Joint Board for Enrollment of Actuaries
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Science and Technology Policy Office
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Food and Drug Administration
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
Coast Guard
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Research and Special Programs Administration
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Surface Transportation Board
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
Office of Personnel Management.
Final rule.
The Office of Personnel Management is issuing final regulations covering competitive service positions that are restricted to preference eligibles. These regulations update the responsibilities of both individual agencies and OPM to provide career transition assistance to preference eligibles who are separated by reduction in force because their positions are contracted out to the private sector under authority of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76.
These final regulations are effective September 29, 2000.
Thomas A. Glennon or Jacqueline R. Yeatman, 202-606-0960, FAX 202-606-2329.
On July 27, 1999, OPM published interim regulations at 64 FR 40505 covering special career transition assistance benefits that are available to preference eligibles in restricted positions whose work is contracted out to the private sector under authority of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76.
The interim regulations were effective upon publication in the
For reference, section 5 U.S.C. 3310 limits entrance examinations for the positions of custodian, elevator operator, guard, and messenger only to preference eligibles, provided that preference eligibles are available for these positions. OPM implements this statutory requirement through regulations published in 5 CFR part 330, subpart D.
Beginning with final regulations OPM published on September 30, 1985, at 50 FR 39876, OPM has provided special career transition benefits for preference eligible employees who hold restricted positions, and who are separated by reduction in force because their positions were contracted out to the private sector under authority of OMB Circular A-76. OPM later revised the 5 CFR part 330, subpart D regulations on June 27, 1994, at 59 FR 32873, to include changes in OPM's programs for displaced employees.
OPM is now again revising this subpart to reflect subsequent changes in available placement programs, including the Career Transition Assistance Plan authorized by 5 CFR 330, subpart F, and the Interagency Career Transition Assistance Plan authorized by 5 CFR 330, subpart G.
OPM received one comment, from a Federal agency, on the interim regulations. The agency concurred with the regulations as written.
The interim regulations published at 64 FR 40505 are published as final regulations without further revision to 5 CFR 330, subpart D. A cross-reference is added to these regulations concerning eligibility for the Interagency Career Transition Assistance Plan is added to 5 CFR 330, subpart G.
Final 5 CFR 330.404 affirms that both individual agencies and OPM have additional responsibilities when the agency, under authority of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76, contracts out the work of a preference eligible who holds a restricted position.
Final 5 CFR 330.405 affirms that, if a preference eligible is separated from a restricted position by reduction in force because the agency contracts out the veteran's work under OMB Circular A-76, the agency must provide the employee with transition services and selection priority authorized under the Career Transition Assistance Plan and the Interagency Career Transition Assistance Plan. The agency is also responsible for applying OMB's policy directives on the preference eligible's right of first refusal for positions that are contracted out to the private sector. Finally, the agency is required to cooperate with State dislocated worker units in retraining the displaced preference eligible for other continuing positions.
Final 5 CFR 330.406 updates OPM's responsibilities under 5 CFR 330, subpart D. OPM's responsibilities for preference eligibles displaced from restricted positions as the result of contracting out include requiring agencies to provide the veterans with both internal selection priority (
Final 5 CFR 330.407 provides that preference eligibles who are separated from restricted positions by reduction in force because their work is contracted out have interagency selection priority under the Interagency Career Transition Assistance Plan for 2 years following separation by reduction in force. Other Federal employees have this interagency selection priority for 1 year following reduction in force separation. A cross reference to this provision is added to the final regulations in a new § 330.704(c)(7).
I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects only certain Federal employees.
This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866.
Armed Forces reserves, Government employees.
5 U.S.C. 1302, 3301, 3302; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR 1954-58 Comp., p. 218; § 330.102 also issued under 5 U.S.C 3327; subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3315 and 8151; § 330.401 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3310, subpart I also issued under sec. 4432 of Pub. L. 102-484, 106 Stat. 2315; subpart K also issued under sec. 11203 of Pub. L. 105-33, 111 Stat. 738; subpart L also issued under sec. 1232 of Pub. L. 96-70, 93 Stat. 452.
In each entrance examination for the positions of custodian, elevator operator, guard, and messenger (referred to in this subpart as
In direct recruitment by an agency under delegated authority, the agency shall fill each restricted position by the appointment of a preference eligible as long as preference eligibles are available.
An agency may fill a restricted position by the appointment by noncompetitive action of a nonpreference eligible only when authorized by OPM.
An individual agency and OPM both have additional responsibilities when the agency decides, in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76, to contract out the work of a preference eligible who holds a restricted position. These additional responsibilities are applicable if a preference eligible holds a competitive service position that is:
(a) A restricted position as designated in 5 U.S.C. 3310 and § 330.401; and
(b) In retention tenure group tenure I or II, as defined in § 351.501(b) (1) and (2) of this chapter.
An agency that separates a preference eligible from a restricted position by reduction in force under part 351 of this chapter because of a contracting out situation covered in § 330.404 must, consistent with § 330.602, advise the employee of the opportunity to participate in available career transition programs. The agency is also responsible for:
(a) Applying OMB's policy directives on the preference eligibles' right of first refusal for positions that are contracted out to the private sector; and
(b) Cooperating with State dislocated worker units, as designated or created under title III of the Job Training Partnership Act, to retrain displaced preference eligibles for other continuing positions.
OPM's responsibilities include:
(a) Assisting agencies in operating positive placement programs, such as the Career Transition Assistance Plan, which is authorized by subpart F of this part;
(b) Providing interagency selection priority through the Interagency Career Transition Assistance Plan, which is authorized by subpart G of this part; and
(c) Encouraging cooperation between local Federal activities to assist these displaced preference eligibles in applying for other Federal positions, including positions with the U.S. Postal Service.
(a) A preference eligible who is separated from a restricted position by reduction in force under part 351 of this chapter because of a contracting out situation covered in § 330.404 has interagency selection priority under the Interagency Career Transition Assistance Plan, which is authorized by subpart G of this part. Section 330.704 covers the general eligibility requirements for the Interagency Career Transition Assistance Plan.
(b) A preference eligible covered by this subpart is eligible for the Interagency Career Transition Assistance Plan for 2 years following separation by reduction in force from a restricted position.
(c) * * *
(7) Two years after separation, for those employees eligible under § 330.407(b).
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA
Final Rule.
This final rule implements a revised processing timeframe for retail food stores and wholesale food concerns that apply for authorization to accept and redeem food stamp benefits and clarifies verification requirements. This rule lengthens the application processing timeframe from the current period of 30 days to 45 days. In addition to lengthening the time allowed for processing applications, this rule requires specific documentation from an applicant to verify a firm's eligibility.
This final rule also incorporates two provisions of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of (PRWORA) 1996, related to the collection of tax information from firms applying for authorization or from firms being reauthorized in the program and the written permission for the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to verify such information with appropriate agencies.
The amendments in this rule are effective September 29, 2000.
Questions regarding this final rule
This final rule has been determined to be non-significant under Executive Order 12866.
The Food Stamp Program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.551. For the reasons set forth in the final rule and related notice(s) to 7 CFR Part 3015, Subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), this program is excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.
This rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-602). Samuel Chambers, Jr. the Administrator of the FNS, has certified that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule would have almost no impact on the majority of applicant firms, since most applicants are legitimate food stores.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the preamble of the proposed rule published on November 3, 1999 at 64 FR 59665 included a notice that announced our intent to submit revisions to the Office of Management and Budget relative to the information collection and associated burden hours imposed on retailers applying for participation in the FSP.
There are currently 3 forms approved under Office of Management and Budget No. 0584-0008. Each of these forms are used by retailers, wholesalers and meal services, including certain group living arrangements, shelters for battered women and treatment and rehabilitation programs for drug addicts and alcoholics, to apply to the FNS for authorization to accept and redeem food stamp benefits. Form FNS-252; Food Stamp Application for Stores, Form 252-2; Application to Participate in the FSP for Communal Dining Facility/Others; and Form FNS-252R; Food Stamp Application for Stores-Reauthorization. Section 9(c) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended, (7 U.S.C. 2018 (c)) provides the necessary authorization(s) to collect the information contained in these forms.
Comments were solicited for 60 days on the proposed increase in burden hours. No comments were received on the information collection proposal. The burden estimates as currently approved under OMB No. 0584-0008 through October 31, 2003 are shown on the following chart:
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is intended to have a preemptive effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies which conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its full implementation. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect unless so specified in the “Effective Date” paragraph of this preamble. Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule or the application of its provisions, all applicable administrative procedures must be exhausted. These provisions are as follows: (1) For Program benefit recipients-State administrative procedures issued pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2020(e)(10) and 7 CFR 273.15; (2) for State Agencies—administrative procedures issued pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2023 set out as 7 CFR 276.7 (for rules related to non-quality control liabilities) or part 284 (for rules related to quality control liabilities: (3) for Program retailers and wholesalers—administrative procedures issued pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2023 set out at 7 CFR 278.8.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandated Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) Pub. L. 104-04, 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, the Department generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates that may result in expenditures to State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the Department to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, more cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.
This final rule contains no Federal mandates under the regulatory provision of Title II of the UMRA for state, local and tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
FNS has analyzed this final in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132.
As such, FNS has determined that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the order and, consequently, a federalism impact statement is not required.
On November 3, 1999, the FNS published a proposed rule (64 FR 59665) to improve the processing of applications from firms desiring to become authorized to accept and redeem food stamp benefits. The proposed rule sets forth four changes, two discretionary and two reflecting additional authorities provided under the Act, PRWORA Pub. L. 104-193. The
The public was provided a 60-day period to submit comments on the proposed provisions. One commentor, a major nonprofit retail trade association, submitted comments. The major concerns raised by the commentor are discussed below.
The two major comments provided by the commentor relate to the subject of application processing. The first comment suggested that, when on-site visits are not required, the application process should be continued and completed within 30 days instead of the extended period of 45 days. Although this rule provides FNS with the authority to use the full 45-day time period when it is needed, authorizations of qualified firms are completed more quickly whenever possible to avoid or minimize delay. Therefore, determinations on stores not requiring an on-site visit will likely be completed in less than 45 days.
The second comment suggested that no on-site visits should be necessary for reputable retailers. The commentor defines “reputable” retailers as those that are well-known and familiar to the Agency. Further, the commentor states that authorization of well-known, reputable retailers within 30 days will ensure the broadest selection of retailers as quickly as possible. The Department expects that most applicant retailers are honest, reputable business persons or entities. Applications from such individuals (or business entities) applicants will continue to be processed in a timely fashion. Visits to stores will be made as circumstances require in the best interests of the FSP.
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Claims, Food stamps, Groceries—retail, Groceries, General line-wholesalers, Penalties.
7 U.S.C. 2011-2036.
(a)
(b)
(m)
In Title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 240 to end, revised as of April 1, 2000, on page 529, in §250.87 paragraph (b), third line down, “(b)” is removed and “(a)” is added in its place.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing temporary special local regulations for the Sharptown Outboard Regatta, to be held on the waters of the Nanticoke River between Maryland S.R. 313 bridge at Sharptown, Maryland and Nanticoke River Light 43 (LLN-24175). These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic in portions of the Nanticoke River during the event.
This rule is effective from 10 a.m. on September 23, 2000 until 7 p.m. on September 24, 2000.
Comments and materials received from the public as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of this docket and are available for inspection or copying at Commander (Aoax), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004, between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Chief Warrant Officer R. Houck, Marine Events Coordinator, Commander, Coast Guard Activities Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Baltimore Maryland, 21226-1791, telephone number (410) 576-2674.
On July 21, 2000, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Sharptown Outboard Regatta, Nanticoke River, Sharptown, Maryland, in the
The North-South Racing Association will sponsor the Sharptown Outboard Regatta on September 23 and September 24, 2000. The event will consist of 60 hydroplanes and runabouts conducting a high speed competitive race on the waters of the Nanticoke River between Maryland S.R. 313 bridge at Sharptown, Maryland and Nanticoke River Light 43 (LLN-24175). A fleet of spectator vessels is anticipated for the event. Due to the need for vessel control during the races, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels.
The Coast Guard is establishing temporary special local regulations on specified waters of the Nanticoke River. The regulated area will include waters of the Nanticoke River between Maryland S.R. 313 bridge at Sharptown, Maryland and Nanticoke River Light 43 (LLN-24175). The temporary special local regulations will be enforced from 10 a. m. to 7 p.m. on September 23 and September 24, 2000, and will restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the event. Except for participants in the Sharptown Outboard Regatta and persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979).
We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.
Although this regulation will prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Nanticoke River during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Although this regulation will prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Nanticoke River during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant because of the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.
If you think that your business, organization or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Commander (Aoax), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004.
This rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 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 prepared an “Environmental Assessment” in accordance with Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, and determined that this rule will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The “Environmental Assessment” and “Finding of No Significant Impact” is available in the docket where indicated under
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1233 through 1236; 49 CFR 1.46 and 33 CFR 100.35.
(a)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(b)
(2) The operator of any vessel in this area shall: (i) Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any official patrol.
(ii) Proceed as directed by any official patrol.
(c)
(d)
Coast Guard, DOT.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Maumee River, Toledo, in the state of Ohio. This zone restricts the entry of vessels into the area designated for the September 3, 2000 Toledo fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners in case of accidental misfire of fireworks mortar rounds.
This rule is effective from 8:30 a.m., to 10 p.m. September 3, 2000.
The U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office in Toledo, Ohio maintains the public docket for this rule. Documents identified in this rule will be available for public copying and inspection between 9:30 A.M. and 2 P.M., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The Marine Safety Office is located at 420 Madison Ave., Suite 700, Toledo, Ohio 43604; (419) 259-6372.
Chief Marine Science Technician Michael Pearson, Asst. Chief of Port Operations, Marine Safety Office, 420 Madison Ave, Suite 700, Toledo, Ohio 43604; (419) 259-6372.
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. We had insufficient time to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking because we did not receive adequate advance notice of this event.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
This temporary rule is necessary to ensure the safety of the maritime community during setup, loading and firing operations of fireworks in conjunction with the City of Toledo Fireworks. Entry into the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port is prohibited. The Captain of the Port may be contacted via Coast Guard Station Toledo on VHF-FM Channel 16.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rule 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). This finding is based on the historical lack of vessel traffic at this time of year.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be in effect for less than one day when vessel traffic can pass safely around the safety zone.
In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), assistance to small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process is available upon request. 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).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal government having first provided the funds to pay those costs. This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.lC, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirement, Security measures, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; and 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-6, and 160.5; and 49 CFR 1.46.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Coast Guard, DOT.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
This rule is effective from 8 p.m. (e.s.t.) on September 3, 2000 until 9:30 p.m. (e.s.t.) on September 4, 2000.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket (CGD01-00-206) and are available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Activities New York, 212 Coast Guard Drive, room 204, Staten Island, New York 10305, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Lieutenant M. Day, Waterways Oversight Branch, Coast Guard Activities New York (718) 354-4012.
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(8), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM due to the fact that the Application for Approval of Marine Event was received too late to permit sufficient time to draft and publish an NPRM. Further, it is a local event with minimal impact on the waterway, vessels may continue to transit through the Atlantic Ocean near Rockaway Beach during the event, and permission may be granted to transit the zone for all but approximately 15 minutes of the 1
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard received an application to hold a fireworks program on the waters of the Atlantic Ocean. This regulation establishes a safety zone in all waters of the Atlantic Ocean within a 360-yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 40°34′29″ N 073°50′00″ W (NAD 1983), about 335 yards off Rockaway Beach at 116th street. The safety zone is in effect from 8 p.m. (e.s.t.) until 9:30 p.m. (e.s.t.) on Sunday, September 3, 2000. If the event is cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section is effective from 8 p.m. (e.s.t.) until 9:30 p.m. (e.s.t.) on Monday, September 4, 2000. The safety zone prevents vessels from transiting a portion of the Atlantic Ocean and is needed to protect boaters from the hazards associated with fireworks launched from a barge in the area. Marine traffic will still be able to transit through the Atlantic Ocean near Rockaway Beach during this event. Additionally, vessels would not be precluded from mooring at or getting underway from recreational piers in the vicinity of the zone; there are no commercial facilities in the vicinity of the zone. Public notifications will be made prior to the event via the Local Notice to Mariners.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979).
The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this final rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This finding is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the zone, the ability of vessels to transit through the Atlantic Ocean near Rockaway Beach during the event, the ability of vessels to moor at or get underway from recreational piers in the vicinity of the zone during the event, the absence of commercial facilities in the vicinity of the zone, and the advance notifications which will be made.
The size of this safety zone was determined using National Fire Protection Association and New York City Fire Department standards for 12″ mortars fired from a barge combined with the Coast Guard's knowledge of tide and current conditions in the area.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Atlantic Ocean during the times this zone is activated.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: it is a local event with minimal impact on the waterway, vessels may continue to transit through the Atlantic Ocean near Rockaway Beach during the event, and permission may be granted for vessels to transit the zone for all but approximately 15 minutes of the
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small entities were notified of this marine event by its publication in the First Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners #33 dated August 15, 2000.
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).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal Government's having first provided the funds to pay those unfunded mandate costs. This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 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.
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. This rule fits paragraph 34(g) as it establishes a safety zone. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
1. The authority citation for Part 165 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene-patrol personnel. These personnel comprise commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Maumee River, Rossford, in the state of Ohio. This zone restricts the entry of vessels into the area designated for the Rossford fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners in case of accidental misfire of fireworks mortar rounds. Entry of vessels into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via Coast Guard Station Toledo on VHF channel 16.
This rule is effective from 2 p.m., until 10 p.m., September 2, 2000.
The U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office in Toledo, Ohio maintains the public docket for this rule. Documents identified in this rule will be available for public copying and inspection between 9:30 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The Marine Safety Office is located at 420 Madison Ave, Suite 700, Toledo, Ohio 43604; (419) 259-6372.
