The AMA of 1946 authorizes official inspection, grading and certification, on a user-fee basis, of fresh fruits, vegetables and other products such as raw nuts, Christmas trees and flowers. The AMA of 1946 provides that reasonable fees be collected from the users of the services to cover, as nearly as practicable, the costs of the services rendered. The proposed rule would have amended the schedule for fees and charges for inspection services rendered to the fresh fruit and vegetable industry to reflect the costs necessary to operate the program.

The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) regularly reviews its user-fee programs to determine if the fees are adequate. While the Fresh Products Branch (FPB) of the Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, continues to search for opportunities to reduce its costs, the existing fee schedule would not have generated sufficient revenues to cover program costs while maintaining an adequate reserve balance. Current revenue projections for destination market inspection work during FY 99 are $13.7 million with costs projected at $13.9 million and an end-of-year reserve of $2.2 million. However, FPB's trust fund balance for this program will be approximately $2.4 million under the approximate $4.6 million deemed necessary to provide an adequate reserve balance in light of increasing program costs. Further, FPB's costs of operating the destination market program are expected to increase to approximately $14.5 million during FY 00 and to approximately $15.0 million during FY 01. These cost increases will result from inflationary increases with regard to current FPB operations and services (primarily salaries and benefits), the training and equipment required to promote improved workplace safety, and the acquisition of additional computer and related technology.

Employee salaries and benefits are major program costs that account for approximately 80 percent of FPB's total operating budget. A general and locality salary increase for Federal employees, ranging from 3.54 to 4.02 percent depending on locality, effective January 1999, significantly increased program costs. In addition, inflation also impacts FPB's non-salary costs. These factors have increased FPB's costs of operating this program by approximately $500,000 per year. In addition, a general and locality salary increase of 4.8 percent was effective in January 2000. This salary adjustment will increase FPB's costs by over $600,000 per year.

Additional revenues also were necessary in order for FPB to cover the costs of the additional staff, office space, and equipment needed in two federal market offices that were established during FY 99 ( e.g., Brooklyn, New York, and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma). Additional revenues also were needed to cover the costs of providing safety orientation training to FPB's personnel and purchasing safety shoes for FPB's inspection personnel. Finally, FPB needed additional funds to cover the costs of securing the equipment ( e.g., digital imaging cameras and computers and information systems upgrades) needed to expand FPB's services and to make existing services more efficient in the future.

Congress recently passed and, on June 20, 2000, the President signed legislation (H.R. 2559) (Public Law 106-224), authorizing appropriated funds that will make it possible for FPB to build the Terminal Market Inspection Program's reserve fund by $29 million. Congress and the President also approved an additional $11.55 million in appropriated funds that will make it possible for FPB to implement infrastructure and system improvements. These funds are appropriated for fiscal year 2001. Since Public Law 106-224 addresses the funds needed by AMS, FPB program, it is unnecessary to continue this rulemaking. Therefore, AMS withdraws the proposed rule.

Public comments (submitted to the address above) are requested generally and specifically on the following topics in this proposed rule:

1. Producers of what forms of bioenergy should be eligible for program payments? Ethanol and biodiesel are proposed in this rule.

2. What agricultural commodities used in bioenergy production should be included in the program? This rule proposes potentially making payments on barley, corn, grain sorghum, oats, rice, wheat, soybeans, sunflower seed, canola, crambe, rapeseed, safflower, flaxseed, and mustard seed used in either ethanol or biodiesel production.

3. At what facility capacity should program payment rates change to account for plant efficiency variances by eligible program commodity? This rule proposes making larger payments to plants with under 30 million gallon per year capacity than to plants with 30 million gallon or more capacity.

4. How should payment rates be established, especially for commodities without CCC announced terminal market prices? This rule only proposes making payments to commodities with established CCC announced terminal prices.

5. When payments are limited by the budget, how should payments be distributed?

(a) Capped at a certain dollar amount or percentage of total payments. For example, no more than $X or X percent of total funds available to any one firm;

(b) Prorate payments to eligible producers over the quarter or FY; or

(c) First come, first paid basis.

This proposed rule uses a combination of all of the above by having a sign-up period before the fiscal year begins to determine a payment factor as defined in § 1424.3 and then using the payment factor on a first come, first paid basis. A payment restriction is proposed in § 1424.10.

6. Should the payment factor be capped as proposed in this rule at 100 percent ? And, if so, should the cap be 100 percent?

7. How should increases in bioenergy production be established for the various commodities receiving program payments?

8. What are the expected impacts of this program on agricultural commodity prices, fossil fuel energy prices, farm income, bioenergy production and prices, and international trade in agricultural and energy products?

This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

It has been determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not applicable to this proposed rule because CCC is not required by 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other provision of law to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to the matter of this rule.

This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the notice related to 7 CFR part 3015 subpart V published at 48 FR 29115 (June 24, 1983).

An environmental evaluation for this action will be completed before publication of the final rule.

This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. The provisions of this proposed rule do not preempt State laws, are not retroactive, and do not involve administrative appeals.

It has been determined that this proposed rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The provisions contained in this proposed rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States or their political subdivisions or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA regulations.

To encourage bioenergy producers to expand agricultural markets by promoting increased bioenergy (ethanol and biodiesel) production, CCC, in accordance with Executive Order 13134, and the CCC Charter Act, proposes to make incentive cash payments to bioenergy producers who increase their purchases of agricultural commodities over previous FY purchases and convert that commodity into increased ethanol and biodiesel production over previous FY ethanol and biodiesel production. This rule proposes potentially making payments on barley, corn, grain sorghum, oats, rice, wheat, soybeans, sunflower seed, canola, crambe, rapeseed, safflower, flaxseed, and mustard seed used in either ethanol or biodiesel production.

Eligible bioenergy producers will receive incentive cash payments quarterly, based on the producer's total annual bioenergy production increase for the quarter compared to the same quarter in the previous FY. Quarterly payments will be reconciled with the total increase in production for the FY at the end of the fourth quarter. If, at the end of the fourth quarter, overpayments have been made, the bioenergy producer shall repay the overpayment plus interest from the date of the overpayment through the date of repayment to CCC. Eligible bioenergy producers with less than 30 million gallons annual production capacity will receive a higher payment rate than bioenergy producers with 30 million gallons or more annual production capacity to encourage the number of bioenergy producers, increase the incentive for smaller plants, and promote expansion of bioenergy production. A higher incentive is needed for smaller plants because, compared to larger plants, they tend to produce a more limited product range during refining, are less able to capture economies of scale, and may not have access to attractive risk management strategies.

Except for FY 2000, bioenergy producers will enter into annual agreements with CCC establishing their eligibility to receive program payments before October 1. Once an agreement is entered into, eligible bioenergy producers will submit quarterly applications within 30 calendar days after the end of each quarter requesting payments for the prior quarter. For example, during January 2001, producers may request payments for the period beginning October 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000. CCC would make payments to eligible bioenergy producers within 30 calendar days of receiving a complete eligible application.

It is anticipated that CCC would make available up to $100 million in FY 2000, $150 million in FY 2001, and $150 million in FY 2002. CCC expects payment requests to exceed available program funding. Therefore, producers would be required to complete an agreement during a sign-up period to be announced by CCC for each FY of the program. Eligible agreement holders would be able to submit applications for program payments after each FY quarter. Information gathered from agreement holders would be used to establish a payment factor. The payment factor would be used when funding is less than anticipated payment requests for either or both ethanol and biodiesel production by quarter during the applicable FY to fairly distribute available funding. In contrast, when sign up results in fewer requests than funding permits, a payment factor of 100 percent would be used to allocate the applicable FY's funding. Once the payment factors are established, CCC would issue payments under the program on a first application received first paid basis. For example, if funding is limited to $100 million and $250 million in agreements are approved, 70 percent from ethanol producers and 30 percent from biodiesel producers, an individual ethanol producer with an approved agreement requests a payment of $100,000 would receive $28,000 ($100,000 times 40 percent ($100 million budget divided by $250 million agreement requests) times 70 percent (ethanol factor)). Once the payment factor is established, it would be used for the entire FY. If funds are exhausted, payments would stop. Under no circumstances would previous payments be adjusted except as specified in § 1424.8(b).

