data contained in the SSR are obtained for the most part from the applicant for SSI and SVB payments and are derived from the Claims Folders System (60-0089) and the Modernized Supplemental Security Income Claims System. The States and other Federal agencies such as the Department of Veterans Affairs also provide data affecting the SSR.
None.
Department of State.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Department of State has forwarded the attached Notifications of Proposed Export Licenses to the Congress on the dates shown on the attachments pursuant to section 36(c) and in compliance with section 36(e) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776).
As shown on each of the nine letters.
Mr. William J. Lowell, Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department of State (202-663-2700).
Section 38(e) of the Arms Export Control Act mandates that notifications to the Congress pursuant to section 36(c) must be published in the
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c)&(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting herewith certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles or defense services sold commercially under a contract in the amount $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export to Saudi Arabia of 16 search and rescue helicopters for government end-use.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles or defense services sold commercially under a contract in the amount $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of ship engineering and design services to Egypt for a new Fast Patrol Boat for the Egyptian Navy.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting herewith certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles or defense services sold commercially under a contract in the amount $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of technical information, defense services and defense articles to Japan for the manufacture, overhaul and repair of fuel control components for the F100-PW-220 engine on Japanese Defense Agency's F-15J aircraft.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting herewith certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles or defense services sold commercially under a contract in the amount $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export technical data and information to Japan for the manufacture of AN/TPX-46(V)-(V)6, AN/TPX-46(V)7 and AB/TPX-46A(V)7 IFF Interrogators for the Japanese Government.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Sections 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed Manufacturing License Agreement with Japan.
The transaction described in the attached certification involves the manufacture, testing, maintenance and repair of the AN/ARR-78(V) Advanced Sonobuoy Communications Link Receiver.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting herewith certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles or defense services sold commercially under a contract in the amount $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of technical information and defense services to Germany for the manufacture of prepreg ablative materials used in various rockets, space vehicles and missiles of Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, France, Italy, United Kingdom and the European Space Agency
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles or defense services sold commercially under a contract in the amount $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of ship engineering and design services to Australia for the construction of a new class of Frigate for the Royal Australian Navy.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting herewith certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles or defense services sold commercially under a contract in the amount $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of technical data and engineering information to Japan for the manufacture of Chukar II and III target drone systems for use by the Japanese Government.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles or defense services sold commercially under a contract in the amount $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of one HS601 HP PAS 9 commercial communications satellite to French Guiana or Sea Launch for launch on an Ariane or Proton launch vehicle.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Sincerely,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petitions for exemption received and of disposition of prior petitions.
Pursuant to FAA's rulemaking provisions governing the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for exemption (14 CFR part 11), this notice contains a summary of certain petitions seeking relief from specified requirements of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR chapter I), dispositions of certain petitions previously received, and corrections. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final disposition.
Comments of petitions received must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before July 21, 2000.
Send comments on any petition in triplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, Attn: Rule Docket (AGC-200), Petition Docket No. __, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
The petition, any comments received, and a copy of any final disposition are filed in the assigned regulatory docket and are available for examination in the Rules Docket (AGC-200), Room 915G, FAA Headquarters Building (FOB 10A), 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3132.
Cherie Jack (202) 267-7271 or Vanessa Wilkins (202) 267-8029 Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to paragraphs (c), (e), and (g) of § 11.27 of part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 11).
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 PFC revenue at Missoula International Airport under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 40117 and part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 158).
Comments must be received on or before June 21, 2000.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: David P. Gabbert, Manager; Helena Airports District Office, Federal Aviation Administration, 2725 Skyway Drive, Suite 2, Helena, Montana 59602.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. John P. Seymour, Director of Airports, at the following address: Missoula International Airport, 5225 Highway 10 West, Missoula, Montana 59802.
Air Carriers and foreign air carriers may submit copies of written comments previously provided to Missoula International Airport, under section 158.23 of part 158.
David P. Gabbert, (406) 449-5271, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports District Office, 2725 Skyway Drive, Suite 2, Helena, Montana 59602.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application (00-03-C-00-MSO) to impose and use PFC revenue at Missoula International Airport, under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 40117 and part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).
On May 12, 2000, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by Missoula County Airport Authority, Missoula International Airport, Missoula, Montana, 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 August 11, 2000.
The following is a brief overview of the application.
Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under
In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Missoula International Airport.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of intent.
The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared for a proposed highway project in Franklin and Licking Counties, Ohio.
Andreas Garnes, Rural Programs Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, 200 N. High Street, Room 328, Columbus, Ohio 43215, Telephone: (614) 280-6856.
The FHWA, in cooperation with the Ohio Department of Transportation, will prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposal to improve the S.R. 161/S.R. 37/S.R. 16 Macro Corridor by construction of a limited access divided highway facility that will connect the existing four lane facilities located at the western terminus in the vicinity of the City of Columbus, Franklin County, Ohio and the eastern terminus in the vicinity of Granville, Licking County, Ohio. The Macro Corridor extends from IR 270 to IR 77 and encompasses the portions of SR 161, SR 37, SR 16 and US 36 located between these two Interstate Routes.
Construction of this section of the Macro Corridor is considered necessary to complete a missing link in the existing Macro Corridor. This construction is considered necessary to relive congestion and improve safety for local and regional travel. The unimpeded flow of goods and services is essential to the economic vitality of Ohio and Macro-Corridors are essential in the delivery of these goods and services. This proposal needs to be consistent with regional and statewide goals for planned growth and mobility in Central Ohio.
Alternatives will be developed that will address capacity and safety deficiencies. Alternative solutions may consist of different alignments that diverge significantly from the existing alignment within the corridor in some sections. The alternatives may also include improving and widening the existing roadway. FHWA, ODOT, and local agencies will be inviting participation in defining the alternatives to be evaluated in the EA or EIS, and any significant social, economic, or environmental issues related to the alternatives.
Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will be sent to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and to private organizations and citizens who have previously expressed or are known to have interest in this proposal. Coordination with federal, state, and local agencies will be conducted at the established concurrence points in ODOT's preliminary development process. A series of public meetings will be held throughout the development of the project. At a minimum, the meetings will be held in accordance with ODOT's Preliminary Development Process. The first public meetings will be held in the summer of 2000 and property owners in the study area were notified of the project April 20, 2000. In addition, a public hearing will be held. Public notice will be given of the time and place of the meetings and hearing. The EA or draft EIS will be available for public agency review and comment prior to the public hearing. To ensure that the full range of issues relating to this proposed action are identified and addressed, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action should be sent to the FHWA at the address provided above.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of public meeting.
The FMCSA is announcing a public meeting for interested persons to present comments and views on the Commercial Drivers License (CDL)
The meeting will be held on Tuesday June 6, 2000, beginning at 9 a.m. and ending at 4:30 p.m., with a break from Noon to 1:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Ramada Plaza Hotel (O'Hare), 6600 N. Mannheim Road, Rosemont, Illinois 60018, telephone (847) 827-5131. The location is easily accessible from all major expressways. The hotel is approximately one mile from I-190 Mannheim Road (North exit). It can also be reached by the CTA Blue Line to O'Hare Airport.
To request general information about the meeting: Mrs. Rose Ropke at (708) 283-3518. FMCSA Headquarters contact: Mr. Larry Slade at (202) 366-5721.
Internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL):
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded by using a computer, modem and suitable communications software from the Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202)512-1661. Internet users may reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at:
Internet users may also find this document on the FMCSA web site at
At 9 a.m. there will be opening remarks by the Panel Chair. Following the opening remarks, the first presenter will be called to the podium. There will be a break from Noon to 1:30 p.m. The afternoon session will close at 4:30 p.m. Speakers must limit their oral presentations to no more than 10 minutes duration. Presenters may submit additional written documentation to the public docket.
All persons who would like to present comments must preregister for the meeting. Preregistration can be done by submitting name, address, phone number, home or business address either by electronic mail (
All persons will be required to sign in at the reception table. At the reception table please be prepared to give your name, title, company or home address and phone number. Persons failing to satisfy requirements will forfeit their opportunity to participate in the meeting. Such persons may, however, submit their written comments by the close of business on June 13, 2000, to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Docket, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. To the extent possible, the docket comments received after the deadline date will be considered for inclusion in the final panel report.
49 U.S.C. 322, 31502, and 31136; and 49 CFR 1.73.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, 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)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing notice of proposed rulemaking, INTL-978-86, Information Reporting by Passport and Permanent Residence Applicants (§ 301.6039E-1(c)).
Written comments should be received on or before July 21, 2000 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Garrick R. Shear, Internal Revenue Service, room 5244, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of this regulation should be directed to Larnice Mack, (202) 622-3179, Internal Revenue Service, room 5244, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Estimated Number of Respondents for Passport Applicants: 5,000,000.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the 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 collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (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; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 that a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War will be held on June 5 through June 7, 2000, at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Central Office, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Room 230, Washington, DC 20420. Each day the meeting will convene at 9 a.m. and end at 4:30 p.m. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the administration of benefits under Title 38, United States Code, for veterans who are former prisoners of war, and to make recommendations on the needs of such veterans for compensation, health care and rehabilitation.
On June 5, the meeting will begin with an introduction of committee members and dignitaries, a review of Committee reports, an update of activities since the last meeting, and a period for POW veterans and/or the public to address the committee. The Committee will also review the Secretary's response to the April 1999 report of meeting, and receive presentations on the Veterans Benefits Administration and Veterans Health Administration activities. On June 6, the meeting will include an update on the Center for POW Studies, a report from the National Institute of Health on its Mortality/Morbidity Study and a briefing from the Special Panel on Stroke. On June 7, the Committee's Medical and Administrative subcommittees will break out to discuss their activities and report back to the Committee.
Additionally, the Committee will review and analyze the comments discussed throughout the meeting for the purpose of assisting and compiling a final report to be sent to the Secretary.
Members of the public may direct questions or submit prepared statements for review by the Committee in advance of the meeting, in writing only, to Mr. Robert J. Epley, Director, Compensation and Pension Service (21), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. Submitted materials must be received by May 31, 2000. A report of the meeting and roster of Committee members may be obtained from Mr. Epley.
By Direction of the Secretary.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations.
This document contains amendments to final regulations relating to the withholding of income tax under sections 1441, 1442, and 1443 on certain U.S. source income paid to foreign persons and related requirements governing collection, deposit, refunds, and credits of withheld amounts under sections 1461 through 1463. Additionally, this document contains amendments under sections 6041, 6041A, 6042, 6045, 6049, and 3406. This regulation affects persons making payments of U.S. source income to foreign persons.
These regulations are effective January 1, 2001.
Carl Cooper, Laurie Hatten-Boyd, or Kate Hwa (202) 622-3840 (not a toll free number).
The collections of information in these final regulations have been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507) under control number 1545-1484. Responses to these collections of information are required to obtain a benefit (to claim an exemption to, or a reduction in, withholding), and to facilitate tax compliance (to verify entitlement to an exemption or a reduced rate). The likely respondents are individuals, businesses, and other for-profit organizations.
Comments on the collections of information should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies to the Internal Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, OP:FS:FP, Washington, DC 20224.
The estimated average annual burden per respondent and/or recordkeeper are reflected in the burdens of Forms W-8, 1042, 1042-S, 1099, and the income tax return of a foreign person filed for purposes of claiming a refund.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
In Treasury Decision (TD) 8734 (62 FR 53387), the Treasury Department and the IRS issued comprehensive regulations (final regulations) under chapter 3 (sections 1441-1464) and subpart G of Subchapter A of chapter 61 (sections 6041-6050S) of the Internal Revenue Code. Those final regulations were amended by TD 8804 (63 FR 72183 [1999-12 I.R.B. 5]) which delayed the effective date of the final regulations to payments made after December 31, 1999. The effective date of the regulations was again extended by TD 8856 (64 FR 73408) to payments made after December 31, 2000.
Since the publication of TD 8734, the IRS and Treasury have received numerous comments relating to technical errors in the regulations and ways to ease compliance while keeping the objectives of the regulations in place. In Notice 99-8 (1999-5 I.R.B. 26), the IRS and Treasury announced amendments that would be made to the regulations. This TD implements Notice 99-8 and contains additional changes made in response to comments as well as the IRS and Treasury's further analysis of the regulations.
Generally, a payment to a U.S. branch of a foreign person is a payment to a foreign person. Under § 1.1441-1(b)(2)(iv), however, a U.S. branch of certain foreign banks or insurance companies and a withholding agent may agree to treat the U.S. branch as a U.S. person for purposes of chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue Code. The regulation as initially drafted required a withholding agent to treat such a U.S. branch as a U.S. person for all purposes under chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue Code. The regulation itself, however, does not treat a U.S. branch as a U.S. person for all purposes under chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue Code. For example, a U.S. branch of a foreign bank or insurance company provides a withholding certificate on a Form W-8, which is used only by foreign persons. Further, under § 1.1461-1(c), payments to such a branch are reportable as payments to a foreign person on Form 1042-S. Therefore, § 1.1441-1(b)(2)(iv) has been amended to state that, notwithstanding the agreement between the withholding agent and a U.S. branch to treat the U.S. branch as a U.S. person, the branch is not treated as a U.S. person for purposes of providing documentation or for reporting payments to the branch.
Section 1.1441-1(b)(2)(vii) contains rules to determine whether a payment can be reliably associated with valid documentation. A payment that cannot be reliably associated with valid documentation is subject to the presumption rules in §§ 1.1441-1(b)(3), 1.1441-4(a)(2)(ii) and (3)(i), 1.1441-5(d) and (e)(6), 1.1441-9(b)(3), and 1.6049-5(d). Paragraph (b)(2)(vii) did not adequately address when a payment made to a nonqualified intermediary, a flow-through entity, or a U.S. branch of certain foreign banks and insurance companies (other than a branch that acts as a U.S. person) would be treated as reliably associated with documentation. These entities provide a withholding certificate for themselves and withholding certificates, documentary evidence, or other information for the persons on whose behalf they act. Therefore, the payment must be reliably associated not only with a withholding certificate from the intermediary, flow-through entity, or U.S. branch, but also with documentation from, or information relating to, the payee on whose behalf the entity acts.
Paragraph (b)(2)(vii) has been amended to provide more detailed reliable association rules. For a payment made to a nonqualified intermediary, a flow-through entity, or a U.S. branch, new paragraph (b)(2)(vii)(B) provides that a withholding agent can reliably associate the payment with valid documentation if, prior to the payment, it has received a valid nonqualified
Paragraph (b)(2)(vii)(C) provides rules for a withholding agent that makes a payment to a qualified intermediary that does not assume primary withholding responsibility under chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue Code or primary Form 1099 reporting and backup withholding responsibility under chapter 61 and section 3406 of the Internal Revenue Code. The payment can be reliably associated with valid documentation if, prior to the payment, the withholding agent receives a valid qualified intermediary withholding certificate on Form W-8IMY and a withholding statement that allocates the payment among withholding rate pools, including withholding rate pools for each U.S. non-exempt recipient for which the qualified intermediary has provided a valid Form W-9 (or other information if a Form W-9 has not been provided).
For a payment made to a qualified intermediary that assumes primary withholding responsibility under chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue Code with respect to the payment, but does not assume primary Form 1099 reporting and backup withholding responsibility under chapter 61 and section 3406 of the Internal Revenue Code, paragraph (b)(2)(vii)(D) provides that a withholding agent can reliably associate the payment with valid documentation if, prior to the payment, it receives a valid Form W-8IMY and the withholding statement associated with the Form W-8IMY allocates the payment between a single withholding rate pool for which the qualified intermediary assumes primary withholding responsibility and separate withholding rate pools for each U.S. non-exempt recipient.
Paragraph (b)(2)(vii)(E) provides rules for a withholding agent that makes a payment to a qualified intermediary that assumes primary Form 1099 reporting and backup withholding responsibility under chapter 61 and section 3406 of the Internal Revenue Code, but does not assume primary withholding responsibility under chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue Code. The payment can be reliably associated with valid documentation if, prior to the payment, the withholding agent can associate the payment with a valid Form W-8IMY and the withholding statement associated with the Form W-8IMY allocates the payment among the withholding rate pool or pools for which withholding responsibility is not assumed and the portion of payment for which the qualified intermediary assumes Form 1099 reporting and backup withholding responsibility.
Finally, for a payment made to a qualified intermediary that assumes both primary withholding responsibility under chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue Code and primary Form 1099 reporting and backup withholding responsibility under chapter 61 and section 3406 of the Internal Revenue Code, paragraph (b)(2)(vii)(F) provides that a withholding agent can reliably associate the payment with valid documentation if, prior to the payment, it can associate the payment with a valid Form W-8IMY. In this case, no withholding rate pool allocation information is required. This same rule applies for payments made to a withholding foreign partnership.
As initially drafted, § 1.1441-1(b)(3)(ii) provided a withholding agent with presumption rules to determine a payee's classification (e.g., individual, corporation, partnership) if it could not reliably associate a payment with valid documentation. Paragraph (b)(3)(ii) did not, however, provide a presumption rule if a withholding agent could reliably associate a payment with documentary evidence (i.e., documentation other than a withholding certificate) from which it could not determine the payee's classification. For example, documentary evidence may indicate that a payee (other than an entity that is treated as a per se corporation under § 301.7701-2(b)(8)(i)) is a type of entity that can be organized so that all of its members have limited liability, in which case it would be treated as an association, or so that one or more of its members have unlimited liability, in which case it would be treated as a partnership. The determination of classification can be critical because if the entity is a flow-through entity, it is not the beneficial owner of the payment and its documentary evidence cannot be relied upon to grant a reduced rate of withholding.
Section 1.1441-1(b)(3)(ii)(C) has been added to permit a withholding agent to treat an entity that has provided documentary evidence as a corporation if the classification of the entity cannot be determined from documentary evidence or by reference to the exempt recipient rules under § 1.6049-4(c)(1)(ii). This presumption rule will reduce burdens on withholding agents that are permitted to use documentary evidence, such as foreign intermediaries and flow-through entities, which would otherwise have to request from payees additional information regarding U.S. tax classification. The presumption rule is not, however, intended to allow foreign entities to avoid making the correct determination of their classification and to provide the correct documentation. Thus, a foreign entity must make a determination about its classification and if it determines that it is an intermediary, partnership, foreign simple trust, or foreign grantor trust under U.S. tax law principles, it must provide an intermediary or flow-through withholding certificate on Form W-8IMY together with the appropriate information relating to its customers, partners, beneficiaries, owners, or other payees. Further, a withholding agent cannot treat an entity as a corporation if it knows, or should know, that the entity is a flow-through entity or intermediary. For example, if a particular type of collective investment vehicle provides documentary evidence that does not establish that it is a corporation, partnership, or trust, but the withholding agent knows, or has reason to know, that the investment vehicle is classified as a partnership for U.S. tax purposes, it must request a partnership withholding certificate from the entity.
An entity that is presumed to be a foreign corporation under new paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C) cannot be treated as the beneficial owner entitled to a reduced rate of withholding to the extent the documentary evidence indicates that it is a bank, broker, custodian, intermediary, or other agent unless the entity provides a statement that it is the beneficial owner of the income. For example, documentary evidence that indicates that the payee is a bank does not permit a withholding agent to apply the portfolio interest exception to payments of interest made to the bank. In addition, even though a foreign entity is treated as a beneficial owner for purposes of the exceptions to withholding under the Internal Revenue Code and regulations, it is not necessarily entitled to claim treaty benefits. Whether treaty benefits may be claimed by an entity depend on whether it meets the requirements under the income tax treaty and section 894.
Several simplifying and clarifying changes have been made to the presumption rules in § 1.1441-1(b)(3). First, the presumption rule applicable to pensions and annuities contained in § 1.1441-1(b)(3)(iii)(C) has been expanded to apply to individual retirement accounts and individual retirement annuities. Second, § 1.1441-1(b)(3)(iii)(D), which contains presumption rules applicable to offshore accounts, was revised to state the applicable rule more clearly. In addition, the restriction on applying the presumption rule of paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(D) to amounts that are not subject to withholding has been moved from that paragraph to § 1.6049-5(d)(2). This change eliminates a conflict with § 1.6049-5(d)(2), as previously drafted, which applied the paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(D) rule to amounts not subject to withholding.
Section 1.1441-1(b)(3)(iv) contains a grace period presumption rule that permits a withholding agent to treat a payee as a foreign person in certain situations where the withholding agent would presume the payee to be a U.S. person. Although the grace period rule generally does not permit a withholding agent to apply any exceptions to withholding, it does permit a withholding agent to apply a reduced rate of withholding for 90 days to a payee that provides a withholding certificate that would have been valid except that it was transmitted by facsimile. One commentator noted that because the facsimile rule applied only to payees that a withholding agent could, “in its discretion” treat as a foreign person, the rule was limited to those situations where the presumption rules would have treated the payee as a U.S. person and the withholding agent was exercising its discretion to treat the payee as foreign. Therefore, the commentator argued, the rule arguably could not be applied to payees that were required to be treated as foreign persons under the presumption rules, e.g., an exempt recipient with indicia of foreign status. The regulation has been modified by removing the phrase “in its discretion” thereby permitting the facsimile rule to apply to payees that are treated as foreign payees under the presumption rules.
Paragraph (b)(3)(v), as promulgated in TD 8734, provided several presumption rules that applied if a withholding agent did not receive from a nonqualified intermediary the withholding certificates or documentary evidence of the persons on whose behalf the nonqualified intermediary acted or did not receive information allocating the payment to each person. Under paragraph (b)(3)(v)(C), if the withholding agent could associate a payment with a group of beneficial owners or payees, it could treat the payment as being made in its entirety to the person in the group that was subject to the highest withholding rate or, if the rates were equal, to the payee in the group with the highest U.S. tax liability. If a nonqualified intermediary grouped persons subject to similar withholding and tax rates together and allocated the payment to the group, the nonqualified intermediary could achieve a reduced rate of withholding for its customers without reliably associating the payment to each of the customers that would be entitled to the payment. Treasury and the IRS stated in Notice 99-8 that affording a reduced rate of withholding under these circumstances was inappropriate. Further, it was inappropriate to report the entire payment as if it were made to a single documented payee who was not entitled to receive the entire amount of income.
Paragraph (b)(3)(v) has been revised so that whenever a payment to a nonqualified intermediary cannot be reliably associated with valid documentation from a specific payee, the payment is treated as made to an undocumented foreign payee and is subject to 30 percent withholding. Under § 1.1461-1(c), such payments are reported to an unknown owner on Form 1042-S. Thus, a payment can no longer be subject to a reduced rate of withholding because it can be allocated to a group of documented payees all of whom are subject to the same reduced rate of withholding. Similar changes have been made to the presumption rules that applied to foreign partnerships under former § 1.1441-5(d)(3)(ii).
Paragraph (b)(3)(vi), as originally drafted, was in error. It stated that the presumption rules that applied to foreign intermediaries also applied to U.S. branches of foreign banks and insurance companies that assumed withholding responsibility. The rule should have provided that the intermediary presumption rules also apply to U.S. branches of foreign banks and insurance companies that do not agree to be treated as U.S. persons. Those branches are generally treated in the same manner as nonqualified intermediaries under chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue Code. Therefore, paragraph (b)(3)(vi) has been revised to apply only to those branches that are not treated as U.S. persons. Finally, paragraph (b)(3)(vii), which applies to payments to joint payees, has been amended to clarify the treatment of payments made to joint accounts.
Section 1.1441-1(b)(6) sets forth the withholding obligations of a foreign intermediary and certain U.S. branches. The regulation, as originally drafted, stated that a qualified intermediary, a nonqualified intermediary, or a U.S. branch of a foreign bank or insurance company was deemed to have satisfied any obligation it had to withhold and report an amount it paid if it did not know that the correct amount had not been withheld. The rule did not, however, require a foreign intermediary or U.S. branch to report a payment if it knew that the withholding agent from whom it received the payment had not reported the payment to the persons on whose behalf the foreign intermediary or U.S. branch acted as long as the correct amount was withheld. For example, if a U.S. withholding agent withheld 30 percent from a payment of an amount subject to withholding made to a nonqualified intermediary because the nonqualified intermediary failed to provide documentation or allocation information relating to the persons for whom it acted, the rule relieved the nonqualified intermediary from any obligation to report the payment to those persons. Foreign intermediaries and U.S. branches, however, are withholding agents under § 1.1441-7(a) and, as stated in Notice 99-8, it is inappropriate to relieve them of any reporting responsibility unless they have provided another withholding agent with all of the information that the withholding agent needs to report amounts paid to the appropriate recipients of the income. In addition, paragraph (b)(6) should not have included qualified intermediaries, because a qualified intermediary has reporting responsibilities whether or not another withholding agent properly reported the payment made to the qualified intermediary.
The regulation has been revised to provide that a nonqualified intermediary or U.S. branch (other than a U.S. branch treated as a U.S. person) is not required to withhold and report if the nonqualified intermediary or U.S. branch (i) has provided a valid nonqualified intermediary or U.S. branch withholding certificate, (ii) has provided all of the information required to be included in a withholding statement associated with its withholding certificate so that another withholding agent can do the required reporting on Form 1042-S or Form
Section 1.1441-1(c) contains the definitions of terms used in the regulations under chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue Code. The section has been significantly expanded and certain definitions have been consolidated in this section. New definitions, or cross-references to definitions, have been provided for the terms beneficial owner, payee, intermediary, nonqualified intermediary, qualified intermediary, withholding certificate, documentary evidence, documentation, payor, exempt recipient, non-exempt recipient, reportable amounts, flow-through entity, foreign simple trust, foreign complex trust, foreign grantor trust, partnership, nonwithholding foreign partnership, and withholding foreign partnership.
Paragraph (c)(6)(i) has been changed to state specifically that the definition of beneficial owner does not apply in cases where a reduced rate of withholding is being claimed under an income tax treaty. This change has been made to clarify that a person who is a beneficial owner of an item of income for purposes of these regulations would not necessarily beneficially own the item of income for purposes of an income tax treaty.
Paragraph (c)(6), as originally drafted, did not include rules to determine the beneficial owner of a payment made to a foreign trust or estate. In general, the regulations retained the rules for foreign trusts and estates that existed prior to the publication of TD 8734. The paragraph has been revised to provide specific rules for payments to foreign trusts and estates. Generally, the beneficial owners of a payment to a foreign simple trust are the beneficiaries of the trust. The beneficial owners of a payment made to a foreign grantor trust are the owners of the trust. Foreign complex trusts and foreign estates are considered to be the beneficial owners of income paid to such entities.
Paragraph (c)(12) has been added to clarify the term
The definition of a flow-through entity has been moved from § 1.1441-1(e)(3)(i) to paragraph (c)(23). The definition has also been expanded and clarified. The term
Paragraph (d)(3) is revised to eliminate the requirement for a permanent residence address. Permanent residence address is a term defined in § 1.1441-1(e)(2)(ii) and is generally the address of a foreign person in the country in which the person is a resident for tax purposes. The term is inapplicable, and potentially misleading, as applied to the address a U.S. person should provide on Form W-9.
Paragraph (d)(4), as originally drafted, provided rules to determine whether a payment was made to a U.S. beneficial owner. Generally, the regulation provided that if a customer of a foreign intermediary provided a Form W-9, the withholding agent could treat such person as a U.S. beneficial owner. A customer of a foreign intermediary could also be treated as a U.S. beneficial owner if it provided a U.S. branch withholding certificate that evidenced its agreement to be treated as a U.S. person. A Form W-9 and a U.S. branch withholding certificate, however, do not establish beneficial ownership. Further, it is not necessary under the regulations to determine whether a U.S. payee is a beneficial owner because a payment to a U.S. payee is not subject to withholding under chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue Code whether or not the payee is the beneficial owner of the income. Thus, the paragraph has been modified to provide that the withholding agent may treat the payee of a payment made to a foreign intermediary or a flow-through entity as a U.S. payee if the payee provides a Form W-9 or a U.S. branch withholding certificate that evidences the branch's agreement to be treated as a U.S. person.
Section 1.1441-1(e)(3)(ii) provides the requirements for a valid withholding certificate provided by a qualified intermediary. The paragraph has been
Section § 1.1441-1(e)(3)(iii) provides rules relating to a nonqualified intermediary withholding certificate. Paragraph (e)(3)(iii) generally provided that payee documentation provided with a nonqualified intermediary withholding certificate needed to be attached to the certificate. Similar requirements existed for flow-through withholding certificates and U.S. branch withholding certificates. The regulations have been revised to require that payee documentation be associated with, rather than attached to, a nonqualified intermediary, flow-through, or U.S. branch certificate to obviate the need for a new withholding certificate each time payee documentation is provided to a withholding agent. The regulations do not set forth specific requirements for associating documentation. Any reasonable method may be used to associate documentation with its intermediary withholding certificate.
Paragraph (e)(3)(iii), as originally drafted, required a certification that the withholding certificates or other appropriate documentation attached to a nonqualified intermediary withholding certificate represented all of the persons to whom the intermediary withholding certificate related or that the amounts of income allocable to persons for whom no documentation was provided was separately stated. A similar requirement applied to nonwithholding foreign partnership withholding certificates in § 1.1441-5(c)(3)(iii)(D). The requirement for this certification has been eliminated. The persons on whose behalf a nonqualified intermediary acts will frequently change as persons open and close accounts with the intermediary. Thus, any such certification may be true at the time made, but false at a later point, necessitating a new withholding certificate. The elimination of the certification is not an elimination, however, of the requirement to provide payee withholding certificates to a withholding agent prior to a payment. The certification requirement has also been eliminated for nonwithholding foreign partnerships.
Section 1.1441-1(e)(3)(iii) permits a nonqualified intermediary to provide payee documentation either in the form of withholding certificates or in the form of documentary evidence. The withholding agent is required to derive information from the withholding certificates or other documentary evidence and report payments to each specific payee on whose behalf the nonqualified intermediary acts. However, the regulations were silent on how a withholding agent was to determine the status (U.S. or foreign) or classification (
The regulations have been revised to take these considerations into account. Under § 1.1441-1(e)(3)(iv) as revised, a nonqualified intermediary must associate with its nonqualified intermediary withholding certificate a withholding statement which sets forth the information a withholding agent needs to allocate a payment to each payee on whose behalf the nonqualified intermediary acts and to report the payment. Specifically, the withholding statement must contain for each payee the payee's name, address, country of residence, TIN (if any), the payee's recipient type for Form 1042-S reporting, the applicable rate of withholding, the type of withholding exception applied (if any), and the name of any other intermediary or flow-through entity from whom the payee directly receives the income. Additional information is required if a reduced rate of withholding under an income tax treaty is claimed. The withholding statement may be provided in any manner that the withholding agent and nonqualified intermediary agree, including electronically. It must be updated as frequently as necessary to remain accurate prior to each payment. The regulation does not require a nonqualified intermediary to provide information for a payee unless the payee is a U.S. non-exempt recipient. Information regarding U.S. non-exempt recipients must be provided irrespective of any local laws that prohibit disclosure of an account holder or account information. Therefore, a nonqualified intermediary should obtain waivers from non-disclosure provisions from U.S. non-exempt recipients. To the extent payee information is not provided, whether for a U.S. non-exempt recipient or any other payee, the regulation has been clarified to state explicitly that a withholding agent must withhold under the presumption rules. Further, the nonqualified intermediary remains liable for any tax not withheld by a withholding agent and, unless the nonqualified intermediary itself files information returns, will also be held liable for penalties imposed for failure to file information returns under sections 6721 and 6722.