Chief Marine Science Technician Michael Pearson, Asst. Chief of Port Operations, Marine Safety Office, 420 Madison Ave, Suite 700, Toledo, Ohio 43604; (419) 259-6372.
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
This temporary rule is necessary to ensure the safety of the maritime community during setup, loading and firing operations of fireworks in conjunction with the City of Rossford Labor Day Fireworks. Entry into the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port is prohibited.
The Captain of the Port may be contacted via Coast Guard Station Toledo on VHF-FM Channel 16.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rule 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). This finding is based on the historical lack of vessel traffic at this time of year.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be in effect for less than one day when vessel traffic can pass safely around the safety zone.
In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), assistance to small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process is available upon request. 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).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal government having first provided the funds to pay those costs. This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 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.
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirement, Security measures, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; and 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-6, and 160.5; and 49 CFR 1.46.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Withdrawal of direct final rule.
Due to an adverse comment, EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule to approve a revision to the opacity
The Direct final rule is withdrawn as of August 30, 2000.
Ruth E. Knapp, Technical Assessment Branch, Mailcode 3AP22, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103. Phone (215) 814-2191 or e-mail knapp.ruth@epa.gov.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, the amendment to the table in § 52.2420(d) which added the entry for Georgia-Pacific Corporation—Jarratt Softboard Plant is withdrawn as of August 30, 2000.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Direct final rule.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is adjusting the applicability date for reinstating the 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in Muskegon County, Michigan and is determining that the area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. This determination is based on 3 consecutive years of complete, quality-assured, ambient air monitoring data for the 1997-1999 ozone seasons that demonstrate that area has attained the ozone NAAQS. On the basis of this determination, EPA is also determining that certain attainment demonstration requirements, and certain related requirements of part D of subchapter I of the Clean Air Act (CAA), do not apply to the Muskegon area.
EPA is also approving the State of Michigan's request to redesignate Muskegon County to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Michigan submitted the redesignation request for the Muskegon area on March 9, 1995, and submitted two updates to the request on June 14 and July 5, 2000. In approving this redesignation request, EPA is also approving the State's plan for maintaining the 1-hour ozone standard for the next 10 years as a revision to the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP). In this direct final rule, EPA is also notifying the public that we believe the motor vehicle emissions budgets for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NO
In the proposed rules section of this
This “direct final” rule is effective October 18, 2000, unless EPA receives adverse written or critical comments by September 29, 2000. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish timely notice in the
Send written comments to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. (We recommend that you telephone John Mooney at (312) 886-6043 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)
A copy of the SIP revision is available for inspection at the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 6102), Room M1500, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 260-7548.
John M. Mooney, Regulation Development Section (AR-18J), Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6043.
On June 5, 1998 (63 FR 31014), July 22, 1998 (63 FR 39432) and June 9, 1999 (64 FR 30911), the EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in many areas around the country in anticipation of implementing the new 8-hour ozone NAAQS that was established in 1997. EPA revoked the 1-hour standard to allow areas that were showing attainment to redirect their focus toward meeting the new 8-hour standard. On June 9, 1999, the EPA revoked the 1-hour standard for the Muskegon area
On May 14, 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision on the 8-hour ozone NAAQS that blocked EPA's ability to implement the new standard. That action left nearly 3,000 U.S. counties without any Federal public health standard for ozone. To remedy this situation, on July 20, 2000, EPA published a final rulemaking action in the
For areas with clean air quality data, like Muskegon, the July 20, 2000 rulemaking specifies that reinstating the nonattainment designation will occur 180 days after EPA published the rulemaking. EPA is giving these areas extra time to develop and submit redesignation requests and the rule specifies a procedure by which EPA can accelerate the effective date of the reinstatement and redesignate at the same time. EPA is using that procedure in this action.
The EPA is determining that the Muskegon moderate ozone nonattainment area has attained the NAAQS for ozone. On the basis of this determination, EPA is also determining that certain CAA requirements do not apply to the Muskegon area as long as it continues to attain the ozone NAAQS. These requirements are (section 172(c)(1)) attainment demonstration requirements, (section 172(c)(9)) contingency measure requirement, (section 182(b)(1)) 15 percent plan reasonable further progress (RFP) requirement, and (section 182(b)(1)) attainment demonstration requirement.
The EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret provisions regarding attainment demonstrations and certain related provisions to not require SIP submissions, as described further below, if an ozone nonattainment area subject to those requirements is monitoring attainment of the ozone standard (
The requirements of sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(1) concerning the submission of a RFP plan and the ozone attainment demonstration and the requirements of section 172(c)(9) concerning contingency measures for RFP or attainment will not apply to the area.
Subpart 2 of part D of Subchapter I of the CAA contains various air quality planning and SIP submission requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. The EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret provisions regarding RFP and attainment demonstrations and certain related provisions to not require SIP submissions if an ozone nonattainment area subject to those requirements is monitoring attainment of the ozone standard (
The attainment demonstration requirements of section 182(b)(1) are that the plan provide for “such specific annual reductions in emissions * * * as necessary to attain the national primary ambient air quality standard by the attainment date applicable under the CAA.” If an area has monitored attainment of the relevant NAAQS, EPA believes there is no need for the State to submit additional measures to achieve attainment. This is consistent with the interpretation of certain section 172(c) requirements provided by EPA in State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498). As EPA stated in the preamble, no other measures to provide for attainment would be needed by areas seeking redesignation to attainment since “attainment will have been reached” (57 FR 13564). Upon attaining the NAAQS, the focus of state planning efforts shifts to maintaining the NAAQS and developing a maintenance plan under section 175A.
Similarly, the EPA has previously interpreted the contingency measure requirement of section 172(c)(9) as no longer applying once an area has attained the standard since those “contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date” (57 FR 13564).
The state must continue to operate an appropriate air quality monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, to verify the attainment status of the area. The air quality data relied upon to determine that the area is attaining the ozone standard must be consistent with 40 CFR part 58 requirements and other relevant EPA guidance and recorded in EPA's Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS).
The determinations in this notice do not shield an area from future EPA action to require emissions reductions from sources in the area where there is evidence, such as photochemical grid modeling, showing that emissions from sources in the area contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other states with respect to the NAAQS (see section 110(a)(2)(D)). The EPA has authority under sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA to require such emission reductions if necessary and appropriate to deal with transport situations.
The EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for ozone (consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in AIRS) for the Muskegon moderate ozone nonattainment area from the 1997 through 1999 ozone seasons. This data is summarized in Table 1 of this document covering EPA's analysis of the redesignation request. Preliminary monitoring data for 2000 show the area continues to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. On the basis of this review, EPA determines that the area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard during the 1997-99 period, which is the
The official record for this direct final rule is located at the addresses in the
The EPA is approving the redesignation request for the Muskegon area because three years of ambient monitoring data demonstrate that the ozone NAAQS has been attained and the area has satisfied the other requirements for redesignation. The EPA is approving the maintenance plan submitted by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) as a revision to the SIP. The EPA is also notifying the public that we believe the motor vehicle emissions budgets for VOC and NO
The redesignation would change the official designation of Muskegon County from nonattainment to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard. It would also put a plan in place to maintain the 1-hour ozone standard for the next 10 years. This plan includes contingency measures to correct any future violations of the 1-hour ozone standard. It also includes motor vehicle emissions budgets for VOC and NO
The EPA originally designated the Muskegon area as an ozone nonattainment area under section 107 of the 1977 CAA on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8962). The EPA revisited this original designation in 1991 to reflect new designation requirements contained in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (1990 Act). The 1990 Act authorized the EPA to designate nonattainment areas according to degree of severity of the nonattainment problem. On November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694), the EPA designated the Muskegon area as a serious ozone nonattainment area, and later corrected that action to designate the area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area on November 30, 1992 (57 FR 56762).
The Muskegon area has since recorded three years of complete, quality-assured, ambient air quality monitoring data for 1997-1999, thereby demonstrating that the area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
On March 9, 1995, the State of Michigan submitted a redesignation request and section 175A maintenance plan for the Muskegon ozone nonattainment area. The State updated this 1995 submittal and submitted the revised plan to the EPA on June 14, 2000, and July 5, 2000. This revised plan included updated emissions inventory calculations and air quality monitoring data.
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation providing that: (1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable state implementation plan and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175(A); and, (5) the State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.
The EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498) and supplemented the guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). The EPA has provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in the following documents:
1. “Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,” Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994. (Nichols, October 1994)
2. “Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,” D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993.
3. “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after November 15, 1992,” Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993.
4. “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act Deadlines,” John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992. (Calcagni, October 1992)
5. “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992.
6. “Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Redesignations,” G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992.
For ozone, an area may be considered attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.9 and Appendix H, based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality assured monitoring data. A violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS occurs when the annual average number of expected daily exceedances is equal to or greater than 1.05 per year at a monitoring site. A daily exceedance occurs when the maximum hourly ozone concentration during a given day is 0.125 parts per million (ppm) or higher. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR 58, and recorded in AIRS. The monitors should have remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment.
The MDEQ submitted ozone monitoring data for the 1996-1998 and the 1997-1999 ozone seasons. Table 1 below summarizes the air quality data.
This data has been quality assured and is recorded in AIRS. During the 1997-1999 time period, the monitor recorded only one exceedance of the ozone NAAQS, resulting in a three year average of .3 exceedances per year. Preliminary 2000 ambient air quality monitoring data indicates that the area continues to meet the ozone NAAQS, although an exceedance may have occurred on June 9, 2000. If this June 9, 2000 exceedance is confirmed, the area would still show attainment of the 1-hour standard.
Before the Muskegon area may be redesignated to attainment for ozone, it must have fulfilled the applicable requirements of section 110 and part D. The Calcagni memorandum dated September 4, 1992, states that areas requesting redesignation to attainment must fully adopt rules and programs that come due prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request.
General SIP elements are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. These requirements include but are not limited to the following: a SIP submittal that has been adopted by the state after reasonable notice and public hearing; provisions to establish and operate appropriate apparatus, methods, systems and procedures necessary to monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a permit program, provisions for part C, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), and part D, New Source Review (NSR) permit programs; criteria for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring and reporting; provisions for modeling; and provisions for public and local agency participation.
For purposes of redesignation, EPA reviewed the Michigan SIP to ensure that it satisfied all requirements under the amended CAA through approved SIP provisions. A number of the requirements did not change in substance and, therefore, EPA believes that the pre-amendment SIP met these requirements. The EPA has analyzed the Michigan SIP and determined that it is consistent with the requirements of amended section 110(a)(2). (See also 61 FR 20458 and
Before the Muskegon area may be redesignated to attainment, it must have fulfilled the applicable requirements of part D. Under part D, an area's classification determines the requirements to which it is subject. Subpart 1 of part D sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 of part D establishes additional requirements for nonattainment areas classified under Table 1 of section 181(a). As described in EPA's general preamble for the implementing of Title 1 of the 1990 Act, specific requirements of subpart 2 may override subpart 1's general provisions (57 FR 13501, April 16, 1992). EPA classified the Muskegon area as moderate ozone nonattainment on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694). Therefore, to redesignate the Muskegon area, the State must meet the applicable requirements of subpart 1 of part D—specifically sections 172(c) and 176, and the applicable requirements of subpart 2 of part D.
EPA has determined that MDEQ's redesignation request for the Muskegon area has satisfied all of the requirements under section 172(c) necessary for the area's redesignation to attainment. Many of the general requirements contained in section 172(c) are addressed by the State's pre-amendment submittal which EPA approved on May 6, 1980 (45 FR 29801). In part 2 of this rulemaking, entitled “Determination of Attainment,” EPA is determining that several of the section 172(c) requirements do not apply since the area has attained the ozone NAAQS. The requirements for emissions inventories uinder section 172(c)(3) and permits programs under section(c)(5) still need to be addressed in order to redesignate the area.
Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. EPA approved the base year emissions inventory for Muskegon on July 26, 1994 (59 FR 37947).
Section 172(c)(5) requires permits to construct and operate new and modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area (a NSR program). The EPA has determined that areas being redesignated do not need an approved NSR program prior to redesignation provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the standard without a NSR program in effect. A memorandum from Mary Nichols dated October 14, 1994 describes the rationale for this decision. See discussion in the Grand Rapids, Michigan notice published on June 21, 1996 (61 FR 31831). EPA has also applied this policy in redesignations of Youngstown-Warren, Columbus, Canton, Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Dayton-Springfield, Toledo, Preble County, Columbiana County, Clinton County, and Cincinnati Ohio, as well as Detroit, Michigan. Additional information on EPA's rationale is in the approval of the redesignation request for the Cincinnati area (65 FR 37879).
The State has demonstrated that the Muskegon area can maintain the standard without a NSR program in effect, and, therefore, the State need not have a fully approved NSR program prior to approval of the redesignation request for the Muskegon area. The MDEQ's federally delegated PSD program will become effective in the Muskegon area upon redesignation to attainment.
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that Federally supported or funded projects conform to
The on-highway motor vehicle budgets for Muskegon are 7 tons of NO
The EPA believes the motor vehicle emissions budgets for VOC and NO
If EPA receives adverse written comments with respect to the approval of the Muskegon emissions budgets, or any other aspect of our approval of this SIP, by the time the comment period closes, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule informing the public that the rule will not take effect. In this case, we will either respond to the comments on the emissions budgets in our final action or proceed with the adequacy process as a separate action.
Our action on the Muskegon emissions budgets will also be announced on EPA's conformity website:
The Muskegon area is classified moderate nonattainment; therefore, part D, subpart 2, section 182(b) requirements apply. In accordance with the September 17, 1993, EPA guidance memorandum, the requirements which came due before MDEQ submitted the redesignation request must be fully approved into the SIP before or at the time of the request to redesignate the area to attainment. Those requirements are discussed below:
The 1990 base year emission inventory was due on November 15, 1992. EPA approved the State's submittal on July 26, 1994 (59 FR 37994).
EPA approved the emission statement SIP required by section 182(a)(3)(B) on March 8, 1994 (59 FR 10752).
As noted above, the 15 percent RFP plan for VOC reductions does not apply because the area has attained the standard.
SIP revisions requiring RACT for three classes of VOC sources are required under section 182(b)(2). The categories are: (1) All sources covered by a Control Technique Guideline (CTG) document issued between November 15, 1990 and the date of attainment; (2) all sources covered by a CTG issued prior to November 15, 1990; (3) all other major non-CTG stationary sources. EPA approved the RACT corrections required by section 182(a)(2)(A) and 182(b)(2)(B) on September 7, 1994 (59 FR 46182)
EPA promulgated onboard rules on April 6, 1994 (59 FR 16292); therefore, pursuant to section 202(a)(6) of the CAA, Stage II is no longer required, and a fully approved program is not a prerequisite for redesignation. Additional information on EPA's policies regarding the Stage II vapor recovery program is in the approval of the redesignation request for the Cincinnati, OH area (65 FR 37879).
Section 182(a)(2)(B) motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) requirement does not apply to Muskegon since the area was not required to implement I/M prior to the enactment of the 1990 Amendments. The motor vehicle I/M requirement to satisfy section 182(b)(4) does not apply to the Muskegon area, since Muskegon is below the population threshold specified in EPA's I/M rule (51 CFR part 350).
On July 13, 1994, Michigan submitted a section 182(f) NO
Michigan maintains that the Muskegon area is the recipient of overwhelming amounts of ozone transported from the upwind Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee severe ozone nonattainment areas as demonstrated by its November 14, 1994 petition. The overwhelming transport demonstration includes UAM which shows that there is minimal to no change in ozone concentrations in Western Michigan even when the Grand Rapids and Muskegon VOC and NO
Nonetheless, the redesignation request demonstrates that permanent and enforceable emission reductions have occurred in the Muskegon area as a result of the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program (FMVCP) and controls on industrial sources. The submittal provides a general discussion of developing of the emission inventories for ozone precursors from 1991-1996 which the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) prepared for use in the Lake Michigan Ozone Study (LMOS). Although 1991 was not one of the years used to designate and classify the area, it was a nonattainment year. The VOC and NO
Based on the State's analysis, Muskegon County reduced VOC emissions by 2 tons per day and NO
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. The plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the EPA approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates attainment for the 10 years following the initial 10-year period. To address potential future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation adequate to assure prompt correction of any air quality problems.
Section 175A(d) requires that the contingency provisions include a requirement that the State will implement all control measures that were in the SIP prior to redesignation as an attainment area.
An ozone maintenance plan should address the following five elements: attainment inventory, demonstration of maintenance, monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan.
The State has adequately developed an attainment emissions inventory for 1996 that identifies VOC and NO
The attainment level of emissions are summarized below:
The 1991 emission inventory developed by LADCO for the LMOS modeling effort also served as the basis for calculations to demonstrate maintenance by projecting emissions forward to the years 1996 and 2007. The State has also made adjustments to the inventory to project emissions levels for 2010. These adjustments were made using 2010 growth factors generated by the Economic Growth Analysis (EGAS) model for stationary sources (for point, stationary area, and nonroad mobile source categories). The State made onroad mobile estimates for 2010 using the 1996 LADCO modeling inventory, local speeds and vehicle miles traveled estimates for 2010, and EPA's MOBILE 5a emissions model. Detailed information on the assumptions made in the inventory calculations are found in EPA's TSD and in the State's submittal.
To demonstrate continued attainment, the State projected anthropogenic 1991 emissions of VOC and NO
The emission projections show that the emissions are not expected to exceed the level of the base year 1996 inventory during the 10-year maintenance period.
The State has committed to operate the ozone monitoring network in the Muskegon area in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
If the EPA disagrees with the State's final determination and believes that the violation was not attributable to transport, but to the area's own emissions, authority exists under section 179(a) and 110(k), to require the area to implement contingency measures, and section 107, to redesignate the area to nonattainment.