As provided for in 31 U.S.C. 3720B the proposed rule provides that persons who are delinquent on other Federal debts will be ineligible for payments under this program. Also, bioenergy producers, to be eligible for this program, may have to meet additional requirements specific to the bioenergy fuel being produced. For example, to receive program payments, ethanol producers must also be licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearm (BATF) for fuel ethanol production.

Title: 7 CFR 1424, Bioenergy Program.

OMB Control Number: 0560-NEW.

Type of Request: Request for approval of a new information collection.

Abstract: USDA will collect information from bioenergy producers that request payments under the Bioenergy Program as the Secretary may require to ensure the benefits are paid only to eligible bioenergy producers for eligible commodities. Bioenergy producers seeking program payments will have to meet minimum requirements by providing information concerning the production of bioenergy. Applicants must certify that they will abide by the Bioenergy Program Agreement's provisions. Burden calculations have been rounded up to nearest quarter hour.

Estimate of Respondent Burden: Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 2 hours per response.

Respondents: U.S. bioenergy producers who use agricultural commodities to make bioenergy are eligible to receive payments.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 50.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 5 responses per year.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours on Respondents: 500 hours.

In addition to commenting on the substance of the regulation, the public is invited to comment on the information collection. Proposed topics include the following: (a) 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; (b) 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; or (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information technology. Comments may be sent to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Washington, DC 20503, and to Alex King, Acting Deputy Administrator, Commodity Operations, FSA, USDA, STOP 0550, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0550.

Copies of the information collection package may be obtained from Alex King, at the address listed above.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commodity Credit Corporation proposes to add 7 CFR Part 1424.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) is charged by Congress with overseeing the business conduct and financial operations of the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation in order to, among other things, ensure that they are adequately capitalized and operating safely. In furtherance of its supervisory responsibilities, the agency is empowered to adopt safety and soundness standards, to conduct examinations monitoring compliance by the enterprises with such standards, and to enforce compliance with the standards it may establish.

OFHEO has since its inception in 1993 operated under a system largely without a full complement of promulgated regulatory standards or procedures. The agency relies primarily upon the strength of its examination staff, examination guidelines and procedures, and unpublished letters. Little public recognition exists of the prudential standards under which the enterprises successfully operate. The project will produce greater transparency of OFHEO's regulatory processes and the safeguards affecting the secondary market entities. The resulting increased public awareness of the supervisory standards applicable to this critical segment of housing finance should promote enhanced market understanding of the relative strengths and viability of the enterprises.

In accordance with OFHEO's supervisory mandate under Pub. L. No. 102-550, the agency is undertaking a regulatory project designed to ensure the adoption and implementation of written policies and procedures for the enterprises that address, among other matters, (1) management responsibilities (addressing board and senior management roles and responsibilities, and minimum internal control standards for monitoring and reporting policies and procedures affecting specified subject areas); (2) risk management (formalizing quantitative and qualitative standards in appropriate areas including asset-related matters, credit risk, interest rate risk, and operational risks); (3) investments (addressing limits on types of investments and setting forth record keeping and disclosure requirements); (4) information systems security and integrity (formalizing standards and safeguards); (5) financial information disclosure (specifying applicable disclosure standards); (6) executive compensation (codifying procedures and standards for agency review of senior executive compensation and termination benefits); and, (7) enforcement policies and procedures (clarifying relevant procedures and formal and informal enforcement sanctions available to the agency).

Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received.

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 proposed 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 proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NM-179-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-179-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.

On July 31, 1998, the FAA issued AD 98-16-24, amendment 39-10701 (63 FR 42220, August 7, 1998), applicable to all British Aerospace Model BAe 146 and certain Model Avro 146-RJ series airplanes, to require a one-time inspection for “drill marks” and corrosion on the underside of the wing top skin, and corrective actions, if necessary. That action was prompted by issuance of mandatory continuing airworthiness information by a foreign civil airworthiness authority. The requirements of that AD are intended to prevent corrosion from developing on the underside of the top skin of the center wing, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

Since the issuance of that AD, British Aerospace has advised that paint debris has been found within the fuel tanks of some airplanes following application of protective treatment coating in accordance with Repair Instruction Leaflet (R.I.L.) HC573H9014. British Aerospace Service Bulletin SB.57-50, Revision 2, dated March 20, 1997 (which is referenced as the appropriate source of service information in AD 98-16-24), references R.I.L. HC573H9014 for application of the protective treatment coating. Additionally, British Aerospace has now introduced a new R.I.L., which provides new and improved procedures for application of the protective treatment coating.

The manufacturer has issued British Aerospace Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-57, dated February 25, 2000. For airplanes that have not been inspected previously in accordance with AD 98-16-24, or for airplanes on which protective coating has not been previously applied in accordance with R.I.L. HC573H9014, the service bulletin describes procedures for repetitive intrascope inspections of the underside of the wing top skin for “drill marks” and corrosion, and corrective actions, if necessary. For airplanes on which protective coating has been previously applied in accordance with R.I.L. HC573H9014, the service bulletin describes procedures for detailed visual and borescope inspections of the fuel tank, pump, and stringers to detect discrepancies; and corrective actions, if necessary. Discrepancies include, among other things, the existence of paint debris in various areas and inadequacy of existing protective treatment coating. Corrective actions include removing paint debris, testing the paint adhesion, and applying protective treatment coating. The service bulletin references R.I.L. HC573H9032 as an additional source of service information for the application of protective treatment coating. For airplanes on which protective treatment coating is applied in accordance with British Aerospace Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-57, or on which the inspection for paint debris and inadequacy of the existing protective treatment coating has detected no discrepancies, the need for repetitive inspections would be eliminated.

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness authority for the United Kingdom, classified British Aerospace Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-57 as mandatory in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the United Kingdom.

These airplane models are manufactured in the United Kingdom 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 CAA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the CAA, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, the proposed AD would supersede AD 98-16-24 to require a one-time inspection to detect “drill marks” and corrosion on the underside of the wing top skin, and corrective actions, if necessary. This action would also require, for certain airplanes, one-time detailed visual and borescope inspections of the fuel tank, pump, and stringers to detect discrepancies (including paint debris and inadequacy of existing protective treatment coating); and corrective actions, if necessary. The actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with British Aerospace Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-57, except as discussed below.

Operators should note that, for airplanes previously inspected in accordance with AD 98-16-24, on which no protective treatment coating has been applied, Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-57 provides for repetitive inspections with optional terminating action (the application of treatment coating). However, for those airplanes, this proposed AD would require corrective actions including the application of protective treatment coating if any discrepancy is detected during the inspection. The FAA has determined that long-term inspections may not be providing the degree of safety assurance necessary for the transport airplane fleet. This, along with the understanding of the human factors associated with numerous continual inspections, has led the FAA to consider placing less emphasis on inspections and more emphasis on the corrective actions. This proposed requirement is in consonance with these conditions.

Additionally, operators should note that, although British Aerospace Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-57 specifies that the manufacturer be contacted for disposition of repair if any corrosion is detected, this proposal would require repair of any corrosion to be accomplished in accordance with a method approved by the FAA or the CAA (or its delegated agent). In light of the type of repair that would be required to address the identified unsafe condition, and in consonance with existing bilateral airworthiness agreements, the FAA has determined that, for this proposed AD, a repair approved by either the FAA or the CAA would be acceptable for compliance with this proposed AD.

While the service bulletin recommends that the inspection be completed by January 31, 2001 (one year after the service bulletin was issued), this AD would require the inspection within 6 months. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this AD, the FAA considered not only the manufacturer's recommendation, but the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, the average utilization of the affected fleet, and the time necessary to perform the inspection. In light of all of these factors, the FAA finds a 6-month compliance time for initiating the proposed actions to be warranted, in that it represents an appropriate interval of time allowable for affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety.

There are approximately 39 airplanes of U.S. registry that would be affected by this proposed AD.