Many commentators have argued that it is not practical to provide information allocating a payment to each payee prior to each payment because the customers of nonqualified intermediaries are constantly acquiring and disposing of investments. Several commentators made suggestions on how the regulations might ease compliance burdens. One commentator suggested that no allocation information should be required except in the case of income subject to reduced rates of withholding under an income tax treaty and payments made to U.S. non-exempt recipients. This suggestion was rejected. The IRS has provided a mechanism for aggregate reporting of payments in the model qualified intermediary agreement in Rev. Proc. 2000-12. It is inappropriate to extend such treatment to nonqualified intermediaries without the safeguards contained in a qualified intermediary agreement. Other commentators suggested that a withholding agent should withhold the difference between 30 percent of a payment and the claimed reduced rate of withholding in escrow and release the amounts when allocation information is provided. This suggestion was also not accepted. Such a system would leave the escrow funds out of the control of both the IRS and the beneficial owners of the payments. Further, because the nonqualified intermediary would have to provide frequent allocations as soon as possible after the time of payment to have the escrow funds released, it appeared to provide little relief from the pressures inherent in providing allocation information prior to a payment. Other commentators argued that a reduced rate of withholding should be provided at the time of payment with allocation information to follow after the close of the year with various disincentives provided for failure to furnish the allocation information. The regulations generally adopt this approach.
Paragraph (e)(3)(iv)(D) provides alternative procedures that permit a nonqualified intermediary to provide information allocating reportable amounts to payees (including U.S. exempt recipients) by January 31 of the year following the calendar year of payment. The alternative procedures do
Various penalties apply if a nonqualified intermediary fails to provide information to allocate payments in a withholding rate pool to a withholding agent by January 31. First, the withholding agent must commence withholding on all payments in accordance with the presumption rules. Therefore, 30 percent withholding applies to amounts subject to withholding and 31 percent backup withholding applies to payments of deposit interest and original issue discount on original issue discount obligations of 183 days or less. Under a cure provision, the withheld amounts may be returned, and the alternative procedures may continue to be used, if the nonqualified intermediary provides allocation information by February 14. If the nonqualified intermediary fails to provide allocation information by that date, withholding continues for the taxable year, and all subsequent taxable years, unless the withholding agent provides allocation information prior to a payment. Further, because no allocation information has been provided, the payments are considered never to have been reliably associated with valid documentation and the foreign beneficial owners and other payees on whose behalf the nonqualified intermediary is acting are not entitled to a reduced rate of withholding. Therefore, the nonqualified intermediary shall remain liable under section 1461 for the difference between the amount, if any, withheld by the withholding agent and the amount that should have been withheld under the presumption rules. Any tax due because of an allocation failure will be assessed against the nonqualified intermediary and, if necessary, collected from the assets that the nonqualified intermediary has with the withholding agent. Interest and penalties may also be assessed against the nonqualified intermediary. In particular, paragraph (e)(3)(iv)(
The withholding statement rules and alternative allocation procedures have also been made applicable to U.S. branches of certain foreign banks and insurance companies and flow-through entities. This change, together with certain other changes discussed in this Explanation of Provisions, generally results in nonqualified intermediaries, U.S. branches, and flow-through entities being treated similarly.
Paragraph (e)(3)(iv)(E) has been added to permit the IRS to provide a withholding agent with a notice prohibiting the withholding agent from applying the alternative procedures of paragraph (e)(3)(iv)(D) to an identified nonqualified intermediary (or to a flow-through entity or a U.S. branch of a foreign bank or foreign insurance company) thereby requiring allocation information prior to a payment to have a reduced rate of withholding apply. In addition, the IRS may, in appropriate circumstances issue a notice to a withholding agent prohibiting the withholding agent from applying a reduced rate of withholding under any circumstances, even if allocation information is provided prior to a payment. The IRS contemplates issuing these notices in situations where a nonqualified intermediary, flow-through entity, or U.S. branch fails to pay a tax due or is not applying the rules of the regulations in good faith.
Section 1.1441-1(e)(4)(ii)(B) sets forth the circumstances in which a Form W-8 has an indefinite validity period. Paragraph (e)(4)(ii)(B)(
Paragraph (e)(4)(vii) has also been modified to state that a TIN is required on a withholding certificate from a beneficial owner that is claiming an exemption based on its claim of tax exempt status under section 501(c) or private foundation status. This does not represent a change in the requirements for a withholding certificate from such a beneficial owner. The regulation, as originally drafted, however, contained the requirement only in § 1.1441-9. The requirement of a TIN has been repeated in this paragraph for convenience. Finally, commentators noted that there was a conflict between paragraph (e)(4)(vii), which did not require a TIN on a withholding certificate from a nonwithholding foreign partnership, and § 1.1441-5(c)(3)(iii)(A), which stated that a TIN was required. It was never intended that a nonwithholding foreign partnership withholding certificate used to transmit documentation and information relating to its partners have a TIN. Section 1.1441-5(c)(3)(iii)(A) has been modified accordingly. TINs are required, however, if the withholding foreign partnership is providing a withholding certificate on which it claims an exemption from withholding because the income is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business or when it is entitled to claim treaty benefits under section 894 on income for which a TIN is required under § 1.1441-6(b)(1).
Paragraph (e)(4)(ix)(C) has been redrafted to clarify, and appropriately limit, its application. As redrafted, it applies only to a U.S. broker. It permits such a broker that is acting as an introducing or corresponding broker to provide a clearing broker with a certification that it holds a valid withholding certificate or other appropriate documentation. Without this rule, an introducing or corresponding broker would have to obtain multiple Forms W-8 and provide them to each clearing broker with whom the introducing or corresponding broker executes transactions. In addition, paragraph (e)(4)(ix)(C) has been amended to apply only to readily tradeable instruments, as provided in § 31.3406(h)-3(d), on which it is modeled. An example has been added to illustrate the paragraph.
Section 1.1441-1(e)(5) provides rules regarding qualified intermediaries. The rules have been redrafted to more closely conform with the model qualified intermediary agreement published as part of Rev. Proc. 2000-12. The regulation, as originally drafted, contained a requirement that a qualified intermediary disclose U.S. non-exempt recipients “irrespective of local secrecy laws.” The model qualified intermediary agreement has specific provisions contained in section 6.04 of the agreement, as well as other sections, that govern the treatment of U.S. persons whenever foreign law, whether or not a “secrecy” provision, may preclude disclosure of a U.S. non-exempt recipient. Very generally, those provisions require a qualified intermediary to disinvest a U.S. non-exempt recipient who does not waive its
The provisions in paragraph (e)(5) regarding the terms of the withholding agreement a qualified intermediary must enter with the IRS have also been changed to more generally conform with the qualified intermediary agreement as set forth in Rev. Proc. 2000-12. The regulation clarifies the consequences of a qualified intermediary's assumption of primary withholding responsibility. Section 1.1441-1(e)(5)(iv), as originally drafted, stated that a withholding agent making a payment to a qualified intermediary was required to presume full withholding responsibility for that payment unless the qualified intermediary assumed primary withholding responsibility. The regulation was potentially misleading because it could have been interpreted to mean that if a qualified intermediary did not assume primary withholding responsibility, only the U.S. withholding agent was responsible for withholding. Rev. Proc. 2000-12 makes clear, however, that qualified intermediaries are required to withhold in certain circumstances even though they have not assumed primary withholding responsibility. The rule that was initially in paragraph (e)(5)(iv) was intended to relieve a withholding agent making a payment to a qualified intermediary that assumed primary withholding responsibility from the obligation to withhold, not to relieve the qualified intermediary of any withholding requirement. The paragraph has been amended to reflect this intent.
Paragraph (e)(5)(iv) also stated that a qualified intermediary generally would not be permitted to assume withholding and reporting responsibility under section 3406 and chapter 61 of the Internal Revenue Code on a payment made to a U.S. person unless the qualified intermediary was a foreign branch of a U.S. person or a foreign person that had a branch in the United States capable of performing such reporting and withholding. In developing the model qualified intermediary agreement, it became apparent that it was desirable to permit certain qualified intermediaries that did not meet those criteria to assume reporting and withholding responsibility under chapter 61 of the Internal Revenue Code and section 3406. For example, where payments are made through clearing organizations, it may be impractical to require a qualified intermediary to provide information regarding U.S. non-exempt recipients to a U.S. withholding agent. The language that generally limited the ability to assume reporting and withholding responsibility under chapter 61 of the Internal Revenue Code and section 3406 has been eliminated. Whether a qualified intermediary may assume such responsibility is left to the terms of the qualified intermediary agreement. See section 3 of the model qualified intermediary agreement in Rev. Proc. 2000-12.
Section 1.1441-1(e)(5)(v), as originally drafted, required a qualified intermediary to associate a payment with one of three categories of assets: (i) Assets associated with documented foreign persons, (ii) assets associated with documented U.S. payees, and (iii) assets associated with undocumented payees. These three asset categories were subdivided into classes of assets based on withholding rates and reporting requirements. The asset categories did not provide the needed flexibility sought by qualified intermediaries. For example, information regarding U.S. exempt recipient payees, who are not subject to withholding under section 1441, could not be combined with information regarding foreign beneficial owner payees subject to a zero rate of withholding. The model qualified intermediary agreement, as published in Rev. Proc. 2000-12, substituted the withholding rate pool concept for asset classes and this concept has been reflected in the revised regulation. A withholding rate pool is a payment of a single type of income, determined in accordance with the categories of income reported on Form 1042-S or Form 1099, as applicable, that is subject to a single rate of withholding.
Finally, the regulations permit, in accordance with Rev. Proc. 2000-12, a qualified intermediary and a U.S. withholding agent to use a single withholding rate pool for U.S. non-exempt recipients for whom no backup withholding is required and a single withholding rate pool for U.S. non-exempt recipients that are subject to backup withholding provided that the qualified intermediary agreement permits such an arrangement and sufficient information is provided to the withholding agent no later than January 15 following the year of payment that allocates the reportable payments to each U.S. non-exempt recipient account holder. Failure to provide the allocation information timely may result in penalties imposed on the qualified intermediary and the termination of its qualified intermediary agreement. Unlike qualified intermediaries, nonqualified intermediaries and flow-through entities are not permitted to pool payments to U.S. non-exempt recipients. Therefore, information sufficient to allocate the payment to each U.S. non-exempt recipient must be provided before a payment is made or the withholding agent must treat the payment as made to a U.S. payee that has failed to provide a TIN and impose backup withholding.
Section 1.1441-2(a) has been amended to exclude from the definition of amount subject to withholding interest paid as part of the purchase price of an obligation sold between interest payment dates (accrued interest) and an amount representing original issue discount (OID) paid as part of the purchase price of an obligation sold in a transaction other than the redemption of such obligation. The exclusions do not apply, however, if the sale of an obligation is part of a plan the principal purpose of which is to avoid tax and the withholding agent has actual knowledge or reason to know of such plan.
The exclusion of accrued interest and amounts representing OID paid as part of the purchase price of an obligation sold in a transaction other than a redemption were made in response to comments received on § 1.1441-2(b)(3) of the final regulations and proposed regulation § 1.1441-3(b) (REG-114000, 62 FR 53503). Section 1.1441-2(b)(3), as originally drafted, required withholding on OID to the extent the withholding agent had actual knowledge of the amount of the payment that was taxable to the beneficial owner. A withholding agent was treated as having actual knowledge if it had a direct account relationship with the holder of the obligation. Proposed regulation § 1.1441-3(b) would have eliminated the rule that no withholding was required on accrued interest and replaced it with a rule that conformed with the rule applicable to OID on the theory that, from a withholding perspective, the two payments were equivalent. The withholding rules applicable to OID and accrued interest would have required withholding whenever a payment of interest or OID was not subject to an exception, such as the portfolio interest exception, or a payment of OID or accrued interest was presumed made to a foreign person and
In Notice 99-8, Treasury and the IRS announced that they would make modifications to the OID and accrued interest rules. The modifications were intended to address criticisms by commentators that the OID and accrued interest rules were unworkable. Commentators argued that debt obligations are often sold in delivery-versus-payment transactions which settle quickly and often involve multiple intermediaries. The requirement to withhold in absence of a beneficial owner withholding certificate would necessarily inhibit the speed with which sales transactions are normally conducted. In addition, they argued that a withholding agent does not necessarily know the amount of OID or accrued interest merely because it has a direct account relationship with the account holder. In addition, custodians stated that sales were often accounted for in systems different from those used to report interest and OID and therefore the reporting requirement of the regulations would require significant systems modifications. They argued that these modifications were not justified because nearly all accrued interest and OID would be from instruments that could qualify for the portfolio interest exception.
Notice 99-8 proposed rules that were intended to require only the withholding agent that had a direct account relationship with a beneficial owner to obtain a Form W-8. Thus, the notice proposed a rule that would require a withholding agent to obtain a withholding certificate only if it received the proceeds from a sale against delivery of the debt obligation or, in the case of a retirement, the withholding agent was the person responsible for paying the owner or crediting its account. The notice would have prevented intermediaries other than the intermediary with the direct account relationship with the beneficial owner from having to obtain a Form W-8 by stating that any withholding agent that effected a transaction for a broker was generally not required to obtain a Form W-8. A broker was defined by reference to § 1.6045-1(a) and generally included a person that makes sales of securities for customers in the ordinary course of that person's trade or business. In addition, the notice proposed to eliminate the rule that presumed knowledge of the amount of OID or interest accrued between interest payment dates merely because there was a direct account relationship with the beneficial owner of an obligation.
Commentators criticized the Notice 99-8 proposal. They argued that the multiple broker exception did not always accomplish its intended purpose because certain participants in a transaction for whom a Form W-8 should not be required could not meet the definition of a broker, particularly since that definition does not include non-U.S. payors that effect sales of obligations at an office outside the United States and certain other persons, such as investment advisors, who might participate in the transaction but did not stand ready to effect sales of securities for others. In addition, the Notice did not solve the problem faced by custodians.
In light of these criticisms, Treasury and the IRS have decided to eliminate the requirement for withholding, and reporting, on accrued interest and an amount representing OID paid on the sale of an OID obligation, other than in a redemption. This change has been effected by eliminating those items from the definition of amounts subject to withholding. Withholding is required, however, if the withholding agent knows or has reason to know that a sale is part of a plan to avoid tax. For example, if a holder of a debt obligation that pays interest that does not qualify for the portfolio interest exception sells the instrument immediately prior to an interest payment date and reacquires the same type of security after the interest payment date and the withholding agent knows, or has reason to know, of this pattern of sales, withholding and reporting of accrued interest is required.
Paragraph (a) has also been amended to state that insurance premiums paid on a contract subject to the section 4371 excise tax are not amounts subject to withholding. As previously drafted, these amounts were excluded from the definition of fixed or determinable annual or periodical (FDAP) income under § 1.1441-1(b)(2)(ii) and therefore were not included in amounts subject to withholding. Excluding insurance premiums from FDAP is inappropriate, however. Insurance premiums fall within the definition of FDAP provided in paragraph (b)(1). Therefore, the better means for exempting premiums subject to the section 4371 excise tax from withholding is to exclude them from the definition of amounts subject to withholding.
Section 1.1441-2(b)(1)(i) provides the definition of fixed or determinable annual or periodical (FDAP) income. Such income, if from sources within the United States, is generally an amount subject to withholding and therefore also subject to reporting on Form 1042-S if paid to a foreign payee. Paragraph (b)(1)(i) states that amounts that are excluded from gross income under any provision of law “without regard to the identity of the holder” are not FDAP income. This provision was, in part, intended to exclude from FDAP qualified scholarship income under section 117. The language, however, failed to accomplish its intended purpose because the section 117 exclusion is dependent on the identity of the person receiving the income—the recipient must be a candidate for a degree at a certain type of educational organization. The paragraph has been revised to state that amounts that are excluded from gross income without regard to the U.S. or foreign status of the owner of the income is not FDAP. In addition, the paragraph has been changed to clarify that amounts excluded from gross income under sections 892 (income of foreign governments) and 115 (income of a U.S. possession) are not excluded from the definition of FDAP since the foreign status of the owner of the income is determinative of whether the exclusions provided by those sections apply. Amounts subject to the section 892 and section 115 exclusions are, therefore, included in the scope of amounts subject to withholding and therefore are reportable on Form 1042-S under section 1461 even though not taxable under section 871 or 881.
Section 1.1441-2(b)(3) provides rules governing the treatment of original issue discount. Paragraph (b)(3)(i) describes the amount of OID subject to taxation in the hands of the owner of an OID obligation. Minor changes have been made to this paragraph to clarify the amount of OID that is taxable to the beneficial owner of the obligation.
Paragraph (b)(3)(ii) describes the amount of OID subject to withholding. To conform paragraph (b)(3)(ii) to the changes discussed in section B.1 of this Explanation of Provisions, the paragraph has been revised to require a withholding agent to withhold on OID only upon the redemption of the original issue discount obligation or in any case where the withholding agent knows that a sale, other than a redemption, is being made with the principal purpose of avoiding tax on the obligation. A withholding agent is required to withhold on the actual amount of OID includible in the gross
Paragraph (b)(3)(iii) contained a rule that required a withholding agent to withhold on interest and OID paid on an OID obligation even though it did not know the amount of OID subject to taxation if the withholding agent could not reliably associate the payment with valid documentation. The rule was designed to eliminate an exception to withholding that applied if a withholding agent did not have actual knowledge of the amount of OID that accrued to the holder of the obligation up to the date of sale. If the exception were not eliminated, it was feared that the documentation requirement for portfolio interest could be avoided by selling OID obligations through intermediaries that had no knowledge of the accrued amount of OID. The rule is no longer necessary. Under new § 1.1441-2(a)(6), withholding is required if a withholding agent knows, or has reason to know, that an OID obligation is sold with the principal purpose of avoiding tax. Therefore, the rule as originally contained in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) has been removed. New paragraph (b)(3)(iii) contains the transition rule formerly found in paragraph (b)(3)(iv). The rule has been modified, however. As previously drafted, the rule appeared to eliminate any withholding responsibility by the issuer of an OID obligation or its agent, as formerly contained in Rev. Rul. 68-333 (1968-1 CB 390). As revised, issuers and their agents are subject to any applicable withholding requirements on obligations issued before or after December 31, 2000. The rule now states, however, that withholding on OID obligations is only required by persons other than issuers or their agents with respect to obligations issued after December 31, 2000.
Section 1.1441-3 provides rules to determine the amount subject to withholding. In accordance with the change made in § 1.1441-2(a)(5), which eliminates interest accrued between sales dates from amounts subject to withholding, § 1.1441-3(b)(2) has been modified to eliminate the requirement that a withholding agent that pays accrued interest must report that interest on Form 1042-S.
As originally drafted, § 1.1441-3(c)(4)(i)(C) required withholding under section 1441 on the portion of a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) distribution that is not designated as a capital gain dividend or return of basis. Therefore, § 1.1441-3(c)(4)(i)(C) inadvertently required withholding under section 1441 on a distribution in excess of basis, which under section 301(c)(3) is capital gain from the sale or exchange of stock and, therefore, not subject to withholding under section 1441. To correct this error, paragraph (c)(4)(i)(C) has been amended to provide that withholding under section 1441 is not required on a distribution in excess of basis. A distribution in excess of basis is, however, subject to withholding under section 1445 unless the interest in the REIT is not a U.S. real property interest (e.g., an interest in a domestically controlled REIT under section 897(h)(2)).
Section 1.1441-4(a)(3)(i) treats a payment of income on a notional principal contract made to a foreign person as income effectively connected with a trade or business within the United States unless the withholding agent can reliably associate a payment with a withholding certificate that certifies that the payment is not effectively connected. This rule is overly broad because it presumes that any notional principal contract payment made to a foreign person is effectively connected even if the foreign person has no nexus to the United States. As a result, § 1.1441-4(a)(3)(i) has been amended to limit the presumption that notional principal contract income is effectively connected to a U.S. trade or business to those situations in which the income is either paid to a U.S. qualified business unit of a foreign person or the withholding agent otherwise knows, or has reason to know, that the income is effectively connected with the conduct of a U.S. trade or business. It is not expected that a withholding agent would be considered to have reason to know that a notional principal contract payment is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States solely because the foreign person receiving the payment has a qualified business unit in the United States to which a portion of the payment may be allocated pursuant to proposed regulation § 1.863-3(h) (the global dealing regulations).
Section 1.1441-4(a)(3)(ii), as originally drafted, stated that a payment to a financial institution was not treated as effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States if the financial institution provided a representation in a master agreement that governs transactions in notional principal contracts between the parties (for example, an International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) Agreement) or in the confirmation on the particular notional principal contract transaction that the counter party was a U.S. person or a non-U.S. branch of a foreign person.
Commentators requested that the master agreement and confirmation exceptions be expanded to apply to persons other than financial institutions. Section 1.1441-4(a)(3)(ii) has been amended (in the table or corrections at the end of the regulation) to allow any payee, not just a financial institution, to provide in a master agreement or confirmation statement a representation that the payee is a U.S. person or a non-U.S. branch of a foreign person.
Section 1.1441-4(b)(1)(ii), as originally drafted, provided that section 1441 applied to distributions from any trust described in section 401(a) made to a nonresident alien individual and to certain other retirement distributions. The result of this rule is that section 1441, rather than section 3405, applies to retirement distributions. This rule considerably eases the burdens that would otherwise apply to retirement distributions.
Commentators noted that the regulations did not provide the same rule for distributions from individual retirement accounts and annuities described in section 408. The regulation has been amended so that those distributions will be subject to section 1441 as well.
Section 1.1441-5 of the regulations concerns payments made to partnerships, trusts, and estates. As originally drafted, the regulations contained extensive rules for payments made to U.S. and foreign partnerships, but applied the rules of the regulations prior to the publication of TD 8734 to trusts and estates. The trust and estate rules, however, were inconsistent with the rules contained in TD 8734 and were also incomplete. For example, § 1.1441-1(c)(6)(ii)(B) required a withholding agent to determine the
Section 1.1441-5(b), as originally drafted, provided rules regarding payments to U.S. partnerships. The rules of paragraph (b) have been expanded to cover payments to U.S. trusts and U.S. estates as well. Under revised paragraph (b)(1), a payment to a U.S. partnership, U.S. trust, or U.S. estate is treated as a payment to a U.S. person and, therefore, not subject to withholding under chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue Code. United States partnerships, U.S. trusts, and U.S. estates are required, however, to withhold on payments they make to foreign partners, foreign beneficiaries, or, in the case of grantor trusts, foreign owners. Fiduciaries of U.S. trusts and U.S. estates should take particular note that it is the trust or the estate that is the withholding agent, and Forms 1042 and Forms 1042-S must be filed using the name and TIN of the U.S. trust or U.S. estate, not the name and TIN of the fiduciary.
Under paragraph (b)(2), a U.S. partnership is a withholding agent for a foreign partner's distributable share of partnership income that consists of amounts subject to withholding. A U.S. simple trust is a withholding agent for the distributable net income (DNI) includible in the gross income of a foreign beneficiary to the extent the DNI consists of an amount subject to withholding. Similarly, a U.S. complex trust is a withholding agent on DNI includible in the gross income of a foreign beneficiary to the extent the DNI consists of an amount subject to withholding that is, or is required to be, distributed currently. U.S. simple trusts and complex trusts are permitted to make reasonable estimates of the portion of a distribution that constitute DNI consisting of amounts subject to withholding. A U.S. grantor trust must withhold on any income includible in the taxable income of a foreign person that is treated as an owner to the extent the amount includible consists of an amount subject to withholding.
In the case of a partnership, if amounts subject to withholding are not actually distributed, the U.S. partnership must withhold at the earlier of the time the statement required under section 6031(b) (Form K-1) is mailed or otherwise provided to the partner or the due date for furnishing the statement. In addition, if an amount of income is required to be, but is not actually distributed to the foreign beneficiary of a U.S. simple or complex trust, the U.S. trust must withhold at the time the income is required to be reported on Form 1042-S. A U.S. grantor trust is required to withhold at the time the trust receives the payment or the payment is credited to the trust's account.
Section 1.1441-5(c) provides rules for payments made to foreign partnerships. Generally, the payees of a payment made to a nonwithholding foreign partnership are the partners of the partnership. Paragraph (c)(1)(ii), however, contains rules on when the partnership itself will be regarded as the payee of a payment. That paragraph, as originally drafted, permitted a partnership to be treated as the payee of income if the partnership provided a withholding certificate stating that the payment was effectively connected with the conduct of the partnership's U.S. trade or business. A commentator noted that the paragraph did not treat the partnership as the payee, however, to the extent the income was treated as being effectively connected under the presumption rules in the absence of a withholding certificate.
The paragraph has been revised to treat the partnership as the payee if the income is presumed to be effectively connected in the absence of documentation. For example, if a nonwithholding foreign partnership is receiving income on a notional principal contract and the income is treated as effectively connected income under the presumption rule of § 1.1441-4(b)(3)(i), the nonwithholding foreign partnership, and not the partners, is treated as the payee. In addition, the example in paragraph (c)(1)(iv) has been replaced with several less complex examples that better illustrate the operation of the rules of paragraph (c)(1).
Section 1.1441-5(c)(2) contains rules relating to withholding foreign partnerships. Section 1.1441-5(c)(2)(ii)(A), together with § 1.1461-1(c)(2)(ii)(A), required a withholding foreign partnership to file a Form 1065 and Forms K-1 and exempted the partnership from having to file Form 1042 and Forms 1042-S. The rule was incorrect. A withholding foreign partnership is generally required to withhold on payments and therefore must file a Form 1042, which is an income tax return, and not merely report the amounts on Form 1065. Also, because the IRS matches amounts reported on Forms 1042-S with amounts reported on Form 1042, it was incorrect to substitute Forms K-1 for Forms 1042-S. Therefore, the regulation has been amended to require a withholding foreign partnership to file a tax return on Form 1042 and file information returns on Form 1042-S for amounts subject to withholding paid to, or included in the distributive share of, its foreign partners. A withholding foreign partnership may also be required to file a return on Form 1065 and make the statements on Form K-1 under section 6031 for its partners. However, the IRS may agree in the withholding agreement to modify information reporting requirements to avoid double reporting. A rule that was formerly contained in § 1.1441-7(a), which permitted a withholding foreign partnership to arrange with a withholding agent to have the withholding agent impose withholding on a payment has been removed because a withholding foreign partnership is required to assume withholding responsibility.
Section 1.1441-5(c)(3) provides rules relating to nonwithholding foreign partnerships. Paragraph (c)(3)(iv) has been revised to require a nonwithholding foreign partnership to provide a withholding statement in the same manner as a nonqualified intermediary. In addition, paragraph (c)(3)(v) has been revised to conform with revised § 1.1441-1(b)(6), discussed in section A. 5 of this Explanation of Provisions. Thus, the regulation has been changed to make clear that a nonwithholding foreign partnership has an obligation to report payments even though another withholding agent has withheld the appropriate amount if the nonwithholding partnership has failed to provide adequate information for a withholding agent to report the payments appropriately on Form 1042-S and Form 1099 or the nonwithholding foreign partnership knows, or has reason to know, that the payments were not correctly reported.
Paragraph (d) of § 1.1441-5 provides presumption rules that apply to determine the status of a partnership and its partners if a payment cannot be
Treasury Decision 8734 did not include new provisions regarding withholding on payments by and to foreign trusts and foreign estates. The IRS provided interim guidance in the instructions to Forms W-8BEN and W-8IMY so that withholding agents could replace documentation that was expiring under the withholding regulations with documentation that would meet the requirements of TD 8734. In addition, Notice 99-8 announced that Treasury and the IRS intended to issue regulations that would clarify the withholding obligations of income paid to trusts and estates. Under the instructions and the notice, a payment to a foreign fiduciary was treated as a payment to a foreign intermediary and, therefore, the foreign fiduciary was required to furnish an intermediary withholding certificate on Form W-8IMY. If the trust was a trust described in section 651(a) or a trust, all or a portion of which was treated as owned by the grantor or other persons under sections 671 through 679, the fiduciary was required to attach Forms W-8BEN, Forms W-8EXP, or Forms W-9, from the beneficiaries or owners of the trust. In all other cases, the foreign trustee or executor was required to attach a Form W-8BEN, Form W-8EXP, or if required, Form W-9, completed on behalf of the trust or estate.
Several commentators objected to the requirement that a foreign fiduciary of a complex trust or a foreign estate provide an intermediary withholding certificate. They requested that a withholding certificate be required only from the trust or estate itself. Requiring documentation from a fiduciary also was not consistent with the rules under chapter 61, which generally require a Form W-9 from a trust or estate and ignore the status of the fiduciary. Finally, Notice 99-8 did not provide any presumption rules for payments to foreign trusts and foreign estates.
The regulations now contain a comprehensive set of rules for payments made to foreign trusts and foreign estates in § 1.1441-5(e). A foreign complex trust (as defined in paragraph (c)(25)) and a foreign estate are generally considered beneficial owners of income under § 1.1441-1(c)(6). Therefore, under § 1.1441-5(e)(2), a foreign complex trust or a foreign estate may provide a beneficial owner withholding certificate or other beneficial owner documentation for payments for which a reduced rate of withholding is not claimed under a treaty. Whether such a trust or estate can provide a beneficial owner withholding certificate to claim a reduced rate of withholding under an income tax treaty will depend on whether the trust or estate can claim to be a resident of a treaty country, whether it derives the income under section 894, and the regulations thereunder, and whether treaty benefits are denied under a limitation on benefits provision.