Despite the best efforts to demonstrate continued compliance with the NAAQS, the ambient air pollutant concentrations may exceed or violate the NAAQS. Therefore, as required by section 175A of the CAA, Michigan has provided contingency measures with a schedule for implementation if a future ozone air quality problem occurs. Once the triggering event is confirmed, the State will implement one or more appropriate contingency measures. The Governor or the Governor's designee will select the contingency measure within 6 months of the triggering event. Contingency measures contained in the plan include a motor vehicle I/M program, gasoline RVP reduction to 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi), Stage II gasoline vapor recovery, an industrial cleanup solvent rule, a plastic parts coating rule, and a wood furniture coating rule. The State has provided legislative authority for implementation of the first three measures. In addition, the State will develop rules for the three additional measures should they be necessary to address a violation of the ozone NAAQS. The State provided following schedule for implementation of contingency measures:
In accordance with section 175A(b) of the Act, the State has committed to submit a revised maintenance SIP 8 years after the area is redesignated to attainment. Such revised SIP will provide for maintenance for an additional 10 years.
The official record for this direct final rule is located at the addresses in the
If we receive adverse written comments with respect to the approval of the Muskegon emissions budgets, or any other aspect of our approval of this SIP, by the time the comment period closes, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule informing the public that the rule will not take effect. In this case, we will either respond to the comments on the emissions budgets in our final action or proceed with the adequacy process as a separate action.
Ozone SIPs are designed to satisfy the requirements of part D of the CAA and to provide for attainment and maintenance of the ozone NAAQS. This redesignation should not be interpreted as authorizing the State to delete, alter, or rescind any of the ozone emission limitations and restrictions in the approved ozone SIP. The State cannot make changes to ozone SIP regulations which will render them less stringent than those in the EPA approved plan unless it submits to EPA a revised plan for attainment and maintenance and EPA approves the revision. Unauthorized relaxations, deletions, and changes could result in both a finding of nonimplementation (section 173(b) of the CAA) and in a SIP deficiency call made pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the CAA.
1.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments “to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.”
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with state and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 30, 2000. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Hydrocarbons, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Hydrocarbons, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401-7671
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
(c) * * *
(113) On March 9, 1995, the State of Michigan submitted a revision to the Michigan State Implementation Plan for ozone containing a section 175A maintenance plan for the Muskegon County area as part of Michigan's request to redesignate the area from nonattainment to attainment for ozone. Elements of the section 175A maintenance plan include a contingency plan, and an obligation to submit a subsequent maintenance plan revision in 8 years as required by the Clean Air Act. If the area records a violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, determined not to be attributable to transport from upwind areas, Michigan will implement one or more appropriate contingency measure(s) which are in the contingency plan. The menu of contingency measures includes a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program, stage II vapor recovery, a low Reid vapor
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) State of Michigan House Bill No. 4165 signed by the Governor and effective on November 13, 1993.
(B) State of Michigan House Bill No. 726 signed by the Governor and effective on November 13, 1993.
(C) State of Michigan House Bill No. 4898 signed by the Governor and effective on November 13, 1993.
(r) Approval—On March 9, 1995, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality submitted a request to redesignate the Muskegon County ozone nonattainment area to attainment. As part of the redesignation request, the State submitted a maintenance plan as required by 175A of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. Elements of the section 175A maintenance plan include a contingency plan, and an obligation to submit a subsequent maintenance plan revision in 8 years as required by the Clean Air Act. If the area records a violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, determined not to be attributable to transport from upwind areas, Michigan will implement one or more appropriate contingency measure(s) which are in the contingency plan. The menu of contingency measures includes a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program, stage II vapor recovery, a low Reid vapor pressure gasoline program, and rules for industrial cleanup solvents, plastic parts coating, and wood furniture coating.
42 U.S.C. 7401-7871
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of glyphosate (
This regulation is effective August 30, 2000. Objections and requests for hearings, identified by docket control number OPP-301034, must be received by EPA on or before October 30, 2000.
Written objections and hearing requests may be submitted by mail, in person, or by courier. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit VI. of the
By mail: James A. Tompkins, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305-5697; and e-mail address: tompkins.james@epa.gov.
You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
In the
The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.364 be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the herbicide glyphosate,
It also proposed that 40 CFR 180.364(a) be amended so that the introductory text for paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) are removed and the commodity tolerances listed in paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) are reorganized into section (a) in alphabetical order in the table. It is further that 40 CFR 180.364(d) be revised.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue....”
EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the regulatory requirements of section 408 and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see the final rule on Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL-5754-7).
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section 408(b)(2), for a tolerance for residues of glyphosate by revising the existing regulation to include the ethanolamine salt of glyphosate and to revise the introductory text, remove the introductory text for paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3), and the commodity tolerances listed in paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) are reorganized into paragraph (a) in alphabetical order in the table, and revising the text in paragraph (d).
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. The nature of the toxic effects caused by glyphosate are discussed in this unit as well as the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) and the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies reviewed.
1. Several acute toxicology studies placing technical-grade glyphosate in Toxicity Category III and Toxicity Category IV. Technical glyphosate is not a dermal sensitizer.
2. A 21-day dermal toxicity study in which rabbits were exposed to glyphosate at levels of 0, 10, 1,000, or 5,000 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day). The systemic no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) was 1,000 mg/kg/day and the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) was 5,000 mg/kg/day based on decreased food consumption in males. Although serum lactate dehydrogenase was decreased in both sexes at the high dose, this finding was not considered to be toxicologically significant.
3. A 1-year feeding study with dogs fed dosage levels of 0, 20, 100, and 500 mg/kg/day with a NOAEL of 500 mg/kg/day.
4. A 2-year carcinogenicity study in mice fed dosage levels of 0, 150, 750, and 4,500 mg/kg/day with no carcinogenic effect at the highest dose tested (HDT) of 4,500 mg/kg/day.
5. A chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study in male and female rats fed dosage levels of 0, 3, 10, and 31 mg/kg/day (males) and 0, 3, 11, or 34 mg/kg/day (females) with no carcinogenic effects observed under the conditions of the study at dose levels up to and including 31 mg/kg/day HDT (males) and 34 mg/kg/day HDT (females) and a systemic NOAEL of 31 mg/kg/day HDT (males) and 34 mg/kg/day HDT (females). Because a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was not reached, this study was classified as supplemental for carcinogenicity.
6. A chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study in male and female rats fed dosage levels of 0, 89, 362, and 940 mg/kg/day (males) and 1, 113, 457, and 1,183 mg/kg/day (females) with no carcinogenic effects noted under the conditions of the study at dose levels up to and including 940/1,183 mg/kg/day (males/females)
7. A developmental toxicity study in rats given doses of 0, 300, 1,000, and 3,500 mg/kg/day with a developmental (fetal) NOAEL of 1,000 mg/kg/day based on an increase in number of litters and fetuses with unossified sternebrae, and decrease in fetal body weight at 3,500 mg/kg/day, and a maternal NOAEL of 1,000 mg/kg/day based on decrease in body weight gain, diarrhea, soft stools, breathing rattles, inactivity, red matter in the region of nose, mouth, forelimbs, or dorsal head, and deaths at 3,500 mg/kg/day HDT.
8. A developmental toxicity study in rabbits given doses of 0, 75, 175, and 350 mg/kg/day with a developmental NOAEL of 175 mg/kg/day (insufficient litters were available at 350 mg/kg/day to assess developmental toxicity); a maternal NOAEL of 175 mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of soft stool, diarrhea, nasal discharge, and deaths at 350 mg/kg/day HDT.
9. A multi-generation reproduction study with rats fed dosage levels of 0, 3, 10, and 30 mg/kg/day with the parental NOAEL/LOAEL 30 mg/kg/day (HDT). The only effect observed was an increased incidence of focal tubular dilation of the kidney (both unilateral and bilateral combined) in the high-dose male F
10. A 2-generation reproduction study with rats fed dosage levels of 0, 100, 500, and 1,500 mg/kg/day with a systemic NOAEL of 500 mg/kg/day based on soft stools in F
11. Mutagenicity data included chromosomal aberration
The dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) from the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment is used to estimate the toxicological level of concern (LOC). However, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk assessment if no NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected. An uncertainty factor (UF) is applied to reflect uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well as other unknowns. An UF of 100 is routinely used, 10X to account for interspecies differences and 10X for intraspecies differences.
For dietary risk assessment (other than cancer) the Agency uses the UF to calculate an acute or chronic reference dose (acute RfD or chronic RfD) where the RfD is equal to the NOAEL divided by the appropriate UF (RfD=NOAEL/UF). Where an additional safety factor is retained due to concerns unique to the FQPA, this additional factor is applied to the RfD by dividing the RfD by such additional factor. The acute or chronic Population Adjusted Dose (aPAD or cPAD) is a modification of the RfD to accommodate this type of FQPA Safety Factor.
For non-dietary risk assessments (other than cancer) the UF is used to determine the LOC. For example, when 100 is the appropriate UF (10X to account for interspecies differences and 10X for intraspecies differences) the LOC is 100. To estimate risk, a ratio of the NOAEL to exposures (margin of exposure (MOE)= NOAEL/exposure) is calculated and compared to the LOC.
The linear default risk methodology (Q*) is the primary method currently used by the Agency to quantify carcinogenic risk. The Q* approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of cancer risk. A Q* is calculated and used to estimate risk which represents a probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases (e.g., risk is expressed as 1 x 10
1.
2.
Based on the low toxicity of the formulation product (Toxicity Category III and IV) and the physical characteristics of the technical product, there is minimal concern for potential inhalation exposure or risk. The acute inhalation study was waived for technical glyphosate. Some glyphosate end-use products are in Toxicity Category I or II for eye or dermal irritation. The Reregistration Eligibility Decision document for Glyphosate (September 1993) indicates that the Agency is not adding any additional personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements to labels of end-use products, but that it continues to recommend the PPE and precautionary statements required for end-use products in Toxicity Categories I and II.
3.
4.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
The Agency uses the Generic Estimated Environmental Concentration (GENEEC) or the Pesticide Root Zone/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) to estimate pesticide concentrations in surface water and SCI-GROW, which predicts pesticide concentrations in ground water. In general, EPA will use GENEEC (a tier 1 model) before using PRZM/EXAMS (a tier 2 model) for a screening-level assessment for surface water. The GENEEC model is a subset of the PRZM/EXAMS model that uses a specific high-end runoff scenario for pesticides. GENEEC incorporates a farm pond scenario, while PRZM/EXAMS incorporate an index reservoir environment in place of the previous pond scenario. The PRZM/EXAMS model includes a percent crop area factor as an adjustment to account for the maximum percent crop coverage within a watershed or drainage basin.
None of these models include consideration of the impact processing (mixing, dilution, or treatment) of raw water for distribution as drinking water would likely have on the removal of pesticides from the source water. The primary use of these models by the Agency at this stage is to provide a coarse screen for sorting out pesticides for which it is highly unlikely that drinking water concentrations would ever exceed human health levels of concern.
Since the models used are considered to be screening tools in the risk assessment process, the Agency does not use estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) from these models to quantify drinking water exposure and risk as a %%RfD or %%PAD. Instead drinking water levels of comparison (DWLOCs) are calculated and used as a point of comparison against the model estimates of a pesticide's concentration in water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food, and from residential uses. Since DWLOCs address total aggregate exposure to glyphosate they are further discussed in the aggregate risk sections below.
Based on the GENEEC and SCI-GROW models the estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of glyphosate in surface water and ground water for acute exposures are estimated to be 1.64 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.000852 ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 0.19 ppb for surface water and 0.00111 ppb for ground water.
3.
Glyphosate is currently registered for use on the following residential non-dietary sites: around ornamentals, shade trees, shrubs, walks driveways, flower beds, and home lawns. Based on the registered uses for glyphosate, the potential for residential exposure exists. However based on the low acute toxicity and lack of other toxicological concerns, glyphosate does not meet the Agency`s criteria for residential data requirements. This risk assesment was not conducted. Exposures from residenitial uses are not expected to pose undue risks or harm to the public health.
4.
EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine whether glyphosate has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk assessment. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, glyphosate does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not
1.
2.
3.
To estimate total aggregate exposure to a pesticide from food, drinking water, and residential uses, the Agency calculates DWLOCs which are used as a point of comparison against the model estimates of a pesticide's concentration in water (EECs). DWLOC values are not regulatory standards for drinking water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food and residential uses. In calculating a DWLOC, the Agency determines how much of the acceptable exposure (i.e., the PAD) is available for exposure through drinking water (e.g., allowable chronic water exposure (mg/kg/day)= cPAD - (average food + residential exposure)). This allowable exposure through drinking water is used to calculate a DWLOC.
A DWLOC will vary depending on the toxic endpoint, drinking water consumption, and body weights. Default body weights and consumption values as used by the USEPA Office of Water are used to calculate DWLOCs: 2L/70 kg (adult male), 2L/60 kg (adult female), and 1L/10 kg (child). Default body weights and drinking water consumption values vary on an individual basis. This variation will be taken into account in more refined screening-level and quantitative drinking water exposure assessments. Different populations will have different DWLOCs. Generally, a DWLOC is calculated for each type of risk assessment used: acute, short-term, intermediate-term, chronic, and cancer.
When EECs for surface water and ground water are less than the calculated DWLOCs, OPP concludes with reasonable certainty that exposures to the pesticide in drinking water (when considered along with other sources of exposure for which OPP has reliable data) would not result in unacceptable levels of aggregate human health risk at this time. Because OPP considers the aggregate risk resulting from multiple exposure pathways associated with a pesticide's uses, levels of comparison in drinking water may vary as those uses change. If new uses are added in the future, OPP will reassess the potential impacts of residues of the pesticide in drinking water as a part of the aggregate risk assessment process.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Adequate enforcement methods are available for analysis of residues of glyphosate in or on plant commodities. These methods include GLC (Method I in Pesticides Analytical Manual (PAM) II; the limit of detection is 0.05 ppm) and High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) with fluorometric detection. Use of the GLC method is discouraged due to the lengthiness of the experimental procedure. The HPLC procedure has undergone successful Agency validation and was recommended for inclusion in PAM II. A GC/MS method for glyphosate in crops has also been validated by EPA's Analytical Chemistry Laboratory (ACL).
Codex Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) exist for barley, dry peas, dry beans, and canola seed at 20, 5, 2, and 10 pp, respectively for glyphosate. Canadian glyphosate MRLs exist for barley, barley milling fractions, peas, beans, and lentils at 10, 15, 5, 2, and 4 ppm, respectively. Mexican glyphosate MRLs exist for barley, peas, and beans at 0.1, 0.2, and 0.2 ppm, respectively. Application of glyphosate as the acid in the United Sates will not cause any new conflicts with existing MRLs.
There are no conditons of registration associated with this action.
Therefore, the tolerance is established for residues of glyphosate,
Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to the FFDCA by the FQPA of 1996, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408(g) provides essentially the same process for persons to “object” to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d), as was provided in the old FFDCA sections 408 and 409. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.
You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket control number OPP-301034 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before October 30, 2000.
1.
Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm. C400, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is (202) 260-4865.
2.
EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement “when in the judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable and not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.” For additional information regarding the waiver of these fees, you may contact James Tompkins by phone at (703) 305-5697, by e-mail at tompkins.jim@epa.gov, or by mailing a request for information to Mr. Tompkins at Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
If you would like to request a waiver of the tolerance objection fees, you must mail your request for such a waiver to: James Hollins, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
3.
A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would, if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issues(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
This final rule establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
21 U.S.C. 321(q), (346a) and 371.
(a)
(d)
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation, (DOT).
Final Statement of Agency Policy.
FRA issues a final statement of policy for the safety of railroad bridges. FRA establishes suggested criteria for railroads to use to ensure the structural integrity of bridges that carry railroad tracks. This final statement of policy reflects minor changes following public comment on the interim statement of policy published April 27, 1995, at 60 FR 20654.
Gordon A. Davids, P.E., Bridge Engineer, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590, (Telephone: 202-493-6320), or Nancy Lummen Lewis, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Mail Stop 10, Washington, DC 20590, (Telephone 202-493-6047).
On April 27, 1995, FRA issued an interim statement of policy on the safety of railroad bridges. Published in the
The Secretary of Transportation has authority to “prescribe regulations and issue orders for every area of railroad safety.” 49 U.S.C. 20101. The Secretary has delegated his authority to FRA. 49 CFR 1.49(m).
The severity of a train accident is usually compounded when a bridge is involved, regardless of the cause of the accident. FRA must be able to deal effectively with any safety problems involving the structural integrity of railroad bridges. At the same time, FRA must assure that private and public resources are not diverted unnecessarily from railroad inspection and maintenance programs that are also critical to railroad safety.
At one extreme, FRA could respond to bridge safety issues only when accidents occur or when someone contacts the agency about particular concerns. However, such a reactive policy would inhibit FRA's ability to detect impending problems with railroad bridges. At the other extreme, FRA could regulate all aspects of railroad bridge management, including inspection, rating, construction and maintenance. The expense of such an action to the railroad industry and to the Federal government is not justified.
To promote bridge safety, this policy statement includes non-regulatory guidelines to inform railroad managers and all concerned about current good practices related to bridge inspection and management. The guidelines accommodate a wide variety of effective bridge inspection and management methods. Therefore, FRA does not expect that its policy will force railroads to change effective bridge management programs and thus unnecessarily divert resources needed for the functional work of bridge management.
Because FRA believes that a national bridge safety policy is most effective when it is administered consistently throughout the United States, the agency will, upon request, cooperate with states to the fullest extent feasible to resolve railroad bridge safety problems. This cooperation will extend to training of inspectors of state railroad safety agencies, joint investigations and evaluations of bridge conditions, and where necessary, invocation of FRA's enforcement authority.
FRA will revise the guidelines as necessary to accomplish the objectives of the bridge safety program. To that end, FRA will continue to monitor and evaluate the railroads' bridge inspection and management programs to guarantee that those responsible for the safety of bridges continue to meet their obligations. FRA will make its findings available to the public upon request, excluding any proprietary information received and identified as such. Should FRA find through its monitoring that widespread bridge structural problems have developed, it may use the information it has gathered to commence a rulemaking proceeding to further address railroad bridge safety.