The inspection for “drill marks” and corrosion that is proposed in this AD action would take approximately 10 work hours per airplane (including access and close) to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed inspection on U.S. operators is estimated to be $600 per airplane.

The inspection for paint debris and inadequacy of the existing protective treatment coating that is proposed in this AD action would take approximately 8 work hours per airplane (including access and close) to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed inspection on U.S. operators is estimated to be $480 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.

The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

Commission Rule 4.21(a) requires that CPOs deliver a disclosure document, containing specified information, to prospective participants before soliciting or accepting any funds, securities or other property from such participants.  3 Currently, the rule permits a CPO to provide a more summary disclosure (a “Term Sheet”) prior to the delivery of a disclosure document, in the form of a notice of intended offering and a statement of the terms of such offering. A Term Sheet may only be delivered to “accredited investors,”  4 subject to rules promulgated by a registered futures association pursuant to Section 17(j) of the Act. In 1996, the Commission approved amendments to NFA Compliance Rule 2-13 implementing provisions for the Term Sheet. 5

By letter dated March 7, 2000, 6 NFA submitted to the Commission for its review and approval, pursuant to Section 17(j) of the Act, NFA Compliance Rule 2-35(d) and its Interpretive Notice regarding commodity pool profile documents. The use of profile documents would not be limited to accredited investors. The profile document is based on a rule adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) that permits mutual funds to solicit and accept investments using a shorter “profile” document instead of a prospectus.  7 NFA also submitted a petition for rulemaking to amend Commission Rule 4.21(a) in order to allow a profile document to be delivered, in advance of the pool's disclosure document, to potential participants, whether or not they are accredited investors. CPOs who wish to use a profile document would be required to do so in accordance with the rules of a registered futures association, such as NFA Compliance Rule 2-35(d).

The purpose of the profile document is to provide prospective participants with succinct disclosure of the key aspects of a commodity pool offering in an easily accessible format. A more accessible disclosure format is more likely to be read and therefore more likely to be useful to a person considering a commodity pool investment. The Commission believes that the benefits of a profile document are no less applicable to prospective pool participants who are not accredited investors. Therefore, the Commission is proposing to expand Rule 4.21(a) to allow CPOs to provide all prospective participants with a profile document prior to delivery of a Disclosure Document, subject to compliance with rules promulgated by a registered futures association pursuant to Section 17(j) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”). 8

In September 1998, the Commission approved NFA Compliance Rules 2-35(a)-(c), which require that disclosure documents be presented in a two-part format, and that they be prepared using “plain English” principles. 9 The Commission also adopted corresponding changes to Commission Rules 4.24 and 4.25. These changes are intended to make commodity pool documents more understandable. NFA's Interpretive Notice to the two-part document rule states that “[a] Disclosure Document should provide essential information about the fundamental characteristics of a pool, and it should provide the information in a way that will assist investors in making informed decisions about whether to invest in the pool.”  10

In approving these NFA rules, the Commission noted that “* * * the adoption of a two-part document format and plain English principles will assist investors in making an informed decision prior to investing in a pool by providing clear and concise information about the possible investment.”  11 The Commission believes that the profile document described in NFA Rule 2-35(d) would further enhance the ability of prospective participants to evaluate the key characteristics of commodity pools prior to making investment decisions. Because the profile document must be followed with a complete disclosure document prior to the CPO's acceptance of any funds or property from a prospective pool participant, participants will receive all required disclosure about the offered pool before committing their funds.

Rule 2-35(d) would permit CPOs to deliver a profile document, containing key information about a commodity pool, to a prospective participant prior to delivery of the pool's disclosure document. The profile document must clearly state that an investment in the pool may not be made until after the prospective participant has received the pool's disclosure document. Further, the profile may not be accompanied by any advertising or other promotional material unless also accompanied by the pool's disclosure document.

The profile is required to include key information about the pool, such as: The risks of participating in commodity pools, and any specific risks that are material to the particular pool; a break-even analysis that reflects all fees and expenses of the pool; a discussion of the pool's trading strategy; any conflicts of interest material to the pool; a summary of any material actions against the CPO and its principals within the past five years; a brief description of the pool's redemption policies; and the performance of the offered pool. No information other than that specified in Rule 2-35(d) may be included in the profile. Rule 2-35(d) also specifies that the profile document is subject to the filing requirements of CFTC Rule 4.26 and must be submitted with the pool's disclosure document.

NFA is also proposing to issue a new Interpretive Notice to Rule 2-35(d) regarding CPO profile documents. The Interpretive Notice provides further guidance as to the types of risk factors and conflicts of interest that should be discussed in the profile document.

Pursuant to Rule 4.26, a CPO may use a disclosure document for nine months from its date of first use, must amend the document if it is materially inaccurate or incomplete and distribute the changes to existing and previously solicited prospective participants, and must file the disclosure document and amendments thereto with the Commission. The Commission is proposing to revise Rule 4.26 to establish the same requirements for profile documents. The Commission is also proposing to revise Rule 4.2(a) to permit profile documents to be filed electronically along with the disclosure documents to which they pertain. The proposed changes to Rules 4.2(a) and 4.26(d) would incorporate the requirement in NFA Rule 2-35(d) that the profile document be filed along with the disclosure document.

In order to reduce regulatory burden for CPOs and CTAs, the Commission is proposing to amend Rules 4.26 and 4.36 to reduce the number of copies of the Disclosure Document that must be filed with the Commission by CPOs and CTAs. The proposed changes would require that only one copy of each disclosure document be filed with the Commission, rather than the two copies currently required by these rules. A single copy of the profile document, if one is used, would be required to be filed with the CPO's disclosure document for the applicable pool. The only proposed rule revision that is applicable to CTAs is the proposed reduction in the number of copies of disclosure documents that CTAs must file with the Commission under Rule 4.36(d). 12

Technical changes to Rule 4.2(a) are also proposed to correct the address to which hard copy filings must be sent and to specify the e-mail address for electronic filings.

The amendments to Rules 4.2(a), 4.21(a) and 4.26 that are related to use of a profile document are being proposed to enable the Commission to approve NFA Compliance Rule 2-35(d). Accordingly, the Commission seeks comments both on the proposed amendments to the Commission's rules for the purpose of permitting profile documents for CPOs and clarifying procedures for their use, amendment and filing, as well as comments on the disclosure format established by proposed NFA Compliance Rule 2-35(d). The Commission also seeks comments on the proposed technical amendments to reduce the number of copies of disclosure documents that CPOs and CTAs must file. The text of NFA Compliance Rule 2-35(d) and its Interpretive Notice are attached to this release as Appendix A.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601-611 (1994), requires that agencies, in proposing rules, consider the impact of those rules on small businesses. The Commission has previously established certain definitions of “small entities” to be used by the Commission in evaluating the impact of its rules on such entities in accordance with the RFA. 13 The Commission previously has determined that registered CPOs are not small entities for the purpose of the RFA. 14 With respect to CTAs, the Commission has stated that it would evaluate within the context of a particular rule proposal whether all or some affected CTAs would be considered to be small entities and, if so, the economic impact on them of any rule. 15 The portion of the rule proposal herein that affects CTAs makes no change in existing requirements other than to reduce the number of copies of the disclosure document that CTAs seeking to direct or guide client accounts must file pursuant to Rule 4.31(a). Therefore, the Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, hereby certifies, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the action taken herein will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), 16 which imposes certain requirements on federal agencies (including the Commission) in connection with their conducting or sponsoring any collection of information as defined by the PRA, does not apply to this rule. The Commission believes the proposed rule revisions do not contain information collection requirements which require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget. The purpose of this rule is to permit the use of a summary profile document for commodity pools, and other technical changes related to filing of disclosure documents.