Foreign simple trusts and foreign grantor trusts are not payees or beneficial owners under § 1.1441-5(e)(3), unless the payment is an amount that is treated as effectively connected with the conduct of a U.S. trade or business. The payees of payments to a foreign simple trust or a foreign grantor trust are generally the beneficiaries or owners of the trust. This is similar to the treatment accorded to payments to foreign partnerships, where the partners, rather than the partnership, are generally considered the payees of income paid to the partnership. Therefore, the documentation rules applicable to foreign simple trusts and foreign grantor trusts generally accord with those applicable to foreign partnerships. The trust itself provides a flow-through withholding certificate with which it associates the withholding certificates or, if permitted, documentary evidence of its beneficiaries or owners. The foreign simple trust or foreign grantor trust must also associate with its flow-through withholding certificate a withholding statement identical to that provided by foreign partnerships and nonqualified intermediaries. The IRS may permit a foreign trust to function as a withholding foreign trust. A withholding foreign trust would generally be subject to the same provisions as a withholding foreign partnership.
Section 1.1441-1(e)(6) provides presumption rules for payments of amounts subject to withholding to foreign trusts and estates. Whether a payee is a trust or estate is determined under the general presumption rules of § 1.1441-1(b)(3)(ii). A trust or estate is presumed to be U.S. unless there are indicia of foreign status. If a payee is presumed to be a foreign trust, but its status as a complex, simple, or grantor trust is unknown, it will be treated as a complex trust. If the trust is known to be a foreign simple or grantor trust, its beneficiaries or owners will generally be presumed to be foreign with respect to payments of amounts subject to withholding.
Section 1.1441-6 contains the provisions for claiming a reduced rate of withholding under an income tax treaty. Section 1.1441-6(b) has been revised to clarify the requirements for claiming treaty benefits. Specifically, the provisions of paragraph (b)(2), as originally drafted, which related to use of documentary evidence, have been moved to newly revised paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) so that all the documentary evidence rules appear in the same paragraph. Paragraph (b)(2) now contains the provisions relating to treaty claims made by interest holders of fiscally transparent entities. Clarifying changes to those rules, which appeared in former paragraph (b)(4), have also been made.
Section 1.1441-6(c)(1) and (2), as originally drafted, required a foreign person to establish residency by obtaining a certified taxpayer identification number (certified TIN) from the IRS. Those provisions required a person claiming a reduced rate of withholding to submit either a certificate of residency or certain other prescribed documentation, plus affidavits regarding compliance with the limitation on benefits provisions of a treaty and with the regulations under section 894. In Notice 99-8, the IRS announced that it would not implement the procedures for obtaining certified TINs until January 1, 2002.
The certified TIN procedures have been removed. New paragraph (b)(3), however, provides authority for the IRS to issue guidance on requirements that a treaty claimant must follow to establish residency and compliance with other requirements imposed by treaties and the Internal Revenue Code, such as limitation on benefits provisions and the requirement that the claimant derive the income under section 894. Treasury and the IRS fully intend to implement such procedures. However, Treasury and the IRS determined that it was appropriate to delay
Paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) prescribe the types of documentation that can be used to claim treaty benefits for income from marketable instruments paid outside the United States to offshore accounts. Former paragraph (b)(2) stated that documentary evidence could be used, in certain cases, to claim treaty benefits if the documentary evidence was accompanied by the certifications required in paragraph (c)(5). Paragraph (c)(5) contained a requirement that a beneficial owner applying for a certified TIN provide the IRS with certifications, made in an affidavit signed under penalties of perjury, that the beneficial owner was in compliance with any applicable limitation on benefits provisions contained in a treaty and that the beneficial owner derives the income for which treaty benefits will be claimed. It was unclear from the regulations, as drafted, whether the certifications that were provided to withholding agents were required to be made in affidavits signed under penalties of perjury or whether the affidavit requirement only applied to obtaining certified TINs. Although Treasury and the IRS believe it is important that statements regarding compliance with limitation on benefits provisions and section 894 be given in conjunction with documentary evidence provided to a withholding agent, a penalties of perjury requirement would impose a burden that undermines the use of documentary evidence. One reason for permitting use of documentary evidence is to eliminate, as much as possible, the need for a penalties of perjury statement. Thus, the affidavit and penalties of perjury requirements have been eliminated with respect to documentary evidence provided to a withholding agent. The IRS may, however, require an affidavit in connection with the certified TIN procedures that it will establish. The affidavit requirement in paragraph (c)(4), stating that the information on documentary evidence is true and complete, has also been eliminated.
Section 1.1441-7 defines the term
§ 1.1441-7(a) provides the definition of a withholding agent as well as a withholding agent's obligation to withhold the appropriate amount of taxes and file returns. The section has been revised by removing language stating that a withholding foreign partnership does not have to file Forms 1042-S for payments made to foreign partners because it is required to provide Forms K-1. The reason for this change is discussed in section E. 2 of this Explanation of Provisions.
Some U.S. withholding agents commented that foreign persons, including U.S. branches of foreign persons, were taking the position that they were not withholding agents for purposes of chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue Code. Any person, whether U.S. or foreign, that pays, or has control, receipt, custody, or disposal of an amount subject to withholding is a withholding agent. In addition, with respect to a single item of income, each person that handles the payment is a withholding agent. Thus, there may be more than one withholding agent with respect to a payment of an amount subject to withholding. Examples have been added in new paragraph (a)(2) to illustrate these principles. In particular, examples were added to emphasize that foreign persons that pay, or have control, receipt, or custody, of amounts subject to withholding are withholding agents, including U.S. branches of foreign persons.
Section 1.1441-7(b)(2)(ii), as originally drafted, provided the exclusive rules for determining when a withholding agent that is a financial institution making a payment of income from marketable securities has reason to know that documentation provided to the withholding agent is unreliable. Commentators noted that the language of paragraph (b)(2)(ii) was inconsistent about whether the rules applied only to withholding certificates (i.e., Forms W-8) or also to documentary evidence. In addition, many commentators noted that the rules could not be reasonably applied to documentary evidence received through tiers of intermediaries, because that documentation would often be in a foreign language. They further argued that the rules relating to P.O. box addresses were unreasonable because in some countries P.O. box addresses are standard. Finally, commentators noted that the means for curing otherwise unreliable documentation were, in some instances, too restrictive.
Section 1.1441-7 (b)(3) through (10) have been added to address the comments. Some of the changes made to paragraph (b) reflect rules in the model qualified intermediary agreement contained in Rev. Proc. 2000-12. Paragraphs (b)(4) through (b)(9) relate to the obligations of a withholding agent for account holders that have a direct account relationship with the withholding agent. The rules are limited to direct account relationships because they often rely on account information that will exist only if such a relationship exists. However, under the rules of paragraph (b)(10), which relate to documentation from persons that are not direct account holders, the rules in paragraph (b)(4) through (9) apply to the extent that they rely on information contained on the face of a withholding certificate, documentary evidence, or a withholding statement.
Paragraph (b)(4) contains general rules regarding the reliability of a withholding certificate provided on Form W-8. Paragraph (b)(5) contains rules for when a Form W-8 will be regarded as unreliable to establish a beneficial owner's foreign status and applicable cure provisions. Paragraph (b)(6) contains rules for when a Form W-8 will be regarded as unreliable to establish a beneficial owner's claim of treaty benefits and applicable cure provisions. Paragraph (b)(7) provides general rules relating to documentary evidence. Paragraphs (b)(8) and (b)(9) contain rules regarding documentary evidence that is unreliable to establish a beneficial owner's status as a foreign person or a resident of a treaty country, respectively.
Paragraph (b)(10) provides rules regarding due diligence standards for documentation from payees received through nonqualified intermediaries, flow-through entities, and certain U.S. branches of foreign banks and insurance companies. Under paragraph (b)(10), a withholding agent is required to review the information contained in a withholding statement provided by those entities and may not rely on the information contained in the withholding statement to the extent it does not support the claims made for the payee. A withholding agent must also review each withholding certificate to verify that they support the claims made and are consistent with the information on the withholding statement. Under a transition rule, this review process does not apply to withholding certificates received before December 31, 2001, if the payment is made prior to that date. If a withholding certificate received before December 31, 2001, is relevant to a payment made
Section 1.1441-9 provides the rules for payments made to foreign tax-exempt entities and foreign governments. Paragraph (b)(2) of that section provided that if a tax-exempt organization did not have a determination from the IRS, it could establish its exempt status by attaching to its withholding certificate an opinion of counsel concluding that the organization is described in section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code. In addition, if the opinion concluded that the organization was described in section 501(c)(3) and was not a private foundation, an affidavit regarding the operations and support of the organization was required to be attached to the organization's withholding certificate as well. The opinion of counsel and affidavit was required to be renewed whenever the certificate to which it was attached was required to be renewed.
Commentators stated that the requirement that the opinion of tax-exempt status be provided by an attorney was too narrow and that an opinion from any federally authorized tax practitioner, as defined in section 7525(a)(3), should be permitted. In addition, the requirement that the opinion of counsel and the affidavit be renewed whenever the certificate was required to be renewed was confusing because a withholding certificate from a tax-exempt entity requires a TIN and, provided the income paid is subject to reporting, is valid indefinitely absent a change in circumstances.
Treasury and IRS are currently considering whether an opinion issued by a person other than an attorney authorized to practice before the IRS should suffice. Although the Treasury and IRS have not yet concluded that a person other than an attorney should be permitted to provide the opinion, the regulation has been amended to permit that possibility in future guidance. In addition, the requirement to renew the opinion and affidavit has been clarified by stating that it must be renewed if there is a change in facts or circumstances relevant to the organization's status under section 501(c)(3).
Section 1.1461-1 contains requirements regarding the payment and deposit of tax withheld under chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue Code and the filing of a tax return (Form 1042) and information returns (Forms 1042-S) by withholding agents. Generally, the paragraph has been amended to make a withholding agent's obligations clearer.
Paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(4), as originally drafted, stated that a withholding agent was not required to file a tax return or information return if another withholding agent had done so. Numerous exceptions to the rule were provided. These paragraphs were misleading because they implied that the general rule was that a tax return and information returns were not required if there was another withholding agent in the chain of payment required to file a tax return and information returns. The exceptions to the rule, however, required every withholding agent that made payments of an amount subject to withholding to a foreign person to file a tax return and information returns in every situation, except that a nonqualified intermediary or flow-through entity was not required to file a tax return and information returns for payments that it made provided that it furnished to a withholding agent sufficient information for the withholding agent to correctly withhold and report the payment. Section 1.1461-1(b) and (c) have been clarified to state that a withholding agent that makes a payment of an amount subject to reporting to a recipient must file a Form 1042-S and provide a copy to the recipient. The terms recipient and amount subject to reporting are defined in paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (c)(2), respectively. A recipient includes a beneficial owner (including a foreign complex trust and estate), a qualified intermediary, a withholding foreign partnership, a withholding foreign trust, an authorized foreign agent, a U.S. branch treated as a U.S. person, a nonwithholding foreign partnership or foreign simple trust receiving income effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business, any payee presumed to be a foreign person, and any other person for whom a Form 1042-S is required by the instructions to the form. A nonqualified intermediary, a disregarded entity, a flow-through entity, and a U.S. branch that is not treated as a U.S. person are not recipients. Amounts paid to such entities are reported as paid to the persons on whose behalf the entity acts or to the interest holders in the entity. The term amount subject to reporting generally means amount subject to withholding as defined under § 1.1441-2(a).
The regulation has also been clarified by providing a more extensive, but not exhaustive, list of those amounts subject to reporting and those amounts for which there is an exception to reporting. See new § 1.1461-1(c)(2). Paragraph (c)(2)(i)(C), as originally drafted, stated that the amount of effectively connected income that was required to be reported with respect to a notional principal contract was the net income described in § 1.446-3(d). Commentators objected to this requirement because their systems are programmed to report cash payments, not accrued amounts. New paragraph (c)(2)(i)(J) now provides that the amount required to be reported is limited to the amount of cash paid from the notional principal contract.
Finally, the section has been clarified by separately stating the reporting requirements of U.S. withholding agents, qualified intermediaries, nonqualified intermediaries, and flow-through entities. Withholding agents should note, in particular, that information regarding nonqualified intermediaries, flow-through entities, and U.S. branches (other than U.S. branches treated as U.S. persons) in which a recipient is an account holder or an interest holder must be included on Form 1042-S. Such information is important to the IRS's efforts to monitor compliance by such entities and branches with the requirements of the regulations.
Section 1.6041-1(d) has been revised to require that the amount of a notional principal contract payment reported on Form 1099 is the amount of cash paid on the contract for the calendar year. This change conforms the Form 1099 reporting rule to that under § 1.1461-1(c)(2)(i)(J).
Section 1.6041-4(a)(3) states that a nonqualified intermediary, a qualified intermediary, or certain U.S. branches of foreign banks and insurance companies that receive payments reportable under section 6041 (e.g., rents, notional principal contract income, and other fixed or determinable income) are not required to report the payments on Form 1099 when they, in turn, make the payment to their account holders unless they know the payments are required to be reported and were not so reported. Similar exceptions apply to dividends, gross proceeds from sales of securities, and interest under §§ 1.6042-3(b)(1)(vi),
Section 1.6041A-1(d)(3)(i)(C) has been added to provide an exception from reporting remuneration for services as a direct seller paid outside the United States. Prior to this change, remuneration for services was subject to reporting in absence of documentation establishing the direct seller's status as a foreign person because the presumption rules of §§ 1.6049-5(d)(2) and 1.1441-1(b)(3)(iii) treated a direct seller as a U.S. non-exempt recipient. Commentators stated that the presumption was inaccurate because most direct sellers abroad are foreign persons. They also argued that obtaining documentation from direct sellers to rebut the presumption was overly burdensome.
Section 1.6045-1(g) provides an exception from Form 1099 reporting for a broker if a customer is considered an exempt foreign person under that section. Under § 1.6045-1(g)(1)(i), a broker may treat a customer as an exempt foreign person if the broker receives a withholding certificate or documentary evidence that establishes the person's status as a foreign person. As originally drafted, the last sentence of § 1.6045-1(g)(1)(i) stated that if a withholding certificate was provided, a withholding agent could rely on the certificate to exempt the customer from reporting only if the certificate included a statement that the beneficial owner had not been, and at the time the certificate was furnished reasonably expected not to be, present in the United States for a period aggregating 183 days or more during each calendar year. The regulation did not state whether the a statement was required if documentary evidence was provided.
Two clarifying changes have been made to § 1.6045-1(g)(1)(i). First, the regulation has been modified to require the statement relating to presence in the United States only from individuals. Second, the regulation states that the statement is not required if documentary evidence is provided. The statement is required on a withholding certificate and not on documentary evidence because a withholding certificate is the documentation required for an account maintained in the United States. Documentary evidence can only be used for amounts paid outside the United States to an offshore account and, therefore, the likelihood that the person may be present in the United States for the relevant period is greatly reduced.
Clarifying changes have also been made to § 1.6045-1(g)(3)(iv). The first sentence of that section stated that a broker could treat an intermediary, as defined in § 1.1441-1(c)(13), as an exempt recipient except when the broker had actual knowledge or reason to know the intermediary was acting on behalf of a U.S. person. The exception should only apply if the intermediary is acting on behalf of a U.S. person who is subject to reporting on Form 1099, that is, a U.S. non-exempt recipient. The regulation has been amended to make this clear. An erroneous cite to nonwithholding foreign partnerships has also been eliminated.
In paragraph (g)(4) of § 1.6045-1,
Under § 1.6049-5(c)(1), a withholding agent or payor may generally rely on documentary evidence from a foreign payee instead of a beneficial owner withholding certificate on Form W-8 if an amount is paid outside the United States to an offshore account. An offshore account is an account maintained at an office or branch of a U.S. or foreign bank or other financial institution at any location outside the United States and outside of a U.S. possession. Under § 1.6049-5(e), an amount is considered paid outside the United States if the payor completes the acts necessary to effect payment outside the United States.
The regulations do not specifically address whether partners of a nonwithholding foreign partnership, foreign beneficiaries of a foreign simple trust, or foreign owners of a foreign grantor trust can use documentary evidence to establish their status as foreign payees. Paragraph (c)(1) has been amended to permit the use of documentary evidence by foreign partners, beneficiaries, and owners in these situations. Documentary evidence can also be used for purposes of chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue Code by virtue of the incorporation of § 1.6049-5(c)(1) in § 1.1441-1(e)(1)(ii)(A)(2). The use of documentary evidence is appropriate because the regulations generally treat payments to foreign nonwithholding foreign partnerships, foreign simple trusts, and foreign grantor trusts similar to payments made to nonqualified intermediaries, and the latter are permitted to provide documentary evidence on behalf of their account holders.
Section 1.6049-5(c)(4) provides rules that apply to U.S. payors that make payments outside the United States of amounts not subject to withholding (e.g., foreign source income and gross proceeds from the sale of securities) other than deposit interest and interest
Paragraph (c)(4) has been amended to remove the inconsistency and to take the commentators' comments into account. Under paragraph (c)(4)(ii), as revised, a declaration of foreign status may be used only if it is not customary to obtain documentary evidence. The declaration may be relied upon only if there is no address or other indicia of U.S. status. If it is customary in the country where a bank or financial institution maintains a branch or office to obtain, but not renew, documentary evidence, then the bank or financial institution may rely on the documentary evidence without the need to renew it provided that it may rely on the documentation to establish foreign status under the due diligence rules of § 1.1441-7(b)(7) and (8). The restriction on using such documentation in the case of a U.S. based multinational employee has been removed. If, however, the bank or financial institution may rely on the documentary evidence as establishing foreign status even though there are indicia of U.S. status, it can rely on the documentary evidence only for a period of three full calendar years after the calendar year in which it is received. Finally, neither the documentation rule of paragraph (c)(4)(i) nor the declaration rule of paragraph (c)(4)(ii) requires a payor to send a negative confirmation.
Section 1.6049-5(d) contains presumption rules that generally apply for chapter 61 reporting if a payor lacks required documentation from a payee. Paragraph (d)(2) governs payments other than payments to intermediaries or flow-through entities. Paragraph (d)(2)(i) has been clarified to state that the presumption rules of § 1.1441-1(b)(3)(iii)(D) (payments to offshore accounts) do not apply to amounts that are not subject to withholding. As originally drafted, paragraph (d)(2)(i) stated that the rules of § 1.1441-1(b)(3)(iii) applied to all payments, irrespective of whether they were subject to withholding. Section 1.1441-1(b)(3)(iii)(D), however, stated that it did not apply to amounts that were not subject to withholding. Revised paragraph (d)(2)(i) eliminates the inconsistency. Therefore, payments of deposit interest, and interest or OID arising from the redemption of an obligation described in section 871(g)(1)(B)(i) paid to an offshore account are presumed paid to a U.S. payee. In addition, gross proceeds, which are not amounts subject to withholding, are also treated as paid to U.S. persons under § 1.6045-1(g)(1)(i). Under the exceptions of §§ 1.6045-1(a)(1) and 1.6045-1(g)(3), however, gross proceeds from the sale of a security by a non-U.S. payor effected outside the United States are not subject to reporting.
The grace period rule in § 1.6049-5(d)(2)(ii), as originally drafted, did not cover the same payments as were covered under the grace period rule of § 1.1441-1(b)(3)(iv) even though the latter regulation cross-references § 1.6049-5(d)(2)(ii). For example, the rule under the 1441 regulations, but not the rule under section 6049, covered dividends from any redeemable security issued by an investment company and amounts paid with respect to loans of securities. Paragraph 5(d)(2)(ii) has been amended to cover the same payments as are covered by the grace period rule of § 1.1441-1(b)(3)(iv). In addition, paragraph (d)(2)(ii) prior to amendment stated that the grace period expired on the earlier of the of the 90th day after the grace period began, the date on which documentation is provided, or the last day of the calendar year. Commentators stated that terminating the grace period at the end of a calendar year complicated systems programming because there was a shrinking grace period for payments made within 90 days of the end of the year. The requirement to terminate the grace period as of the close of a calendar year has been eliminated because it is not necessary.
Paragraph (d)(3) provides presumption rules for payments made to foreign intermediaries. With exceptions for deposit interest and interest and OID on short-term obligations, payments to foreign intermediaries are presumed made to foreign payees. Paragraph (d)(4) provided different presumptions for payments to partnerships. Under that paragraph, payments made to foreign partnerships were generally presumed made to U.S. payees, even if the partnership established its status as a foreign partnership. Commentators argued that the disparate treatment between intermediaries and partnerships was not justified because they are treated similarly for other purposes under the regulations. The differences also complicated payors' information systems. In response to these comments, the presumption rules of paragraph (d)(3) have been revised to apply to payments made to all flow-through entities (nonwithholding foreign partnerships, foreign simple trusts, and foreign grantor trusts).
Paragraph (d)(3)(ii) provides rules for payments of amounts that are not subject to withholding (
Paragraph (d)(3)(ii) has been revised to generally reflect the principle that a payment of an amount that is not subject to withholding (other than short-term OID and deposit interest) made to an intermediary should not be subject to Form 1099 reporting by a payor if the payment would not be subject to Form 1099 reporting if made to a U.S. non-exempt recipient by an intermediary that is not a U.S. payor. Thus, the general rule is that a payment covered by the paragraph (i.e., foreign source income or gross proceeds) is presumed paid to an exempt recipient unless the payor has actual knowledge that the amount is attributable to a U.S. non-exempt recipient.
As originally drafted, § 1.6049-5(d)(3)(iii) provided special presumption rules for payments of deposit interest and interest or OID from short-term original issue discount obligations to foreign intermediaries. It was not clear whether the presumption rule of the paragraph applied to the portion of the sale proceeds representing OID from the sale or exchange of short-term OID instrument in a transaction other than a redemption.
Under paragraph (d)(3)(iii) as revised, a payment of deposit interest or interest or OID on the redemption of a short-term original issue discount obligation paid to an intermediary or flow-through entity is presumed paid to a U.S. payee. The paragraph does not apply to sales or exchanges (other than redemption) of short-term OID instruments. Such sales or exchanges are treated as gross proceeds transactions, in conformance with the rules in §§ 1.6045-1(c) and (d)(3) and 31.3406(b)(2)-2, and are subject to the general presumption rule for payments made to foreign intermediaries under § 1.6049-5(d)(3)(ii). Therefore, gross proceeds from the sale or exchange (other than a redemption) of a short-term OID instrument will generally be presumed paid as made to an exempt recipient. Intermediaries that are U.S. payors, however, may themselves be required to report such gross proceeds under § 1.6045-1(c) and (1)(g)(i) and the presumption rule of § 1.6049-5(d)(2), which applies to payments made to persons other than an intermediary because under that section gross proceeds are generally considered paid to U.S. payees under that section.
Paragraph (d)(3)(iii)(B) contained a presumption rule for payments made to exempt recipients that had not provided documentation that they were acting as intermediaries. The scope and application of this rule were unclear. Paragraph (d)(3)(iii)(B) has been completely revised and now states that a payment made to an exempt recipient that the payor knows, or has reason to know, is acting as an intermediary is subject to the presumptions that apply to intermediaries.
The changes made by this regulation will require revisions to instructions to the withholding certificates issued on Form W-8 and certain minor changes to the forms themselves. Until Forms W-8, and the instructions, are revised withholding agents may rely on Forms W-8BEN, W-8ECI, W-8EXP, and W-8IMY as currently in effect but should take into account, particularly with respect to Form W-8IMY used by intermediaries and flow-through entities, that the instructions to the form do not reflect the withholding statement requirements contained in this regulation. In particular, withholding agents and providers of Form W-8IMY should furnish a withholding statement in connection with the form that conforms to § 1.1441-1(e)(3)(iv).
It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. Finally, it has been determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply to these regulations because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities. Pursuant to 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations (61 FR 17614) was submitted to the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
The principal authors of these regulations are Carl Cooper, Laurie Hatten-Boyd, and Kate Hwa of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International).
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Employment taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Pensions, Railroad retirement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security, Unemployment compensation.
Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 31 are amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
The additions and revisions read as follows.
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(vii) Rules for reliably associating a payment with a withholding certificate or other appropriate documentation.
(A) Generally.
(B) Special rules applicable to a withholding certificate from a nonqualified intermediary or flow-through entity.
(C) Special rules applicable to a withholding certificate provided by a qualified intermediary that does not assume primary withholding responsibility.
(D) Special rules applicable to a withholding certificate provided by a qualified intermediary that assumes primary withholding responsibility under chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue Code.
(E) Special rules applicable to a withholding certificate provided by a qualified intermediary that assumes primary Form 1099 reporting and backup withholding responsibility but not primary withholding under chapter 3.
(F) Special rules applicable to a withholding certificate provided by a qualified intermediary that assumes primary withholding responsibility under chapter 3 and primary Form 1099 reporting and backup withholding responsibility and a withholding certificate provided by a withholding foreign partnership.
(3) * * *
(ii) Presumptions of classification as individual, corporation, partnership, etc.
(A) In general.
(B) No documentation provided.
(C) Documentary evidence furnished for offshore account.
(iv) Grace period.
(v) * * *
(B) Beneficial owner documentation or allocation information is lacking or unreliable.
(vi) U.S. branches.
(vii) * * *
(A) In general.
(B) Special rule for offshore accounts.
(6) * * *
(i) In general.
(ii) Example.
(c) * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) Special rules.
(B) Foreign partnerships.
(C) Foreign simple trusts and foreign grantor trusts.
(D) Other foreign trusts and foreign estates.
(12) Payee.
(13) Intermediary.
(14) Nonqualified intermediary.
(15) Qualified intermediary.
(16) Withholding certificate.
(17) Documentary evidence; other appropriate documentation.
(18) Documentation.
(19) Payor.
(20) Exempt recipient.
(21) Non-exempt recipient.
(22) Reportable amounts.
(23) Flow-through entity.
(24) Foreign simple trust.
(25) Foreign complex trust.
(26) Foreign grantor trust.
(27) Partnership.
(28) Nonwithholding foreign partnership.
(29) Withholding foreign partnership.
(d) * * *
(4) When a payment to an intermediary or flow-through entity may be treated as made to a U.S. payee.
(e) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) Intermediary withholding certificate from a nonqualified intermediary.
(iv) Withholding statement provided by nonqualified Intermediary.
(A) In general.
(B) General requirements.
(C) Content of withholding statement.
(D) Alternative procedures.
(E) Notice procedures.
(4) * * *
(iv) * * *
(A) In general.
(B) Requirements.
(C) Special requirements for transmission of Forms W-8 by an intermediary. [Reserved]
(5) * * *
(v) Withholding statement.
(B) Content of withholding statement.
(C) Withholding rate pools.
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Amount subject to tax.
(ii) Amounts subject to withholding.
(a) In general.
(b) Rules applicable to U.S. partnerships, trusts, and estates.
(1) Payments to U.S. partnerships, trusts, and estates.
(2) Withholding by U.S. payees.
(i) U.S. partnerships.
(A) In general.
(B) Effectively connected income of partners.
(ii) U.S. simple trusts.
(iii) U.S. complex trusts and U.S. estates.
(iv) U.S. grantor trusts.
(v) Subsequent distribution.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Examples.
(3) Nonwithholding foreign partnerships.
(iii) Withholding certificate from a nonwithholding foreign partnership.
(iv) Withholding statement provided by nonwithholding foreign partnership.
(v) Withholding and reporting by a foreign partnership.
(d) Presumption rules.
(4) Determination by a withholding foreign partnership of the status of its partners.
(e) Foreign trusts and estates.
(1) In general.
(2) Payments to foreign complex trusts and estates.
(3) Payees of payments to foreign simple trusts and foreign grantor trusts.
(i) Payments for which beneficiaries and owners are payees.
(ii) Payments for which trust is payee.
(4) Reliance on claim of foreign complex trust or foreign estate status.
(5) Foreign simple trust and foreign grantor trust.
(i) Reliance on claim of foreign simple trust or foreign grantor trust status.
(ii) Reliance on claim of reduced withholding by a foreign simple trust or foreign grantor trust for its beneficiaries or owners.
(iii) Withholding certificate from foreign simple trust or foreign grantor trust.
(iv) Withholding statement provided by a foreign simple trust or foreign grantor trust.
(v) Withholding foreign trusts.
(6) Presumption rules.
(i) In general.
(ii) Determination of status as U.S. or foreign trust or estate in the absence of documentation.
(iii) Determination of beneficiary or owner's status in the absence of certain documentation.
(b) * * *
(2) Payment to fiscally transparent entity.
(i) In general.
(ii) Certification by qualified intermediary.
(iii) Dual treatment.
(iv) Examples.
(3) Certified TIN.
(4) Claim of benefits under an income tax treaty by a U.S. person.
(c) Exemption from requirement to furnish a taxpayer identifying number and special documentary evidence rules for certain income.
(2) Income to which special rules apply.
(5) Statements regarding entitlement to treaty benefits.
(i) Statement regarding conditions under a limitation on benefits provision.
(ii) Statement regarding whether the taxpayer derives the income.
(e) Competent authority.
(a) * * *
(1) In general.
(2) Examples.
(b) * * *
(3) Financial institutions—limits on reason to know.
(4) Rules applicable to withholding certificates.
(i) In general.
(ii) Examples.
(5) Withholding certificate—establishment of foreign status.
(6) Withholding certificate—claim of reduced rate of withholding under treaty.
(7) Documentary evidence.
(8) Documentary evidence—establishment of foreign status.
(9) Documentary evidence—claim of reduced rate of withholding under treaty.
(10) Limits on reason to know—indirect account holders.
(11) Additional guidance.
1. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (b)(2)(i).
2. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)(iv)(A), (b)(2)(iv)(B)(
3. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)(v)(A) and (b)(2)(v)(B).
4. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(vii).
5. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (b)(3)(i).
6. Revising paragraph (b)(3)(ii).
7. Revising paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(C) and (b)(3)(iii)(D).
8. Revising paragraph (b)(3)(iv).
9. Revising paragraph (b)(3)(v).
10. Revising paragraphs (b)(3)(vi) and (b)(3)(vii).
11. Revising paragraph (b)(6).
12. Revising paragraph (c)(2).
13. Revising paragraph (c)(6).
14. Adding paragraphs (c)(12) through (c)(29).
15. Revising paragraphs (d)(2) through (d) (4).
16. Revising paragraphs (e)(1)(ii)(A)(
17. Revising paragraph (e)(3).
18. Revising paragraph (e)(4)(ii)(A).
19. Revising paragraphs (e)(4)(ii)(B)(
20. Revising paragraph (e)(4)(iv).
21. Revising paragraph (e)(4)(vii).
22. Adding paragraph (e)(4)(ix)(A)(
23. Revising paragraph (e)(5)(i) and (e)(5)(iii) through (e)(5)(v).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2)
(iv)
(B) * * *
(
(C)
(v)
(B)
(vii)
(B)
(
WH, a withholding agent, makes a payment of U.S. source interest to NQI, an intermediary that is a nonqualified intermediary. NQI provides a valid intermediary withholding certificate under paragraph (e)(3)(iii) of this section. NQI does not, however, provide valid documentation from the persons on whose behalf it receives the interest payment, and, therefore, the interest payment cannot be reliably associated with valid documentation provided by a payee. WH must apply the presumption rules of paragraph (b)(3)(v) of this section to the payment.