This statement of policy containing guidelines for the proper maintenance of bridge structures is meant to be advisory in nature; it does not have the force of regulations under which FRA ordinarily issues violations and assesses civil penalties.
Even without specific bridge safety regulations, FRA maintains authority to perform safety inspections of any railroad facility and to issue emergency orders under 49 U.S.C. 20104, 49 U.S.C. 20107, and 49 CFR part 209. This authority permits FRA, if necessary, to remove from service or otherwise impose conditions on any railroad operation which, in the judgment of the agency, poses an emergency situation involving a hazard of death or personal injury. For example, on February 12, 1996, FRA issued Emergency Order No. 19, which removed from service a railroad bridge on the Tonawanda Island Railroad near North Tonawanda, New York, after FRA found that the bridge posed an unacceptable risk to the safety of train operations. Likewise, FRA issued Emergency Order No. 22 on December 16, 1999, which removed from service a railroad bridge on the Oregon Pacific Railroad in Milwaukie, Oregon. The bridge in Oregon was satisfactorily repaired, and FRA lifted Emergency Order No. 22 on January 20, 2000.
This final statement of agency policy does not change FRA's statutory emergency order authority with respect to railroad bridge safety. Rather, the guidelines contained herein represent the general criteria against which FRA will evaluate each railroad's bridge inspection and management program.
A 60-day comment period followed the publication of the Interim Statement of Policy, and FRA received comments from five parties. Those comments were considered in the development of this final policy and are addressed here.
The American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association (AREMA), in conveying its support of the policy and its associated guidelines, expressed a concern that the policy's reference to AREMA's
The Association of American Railroads (AAR) and the Norfolk Southern Corporation expressed support for the policy, as well as support for AREMA's comments. The AAR also requested clarification of the provisions in Guideline 1 regarding the responsibility for the safety of bridges.
The Federal Track Safety Standards prescribe the track owner as the party responsible for proper maintenance of the tracks. It follows, therefore, that compliance with the track standards necessitates that the track owner also maintain any structure supporting the track, be it a bridge or an earth structure. Where a bridge owner is not the track owner, the bridge owner is responsible to the track owner for the integrity of the bridge. Likewise, the track owner is responsible to other railroads operating over its track for the integrity of both the track and the bridges which support it.
FRA does not consider it necessary that one railroad operating with trackage rights over another should duplicate the bridge management work of the track owner. An operator under trackage rights should be able to accept a general assurance that the owner is maintaining the integrity of its bridges. However, effective communication of load restrictions between the owner and other operating railroads is essential to prevent overloading bridges.
The Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees (BMWE) had earlier petitioned FRA to issue regulations governing bridge safety, including a requirement for displacement and damage detectors. The BMWE cited the specifications of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) as examples of standards that govern the design, construction, inspection and maintenance of highway bridges. The BMWE recommended that the same type of standards should be applied to railroad bridges.
AASHTO specifications generally have been adopted by highway bridge owners, as the bridge chapters in the AREMA
The BMWE also commented that it agreed with FRA's plan to make this policy a part of the Federal Track Safety Standards contained in 49 CFR part 213.
The Department of Transportation of the State of New York (NYSDOT) submitted several comments generally calling for more stringent regulations than the guidelines in the present policy. NYSDOT questioned the reliability of the results of the 1992-1993 FRA bridge survey because the FRA track inspectors who conducted the survey are not licensed structural engineers. FRA personnel did not themselves inspect or evaluate the bridges included in the survey. Rather, they observed the railroads' inspectors and engineers conducting the inspections and making the evaluations. They reported their findings in the manner which FRA trained them to use for this project, and an FRA professional bridge engineer, who is licensed and registered in the State of New York, analyzed the data. The FRA track inspectors did not engage in formulating any engineering decisions.
In response to FRA's statement that its bridge survey showed that there have been no fatalities caused by the structural failure of a railroad bridge, NYSDOT stated that it had information concerning a fatality that occurred when a railroad bridge failed in 1976. In a review of the accident records for 1976, FRA found one instance in which a locomotive engineer in Iowa was fatally injured when a railroad trestle was washed out in a flood. The accident was reported to FRA as having been caused by a flood or washout, and not a bridge failure. Upon review of the record, FRA finds that the accident was caused by damage to the bridge by outside sources and not by the structural failure of the bridge.
NYSDOT also responded to FRA's report that 11 of 19 train accidents on bridges occurring since 1983 were caused by external damage to the bridges from wash-outs or from collisions of marine vessels. According to NYSDOT, these accidents should be counted as accidents caused by bridge failure. FRA disagrees. FRA believes that it could perform a more precise analysis of the data by distinguishing between accidents caused by external damage to bridges and accidents resulting from failure of bridges to withstand normal service loads. The Federal Track Safety Standards already address floods and wash-outs by requiring railroads to properly maintain drainage facilities under and adjacent to roadbeds, including bridges. See 49 CFR 213.33. The Track Safety Standards also require in 49 CFR 213.239 that railroads perform special inspections following floods, fire, severe storms, or other occurrences that might have damaged track structure. FRA considers any damage to the track or its supporting structures, including bridges, that renders the track incapable of safely carrying its traffic loads, to come under the provisions of this section of the Track Safety Standards.
NYSDOT commented that railroad bridges, many of which were designed to carry heavy steam locomotives, are now severely loaded by modern 100-ton capacity cars. FRA has found that the railroads understand the phenomenon of structural fatigue and its effect on the longevity of steel structures. Railroads have the advantage of controlling the loads they operate over their bridges, and in most cases, they can determine the loading history of a bridge with sufficient accuracy to permit a valid fatigue evaluation.
NYSDOT commented that FRA does not maintain quantitative data on the nation's railroad bridges, unlike highway agencies which keep detailed quantitative data on highway bridges. Highway agencies need to gather detailed information on those bridges because they are fully responsible for their construction, inspection, maintenance, repair, and safety. However, in the railroad industry, the railroads are responsible for the bridges they own or operate, and they maintain the information necessary for the fulfillment of that responsibility. FRA owns no bridges, and generally does not fund bridge maintenance or construction. The agency therefore does not have the need to expend resources to collect and maintain detailed quantitative data that would duplicate information held by the railroads themselves.
NYSDOT commented that FRA should issue regulations mandating certain requirements for bridge inspection programs. These requirements would include specifications for (1) Diving inspections at set periods, (2) levels of inspection for various types of bridges and bridge components, (3) qualifications and training of inspection personnel, and (4) historical information to be provided to bridge inspectors. FRA does not believe that such regulations are warranted. Rather, these points of concern should be addressed in the guidelines, with the manner of execution left to the determination of the engineer engaged by the bridge owner. FRA believes that specific inspection criteria are best determined on a bridge-by-bridge basis. FRA further believes that it can adequately address individual bridge problems as they arise by exercising its existing safety authority. An example is FRA Emergency Order No. 19 against the Tonawanda Island Railroad bridge in which NYSDOT assisted FRA in collecting information to address specific problems on one particular railroad bridge that was in very poor condition and under highly unusual circumstances. Another example is FRA Emergency Order No. 22 against the Oregon Pacific Railroad. Before issuing that emergency order, FRA, with the help of the Oregon Department of Transportation, gathered information about serious defects in the bridge structure and well as the inadequate repairs the railroad had already made to the bridge.
In addition to the editorial modifications described under the section “Public Participation,” as well as other slight editorial modifications, FRA has added three references to earthquakes and seismic activity to reflect recent advances in railroad bridge engineering related to seismic design. This addition is intended to call attention to potential risks to railroad bridges posed by seismic activity in the United States. FRA also has clarified in paragraph (b) of Section 1, “Responsibility for safety of railroad bridges,” who is responsible for railroad bridge safety when the owner of the track on a bridge is not the owner of the bridge itself.
This statement of policy has been evaluated in accordance with existing regulatory policies. It is considered to be a nonsignificant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and is a nonsignificant rule under 5(a)(4) of DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979) because it is advisory only and
Because this statement of policy is advisory in nature and does not carry with it the force of law or regulation, analysis of it under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601,
Because an analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not required for the final statement of policy, FRA is likewise not required to issue a Small Entity Compliance Guide to summarize the requirements of this rule, pursuant to section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121).
There are no information collection requirements contained in this statement of policy.
FRA has evaluated this statement of policy in accordance with its procedures for ensuring full consideration of the potential environmental impacts of FRA actions, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
FRA undertook the survey of railroad bridges because of a perception that the nation's railroad bridges are aging and may pose a significant hazard to public safety. Following the survey, FRA concluded that the vast majority of such bridges across the nation are adequately maintained and do not present a threat to safety. This conclusion is not based upon an assessment of railroad bridge safety for any particular location, nor does it imply that every railroad bridge in every state meets the minimum guidelines. Therefore, it is FRA's intent that this statement of policy should not preclude any state from addressing safety issues concerning railroad bridges within that state.
In stating its intent that this policy statement should not preempt regulatory actions by states, FRA is adhering to the principles of Executive Order 13132 issued on August 4, 1999, which directs Federal agencies to exercise great care in establishing policies that have federalism implications. See 64 FR 43,255. Section 3(a) of the Executive Order requires Federal agencies to “closely examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of States and * * * carefully assess the necessity for such action.” In Section 3(b), the Executive Order continues, “National action limiting the policymaking discretion of the States shall be taken only where there is constitutional and statutory authority for the action and the national activity is appropriate in light of the presence of a problem of national significance.” Of course, FRA has the constitutional and statutory authority to issue guidelines addressing railroad bridge safety, but the agency has not found a “problem of national significance” of such a dimension to warrant limiting state policymaking discretion in addressing the same subject matter. In light of this conclusion, a Federalism Assessment pursuant to Executive Order 13132 is not required. Nevertheless, FRA has prepared a short Federalism analysis which resides in the docket reserved for this proceeding.
For railroad operations to be conducted safely, the structural integrity of bridges that carry railroad track must be properly maintained. FRA's research reveals that the railroad industry does not have a systemic bridge safety problem. For that reason, FRA adopts a safety policy, rather than regulations, to effect and maintain railroad bridge safety.
Penalties, Railroad Safety, Railroads
Amend Part 213 to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 20102-20114 and 20142; 28 U.S.C. 2461; and 49 CFR1.49(m).
1. The structural integrity of bridges that carry railroad tracks is important to the safety of railroad employees and to the public. The responsibility for the safety of railroad bridges rests with the owner of the track carried by the bridge, together with any other party to whom that responsibility has been assigned by the track owner.
2. The capacity of a bridge to safely support its traffic can be determined only by intelligent application of engineering principles and the laws of physics. Bridge owners should use, as FRA does, those principles to assess the integrity of railroad bridges.
3. The long term ability of a structure to perform its function is an economic issue beyond the intent of this policy. In assessing a bridge's structural condition, FRA focuses on the present safety of the structure, rather than its appearance or long term usefulness.
4. FRA inspectors conduct regular evaluations of railroad bridge inspection and management practices. The objective of these evaluations is to document the practices of the evaluated railroad and to disclose any program weaknesses that could affect the safety of the public or railroad employees. When the evaluation discloses problems, FRA seeks a cooperative resolution. If safety is jeopardized by a bridge owner's failure to resolve a bridge problem, FRA will use available legal means, including issuance of emergency orders, to protect the safety of railroad employees and the public.
5. This policy statement addresses the integrity of bridges that carry railroad tracks. It does not address the integrity of other types of structures on railroad property (i.e., tunnels or bridges carrying highways) or other features over railroads (i.e., highway overpasses).
6. The guidelines published in this statement are advisory, rather than regulatory, in nature. They indicate those elements FRA deems essential to successful bridge management programs. FRA uses the guidelines when evaluating bridge inspection and management practices.
1. Responsibility for safety of railroad bridges
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(i) The condition of the bridge has not changed significantly, and
(ii) The stresses resulting from the service loads can be correlated to the stresses for which the bridge was designed or rated.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a) The organization responsible for the safety of a bridge should keep design, construction, maintenance and repair records readily accessible to permit the determination of safe loads. Having design or rating drawings and calculations that conform to the actual structure greatly simplifies the process of making accurate determinations of safe bridge loads.
(b) Organizations acquiring railroad property should obtain original or usable copies of all bridge records and drawings, and protect or maintain knowledge of the location of the original records.
(a) The recommended specifications for the design and rating of bridges are those found in the
(b) A bridge can be rated for capacity according to current specifications regardless of the specification to which it was originally designed.
(a) Periodic bridge inspections by competent inspectors are necessary to determine whether a structure conforms to its design or rating condition and, if not, the degree of nonconformity.
(b) The prevailing practice throughout the railroad industry is to inspect railroad bridges at least annually. Inspections at more frequent intervals may be indicated by the nature or condition of a structure or intensive traffic levels.
(a) Inspections of bridges should include measuring and recording the condition of substructure support at locations subject to erosion from moving water.
(b) Stream beds often are not visible to the inspector. Indirect measurements by sounding, probing, or any other appropriate means are necessary in those cases. A series of records of those readings will provide the best information in the event unexpected changes suddenly occur. Where such indirect measurements do not provide the necessary assurance of foundation integrity, diving inspections should be performed as prescribed by a competent engineer.
(a) Owners of bridges should be aware of the risks posed by earthquakes in the areas in which their bridges are located. Precautions should be taken to protect the safety of trains and the public following an earthquake.
(b) Contingency plans for seismic events should be prepared in advance, taking into account the potential for seismic activity in an area.
(c) The predicted attenuation of ground motion varies considerably within the United States. Local ground motion attenuation values and the magnitude of an earthquake both influence the extent of the area affected by an earthquake. Regions with low frequency of seismic events produce less data from which to predict attenuation factors. That uncertainty should be considered when designating the area in which precautions should be taken following the first notice of an earthquake. In fact, earthquakes in such regions might propagate their effects over much wider areas than earthquakes of the same magnitude occurring in regions with frequent seismic activity.
(a) A special bridge inspection should be performed after an occurrence that might have reduced the capacity of the bridge, such as a flood, an earthquake, a derailment, or an unusual impact.
(b) When a railroad learns that a bridge might have suffered damage through an unusual occurrence, it should restrict train operations over the bridge until the bridge is inspected and evaluated.
(a) Bridge inspections should be recorded. Records should identify the structure inspected, the date of the inspection, the name of the inspector, the components inspected, and their condition.
(b) Information from bridge inspection reports should be incorporated into a bridge management program to ensure that exceptions on the reports are corrected or accounted for. A series of inspection reports prepared over time should be maintained so as to provide a valuable record of trends and rates of degradation of bridge components. The reports should be structured to promote comprehensive inspections and effective communication between an inspector and an engineer who performs an analysis of a bridge.
(c) An inspection report should be comprehensible to a competent person without interpretation by the reporting inspector.
(a) Bridge inspections should be performed by technicians whose training and experience enable them to detect and record indications of distress on a bridge. Inspectors should provide accurate measurements and other information about the condition of the
(b) Accurate information about the condition of a bridge should be evaluated by an engineer who is competent to determine the capacity of the bridge. The inspector and the evaluator often are not the same individual. The quality of the bridge evaluation depends on the quality of the communication between them.
(a) A bridge management program should include a means to ensure that each bridge under the program is inspected at the frequency prescribed for that bridge by a competent engineer.
(b) Bridge inspections should be scheduled from an accurate bridge inventory list that includes the due date of the next inspection.
Railroad bridges differ from other types of bridges in the types of loads they carry, in their modes of failure and indications of distress, and in their construction details and components. Proper inspection and analysis of railroad bridges require familiarity with the loads, details and indications of distress that are unique to this class of structure. Particular care should be taken that modifications to railroad bridges, including retrofits for protection against the effects of earthquakes, are suitable for the structure to which they are to be applied. Modifications should not adversely affect the serviceability of the bridge nor its accessibility for periodic or special inspection.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Fishing restrictions; request for comments.
NMFS announces a three-month closure of the purse seine fishery on floating objects in the eastern Pacific Ocean, consistent with recommendations by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) that have been approved by the Department of State under the terms of the Tuna Conventions Act. If a closure earlier than the scheduled closure is required, a subsequent document will be published in the
Effective from 12 midnight on September 14, 2000, through 12 midnight December 15, 2000. Comments will be accepted through September 14, 2000.
Submit comments to Rebecca Lent, Regional Administrator, Southwest Region (Regional Administrator), NMFS, 501 W. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213.
Mr. Svein Fougner at 562-980- 4040.
This action is taken under the authority of the regulations at 50 CFR part 300, subpart C, which implement the Tuna Conventions Act (16 U.S.C. 955). The U.S. is a member of the IATTC, which was established under the Convention for the Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission signed in 1949. The IATTC was established to provide an international arrangement to ensure the effective international conservation and management of tunas and tuna-like fishes in the Convention Area. The IATTC has maintained a scientific research and fishery monitoring program for many years, and annually assesses the status of stocks of tuna and the fisheries to determine appropriate harvest limits or other measures to prevent overexploitation of the stocks and promote viable fisheries.
At its meeting in June 2000, the IATTC adopted a resolution to close the purse seine fishery associated with floating objects (including fish aggregating devices, or FADS) for the period September 15 through December 15, 2000. The area covered by this recommendation is all waters of the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) between 40° N. lat. and 40° S. lat. out to 150° W. long. The resolution is intended to ensure overall conservation of the bigeye tuna stock and to ensure that the catch of juvenile bigeye tuna would not adversely affect the stock.
This action replaced the recommendation of IATTC in October 1999 that set a provisional 2000 quota of 40,000 metric tons for bigeye tuna taken by purse seine vessels in the EPO. That quota would have been implemented by prohibiting purse seine sets on all types of floating objects in the Convention Area when the quota was reached.
The Department of State has approved this new recommendation. The reason for choosing to close the fishery on floating objects, is that sets on floating objects are the major strategy the purse seine fishery uses to catch bigeye tuna. Sets on floating objects are generally more likely to catch juvenile bigeye, with the result that future yields from the stock could be jeopardized if juvenile bigeye mortality is excessive. To date in 2000, however, catches of juvenile bigeye tuna in the purse seine fishery have been minimal. The seasonal closure is believed to be sufficient to achieve conservation objectives.