In consideration of the foregoing and pursuant to the authority contained in the Commodity Exchange Act and in particular sections 2(a)(1), 4l, 4m, 4n, 4o, and 8a, 7 U.S.C. 2, 6l, 6m, 6n, 6o, and 12(a), the Commission hereby proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

MMS was asked to extend the deadline for submitting comments on the proposed regulations revising 30 CFR part 250, Subpart D, Oil and Gas Drilling Operations, published on June 21, 2000 (65 FR 38453). The request explains that the proposed rule has a number of important changes that require careful consideration for comprehensive comments. Also, because the proposed rule was rewritten in the “plain language” style and completely restructures and reorders the current regulations in 30 CFR Part 250, subpart D, additional time was requested to sort out the proposed rule for comparison.

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 may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by the law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

We invite you to submit comments regarding these proposed regulations. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the final regulations, we urge you to identify clearly the specific section or sections of the proposed regulations that each of your comments addresses and to arrange your comments in the same order as the proposed regulations.

We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed regulations. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should take to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about these proposed regulations at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, 7th and D Sts. SW., ROB #3, Rm 3045, Washington, DC 20026-3272, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday, of each week except Federal holidays.

On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking docket for these proposed regulations. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, you may call (202) 205-8113 or (202) 260-9895. If you use a TDD, you may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.

Section 492 of the HEA requires that, before publishing any proposed regulations for programs under Title IV of the HEA, the Secretary obtain public involvement in the development of the proposed regulations. After obtaining advice and recommendations, the Secretary must conduct a negotiated rulemaking process to develop the proposed regulations. All published proposed regulations must conform to agreements resulting from the negotiated rulemaking process unless the Secretary reopens the negotiated rulemaking process or provides a written explanation to the participants in that process why the Secretary has decided to depart from the agreements.

To obtain public involvement in the development of the proposed regulations, we held listening sessions in Washington, DC, Atlanta, Chicago, and San Francisco. Four half-day sessions were held on September 13 and 14, 1999, in Washington, DC. In addition, we held three regional sessions in Atlanta on September 17, in Chicago on September 24, and in San Francisco on September 27, 1999. The Office of Student Financial Assistance's Customer Service Task Force also conducted listening sessions to obtain public involvement in the development of our regulations.

We then published a notice in the Federal Register (64 FR 73458, December 30, 1999) to announce our intention to establish two negotiated rulemaking committees to draft proposed regulations affecting Title IV of the HEA. The notice requested nominations for participants from anyone who believed that his or her organization or group should participate in this negotiated rulemaking process. The notice announced that we would select participants for the process from the nominees of those organizations or groups. The notice also announced a tentative list of issues that each committee would negotiate.

Once the two committees were established, they met to develop proposed regulations over the course of several months, beginning in February. The proposed regulations contained in this NPRM reflect the final consensus of Negotiating Committee I (committee), which was made up of the following members:

As stated in the committee protocols, consensus means that there must be no dissent by any member in order for the committee to be considered to have reached agreement. Consensus was reached on all of the proposed regulations in this document.

We discuss substantive issues under the sections of the proposed regulations to which they pertain. Generally, we do not address proposed regulatory provisions that are technical or otherwise minor in effect.

Current regulations: Section 674.13 of the current regulations requires an institution to reimburse its Federal Perkins Loan Fund (Institution's Fund) for the amount of defaulted loans, including administrative cost allowances previously claimed, for which the institution failed to retain required documentation ( e.g. , the promissory note and a record of advances) or failed to undertake due diligence in collections. Section 674.50(c) of the current regulations identifies the documentation required to be submitted by an institution to assign a loan to the Secretary. Our rejection of an assignment submission for incorrect or incomplete documentation or for an evidenced lack of due diligence in collection of the loan may result in a request that the institution reimburse its Institution's Fund.

Proposed regulations: We propose to amend these sections of the regulations to encourage institutions to assign defaulted loans to us by providing the Secretary discretion to accept defaulted loans for assignment even if not all the documentation specified in 674.50(c) is available or reveals imperfect collection. We also propose to provide the Secretary with discretion to determine the circumstances under which we will require reimbursement by the institution to its Institution's Fund.

Reasons: The proposed change to these sections of the current regulations from absolute requirements to Secretarial discretion represents a compromise with the non-federal negotiators regarding assignment of certain defaulted loans by institutions.

Our initial proposal to require loan assignment reflected our concern over the approximately $350 million in defaulted Perkins loans that are held by participating institutions and have been in default for five or more years as reported by schools on their annual Fiscal Operations Report. Our proposal would have required schools whose Perkins Loan portfolio included a significant percentage of loans in default for five or more years to assign to the Secretary those aged loans with no recent payment activity.

We believe that, without additional significant efforts, this national portfolio of aging defaulted loans will continue to grow and may become less collectible over time. Left unaddressed, this situation reduces funds available for future students and may undermine public support for the Federal Perkins Loan Program. Institutions may have exhausted available collection efforts and ceased collection on an unknown number of these accounts. Because we have collection tools, such as administrative wage garnishment, federal offset, and litigation by the Department of Justice in federal court, that are not available to institutions, we want to have these aged accounts assigned to the Secretary for collection.

The non-federal negotiators representing institutions' interests strenuously rejected the contention that all loans in default for five or more years were inactive accounts and that collection efforts were not continuing on those accounts. Although they agreed that we have collection tools that are not available to institutions, they expressed the belief that we should make these tools more accessible by simplifying the existing voluntary assignment process or introducing a referral process into the regulations rather than imposing mandatory assignment. They indicated that the current voluntary assignment process was underused because it was administratively burdensome and put institutions at risk of reimbursing their Institution's Fund for all loans not accepted for assignment. During the negotiations, there was much discussion and review of a proposal submitted by the non-federal negotiators for use of a referral and voluntary assignment process.

After carefully considering the proposal for a voluntary referral process we declined to consider such an approach. Our experience with similar Perkins Loan referral plans in the past convinced us that such plans are administratively unworkable. They are difficult to manage, hard to explain to borrowers, and present fiscal and legal obstacles with regard to the return of payments received to the referring institution.

Instead we proposed changes to the current voluntary assignment regulations that would allow us to have the opportunity to work with interested institutions and organizations to develop a less burdensome and more flexible process before turning to a mandatory assignment approach. Thus, these proposed regulations give the Secretary discretion in the two areas (required reimbursement and documentation requirements) that were problematic to some negotiators.

We intend to develop, with the cooperation of participating Perkins institutions, a simplified voluntary assignment process for aging defaulted accounts. We will also monitor the use of this new process over the reporting cycle following implementation of the regulations. We expect institutions to actively review their portfolios and use the new process to assign aged, nonpaying accounts to us and we anticipate a significant reduction in the number and dollar value of these accounts as a result. Should the streamlined voluntary assignment process prove unsuccessful in reducing the number of these accounts, we will consider alternatives, including reintroducing our original regulatory proposal for mandatory assignment.

Current Regulations: Section 674.39(c) of the current regulations specifies that if collection costs are assessed on a rehabilitated defaulted Perkins loan, those collections costs may not exceed 24 percent of the unpaid principal and accrued interest on the loan as of the date following application of the twelfth payment required to rehabilitate the loan.

Proposed Regulations: We propose to amend this section of the regulations by adding a provision that clarifies that the 24 percent cap on collection costs that may be charged on a rehabilitated loan does not apply if the borrower defaults again on the rehabilitated loan.

Reasons: The cap of 24 percent on collection costs for borrowers who successfully rehabilitate a defaulted Perkins loan is a benefit to those borrowers, who in many cases were subject to a higher percentage of collection costs prior to the rehabilitation. That benefit should no longer apply on the loan, however, should the borrower once again default on its repayment.

Current Regulations: Section 674.49(b) of the regulations currently requires institutions to file a proof of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code unless the borrower has no assets.

Proposed Regulations: We propose to amend this provision of the regulations to allow an institution that is determined to be an agency of a State to invoke in bankruptcy proceedings its right of sovereign immunity under the 11th amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Reasons: We are amending the regulations to codify the recognized right of States and their agents to invoke their rights under the 11th amendment to the Constitution and eliminate any conflict in existing regulations that would suggest that a proof of claim must be filed in all cases where this right might otherwise be invoked.

Under Executive Order 12866, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.

The potential costs associated with the proposed regulations are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and efficiently.