The facts are the same as in
The facts are the same as in Example 2, except that NQI does provide allocation information associated with its intermediary withholding certificate indicating that 25 percent of the interest payment is allocable to A and 25 percent to B. NQI does not provide any allocation information regarding the remaining 50 percent of the payment. WH may treat 25 percent of the payment as made to A and 25 percent as made to B. The remaining 50 percent of the payment cannot be reliably associated with valid documentation from a payee, however, since NQI did not provide information allocating the payment. Thus, the remaining 50 percent of the payment is subject to the presumption rules of paragraph (b)(3)(v) of this section.
WH makes a payment of U.S. source interest to NQI1, an intermediary that is not a qualified intermediary. NQI1 provides WH with a valid nonqualified intermediary withholding certificate as well a valid beneficial owner withholding certificates from A and B and a valid nonqualified intermediary withholding certificate from NQI2. NQI2 has provided valid beneficial owner documentation from C sufficient to establish C's status as a foreign person. Based on information provided by NQI1, WH can allocate 20 percent of the interest payment to A, and 20 percent to B. Based on information that NQI2 provided NQI1 and that NQI1 provides to WH, WH can allocate 60 percent of the payment to NQI 2, but can only allocate one half of that payment (30 percent) to C. Therefore, WH cannot reliably associate 30 percent of the payment made to NQI2 with valid documentation and must apply the presumption rules of paragraph (b)(3)(v) of this section to that portion of the payment.
(C)
(
WH, a withholding agent, makes a payment of U.S. source dividends to QI. QI provides WH with a valid qualified intermediary withholding certificate on which it indicates that it does not assume primary withholding responsibility under chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue Code or primary Form 1099 reporting and backup withholding responsibility under chapter 61 and section 3406 of the Internal Revenue Code. QI does not provide any information allocating the dividend to withholding rate pools. WH cannot reliably associate the payment with valid payee documentation and therefore must apply the presumption rules of paragraph (b)(3)(v) of this section.
WH makes a payment of U.S. source dividends to QI. QI has 5 customers: A, B, C, D, and E. QI has obtained documentation from A and B establishing their entitlement to a 15 percent rate of tax on U.S. source dividends under an income tax treaty. C is a U.S. person that is an exempt recipient as defined in paragraph (c)(20) of this section. D and E are U.S. non-exempt recipients who have provided Forms W-9 to QI. A, B, C, D, and E are each entitled to 20 percent of the dividend payment. QI provides WH with a valid qualified intermediary withholding certificate as described in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section with which it associates the Forms W-9 from D and E. QI associates the following allocation information with its qualified intermediary withholding certificate: 40 percent of the payment is allocable to the 15 percent withholding rate pool, and 20 percent is allocable to each of D and E. QI does not provide any allocation information regarding the remaining 20 percent of the payment. WH cannot reliably associate 20 percent of the payment with valid documentation and, therefore, must apply the presumption rules of paragraph (b)(3)(v) of this section to that portion of the payment. The 20 percent of the payment allocable to the 15 percent withholding rate pool, and the portion of the payments allocable to D and E are payments that can be reliably associated with documentation.
(D)
(
WH makes a payment of U.S. source interest to QI, a qualified intermediary. QI provides WH with a withholding certificate that indicates that QI will assume primary withholding responsibility under chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue Code with respect to the payment. In addition, QI attaches a Form W-9 from A, a U.S. non-exempt recipient, as defined in paragraph (c)(21) of this section, and provides the name, address, and TIN of B, a U.S. person that is also a non-exempt recipient but who has not provided a Form W-9. QI associates a withholding statement with its qualified intermediary withholding certificate indicating that 10 percent of the payment is attributable to A, and 10 percent to B, and that QI will assume primary withholding responsibility with respect to the remaining 80 percent of the payment. WH can reliably associate the entire payment with valid documentation. Although under the presumption rule of paragraph (b)(3)(v) of this section, an undocumented person receiving U.S. source interest is generally presumed to be a foreign person, WH has actual knowledge that B is a U.S. non-exempt recipient and therefore must report the payment on Form 1099 and backup withhold on the interest payment under section 3406.
The facts are the same as in
(E)
(
WH makes a payment of U.S. source dividends to QI, a qualified intermediary. QI has provided WH with a valid qualified intermediary withholding certificate. QI states on its withholding statement accompanying the certificate that it assumes primary Form 1099 reporting and backup withholding responsibility but does not assume primary withholding responsibility under chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue Code. QI represents that 15 percent of the dividend is subject to a 30 percent rate of withholding, 75 percent of the dividend is subject to a 15 percent rate of withholding, and that QI assumed primary Form 1099 reporting and backup withholding for the remaining 10 percent of the payment. The entire payment can be reliably associated with valid documentation.
(F)
(3)
(ii)
(B)
(C)
(iii) * * *
(C)
(D)
(iv)
(A) If, at the end of the grace period, the documentation is not furnished in the manner required under this section and the account holder is presumed to be a U.S. non-exempt recipient, then backup withholding applies to amounts credited to the account after the expiration of the grace period only. Amounts credited to the account during the grace period shall be treated as owned by a foreign payee and adjustments must be made to correct any underwithholding on such amounts in the manner described in § 1.1461-2.
(B) If, at the end of the grace period, the documentation is not furnished in the manner required under this section, or if documentation is furnished that
(v)
(B)
(vi)
(vii)
(B)
(6)
(ii)
FB, a foreign bank, acts as intermediary for five different persons, A, B, C, D, and E, each of whom owns U.S. securities that generate U.S. source dividends. The dividends are paid by USWA, a U.S. withholding agent. FB furnished USWA with a nonqualified intermediary withholding certificate, described in paragraph (e)(3)(iii) of this section, to which it attached the withholding certificates of each of A, B, C, D, and E. The withholding certificates from A and B claim a 15 percent reduced rate of withholding under an income tax treaty. C, D, and E claim no reduced rate of withholding. FB provides a withholding statement that meets all of the requirements of paragraph (e)(3)(iv) of this section, including information allocating 20 percent of each dividend payment to each of A, B, C, D, and E. FB does not have actual knowledge or reason to know that USWA did not withhold the correct amounts or report the dividends on Forms 1042-S to each of A, B, C, D, and E. FB is not required to withhold or to report the dividends to A, B, C, D, and E.
The facts are the same as in
(c) * * *
(2)
(6)
(ii)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
(29)
(d) * * *
(2)
(3)
(4)
(e) * * * (1) * * *
(ii) * * * (A) * * *
(
(
(
(3)
(ii)
(A) The name, permanent residence address (as described in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section), qualified intermediary employer identification number (QI-EIN), and the country under the laws of which the intermediary is created, incorporated, or governed. A qualified intermediary that does not act in its capacity as a qualified intermediary must not use its QI-EIN. Rather the intermediary should provide a nonqualified intermediary withholding certificate, if it is acting as an intermediary, and should use the taxpayer identification number, if any, that it uses for all other purposes;
(B) A certification that, with respect to accounts it identifies on its withholding statement (as described in paragraph (e)(5)(v) of this section), the qualified intermediary is not acting for its own account but is acting as a qualified intermediary;
(C) A certification that the qualified intermediary has provided, or will provide, a withholding statement as required by paragraph (e)(5)(v) of this section; and
(D) Any other information, certifications, or statements as may be required by the form or accompanying instructions in addition to, or in lieu of, the information and certifications described in this paragraph (e)(3)(ii) or paragraph (e)(3)(v) of this section. See paragraph (e)(5)(v) of this section for the requirements of a withholding statement associated with the qualified intermediary withholding certificate.
(iii)
(A) The name and permanent resident address (as described in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section) of the nonqualified intermediary, and the country under the laws of which the nonqualified intermediary is created, incorporated, or governed;
(B) A certification that the nonqualified intermediary is not acting for its own account;
(C) If the nonqualified intermediary withholding certificate is used to transmit withholding certificates or other appropriate documentation for more than one person on whose behalf the nonqualified intermediary is acting, a withholding statement associated with the Form W-8 that provides all the information required by paragraph (e)(3)(iv) of this section; and
(D) Any other information, certifications, or statements as may be required by the form or accompanying instructions in addition to, or in lieu of, the information, certifications, and statements described in this paragraph (e)(3)(iii) or paragraph (e)(3)(iv) of this section.
(iv)
(B)
(C)
(
(
(
(
(D)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(E)
(v)
(A) The name of the person of which the branch is a part and the address of the branch in the United States;
(B) A certification that the payments associated with the certificate are not effectively connected with the conduct of its trade or business in the United States; and
(C) Any other information, certifications, or statements as may be required by the form or accompanying instructions in addition to, or in lieu of, the information and certification described in this paragraph (e)(3)(v).
(vi)
(4) * * *
(ii)
(B) * * *
(
(
(
(
(
(
(iv)
(B)
(
(
(
(
(
(C)
(vii)
(A) A withholding certificate on which a beneficial owner is claiming the benefit of a reduced rate under an income tax treaty (other than for amounts described in § 1.1441-6(c)(2);
(B) A withholding certificate on which a beneficial owner is claiming exemption from withholding because income is effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business;
(C) A withholding certificate on which a beneficial owner is claiming exemption from withholding under section 871(f) for certain annuities received under qualified plans;
(D) A withholding certificate on which a beneficial owner is claiming an exemption based solely on a foreign organization's claim of tax exempt status under section 501(c) or private foundation status (however, a TIN is not required from a foreign private foundation that is subject to the 4-percent tax under section 4948(a) on income if that income would be exempt from withholding but for section 4948(a) (
(E) A withholding certificate from a person representing to be a qualified intermediary described in paragraph (e)(5)(ii) of this section;
(F) A withholding certificate from a person representing to be a withholding foreign partnership described in § 1.1441-5(c)(2)(i));
(G) A withholding certificate from a person representing to be a foreign grantor trust with 5 or fewer grantors;
(H) A withholding certificate provided by a foreign organization that is described in section 501(c);
(I) A withholding certificate from a person representing to be a U.S. branch described in paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section.
(ix) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(C)
(
SCO is a U.S. securities clearing organization that provides clearing services for correspondent broker, CB, a U.S. corporation. Pursuant to a fully disclosed clearing agreement, CB fully discloses the identity of each of its customers to SCO. Part of SCO's clearing duties include the crediting of income and gross proceeds of readily tradeable instruments (as defined in § 31.3406(h)-1(d)) to each customer's account. For each disclosed customer that is a foreign beneficial owner, CB provides SCO with information required under paragraphs (e)(3)(iv)(B) and (C) of this section that is necessary to apply the correct rate of withholding and to file Forms 1042-S. SCO may use the representations and beneficial owner information provided by CB to determine the proper amount of withholding and to file Forms 1042-S. CB is responsible for determining the validity of the withholding certificates or other appropriate documentation under § 1.1441-1(b).
(5)
(iii)
(B)
(iv)
(v)
(B)
(
(
(
(C)
(
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(1) Amounts described in § 1.1441-1(b)(4)(i) to the extent they involve interest on obligations in bearer form or on foreign-targeted registered obligations (but, in the case of a foreign-targeted registered obligation, only to the extent of those amounts paid to a registered owner that is a financial institution within the meaning of section 871(h)(5)(B) or a member of a clearing organization which member is the beneficial owner of the obligation);
(2) Amounts described in § 1.1441-1(b)(4)(ii) (dealing with bank deposit interest and similar types of interest (including original issue discount) described in section 871(i)(2)(A) or 881(d));
(3) Amounts described in § 1.1441-1(b)(4)(iv) (dealing with interest or original issue discount on certain short-term obligations described in section 871(g)(1)(B) or 881(e));
(4) Amounts described in § 1.1441-1(b)(4)(xx) (dealing with income from certain gambling winnings exempt from tax under section 871(j));
(5) Amounts paid as part of the purchase price of an obligation sold or exchanged between interest payment dates, unless the sale or exchange is part of a plan the principal purpose of which is to avoid tax and the withholding agent has actual knowledge or reason to know of such plan;
(6) Original issue discount paid as part of the purchase price of an obligation sold or exchanged in a transaction other than a redemption of such obligation, unless the purchase is part of a plan the principal purpose of which is to avoid tax and the withholding agent has actual knowledge or reason to know of such plan; and
(7) Insurance premiums paid with respect to a contract that is subject to the section 4371 excise tax.
(b)
(3)
(ii)
(iii)
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2)
(c)
(4) * * * (i) * * *
(C)
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(3)
(b) * * * (1) * * *
(ii) Such compensation would be subject to withholding under section 3402 but for the provisions of section 3401(a) (not including section 3401(a)(6)) and the regulations under that section. This paragraph (b)(1)(ii) does not apply to payments to a nonresident alien individual from any trust described in section 401(a), any annuity plan described in section 403(a), any annuity, custodial account, or retirement income account described in section 403(b), or an individual retirement account or individual retirement annuity described in section 408. Instead, these payments are subject to withholding under this section to the extent they are exempted from the definition of wages under section 3401(a)(12) or to the extent they are from an annuity, custodial account, or retirement income account described in section 403(b), or an individual retirement account or individual retirement annuity described in section 408. Thus, for example, payments to a nonresident alien individual from a trust described in section 401(a) are subject to withholding under section 1441 and not under section 3405 or section 3406.
(a)
(b)
(2)
(B)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(c)
(A) If the withholding agent can reliably associate a partner's distributive share of the payment with a valid Form W-9 provided under § 1.1441-1(d), the partner is a U.S. payee;
(B) If the withholding agent can reliably associate a partner's distributive share of the payment with a valid Form W-8, or other appropriate documentation, provided under § 1.1441-1(e)(1)(ii), the partner is a payee that is a foreign beneficial owner;
(C) If the withholding agent can reliably associate a partner's distributive share of the payment with a qualified intermediary withholding certificate under § 1.1441-1(e)(3)(ii), a nonqualified intermediary withholding certificate under § 1.1441-1(e)(3)(iii), or a U.S. branch certificate under § 1.1441-1(e)(3)(v), then the rules of § 1.1441-1(b)(2)(v) shall apply to determine who the payee is in the same manner as if the partner's distributive share of the payment had been paid directly to such intermediary or U.S. branch;
(D) If the withholding agent can reliably associate the partner's distributive share with a withholding foreign partnership certificate under paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this section or a nonwithholding foreign partnership certificate under paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section, then the rules of this paragraph (c)(1)(i) or paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section shall apply to determine whether the payment is treated as made to the partners of the higher-tier partnership under this paragraph (c)(1)(i) or to the higher-tier partnership itself (under the rules of paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section) in the same manner as if the partner's distributive share of the payment had been paid directly to the higher-tier foreign partnership;
(E) If the withholding agent can reliably associate the partner's distributive share with a withholding certificate described in paragraph (e) of this section regarding a foreign trust or estate, then the rules of paragraph (e) of this section shall apply to determine who the payees are; and
(F) If the withholding agent cannot reliably associate the partner's distributive share with a withholding certificate or other appropriate documentation, the partners are considered to be the payees and the presumptions described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section shall apply to determine their classification and status.
(ii)
(A) The withholding agent can reliably associate the payment with a withholding certificate described in paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this section (withholding certificate of a withholding foreign partnership);
(B) The withholding agent can reliably associate the payment with a withholding certificate described in paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section (nonwithholding foreign partnership) certifying that the payment is income that is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States; or
(C) The withholding agent can treat the income as effectively connected income under the presumption rules of § 1.1441-4(a)(2)(ii) or (3)(i).
(iii)
(iv)
FP is a nonwithholding foreign partnership organized in Country X. FP has two partners, FC, a foreign corporation, and USP, a U.S. partnership. USWH, a U.S. withholding agent, makes a payment of U.S. source interest to FP. FP has provided USWH with a valid nonwithholding foreign partnership certificate, as described in paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section, with which it associates a beneficial owner withholding certificate from FC and a Form W-9 from USP together with the withholding statement required by paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section. USWH can reliably associate the payment of interest with the withholding certificates from FC and USP. Under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section, the payees of the interest payment are FC and USP.
The facts are the same as in
USWH makes a payment of U.S. source dividends to WFP, a withholding foreign partnership. WFP has two partners, FC1 and FC2, both foreign corporations. USWH can reliably associate the payment with a valid withholding foreign partnership withholding certificate from WFP. Therefore, under paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(A) of this section, WFP is the payee of the dividends.
USWH makes a payment of U.S. source royalties to FP, a foreign partnership. USWH can reliably associate the royalties with a valid withholding certificate from FP on which FP certifies that the income is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States. Therefore, under paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(B) of this section, FP is the payee of the royalties.
(2)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(A) The name, permanent residence address (as described in § 1.1441-1(e)(2)(ii)), and the employer identification number of the partnership, and the country under the laws of which the partnership is created or governed;
(B) A certification that the partnership is a withholding foreign partnership within the meaning of paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section; and
(C) Any other information, certifications or statements as may be required by the withholding foreign partnership agreement with the IRS or the form or accompanying instructions in addition to, or in lieu of, the information, statements, and certifications described in this paragraph (c)(2)(iv).
(3)
(ii)
(iii)
(A) The name, permanent residence address (as described in § 1.1441-1(e)(2)(ii)), and the employer identification number of the partnership, if any, and the country under the laws of which the partnership is created or governed;
(B) A certification that the person whose name is on the certificate is a foreign partnership;
(C) A withholding statement associated with the nonwithholding foreign partnership withholding certificate that provides all of the information required by paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section and § 1.1441-1(e)(3)(iv). No withholding statement is required, however, for a nonwithholding foreign partnership withholding certificate furnished for income claimed to be effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States;
(D) A certification that the income is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States, if applicable; and
(E) Any other information, certifications, or statements required by the form or accompanying instructions in addition to, or in lieu of, the information and certifications described in this paragraph (c)(3)(iii).
(iv)
(v)
(d)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(e)
(2)
(3)
(A) If the withholding agent can reliably associate a payment with a valid Form W-9 provided under § 1.1441-1(d) from a beneficiary or owner of the foreign trust, then the beneficiary or owner is a U.S. payee;
(B) If the withholding agent can reliably associate a payment with a valid Form W-8, or other appropriate documentation, provided under § 1.1441-1(e)(1)(ii) from a beneficiary or owner of the foreign trust, then the beneficiary or owner is a payee that is a foreign beneficial owner;
(C) If the withholding agent can reliably associate a payment with a qualified intermediary withholding certificate under § 1.1441-1(e)(3)(ii), a nonqualified intermediary withholding certificate under § 1.1441-1(e)(3)(ii), or a U.S. branch withholding certificate under § 1.1441-1(e)(3)(v), then the rules of § 1.1441-1(b)(2)(v) shall apply to determine the payee in the same manner
(D) If the withholding agent can reliably associate a payment with a withholding foreign partnership withholding certificate under paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this section or a nonwithholding foreign partnership withholding certificate under paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section, then the rules of paragraph (c)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section shall apply to determine the payee;
(E) If the withholding agent can reliably associate the payment with a foreign simple trust withholding certificate or a foreign grantor trust withholding certificate (both described in paragraph (e)(5)(iii) of this section) from a second or higher-tier foreign simple trust or foreign grantor trust, then the rules of this paragraph (e)(3)(i) or paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section shall apply to determine whether the payment is treated as made to a beneficiary or owner of the higher-tier trust or to the trust itself in the same manner as if the payment had been made directly to the higher-tier trust; and
(F) If the withholding agent cannot reliably associate a payment with a withholding certificate or other appropriate documentation, the payees shall be determined by applying the presumptions described in paragraph (e)(6) of this section.
(ii)
(A) The withholding agent can reliably associate the payment with a foreign complex trust withholding certificate under paragraph (e)(4) of this section;
(B) The withholding agent can reliably associate the payment with a foreign simple trust withholding certificate under paragraph (e)(5)(iii) of this section certifying that the payment is income that is treated as effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States; or
(C) The withholding agent can treat the income as effectively connected income under the presumption rules of § 1.1441-4(a)(3)(i).
(4)
(5)
(iii)
(A) The name, permanent residence address (as described in § 1.1441-1(e)(2)(ii)), and the employer identification number, if required, of the trust and the country under the laws of which the trust is created;
(B) A certification that the person whose name is on the certificate is a foreign simple trust or a foreign grantor trust;
(C) A withholding statement associated with the foreign simple trust or foreign grantor trust withholding certificate that provides all of the information required by paragraph (e)(5)(iv) of this section. No withholding statement is required, however, for a foreign simple trust withholding certificate furnished for income that is treated as effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States;
(D) A certification on a foreign simple trust withholding certificate that the income is treated as effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States, if applicable; and
(E) Any other information, certifications, or statements required by the form or accompanying instructions in addition to, or in lieu of, the information, certifications, and statements described in this paragraph (e)(5)(iii);
(iv)
(v)
(6)
(ii)
(iii)
The revisions read as follows:
(b)
(2)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(i)
(ii)
(i)
(ii)
(ii)
(3)
(c)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(ii)
(5)
(ii)
(e)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(2)
USB is a broker organized in the United States. USB pays U.S. source dividends and interest, which are amounts subject to withholding under § 1.1441-2(a), to FC, a foreign corporation that has an investment account with USB. USB is a withholding agent as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
USB is a bank organized in the United States. FB is a bank organized in country X. X has an omnibus account with USB through which FB invests in debt and equity instruments that pay amounts subject to withholding as defined in § 1.1441-2(a). FB is a nonqualified intermediary, as defined in § 1.1441-1(c)(14). Both USB and FB are withholding agents as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
The facts are the same as in Example 2, except that FB is a qualified intermediary. Both USB and FB are withholding agents as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
FB is a bank organized in country X. FB has a branch in the United States. FB's branch has customers that are foreign persons who receive amounts subject to withholding, as defined in § 1.1441-2(a). FB is a withholding agent under paragraph (a)(1) of this section and is required to withhold and report payments of amounts subject to withholding in accordance with chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue Code.
X is a foreign corporation. X pays dividends to shareholders who are foreign persons. Under section 861(a)(2)(B), a portion of the dividends are from sources within the United States and constitute amounts subject to withholding within the meaning of § 1.1441-2(a). The dividends are not subject to tax under section 884(a). See 884(e)(3). X is a withholding agent under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(b) * * *
(2)
(3)
(4)
(ii)
F, a foreign person that has a direct account relationship with USB, a bank that is a U.S. person, provides USB with a beneficial owner withholding certificate for the purpose of claiming a reduced rate of withholding on U.S. source dividends. F resides in a treaty country that has a limitation on benefits provision in its income tax treaty with the United States. The withholding certificate, however, does not contain a statement regarding limitations on benefits or deriving the income under section 894 as required by § 1.1441-6(b)(1). USB cannot rely on the withholding certificate to grant a reduced rate of withholding because it is incomplete with respect to the claim made by F.
F, a foreign person that has a direct account relationship with USB, a broker that is a U.S. person, provides USB with a withholding certificate for the purpose of claiming the portfolio interest exception under section 881(c), which applies to foreign corporations. F indicates on its withholding certificate, however, that it is a partnership. USB may not treat F as a beneficial owner of the interest for purposes of the portfolio interest exception because F has indicated on its withholding certificate that it is a foreign partnership, and therefore under § 1.1441-1(c)(6)(ii) it is not the beneficial owner of the interest payment.
(5)
(i) A withholding certificate is unreliable or incorrect if the withholding certificate has a permanent residence address (as defined in § 1.1441-1(e)(2)(ii)) in the United States, the withholding certificate has a mailing address in the United States, the withholding agent has a residence or mailing address as part of its account information that is an address in the United States, or the direct account holder notifies the withholding agent of a new residence or mailing address in the United States (whether or not provided on a withholding certificate). A withholding agent may, however, rely on the beneficial owner withholding certificate as establishing the account holder's foreign status if it may do so under the provisions of paragraph (b)(5)(i)(A) or (B) of this section.
(A) A withholding agent may treat a direct account holder as a foreign person if the beneficial owner withholding certificate has been provided by an individual and—
(
(
(B) A withholding agent may treat an account holder as a foreign person if the beneficial owner withholding certificate has been provided by an entity that the withholding agent does not know, or does not have reason to know, is a flow-through entity and—
(
(
(ii) A beneficial owner withholding certificate is unreliable or incorrect if it is provided with respect to an offshore account (as defined in § 1.6049-5(c)(1)) and the direct account holder has standing instructions directing the withholding agent to pay amounts from its account to an address or an account maintained in the United States. The withholding agent may treat the direct account holder as a foreign person, however, if the direct account holder provides a reasonable explanation in writing that supports its foreign status.
(6)
(i) A beneficial owner withholding certificate is unreliable or incorrect if the permanent residence address on the beneficial owner withholding certificate is not in the country whose treaty is invoked, or the direct account holder notifies the withholding agent of a new permanent residence address that is not in the treaty country. A withholding agent may, however, treat a direct account holder as entitled to a reduced rate of withholding under an income tax treaty if the direct account holder provides a reasonable explanation for the permanent residence address outside the treaty country (e.g., the address is the address of a branch of the beneficial owner located outside the treaty country in which the entity is a resident) or the withholding agent has in its possession, or obtains, documentary evidence that establishes residency in a treaty country.
(ii) A beneficial owner withholding certificate is unreliable or incorrect if the permanent residence address on the withholding certificate is in the applicable treaty country but the withholding certificate contains a mailing address outside the treaty country or the withholding agent has a mailing address as part of its account information that is outside the treaty country. A mailing address that is a P.O. Box, in-care-of address, or address at a financial institution (if the financial institution is not a beneficial owner) shall not preclude a withholding agent from treating the direct account holder as a resident of a treaty country if such address is in the treaty country. If a withholding agent has a mailing address (whether or not contained on the withholding certificate) outside the applicable treaty country, the withholding agent may nevertheless treat a direct account holder as a resident of an applicable treaty country if—
(A) The withholding agent has in its possession, or obtains, additional documentation supporting the direct account holder's claim of residence in the applicable treaty country (and the additional documentation does not contain an address outside the treaty country);
(B) The withholding agent has in its possession, or obtains, documentation that establishes that the direct account holder is an entity organized in a treaty country (or an entity managed and controlled in a treaty country, if the applicable treaty so requires);
(C) The withholding agent knows that the address outside the applicable treaty country (other than a P.O. box, or in-care-of address) is a branch of a bank or insurance company that is a resident of the applicable treaty country; or
(D) The withholding agent obtains a written statement from the direct account holder that reasonably establishes entitlement to treaty benefits.
(iii) A beneficial owner withholding certificate is unreliable or incorrect to establish entitlement to a reduced rate of withholding under an income tax treaty if the direct account holder has standing instructions for the withholding agent to pay amounts from its account to an address or an account outside the treaty country unless the direct account holder provides a reasonable explanation, in writing, establishing the direct account holder's residence in the applicable treaty country.
(7)
(8)
(i) A withholding agent shall not treat documentary evidence provided by an account holder after December 31, 2000, as valid for purposes of establishing the direct account holder's foreign status if the only mailing or residence address that is available to the withholding agent is an address at a financial institution (unless the financial institution is a beneficial owner of the income), an in-care-of address, or a P.O. box. In this case, the withholding agent must obtain additional documentation that is sufficient to establish the direct account holder's status as a foreign
(ii) Documentary evidence is unreliable or incorrect to establish a direct account holder's status as a foreign person if the withholding agent has a mailing or residence address (whether or not on the documentation) for the direct account holder in the United States or if the direct account holder notifies the withholding agent of a new address in the United States. A withholding agent may, however, rely on documentary evidence as establishing the direct account holder's foreign status if it may do so under the provisions of paragraph (b)(8)(ii)(A) or (B) of this section.
(A) A withholding agent may treat a direct account holder that is an individual as a foreign person even if it has a mailing or residence address for the direct account holder in the United States if the withholding agent—
(
(
(
(B) A withholding agent may treat a direct account holder that is an entity (other than a flow-through entity) as a foreign person even if it has a mailing or residence address for the direct account holder in the United States if the withholding agent—
(
(
(
(iii) Documentary evidence is unreliable or incorrect if the direct account holder has standing instructions directing the withholding agent to pay amounts from its account to an address or an account maintained in the United States. The withholding agent may treat the direct account holder as a foreign person, however, if the account holder provides a reasonable explanation in writing that supports its foreign status.
(9)
(i) Documentary evidence is unreliable or incorrect if the withholding agent has a mailing or residence address for the direct account holder (whether or not on the documentary evidence) that is outside the applicable treaty country, or the only address that the withholding agent has (whether in or outside of the applicable treaty country) is a P.O. box, an in-care-of address, or the address of a financial institution (if the financial institution is not the beneficial owner). If a withholding agent has a mailing or residence address for the direct account holder outside the applicable treaty country, the withholding agent may nevertheless treat a direct account holder as a resident of an applicable treaty country if the withholding agent—
(A) Has in its possession, or obtains, additional documentary evidence supporting the direct account holder's claim of residence in the applicable treaty country (and the documentary evidence does not contain an address outside the applicable treaty country, a P.O. box, an in-care-of address, or the address of a financial institution);
(B) Has in its possession, or obtains, documentary evidence that establishes the direct account holder is an entity organized in a treaty country (or an entity managed and controlled in a treaty country, if the applicable treaty so requires); or
(C) Obtains a valid beneficial owner withholding certificate on Form W-8 that contains a permanent residence address and a mailing address in the applicable treaty country.
(ii) Documentary evidence is unreliable or incorrect if the direct account holder has standing instructions directing the withholding agent to pay amounts from its account to an address or an account maintained outside the treaty country unless the direct account holder provides a reasonable explanation, in writing, establishing the direct account holder's residence in the applicable treaty country.