For the reasons stated here and in accordance with the regulations at 64 FR 44428, August 16, 1999, NMFS herein announces that:
No U.S. purse seine fishing vessel may deploy a purse seine net around floating objects in the Convention Area between midnight September 14, 2000, and midnight December 15, 2000.
This action is authorized by the regulations implementing the Tuna Conventions Act. The determination to take this action is based on the most recent data available. The aggregate data upon which the determination is based are available for public inspection at the Office of the Regional Administrator (see
This action is taken under the authority of 50 CFR part 300, subpart C and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C., 601
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA) finds for good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) that providing prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action is unnecessary. The rule authorizing this action provides for quotas agreed to by the IATTC and approved by the Department of State to be effective upon direct notification of the U.S. tuna fishing industry. Providing prior notice and an opportunity for public comment would serve no useful purpose. The AA finds for good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) that a 30-day delay in effectiveness for this 2000 quota would be contrary to the public interest. Such a delay could prevent the
16 U.S.C. 951-961 and 971
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; technical amendment; correction.
This document contains a correction to the final rule removing obsolete text implementing the Vessel Moratorium Program (VMP) that was published in the
Effective July 21, 2000.
Patsy A. Bearden, 907-586-7008.
A final rule was published in the
In the final rule, technical amendment published in 65 FR 45316, July 21, 2000, FR Doc. 00-18564, make the following corrections:
On page 45317, in the second column, in § 679.2 under the definition of “Directed fishing”, correct the first line of paragraph (3) by removing “(Applicable through June 20, 2000)” and adding in its place “(Applicable through January 16, 2001)”.
General Accounting Office Personnel Appeals Board.
Proposed rule.
The General Accounting Office Personnel Appeals Board proposes to amend its regulations to permit charging parties to bring their cases directly to the Board after the passage of 180 days from the filing of the charge, if the Board's General Counsel has not yet completed the investigation of the charge and issued a Right to Appeal Letter. This amendment would conform Board procedures with those of other agencies that hear employment-related appeals. The Board invites public comments on this proposed change.
Comments must be received on or before October 30, 2000 in order to be considered.
Comments may be mailed to: Clerk, General Accounting Office Personnel Appeals Board, Suite 560, Union Center Plaza II, 441 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20548. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile transmission to 202-512-7525.
Beth Don, Executive Director, 202-512-6137.
The General Accounting Office Personnel Appeals Board is authorized by Congress to hear and decide certain employment-related cases brought by GAO employees. Some of the matters that may be heard by the Board include: appeals from removals and suspensions for more than 14 days, allegations that agency officials have engaged or are engaging in prohibited personnel practices, claims of employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin, political affiliation, marital status, or disability, and cases concerning the right of employees to engage in collective bargaining. The Board performs for GAO employees the functions performed in the executive branch by the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Federal Labor Relations Authority.
In order to bring a case before the Board, an employee must first file a charge with the Board's General Counsel. (The only exception to this rule is for cases involving a Reduction in Force.) The General Counsel investigates the charge and determines whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the employee's rights have been violated. At the end of the investigation, the General Counsel issues to the employee a “report and recommendation” that explains the results of the investigation. If the General Counsel finds that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the employee's rights have been violated, then the General Counsel offers to represent the employee in a proceeding before the Board. If the General Counsel does not find “reasonable grounds,” the General Counsel may not represent the employee. The employee, however, may still bring the case to the Board by representing him- or herself, or by obtaining private representation. Accompanying the report and recommendation, whether favorable or unfavorable, is a “Right to Appeal” Letter which permits the employee to file a petition for review with the Board.
Under the Board's present regulations, an employee may not bring his or her complaint to the Board until the General Counsel's investigation is completed and the employee has received a “Right to Appeal” Letter. The only exception is for employees separated as a result of a Reduction in Force. The Board's procedures contrast with the procedures in effect at other agencies that hear employment-related appeals. A number of other agencies provide a means for employees to “opt-out” of the investigative phase and proceed directly to the hearing stage after they have waited a certain period of time. For example, under the regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), private employees do not have to await the completion of the EEOC investigation before taking their cases to court. After the passage of 180 days, an employee may request a “right to sue” notice from the EEOC and may then have the case heard in federal district court. See 29 CFR 1601.28. Similarly, federal employees in the executive branch do not have to wait indefinitely for the conclusion of the agency investigation into their equal employment opportunity complaints. If the employing agency has not completed the investigation within 180 days, then the employee may immediately request a hearing on the complaint. See 29 CFR 1614.108(g). The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) also allows employees complaining of discrimination to request a hearing if they have waited for 120 days and have not yet received a decision from their agency on their complaint. See 5 CFR 1201.154(b)(2). In case alleging retaliation against whistleblowers, an employee may request a hearing before the MSPB if the Office of Special Counsel has not completed its investigation of the matter within 120 days. See 5 CFR 1209.5(a)(2). Within GAO itself, the agency permits employees to file appeals with the Board concerning equal employment opportunity cases, if GAO has not completed its investigation of the matter within 120 days, or to file a civil action in federal district court if such as case investigation has not been completed within 180 days. See GAO Order 2713.2 ch. 6, ¶¶2, 4 (Dec. 2, 1997).
The Board believes that the approach taken by these agencies is a reasonable and fair one. It therefore proposes to adopt a similar approach for cases within its jurisdiction. Under the proposed rule set forth below, GAO employees will have the option of bringing their cases directly to the Board if 180 days have passed and the Board's General Counsel has not yet completed the investigation and issued a “Right to Appeal” Letter concerning their case. If the proposal is adopted, no employee will have to wait for more than 180 days to have the opportunity to present his or her case to an administrative judge.
The proposed amendments do not require an employee to file with the Board as soon as the 180-day period has expired. An employee would still retain the right to wait for the General Counsel to complete the investigation, before going forward. The proposed regulation gives employees a choice: after 180 days they may either go directly to the Board
Under the proposed regulations, certain consequences flow from an employee's decision to file a petition for review with the Board before the completion of the General Counsel's investigation. First, the investigation by the Board's General Counsel would be terminated as soon as the employee files a petition for review with the Board. The General Counsel would not gather any further evidence after that point, and the employee would not receive a report from the General Counsel analyzing the facts or law relevant to the employee's case. Second, the Board's rules only permit the General Counsel to represent employees before the Board if the General Counsel completes the investigation and finds “reasonable grounds” to believe that the charge is true. Under the proposed regulations, therefore, an employee who “opts out” of the investigation after 180 days, and files directly with the Board, would forego the opportunity to have the General Counsel present his or her case to the Board. Such an employee could either represent him- or herself, or obtain private representation.
The Board believes that these consequences are necessary features of its proposed regulation. While the Board wishes to extend a choice to employees, it does not believe that it would be justifiable to permit employees to go forward before both the General Counsel's Office and the Board simultaneously. Nor would it be appropriate to permit an employee to be represented at public expense in the absence of a finding of reasonable cause by the General Counsel
Administrative practice and procedure, Equal employment opportunity, Government employees, Labor-management relations.
For the reasons stated in the foregoing preamble, the General Accounting Office Personnel Appeals Board proposes to amend 4 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter B, Part 28 as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 28 continues to read as follows:
31 U.S.C. 753.
2. Amend § 28.12 by adding a new paragraph (g) to read as follows:
(g) If 180 days have elapsed since the filing of the charge, and the General Counsel has not completed the investigation and issued a Right to Appeal Letter, the charging party may bring his or her case directly to the Board by filing a petition for review in accordance with § 28.18. If a charging party exercises this option to file a petition for review with the Board without waiting for the completion of the investigation, the General Counsel shall not represent the charging party in proceedings before the Board. The charging party may represent him- or herself or obtain other representation. The General Counsel shall close the investigation of the charge upon being notified by the Clerk of the Board that the charging party has filed a petition for review with the Board under this paragraph (g).
3. Amend § 28.18 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:
(a)
(1) The person has received a Right to Appeal Letter from the Board's General Counsel; or
(2) At least 180 days have elapsed from the filing of the charge with the Board's General Counsel and the General Counsel has not issued a Right to Appeal Letter; or
(3) The person was separated due to a Reduction in Force and chooses to file an appeal directly with the Board, without first filing with the Board's General Counsel, as provided in § 28.13.
(b)
(2) Petitions for review filed pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section may be filed at any time after 180 days have elapsed from the filing of the charge with the Board's General Counsel, provided that the General Counsel has not issued a Right to Appeal Letter concerning the charge.
(3) Petitions for review filed pursuant to paragraph (a)(3) of this section must be filed within 30 days after the effective date of the separation due to a Reduction in Force.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
This document withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would have applied to all Short Brothers & Harland Ltd. (Shorts) Models SC-7 Series 2 and SC-7 Series 3 airplanes. The proposed AD would have required you to revise the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to include requirements for activation of the airframe pneumatic deicing boots. The proposed AD was the result of reports of in-flight incidents and an accident (on airplanes other than the referenced Shorts airplanes) that occurred in icing conditions where the airframe pneumatic deicing boots were not activated. Since issuing this NPRM, we have found that all of the affected airplanes incorporate a freezing point fluid system. These airplanes do not have pneumatic deicing boots. Therefore, we have determined that the unsafe condition defined in the NPRM does not exist on these airplanes and we are withdrawing the NPRM.
You may look at information related to this action at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 99-CE-48-AD, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays.
Mr. Larry E. Werth, Airworthiness Directive Coordinator, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4147; facsimile: (816) 329-4090.
Withdrawal of this NPRM does not prevent us from issuing another notice in the future, nor will it commit us to any course of action in the future.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, FAA withdraws the notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket No. 99-CE-48-AD, published in the
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
This document withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would have applied to all Raytheon Aircraft Company (Raytheon) 90, 99, 100, 200, 300, 1900, and 2000 series airplanes. The proposed AD would have required you to revise the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to include requirements for activation of the airframe pneumatic deicing boots. The proposed AD was the result of reports of in-flight incidents and an accident (on airplanes other than the referenced Raytheon airplanes) that occurred in icing conditions where the airframe pneumatic deicing boots were not activated. Raytheon has demonstrated that the design of the affected airplanes, including the language currently in the AFM, is adequate to address the conditions identified in the proposed AD for these airplanes. Therefore, AD action is not necessary to address the conditions on these airplanes and we are withdrawing the NPRM.
You may look at information related to this action at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 99-CE-46-AD, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays.
Mr. Larry E. Werth, Airworthiness Directive Coordinator, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4147; facsimile: (816) 329-4090.
Withdrawal of this NPRM does not prevent us from issuing another notice in the future, nor will it commit us to any course of action in the future.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, FAA withdraws the notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket No. 99-CE-46-AD, published in the
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Lockheed Model 188A and 188C series airplanes. This proposal would require a revision of the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to add procedures for donning the flightcrew oxygen masks when the cabin altitude warning horn is activated. This action is intended to prevent incapacitation of the flightcrew as a result of lack of oxygen and consequent loss of control of the airplane due to absence of AFM procedures for donning the flightcrew oxygen masks when the cabin altitude warning horn is activated.
Comments must be received by October 16, 2000.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-265-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2000-NM-265-AD” in the subject line and need not be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or ASCII text.
This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia 30349.
Thomas Peters, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ACE-116A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia 30349; telephone (770) 703-6063 fax (770) 703-6097.
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 (
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-265-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-265-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
On October 25, 1999, a Learjet Model 35 series airplane operating under part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 135) departed Orlando International Airport enroute to Dallas, Texas. Air traffic control lost communication with the airplane near Gainsville, Florida. Air Force and National Guard airplanes intercepted the airplane, but the flightcrews of the chase airplanes indicated that the windows of the Model 35 series airplane were apparently frosted over and prevented the chase airplane flightcrews from observing the interior of the Model 35 series airplane. The flightcrews of the chase airplanes reported that they did not observe any damage to the airplane. Subsequently, the Model 35 series airplane ran out of fuel and crashed in South Dakota. To date, causal factors of the accident have not been determined. However, lack of the Learjet flightcrew's response to air traffic control poses the possibility of flightcrew incapacitation and raises concerns with the pressurization and oxygen systems.
Recognizing these concerns, the FAA initiated a special certification review (SCR) to determine if pressurization and oxygen systems on Model 35 series airplanes were certificated properly, and to determine if any unsafe design features exist in the pressurization and oxygen systems.
The SCR team found that there have been several accidents and incidents that may have involved incapacitation of the flightcrews during flight. In one case, the airplane flightcrew did not activate the pressurization system or don their oxygen masks and the airplane flew in excess of 35,000 feet altitude. In another case, the airplane flightcrews did not don their oxygen masks when the cabin aural warning was activated. Further review by the SCR team indicates that the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) of Learjet Model 35/36 series airplanes do not have an emergency procedure that requires donning the flightcrew oxygen masks when the cabin altitude aural warning is
The SCR findings indicated that the most likely cause for incapacitation was hypoxia (lack of oxygen). The only other plausible cause of incapacitation is exposure to toxic substances. However, no evidence was found to support the existence of toxic substances.
Delayed response of the flightcrew in donning oxygen masks upon the activation of the cabin altitude warning horn could lead to incapacitation of the flightcrew and loss of control of the airplane.
A review of the emergency procedures in the AFM for Lockheed Model 188A and 188C series airplanes revealed that those AFM's also did not contain the requirement for the flightcrew to immediately don emergency oxygen masks. Therefore, all Lockheed Model 188A and 188C series airplanes may be subject to the same unsafe condition as described above.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the proposed AD would require revising the Emergency Procedures Section of the AFM to provide the flightcrew with appropriate and timely actions in response to activation of the cabin altitude warning horn.
There are approximately 75 Model 188A and 188C series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 32 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,920, or $60 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is 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 proposed AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
To prevent incapacitation of the flightcrew and consequent loss of control of the airplane due to delays in donning oxygen masks in response to the activation of the cabin altitude warning horn; accomplish the following:
(a) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the Emergency Procedures Section of the FAA-Approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to include the following. This may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM.
Warning horn can be silenced with cabin altitude warning horn switch.”
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Atlanta ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Atlanta ACO.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) is proposing a rule to require child-resistant (CR) packaging on drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for over-the-counter (OTC) sale that contain active ingredients previously available only in prescription drugs. Current Commission regulations require CR packaging for most oral drug products containing prescription-only active ingredients. However, at present, there is no general requirement for CR packaging of such drug products in forms subsequently approved by the FDA for OTC sale.
The Commission is also proposing to revoke the current prohibition on granting a petition for an exemption from a CR packaging requirement prior to FDA approval of the drug product in question.
The Commission takes these actions under authority of the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970, as amended.
The Office of the Secretary must receive comments on this proposal on or before November 13, 2000.
Mail comments to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C. 20207, or hand deliver them to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408, telephone (301) 504-0800. Comments may also be filed by telefacsimile to (301) 504-0127 or by email to cpsc-os@cpsc.gov.
Suzanne Barone, Directorate for Health Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C. 20207; telephone (301) 504-0477 ext. 1196.
The Poison Prevention Packaging Act, 15 U.S.C. 1471-1476, was enacted to protect children from serious personal injury or illness resulting from handling, using, or ingesting hazardous substances. Under the PPPA the CPSC can require CR packaging of hazardous household chemicals, including drug products. The CPSC regulations currently require CR packaging of all oral prescription drug products that have not been specifically exempted from that requirement. 16 CFR 1700.14(a)(10).
In contrast, OTC drug products, also referred to as nonprescription drug products, are not now regulated as a class under the PPPA. However, a number of specific OTC drug products have been required by Commission regulation to have CR packaging. These drug products and the effective dates of the CR requirements are: (1) Aspirin (1972), (2) liquid methyl salicylate (1972), (3) iron-containing drug products (1978), (4) acetaminophen (1980), (5) diphenhydramine (1984), (6) ibuprofen (1992), (7) loperamide (1993), (8) lidocaine (1996), (9) dibucaine (1996), (10) naproxen (1996), (11) ketoprofen (1997), and (12) minoxidil (1999).
Diphenhydramine, ibuprofen, loperamide, naproxen, and ketoprofen were active ingredients available originally only in oral dose prescription drug products.
The FDA approves drug products containing a single active ingredient or a combination of active ingredients for sale in the United States. This includes approval for sale directly to the consumer in OTC product formulations. The primary responsibility of the FDA with respect to OTC drug products is to assure that they are safe and effective when self-administered by a consumer in a proper manner. The FDA does not base granting of OTC status on whether a drug product would be toxic to a child if unintentionally ingested. The FDA confirmed this in a letter to CPSC staff dated October 7, 1998 stating that “approval of an OTC switch does not in any way imply that FDA has concluded that the product does not continue to need child-resistant packaging.” A copy of the FDA letter is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
Since 1976, the FDA has permitted many drug products to be sold OTC. According to the Consumer Healthcare Products Association (CHPA) website, “more than 600 OTC products on the market today use ingredients or dosages available only by prescription just 20 years ago. ”
The FDA is currently evaluating whether other drug products or drug product categories should be OTC-switched. That agency conducted a two-day public hearing in late June of this year on a spectrum of OTC issues, including OTC switches. In the April 27, 2000
To date, the Commission has required CR packaging for OTC products containing 6 of the 22 oral prescription active ingredients that have also been approved for sale in OTC products. The six active ingredients that currently
In the past, CPSC staff focused primarily on ingestion data to recommend to the Commission what products should be in CR packaging. In the late 1970s the FDA allowed the OTC sale of several antihistamines that were previously available only by prescription. Of these, diphenhydramine hydrochloride was the first OTC-switched active ingredient regulated by the CPSC under PPPA authority. Then, in 1982, the FDA approved the monocitrate salt of diphenhydramine for OTC sale. The existing diphenhydramine hydrochloride CR packaging regulation was then amended to cover all diphenhydramine salts.