The proposed regulations would expand borrower benefits by fixing collection costs on rehabilitated loans not in default at 24 percent. The proposed regulations provide additional flexibility in the administration of the Perkins Loan Program by relaxing both the documentation requirements for defaulted loans assigned to the Secretary, and provisions regarding the institutional reimbursement to their Fund for the costs of defaulted loans. The proposed regulations also modify current regulations regarding the determination of bankruptcy to make Federal requirements consistent with the States' constitutional rights under the 11th Amendment. In assessing the potential costs and benefits—both quantitative and qualitative—of this regulatory action, we have determined that the benefits would justify the costs.

Executive Order 12866 and the President's Memorandum of June 1, 1998 on “Plain Language in Government Writing” require each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand.

The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:

• Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly stated?

• Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or other wording that interferes with their clarity?

• Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing etc.) aid or reduce their clarity?

• Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if we divided them into more (but shorter) sections? (A “section” is preceded by the symbol “§ ” and a numbered heading; for example, § 674.39 Loan Rehabilitation.)

• Could the description of the proposed regulations in the “Supplementary Information” section of this preamble be more helpful in making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how?

• What else could we do to make the proposed regulations easier to understand?

Send any comments that concern how the Department could make these proposed regulations easier to understand to the person listed in the ADDRESSES section of the preamble.

The Secretary certifies that these proposed regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These proposed regulations would affect institutions of higher education that participate in title IV, HEA programs. The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Size Standards define institutions as “small entities” if they are for-profit or nonprofit institutions with total annual revenue below $5,000,000 or if they are institutions controlled by governmental entities with populations below 50,000.

The parties affected by these proposed regulations are institutions of higher education that participate in the Perkins Loan Program, and individual Perkins Loan borrowers. Perkins Loan borrowers are not considered small entities under the Regulatory and Flexibility Act. A small percentage of the approximately 2,000 institutions participating in the Perkins Loan program would meet the SBA definition of “small entities.”

These proposed regulations would expand borrower benefits and provide additional flexibility in the administration of the Perkins Loan program to both large and small institutions without requiring significant changes to institutional systems or operations. These proposed regulations would not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Sections 674.13, 674.39, 674.49, and 674.50 of these regulations contain information collection requirements. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Department of Education has submitted a copy of these sections to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review.

Section 674.13 Reimbursement to the Fund. The Department currently has these regulations approved under OMB control number 1845-0019. This provision allows institutions more flexibility in what the Department requires when reimbursing their funds for defaulted student loans and does not increase the burden hours for schools.

Section 674.39 Loan Rehabilitation. We are adding a provision to include collection costs that may be charged in excess of 24 percent to a rehabilitated loan in the event the rehabilitated loan defaults. There are no burden hours associated with this proposed regulation.

Section 674.50 Assignment of defaulted loans to the United States. This proposed regulation relaxes some of the documentation requirements for institutions that assign defaulted student loans to the Department of Education for collection. This proposed regulation does not increase the burden hours for schools.

Section 674.49 Bankruptcy of borrower. The Department currently has this section approved under OMB control number 1845-0023. This regulation allows state institutions that participate in the Federal Perkins Loans Program the authority to invoke sovereign immunity in Bankruptcy proceedings under Chapter 7 or 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. This proposed regulation resolves any ambiguity surrounding an institution's authority to invoke its rights under the 11th Amendment. This proposed regulation does not change information collection contained in this section.

If you want to comment on the information collection requirements, please send your comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. Department of Education. You may also send a copy of these comments to the Department representative named in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

We consider your comments on these proposed collections of information in—

• Deciding whether the proposed collections are necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the information will have practical use;

• Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collections, including the validity of our methodology and assumptions;

• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information we collect; and

• Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses.

OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections of information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register . Therefore, to ensure that OMB gives your comments full consideration, it is important that OMB receives the comments within 30 days of publication. This does not affect the deadline for your comments to us on the proposed regulations.

This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.

The Secretary particularly requests comments on whether these proposed regulations would require transmission of information that any other agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available.

Executive Order 13132 requires us to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local elected officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. “Federalism implications” means 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 various levels of government. The proposed regulations in Section 674.49 may have federalism implications, as defined in Executive Order 13132. We encourage State and local elected officials to review and provide comments on these proposed regulations.

You may view this document in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following sites:

To use the PDF you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with Search, which is available free at 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, D.C., area at (202) 512-1530.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary proposes to amend part 674 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

On June 19, 2000, we proposed that the San Joaquin Valley serious ozone nonattainment area did not attain the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard and that the approved serious area ozone State Implementation Plan for the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area has not been fully implemented.

The proposal provided a 30 day public comment period that ended on July 19, 2000. In response to a request from the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District and the Kern County Air Pollution Control District, we are extending the comment period for an additional 30 days.

In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (“CERCLA” or “the Act”), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (“SARA”), Pub. L. 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.

To implement CERCLA, EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”), 40 CFR part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP sets guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants under CERCLA. EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).

As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also includes “criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, taking into account the potential urgency of such action for the purpose of taking removal action.” “Removal” actions are defined broadly and include a wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise address releases and threatened releases (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).

The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of “releases” and the highest priority “facilities” and requires that the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances. The NPL is only of limited significance, however, as it does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Neither does placing a site on the NPL mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken. See Report of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senate Rep. No. 96-848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 (1980), 48 FR 40659 (September 8, 1983).

For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by EPA (the “General Superfund Section”), and one of sites that are owned or operated by other Federal agencies (the “Federal Facilities Section”). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities section, these sites are generally being addressed by other Federal agencies. Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each Federal agency is responsible for carrying out most response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody, or control, although EPA is responsible for preparing an HRS score and determining whether the facility is placed on the NPL. EPA generally is not the lead agency at Federal Facilities Section sites, and its role at such sites is accordingly less extensive than at other sites.

There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): (1) A site may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the Hazard Ranking System (“HRS”), which EPA promulgated as an appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a screening device to evaluate the relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil exposure, and air. As a matter of Agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL; (2) Each State may designate a single site as its top priority to be listed on the NPL, regardless of the HRS score. This mechanism, provided by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2) requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include within the 100 highest priorities, one facility designated by each State representing the greatest danger to public health, welfare, or the environment among known facilities in the State (see 42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B)); (3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed regardless of their HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:

A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the “Superfund”) only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1). (“Remedial actions” are those “consistent with permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. * * *” 42 U.S.C. 9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2) placing a site on the NPL “does not imply that monies will be expended.” EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to remedy the releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.

The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms; it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further evaluation), for it to do so.

Although a CERCLA “facility” is broadly defined to include any area where a hazardous substance release has “come to be located” (CERCLA section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course, HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as part of that HRS analysis.

When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site by reference to that area. As a legal matter, the site is not coextensive with that area, and the boundaries of the installation or plant are not the “boundaries” of the site. Rather, the site consists of all contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well as any other location to which contamination from that area has come to be located, or from which that contamination came.

In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate the site (e.g., the “Jones Co. plant site”) in terms of the property owned by a particular party, the site properly understood is not limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of the “site”). The “site” is thus neither equal to nor confined by the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the installation or plant. The precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at the time of listing. Also, the site name is merely used to help identify the geographic location of the contamination. For example, the “Jones Co. plant site,” does not imply that the Jones company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant site.

EPA regulations provide that the “nature and extent of the problem presented by the release” will be determined by a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) as more information is developed on site contamination (40 CFR 300.5). During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, this inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed; the boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the contamination “has come to be located” before all necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the boundaries of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release with absolute certainty.

Further, as noted above, NPL listing does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of property, supporting information can be submitted to the Agency at any time after a party receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.

For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research reveals more information about the location of the contamination or release.

EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(e). This section also provides that EPA shall consult with states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the following criteria have been met: (i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required; (ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been implemented and no further response action is required; or (iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of remedial measures is not appropriate. As of July 10, 2000, the Agency has deleted 213 sites from the NPL.