(10)
(i) The withholding agent must review the withholding statement described in § 1.1441-1(e)(3)(iv) and may not rely on information in the statement to the extent the information does not support the claims made for any payee. For this purpose, a withholding agent may not treat a payee as a foreign person if an address in the United States is provided
(ii) The withholding agent must review each withholding certificate in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (b)(5) and (6) of this section and verify that the information on the withholding certificate is consistent with the information on the withholding statement required under § 1.1441-1(e)(3)(iv). If there is a discrepancy between the withholding certificate and the withholding statement, the withholding agent may choose to rely on the withholding certificate, if valid, and instruct the nonqualified intermediary, flow-through entity, or U.S. branch to correct the withholding statement or apply the presumption rules of §§ 1.1441-1(b), 1.1441-5(d) and (e)(6), and 1.6049-5(d) to the payment allocable to the payee who provided the withholding certificate relates. A withholding agent that receives a withholding certificate before December 31, 2001, is not required to review the information on withholding certificates or determine if it is consistent with the information on the withholding statement until December 31, 2001. A withholding agent may withhold and report in accordance with a withholding statement until December 31, 2001, unless it has actually performed the verification procedures required by this paragraph (b)(10)(ii) and determined that the withholding statement is inaccurate with respect to a particular payee.
(iii) The withholding agent must review the documentary evidence provided by the nonqualified intermediary, flow-through entity, or U.S. branch to determine that there is no obvious indication that the payee is a U.S. non-exempt recipient or that the documentary evidence does not establish the identity of the person who provided the documentation (
(11)
(b) * * *
(2)
The revisions read as follows:
(c)
(ii)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(B)
(
(
(
(
(2)
(A) The entire amount of a corporate distribution (whether actual or deemed) irrespective of any estimate of the portion of the distribution that represents a taxable dividend;
(B) Interest, including the portion of a notional principal contract payment that is characterized as interest. Interest shall also be reported on Form 1042-S if it is bank deposit interest paid to nonresident alien individuals as required under § 1.6049-8;
(C) Rents;
(D) Royalties;
(E) Compensation for dependent and independent personal services performed in the United States;
(F) Annuities;
(G) Pension distributions and other deferred income;
(H) Gambling winnings that are not exempt from tax under section 871(j);
(I) Income from the cancellation of indebtedness unless the withholding agent is unrelated to the debtor and does not have knowledge of the facts that give rise to the payment (see § 1.1441-2(d));
(J) Amounts that are (or are presumed to be) effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States (including deposit interest as defined in sections 871(i)(2)(A) and 881(d)) even if no withholding certificate is required to be furnished by the payee or beneficial owner. In the case of amounts paid on a notional principal contract described in § 1.1441-4(a)(3) that are presumed to be effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States, the amount required to be reported is limited to the amount of cash paid from the notional principal contract;
(K) Scholarship, fellowship, or grant income and compensation for personal services that is not excludible from gross income under section 117 (whether or not the taxable scholarship, fellowship, grant income, or compensation for personal services is exempt from tax under an income tax treaty) paid to foreign students, trainees, teachers, or researchers;
(L) Amounts paid to foreign governments, international organizations, or the Bank for International Settlements, whether or not documentation must be provided;
(M) Interest (including original issue discount) paid with respect to foreign-targeted registered obligations described in § 1.871-14(e)(2) to the extent the documentation requirements described in § 1.871-14(e)(3) and (4) are required to be satisfied (taking into account the provisions of § 1.871-14(e)(4)(ii), if applicable); and
(N) Original issue discount paid on the redemption of an OID obligation. The amount to be reported is the amount of OID includible in the gross income of the holder of the obligation, if known, or, if not known, the total amount of original issue discount determined as if the holder held the obligation from its original issuance. A withholding agent may determine the total amount of OID by using the most recently published “List of Original Issue Discount Instruments,” (Publication 1212, available from the IRS Forms Distribution Centers).
(ii)
(A) Interest (including original issue discount) that is deposit interest under sections 871(i)(2)(A) and 881(d) and that is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States, unless reporting is required under § 1.6049-8 (regarding payments to certain foreign residents) or is interest that is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States;
(B) Interest or original issue discount on certain short-term obligations, described in section 871(g)(1)(B) or 881(a)(3);
(C) Interest paid on obligations sold between interest payment dates and the portion of the purchase price of an OID obligation that is sold or exchanged in a transaction other than a redemption, unless the sale or exchange is part of a plan, the principal purpose of which is to avoid tax and the withholding agent has actual knowledge or reason to know of such plan (see § 1.1441-2(a)(5) and (6));
(D) Any item required to be reported on a Form W-2, including an item required to be shown on Form W-2 solely by reason of § 1.6041-2 (relating to return of information for payments to employees) or § 1.6052-1 (relating to information regarding payment of wages in the form of group-term life insurance);
(E) Any item required to be reported on Form 1099, and such other forms as are prescribed pursuant to the information reporting provisions of sections 6041 through 6050P and the regulations under those sections;
(F) Amounts paid on a notional principal contract described in § 1.1441-4(a)(3)(i) that are not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States (or not treated as effectively connected pursuant to § 1.1441-4(a)(3)(ii));
(G) Amounts required to be reported on Form 8288 (U.S. Withholding Tax Return for Dispositions by Foreign Persons of U.S. Real Property Interests) or Form 8804 (Annual Return for Partnership Withholding Tax (section 1446)). A withholding agent that must report a distribution partly on a Form 8288 or 8804 and partly on a Form 1042-S may elect to report the entire amount on a Form 8288 or 8804;
(H) Interest on a registered obligation that is targeted to foreign markets and qualifies as portfolio interest to the extent it is paid to a registered owner that is a financial institution or member of a clearing organization that has provided the proper withholding certificates (see §§ 1.1441-1(b)(4)(i) and 1.1441-2(a));
(I) Interest on a foreign targeted bearer obligation (see §§ 1.1441-1(b)(4)(i) and 1.1441-2(a));
(J) Gain described in section 301(c)(3); and
(K) Amounts described in § 1.1441-1(b)(4)(xviii) (dealing with certain amounts paid by the U.S. government).
(3)
(i) The name, address, and taxpayer identifying number of the withholding agent;
(ii) A description of each category of income paid based on the income codes provided on the form (e.g., interest, dividends, royalties, etc.) and the aggregate amount in each category expressed in U.S. dollars;
(iii) The rate of withholding applied or the basis for exempting the payment from withholding (based on exemption codes provided on the form);
(iv) The name and address of the recipient;
(v) The name and address of any nonqualified intermediary, flow-through entity, or U.S. branch as described in § 1.1441-1(b)(2)(iv) (other than a branch that is treated as a U.S. person) to which the payment was made;
(vi) The taxpayer identifying number of the recipient if required under § 1.1441-1(e)(4)(vii) or if actually known to the withholding agent making the return;
(vii) The taxpayer identifying number of a nonqualified intermediary or flow-through entity (to the extent it is not a recipient) or other flow-through entity to the extent it is known to the withholding agent;
(viii) The country (based on the country codes provided on the form) of the recipient and of any nonqualified intermediary or flow-through entity the name of which appears on the form; and
(ix) Such information as the form or the instructions may require in addition to, or in lieu of, information required under this paragraph (c)(3).
(4)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(
(
(
(D)
(E)
(ii)
(B)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(d) * * *
(5)
(i) An amount paid with respect to a notional principal contract is not required to be reported if the payment is made outside the United States (as defined in § 1.6049-5(e)) by a non-U.S. payor or a non-U.S. middleman.
(ii) An amount paid with respect to a notional principal contract is not required to be reported if the payment is made outside the United States (as defined in § 1.6049-5(e)) by a payor that has no actual knowledge that the payee is a U.S. person, and the payor is—
(A) A U.S. payor or U.S. middleman that is not a U.S. person (such as a controlled foreign corporation defined in section 957(a) or certain foreign corporations or foreign partnerships engaged in a U.S. trade or business); or
(B) A foreign branch of a U.S. bank. See § 1.6049-5(c)(5) for a definition of a U.S. payor, a U.S. middleman, a non-U.S. payor, and a non-U.S. middleman.
(a) * * *
(3) Returns of information are not required for amounts paid by a foreign intermediary described in § 1.1441-1(c)(13) that it has received in its capacity as an intermediary and that are associated with a valid withholding certificate described in § 1.1441-1(e)(3)(ii) or (iii) and payments made by a U.S. branch of a foreign bank or of a foreign insurance company described in § 1.1441-1(b)(2)(iv) (other than a U.S. branch that is treated as a U.S. person) that are associated with a valid withholding certificate described in § 1.1441-1(e)(3)(v), which certificate the intermediary or branch has furnished to the payor or middleman from whom it has received the payment, unless, and to the extent, the intermediary or branch knows that the payments are required to be reported under § 1.6041-1 and were not so reported. For example, if a foreign intermediary or U.S. branch described in § 1.1441-1(b)(2)(iv) fails to provide information regarding U.S. persons that are not exempt from reporting under § 1.6041-3(q) to the person from whom the intermediary or U.S. branch receives the payment, the foreign intermediary or U.S. branch must report the payment on an information return. The exception of this paragraph (a)(3) shall not apply to a qualified intermediary that assumes reporting responsibility under chapter 61 of the Internal Revenue Code.
(6) For rules concerning direct sellers, see § 1.6041A-1(d)(3)(i)(C).
(d) * * *
(3) * * * (i) * * *
(B) Returns of information are not required for payments of remuneration for services from sources outside the United States (determined under the provisions of part I, subchapter N, chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations under those provisions) if payments are made outside the United States by a non-U.S. payor or non U.S. middleman. For a definition of non U.S. payor or non-U.S. middleman, see § 1.6049-5(c)(5). For circumstances in which a payment is considered to be made outside the United States, see § 1.6049-5(e).
(C) Returns of information are not required under sections 6041 or 6041A for amounts paid outside of the United States (within the meaning of § 1.6049-5(e)) as remuneration for services as a direct seller (within the meaning of section 3508) performed outside of the United States or for sales described in section 6041A(b) made outside of the United States of consumer products for resale outside of the United States.
(b) * * * (1) * * *
(vi) Payments made by a foreign intermediary described in § 1.1441-1(c)(13) of amounts that it has received in its capacity as an intermediary and that are associated with a valid withholding certificate described in § 1.1441-1(e)(3)(ii) or (iii) and payments made by a U.S. branch of a foreign bank or of a foreign insurance company described in § 1.1441-1(b)(2)(iv) (other than a U.S. branch that is treated as a U.S. person) that are associated with a valid withholding certificate described in § 1.1441-1(e)(3)(v), which certificate the intermediary or branch has furnished to the payor or middleman from whom it has received the payment, unless, and to the extent, the intermediary or branch knows that the payments are required to be reported under § 1.6042-2 and were not so reported. For example, if a foreign intermediary or U.S. branch described in § 1.1441-1(b)(2)(iv) fails to provide information regarding U.S. persons that are not exempt from reporting under § 1.6049-4(c)(1)(ii) to the person from whom the intermediary or U.S. branch receives the payment, the amount paid by the foreign intermediary or U.S. branch to such person is a dividend. The exception of this paragraph (b)(1)(vi) shall not apply to a qualified intermediary that assumes reporting responsibility under chapter 61 of the Internal Revenue Code.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(g) * * * (1) * * *
(i) * * * For purposes of this paragraph (g)(1)(i), a broker that is required to obtain, or chooses to obtain, a beneficial owner withholding certificate described in § 1.1441-1(e)(2)(i) from an individual may rely on the withholding certificate only to the extent the certificate includes a certification that the beneficial owner has not been, and at the time the certificate is furnished, reasonably expects not to be present in the United States for a period aggregating 183 days or more during each calendar year to which the certificate pertains. The certification is not required if a broker receives documentary evidence under § 1.6049-5(c)(1) or (4).
(3) * * *
(iv)
(4) * * *
Customer A, an individual, owns U.S. corporate bonds issued in registered form after July 18, 1984 and carrying a stated rate of interest. The bonds are held through an account with foreign bank, X, and are held in street name. X is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a U.S. company and is not a qualified intermediary within the meaning of § 1.1441-1(e)(5)(ii). X has no documentation regarding A. A instructs X to sell the bonds. In order to effect the sale, X acts through its agent in the United States, Y. Y sells the bonds and remits the sales proceeds to X. X credits A's account in the foreign country. X does not provide documentation to Y.
(i)
(ii)
The facts are the same as in
(i)
(ii)
The facts are the same as in
(i)
(ii)
(c) * * * (1) * * *
(ii)
A payor may, in any case, require a payee that is a U.S. person not otherwise required to file a certificate under this paragraph (c)(1)(ii) to file a certificate in order to qualify as an exempt recipient. See § 31.3406(h)-3(a)(1)(iii) and (c)(2) of this chapter for the certificate that a payee that is a U.S. person must provide when a payor requires the certificate to treat the payee as an exempt recipient under this paragraph (c)(1)(ii). A payor may treat a payee as an exempt recipient based upon a properly completed form as described in § 31.3406(h)-3(e)(2) of this chapter, its actual knowledge that the payee is a person described in this paragraph (c)(1)(ii), or the indicators described in this paragraph (c)(1)(ii).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(10) * * *
(ii) * * * The exemption from reporting described in this paragraph (b)(10) shall not apply if the payor has actual knowledge that the payee is a U.S. person who is not an exempt recipient.
(11) * * * The exemption from reporting described in this paragraph (b)(11) shall not apply if the payor has actual knowledge that the payee is a U.S. person who is not an exempt recipient.
(14) Payments made by a foreign intermediary described in § 1.1441-1(e)(3)(i) of amounts that it has received in its capacity as an intermediary and that are associated with a valid withholding certificate described in § 1.1441-1(e)(3)(ii) or (iii) and payments made by a U.S. branch of a foreign bank or of a foreign insurance company described in § 1.1441-1(b)(2)(iv) (other than a U.S. branch that is treated as a U.S. person) that are associated with a valid withholding certificate described in § 1.1441-1(e)(3)(v), which certificate the intermediary or branch has furnished to the payor or middleman from whom it has received the payment, unless, and to the extent, the intermediary or branch knows that the payments are required to be reported under § 1.6049-4 and were not so reported. For example, if a foreign intermediary or U.S. branch described in § 1.1441-1(b)(2)(iv) fails to provide information regarding U.S. persons that are not exempt from reporting under § 1.6049-4(c)(1)(ii) to the person from whom the intermediary or U.S. branch receives the payment, the amount paid by the foreign intermediary or U.S. branch to such person is interest or original issue discount. The exception of this paragraph (b)(14) shall not apply to a qualified intermediary that assumes reporting responsibility under chapter 61 of the Internal Revenue Code.
(c) * * * (1) * * * A payor may also rely on documentary evidence associated with a flow-through withholding certificate for payments treated as made to foreign partners of a nonwithholding foreign partnership, as defined in § 1.1441-1(c)(28), the foreign beneficiaries of a foreign simple trust, as defined in § 1.1441-1(c)(24), or foreign owners of a foreign grantor trust, as defined in § 1.1441-1(c)(26), even though the partnership or trust account is maintained in the United States.
(4)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(d) * * * (1)
(2)
(ii)
In the case of an existing account for which the payor holds a Form W-8 or documentary evidence of foreign status, the grace period begins on the date that the payor first credits the account after the existing documentation held with regard to the account can no longer be relied upon (other than because the validity period described in § 1.1441-1(e)(4)(ii)(A) has expired). A new account shall be treated as an existing account if the account holder already holds an account at the branch location at which the new account is opened. It shall also be treated as an existing account if an account is held at another branch location if the institution maintains a coordinated account
(3)
(ii)
(iii)
(B)
(iv)
(4)
(ii)
(i)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(i)
(ii)
(i)
(ii)
(i)
(ii)
(i)
(ii)
(i)
(ii)
(i) USP, a U.S. payor as defined in paragraph (c)(5) of this section, makes a payment of foreign source interest to NQI, a foreign corporation and a nonqualified intermediary as defined in § 1.1441-1(c)(14). NQI has provided USP with a nonqualified intermediary withholding certificate, as described in § 1.1441-1(e)(3)(iii), but has not attached any documentation from the persons on whose behalf it acts or a withholding statement as described in § 1.1441-1(e)(3)(iv).
(ii)
(i)
(ii)
(i) Facts. P, a payor, makes a payment to NQI of U.S. source interest on debt obligations issued prior to July 18, 1984. Therefore, the interest does not qualify as portfolio interest under section 871(h) or 881(d). NQI is a nonqualified foreign intermediary, as defined in § 1.1441-1(c)(14), and has furnished P a valid nonqualified intermediary withholding certificate described in § 1.1441-1(e)(3)(iii) to which it has attached a valid Form W-9 for A, and two valid beneficial owner Forms W-8, one for B and one for C. A is not an exempt recipient under § 1.6049-4(c). NQI furnishes a withholding statement, described in § 1.1441-1(e)(3)(iv), in which it allocates 20 percent of the U.S. source interest to A, but does not allocate the remaining 80 percent of the interest between B and C. B's withholding certificate indicates that B is a foreign pension fund, exempt from U.S. tax under the U.S. income tax treaty with Country T. C's withholding certificate indicates that C is a foreign corporation not entitled to a reduced rate of withholding.
(ii)
(i)
(ii)
(i)
(ii)
Environmental Protection Agency.
Regulatory determination.
This document explains EPA's determination of whether regulation of fossil fuel combustion wastes is warranted under subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Today's action applies to all remaining fossil fuel combustion wastes other than high volume coal combustion wastes generated at electric utilities and independent power producing facilities and managed separately, which were addressed by a 1993 regulatory determination. These include: Large-volume coal combustion wastes generated at electric utility and independent power producing facilities that are co-managed together with certain other coal combustion wastes; coal combustion wastes generated by non-utilities; coal combustion wastes generated at facilities with fluidized bed combustion technology; petroleum coke combustion wastes; wastes from the combustion of mixtures of coal and other fuels (
The Agency has concluded these wastes do not warrant regulation under subtitle C of RCRA and is retaining the hazardous waste exemption under RCRA section 3001(b)(3)(C). However, EPA has also determined national regulations under subtitle D of RCRA are warranted for coal combustion wastes when they are disposed in landfills or surface impoundments, and that regulations under subtitle D of RCRA (and/or possibly modifications to existing regulations established under authority of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA)) are warranted when these wastes are used to fill surface or underground mines.
So that coal combustion wastes are consistently regulated across all waste management scenarios, the Agency also intends to make these national regulations for disposal in surface impoundments and landfills and minefilling applicable to coal combustion wastes generated at electric utility and independent power producing facilities that are not co-managed with low volume wastes,.
The Agency has concluded that no additional regulations are warranted for coal combustion wastes that are used beneficially (other than for minefilling) and for oil and gas combustion wastes. We do not wish to place any unnecessary barriers on the beneficial use of fossil fuel combustion wastes so that they can be used in applications that conserve natural resources and reduce disposal costs. Currently, about one-quarter of all coal combustion wastes are diverted to beneficial uses. We support increases in these beneficial uses, such as for additions to cement and concrete products, waste stabilization and use in construction products such as wallboard.
Comments in response to data and information requests in this document are due to EPA on September 19, 2000.
Public comments and supporting materials are available for viewing in the RCRA Information Center (RIC). In addition to the data and information that was included in the docket to support the RTC on FFC waste and the Technical Background Documents, the docket also includes the following document: Responses to Public Comments on the Report To Congress, Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels. The RIC is located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The Docket Identification Number is F-2000-FF2F-FFFFF. The RIC is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. To review docket materials, we recommend that the public make an appointment by calling 703 603-9230. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies cost $0.15/page. The index and some supporting materials are available electronically. See the
Commenters must send an original and two copies of their comments referencing docket number F-2000-FF2F-FFFFF to: (1) If using regular US Postal Service mail: RCRA Docket Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA, HQ), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0002; or (2) if using special delivery, such as overnight express service: RCRA Docket Information Center (RIC), Crystal Gateway One, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington, VA 22202. Comments may also be submitted electronically through the Internet to:
Commenters should not submit electronically any confidential business information (CBI). An original and two copies of CBI must be submitted under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U.S. EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0002.
For general information, contact the RCRA Hotline at 800 424-9346 or TDD 800 553-7672 (hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, call 703 412-9810 or TDD 703 412-3323.
For more detailed information on specific aspects of this regulatory determination, contact Dennis Ruddy, Office of Solid Waste (5306W), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460-0002, telephone (703) 308-8430, e-mail address
The index and several of the primary supporting materials are available on the Internet. You can find these materials at
The official record for this action will be kept in paper form. Accordingly, EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into paper form and place them in the official record, which will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The official record is the paper record maintained at the address in
EPA will not immediately reply to commenters electronically other than to seek clarification of electronic comments that may be garbled in transmission or during conversion to paper form, as discussed above.
The contents of today's notice are listed in the following outline:
A. What action is EPA taking today?
B. What is the statutory authority for this action?
C. What was the process EPA used in making today's decision?
D. What is the significance of “uniquely associated wastes” and what wastes does EPA consider to be uniquely associated wastes?
E. Who is affected by today's action and how are they affected?
F. What additional actions will EPA take after this regulatory determination regarding coal, oil and natural gas combustion wastes?
A. What is the Agency's decision regarding the regulatory status of coal combustion wastes and why did EPA make that decision?
B. What were EPA's tentative decisions as presented in the Report to Congress?
C. How did commenters react to EPA's tentative decisions and what was EPA's analysis of their comments?
D. What is the basis for today's decisions?
E. What approach will EPA take in developing national regulations?
A. What is the Agency's decision regarding the regulatory status of oil combustion wastes and why did EPA make that decision?
B. What were EPA's tentative decisions as presented in the Report to Congress?
C. How did commenters react to EPA's tentative decisions and what was EPA's analysis of their comments?
D. What is the basis for today's decisions?
A. What is the Agency's decision regarding the regulatory status of natural gas combustion wastes and why did EPA make that decision?
B. What was EPA's tentative decision as presented in the Report to Congress?
C. How did commenters react to EPA's tentative decisions?
D. What is the basis for today's decisions?
A. On what basis is EPA required to make regulatory decisions regarding the regulatory status of fossil fuel combustion wastes?
B. What was EPA's general approach in making these regulatory determinations?
C. What happened when EPA failed to issue its determination of the regulatory status of the large volume utility combustion wastes in a timely manner?
D. When was the Part 1 regulatory decision made and what were EPA's findings?
A. Executive Order 12866—Determination of Significance.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (Information Collection Requests).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism.
F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995.
I. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice.
J. Congressional Review Act.
In today's action, we are determining that regulation of fossil fuel combustion (FFC) wastes under subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is not warranted. This determination covers the following wastes:
• Large-volume coal combustion wastes generated at electric utility and independent power producing facilities that are co-managed together with certain other coal combustion wastes;
• Coal combustion wastes generated at non-utilities;
• Coal combustion wastes generated at facilities with fluidized bed combustion technology;
• Petroleum coke combustion wastes;
• Wastes from the combustion of mixtures of coal and other fuels (i.e., co-burning of coal with other fuels where coal is at least 50% of the total fuel); • Wastes from the combustion of oil; and
• Wastes from the combustion of natural gas.
While these wastes remain exempt from subtitle C, we have further decided to establish national regulations under subtitle D of RCRA (RCRA sections 1008(a) and 4004(a)) for coal combustion wastes that are disposed in landfills or surface impoundments or used to fill surface or underground mines. For coal combustion wastes used as minefill, we will consult with the Office of Surface Mining in the Department of the Interior and thoroughly assess whether equivalent protectiveness could be achieved by using regulatory authorities available under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), as well as those afforded under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. We will consider whether RCRA subtitle D or SMCRA authorities or some combination of both are most appropriate to regulate the disposal of coal combustion wastes when used for minefill in surface and underground mines to ensure protection of human health and the environment. These standards will be developed through notice and comment rulemaking and in consultation with states and other stakeholders. These regulations will, in EPA's view, ensure that the trend towards improved management of coal combustion wastes over recent years will accelerate and will ensure a consistent level of protection of human health and the environment is put in place across the United States.
If, as a result of comments in response to this notice; the forthcoming analyses identified in this notice; or additional information garnered in the course of developing these national regulations; we find that there is a need for regulation under the authority of RCRA subtitle C, the Agency will revise this determination accordingly.
We recognize our decision to develop regulations under RCRA subtitle D (or, for minefilling, possibly under SMCRA) for the above-listed coal combustion wastes was not specifically identified as an option in our March 31, 1999 Report to Congress. Our final determination reflects our consideration of public comments received on the Report to Congress and other analyses that we conducted.
Today's decision was, in the Agency's view, a difficult one, given the many competing considerations discussed throughout today's notice. After considering all of the factors specified in RCRA section 8002(n), we have decided as discussed further below, that the decisive factors are the trends in present disposal and utilization practices (section 8002 (n)(2)), the current and potential utilization of the wastes (Section 8002 (n)(8), and the admonition against duplication of efforts by other federal and state agencies.
As described in the Report to Congress, the utility industry has made significant improvements in its waste management practices over recent years, and most state regulatory programs are similarly improving. For example, in the utility industry the use of liners and groundwater monitoring at landfills and surface impoundments has increased substantially over the past 15 years as indicated in the following table.
Public comments and other analyses, however, have convinced us that these wastes could pose risks to human health and the environment if not properly managed, and there is sufficient evidence that adequate controls may not be in place—for example, while most states can now require newer units to include liners and groundwater monitoring, 62% of existing utility surface impoundments do not have groundwater monitoring. This, in our view, justifies the development of national regulations. We note, however, that some waste management units may not warrant liners and/or groundwater monitoring, depending on site-specific characteristics.
New information we received in public comments includes additional documented damage cases, as well as cases indicating at least a potential for damage to human health and the environment. We did not independently investigate these damage cases; rather, we relied on information contained in state files. While the absolute number of documented damage cases is not large, we have considered the evidence of proven and potential damage in light of the proportion of facilities that lack basic environmental controls (
Since the Report to Congress, we have conducted additional analyses of the potential for the constituents of coal combustion wastes to leach in dangerous levels into ground water. Based on a comparison of drinking water and other appropriate standards to leach test data from coal combustion waste samples, we identified a potential for risks from arsenic that we cannot dismiss at this time. This conclusion is based on possible exceedences of a range of values that EPA is currently considering for a revised arsenic MCL. Once a new arsenic MCL is established, additional groundwater modeling may be required to evaluate the likelihood of exceeding that MCL.
As discussed further below, in light of certain comments received on the Report to Congress, we are not relying on a quantitative groundwater risk assessment to assess potential risks to human health or the environment. In the absence of a more complete groundwater risk assessment, we are unable at this time to draw quantitative conclusions regarding the risks due to arsenic or other contaminants posed by improper waste management. Once we have completed a review of our groundwater model and made any necessary changes, we will reevaluate groundwater risks and take appropriate regulatory actions. We will specifically assess new modeling results as they relate to any promulgated changes in the arsenic MCL.
We acknowledge that, even without federal regulatory action, many facilities in the utility industry have either voluntarily instituted adequate environmental controls or have done so at the direction of states that regulate these facilities. In addition, we found that for the proven damage cases, the states (and in two cases, EPA under the Superfund program) have taken action to mitigate risk and require corrective action. However, in light of the evidence of actual and potential environmental releases of metals from these wastes; the large volume of wastes generated from coal combustion; the proportion of existing and even newer units that do not currently have basic controls in place; and the presence of hazardous constituents in these wastes; we believe, on balance, that the best means of ensuring that adequate controls are imposed where needed is to develop national subtitle D regulations. As we develop and issue the national regulations, we will try to minimize disruptions to operation of existing waste management units.
In taking today's action, we carefully considered whether to develop national regulations under RCRA subtitle D or subtitle C authorities. One approach we considered was to promulgate regulations pursuant to subtitle C authority, similar to recently proposed regulations applicable to cement kiln dust. Under this approach, EPA would have established national management standards for coal combustion wastes managed in landfills and surface impoundments and used for minefilling, as well as a set of tailored subtitle C requirements, promulgated pursuant to RCRA section 3004(x). If wastes were properly managed in accordance with subtitle D-like standards, they would not be classified as a hazardous waste. If wastes were not properly managed, they would become listed hazardous wastes subject to tailored subtitle C standards. This approach would give EPA enforcement authority in states following their adoption of the contingent management listing.
We believe, however, for the reasons described below, the better approach at this time to ensuring adequate management of FFC wastes is to develop national regulations under subtitle D rather than subtitle C. EPA has reached this conclusion in large part based on consideration of “present disposal and utilization practices.” RCRA § 8002(n). As noted above, present disposal practices in landfills and surface impoundments are significantly better than they have been in the past in terms of imposing basic environmental controls such as liners and groundwater monitoring. This trend is the result of increasing regulatory oversight by states of the management of these wastes as well as voluntary industry improvements. In the 1980's, only 11
While the trend both in terms of state regulatory authorities and the imposition of controls at these facilities has been positive, between 40 and 70 percent of sites lacked controls such as liners and/or groundwater monitoring as of 1995. This gap is of environmental concern given the potential for risks posed by mismanagement of coal combustion wastes in certain circumstances. Nonetheless, given most of the states' current regulatory capabilities and the evidence that basic controls are increasingly being put in place by the states and facilities (see RCRA section 8002(n), which directs EPA to consider actions of state and other federal agencies with a view to avoiding duplication of effort), EPA believes that subtitle D controls will provide sufficient clarity and incentive for states to close the remaining gaps in coverage, and for facilities to ensure that their wastes are managed properly.
For minefilling, although we have considerable concern about certain current practices (
Once these regulations are effective, facilities would be subject to citizen suits for any violation of the standards. If EPA were addressing wastes that had not been addressed by the states (or the federal government) in the past, or an industry with wide evidence of irresponsible solid waste management practices, EPA may well conclude that the additional incentives for improvement and compliance provided by the subtitle C scheme—the threat of federal enforcement and the stigma associated with improper management of RCRA subtitle C waste—were necessary. But the record before us indicates that the structure and the sanctions associated with a subtitle D approach (or a SMCRA approach if EPA determines it is equivalent) should be sufficient.
We also see a potential downside to pursuing a subtitle C approach. Section 8002(n)(8) directs us to consider, among other factors, “the current and potential utilization of such materials.” Industry commenters have indicated that they believe subjecting any coal combustion wastes to a subtitle C regime would place a significant stigma on these wastes, the most important effect being that it would adversely impact beneficial reuse. As we understand it, the concern is that, even though beneficially reused waste would not be hazardous under the contemplated subtitle C approach, the link to subtitle C would nonetheless tend to discourage purchase and re-use of the waste. We do not wish to place any unnecessary barriers on the beneficial uses of these wastes, because they conserve natural resources, reduce disposal costs and reduce the total amount of waste destined for disposal. States and industry have also expressed concern that regulation under subtitle C could cause a halt in the use of coal combustion wastes to reclaim abandoned and active mine sites. We recognize that when done properly, minefilling can lead to substantial environmental benefits. EPA believes the contingent management scheme we discussed should diminish any stigma that might be associated with the subtitle C link. Nonetheless, we acknowledge the possibility that the approach could have unintended consequences. We would be particularly concerned about any adverse effect on the beneficial re-use market for these wastes because more than 23 percent (approximately 28 million tons) of the total coal combustion waste generated each year is beneficially reused and an additional eight percent (nine million tons) is used for minefilling. EPA believes that such reuse when performed properly, is by far the environmentally preferable destination for these wastes, including when minefilled. Normally, concerns about stigma are not a deciding factor in EPA's decisions under RCRA, given the central concern under the statute for protection of human health and the environment. However, given our conclusion that the subtitle D approach here should be fully effective in protecting human health and the environment, and given the large and salutary role that beneficial reuse plays for this waste, concern over stigma is a factor supporting our decision today that subtitle C regulation is unwarranted in light of our decision to pursue a subtitle D approach.