In 1984, the CPSC staff evaluated ingestion data related to ibuprofen. Products containing ibuprofen were granted OTC status during that year. At that time, the poisoning data were limited and Commission staff did not recommend CR packaging. The two companies that first marketed OTC ibuprofen products used CR packaging voluntarily on some package sizes.
In 1989, CPSC staff revisited ibuprofen toxicity because ibuprofen had become widely available. Not all companies were using CR packaging and serious injuries to children resulted. The Commission issued a rule requiring CR packaging for all of these products. 16 CFR 1700.14(a)(20). Companies that had been marketing their products in non-CR packaging changed their packaging accordingly.
The experience with diphenhydramine and ibuprofen resulted in a change in the staff's approach to recommendations for CR packaging for OTC-switched products. Rather than wait for deaths or injuries to children, Commission staff has become more proactive in recommending CR packaging requirements for OTC drug products. For the past several years the staff has focused on the potential toxicity of active ingredients contained in drug products that are going to be switched instead of waiting for poisonings to occur after a product is released and marketed for OTC sale. The staff has made the evaluation of potential switched drug products the first priority. As a result, separate regulations for products containing loperamide, naproxen, and ketoprofen were promulgated by the Commission soon after OTC status for products containing each of these active ingredients was granted by the FDA.
CPSC staff monitors FDA's activities concerning approval of switched OTC drug products. The staff attends FDA advisory panel meetings when possible, to better understand any issues about a potential switch and the likelihood of approval of OTC status by the FDA. The FDA is not bound to accept the panel's recommendations regarding OTC switches, though in most cases the FDA does. The review of the potential toxicity to young children of the active ingredient or ingredients in the product then becomes a priority for the CPSC staff.
To avoid expending the CPSC's limited resources if the FDA does not approve OTC sale of the drug product, Commission staff waits for FDA approval before proceeding with a review. The proposed rule would eliminate this lag between FDA approval of an OTC-switch and the CPSC requirement to maintain CR packaging.
The 16 oral prescription active ingredients that were switched to OTC status and are not currently required to have CR packaging are pseudoephedrine HCL, pseudoephedrine sulfate, phenylpropanolamine HCL, clemastine fumarate, brompheniramine maleate, chlorpheniramine maleate, dexbrompheniramine maleate, triprolidine HCL, dexchlorpheniramine maleate, doxylamine succinate, pyrantel pamoate, chlophedianol HCL, famotidine, cimetidine, ranitidine, and nizatidine. In conjunction with this rulemaking, CPSC staff has preliminarily assessed the toxicity of eight of these. Based on their toxicity, the staff would recommend CR packaging for drug products containing pseudoephedrine HCL, pseudoephedrine sulfate, phenylpropanolamine HCL, and clemastine fumarate.
The four active ingredients for which the CPSC staff would not recommend CR packaging are members of the same family of antihistamines used to reduce stomach acid. These are famotidine, cimetidine, ranitidine, and nizatidine. These substances do not have the degree of toxicity associated with antihistamines used to treat cold symptoms.
Five antihistamine active ingredients that are currently under preliminary review by Commission staff are brompheniramine maleate, chlorpheniramine maleate, dexbrompheniramine maleate, triprolidine HCL, and dexchlorpheniramine maleate. These antihistamines are related in structure and activity to diphenhydramine, which is currently subject to a CR packaging requirement.
This rulemaking proposal would not retrospectively require CR packaging of FDA-approved drug products containing the 16 OTC-switched active ingredients not currently subject to CR packaging requirements. CPSC staff continues to evaluate these substances as time and other priorities permit. Many drug products containing these active ingredients are in CR packaging because they contain other active ingredients that require CR packaging, for example pseudoephedrine with ibuprofen or an antihistamine with acetaminophen or aspirin. In addition, the Commission is aware of some OTC products that are voluntarily marketed in CR packaging.
The Poison Prevention Packaging Act authorizes the Commission to establish standards for the “special packaging” of any household substance if: (1) The degree or nature of the hazard to children in the availability of such substance, by reason of its packaging, is such that special packaging is required to protect children from serious personal injury or serious illness resulting from handling, using, or ingesting such substance; and (2) the special packaging is technically feasible, practicable, and appropriate for such substance. 15 U.S.C. § 1472(a).
CR or “special” packaging must be designed or constructed to be: (1) Significantly difficult for children under 5 years of age to open or obtain a toxic or harmful amount of the substance contained therein within a reasonable time; and (2) not difficult for “normal adults” to use properly. 15 U.S.C. 1471(4). Household substances for which the Commission may require CR
Section 4(a) of the PPPA, 15 U.S.C. 1473(a), allows the manufacturer or packer to package a nonprescription product subject to special packaging standards in one size of non-CR packaging only if the manufacturer (or packer) also supplies the product in CR packages of a popular size, and the non-CR package bears conspicuous labeling stating “This package for households without young children.” 15 U.S.C. 1473(a), 16 CFR 1700.5.
The Commission is proposing a rule to require that CR packaging requirements applicable to any oral prescription drug product continue to apply when that drug product or any other drug product containing an active ingredient of that product is granted OTC status by the FDA. This rule will provide children with the same protection when a drug product is more widely available as an OTC preparation that they had when it was available only by prescription. The rule would eliminate the possibility of a drug product being available in non-CR packaging for an extended time before the CR packaging requirement is reimposed by Commission rulemaking. The need to continue to protect children does not diminish when an oral prescription drug product is granted OTC status. As noted above, a decision by the FDA to grant OTC status for a prescription drug product does not include a finding that there is a lack of toxicity to a child if the drug product is accidentally ingested in an unpredictable amount, which could be the entire contents of the OTC product package. The active ingredient(s) in the drug product still have the same toxicity, whether the drug product is in prescription or OTC form.
The FDA can approve a new usage or a new dosage form of a previously-approved OTC-switched drug product. The proposed rule would require that the new use or new dose be sold in CR packaging even if the new use or dose was not approved when the drug product was only available by prescription. This is consistent with the current regulatory approach for a new use for an oral OTC product that is already subject to a CR packaging requirement. For example, after February 11, 1985, any oral product that contained more than the equivalent of 66 mg. of diphenhydramine base was required to be in CR packaging. At that time, diphenhydramine was in OTC sleep aids and hay fever preparations. In 1987, when diphenhydramine was approved by the FDA for OTC sale as an oral antiemetic drug product, no further CPSC regulatory action was necessary. This same focus on the active ingredient itself rather than the approved usage is the approach of the proposed rule. If an oral prescription drug product were granted OTC status by the FDA it would automatically be subject to a CR packaging requirement under the proposed rule. If the FDA then approved another OTC drug product containing some or all of the active ingredients in that drug product, the new drug product would also automatically be subject to the CR packaging requirement.
The proposed rule would not extend CR packaging requirements to OTC-switched products that are not oral formulations, even if they contain any of the same active ingredients as an oral preparation. Formulations other than oral, such as topical preparations, or transdermal patches would still be regulated individually and therefore not affected by this proposed rule.
In some cases, after a prescription drug product is approved for OTC sale by the FDA, other forms, dosages, or combinations containing some or all of the active ingredients in that drug product will also be approved for OTC sale. These combinations or forms may not have existed when the drug was available by prescription only. This proposal would cover these situations. For example, loperamide was granted OTC status by the FDA in 1988. In 1993, the CPSC required CR packaging for any oral product that contained more than 0.045 mg of loperamide. In 1997, the FDA approved the combination of loperamide and simethicone in an OTC product. This combination was never a prescription product. However, the combination OTC product is subject to the CR packaging requirement because the loperamide rule is not limited to the original prescription formulation.
The prescription version of a drug product may be available in different dosages, strengths, and forms. However, the FDA may place restrictions on the allowed level of an active ingredient available for use in an OTC drug product. Several different scenarios exist. First, the active ingredient may be sold in an OTC drug product at the lowest prescription dosage. This is true for many OTC-switched drug products, including the antihistamines. Second, the active ingredient may be sold OTC at the prescription strength but with a lower total daily allowable dose. This is the case for OTC loperamide products. Lastly, a lower dosage of the active ingredient may be developed for the OTC drug product. OTC ibuprofen and naproxen are examples.
This proposal would require CR packaging for any OTC oral drug product containing an active ingredient that was available by prescription even if the OTC dosage is lower than the prescription strength. This is consistent with the approach of the CPSC's oral prescription drug product CR packaging regulation, which applies to all dosages approved by the FDA for prescription sale. This recognizes the reality that absent CR packaging, the “dose” potentially available to a child is the entire package contents.
The Commission has issued rules for individual OTC switched drug products that are only available at a lower dose than the prescription strength product. The Commission's experiences with ibuprofen and naproxen demonstrate that toxic amounts of the active ingredients are available from a single OTC product container even at these new lower dosages.
An exemption procedure exists for PPPA-regulated products that do not pose a risk of serious injury or illness to children or for which CR packaging is not technically feasible, practicable, or appropriate. 16 CFR Part 1702. Companies petition the Commission to exempt products by submitting data, described in 16 CFR Part 1702, to support a conclusion either that: (1) the drug product will not cause serious injury or illness, or (2) it is not technically possible to develop and produce CR packaging for the drug product. An exemption petition is processed by informal, notice and comment rulemaking. Currently, 18 oral prescription drug products and several OTC formulations of aspirin, acetaminophen, and iron have been exempted from the CR packaging requirements. 16 CFR 1700.14. Under the proposed rule, this exemption procedure would remain available to manufacturers of OTC-switched products.
The Commission's current CR packaging regulations specify that the Commission shall deny an exemption petition if the FDA has not approved the new drug product. 16 CFR 1702.16(b). Therefore,at present, a company seeking an exemption for a newly approved drug product must either market in CR packaging, delay marketing until the Commission acts on the petition, or request a stay of enforcement to allow marketing in non-CR packaging while the Commission considers the petition.
A post-marketing change in packaging of an approved OTC drug product may be more complex for the manufacturer than simply buying different packaging and modifying the packaging equipment. In some cases, the FDA must approve the new packaging before the drug product can be marketed.
Copies can also be obtained by calling the FDA Drug Information Branch at (301) 827-4573.
Accordingly, the Commission is proposing to revoke 16 C.F.R. 1702.16(b) so that exemption petitions can be submitted and considered by the Commission earlier in the process,
To assist consumers and industry in identifying which OTC-switched drug products require CR packaging, the Commission intends to maintain a list of such drug products as an appendix to the regulations at 16 CFR 1700.14. As the FDA approves OTC-switches, the list would be updated periodically by publishing a revised appendix in the
Before issuing a rule requiring CR packaging, the Commission must find that the degree or nature of the hazard to children in the availability of OTC-switched drug products by reason of their packaging is such that special packaging is required to protect children from serious injury or illness from handling, using, or ingesting the drug products. 15 U.S.C. 1472(a)(1). These statutory findings were made when the rule requiring CR packaging for oral prescription drug products was promulgated in 1973. 38 Fed. Reg. 9,431.
OTC-switches did not begin to occur until several years after the 1973 rule requiring CR packaging for oral prescription drug products was promulgated. The first such switches were carried out in response to recommendations from an FDA Advisory Panel's review of over-the-counter drug products.
The need to continue to protect children remains when oral prescription drug products are granted OTC status. As noted previously, a decision by the FDA to grant OTC status for a prescription drug product is not a determination that there is no toxicity to a child if the drug product is accidentally ingested. The active ingredient(s) contained in the drug product have the same toxicity whether in prescription or OTC form. The issue is whether drug products switched to OTC status at a lower dosage than was available by prescription are still hazardous to young children. This is the case since absent CR packaging, the “dose” available to a child can be the entire contents of the OTC product package. The Commission's experiences with ibuprofen and naproxen demonstrate that toxic amounts of the active ingredients are available even when lower dosages are approved for OTC product sale.
Another important consideration is that OTC drug products are more readily available to consumers and therefore more accessible to children than prescription products containing the same active ingredient(s). The CPSC concludes that the available data support the finding that maintaining CR packaging is necessary to protect children from serious injury or illness from ingesting oral prescription drug products that have been granted OTC status.
As a prerequisite to a CR packaging rule, the Commission must also find that the special packaging is “technically feasible, practicable, and appropriate.” 15 U.S.C. 1472(a)(2). Technical feasibility may be found when technology exists or can be readily developed and implemented by the effective date to produce packaging that conforms to the standards. Practicability means that special packaging complying with the standards can utilize modern mass production and assembly line techniques. Packaging is appropriate when complying packaging will adequately protect the integrity of the active ingredient(s) in the product and not interfere with its intended storage or use.
In some cases the same packaging can be used for the OTC product as for the prescription product. However, companies must modify the labels since FDA labeling requirements for OTC drug products differ from the labeling requirements for prescription drugs. Also, most companies develop new packaging specifically for the OTC market. Unit dose packaging is popular for the OTC market especially for drug products such as antihistamines that are sold in limited quantities. Other products containing active ingredients such as the anti-inflammatory compounds ibuprofen and naproxen are sold in bottles. CR designs of this sort of unit and reclosable packaging are commercially available. The change in status of the drug from prescription-only to OTC does not change the availability of the CR packaging in mass-produced quantities, or detract from its ability to maintain the shelf life of switched drug products. Therefore, the Commission concludes that CR packaging for OTC-switched drug products is technically feasible, practicable, and appropriate.
Section 3(b) of the PPPA requires that the Commission consider the following in establishing a special packaging standard:
a. The reasonableness of the standard;
b. Available scientific, medical, and engineering data concerning special packaging and concerning childhood accidental ingestions, illness, and injury caused by household substances;
c. The manufacturing practices of industries affected by the PPPA; and
d. The nature and use of the household substance. 15 U.S.C. 1472(b).
The Commission has considered these factors with respect to the various determinations made in this notice, and preliminarily finds no reason to conclude that the rule is unreasonable or otherwise inappropriate.
The packaging configuration for a drug product to be switched is determined before a company submits the OTC-switch application to the FDA. Accordingly, the Commission is proposing that this rule apply prospectively to drug products for
The PPPA provides that no regulation shall take effect sooner than 180 days or later than one year after the date such final regulation is issued, except that, for good cause, the Commission may establish an earlier effective date if it determines an earlier date to be in the public interest. 15 U.S.C. 1471n.
CR packaging is currently available commercially for most, if not all, types of oral prescription drug products that would be subject to this rulemaking. Thus, the Commission is proposing that the final rule take effect 180 days after its publication.
When an agency undertakes a rulemaking proceeding, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601
The Commission's Directorate for Economic Analysis prepared a preliminary assessment of the impact of a rule to maintain CR packaging for OTC-switched drug products. A copy of the preliminary analysis is available for inspection in the docket for this rulemaking. The assessment reports that the incremental cost of providing basic CR packaging is usually small ($0.005-$0.02/per package). The assessment also notes that the incremental cost may be somewhat higher if the marketer provides more elaborate packaging in the effort to create “shelf appeal” to attract consumers and compete with other OTC products in the same therapeutic category.
At present, the Commission does not have quantitative information on the number of small businesses that might be affected by the OTC-switch proposal. However, the staff assessment concludes that because the incremental cost of CR packaging is minimal, and because these costs (if any) are likely to be passed on to consumers, it is unlikely that the proposal will have a substantial effect on a significant number of small businesses. The Commission requests comment from companies that supply OTC-switched drug products. The Commission is particularly interested in information on the likely effect of this proposed rule on small businesses.
Many OTC-switched drug products are already in CR packaging. In some instances, for example with certain oral dosage formulations of acetaminophen, ibuprofen and loperamide, this is because the Commission has affirmatively required CR packaging. In other cases, the marketer has elected voluntarily to use CR packaging.
This notice proposes revocation of the existing requirement at 16 CFR 1702.16(b) that new drug approval be obtained from the FDA prior to Commission approval of a petition seeking exemption from a CR packaging requirement. Allowing for advance consideration and approval of any legitimate CR packaging exemption petition should minimize or eliminate any unwarranted economic impact that would otherwise result from maintaining the CR packaging requirement on OTC-switched oral prescription drug products or from requiring a change to CR packaging post-marketing.
Based on the foregoing assessment, the Commission certifies that the rule to maintain CR packaging for OTC-switched drug products, if promulgated in final form as proposed, would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses or other small entities.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, and in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations and CPSC procedures for environmental review, the Commission has assessed the possible environmental effects associated with the proposed PPPA requirements for OTC-switched drug products.
The Commission's regulations state that rules requiring special packaging for consumer products normally have little or no potential for affecting the human environment. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(3). Nothing in this proposed rule alters that expectation. Therefore, because the rule would have no adverse effect on the environment, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
As provided for in Executive Order 12,988 the CPSC states the preemptive effect of this proposed regulation as follows.
The PPPA provides that, generally, when a special packaging standard issued under the PPPA is in effect, “no State or political subdivision thereof shall have any authority either to establish or continue in effect, with respect to such household substance, any standard for special packaging (and any exemption therefrom and requirement related thereto) which is not identical to the [PPPA] standard.” 15 U.S.C. 1476(a). A State or local standard may be excepted from this preemptive effect if (1) the State or local standard provides a higher degree of protection from the risk of injury or illness than the PPPA standard; and (2) the State or political subdivision applies to the Commission for an exemption from the PPPA's preemption clause and the Commission grants the exemption through procedures specified at 16 CFR part 1061. 15 U.S.C. 1476(c)(1). In addition, the Federal government, or a State or local government, may establish and continue in effect a non-identical special packaging requirement that provides a higher degree of protection than the PPPA requirement for a household substance for the Federal, State or local government's own use. 15 U.S.C. 1476(b).
Thus, with the exceptions noted above, the proposed rule requiring CR packaging for OTC-switched drug products would preempt non-identical state or local special packaging standards for such drug products.