In November 1995, EPA initiated a new policy to delete portions of NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995). Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may have been cleaned up and available for productive use. As of July 10, 2000, EPA has deleted portions of 19 sites.

EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list (“CCL”) to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR 12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal significance.

Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved; (2) EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to measures that do not involve construction (e.g., institutional controls); or (3) The site qualifies for deletion from the NPL.

Of the 213 sites that have been deleted from the NPL, 203 sites were deleted because they have been cleaned up (the other 10 sites were deleted based on deferral to other authorities and are not considered cleaned up). As of July 10, 2000, there are a total of 689 sites on the CCL. This total includes the 213 deleted sites. For the most up-to-date information on the CCL, see EPA's Internet site at http://www.epa.gov/superfund.

Yes, documents that form the basis for EPA's evaluation and scoring of the sites in this rule are contained in dockets located both at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC and in the Regional offices.

You may view the documents, by appointment only, in the Headquarters or the Regional dockets after the appearance of this proposed rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters docket are from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding Federal holidays. Please contact the Regional dockets for hours.

Following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters docket: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. EPA CERCLA Docket Office, Crystal Gateway #1, 1st Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, 703/603-9232. (Please note this is a visiting address only. Mail comments to EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble.)

The contact information for the Regional dockets is as follows:

You may also request copies from EPA Headquarters or the Regional dockets. An informal request, rather than a formal written request under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary procedure for obtaining copies of any of these documents.

The Headquarters docket for this rule contains: HRS score sheets for the proposed site; a Documentation Record for the site describing the information used to compute the score; information for any site affected by particular statutory requirements or EPA listing policies; and a list of documents referenced in the Documentation Record.

The Regional dockets for this rule contain all of the information in the Headquarters docket, plus, the actual reference documents containing the data principally relied upon and cited by EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the sites. These reference documents are available only in the Regional dockets.

Comments must be submitted to EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble in the Addresses section. Please note that the addresses differ according to method of delivery. There are two different addresses that depend on whether comments are sent by express mail or by postal mail.

EPA considers all comments received during the comment period. Significant comments will be addressed in a support document that EPA will publish concurrently with the Federal Register document if, and when, the site is listed on the NPL.

Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, or materials prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point out the specific information that EPA should consider and how it affects individual HRS factor values or other listing criteria ( Northside Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). EPA will not address voluminous comments that are not specifically cited by page number and referenced to the HRS or other listing criteria. EPA will not address comments unless they indicate which component of the HRS documentation record or what particular point in EPA's stated eligibility criteria is at issue.

Generally, EPA will not respond to late comments. EPA can only guarantee that it will consider those comments postmarked by the close of the formal comment period. EPA has a policy of not delaying a final listing decision solely to accommodate consideration of late comments.

During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters docket and are available to the public on an “as received” basis. A complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the Regional docket approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.

In certain instances, interested parties have written to EPA concerning sites which were not at that time proposed to the NPL. If those sites are later proposed to the NPL, parties should review their earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, resubmit those concerns for consideration during the formal comment period. Site-specific correspondence received prior to the period of formal proposal and comment will not generally be included in the docket.

With today's proposed rule, EPA is proposing to add 7 new sites to the NPL; all to the General Superfund Section of the NPL. The sites in this proposed rulemaking are being proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above. The sites are presented in Table 1 which follows this preamble.

A final rule published elsewhere in today's Federal Register finalizes 12 sites to the NPL; resulting in an NPL of 1,238 final sites; 1,078 in the General Superfund Section and 160 in the Federal Facilities Section. With this proposal of 7 new sites, there are now 57 sites proposed and awaiting final agency action, 51 in the General Superfund Section and 6 in the Federal Facilities Section. Final and proposed sites now total 1,295. (These numbers reflect the status of sites as of July 10, 2000. Site deletions occurring after this date may affect these numbers at time of publication in the Federal Register .)

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to OMB review 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: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

No, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.

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 by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before EPA promulgates a rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

No, EPA has determined that this rule 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 by the private sector in any one year. This rule will not impose any federal intergovernmental mandate because it imposes no enforceable duty upon State, tribal or local governments. Listing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does listing require any action by a private party or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from site-specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of listing a site on the NPL.

For the same reasons, EPA also has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. In addition, as discussed above, the private sector is not expected to incur costs exceeding $100 million. EPA has fulfilled the requirement for analysis under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. , as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( i.e. , small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

No. While this rule proposes to revise the NPL, an NPL revision is not a typical regulatory change since it does not automatically impose costs. As stated above, adding sites to the NPL does not in itself require any action by any party, nor does it determine the liability of any party for the cost of cleanup at the site. Further, no identifiable groups are affected as a whole. As a consequence, impacts on any group are hard to predict. A site's inclusion on the NPL could increase the likelihood of adverse impacts on responsible parties (in the form of cleanup costs), but at this time EPA cannot identify the potentially affected businesses or estimate the number of small businesses that might also be affected.

The Agency does expect that placing the sites in this proposed rule on the NPL could significantly affect certain industries, or firms within industries, that have caused a proportionately high percentage of waste site problems. However, EPA does not expect the listing of these sites to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.

In any case, economic impacts would occur only through enforcement and cost-recovery actions, which EPA takes at its discretion on a site-by-site basis. EPA considers many factors when determining enforcement actions, including not only a firm's contribution to the problem, but also its ability to pay. The impacts (from cost recovery) on small governments and nonprofit organizations would be determined on a similar case-by-case basis.

For the foregoing reasons, I hereby certify that this proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, this proposed regulation does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (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 ( e.g. , materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

No. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

Under Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” as well as through EPA's April 1995, “Environmental Justice Strategy, OSWER Environmental Justice Task Force Action Agenda Report,” and National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, EPA has undertaken to incorporate environmental justice into its policies and programs. EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns, and is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental quality for all residents of 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 and environmental effects as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities, and all people live in clean and sustainable communities.

No. While this rule proposes to revise the NPL, no action will result from this proposal that will have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on any segment of the population.

Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this proposed rule present a disproportionate risk to children.

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. , an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the final rules, are listed in 40 CFR part 9. The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB control number 2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574).

No. EPA has determined that the PRA does not apply because this rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require approval of the OMB.

Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. 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 proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. 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 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.”

This proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments because it does not significantly or uniquely affect their communities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this proposed rule.

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-1999-6713), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material by mail, hand delivery, fax, or electronic means to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES ; but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register .

The Americanization of the U.S. fishing industry began in 1976 with the passage of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act which established a 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around the United States coastlines and prioritized access to fishery resources within the EEZ to American citizens. It was an important step in securing American control of the vast fishery resources off our coastlines.

Eleven years later another step was taken to further Americanize U.S. fisheries. The Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Anti-Reflagging Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-239) required U.S. citizens to own and control more than 50 percent of any U.S.-flag fishing vessel. As the last of the foreign-flag fishing vessels in U.S. fisheries were being replaced by U.S.-flag vessels in 1986, federal law did not require U.S. fishing vessels to carry U.S. crew members. Federal law also allowed U.S. fishing vessels essentially to be built in foreign shipyards under an existing regulatory definition of “rebuild.”

The goals of the 1987 Anti-Reflagging Act were to (1) require U.S. control of fishing vessels that fly the U.S. flag; (2) stop the foreign rebuilding of U.S.-flag vessels under the “rebuild” loophole; and (3) require U.S.-flag fishing vessels to carry U.S. crews. Of these three goals, only the U.S. crew requirement was fully achieved. The Anti-Reflagging Act did not completely stop foreign interest from owning and controlling U.S.-flag fishing vessels because it included grandfather provisions that exempted any existing U.S.-flag fishing vessel from the new ownership standard. The Act also allowed vessels, under contract during specified time frames, to be rebuilt into fishing vessels in foreign shipyards while retaining their U.S. fishing privileges indefinitely. The two grandfather provisions allowed more foreign owned and controlled fishing vessels to remain in U.S. fisheries than had been intended.