Additionally, in a 1993 regulatory determination, EPA previously addressed large volume coal combustion wastes generated at electric utility and independent power producing facilities that manage the wastes separately from certain other low volume and uniquely associated coal combustion wastes (see 58 FR 42466; August 9, 1993). Our 1993 regulatory determination maintained the exemption of these large volume coal combustion wastes from being regulated as hazardous wastes when managed separately from other wastes (e.g., in monofills). We intend that the national subtitle D regulations we develop for the coal combustion wastes subject to today's regulatory determination will also be applicable to the wastes covered in the 1993 regulatory determination for the reasons listed below, so that all coal combustion wastes are consistently regulated for placement in landfills, surface impoundments, and minefills.
• The co-managed coal combustion wastes that we studied extensively in making today's regulatory determination derive their characteristics largely from these large-volume wastes and not from the other wastes that are co-managed with them.
• We believe that the risks posed by the co-managed coal combustion wastes result principally from the large-volume wastes.
• These large-volume coal combustion wastes, account for over 20% of coal combustion wastes.
As we proceed with regulation development, we will also take enforcement action under RCRA section 7003 when we identify cases of imminent and substantial endangerment. We will also use Superfund remedial and emergency
However, as stated above, this decision was a difficult one and EPA believes that, absent our conclusions regarding the current trends in management of this waste, the waste might present sufficient potential threat to human health and the environment to justify subtitle C regulation. There are several factors that might cause us to rethink our current determination. First, and perhaps most importantly, if current trends toward protective management do not continue, EPA may well determine that subtitle C regulation is warranted for this waste. As we have stated, we do not believe the current gaps in the basic controls are acceptable, and our determination that subtitle C regulation is not warranted is premised to a large extent on our conclusion that subtitle D regulation will be sufficient to close these gaps. If this conclusion turns out not to be warranted, we would be inclined to re-examine our current decision.
Second, EPA will continue to examine available information and, as a result of the ongoing review, may conclude over the next several months that this decision should be revised. Our ongoing review will include consideration of: (1) The extent to which fossil fuel combustion wastes have caused actual or potential damage to human health or the environment; (2) the environmental effects of filling underground and surface coal mines with fossil fuel combustion wastes; and (3) the adequacy of existing state and/or federal regulation of these wastes. Finally, the agency will consider the results of a report of the National Academy of Sciences regarding the adverse human health effects of mercury, one of the constituents in fossil fuel combustion wastes. EPA believes that this report will enhance our understanding of the risks due to exposure to mercury. All of these efforts may result in a subsequent revision of today's regulatory determination.
Finally, relating to oil combustion wastes, we will work with relevant stakeholders so that any necessary measures are taken to ensure that oil combustion wastes currently managed in the two known remaining unlined surface impoundments are managed in a manner that protects human health and the environment.
We are issuing today's notice under the authority of RCRA section 3001 (b) (3) (C), as amended. This section exempts certain wastes, including fossil fuel combustion wastes, from hazardous waste regulation until the Agency completes a Report to Congress mandated by RCRA section 8002 (n) and maintains the exemption, unless the EPA Administrator makes a determination that subtitle C (hazardous waste) regulation is warranted. RCRA section 3004 (x) provides the Agency with flexibility in developing subtitle C standards. If appropriate, these formerly exempted wastes may not be subjected to full subtitle C requirements in areas such as treatment standards, liner design requirements and corrective action.
We conducted our study of wastes generated by the combustion of fossil fuels in two phases. The first phase, called the Part 1 determination, covered high volume coal combustion wastes (
RCRA section 8002(n) specifies eight study factors that we must take into account in our decision-making. These are:
1. The source and volumes of such materials generated per year.
2. Present disposal practices.
3. Potential danger, if any, to human health and the environment from the disposal of such materials.
4. Documented cases in which danger to human health or the environment has been proved.
5. Alternatives to current disposal methods.
6. The costs of such alternatives.
7. The impact of those alternatives on the use of natural resources.
8. The current and potential utilization of such materials.
Additionally, in developing the Report to Congress, we are directed to consider studies and other actions of other federal and State agencies with a view toward avoiding duplication of effort (RCRA section 8002(n)). In addition to considering the information contained in the Report, EPA is required to base its regulatory determination on information received in public hearings and comments submitted on the Report to Congress (RCRA section 3001(b)(3)(C)).
We gathered publicly available information from a broad range of sources, including federal and state agencies, industry trade groups, environmental organizations, and open literature searches. We requested information from all stakeholder groups on each of the study factors Congress requires us to evaluate. For many of the study factors, very limited information existed prior to this study. We worked closely with the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), and the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO) as those organizations developed new information. Because other ongoing EPA projects currently focus on portions of the FFC waste generator universe, we also leveraged data collection efforts conducted for air, industrial waste, and hazardous waste programs. In addition, we obtained information from environmental organizations regarding beneficial uses of some FFC wastes and methods for characterizing the risks associated with FFC wastes.
Specifically, we gathered and analyzed the following information from industry, states and environmental groups:
• Published and unpublished materials obtained from state and federal agencies, utilities and trade industry groups, and other knowledgeable parties on the volumes and characteristics of coal, oil, and natural gas combustion wastes and the corresponding low-volume and uniquely associated wastes (see the following section for a description of “uniquely associated wastes”).
• Published and unpublished materials on waste management practices (including co-disposal and re-use) associated with FFC wastes and the corresponding low-volume and uniquely associated wastes.
• Published and unpublished materials on the potential environmental impacts associated with FFC wastes.
• Published and unpublished materials on trends in utility plant operations that may affect waste volumes and characteristics. We gathered specific information on innovations in scrubber use and the potential impacts of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments on waste volumes and characteristics.
• Energy Information Agency (EIA), Department of Energy, data on utility operations and waste generation obtained from EIA's Form 767 database. These data are submitted to EIA annually by electric utilities.
• Site visit reports and accompanying facility submittals for utility and non-utility plants we visited during the study.
• Materials obtained from public files maintained by State regulatory agencies. These materials focus on waste characterization, waste management, and environmental monitoring data, along with supporting background information.
We visited five states to gather specific information about state regulatory programs, FFC waste generators, waste management practices and candidate damage cases related to fossil fuel combustion. The five states we examined in great detail were: Indiana, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Virginia. These five states account for almost 20 percent of coal-fired utility electrical generation capacity.
We also performed a variety of analyses, including human health and ecological risk assessments, analyses of existing federal and state regulatory programs, and economic impact analyses. We discussed and shared these results with all of our stakeholders. We also conducted an external peer review of our risk analysis.
RCRA requires that we publish a Report to Congress (RTC) evaluating the above criteria. Further, within six months of submitting the report, we must, after public hearings and opportunity for comment, decide whether to retain the exemption from hazardous waste requirements or whether regulation as hazardous waste is warranted. On March 31, 1999, we issued the required RTC on those fossil fuel combustion wastes (coal, oil and gas) not covered in the Part 1 regulatory determination, which are also known as the “remaining wastes” (see footnote 1).
We asked the public to comment on the Report and the appropriateness of regulating fossil fuel wastes under subtitle C of RCRA. To ensure that all interested parties had an opportunity to present their views, we held a public meeting with stakeholders on May 21, 1999. The April 28, 1999
We received about 220 comments on the RTC from the public hearing and our
The comments covered a wide variety of topics discussed in the Report to Congress, such as fossil fuel combustion waste generation and characteristics; current and alternative practices for managing FFC waste; documented damage cases and potential danger to human health and the environment; existing regulatory controls on FFC waste management; cost and economic impacts of alternatives to current management practices; FFC beneficial use practices; and our review of applicable state and federal regulations.
Facilities that burn fossil fuels generate combustion wastes and also generate other wastes from processes that are related to the main fuel combustion processes. Often, as a general practice, facilities co-dispose these wastes with the large volume wastes that are subject to the RCRA section 3001 (b) (3) (C) exemption. Examples of these related wastes are:
• Precipitation runoff from the coal storage piles at the facility.
• Waste coal or coal mill rejects that are not of sufficient quality to burn as fuel.
• Wastes from cleaning the boilers used to generate steam.
There are numerous wastes like these, collectively known as “low-volume” wastes. Further, when one of these low-volume wastes, during the course of generation or normal handling at the facility, comes into contact with either fossil fuel (
The Agency recognizes that determining whether a particular waste
(1) Wastes from ancillary operations are not “uniquely associated” because they are not properly viewed as being “from” fossil fuel combustion.
(2) In evaluating a waste from non-ancillary operations, one must consider the extent to which the waste originates or derives from the fossil fuels, the combustion process, or combustion residuals, and the extent to which these operations impart chemical characteristics to the waste.
The low-volume wastes that are not uniquely associated with fossil fuel combustion would not be subject to today's regulatory determination. That is, they would not be accorded an exemption from RCRA subtitle C, whether or not they were co-managed with any of the exempted fossil fuel combustion wastes. Instead, they would be subject to the RCRA characteristic standards and hazardous waste listings. The exemption applies to mixtures of an exempt waste with a non-hazardous waste, but when an exempt waste is mixed with a hazardous waste, the mixture is not exempt.
Based on our identification and review of low volume wastes associated with the combustion of fossil fuels, we are considering offering the following guidance concerning which low volume wastes are uniquely associated with and which are not uniquely associated with fossil fuel combustion. Unless there are some unusual site-specific circumstances, we would generally consider that the following lists of low volume wastes are uniquely and non-uniquely associated wastes:
Moreover, we do not generally consider spillage or leakage of materials used in the processes that generate these non-uniquely associated wastes, such as boiler water treatment chemicals, to be uniquely associated wastes, even if they occur in close proximity to the fossil fuel wastes covered by this regulatory determination.
An understanding of whether a waste is uniquely associated can be important in one circumstance. If a waste is not uniquely associated and is a hazardous waste, co-managment with a Bevill waste will result in loss of the Bevill exemption. As a general matter, the wastes identified above as potentially not uniquely associated do not tend to be hazardous. This issue may therefore not be critical. The Agency, however, must still define appropriate boundaries for the Bevill exemption, because there is no authority to grant Bevill status to wastes that are not uniquely associated—the exemption was not intended as an umbrella for wastes that other industries must treat as hazardous.
EPA solicits comment on this discussion of uniquely associated wastes in the context of fossil fuel combustion and will issue final guidance after reviewing and evaluating information we receive as a result of this request.
As explained above, fossil fuel combustion wastes generated from the combustion of coal, oil and natural gas will continue to remain exempt from being regulated as hazardous wastes under RCRA. No party is affected by today's determination to develop regulations applicable to coal combustion wastes when they are land disposed or used to fill surface or underground mines because today's action does not impose requirements. However, if such regulations are promulgated, they would affect coal combustion wastes subject to today's regulatory determination as well as wastes covered by the Part 1 regulatory determination when they are disposed in landfills and surface impoundments, or when used to fill surface or underground mines.
While we do not intend that national subtitle D regulations would be applicable to oil combustion wastes, we intend to work with relevant stakeholders so that any necessary measures are taken to ensure that oil combustion wastes currently managed in the two known remaining unlined surface impoundments are managed in a manner that protects human health and the environment.
To ensure that entities who generate and/or manage fossil fuel combustion wastes provide long-term protection of human health and the environment, we plan several actions:
• We will review comments submitted in response to today's notice on uniquely associated wastes and on the adequacy of the guidance developed by the utility industry on co-management of mill rejects (pyrites) with large volume coal combustion wastes.
• We will work with the State of Massachusetts and the owners and operators of the remaining two oil combustion facilities that currently manage their wastes in unlined surface impoundments to ensure that any necessary measures are taken so these wastes are managed in a manner that protects human health and the environment (described in section 3.D. of this document).
• We are evaluating the groundwater model and modeling methods that were used in the RTC to estimate risks for these wastes. This review may result in a re-evaluation of the potential groundwater risks posed by the management of fossil fuel combustion wastes and action to revise our Part 1 and Part 2 determinations if appropriate (see section 2.C. of this document).
• There are a number of ongoing and evolving efforts underway at EPA to improve our understanding of the human health impacts of wastes used in agricultural settings. We expect to receive substantial comments and new scientific information based on a risk assessment of the use of cement kiln dust as a substitute for agricultural lime (see 64 FR 45632; August 20, 1999) and other Agency efforts. As a result, we may refine our methodology for assessing risks related to the use of wastes in agricultural settings. If these efforts lead us to a different understanding of the risks posed by fossil fuel combustion wastes when used as a substitute for agricultural lime, we will take appropriate action to reevaluate today's regulatory determination (see section 2.C. of this document).
• We will review the findings and recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences upcoming report on mercury and assess its implications on risks due to exposure to mercury. We will ensure that the regulations we develop as a result of today's regulatory determination address any additional
• We will reevaluate risk posed by managing coal combustion solid wastes if levels of mercury or other hazardous constituents change due to any future Clean Air Act air pollution control requirements for coal burning utilities (see section 2.C. of this document).
• We will continue EPA's partnership with the states to finalize voluntary industrial solid waste management guidance that identifies baseline protective practices for industrial waste management units, including fossil fuel combustion waste management units. We will use relevant information and knowledge that we obtain as a result of this effort to assist us in developing national regulations applicable to coal combustion wastes.
We have determined at this time that regulation of coal combustion wastes under subtitle C is not warranted. However, we have also decided that it is appropriate to establish national regulations under non-hazardous waste authorities for coal combustion wastes that are disposed in landfills and surface impoundments. We believe that subtitle D regulations are the most appropriate mechanism for ensuring that these wastes disposed in landfills and surface impoundments are managed safely.
EPA's conclusion that some form of national regulation is warranted to address these wastes is based on the following considerations: (a) The composition of these wastes could present danger to human health and the environment under certain conditions, and “potential” damage cases identified by EPA and commenters, while not definitively demonstrating damage from coal combustion wastes, may indicate that these wastes have the potential to pose such danger; (b) we have identified eleven documented cases of proven damages to human health and the environment by improper management of these wastes in landfills and surface impoundments; (c) present disposal practices are such that, in 1995, these wastes were being managed in 40 percent to 70 percent of landfills and surface impoundments without reasonable controls in place, particularly in the area of groundwater monitoring; and (d) while there have been substantive improvements in state regulatory programs, we have also identified gaps in state oversight.
When we considered a tailored subtitle C approach, we estimated the potential costs of regulation of coal combustion wastes (including the utility coal combustion wastes addressed in the 1993 Part 1 determination) to be $1 billion per year. While large in absolute terms, we estimate that these costs are less than 0.4 percent of industry sales. To improve our estimates we solicit public comment on the potential compliance costs to coal combustion waste generators as well as the indirect costs to users of these combustion by-products.
We have also decided that it is appropriate to establish national regulations under RCRA non-hazardous waste authorities (and/or possibly modifications to exiting regulations established under authority of SMCRA) applicable to the placement of coal combustion wastes in surface or underground mines. We have reached this decision because (a) we find that these wastes when minefilled could present a danger to human health and the environment under certain circumstances, and (b) there are few states that currently operate comprehensive programs that specifically address the unique circumstances of minefilling, making it more likely that damage to human health or the environment could go unnoticed.
With the exception of minefilling as described above, we have decided that national regulation under subtitle C or subtitle D is not warranted for any of the other beneficial uses of coal combustion wastes. We have reached this decision because: (a) We have not identified any other beneficial uses that are likely to present significant risks to human health or the environment; and (b) no documented cases of damage to human health or the environment have been identified. Additionally, we do not want to place any unnecessary barriers on the beneficial uses of coal combustion wastes so they can be used in applications that conserve natural resources and reduce disposal costs.
On March 31, 1999, EPA indicated a preliminary decision that disposal of coal combustion wastes should remain exempt from regulation under RCRA subtitle C. We also presented our tentative view that most beneficial uses of these wastes should remain exempt from regulation under RCRA subtitle C. However, in the RTC we identified three situations where we had particular concerns with the disposition or uses of these wastes.
First, we indicated some concern with the co-management of mill rejects (“pyrites”) with coal combustion wastes which, under certain circumstances, could cause or contribute to ground water contamination or other localized environmental damage. We indicated that the utility industry responded to our concern by implementing a voluntary education and technical guidance program for the proper management of these wastes. We expressed satisfaction with the industry program and tentatively concluded that additional regulation in this area was not necessary. We explained that we were committed to overseeing industry's progress on properly managing pyritic wastes, and would revisit our regulatory determination relative to co-management of pyrites with large volume coal combustion wastes at a later date, if industry progress was insufficient in this area.
Second, in the RTC we identified potential human health risks from arsenic when these wastes are used for agricultural purposes (
Third, we expressed concern with potential impacts from the expanding practice of minefilling coal combustion wastes (i.e., backfilling the wastes into mined areas) and described the
• Determining if elevated contaminants in ground water are due to minefill practices or pre-existing conditions resulting from mining operations,
• Trying to model situations that may be more complex than our groundwater models can accommodate,
• The lack of long-term experience with the recent practice of minefilling, which limits the amount of environmental data for analysis, and
• The site-specific nature of these operations.
Accordingly, we did not present a tentative decision in the RTC for this practice. We indicated that subtitle C regulation would remain an option for minefilling, but that we needed additional information prior to making a final decision. Rather, we solicited additional information from commenters on these and other aspects of minefilling practices and indicated we would carefully consider that information in the formulation of today's decision.
Commenter's provided substantial input and information on several aspects of our overall tentative decision to retain the exemption for these wastes from RCRA subtitle C regulation. These aspects are: modeling and risk assessment for the groundwater pathway, documented damage cases, the potential for coal combustion waste characteristics to change as a result of possible future Clean Air Act regulations, proper management of mill rejects (pyrites), agricultural use of coal combustion wastes, the practice of minefilling coal combustion wastes, and our assessment of existing State programs and industry waste management practices.
The breadth and potential implications of the numerous technical comments on the EPACMTP model are significant. Examples of the comments include issues relating to:
• The thermodynamic data that are the basis for certain model calculations,
• The model's ability to account for the effects of oxidation-reduction potential,
• The model's ability to account for competition between multiple contaminants for adsorption sites,
• The model's algorithm for selecting adsorption isotherms,
• The impact of leachate chemistry on adsorption and aquifer chemistry, and
• The model's inherent assumptions about the chemistry of the underlying aquifer.
Meanwhile, we will continue with our analysis of comments on the groundwater model and risk analysis. This may involve changing or re-structuring various aspects of the model, if appropriate. It may also include additional analyses to determine whether any changes to the model or modeling methodology would materially affect the groundwater risk analysis results that were reported in the RTC. If our investigations reveal that a re-analysis of groundwater risks is appropriate, we will conduct the analysis and re-evaluate today's decisions as warranted by the re-analysis.
In addition to our ongoing review of comments on the groundwater model, one element of the model—the metals partitioning component called “MINTEQ”—has been proposed for additional peer review. When additional peer review is completed, we will take the findings and recommendations into account in any overall decision to re-evaluate today's regulatory determination.
While not relying on the EPACMTP groundwater modeling as presented in the RTC, we have since conducted a general comparison of the metals levels in leachate from coal combustion wastes to their corresponding hazardous waste toxicity characteristic levels. Fossil fuel wastes infrequently exceed the hazardous waste characteristic. For co-managed wastes, 2% (1 of 51 samples) exceeded the characteristic level. For individual wastes streams, 0% of the coal bottom ash, 2% of the coal fly ash, 3% of the coal flue gas desulfurization, and 7% of the coal boiler slag samples that were tested exceeded the characteristic level. Nevertheless, once we have completed a review of our groundwater model and made any necessary changes, we will reevaluate groundwater risks and take appropriate regulatory actions. We will specifically assess new modeling results as they relate to any promulgated changes in the arsenic MCL.
We also compared leach concentrations from fossil fuel wastes to the drinking water MCLs. In the case of arsenic, we examined a range of values because EPA expects to promulgate a new arsenic drinking water regulation by January 1, 2001. This range includes the existing arsenic MCL (50 ug/l), a lower health based number presented in the FFC Report to Congress (RTC) (0.29 ug/l), and two assumed values in between (10 and 5 ug/l). We examined this range of values because of our desire to bracket the likely range of values that EPA will be considering in its effort to revise the current MCL for arsenic. The National Research Council's 1999 report on Arsenic in Drinking Water indicated that the current MCL is not sufficiently protective and should be revised downward as soon as possible. For this reason, we selected the current MCL of 50 ug/L for the high end of the range because EPA is now considering lowering the current MCL and does not anticipate that the current MCL would be revised to any higher value. We selected the health-based number presented in the Report to Congress for the low end of the range because we believe this represents the lowest concentration that would be considered in revising the current MCL. Because at this time we cannot project a particular value as the eventual MCL, we also examined values in between these low-end and high-end values, a value of 5
Those circumstances where the leach concentrations from the wastes exceed the drinking water criteria have the greatest potential to cause significant risks. This “potential” risk, however, may not occur at actual facilities. Pollutants in the leachate of the wastes undergo dilution and attenuation as they migrate through the ground. The primary purpose of models such as EPACMTP is to account for the degree of dilution and attenuation that is likely to occur, and to obtain a realistic estimate of the concentration of contaminants at a groundwater receptor. To provide a view of potential groundwater risk, we tabulated the number of occurrences where the waste leachate hazardous metals concentrations were: (a) Less than the criteria, (b) between 1 and 10 times the criteria, (c) between 10 and 100 times the criteria, and (d) greater than 100 times the criteria. Groundwater models that we currently use, when applied to large volume monofill sources of metals, frequently predict that dilution and attenuation will reduce leachate levels on the order of a factor of 10 under reasonable high end conditions. This multiple is commonly called a dilution and attenuation factor (DAF). For this reason and because lower dilution and attenuation factors (
For the above analysis, we used a value equal to half the detection level to deal with those situations where analyses resulted in “less than detection” values that exceeded the MCL criteria. The actual concentration may be as low as zero or up to the detection level. To illustrate the impact of this assumption, an analysis was performed setting the “less than detection” values to zero, and an arsenic criteria at 50 ug/l. While 30% of the values exceeded 10 times the criteria when using half the detection level, exceedences dropped to 13% when “less than detection” values were set to zero.
The comparison of the leachate levels to 10 times MCL criteria is a screening level analysis that supports our concerns, which are primarily based on damage cases and the lack of installed controls (liners and groundwater monitoring). We recognize, however, that prior to issuing a regulation the Agency expects to address the issues raised on the groundwater model and complete a comprehensive groundwater modeling effort. Furthermore, we anticipate that uncertainty regarding whether the arsenic MCL will be amended and to what level, will be more settled prior to regulation of these wastes. These factors could heighten or reduce concerns with regard to the need for Federal regulation of fossil fuel combustion wastes.
Prior to issuing the RTC, we sought and reviewed potential damage cases related to these particular wastes. The activities included:
• A re-analysis of the potential damage cases identified during the Part 1 determination,
• A search of the CERCLA Information System for instances of these wastes being cited as causes or contributors to damages,
• Contacts and visits to regulatory agencies in five states with high rates of coal consumption to review file materials and discuss with state officials the existence of damage cases,
• A review of information provided by the Utility Solid Waste Act Group and the Electric Power Research Institute on 14 co-management sites, and
• A review of information provided by the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners on eight fluidized bed combustion (FBC) facilities.
These activities yielded three damage case sites in addition to the four cases initially identified in the Part 1 determination.
Industry commenters cited EPA's finding of so few damage cases as important support for our tentative conclusion to exempt these wastes from hazardous waste regulation. Further, some of the industry commenters indicated that the few damage cases that EPA identified do not represent current
Regarding our assessment of damage to ground water, we believe our approach to FFC damage cases in the RTC was consistent with the approach we used for identifying CKD damage cases. For CKD, we established two categories of damage cases—“proven” damage cases and “potential” damage cases. Proven damage cases were those with documented MCL exceedences that were measured in ground water at a sufficient distance from the waste management unit to indicate that hazardous constituents had migrated to the extent that they could cause human health concerns. Potential damage cases were those with documented MCL exceedences that were measured in ground water beneath or close to the waste source. In these cases, the documented exceedences had not been demonstrated at a sufficient distance from the waste management unit to indicate that waste constituents had migrated to the extent that they could cause human health concerns. We do not believe that it would be appropriate to consider an exceedence directly beneath a waste management unit or very close to the waste boundary to be a documented, proven damage case. State regulations typically use a compliance procedure that relies on measurement at a receptor site or in ground water at a point beyond the waste boundary (
For FFC, we used the same test of proof to identify possible damage cases. Our FFC analysis drew a distinction between primary and secondary MCL exceedences because we believe this factor is appropriate in weighing the seriousness of FFC damage in terms of indicating risk to human health and the environment. For FFC, in the RTC, we reported only the “proven” damage (
Unlike the primary MCLs, secondary MCLs are not based on human health considerations. (Examples are dissolved solids, sulfate, iron, and chloride for which groundwater standards have been established because of their effect on taste, odor, and color.) While some commenters believe that elevated levels of some secondary MCL parameters such as soluble salts are likely precursors or indicators of future hazardous constituent exceedences that could occur at coal combustion facilities, we are not yet able and will not be able to test their hypothesis until we complete our analysis of all comments received on our groundwater model and risk analysis, which will not be concluded until next year.
Of the 59 damage cases reported by commenters, 11 cases appear to involve exceedences of primary MCLs or other health-based standards as measured either in off-site ground water or in nearby surface waters, the criteria we used in the RTC to identify proven damage cases. Of these eleven cases, two are coal ash monofills which were included in the set of damage cases described by EPA in its record supporting the Part 1 regulatory determination. The remaining nine cases involve the co-management of large volume coal combustion wastes with other low volume and uniquely associated coal combustion wastes. We had already identified five of these nine cases in the RTC. Thus, only four of these eleven damage cases are newly identified to us. Briefly, the four new cases involve:
• Exceedence of a state standard for lead in downgradient ground water at a coal fly ash landfill in New York. There were also secondary MCL exceedences for sulfate, dissolved solids, and iron.
• Primary MCL exceedences for arsenic and selenium in downgradient monitoring wells for a coal ash impoundment at a power plant in North Dakota. There were also secondary MCL exceedences for sulfate and chloride.
• Primary MCL exceedences for fluoride and exceedence of a state standard for boron in downgradient monitoring wells at a utility coal combustion waste impoundment in Wisconsin. There was also a secondary MCL exceedence for sulfate.
• Exceedence of a state standard for boron and the secondary MCL for sulfate and manganese in downgradient monitoring wells at a utility coal combustion landfill in Wisconsin.
We found that in nine of the 11 proven damage cases (including one Superfund site), states took appropriate action to require or conduct remedial activities to reduce or eliminate the cause of contamination. EPA took action in the remaining two cases under the Superfund program
Nineteen of the candidate damage cases submitted by commenters involve either on-site or off-site exceedences of secondary MCLs, but not primary MCLs or other health-based standards. Consistent with our CKD analysis, we consider these cases to be indicative of a potential for damage to occur at these sites because they demonstrate that there has been a release to ground water from the waste management unit.
Regarding the remaining 29 cases submitted by commenters:
• Six involve primary MCL exceedences, but measurements were in ground water either directly beneath the waste or very close to the waste boundary,
• Eighteen case summary submissions contained insufficient documentation and data for us to verify and draw a conclusion about whether we should consider these to be potential or proven damage cases. Of these 18 cases, commenters claimed that 11 cases involve primary MCL exceedences, and another two involve secondary MCLs, but not primary MCLs. The other five cases lacked sufficient information and documentation to determine whether primary or secondary MCLs are involved. Examples of information critical to assessing and verifying candidate damage cases that was not available for these particular cases include: Identification of the pollutants causing the contamination; identification of where or how the damage case information was obtained (
• Three case submissions are cases we identified in the Part 1 determination and involve monofilled utility coal ash wastes. However, as explained in the Report to Congress for the Part 1 determination, EPA determined that there was insufficient evidence to consider them to be documented damage cases.
• One case did not involve fossil fuel combustion wastes.
• One case involved coal combustion wastes and other unrelated wastes in an illegal, unpermitted dump site. This site was handled by the state as a hazardous waste cleanup site.
Our detailed analysis of the damage cases submitted by commenters is available in the public docket for this regulatory determination.
In summary, based on damage case information presented in the RTC and our review of comments, we conclude that there are 11 proven damage cases associated with wastes covered by today's regulatory determination. We identified seven of these damage cases in the RTC, so there are four new proven damage cases that were identified by commenters. All of the sites were at older, unlined units, with disposal occurring prior to 1993. For all 11 of the proven damage cases, either the state or EPA provided adequate follow-up to require or else undertake corrective action. Although these damage cases indicate that coal combustion wastes can present risks to human health and the environment, they also show the effectiveness of states' responses when damages were identified. None of these cases involved actual human exposure.
Additionally, we determined that another 25 of the commenter submitted cases are potential damage cases for the reasons described above. Thus, including the 11 potential damage cases that we identified in the background documents that support the RTC, we are aware of 36 potential damage cases. While we do not believe the latter 36 cases satisfy the statutory criteria of documented, proven damage cases because damage to human health or the environment has not been proven, we believe that these cases may indicate that these wastes pose a “potential” danger to human health and the environment in some circumstances.
In conclusion, while the absolute number of documented, proven damage cases is not large, we believe that the evidence of proven and potential damage should be considered in light of the proportion of new and existing facilities, particularly surface impoundments, that today lack basic environmental controls such as liners and groundwater monitoring. Approximately one-third of coal combustion wastes are managed in surface impoundments. We note that controls such as liners may not be warranted at some facilities, due to site-specific conditions. We acknowledge, however, that our inquiry into the existence of damage cases was focused primarily on a subset of states. Given the volume of coal combustion wastes generated nationwide and the number of facilities that lacked groundwater monitoring as of 1995, there is at least a substantial likelihood other cases of actual and potential damage likely exist. Because we did not use a statistical sampling methodology to evaluate the potential for damage, we are unable to determine whether the identified cases are representative of the conditions at all facilities and, therefore, cannot quantify the extent and magnitude of damages at the national level.