Any person responding to this notice who believes that any information submitted is trade secret or proprietary should specifically identify the exact portions of the document claimed to be confidential. The Commission's staff will receive and handle such information confidentially and in accordance with section 6(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2055(a). Such information will not be placed in the public docket for the rulemaking and will not be made available to the public simply upon request. If the Commission receives a request for disclosure of the information or concludes that its disclosure is necessary to discharge the Commission's responsibilities, the Commission will inform the person who submitted the information and provide that person an opportunity to present additional information and views concerning the confidential nature of the information. 16 CFR 1015.18(b) (1999).
The Commission's staff will then make a determination of whether the information is trade secret or proprietary information that cannot be released. That determination will be made in accordance with applicable provisions of the CPSA; the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552b; 18 U.S.C. 1905; the Commission's procedural regulations at 16 CFR part 1015 governing protection and disclosure of information under provisions of FOIA; and relevant judicial interpretations. If the Commission concludes that any part of the information that has been submitted with a claim that the information is a trade secret or proprietary is disclosable, it will notify the person submitting the material in writing and provide at least 10 calendar days from the receipt of the letter to allow for that person to seek judicial relief. 15 U.S.C. 2055(a)(5) and (6); 16 CFR 1015.19(b).
Consumer protection, Drugs, Infants and children, Packaging and containers, Poison prevention, Toxic substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth above, the Commission proposes to amend 16 CFR part 1700 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 1700 continues to read as follows:
15 U.S.C. 1471-76. Secs. 1700.1 and 1700.14 also issued under 15 U.S.C. 2079(a).
2. Section 1700.14 is amended by republishing paragraph (a) introductory text and by adding new paragraph (a)(32) to read as follows:
(a)
(32)
(ii) For purposes of this paragraph (a)(32), active ingredient means any component that is intended to furnish pharmacological activity or other direct effect in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease or to affect the structure or any function of the body of humans; and drug product means a finished dosage form, for example, tablet, capsule, or solution, that contains a drug substance (active ingredient), generally, but not necessarily, in association with one or more other ingredients. (These terms are intended to have the meanings assigned to them in the regulations of the Food and Drug Administration appearing at 21 CFR 201.66 and 21 CFR 314.3, respectively.)
3. Section 1702.16 is amended by removing paragraph (b) thereof in its entirety.
1. Briefing memorandum from Suzanne Barone, Ph.D., EH, to the Commission, “Proposed Rule to Require Special Packaging for Oral Prescription Drugs that are Granted Over-the-Counter Status by the Food and Drug Administration,” May 16, 2000.
2. Letter from Debra L. Bowen, M.D., Acting Director, Division of Over-the-Counter Drug Products, Food and Drug Administration, to Jeffrey S. Bromme, Esq., General Counsel, Consumer Product Safety Commission, October 7, 1998.
3. Memorandum from Marcia P. Robins, EC, to Suzanne Barone, Ph.D., EH, “Economic considerations: Proposal to Maintain Child-Resistant Packaging Requirements for Oral Prescription Drugs that Have Been Granted OTC Status by the FDA,” April 7, 2000.
4. Memorandum from Suzanne Barone, Ph.D., Project manager for Poison prevention, Directorate for Health Sciences, to Sadye E. Dunn, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, “Responses to Questions from Commissioner Moore on Over-the-Counter Switches,” June 23, 2000.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) published a document in the
Comments on this proposed rule must be submitted by October 30, 2000.
Send written comments on this proposed rule to Docket Number EC-1999-015, Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center (ECDIC), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Room 4033, Mail Code 2201A, Washington, DC 20460; Phone, 202-564-2614 or 202-564-2119; Fax, 202-501-1011; Email,
Rebecca Moser, Office of Information
In 1976, EPA first promulgated its comprehensive CBI regulations as part of its regulations in 40 CFR part 2 for implementing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). These regulations include special provisions addressing CBI under specific EPA statutes. For all business information submitted to EPA, the regulations allow businesses that submit information to EPA to claim that information is entitled to confidential treatment. If information is claimed as CBI, EPA generally will not disclose the information to the public, in response to a FOIA request or otherwise, unless EPA makes a determination that the information is not entitled to confidential treatment and notifies the affected business giving the business an opportunity to seek judicial review of EPA's action. The regulations set out procedures for EPA to make confidentiality determinations for information claimed as confidential.
At the time the 1976 regulations were issued, EPA concluded that when EPA received a FOIA request or otherwise needed to determine the confidentiality of particular information claimed as CBI, EPA would need to obtain comments from the business that made the CBI claim telling the Agency why the business believes its information is entitled to confidential treatment. Thus, the regulations provide that EPA will notify the business when information it has claimed as confidential is requested under FOIA or EPA has some other reason to make a determination whether it is entitled to confidential treatment, and the business is given an opportunity to submit comments supporting its confidentiality claim. EPA refers to these comments as “CBI substantiations.”
Under the FOIA and other statutes, such CBI substantiations were not required. At the time the CBI regulations were written, the leading case in this area was
At that time, EPA believed that affected businesses would be more likely to submit adequate substantiation information if such information were protected and that release of such information was likely to impair the Agency's ability to obtain it in the future. Therefore, based on EPA's reading of
Currently, for business information other than substantiations, when EPA makes an initial determination that the information may be entitled to confidential treatment (
(1) The portions of the information which are alleged to be entitled to confidential treatment;
(2) The period of time for which confidential treatment is desired by the business (
(3) The purpose for which the information was submitted to EPA and the approximate date of submission, if known;
(4) Whether a business confidentiality claim accompanied the information when it was received by EPA;
(5) Measures taken by the business to guard against undesired disclosure of the information to others;
(6) The extent to which the information has been disclosed to others and the precautions taken in connection therewith;
(7) Pertinent confidentiality determinations, if any, by EPA or other Federal agencies, and a copy of any such determination, or reference to it, if available;
(8) Whether the business asserts that disclosure of the information would be likely to result in substantial harmful effects on the business's competitive position, and if so, what those harmful effects would be, why they should be viewed as substantial, and an explanation of the causal relationship between disclosure and such harmful effects; and
(9) Whether the business asserts that the information is voluntarily submitted information, and if so, whether and why disclosure of the information would tend to lessen the availability to EPA of similar information in the future.
Each business that is notified and invited to comment must submit comments to EPA by the date specified in the notice or, before the comments are due, request an extension of the comment period and receive approval from the EPA legal office (40 CFR 2.205(b)). If the business fails to submit comments by the due date (including any approved extension), the business waives its claim to confidentiality, and EPA may release the information without further notice.
If the business submits a CBI substantiation, the EPA legal office makes a final confidentiality determination. In making the final determination, the EPA legal office considers the business's claim, the CBI substantiation, any previously-issued confidentiality determinations which are pertinent, and other materials it finds appropriate (40 CFR 2.205(d)). EPA's current regulations list the following criteria for determining whether business information is entitled to confidential treatment (40 CFR 2.208):
(1) The business has asserted a business confidentiality claim which has not expired by its terms, nor been waived nor withdrawn;
(2) The business has satisfactorily shown that it has taken reasonable measures to protect the confidentiality of the information and that it intends to continue to take such measures;
(3) The information is not, and has not been, reasonably obtainable without the business's consent by other persons (other than governmental bodies) by use of legitimate means (other than discovery based on a showing of special need in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding);
(4) No statute specifically requires disclosure of the information; and
(5) Either—
(a) The business has satisfactorily shown that disclosure of the information is likely to cause substantial harm to the business's competitive position; or
(b) The information is voluntarily submitted information, and its disclosure would be likely to impair the Government's ability to obtain necessary information in the future. (See below for a discussion of a change in the concept of voluntarily-submitted information.)
If EPA determines that the information is entitled to confidential treatment for the full period requested by the business, EPA will maintain the information as CBI for that period and deny any FOIA requests for the information. If EPA determines that the information is not entitled to confidential treatment, then EPA notifies the affected business of its intention to release the information within 10 working days (or other applicable time period specified in subpart B), unless the business first seeks judicial review of the determination and seeks preliminary injunctive relief against disclosure (40 CFR 2.205(f)).
Under EPA's current regulations (40 CFR 2.205(c)), EPA will automatically treat a CBI substantiation marked as confidential as CBI (40 CFR 2.203(b)) if the information in the substantiation is not otherwise possessed by EPA. EPA does not request that the business submit comments substantiating why the information in its CBI substantiation should be treated as confidential. Thus, EPA does not make a substantive confidentiality determination for this information and treats it as confidential solely on the grounds that the business claims it as CBI. This means EPA will deny any FOIA request for the CBI substantiation. The result is that information submitted to EPA in a CBI substantiation and claimed as CBI is treated differently than all other business information submitted to EPA and claimed as CBI. This special treatment has been challenged in Federal Court (
EPA reviewed the provision granting automatic CBI treatment in response to the legal challenge by NCAP. After considering the validity of 40 CFR 2.205(c) in light of legal developments since 1976, EPA believes it is unlikely that EPA could defend its original basis for providing automatic protection of CBI substantiations. As part of a motion to stay the proceedings, EPA agreed to propose removing 40 CFR 2.205(c). (Orders granting a stay of the proceedings were filed on July 23, 1999, January 13, 2000, and April 18, 2000.)
On October 25, 1999, EPA published a notice in the
EPA received comments on its proposed rule from nine entities: one in favor of the proposed rule [Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP)] and eight opposed (Chemical Specialities Manufacturers Association, Color Pigments Manufacturers Association, Inc., Edison Electric Institute, American Crop Protection Association, Utility Air Regulatory Group, Carolina Power & Light Company, FirstEnergy Corp., and Duke Energy Corporation).
NCAP supported the proposed rule, stating that 40 CFR 2.205(c) should be removed since it currently allows EPA to exempt from disclosure an entire category of documents (
Comments opposing the proposed rule included the following:
(1) EPA did not provide sufficient rationale for removing 40 CFR 2.205(c),
(2) Businesses would be reluctant to provide the detailed information needed to substantiate original CBI claims for fear that a substantiation might be released,
(3) The proposed rule could create an endless cycle of substantiations and place unnecessary burdens on EPA and industry, and
(4) The rule should not be applied retroactively.
Based on the comments received, EPA is reproposing the rule to provide a more thorough explanation for the proposed amendment which would change the CBI regulations to eliminate the automatic protection of CBI substantiations that are claimed as confidential and submitted to the Agency after the effective date of the final rule. EPA believes that the amendment to eliminate the special treatment in 40 CFR 2.205(c) is justified for the following reasons:
(1)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in
In light of
(2)
(3)
EPA acknowledges that the proposed rule would create some additional burden for EPA and affected businesses when the Agency needs to make a final confidentiality determination for a particular CBI substantiation. EPA believes that only a portion of the CBI substantiations that are claimed as confidential would ever require such a determination (
EPA proposes to amend its general CBI regulations (40 CFR part 2, subpart B) to eliminate the special treatment of CBI substantiations. From the effective date of the rule forward, CBI substantiations would be treated in exactly the same manner as other business information that is claimed as confidential. Under the proposed rule, businesses would still be able to claim CBI substantiations as confidential as they can any other business information submitted to EPA (40 CFR 2.204(e)(6)) and would be entitled to all the other procedural rights in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
If EPA received a FOIA request for a CBI substantiation that had been marked as confidential and submitted to the Agency after the effective date of the final rule, EPA would make a preliminary determination of confidentiality, notify the affected business and request comments on its confidentiality claim, and then make a final confidentiality determination, in accordance with 40 CFR 2.204 and 2.205. If EPA then determined that the CBI substantiation was entitled to confidential treatment, EPA would continue to protect the information and deny any pending FOIA request. If EPA determined that the CBI substantiation was not entitled to confidential treatment, it would notify the affected business of its intention to release the information within 10 working days (or other applicable time period specified in subpart B) of the business's receipt of the notice, unless the appropriate EPA legal office was first notified that the business had sought judicial review and had sought preliminary injunctive relief against disclosure (40 CFR 2.205(f)).
This amendment would apply only to CBI substantiations submitted after the effective date of the final rule. Among the comments EPA received on the October 25, 1999, proposed rule were comments arguing that this proposed amendment, if adopted, should not be applied retroactively to CBI substantiations submitted to EPA before this change is made. Concerns were expressed about the fairness of applying the proposed rule to old substantiations which businesses claimed as confidential and submitted to EPA with the understanding that the substantiations would be protected. In response to these comments, EPA proposes to apply the rule only prospectively to CBI substantiations submitted after the change goes into effect.
As discussed above, EPA does not believe it can successfully defend its existing regulation at 40 CFR 2.205(c), in light of case law developments since 1976. Thus, if EPA were to continue to deny FOIA requests for CBI substantiations based on § 2.205(c), EPA could potentially be ordered by the courts to conduct a CBI determination or to disclose the information to FOIA requesters. EPA could also be potentially liable for attorneys' fees under FOIA. In addition, affected businesses would be at a disadvantage in protecting their CBI substantiations from disclosure in response to FOIA requests. Since the businesses would not have provided comments to EPA to substantiate why information in their CBI substantiations is entitled to confidential treatment, a court reviewing an EPA denial of a FOIA request for a substantiation would have only the issue of § 2.205(c) before it. There would be no substantive argument about why the information in a particular CBI substantiation is confidential. Thus, if the court decided that § 2.205(c) was not an appropriate basis for denying the FOIA request, EPA would be ordered to disclose the information.
On the other hand, if a CBI substantiation submitted after the effective date of the final rule were requested under FOIA, EPA would give the affected business an opportunity to comment on why the CBI substantiation is confidential, and EPA would be able to make a substantive final confidentiality determination. EPA believes it would be much more likely to prevail in defending such a substantive determination than in defending a denial based solely on § 2.205(c). EPA's purpose since 1976 has been to have CBI regulations that allow businesses to submit information to EPA while protecting its confidentiality and that allow EPA to make appropriate, defensible confidentiality determinations. We believe this proposed amendment is consistent with those goals and will allow businesses and EPA to have confidence that EPA can protect confidential CBI substantiations from public disclosure.
Generally, a CBI substantiation exists only because someone has requested access under FOIA to specific business information claimed as CBI, and EPA has given the affected business an opportunity to comment in support of its confidentiality claim. If EPA were to conclude that the underlying information is not entitled to confidential treatment, the FOIA
If EPA were to conclude that the underlying information is entitled to confidential treatment, the FOIA requester would not get the information. Depending on the rationale in EPA's final confidentiality determination, the requester might subsequently ask to see the CBI substantiation since it had formed some or all of the basis for EPA's determination. The FOIA requester's interest in the CBI substantiation is contemporaneous with the final confidentiality determination. EPA believes that applying the rule prospectively will respond to the majority of future requests for CBI substantiations, and also avoid placing an undue burden on businesses that submitted CBI substantiations in the past.
EPA proposes to apply the rule prospectively, without changing the procedures for handling substantiations that were submitted prior to the effective date of the final rule. At the same time, EPA would like to solicit public comments on two alternative approaches: (1) Applying the rule prospectively, but notifying affected businesses when old substantiations are requested under FOIA; and (2) applying the rule retroactively.
(1) Under the first alternative approach, EPA would notify the affected business if a FOIA request were received for an old substantiation (
If EPA were to take this approach, it might amend § 2.205(c) to read as follows:
• If information submitted to EPA by a business as part of its comments under this section prior to [Insert effective date of final rule] pertains to the business's claim, is not otherwise possessed by EPA, and is marked when received in accordance with § 2.203(b), it will be regarded by EPA as entitled to confidential treatment. This subsection does not apply to comments received after [Insert effective date of final rule].
• If EPA receives a request for comments submitted by an affected business under this section prior to [Insert effective date of final rule] which are entitled to confidential treatment, EPA will notify the affected business in accordance with § 2.204(e) and provide the business with an opportunity to comment. However, notwithstanding § 2.203(a)(2), failure to comment will not constitute a waiver of the confidentiality claim.
(2) Under the second alternative approach, EPA could apply the rule retroactively. This approach would mean that all CBI substantiations, regardless of when they were submitted to EPA, would be treated in exactly the same manner as other types of CBI. If the rule were applied retroactively and EPA received a FOIA request for an old substantiation, the Agency would notify the affected business and provide it with an opportunity to submit comments. As described above, comments submitted by the affected business could be useful to EPA in defending the denial of a FOIA request if it were ever challenged in court. If the rule were applied retroactively, failure by the affected business to submit comments would constitute a waiver of its confidentiality claim.
EPA is proposing this rule under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 552 (as amended), and 553.
This proposed rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on the parties affected by EPA's general CBI regulations (40 CFR part 2, subpart B). Any additional costs would be associated with preparing and submitting comments that explain why a CBI substantiation should be confidential. Based on best professional judgment, EPA estimates that of the approximately 360 substantiations it receives each year that are claimed as confidential, no more than about one-fourth (
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
This ICR deals with the information collection process that would occur under the proposed rule if EPA found it necessary to determine the confidentiality of a CBI substantiation received from a submitter and claimed as CBI (
Under the proposed rule, CBI substantiations that are claimed as CBI and submitted after the effective date of the final rule would be treated in the same manner as any other business information that is claimed as CBI. Thus, under 40 CFR 2.205(d), if EPA requests comments from a business related to a CBI substantiation submitted after the effective date of the proposed rule, and the business fails to furnish comments by the specified due date, the business waives its claim to confidentiality.
EPA receives approximately 443 substantiations per year, 360 of which are claimed as confidential. Based on best professional judgment, the Agency estimates that under the proposed rule, EPA might be required to make final confidentiality determinations for about one-fourth (
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 2822, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked “Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.” Include the ICR number (ICR No. 1665.04) in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after August 30, 2000, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by September 29, 2000. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601
This proposed rule is expected to have no environmental impact. It pertains solely to the collection and dissemination of information.
Under Executive Order 12866 [48 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)], EPA must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive 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.
EPA has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to interagency review under the Executive Order.
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. This proposed rule eliminates the special treatment of a category of confidential business information. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule.
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
This proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. This proposed rule applies to businesses, not government entities, submitting comments to substantiate CBI claims. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this proposed rule.