The American Fisheries Act (AFA), along with the repeal of the “grandfather” provisions of the Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Anti-Reflagging Act of 1987, finally resolves this issue. The AFA requires a real, effective, and enforceable U.S. ownership threshold for U.S.-flag fishing vessels. Under this Act, U.S. citizens must own and control at least 75 percent of the ownership interest in any U.S.-flag fishing vessel. The Act is intended to ensure that vessels with a fishery endorsement are truly controlled by citizens of the U.S. The Act also increases the penalties for fishery endorsement violations and is intended to discourage willful noncompliance with the new requirements.

As mandated by the 105th U.S. Congress, we propose revising the regulations outlining fishery endorsement eligibilty requirements for fishing vessels less than 100 feet in length. These revisions would remove “grandfather” provisions of the Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Anti-reflagging Act of 1987. The rule would increase the percent of interest in a fishing vessel that must be owned and controlled by U.S. citizens in a corporation from more than 50 percent to at least 75 percent. It would also add provisions making a fishery endorsement invalid for a documented fishing vessel charted or leased to a person who is not a citizen or to an entity which is ineligible to own a documented fishing vessel. It would restrict fishery endorsements for fishing vessels mortgaged through a foreign lender or trustee and establish application procedures and requirements for fishery endorsement exemptions. It would revise the term “control” as it relates to citizenship requirements for stock or equity interest in fishing vessels. This rule would add penalties for falsifying fishery endorsement application materials. Finally this rule would establish petition procedures for an exemption from the citizenship requirements of this rule if you have a foreign vessel less than 75 percent U.S. citizen controlled fishing with a fishery endorsement before October 1, 2001.

The American Fisheries Act (AFA) ensures U.S. control of fishery resources within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and closes the loophole for foreign rebuilding of U.S.-flag fishing vessels created under the Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Anti-Reflagging Act of 1987. Under the AFA, U.S. citizens must own and control at least 75 percent of the ownership interest in any U.S.-flag fishing vessel. The Act is intended to ensure that vessels with a fishery endorsement, and thus fishing within our EEZ, are truly controlled by citizens of the U.S. The Act also increases the penalties for fishery endorsement violations and is intended to discourage willful noncompliance with new requirements. To achieve the intent of the Act the following changes to 46 CFR part 67 are proposed:

(a) Removing “grandfather” provisions of the Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Anti-reflagging Act of 1987. The incorporation of the Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Anti-Reflagging Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-239) was repealed from the AFA, therefore the rulemaking would remove Section 67.45 Citizenship savings provision for fishing vessels.

(b) Increasing the percent of interest in a fishing vessel required to be owned and controlled by U.S. citizens in corporations, partnerships, associations, and joint ventures. The eligibility requirements for fishery endorsements of vessels that are less than 100 feet would be revised. 46 CFR 67.35, 67.36, 67.37, 67.39 would be revised to reflect an increase in the percentage of the vessel that must be owned and controlled by a U.S. citizen from more than 50 percent to at least 75 percent. A vessel owned and controlled by a corporation, partnership (including limited liability), association, trust, joint venture, or any other entity, is not eligible for a fishery endorsement under section 12108 of 46 U.S.C. unless at least 75 percent of the vessel's interest is controlled and owned by citizens of the United States. This proposed requirement would apply to each tier of a vessel's ownership and to the vessel ownership in its aggregate.

(c) Restricting fishing vessel charters and leases. The proposed rule would add an eligibility restriction for non-citizen controlled fishing vessel charters and leases to § 67.21. Section 67.11 would be amended by removing paragraphs (b)(1) and (3), leaving recreational vessels as the only exemption from restrictions on charters and leases to non-U.S. citizens. These changes will prevent a vessel chartered or leased to an individual who is not a citizen of the United States, or any entity not eligible to own a vessel with a fishery endorsement, from obtaining a fishery endorsement. These revisions would also immediately invalidate fishery endorsements for vessels that do not meet the new 75 percent ownership threshold.

(d) Restricting fishery endorsement of foreign controlled mortgages of a fishing vessel. The proposed rule would add section 67.21(e) reflecting that an individual or entity that is otherwise eligible to own a vessel with a fishery endorsement will become ineligible when a mortgage of the vessel to a trustee eligible to own a fishing vessel with a fishery endorsement is issued, assigned, transferred, or held in trust for a person not eligible to own a vessel with a fishery endorsement.

In order for an owner of a vessel of less than 100 feet to be eligible to obtain a fishery endorsement to the vessel's documentation, it must demonstrate that: (1) At least 75 percent of the interest in the entity that owns the vessel is owned by United States citizens; and (2) at least 75 percent of the control of the entity that owns the vessel is owned by and vested in United States citizens. Evidence of United States citizen ownership of a vessel owning entity is demonstrated through the filing of an affidavit of United States citizenship as provided for in § 356.5. The affidavit of U.S. citizenship requires the owner to provide relevant information to demonstrate that it qualifies as a citizen of the United States within the meaning of 46 App. U.S.C. 12102(c), section 2(c) of the 1916 Act, 46 App. U.S.C. 802(c), and 46 CFR 356.3. The form of this affidavit is substantially the same as the one set forth at 46 CFR part 355.

(e) Redefining “control” as it relates to citizenship requirements for stock or equity interest in fishing vessels. The term “control” under § 67.31(b) would be redefined to include having the right to direct the business of the entity that owns the vessel. It would include having the right to limit the actions of or replace the chief executive officer, the majority of the board of directors, any general partner, or any person serving in a management capacity of the entity that owns the vessel. It also would include having the right to direct the transfer, the operation, or the manning of a vessel with a fishery endorsement.

(f) Adding penalties for falsifying fishery endorsement application materials. We propose adding § 67.142 establishing penalties for knowingly or unknowingly submitting fishery endorsement application materials with false information. If the vessel owner or an agent of the owner knowingly conceals a material fact or falsely represents the vessel's eligibility for endorsement when initially applying for or renewing a fishery endorsement, the proposed penalties would make the owner of the vessel liable (under 46 U.S.C. 12122(a) through (c)) to the United States Government for a civil penalty of up to $100,000 for each day in which the vessel has illegally engaged in fishing within the EEZ of the United States. If the vessel owner or an agent of the owner unknowingly commits the same offense the owner of the vessel is liable to the U.S. Government for a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each day in which the vessel has illegally engaged in fishing within the EEZ of the United States.

(g) Providing fishery endorsement application procedures for fishing vessels 100 feet and greater in length. We propose to add a paragraph to § 67.141 which will direct fishing vessels 100 feet and greater in length to meet MARADs requirements, found in 46 CFR 356, and to submit materials required by § 67.141(a) to NVDC.

(h) Establishing application procedures and requirements for fishery endorsement exemptions. We propose adding subpart V entitled “Exemption from Fishery Endorsement Requirements Due to Conflict with International Agreements.” Establishing this proposed subpart will allow owners or mortgagees of fishing vessels, which believe that an international agreement or treaty to which the United States is a party conflicts with the regulations set out in 46 CFR part 67, to submit the proper materials as a petition for an exemption from specific or all requirements of this part to the National Vessel Documentation Center (NVDC). If you are an owner or mortgagee of a fishing vessel less than 100 feet in length and believe that there is a conflict between 46 CFR part 67 and any international treaty or agreement to which the United States is a party, you may petition the National Vessel Documentation Center (NVDC) for a ruling that all or sections of part 67 do not apply to you. You may file your petition with the NVDC before October 1, 2001, with respect to international treaties or agreements in effect at the time of your petition which are not scheduled to expire before October 1, 2001. If you are filing a petition for exemption with the NVDC for reasons stated in this paragraph your petition must include:

(1) Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard, form CG-1258 entitled “Application for Initial Issue, Exchange, or Replacement of Certificate of Documentation; Redocumentation” as evidence of the ownership structure of the vessel. This form should provide any subsequent changes to the ownership structure of the vessel since its initial certification,

(2) A copy of the provisions of the international agreement or treaty and a written description of how you believe those provisions conflict with the requirements of this rule,

(3) For all petitions filed after October 1, 2001, a certification that no ownership interest was transferred to a non-U.S. citizen after September 30, 2001.