When any rulemaking under the Clean Air Act proceeds to a point where we can complete an assessment of the likely changes to the character of coal combustion wastes, we will evaluate the implications of these changes relative to today's regulatory determination and take appropriate action.
The RTC explained that we identified situations where pyrite-bearing
Public interest groups and other commenters disagreed with our tentative decision, explaining their belief that such voluntary controls or programs are inadequate. They indicated that coal combustion wastes should be subject to hazardous waste regulations.
In the RTC, we presented findings on the human health risks associated with agricultural use of coal wastes as an agricultural lime substitute. The pathway examined embodies risks from ingestion of soil and inhalation, and from ingestion of contaminated dairy, beef, fruit and vegetable products. The resultant “high end” cancer risk reported in the RTC was 1 × 10
These commenters further recommended that EPA not regulate, but rather encourage voluntary restrictions because:
• Agricultural use of coal combustion wastes creates no adverse environmental impacts and EPA identified no damage cases associated with this practice;
• Agricultural use of these wastes has significant technical and economic benefits;
• Federal controls would be unnecessarily costly and would create a barrier for research and development on the practice;
• Existing regulatory programs are sufficient to control any risks from this practice; and
• The limits suggested in the RTC for arsenic levels in coal combustion wastes are inconsistent with limits applied to other materials used in agriculture.
Public interest groups stated their belief that a voluntary approach would not be sufficiently protective of human health and the environment. They believe the Agency should apply restrictions on the use of these wastes in agriculture because the Agency's analyses of the risks and benefits of this practice were inadequate. They further recommended that EPA should prohibit the land application of coal combustion wastes generated by conventional boilers, and make the arsenic limitation of EPA's sewage sludge land application regulations applicable to the land application of coal combustion wastes generated by fluidized bed combustors, which add lime as part of the combustion process.
Many studies have been conducted to estimate soil ingestion by children. Early studies focused on dirt present on children's hands. More recently, studies have focused on measuring trace elements in soil and then in feces as a function of internal absorption. These measurements are used to estimate amounts of soil ingested over a specified time period. The EFH findings for children's soil ingestion are based on seven key studies and nine other relevant studies that the Agency reviewed on this subject. These studies showed that mean values for soil ingestion ranged from 39 mg/day to 271 mg/day with an average of 146 mg/day. These results are characterized for studies that were for short periods with little information reported for pica behavior. To account for longer periods of time, the EFH reviewed the upper percentile ranges of the data studied and found ingestion rates that ranged from 106 mg/day to 1,432 mg/day with an average of 383 mg/day for soil ingestion. Rounding to one significant figure, the EFH recommended an upper percentile children's soil ingestion rate of 400 mg/day. The Agency believes that this recommendation is the best available information to address children's exposure through the soil ingestion route. Reducing the ingestion rate to the EFH handbook recommended level of
EPA believes its inputs for phytoavailability are accurate, although there are studies that suggest phytoavailability will decrease over time. Arsenic bioavailability is a function of all sources of arsenic and EPA believes it has characterized this accurately. However, as noted elsewhere, arsenic toxicity is now being studied by the Agency in conjunction with a proposed new arsenic MCL and may necessitate re-visiting today's judgement on agricultural use.
Our technical analysis that resulted in revised risk is explained in a document titled Reevaluation of Non-groundwater Pathway Risks from Agricultural Use of Coal Combustion Wastes, which is available in the docket for this action.
The comment on inappropriateness of application frequency was caused by a misunderstanding of the language in the RTC. The rate used was actually every two or three years, not two or three times per year.
Two ongoing studies of wastes of potential use as agricultural soil supplements relate to the use of FFC wastes for this purpose. Although these did not play a direct role in EPA's decision regarding FFC wastes, they are summarized below and may play a role in any future review of today's decision.
(1) On August 20, 1999, the agency proposed risk-based standards for cement kiln dust when used as a liming agent (see 64 FR 45632; August 20, 1999). This analysis was completed in 1998 just prior to our completion of the analysis of FFC wastes when used as agricultural supplements. The CKD analysis underwent a special peer review by a standing committee that is used by the Department of Agriculture. We were not able to respond to the peer review comments in either the CKD proposal or in our assessment for fossil fuel combustion wastes prior to publication of today's regulatory determination. The comment period for the CKD proposal closed on February 17, 2000, and we will soon begin our review and analyses of the public and peer review comments.
(2) In December 1999, EPA proposed new risk based standards for the use of municipal sewage sludge under section 503 of the Clean Water Act (the “503 standards”). It is important to note that municipal sludge has unique properties, application rates, and uses. This makes it inappropriate to transfer the 503 standards directly. Even though the standards cannot be used directly, there may be interest in the risk assessment methodologies used to support the development of these standards. We disagree that it is appropriate to establish an arsenic limitation for coal combustion ash when used for agricultural purposes equivalent to that contained in the EPA sewage sludge land application regulations. The organic nature of sewage sludge makes it behave very differently from inorganic wastes such as coal combustion wastes.
We conclude at this time that arsenic levels in coal combustion wastes do not pose a significant risk to human health when used for agricultural purposes. We expect to continue to review and refine the related risk assessments noted above, and will consider comments on the Agency's CKD and municipal sludge proposals, as well as new scientific developments related to this issue such as additional peer review of the EPA MINTEQ model that was used as a component of our risk analysis. If these efforts lead us to a different understanding of the risks posed by coal combustion wastes when used as a substitute for agricultural lime, we will take appropriate action to reevaluate today's regulatory determination.
In the RTC, we explained that we had insufficient information to adequately assess the risks associated with the use of coal combustion wastes to fill surface and underground mines, whether the mines are active or abandoned. Accordingly, we did not present a tentative conclusion in the RTC with respect to the use of coal combustion wastes for disposal in active mines or for reclamation of mines. However, we did indicate that regulation of minefilling under hazardous waste rulemaking authority would remain an option for minefilling, but that we needed additional information prior to making a final decision. Thus, we solicited additional information on specific minefilling techniques, problems that may be inherent in this management practice, risks posed by this practice, existing state regulatory requirements, and environmental monitoring data. We indicated that we would consider any comments and new information on minefilling received in comments and would address this management practice in today's regulatory determination.
Industry commenters and one federal agency supported our decision to study the issue further and not attempt to estimate the risks posed by this practice using existing methods. Further, numerous industry, academic, state agency, and federal agency commenters encouraged EPA not to adopt national regulations or voluntary restrictions on minefilling because: (a) Nationwide standards would not be conducive to the site-specific evaluations needed to appropriately control these operations; (b) minefilling creates no adverse environmental impacts and EPA identified no damage cases associated with this practice; (c) existing state and federal regulatory programs and industry practices are sufficient to control any risks from this practice, and (d) federal standards would be an unreasonable interference with states' authorities.
Additionally, several industry representatives, legislators, and state mining and environmental agencies mentioned that this practice, when used to remediate abandoned mine lands, will produce considerably greater environmental benefits than risks. Further, they maintained that minefilling is a relatively inexpensive means to stop or even reverse the environmental damage caused by old mining practices. They indicated that through remediation by minefilling, these lands frequently can be returned to productive use. These commenters recommended no additional regulation of this practice.
Public interest groups and others believe we should regulate minefilling under RCRA subtitle C or prohibit it for several reasons including weaknesses in existing state and federal regulatory programs, the poor practices and performance at existing minefilling operations, and potential impacts on potable water sources. Commenters stated that state programs effectively allow open dumps without any design or construction standards. For minefilling, one commenter urged EPA to defer to state regulations only if the Agency specifically found existing state regulations to be adequate.
We are aware that the use of coal combustion wastes to conduct remediation of mine lands can improve conditions caused by mining activities. We also recognize that this often is the lowest cost option for conducting these remediation activities. We generally encourage the practice of remediating mine lands with coal combustion wastes when minefilling is conducted properly and when there is adequate oversight of the remediation activities. We are also aware that relatively few states currently operate regulatory or other programs that specifically address minefilling, and that many states where this practice is occurring do not have programs in place. Based on our review of information on existing state minefill programs, we find serious gaps such as a lack of adequate controls and restrictions on unsound practices,
At this time, we cannot reach definitive conclusions about the adequacy of minefilling practices employed currently in the United States and the ability of government oversight agencies to ensure that human health and the environment are being adequately protected. For example, it is often impossible to determine if existing groundwater quality has been impacted by previous mining operations or as a result of releases of hazardous constituents from the coal combustion wastes used in the minefilling applications. Additionally, data and information submitted during the public comment period indicate that if the chemistry of the mine relative to the chemistry of the coal combustion wastes is not properly taken into account, the addition of coal combustion wastes to certain environmental settings can lead to an increase in hazardous metals released into the environment. This phenomena has been substantiated by data available to the Agency that show when pyrites, which can cause acid generation, have been improperly co-managed with coal combustion wastes, high levels of metals, especially arsenic, have leached from the wastes.
Finally, we concluded in our recent study of disposal of cement kiln dust that placement of cement kiln dust directly in contact with ground water led to a substantially greater release of hazardous metal constituents than we predicted would occur when such placement in ground water did not occur. We are aware of situations where coal combustion wastes are being placed in direct contact with ground water in both underground and surface mines. This could lead to increased releases of hazardous metal constituents as a result of minefilling. Thus, if the complexities related to site-specific geology, hydrology, and waste chemistry are not properly taken into account when minefilling coal combustion wastes, we believe that certain minefilling practices have the potential to degrade, rather than improve, existing groundwater quality and can pose a potential danger to human health and the environment. Subsequent impacts on human health would depend in part on the proximity of drinking water wells, if any, to elevated levels of metals in the water. To date we are unaware of any proven damage cases resulting from minefilling operations.
In the RTC, EPA considered retaining the exemption for coal combustion wastes disposed in surface impoundments and landfills and for mill rejects (pyrites) that are managed with those wastes. The Agency cited a reliance on state programs that have improved substantially over the past 10 to 15 years and continue to improve, combined with voluntary industry implementation of guidance for improved management practices to mitigate risk. In addition, we stated that we would continue to work with industries and states to promote and monitor improvements.
To assess the adequacy of state programs and the potential for voluntary implementation of improved practices, we looked at the current number of facilities with liners and groundwater monitoring (which may reflect voluntary industry upgrading as well as state requirements), and the number of state programs that currently have authority to require a broad range of environmental controls. For units operating as of 1995, we found that among utilities, slightly more than half of the disposal units were surface impoundments. Of these impoundments, 38 percent had groundwater monitoring and 26 percent had liners. Eighty-five percent of the utility landfills had groundwater monitoring and 57 percent had liners. For non-utility landfills, 94 percent had groundwater monitoring, and between 16 percent and 52 percent had liners. Between 1985 and 1995, 75 percent of new landfills and 60 percent of new surface impoundments within the utility sector had been lined. We have no information regarding the percentage of units built since 1995 (the date when the study we have relied on ended) that have liners or groundwater monitoring programs.
In looking at state programs, we found that for landfills, more than 40 states have the authority to require permits, siting restrictions, liners, leachate collection, groundwater monitoring, closure controls, and cover/dust controls. Forty-three states can require liners and 46 can require groundwater monitoring compared to 11 and 28 states, respectively, in the 1980's. For surface impoundments, more than 40 states have authority to require permits, siting restrictions, liners, groundwater monitoring, and closure control; 33 can require leachate collection (there is no earlier comparison data for surface impoundments). Forty-five states can require liners and 44 can require groundwater monitoring for impoundments.
Public interest commenters were also skeptical of programs or efforts that rely on voluntary industry implementation because adherence to guidance is not guaranteed. Several commenters, primarily from industry, urged the Agency not to regulate pyrite co-management because of the voluntary, industry-developed guidance.
One consistent trend that raises concern for the Agency is that controls are much less common at surface impoundment than at landfills. Even for newer units at utilities (constructed between 1985 and 1995), liners are used at 75 percent of landfills and only 60 percent of surface impoundments. Also at newer units, groundwater monitoring is implemented at 88 percent of landfills and at only 65 percent of surface impoundments. Approximately one-third of coal combustion wastes were managed in surface impoundments in 1995. Hydraulic pressure in a surface impoundment increases the likelihood of releases. We believe that groundwater monitoring, at a minimum, in existing as well as new impoundments, is a reasonable approach to monitor performance of the unit and a critical first step to addressing groundwater damage that may be caused by the unit. As of 1995, 38 percent of currently operating utility surface impoundments had groundwater monitoring and only 26 percent had liners.
While liners and groundwater monitoring are applied more frequently at landfills, there are still many utility and non-utility landfills that do not have liners. In addition, 15 percent of utility landfills do not have groundwater monitoring, and some six percent of non-utility landfills do not have groundwater monitoring, based on a limited survey.
The utility industry through its trade associations has demonstrated a willingness to work with EPA to develop protective management practices, and individual companies have committed to upgrading their own practices. However, the Agency recognizes that participation in voluntary programs is not assured. Also, individual facilities and companies may not implement protective management practices and controls, for a variety of reasons, in spite of their endorsement by industry-wide groups.
We see a trend toward significantly improving state programs and voluntary industry investment in liners and groundwater monitoring that we believe can mitigate potential risks over time. However, we identified significant gaps in controls already in place and, in particular, requirements that may be lacking in some states, either in authority to impose the requirements or potentially in exercising that authority. In response to comments, we further analyzed risks posed by coal combustion wastes taking into account waste characteristics and potential and actual damage cases. Based on these analyses, we concluded that coal combustion wastes, in certain circumstances, could unnecessarily increase risks to human health and the environment, and that a number of proven damages have been documented, and that more are likely if we had been able to conduct a more thorough search of available state records and if groundwater monitoring data were available for all units. We recognize there will probably continue to be some gaps in practices and controls and are concerned at the possibility that these will go unaddressed. We also believe the time frame for improvement of current practices is likely to be longer in the absence of federal regulations.
Based on our collection and analysis of information reflecting the criteria in section 8002(n) of RCRA that EPA must consider in making today's regulatory determination, materials developed in preparing the RTC and supportive background materials, existing state and federal regulations and programs that affect the management of coal combustion wastes, and comments received from the public on the findings we presented in the RTC, we have concluded the following:
To the extent coal combustion wastes are used for beneficial purposes, we believe they should continue to remain exempt from being regulated as hazardous wastes under RCRA. Beneficial purposes include waste stabilization, beneficial construction applications (
For beneficial uses other than minefilling, we have reached this decision because: (a) We have not identified any beneficial uses that are likely to present significant risks to human health or the environment; and (b) no documented cases of damage to human health or the environment have been identified. Additionally, we do not want to place any unnecessary barriers on the beneficial use of coal combustion wastes so that they can be used in applications that conserve natural resources and reduce disposal costs.
Disposal can be burdensome and fails to take advantage of beneficial characteristics of fossil fuel combustion wastes. About one-quarter of the coal combustion wastes now generated are diverted to beneficial uses. Currently, the major beneficial uses of coal combustion wastes include: Construction (including building products, road base and sub-base, blasting grit and roofing materials) accounting for approximately 21%; sludge and waste stabilization and acid neutralization accounting for approximately 3%; and agricultural use accounting for 0.1%. Based on our conclusion that these beneficial uses of coal combustion wastes are not likely to pose significant risks to human health and the environment, we support increases in these beneficial uses of coal combustion wastes.
Off-site uses in construction, including wallboard, present low risk due to the coal combustion wastes being bound or encapsulated in the construction materials or because there is low potential for exposure. Use in waste and sludge stabilization and in acid neutralization are either regulated (under RCRA for hazardous waste stabilization or when placed in
In the RTC, we were not able to identify damage cases associated with these types of beneficial uses, nor do we now believe that these uses of coal combustion wastes present a significant risk to human health or the environment. While some commenters disagreed with our findings, no data or other support for the commenters' position was provided, nor was any information provided to show risk or damage associated with agricultural use. Therefore, we conclude that none of the beneficial uses of coal combustion wastes listed above pose risks of concern.
In this section, we discuss available information regarding the potential risks to human health and the environment from the disposal of coal combustion wastes into landfills and impoundments. In sum, our conclusion is these wastes can pose significant risks when mismanaged and, while significant improvements are being made in waste management practices due to increasing state oversight, gaps in the current regulatory regime remain.
We have determined that the establishment of national regulations is warranted for coal combustion wastes when they are disposed in landfills and surface impoundments, because: (a) The composition of these wastes has the potential to present danger to human health and the environment under some circumstances and “potential” damage cases identified by EPA and commenters, while not definitively demonstrating damage from coal combustion wastes, lend support to our conclusion that these wastes have the potential to pose such danger; (b) we have identified eleven cases of proven damage to human health and the environment by improper management of these wastes when land disposed; (c) while industry management practices have improved measurably in recent years, there is sufficient evidence these wastes are currently being managed in a significant number of landfills and surface impoundments without proper controls in place, particularly in the area of groundwater monitoring; and (d) while there have been substantive improvements in state regulatory programs, we have also identified significant gaps either in states' regulatory authorities or in their exercise of existing authorities. Moreover, we believe that the costs of complying with regulations that specifically address these problems, while large in absolute terms, are only a small percentage of industry revenues.
When we considered a tailored subtitle C regulatory approach, we estimated the potential costs of regulation of coal combustion wastes (including the utility coal combustion wastes addressed in the 1993 Part 1 determination) to be $1 billion per year. While large in absolute terms, we estimate that these costs are less than 0.4 percent of industry sales. Our preliminary estimate of impact on profitability is a function of facility size, among other factors. For the larger facilities, we estimate that reported pre-tax profit margins of about 13 percent may be reduced to about 11 percent. For smaller facilities, margins may be reduced from about nine percent to about seven percent.
We identified that the constituents of concern in these wastes are metals, particularly hazardous metals. We further identified that leachate from various large volume wastes generated at coal combustion facilities infrequently exceed the hazardous waste toxicity characteristic, for one or more of the following metals: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, and mercury. Additionally, when we compared waste leachate concentrations for hazardous metals to their corresponding MCLs (or potential MCLs in the case of arsenic), we found that there was a potential for risk as a result of arsenic leaching from these wastes. The criteria we examined included the existing arsenic MCL, a lower health based number presented in the RTC, and two assumed values in between. We examined this range of values because, as explained earlier in this notice, EPA is in the process of revising the current MCL for arsenic to a lower value as a result of a detailed study of arsenic in drinking water and we wanted to assess the likely range of values that would be under consideration by EPA. Once we have completed a review of our groundwater model and made necessary changes, we will reevaluate the potential risks from metals in coal combustion wastes and compare any projected groundwater contamination to the MCLs that exist at that time.
We also identified situations where the improper management of mill rejects, a low volume and uniquely associated waste, with high volume coal combustion wastes has the potential to cause releases of higher quantities of hazardous metals. When these wastes are improperly managed, the mill rejects can create an acidic environment which enhances leachability and can lead to the release of hazardous metals in high concentrations from the co-managed wastes to ground water or surface waters. Thus, our analysis of the characteristics of coal combustion wastes leads us to conclude that these wastes have the potential to pose risk to human health and the environment. We also plan to address such waste management practices in our subsequent rulemaking.
Additionally, we identified 11 proven damage cases that documented disposal of coal combustion wastes in unlined landfills or surface impoundments that involved exceedences of primary MCLs or other health-based standards in ground water or drinking water wells. Three of the proven damage cases were on the EPA Superfund National Priorities List. Although these damage cases indicate that coal combustion wastes can present risks to human health and the environment, they also show the effectiveness of states' responses when damages were identified. All of the sites were at older, unlined units, with disposal occurring prior to 1993. None of these cases involved actual human exposure. Given the large number of facilities that do not now conduct groundwater monitoring, we have a concern that additional cases of damage may be undetected.
As detailed in the RTC and explained earlier in this notice, we identified that the states and affected industry have made considerable progress in recent years toward more effective management of coal combustion wastes. We also identified that the ability for most states to impose specific regulatory controls for coal combustion wastes has increased almost three-fold over the past 15 years. Forty-three states can now impose a liner requirements at landfills whereas 15 years ago, 11 had the same authority. In addition to regulatory permits, the majority of states now have authority to require siting controls, liners, leachate collection, groundwater monitoring, closure controls, and other controls and requirements for surface impoundments and landfills.
Nonetheless, we have concluded that there are still gaps in the actual application of these controls and
While many of these unlined units may be subject to grandfathering provisions that allow them to continue to operate without being lined, or may not need to be lined due to site-specific conditions, we are especially concerned that a substantial number of units do not employ groundwater monitoring to ensure that if significant releases occur from these unlined units, they will be detected and controlled. In 1995, groundwater was monitored at only 38 percent of utility surface impoundments. While monitoring is more frequent at landfills, there are still many units at which releases of hazardous metals could go undetected. For example, of the approximately 300 utility landfills, 45 newer landfills (15%) do not monitor ground water. We are concerned that undetected releases could cause exceedences of drinking water or other health-based standards that may threaten public health or groundwater and surface water resources. Thus, we conclude that national regulations would lead to substantial improvements in the management of coal combustion wastes.
We have determined that the establishment of national regulations is warranted for coal combustion wastes when they are placed in surface or underground mines because: (a) We wind that these wastes when minefilled have the potential to present a danger to human health and the environment, (b) minefilling of these wastes has been an expanding practice and there are few states that currently operate comprehensive programs that specifically address the unique circumstances of minefilling, making it more likely that any damage to human health or the environment would go unnoticed or unaddressed, and (c) we believe that the cost of complying with regulations that address these potential dangers may not have a substantial impact on this practice because minefilling continues to grow in those few states that already have comprehensive programs.
We recognize that at this time, we cannot quantify the nature of damage that may be occurring or may occur in the future as a result of using coal combustion wastes as minefill. It is often impossible to determine if existing groundwater quality has been impacted by previous mining operations or as a result of releases of hazardous constituents from the coal combustion wastes used in minefilling applications. We have not as yet identified proven damage cases resulting from the use of coal combustion wastes for minefilling.
We also acknowledge that when the complexities related to site-specific geology, hydrology, waste chemistry and interactions with the surrounding matrix, and other relevant factors are properly taken into account, coal combustion wastes used as minefill can provide significant benefits. However, when not done properly, minefilling has the potential to contaminate ground water to levels that could damage human health and the environment. Based on materials submitted during the public comment period, coal combustion wastes used as minefill can lead to increases in hazardous metals released into ground water if the acidity within the mine overwhelms the capacity of the coal combustion wastes to neutralize the acidic conditions. This is due to the increased leaching of hazardous metals from the wastes. The potential for this to occur is further supported by data showing that management of coal combustion wastes in the presence of acid-generating pyritic wastes has caused metals to leach from the combustion wastes at much higher levels than are predicted by leach test data for coal combustion wastes when strongly acidic conditions are not present. Such strongly acidic conditions often exist at mining sites.
Although we have identified no damage cases involving minefilling, we are also aware of situations where coal combustion wastes are being placed in direct contact with ground water in both surface and underground mines. We concluded in our recent study of cement kiln dust management practices that placement of cement kiln dust in direct contact with ground water led to a substantially greater release of hazardous metals than we predicted would occur when the waste was placed above the water table. For this reason, we find that there is a potential for increased releases of hazardous metals as a result of placing coal combustion wastes in direct contact with groundwater. Also, there are damage cases associated with coal combustion wastes in landfills. The Agency believes it is reasonable to be concerned when similar quantities of coal combustion wastes are placed in mines, which often are not engineered disposal units and in some cases involve direct placement of wastes into direct contact with ground water.
We are concerned that government oversight is necessary to ensure that minefilling is done appropriately to protect human health and the environment, particularly since minefilling is a recent, but rapidly expanding use of coal combustion wastes. Government oversight has not yet “caught up” with the practice consistently across the country. There are some states that have programs that specifically address minefilling practices. We are likely to find that their programs or certain elements of their programs could serve as the basis for a comprehensive, flexible set of national management standards that ensure protection of human health and the environment. We also believe that these state programs will provide valuable experience in coordinating with SMCRA program requirements. However, at this time, few of the programs are comprehensive. Commenters pointed out, and we agree, there are significant gaps in other states. We believe that additional requirements for long-term groundwater monitoring, and controls on wastes placed directly into groundwater might be prudent.
We will not promulgate any regulations for beneficial uses other than minefilling. We do not wish to place any unnecessary barriers on the beneficial use of fossil fuel combustion wastes so that they can be used in applications that conserve natural resources and reduce disposal costs.
Once we concluded there is a need for some form of national regulation of coal combustion wastes disposed in landfills and surface impoundments and used as minefill, we considered two approaches. One approach would involve promulgating subtitle D regulations, pursuant to sections 1008 and 4004(a) of RCRA, that would contain criteria defining landfills and impoundments that would constitute “sanitary landfills.” Any facility that failed to meet the standards would constitute an open dump, which is prohibited by section 4005(a) of RCRA. Such standards would set a consistent baseline for protective management throughout the country. We would also work with the Department of Interior,
The second approach was to promulgate regulations pursuant to Subtitle C of RCRA, that would have been similar to our recent proposed regulation of cement kiln dust. Following this approach, EPA would develop national management standards based on the Subtitle D open dump criteria as discussed above, as well as a set of tailored Subtitle C requirements promulgated pursuant to RCRA section 3004(x). If the wastes were properly managed in accordance with the subtitle D-like standards, they would not be classified as hazardous wastes. When they were not properly managed, they would become listed hazardous wastes subject to tailored subtitle C standards. This scheme would be effective in each state authorized for the hazardous waste program when that state modified its hazardous waste program to incorporate the listing.
Under this approach, after states have adopted the contingent listing, facilities that have egregious or repeated violations of the management standards would be moved into the subtitle C program (subject to the tailored RCRA 3004 (x) requirements, rather than to the full set of subtitle C requirements). Thus, EPA would have authority to enforce the management standards.
The decision whether to establish regulations under subtitle C or D of RCRA for disposal of coal combustion wastes in landfills and surface impoundments and when minefilled was a difficult one. EPA believes that, in this case, either approach would ensure adequate protection of public health and the environment. Either subtitle C or D provides EPA with the authority to prescribe protective standards for the management of these wastes. Moreover, as described above, the standards that EPA would adopt under either regime, because of the flexibility provided by section 3004 (x), would be substantively the same. Also, under either approach, a facility that fails to comply with the standards is in violation of RCRA—in the case of subtitle C, the facility would be in violation of the tailored standards promulgated under section 3004(x). In the case of subtitle D, the facility would be in violation of the prohibition in section 4005(a) of RCRA against “open dumping.” The prohibition against open dumping is, however, enforceable only by private citizens and states, not EPA. Management standards established under the authority of subtitle C (including tailored section 3004(x) standards) are also enforceable by EPA. It appears that more than 40 states already have sufficient authority to implement most, if not all of the national standards we contemplate would be appropriate for surface impoundments and landfills. One difference between the two regimes may be that states could cite revised subtitle D standards as a basis for exercising their existing authorities more vigorously, potentially promoting swifter adoption of appropriate controls for surface impoundments and landfills. In addition, subtitle D standards would be applicable and enforceable by citizens as soon as the federal rule becomes effective. subtitle C standards in contrast, would not apply until incorporated into state subtitle C programs. For minefilling, we would also explore SMCRA as a possible mechanism to speed implementation, even if we relied on subtitle D to establish protective standards, because minefilling operations already are subject to SMCRA permitting authority.
Taking into account the common and distinct features of these alternative approaches, EPA believes at this time, based on the current record, that subtitle D regulations are the more appropriate mechanism for a number of reasons. In view of the very substantial progress that states have made in regulating disposal of fossil fuel combustion wastes in surface impoundments and landfills in recent years, as well as the active role that this industry has played recently in facilitating responsible waste disposal practices, EPA believes that subtitle D controls will provide sufficient clarity and incentive for states to close the remaining gaps in coverage, and for facilities to ensure that their wastes are managed properly.
For minefilling, although we have considerable concern about certain current practices (
Once these subtitle D regulations are effective, facilities would be subject to citizen suits for any violation of the standards. If EPA were addressing wastes that had not been addressed by the states (or the federal government) in the past, or an industry with wide evidence of irresponsible solid waste management practices, EPA may well conclude that the additional incentives for improvement and compliance provided by the subtitle C scheme—the threat of federal enforcement and the stigma associated with improper management of RCRA subtitle C waste—were necessary. But the record before us indicates that the structure and the sanctions associated with a subtitle D approach (or a SMCRA approach if EPA determines it is equivalent) should be sufficient.
We also see a potential downside to pursuing a subtitle C approach. Section 8002(n)(8) directs us to consider, among other factors, “the current and potential utilization of such materials.” Industry commenters have indicated that they believe subjecting any coal combustion wastes to a subtitle C regime would place a significant stigma on these wastes, the most important effect being that it would adversely impact beneficial reuse. As we understand it, the concern is that, even though beneficially reused waste would not be hazardous under the contemplated subtitle C approach, the link to subtitle C would nonetheless tend to discourage purchase and re-use of the wastes or products made from the wastes. We do not wish to place any unnecessary barriers on the beneficial uses of these wastes, because they conserve natural resources, reduce disposal costs and reduce the total amount of waste destined for disposal. States and industry have also expressed concern that regulation under subtitle C could cause a halt in the use of coal combustion wastes to reclaim abandoned and active mine sites. If this were to occur, it would be unfortunate in that when done properly, we recognize this practice can lead to substantial environmental benefits. EPA believes the contingent management scheme we discussed should diminish
As we proceed with regulation development, we will also take enforcement action under RCRA section 7003 when we identify cases of imminent and substantial endangerment. We will also use Superfund remedial and emergency response authorities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liabilities Act (CERCLA), as appropriate, to address damages that result in risk to human health and the environment. We will also take into account new information as it becomes available. We are awaiting a National Academy of Sciences report scheduled to be released in June 2000. This report will present a comprehensive review of mercury and recommendations on appropriate adverse health effects levels for this constituent. We believe that this report will enhance our understanding of the risks due to exposure to mercury, and we will review and assess its implications for today's decision on fossil fuel combustion wastes. These efforts may result in a re-evaluation of the risks posed by managing coal combustion wastes.
We have determined that it is not appropriate to issue regulations under subtitle C of RCRA applicable to oil combustion wastes because: (a) We have not identified any beneficial uses that are likely to present significant risks to human health or the environment; and (b) except for a limited number of unlined surface impoundments, we have not identified any significant risks to human health and the environment associated with any waste management practices.
We intend to work with the State of Massachusetts and the owners and operators of the remaining two oil combustion facilities that currently manage their wastes in unlined surface impoundments to ensure that their wastes are managed in a manner that protects human health and the environment.
In the Report to Congress, we stated that the only management scenario for which we found risks posed by management of oil combustion wastes was when oil combustion wastes are managed in unlined surface impoundments. The Report to Congress further explained that we were considering two approaches to address these identified risks. One approach was to regulate using RCRA subtitle C authority. The other approach was to encourage voluntary changes so that no oil combustion wastes are managed in unlined surface impoundments. This voluntary approach is based on recent industry and state regulatory trends to line oil combustion waste disposal units and implement groundwater monitoring.
We also tentatively decided that the existing beneficial uses of oil combustion wastes should remain exempt from RCRA subtitle C. There are few existing beneficial uses of these wastes, which include use in concrete products, structural fill, roadbed fill, and vanadium recovery. We determined that no significant risks to human health exist for the beneficial uses of these wastes. For the case of facilities that accept these wastes to recover vanadium from them, we explained that if the wastes resulting from the metal recovery processes are hazardous, they will be subject to existing hazardous waste requirements.
We found in most cases that OCW, whether managed alone or co-managed, are rarely characteristically hazardous. Additionally, we identified no significant ecological risks posed by land disposal of OCW. We identified only one documented damage case involving OCW in combination with coal combustion wastes, and it did not affect human receptors.
Although most of the disposed oil combustion wastes are managed in lined surface impoundments, we did identify six utility sites where wastes are managed in unlined units. We expressed particular concern with management of these wastes in unlined settling basins and impoundments that are designed and operated to discharge the aqueous portion of the wastes to ground water. Our risk analysis indicated that, in these situations, three metals—arsenic, nickel, and vanadium—may pose potential risk by the groundwater pathway.
Because we were able to identify so few unlined surface impoundments, the only management scenario for which we found risks, the primary focus of the comments regarding oil combustion wastes was on the six unlined surface impoundments that we identified. In addition, there were extensive comments on our modeling and risk assessment methodology for the groundwater pathway that are applicable to our assessment of risks posed by oil combustion wastes.
As stated in the RTC, there are only six sites involving two companies that have unlined surface impoundments. Four of the sites are in Florida and are operated by one company. The company operating the four unlined impoundments in Florida is undertaking projects to mitigate potential risks posed by their unlined management units. At a May 21, 1999 public hearing, the company announced its plans to remove all the oil ash and basin material from its unlined impoundments and to line or close the units. The company informed us in January 2000 that it had completed the lining of all the units. Based on this information, we do not believe that these units pose a significant risk to human health and the environment.
The other two sites with unlined impoundments are operated by one utility in Massachusetts. Both sites are permitted under Massachusetts' ground water discharge permit program and have monitoring wells around the unlined basins. Arsenic is monitored for compliance with state regulations. Although the company expressed no plans to line their impoundments, they are preparing to implement monitoring for nickel and vanadium in ground water around the waste management units. We have been working with the State and the company to obtain additional information to evaluate these two management units. We will continue this effort and will work with the company and the State to ensure that any necessary measures are taken so that these wastes are managed in a manner that protects human health and the environment.
Meanwhile, we will continue with our analysis of comments on the groundwater model and risk analysis. This may involve changing or restructuring various aspects of the model, if appropriate. It may also include additional analyses to determine whether any changes to the model or modeling methodology would materially affect the groundwater risk analysis results that were reported in the RTC. If our investigations reveal that a reanalysis of groundwater risks is appropriate, we will conduct the analysis and reevaluate today's decisions as appropriate.
In addition to our ongoing review of comments on the groundwater model, one element of the model—the metals partitioning component called “MINTEQ”—has been proposed for additional peer review. When this additional peer review is completed, we will take the findings and recommendations into account in any overall decision to re-evaluate today's regulatory determination.
We have determined that it is not appropriate to establish national regulations applicable to oil combustion wastes because: (a) We have not identified any beneficial uses that are likely to present significant risks to human health or the environment; and (b) except for two remaining unlined surface impoundments, we have not identified any significant risks to human health and the environment associated with any waste management practices. As explained in the previous section, we intend to work with the State of Massachusetts and the owners and operators of the remaining two oil combustion facilities that currently manage their wastes in unlined surface impoundments to ensure that any necessary measures are taken so that their wastes are managed in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Given the limited number of sites at issue and our ability to adequately address risks from these waste management units through site-specific response measures, we see no need for issuing regulations under subtitle C or D of RCRA.
For the reasons described in the Report to Congress (pages 7-1 to 7-3), EPA has decided that regulation of natural gas combustion wastes as hazardous wastes under RCRA subtitle C or D is not warranted. The burning of natural gas generates virtually no solid waste.
The Agency's tentative decision was to retain the subtitle C exemption for natural gas combustion because virtually no solid waste is generated.
No commenters on the RTC disagreed with EPA's findings or its tentative decision to continue the exemption for natural gas combustion wastes.
Specific comments on this issue supported our tentative decision to retain the exemption for natural gas combustion waste. One industry association encouraged us to foster the use of natural gas as a substitute for other fossil fuels. While some public interest group commenters disagreed broadly with our tentative conclusions to retain the exemption for fossil fuel combustion wastes, they did not specifically address natural gas combustion wastes.
The burning of natural gas generates virtually no solid waste. We, therefore, believe that there is no basis for EPA developing subtitle C or D regulations applicable to natural gas combustion wastes.
Section 3001(b)(3)(C) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as amended requires that, after completing a Report to Congress mandated by section 8002(n) of RCRA, the EPA Administrator must determine whether Subtitle C (hazardous waste) regulation of fossil fuel combustion wastes is warranted.
We began our effort to make our determination of the regulatory status of fossil fuel combustion wastes by studying high volume coal combustion wastes managed separately from other fossil fuel combustion wastes that are generated by electric utilities. In February 1988, EPA published the Report to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants. The report addressed four large-volume coal combustion wastes generated by electric utilities and independent power producers when managed alone. The four wastes are fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastes. The report did not address co-managed utility coal combustion wastes (UCCWs), other fossil fuel wastes generated by utilities, or wastes from non-utility boilers burning any type of fossil fuel. Because of other priorities at the time, we did not immediately complete a determination of the regulatory status of these large-volume coal combustion wastes.
In 1991, a suit was filed against EPA for not completing a regulatory determination on fossil fuel combustion wastes (
• The first phase covers fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas emission control wastes from the combustion of coal by electric utilities and independent commercial power producers. These are the four large volume wastes that were the subject of the 1988 Report to Congress described above. We refer to this as the Part 1 regulatory determination.
• The second phase covers all of the “remaining” fossil fuel combustion wastes not covered in the Part 1 regulatory determination. We refer to this as the Part 2 regulatory determination, which is the subject of today's action. Under the current court-order, EPA was directed to issue the Part 2 regulatory determination by April 25, 2000.
In 1993, EPA issued the Part 1 regulatory determination, in which we retained the exemption for Part 1 wastes (see 58 FR 42466; August 9, 1993). The four Part 1 large-volume utility coal combustion wastes (UCCWs) are also addressed in the Part 2 regulatory determination when they are co-managed with low-volume fossil fuel combustion wastes not covered in the Part 1 determination.
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993) we must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
• Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
• Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
• Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
• Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles in the Executive Order.”
Under Executive Order 12866, this is a “significant regulatory action.” Thus, we have submitted this action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations are documented in the public record.
Today's action is not subject to the RFA, which generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or any other statute. This action is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the APA or any other statute. Today's action is being taken pursuant to section 3001(b)(3)(C) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. This provision requires EPA to make a determination whether to regulate fossil fuel combustion wastes after submission of its Report to Congress and public hearings and an opportunity for comment. This provision does not require the publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking and today's action is not a regulation.
Today's final action contains no information collection requirements.
Today's action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4. Title II of UMRA establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.
Before we issue a rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the rule's objectives. Section 205 doesn't apply when it is inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least
Today's final action contains no federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. Today's final action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
In addition, we have determined this action contains no federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires us 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. The executive order defines policies that have federalism implications to include regulations that have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, we may issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that isn't required by statute, only if the federal government provides funds the direct compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or if EPA consults with state and local officials early in the development of the proposed regulation. Also, EPA may issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts state law, only if we consult with state and local officials early in the development of the proposed regulation.
If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires us to provide OMB, in a separately identified section of the rule's preamble, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS must describe the extent of our prior consultation with state and local officials, summarizing the nature of their concerns and our position supporting the need for the regulation, and state the extent to which the concerns of state and local officials have been met. Also, when we transmit a draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866, our federalism official must include a certification that EPA has met the requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely manner.
Today's final action does not have federalism implications. It will not have a substantial direct affect 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. This is because no requirements are imposed by today's action, and EPA is not otherwise mandating any state or local government actions. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this final action.
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may take an action that isn't required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, only if the federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires us to describe in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule the extent of our prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, summarizing of the nature of their concerns, and state the need for the regulation. Also, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials 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 final action does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. This is because today's action by EPA involves no regulations or other requirements that significantly or uniquely affect Indian tribal governments. So, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this action.
“Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is “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, we 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.
Today's final action isn't subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because we have no reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. Risks were thoroughly evaluated during the course of developing today's decision and were determined not to disproportionately affect children.
As noted in the proposed rule, section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law. No. 104-113, section12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary-consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary-consensus standards are technical standards (such as materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary-consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs us to explain to Congress, through OMB, when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary-consensus standards.
Today's final action involves no technical standards. So, EPA didn't consider using any voluntary-consensus standards.
EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns and is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental quality for all populations in the United States. The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income bears disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impacts as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities, and that all people live in safe and healthful environments. In response to Executive Order 12898 and to concerns voiced by many groups outside the Agency, EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response formed an Environmental Justice Task Force to analyze the array of environmental justice issues specific to waste programs and to develop an overall strategy to identify and address these issues (OSWER Directive No. 9200.317).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Documents related to this regulatory determination, including EPA's response to the public comments, are available for inspection in the docket. The relevant docket numbers are: F-99-FF2D-FFFFF for the regulatory determination, and F-99-FF2P-FFFFF for the RTC. The RCRA Docket Information Center (RIC), is located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The RIC is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. To review docket materials, it is recommended that the public make an appointment by calling 703-603-9230. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies cost $0.15/page. The index and some supporting materials are available electronically. See the Supplementary Information section for information on accessing them.
Fossil fuel combustion waste, Coal combustion, Gas combustion, Oil combustion, Special wastes, Bevill exemption
Office of Inspector General, HUD.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would amend the regulations of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) that implement the Privacy Act of 1974 to conform these regulations to the OIG's notice adding two new systems of records to the four systems of records already in existence.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposed rule to the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of General Counsel, Room 10278, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410. Communications should refer to the above docket number and title. A copy of each communication submitted will be available for public inspection and copying between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. weekdays at the above address.
Bryan Saddler, Acting Counsel to the Inspector General, Room 8260, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410, (202) 708-1613. (This is not a toll free number.) A telecommunications device for hearing-and speech-impaired persons (TTY) is available at 1-800-877-8339 (Federal Information Relay Services). (This is a toll-free number.)
The Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 3) was enacted to create independent and objective units to perform various investigative and monitoring functions in several Executive Agencies of the Federal Government, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This Act confers broad authority upon the Inspector General to conduct independent investigations, audits, and other activities. Consistent with its statutory independence, the OIG of HUD adopted separate regulations at 24 CFR Chapter XII. Chapter XII is applicable to such OIG matters as availability of information to the public (part 2002) and production of information in response to subpoenas or demands of courts or other authorities (part 2004).
In June 1992, the Inspector General of HUD also adopted part 2003 of Chapter XII, for the purpose of implementing the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a) with respect to OIG records. Part 2003 generally incorporated the Department's existing Privacy Act regulations (24 CFR part 16), but also contained a series of general and specific exemptions for three of OIG's four existing systems of records.
This proposed rule would amend these regulations consistent with the OIG notice, published elsewhere in this
This proposed rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish , revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this issuance is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321).
This rule would not create a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule is limited to proposing to make a conforming amendment to existing regulations.
While HUD has determined that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, HUD welcomes any comments regarding alternatives to this rule that would meet HUD's objectives, as described in this preamble, and would be less burdensome to small entities.
This rule does not have Federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or preempt State law within the meaning of Executive Order 13132.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 64, codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and on the private sector. This proposed rule does not impose, within the meaning of the UMRA, any Federal mandates on any State, local, or, tribal governments or on the private sector.
Privacy.
Accordingly, 24 CFR chapter XII, part 2003, is proposed to be amended to read as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 2003 is revised to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552a; 5 U.S.C. App. 3 (Inspector General Act of 1978); 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
2. In § 2003.8, the introductory text of paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
(a) The systems of records entitled “Investigative Files of the Office of Inspector General,” “Hotline Complaint Files of the Office of Inspector General,” “Name Indices System of the Office of Inspector General,” and “AutoInvestigation of the Office of Inspector General” consist, in part, of information compiled by the OIG for the purpose of criminal law enforcement investigations. Therefore, to the extent that information in these systems falls within the scope of exemption (j)(2) of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), these systems of records are exempt from the requirements of the following subsections of the Privacy Act, for the reasons stated below.
3. In § 2003.9, the introductory text of paragraph (a) is revised, and paragraph (b) is revised, to read as follows:
(a) The systems of records entitled “Investigative Files of the Office of Inspector General,” “Hotline Complaint Files of the Office of Inspector General,” “Name Indices System of the Office of Inspector General,” and “AutoInvestigation of the Office of Inspector General” consist, in part, of investigatory material compiled by the OIG for law enforcement purposes. Therefore, to the extent that information
(b) The systems of records entitled “Investigative Files of the Office of Inspector General,” “Hotline Complaint Files of the Office of Inspector General,” “Name Indices System of the Office of Inspector General,” and “AutoInvestigation of the Office of Inspector General” consist in part of investigatory material compiled by the OIG for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian employment or Federal contracts, the release of which would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government under an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence. Therefore, to the extent that information in these systems fall within the coverage of exemption (k)(5) of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), these systems of records are exempt from the requirements of subsection (d)(1), because release would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government under an express promise of confidentiality. Revealing the identity of a confidential source could impede future cooperation by sources, and could result in harassment or harm to such sources.
Office of Inspector General, HUD.
Notification of Proposed Amendment of Routine Uses Applicable to Existing Systems of Records, and Establishment of Two New Systems of Records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the Office of Inspector General (OIG) gives notice that it proposes to amend the routine uses applicable to its four existing systems of records, and to establish two new systems of records. The amendment adds two new routine uses to the five uses currently applicable to OIG's four existing systems of records. The new routine uses permit disclosure: to State boards of accountancy, for potential disciplinary action against independent public accountants; and to the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), for use in litigation. This two new systems of records established are the AutoAudit (HUD/OIG-5) and the AutoInvestigation (HUD/OIG-6). These systems of records are automated information tracking and storage systems employed in connection with OIG audits and investigations commenced on or after June 1, 2000.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice to the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of General Counsel, Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications should refer to the above docket number and title. Comments submitted by facsimile (FAX) will not be accepted. A copy of each communication submitted will be available for public inspection and copying between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. weekdays at the above address.
For Privacy Act information: Jeanette Smith, Departmental Privacy Act Officer, Telephone Number (202) 708-2374. For OIG-related information: Bryan Saddler, Acting Counsel to the Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, Telephone Number (202) 708-1613. (These are not toll free numbers). A telecommunications device for hearing-and speech-impaired persons (TTY) is available at 1-800-877-8339 (Federal Information Relay Services). (This is a toll-free number).
The OIG, pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, currently maintains four systems of records: (l) Investigative Files of the Office of Inspector General (HUD/OIG-1); (2) Hotline Complaint Files of the Office of Inspector General (HUD/OIG-2); (3) Name Indices System of the Office of Inspector General (HUD/OIG-3); and (4) Independent Auditor Monitoring Files of the Office of Inspector General (HUD/OIG-4). The notice for these systems of records was last published on June 12, 1992 (57 FR 25069). The two additional routine uses being made applicable to OIG's four existing systems of records will permit disclosure: (1) To State boards of accountancy, for potential disciplinary action against independent public accountants; and (2) to the Department of Justice, for use in litigation. All other aspects of OIG's four existing systems of records remain unchanged and are as published at 57 FR 25069.
Sections 552a(e)(4) and (11) of title 5, United States Code provide that an agency publish a notice of the establishment or revision of a record system which affords the public a 30-day period in which to submit comments. To meet this requirement, the texts of the new routine uses are printed below. Further, a report of the OIG's intention to amend the routine uses applicable to its four existing systems of records has been submitted to the Committee on Government Operations of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), pursuant to paragraph 4b of Appendix I of OMB Circular A-130, which is entitled “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals” (50 FR 52730, December 24, 1985).
AutoAudit and AutoInvestigation, OIG's new automated information tracking and storage systems, will effectively consolidate and expand upon information included in OIG's four existing systems of records. AutoAudit and AutoInvestigation are designed to function as tools to create, maintain and manage audits and investigations in a centralized, paper-less environment. Records maintained in AutoAudit and AutoInvestigation may be accessed by reference to any information field entered into such systems, including name, alias, social security number, address, etc.
The AutoAudit and AutoInvestigation systems notices required under section 552a are also printed below. Additionally, a report of the OIG's intention to establish the two new systems has been submitted to the Committee on Government Operations of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and OMB.
Accordingly, the notice, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), of revisions to OIG's four existing systems of records and the establishment of two new systems of records follows:
Investigative Files of the Office of Inspector General.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under subsection (b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), records may also be disclosed routinely to other users under the following circumstances:
1. In the event that records indicate a violation or potential violation of law, whether criminal, civil or regulatory in nature, the relevant records may be disclosed to the appropriate federal, State or local agency charged with the responsibility for investigating or prosecuting such violation or enforcing or implementing such statute, rule or regulation.
2. Records may be disclosed to a congressional office in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual who is the subject of the records.
3. Records may be disclosed to HUD contractors, Public Housing Authorities or management agents of HUD-assisted housing projects, in order to assist such entities in taking action to recover money or property, where such recovery serves to promote the integrity of the programs or operations of HUD.
4. Records may be disclosed during the course of an administrative proceeding where HUD is a party to the
5. Records may be disclosed to any source, either private or governmental, to the extent necessary to elicit information relevant to an OIG investigation.
6. Records may be disclosed to appropriate State boards of accountancy for possible administrative or disciplinary sanctions such as license revocation. These referrals will be made only after the independent auditor has been notified that the OIG is contemplating disclosure of its findings to an appropriate State board of accountancy, and the independent auditor has been provided with an opportunity to respond in writing to the OIG's findings.
7. Records may be disclosed to DOJ for litigation purposes associated with the representation of OIG and/or HUD before the courts.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under subsection (b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), records may also be disclosed routinely to other users under the following circumstances:
1. In the event that records indicate a violation or potential violation of law, whether criminal, civil or regulatory in nature, the relevant records may be disclosed to the appropriate federal, State or local agency charged with the responsibility for investigating or prosecuting such violation or enforcing or implementing such statute, rule or regulation.
2. Records may be disclosed to a congressional office in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual who is the subject of the records.
3. Records may be disclosed to HUD contractors, Public Housing Authorities or management agents of HUD-assisted housing projects, in order to assist such entities in taking action to recover money or property, where such recovery serves to promote the integrity of the programs or operations of HUD.
4. Records may be disclosed during the course of an administrative proceeding where HUD is a party to the litigation and the disclosure is relevant and reasonably necessary to adjudicate the matter.
5. Records may be disclosed to any source, either private or governmental, to the extent necessary to elicit information relevant to an OIG investigation.
6. Records may be disclosed to appropriate State boards of accountancy for possible administrative or disciplinary sanctions such as license revocation. These referrals will be made only after the independent auditor has been notified that the OIG is contemplating disclosure of its findings to an appropriate State board of accountancy, and the independent auditor has been provided with an opportunity to respond in writing to the OIG's findings.
7. Records may be disclosed to DOJ for litigation purposes associated with the representation of OIG and/or HUD before the courts.
Name Indices System of the Office of Inspector General.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under subsection (b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), records may also be disclosed routinely to other users under the following circumstances:
1. In the event that records indicate a violation or potential violation of law, whether criminal, civil or regulatory in nature, the relevant records may be disclosed to the appropriate federal, State or local agency charged with the responsibility for investigating or prosecuting such violation or enforcing or implementing such statute, rule or regulation.
2. Records may be disclosed to a congressional office in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual who is the subject of the records.
3. Records may be disclosed to HUD contractors, Public Housing Authorities or management agents of HUD-assisted housing projects, in order to assist such entities in taking action to recover money or property, where such recovery serves to promote the integrity of the programs or operations of HUD.
4. Records may be disclosed during the course of an administrative proceeding where HUD is a party to the litigation and the disclosure is relevant and reasonably necessary to adjudicate the matter.
5. Records may be disclosed to any source, either private or governmental, to the extent necessary to elicit information relevant to an OIG investigation.
6. Records may be disclosed to appropriate State boards of accountancy for possible administrative or disciplinary sanctions such as license revocation. These referrals will be made only after the independent auditor has been notified that the OIG is contemplating disclosure of its findings to an appropriate State board of accountancy, and the independent auditor has been provided with an opportunity to respond in writing to the OIG's findings.
7. Records may be disclosed to DOJ for litigation purposes associated with the representation of OIG and/or HUD before the courts.
Independent Auditor Monitoring Files of the Office of Inspector General.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under subsection (b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), records may also be disclosed routinely to other users under the following circumstances:
1. In the event that records indicate a violation or potential violation of law, whether criminal, civil or regulatory in nature, the relevant records may be disclosed to the appropriate federal, State or local agency charged with the responsibility for investigating or prosecuting such violation or enforcing or implementing such statute, rule or regulation.
2. Records may be disclosed to a congressional office in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual who is the subject of the records.
3. Records may be disclosed to HUD contractors, Public Housing Authorities or management agents of HUD-assisted housing projects, in order to assist such entities in taking action to recover money or property, where such recovery serves to promote the integrity of the programs or operations of HUD.
4. Records may be disclosed during the course of an administrative proceeding where HUD is a party to the litigation and the disclosure is relevant and reasonably necessary to adjudicate the matter.
5. Records may be disclosed to any source, either private or governmental, to the extent necessary to elicit information relevant to an OIG investigation.
6. Records may be disclosed to appropriate State boards of accountancy for possible administrative or disciplinary sanctions such as license revocation. These referrals will be made only after the independent auditor has been notified that the OIG is contemplating disclosure of its findings to an appropriate State board of accountancy, and the independent auditor has been provided with an opportunity to respond in writing to the OIG's findings.
7. Records may be disclosed to DOJ for litigation purposes associated with the representation of OIG and/or HUD before the courts.
AutoAudit of the Office of Inspector General.
Headquarters, District Offices, and Field Offices.
Individuals covered consist of: (1) HUD program participants and HUD employees who are associated with an activity that OIG is auditing or reviewing; (2) requesters of an OIG audit or other activity; and (3) persons and entities performing some other role of significance to the OIG's efforts, such as relatives or business associates of HUD program participants or employees, potential witnesses, or persons who represent legal entities that are connected to an OIG audit or other activity. The system also tracks information pertaining to OIG staff handling the audit or other activity, and may contain contact names for relevant staff in other agencies.
Records consist of materials compiled and/or generated in connection with audits and other activities performed by OIG staff. These materials include information regarding the planning, conduct and resolution of audits and reviews of HUD programs and participants in those programs, internal legal assistance requests, information requests, responses to such requests, reports of findings, etc.
The Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 3) authorizes the Inspector General to conduct, supervise and coordinate audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of HUD, to engage in other activities that promote economy and efficiency in the programs and operations of HUD, and to receive and investigate complaints concerning possible violations of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial or specific danger to the public health or safety.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under subsection (b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), records may also be disclosed routinely to other users under the following circumstances:
1. In the event that records indicate a violation or potential violation of law, whether criminal, civil or regulatory in nature, the relevant records may be disclosed to the appropriate federal, State or local agency charged with the responsibility for investigating or prosecuting such violation or enforcing or implementing such statute, rule or regulation.
2. Records may be disclosed to a congressional office in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual who is the subject of the records.
3. Records may be disclosed to HUD contractors, Public Housing Authorities or management agents of HUD-assisted housing projects, in order to assist such entities in taking action to recover money or property, where such recovery serves to promote the integrity of the programs or operations of HUD.
4. Records may be disclosed during the course of an administrative proceeding where HUD is a party to the litigation and the disclosure is relevant and reasonably necessary to adjudicate the matter.
5. Records may be disclosed to any source, either private or governmental, to the extent necessary to elicit information relevant to an OIG investigation.
6. Records may be disclosed to appropriate State boards of accountancy for possible administrative or disciplinary sanctions such as license revocation. These referrals will be made only after the independent auditor has been notified that the OIG is contemplating disclosure of its findings to an appropriate State board of accountancy, and the independent auditor has been provided with an opportunity to respond in writing to the OIG's findings.
7. Records may be disclosed to DOJ for litigation purposes associated with the representation of OIG and/or HUD before the courts.
Records are stored electronically in office automation equipment and manually in file jackets.
Records may be retrieved by computer search of the AutoAudit software, and/or by reference to a particular file number.
Records are maintained in a secure computer network, and in locked file cabinets or in metal file cabinets in rooms with controlled access.
Retention and disposal is in accordance with (1) Records Disposition Schedule 3 (Administrative Records), Item Nos. 79-1 to 86, Appendix 3, HUD Handbook 2225.6 Rev 1; and (2) General Records Schedules, Appendix 22 (Inspector General Records), HUD Handbook 2228.2 Rev. 4.
Assistant Inspector General for Audit, Office of the Inspector General, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410.
The System Manager will accept inquiries from individuals seeking notification of whether the system contains records pertaining to them.
The procedures for requesting access to records appear in 24 CFR parts 16 and 2003.
The procedures for requesting amendment or correction of records appear in 24 CFR part 16.
The OIG collects information from a wide variety of sources, including from HUD, other federal agencies, the General Accounting Office (“GAO”), law enforcement agencies, program participants, subject individuals, complainants, witnesses and other non-governmental sources.
None.
AutoInvestigation of the Office of Inspector General.
Headquarters, District Offices, and Field Offices.
Individuals covered consist of: (1) HUD program participants and HUD employees who are associated with an activity that OIG is investigating or evaluating; (2) requesters of an OIG investigative or other activity; and (3) persons and entities performing some other role of significance to the OIG's efforts, such as relatives or business associates of HUD program participants or employees, potential witnesses, or persons who represent legal entities that are connected to an OIG investigation or other activity. The system also tracks information pertaining to OIG staff handling the investigation or other activity, and may contain contact names for relevant staff in other agencies.
Records consist of investigatory material compiled and/or generated for law enforcement purposes in connection with investigations and other activities performed by OIG staff. These materials include information regarding the planning, conduct and prosecution of investigations of HUD program participants and employees, legal assistance requests, information requests, responses to such requests, reports of investigations, etc.
The Inspector General Act of 1978 authorizes the Inspector General to conduct, supervise and coordinate audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of HUD, to engage in other activities that promote economy and efficiency in the programs and operations of HUD, and to receive and investigate complaints concerning possible violations of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial or specific danger to the public health or safety.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under subsection (b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), records may also be disclosed routinely to other users under the following circumstances:
1. In the event that records indicate a violation or potential violation of law, whether criminal, civil or regulatory in nature, the relevant records may be disclosed to the appropriate federal, State or local agency charged with the responsibility for investigating or prosecuting such violation or enforcing or implementing such statute, rule or regulation.
2. Records may be disclosed to a congressional office in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual who is the subject of the records.
3. Records may be disclosed to HUD contractors, Public Housing Authorities or management agents of HUD-assisted housing projects, in order to assist such entities in taking action to recover money or property, where such recovery serves to promote the integrity of the programs or operations of HUD.
4. Records may be disclosed during the course of an administrative proceeding where HUD is a party to the litigation and the disclosure is relevant and reasonably necessary to adjudicate the matter.
5. Records may be disclosed to any source, either private or governmental, to the extent necessary to elicit information relevant to an OIG investigation.
6. Records may be disclosed to appropriate State boards of accountancy for possible administrative or disciplinary sanctions such as license revocation. These referrals will be made only after the independent auditor has been notified that the OIG is contemplating disclosure of its findings to an appropriate State board of accountancy, and the independent auditor has been provided with an opportunity to respond in writing to the OIG's findings.
7. Records may be disclosed to DOJ for litigation purposes associated with the representation of OIG and/or HUD before the courts.
Records are stored electronically in office automation equipment and manually in file jackets.
Records may be retrieved by computer search of the AutoInvestigation software, and/or by reference to a particular file number.
Records are maintained in a secure computer network, and in locked file cabinets or in metal file cabinets in rooms with controlled access.
Retention and disposal is in accordance with (1) Records Disposition Schedule 3 (Administrative Records), Item Nos. 79-1 to 86, Appendix 3, HUD Handbook 2225.6 Rev 1; and (2) General Records Schedules, Appendix 22 (Inspector General Records), HUD Handbook 2228.2 Rev. 4.
Assistant Inspector General for Investigation, Office of the Inspector General, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410.
Records are generally exempt from Privacy Act access. However, the System Manager will accept and give consideration to a request from an individual for notification of whether the system contains records pertaining to that individual.
Records are generally exempt from Privacy Act access. However, the System Manager will accept and give consideration to a request from an individual for access to records pertaining to that individual that are indexed and retrieved by reference to that individual's name and/or social security number. The procedures for requesting access to records appear in 24 CFR parts 16 and 2003.
Records are generally exempt from Privacy Act amendment or correction. However, the System Manager will accept and give consideration to a request from an individual for amendment or correction of records pertaining to that individual that are indexed and retrieved by reference to that individual's name and/or social
The OIG collects information from a wide variety of sources, including from HUD, other federal agencies, GAO, law enforcement agencies, program participants, subject individuals, complainants, witnesses and other non-governmental sources.
This system of records, to the extent that it consists of information compiled for the purpose of criminal investigations, has been exempted from the requirements of subsections (c)(3), (d)(1), (d)(2), (e)(1), (e)(2) and (e)(3) of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). In addition, this system of records, to the extent that it consists of other investigatory material compiled or generated for law enforcement purposes, has been exempted from the requirements of subsections (c)(3), (d)(1), (d)(2) and (e)(1) of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). Finally, this system of records, to the extent that it consists of investigatory material compiled or generated for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian employment or Federal contracts, the release of which would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the government under an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence, has been exempted from the requirements of subsection (d)(1) of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5). Rules have been promulgated in accordance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c) and (e) and have been published in the