(4) You must file a separate petition for each vessel requiring an exemption unless the NVDC authorizes consolidated filing. Petitions should include two copies of all required materials and should be sent to the following address: National Vessel Documentation Center, 792 T.J. Jackson Drive, Falling Water, West Virginia, 25419.

Upon receipt of a complete petition, the NVDC will review the petition to determine whether the effective international treaty or agreement and the requirements of this part are in conflict. If the NVDC determines that this part conflicts with the effective international treaty or agreement, then the NVDC will inform you of the guidelines and requirements you must meet and maintain to qualify for a fisheries endorsement.

This proposed 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 proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. However, we have included a summary of the analysis documentation.

The Marine Safety Management System (MSMS) shows that about 36,000 vessels have fishery endorsements. The proposed regulation would impact documented vessels with fishery endorsements that are less than 100 feet. About 35,500 vessels with fishery endorsements are less than 100 feet. Of these, we researched a random sample of 1,010 vessels in order to achieve a 95 percent confidence level. We found that the proposed change to minimum U.S. ownership requirements from “more than 50 percent” to “at least 75 percent” would affect one of the vessels in the random sample. This means that 0.099 percent of the random sample do not meet the proposed requirement. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.04 percent. Applying this percentage to the population, we expect that the owner of 35 vessels would not meet the proposed change in owner citizenship requirement if current ownership levels in each company remain the same (0.099 percent of 35,500 vessels).

In the random sample, there are 843 vessels (83 percent of the affected population) that are owned by individual persons and 167 vessels (17 percent of the affected population) that are owned by corporations or companies. All individual owners are already required to be U.S. citizens in order to document a vessel. Therefore these vessels and individuals are considered to meet the citizenship requirement, and have 100 percent U.S. ownership. Corporations, partnerships or limited liability companies are required to attest to the level of ownership by U.S. citizens by checking a box in the application for documentation. The “Application for Initial Issue, Exchange, or Replacement of Certificate of Documentation; Redocumentation” (CG-1258 (REV.9-97)) has four choices for reporting the level of ownership by U.S. citizens in a corporation. The choices are: Less than 50 percent, at least 50 percent, more than 50 percent but less than 75 percent, and 75 percent or more. One hundred sixty six (166) corporations certified that the ownership level by U.S. citizens is 75 percent or more. One certified that its corporation's percentage of stock owned by U.S. citizens whom are eligible to document vessels was more than 50 percent but less than 75 percent.

Costs: For further analysis, we assume that the 35 adversely affected vessel owners have more than 50 but less than 75 percent of stock owned by U.S. citizens. We further assume that each vessel owner prefers to continue fishing in the Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States. Therefore, we expect each vessel owning company would make changes to its U.S. ownership level. The change of U.S. ownership level could entail the following: Adding an additional investor, selling stock to U.S. citizens, adding a partner, or removing a partner.

Once each vessel owning company has met the proposed ownership criteria, the vessel's fishery endorsement would be renewed as it would have been in any other year. Thus, the cost of this proposed rulemaking would be directly associated with the change of U.S. ownership level made by each of the 35 vessel owning companies. We assume that each company would hire a law firm to complete the articles of incorporation or any other documents needed to reflect the changes to the ownership levels, and that the law firm would charge about $600 for its services. The one time cost of changing the ownership structure for the 35 companies would be $21,000.

We do not expect the proposed restriction to leases and charters by non-U.S. citizens to impact any vessel owners. Similarly, we do not expect the restriction on foreign controlled mortgages to impact any vessels. Therefore, these proposed regulations would cause no additional cost to vessel owners, operators, or managers.

Benefits: The changes in the law necessitate this proposed rulemaking. The proposed regulation would give U.S. citizens a higher level of ownership in the vessels that harvest fish in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. Consequently more of the profits from the fishery industry will accrue to U.S. citizens.

Under the regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant 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 proposed rule would impact the owners of about 35,500 vessels that are documented with fishery endorsements. These vessels are less than 100 feet in length, and we considered each one to be owned by a small entity. As shown by the sample statistics, we expect 35 entities to be adversely affected by the proposed rulemaking. We do not consider the number of adversely affected entities to be a substantial number for they represent 0.099 percent of all entities that would have to comply with the proposed requirements.

The Small Business Administration has determined that the size standard for small businesses involved in the fishing industry is $3 million in annual revenues (Standard Industry Codes 0912, 0913, 0919, and 0921). The imposed burden of $600 would represent 0.02 percent for entities with $3 million in annual revenues. For entities with $60,000 and $30,000 in annual revenues, the burden would represent 1 percent and 2 percent of annual revenues, respectively. We do not consider this cost to create a significant economic impact on the affected entities.

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES . In your comment, explain why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of 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).

The proposed rule would call for a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), “collection of information” comprises reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other similar actions. The title and description of the information collections, a description of those who must collect the information, and an estimate of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of data, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection.

The information collection requirements of the rule are addressed in the previously approved OMB collection titled “Vessel Documentation” (OMB 2115-0110).

Title: Vessel Documentation.

Summary of the Collection of Information: The proposed rulemaking would add a new collection of information burden to companies that would no longer meet the proposed threshold of at least 75 percent ownership by U.S. citizens. The proposed regulation would allow these companies to apply for an exemption from the proposed U.S. ownership level. The proposed application and related submissions would comprise a new collection of information burden.

Need for Information: The proposed subpart V (§§ 67.350 and 67.352) would specify the application procedure for an exemption from the proposed U.S. ownership level to vessel owners that would no longer meet this threshold. The information is needed to document the international treaties on which the claim for exemption is based, and to attest that vessel owners would not change their ownership structure.

Proposed Use of Information: The information requested would be used by the Coast Guard's National Vessel Documentation Center to determine the validity of the claim for exemption.

Description of Respondents: This collection of information would affect vessel owners who would no longer meet the proposed U.S. ownership level, and wish to apply for exemption.

Number of Respondents: We estimate that none of the 35 adversely affected vessel owners would apply for exemption.

Frequency of Response: The endorsements on each vessel's certificate of documentation are renewed every year. Vessel owners would have to apply for exemption every time an application for renewal of a fishery endorsement is sent into the National Vessel Documentation Center.

Burden of Response: We do not expect the proposed requirement to create any additional burden. Therefore, the additional burden of response attributed to the collection (OMB 2115-0110)) would be 0 hours. In the case that a vessel owner applies for exemption, we assume that information gathering and response burden would be two (2) hours per response.

Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The additional annual burden attributed to the collection (OMB 2115-0110) would be $0 because we do not expect any vessel owners to apply for exemption.

Public Comments on the Collection of Information: As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we have submitted a copy of this rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review of the collection of information.

We ask for public comment on the proposed collection of information to help us determine how useful the information is; whether it can help us perform our functions better; whether it is readily available elsewhere; how accurate our estimate of the burden of collection is; how valid our methods for determining burden are; how we can improve the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information; and how we can minimize the burden of collection.

If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit them both to OMB and to the Docket Management Facility where indicated under ADDRESSES , by the date under DATES .

You need not respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the requirements for this collection of information become effective, we will publish notice in the Federal Register of OMB's decision to approve, modify, or disapprove the collection.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13132 and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism under that Order.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions not specifically required by law. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule and concluded that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary. An Environmental Assessment and a draft Finding of No Significant Impact are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 46 CFR part 67 as follows:

The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on Marine Shipboard Electrical Cable Standards, published on February 8, 2000 (65 FR 6111), encouraged interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments by May 8, 2000. On June 5, 2000, we published a notice of public meeting and reopened the comment period until July 7, 2000 (65 FR 35600). The public meeting was held on June 28, 2000. We are again reopening the comment period until September 11, 2000.

Persons submitting comments should include their names and addresses, identify this docket (USCG-1999-6096) and the specific section of the NPRM to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit one copy of each comment and attachment in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing, to the DOT Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. If you want acknowledgment of receipt of your comment, enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.

The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the comment period. It may change this NPRM in view of them.