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any general notice of proposed rulemaking or final rule that includes a federal mandate which may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, for any rule subject to Section 202, EPA generally must select the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Under Section 203, before establishing any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, EPA must take steps to inform and advise small governments of the requirements and enable them to provide input.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not include a federal mandate as defined in UMRA. The proposed rule does not include a federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs to State, local or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more, and does not establish regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
Executive Order 13045, entitled “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, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned rule is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by EPA.
EPA believes Executive Order 13045 applies only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
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 (
This proposed rule does not involve any technical standards, and EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. EPA welcomes comments and specifically invites the public to identify any potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and explain why such standards should be used in this rule.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Freedom of information, Government employees.
For the reasons set out above, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 2 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301, 552 (as amended), 553; secs. 114, 205, 208, 301, and 307, Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7414, 7525, 7542, 7601, 7607); secs. 308, 501, and 509(a), Clean Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1318, 1361, 1369(a); sec. 13, Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. 4912); secs. 1445 and 1450, Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-4, 300j-9); secs. 2002, 3007, and 9005, Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6912, 6927, 6995); secs. 8(c), 11, and 14, Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2607(c), 2610, 2613); secs. 10, 12, and 25, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 136h, 136j, 136w); sec. 408(f), Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended (21 U.S.C. 346(f); secs. 104(f) and 108, Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1414(f), 1418); secs. 104 and 115, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9604 and 9615); sec. 505, Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 2005).
2. Section 2.205 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
(c)
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to adjust the applicability date for the reinstating the 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in Muskegon County, Michigan and is proposing to determine that the area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. This proposal is based on 3 consecutive years of complete,
EPA is also proposing to approve the State of Michigan's request to redesignate Muskegon County to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Michigan submitted the redesignation request for the Muskegon area on March 9, 1995, and submitted two updates to the request on June 14 and July 5, 2000. As part of this proposal, EPA is also proposing to approve the State's plan for maintaining the 1-hour ozone standard for the next 10 years as a revision to the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP). In this proposal and corresponding direct final rule, EPA is also notifying the public that we believe the motor vehicle emissions budgets for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NO
In the final rules section of this
EPA must receive written comments by September 29, 2000.
Send written comments to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
John Mooney at (312) 886-6043.
For additional information see the direct final rule published in the rules section of this
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Hydrocarbons, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Hydrocarbons, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401-7671
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; Extension of public comment period and notice of availability of draft economic analysis.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability of the draft economic analysis for the proposed designation of critical habitat for the wintering population of the piping plover (
The original comment period is scheduled to close on September 5, 2000. The comment period is hereby extended until October 30, 2000. Comments from all interested parties must be received by the closing date. Any comments that are received after the closing date may not be considered in the final decision on this proposal.
Copies of the draft economic analysis are available on the Internet at
Lee Elliott, Wildlife Biologist, at the above address (telephone 361/994-9005).
The piping plover is a small shorebird, about 17-18 centimeters (8 inches) long and weighing from 43 to 63 grams (1.5 to 2.25 ounces). The species breeds in the northern Great Plains (from Alberta to Ontario, Canada and south to Kansas and Colorado), the Great Lakes region, and the Atlantic Coast (from Newfoundland, Canada to North Carolina). Piping plovers winter on the southern Atlantic and Gulf Coasts from North Carolina to Texas, as well as eastern Mexico and Caribbean islands from Barbados to Cuba and the Bahamas (Haig 1992). Birds from each of the three breeding populations can be found throughout the wintering range. Individuals begin arriving on the wintering grounds in mid-July and can be found on the wintering grounds until mid-May. Populations declined dramatically due to year-round shooting of the species prior to passage of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Populations began to rebound following this protection, but loss of habitat and
In January of 1986, the piping plover was listed as endangered within the watershed of the Great Lakes, and as threatened in the remainder of its range, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The primary threats to the species were identified as habitat disturbance and destruction, and disturbance of nesting adults and chicks (50 FR 50726). On July 6, 2000, we proposed in the
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific and commercial data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species. Consequently, we have prepared a draft economic analysis concerning the proposed critical habitat designation, which is available for review and comment at the above Internet and mailing addresses.
We solicit comments on the draft economic analysis described in this notice, as well as any other aspect of the proposed designation of critical habitat for the wintering population of the piping plover. Our final determination on the proposed critical habitat will take into consideration comments and any additional information received by the date specified above. All previous comments and information submitted during the comment period need not be resubmitted. The comment period is extended to October 30, 2000. Written comments may be submitted to the Field Supervisor at the above address.
Author: The primary author of this notice is Lee Elliott, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Executive Director of the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries gives notice of a closed meeting of the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations at William M. Mercer, Incorporated Boston, MA on October 2, 2000.
The meeting will be held on October 2, 2000 from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
The meeting will be held at William M. Mercer, Incorporated, at 200 Clarendon Street, 37th Floor, Boston, MA.
Patrick W. McDonough, Director of Practice and Executive Director of the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries, 202-694-1891.
Notice is hereby given that the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations will meet at William M. Mercer, Incorporated, 200 Clarendon Street, 37th Floor, Boston, MA on Monday, October 2, 2000 from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss topics and questions, which may be recommended for inclusion on future Joint Board examinations in actuarial mathematics, pension law and methodology referred to in 29 U.S.C. 1242(a)(1)(B).
A determination has been made as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) that the subject of the meeting falls with the exception to the open meeting requirement set forth in Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that the public interest requires that such meeting be closed to public participation.
Notice of meeting.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has established the Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture. In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), notice is hereby given of the meetings in September of the Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture. The purpose of the meetings on September 13-15, 2000 is a working session to address issues regarding agricultural policy initiatives to be included in the Commission report. These meetings are open to the public.
The meetings will be held September 13, 2000, from 1:30 p.m.-5 p.m. in Room 221-A, September 14, 2000, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. in Room 108-A, and September 15, 2000, from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. in Room 221-A, Whitten Building.
Mickey Paggi (202-720-3139), Director, Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture, Room 3702 South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-0524.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public of our decision to extend to one additional corn line our determination that a corn line developed by Monsanto Company, which has been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is no longer considered a regulated article under our regulations governing the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms. Our decision is based on our evaluation of data submitted by Monsanto Company in its request for an extension of a determination of nonregulated status, an analysis of other scientific data, and comments received from the public in response to a previous notice. This notice also announces the availability of our finding of no significant impact.
September 29, 2000.
You may read the extension request, the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact, and all comments received in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
Dr. John Turner, Biotechnology Assessments Section, Permits and Risk Assessments, PPQ, APHIS, Suite 5B05, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-8365. To obtain a copy of the extension request or the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact, contact Ms. Kay Peterson at (301) 734-4885; e-mail: kay.peterson@usda.gov.
The regulations in 7 CFR part 340,
The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Further, the regulations in § 340.6(e)(2) provide that a person may request that APHIS extend a determination of nonregulated status to other organisms. Such a request must include information to establish the similarity of the antecedent organism and the regulated article in question.
On January 11, 2000, APHIS received a request for an extension of a determination of nonregulated status (APHIS No. 00-011-01p) from Monsanto Company (Monsanto) of St. Louis, MO, for a corn line designated as Roundup Ready® corn line NK603 (NK603), which has been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. Monsanto requested an extension of a determination of nonregulated status issued previously for Roundup Ready corn line GA21 (GA21), APHIS petition number 97-099-01p (62 FR 64350-64351, December 5, 1997, Docket No. 97-052-2). Based on the similarity of NK603 to GA21, the antecedent organism, Monsanto requested a determination that glyphosate-tolerant corn line NK603 does not present a plant pest risk and, therefore, is not a regulated article under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340.
On June 21, 2000, APHIS published a notice in the
Like the antecedent organism, corn line NK603 has been genetically engineered to express an enzyme, 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS), that imparts tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. Corn was the source of the EPSPS enzyme in the antecedent organism, while a functionally equivalent EPSPS enzyme in NK603 was derived from
Corn line NK603 and the antecedent organism were genetically engineered using the same transformation method and contain a functionally equivalent enzyme which makes the plants tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate. Accordingly, we have determined that NK603 is similar to the antecedent organism GA21 in APHIS petition 97-099-01p and, therefore, should no longer be regulated under the regulations in 7 CFR part 340.
The subject corn line has been considered a regulated article under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340 because it contains gene sequences derived from a plant pathogen. However, evaluation of field data reports from field tests of NK603, conducted under APHIS notifications since 1997, indicates that there were no deleterious effects on plants, nontarget organisms, or the environment as a result of its environmental release.
Based on an analysis of the data submitted by Monsanto, a review of other scientific data, and field tests of the subject corn line, APHIS has determined that corn line NK603: (1) Exhibits no plant pathogenic properties; (2) is no more likely to become a weed than herbicide-tolerant corn varieties developed by traditional breeding techniques; (3) is unlikely to increase the weediness potential for any other cultivated or wild species with which it can interbreed; (4) will not cause damage to raw or processed agricultural commodities; and (5) will not harm threatened or endangered species or other organisms, such as bees, that are beneficial to agriculture. Therefore, APHIS has concluded that corn line NK603 and any progeny derived from crosses with other corn varieties will be as safe to grow as corn that is not subject to regulation under 7 CFR part 340.
Because APHIS has determined that the subject corn line does not present a plant pest risk based on its similarity to the antecedent organism, Monsanto's corn line NK603 will no longer be considered a regulated article under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340. Therefore, the requirements pertaining to regulated articles under those regulations no longer apply to the field testing, importation, or interstate movement of the subject corn line or its progeny. However, importation of corn line NK603 and seeds capable of propagation are still subject to the restrictions found in APHIS' foreign quarantine notices in 7 CFR part 319. National Environmental Policy Act.
An EA was prepared to examine the potential environmental impacts associated with this determination. The EA was prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
It is the intention of NRCS New Mexico to issue a series of new conservation practice standards and specifications in its FOTG on Conservation Practices. These revised standards and specifications include: 313—Waste Storage Facility, 359—Waste Treatment Lagoon, 380—Windbreak/Shelterbelt Establishment, 391A—Riparian Forest Buffer, 394—Firebreak, 472—Use Exclusion, 490—Site Preparation for Woody Plant Establishment, 562—Recreation Area Improvement, 590—Nutrient Management, 612—Tree and Shrub Establishment, 633—Waste Utilization, 650—Windbreak/Shelterbelt Renovation, 660A—Tree and Shrub Pruning, and 666—Forest Stand Improvement.
The NRCS New Mexico State Conservationist has chosen to revise and supplement the National Standards and add specifications adapted to the State of New Mexico. These will be incorporated into Section IV of the New Mexico Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG). Some of these practices may be used in conservation systems that treat highly erodible land and wetlands.
Copies of these standards are available from NRCS in Albuquerque, NM and are also available electronically on the NRCS New Mexico Internet Homepage at: http://www.nm.nrcs.usda.gov/techserv/sec4home.htm.
Section 343 on the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after enactment of the law to NRCS State technical guides used to carry out highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law shall be made available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days the NRCS will receive comments relative to these proposed changes. Following that period a determination will be made by the NRCS regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of change will be made.
Comments will be received on or before September 29, 2000.
Inquire in writing to Mr. Rosendo Trevino, State Conservationist, NRCS, 6200 Jefferson NE, Suite 305, Albuquerque, NM 87109.
16 U.S.C. 3801; Pub. L. 104-127.
DOC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Madeleine Clayton, Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, (202) 482-3129, Department of Commerce, Room 6086, 14th and Constitution, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. Email MClayton@doc.gov.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the
DOC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Madeleine Clayton, Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, (202) 482-3129, Department of Commerce, Room 6086, 14th and Constitution, NW, Washington, DC 20230. Email MClayton@doc.gov.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
Whereas, by an Act of Congress approved June 18, 1934, an Act “To provide for the establishment . . . of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes,” as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u) (the Act), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) is authorized to grant to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;
Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR part 400) provide for the establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities cannot serve the specific use involved, and when the activity results in a significant public benefit and is in the public interest;
Whereas, the Board approved the oil refinery/petrochemical complex subzones listed below to conduct certain activity under zone procedures, subject to product and time restrictions;
Whereas, applications were submitted from the FTZ grantees of the subzones listed below, requesting a time extension of authority to elect nonprivileged foreign status (NPF) on crude oil and related products used in the production of certain petrochemical feedstocks and refinery by-products at the crude oil refineries/petrochemical complexes of the listed subzones;
Whereas, the applications were filed by the Board on August 23, 1999, and notice describing the applications and inviting public comment was given in the
Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations would be satisfied, and that approval of the applications would be in the public interest if approval is subject to the conditions listed below;
Now, therefore, the Board hereby amends the Board Orders listed below, authorizing an extension of authority for the listed subzones, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including § 400.28, and further subject to the following conditions:
1. Foreign status (19 CFR 146.41, 146.42) products consumed as fuel for the refinery shall be subject to the applicable duty rate.
2. Privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41) shall be elected on all foreign merchandise admitted to the subzone, except that non-privileged foreign (NPF) status (19 CFR 146.42) may be elected on refinery inputs covered under HTSUS Subheadings #2709.00.1000- #2710.00.1050, #2710.00.2500 and #2710.00.4510 which are used in the production of:
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The International Buyer Program of the Department of Commerce, which invited interested trade show organizer/sponsoring organizations to apply for inclusion on the program calendar for Fiscal Year 2002 (October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2002) allowed applications by e-mail for the first time this year. The application period, which began with publication of the
Jin Boney at the Department of Commerce. Telephone number 202-482-0146 or FAX 202-482-0115 or via E-mail at jim.boney@mail.doc.gov
International Trade Administration, Commerce.
Notice of extension of funding availability for grants under the Special American Business Internship Training Program (SABIT)
This Notice supplements the
This Notice extends the closing date of the referenced
Liesel Duhon, Director, Special American Business Internship Training Program, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, phone—(202) 482-0073, facsimile—(202) 482-2443. These are not toll free numbers.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of solicitation for applications.
NMFS issues this document to describe how you, the researcher, may be selected to perform sea scallop research projects funded by a 1-percent set-aside of the scallop total allowable catch (TAC) under Framework Adjustment 13 to the New England Fishery Management Council’s (Council’s) Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and Framework Adjustment 34 to the Council’s Northeast Multispecies FMP (Frameworks 13/34) and how NOAA and the Council will determine whether to select your proposal. Frameworks 13/34 allow scallop vessels temporary access to portions of the groundfish closed areas on Georges Bank and Nantucket Shoals to harvest sea scallops and allow selected vessels to land scallops in excess of the possession limit or take additional trips and use the proceeds of the excess catch or additional trips to offset the costs of the research proposals submitted in response to this notification. Frameworks 13/34 authorize certain scallop vessels during the 2000 scallop fishing year to fish three trips per vessel in Closed Area II (CA II), one trip per vessel in the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area (NLCA), and 2 trips per vessel in Closed Area I (CA I) for certain periods of time, unless modified by action taken by the Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator).
NOAA, in cooperation with the Council, is publishing this second of two solicitations to request proposals for scallop research utilizing set-aside TAC from CA I, NLCA, and any CA II research TAC that may remain after award to projects submitted under NOAA’s original CA II solicitation. Vessels participating in an approved project and fishing in the closed areas would be authorized by the Regional Administrator to take additional trips into the closed areas and/or to land scallops in excess of the 10,000-lb (4,536-kg) possession limit allowed for all closed area trips.
All research proposals to be considered under this solicitation must be received between August 30, 2000 and no later than 5 p.m., local time, on September 20, 2000 (see
Proposals must be submitted to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark proposals “Attention --Sea Scallop Research Proposals.”
Patricia M. Fiorelli, New England Fishery Management Council, (978) 465-0492, or David Gouveia, NMFS, (978) 281-9280.
On June 13, 2000, NMFS published a Request for Proposals (RFP) to utilize research TAC set-aside from the total TAC allocated for CA II (65 FR 37118). All research proposals to be conducted with TAC set aside funds from CA II must have been submitted during the submission period identified in the notice. Researchers were also informed that proposals to be conducted with TAC set aside funds from the NCLA and CA I could also be submitted during the submission period for CA II. However, researchers were informed that these proposals would be kept on file and would be reviewed against other proposals received as a result of the second RFP solicitation. At the July 26-27, 2000, Council meeting, the research TAC-set aside process was discussed and the Council announced that a second RFP solicitation would be published in the
For research proposals to be conducted with TAC set aside funds from Closed Area II, the NMFS Northeast Regional Grant Office convened a review panel on July 14, 2000, made up mostly of the Council’s Research Steering Committee (Committee) to review the proposals received and make recommendations to NMFS. NMFS is considering the Committee’s recommendations and will make its recommendation to the NOAA Grants Officer. Consequently, this action solicits proposals for scallop research utilizing the research set-asides allocated for CA I, NLCA, and any CA II research TAC that may remain after award to projects submitted under NOAA’s original CA II solicitation.
All research proposals to be conducted with TAC set-aside funds from CA I, the NLCA, and any remaining CA II research TAC must be received during the period identified in the
The TAC set-aside for sea scallop research by area is as follows: The NLCA, 55,116 lb (25,000.6 kg); CA I, 70,548 lb (32,000.6 kg); and any remaining TAC to be determined. NOAA will award a grant to successful applicants through the NOAA grant award process. The project period for sea scallop research can not predate the current Atlantic sea scallop fishing year and may not exceed a 12-month period. Proposals to fund research started on or after the project period are eligible for consideration. However, if the project is not approved, any research or expenditures related to this project will be the sole responsibility of the researcher without any further compensation from the TAC set-aside funds
Issuing grants is consistent with sections 402(e), 303(b)(11), 304(e), and 404(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
11.454, Unallied Management Projects
We will award a grant to successful applicants through the NOAA grant award process. The project period for sea scallop research can not predate the current Atlantic sea scallop fishing year, March 1, 2000, and may not exceed a 12-month period. Proposals to fund research started on or after the project period are eligible for consideration. However, if the project is not approved, any research or expenditures related to this project will be the sole responsibility of the researcher without any further compensation from the TAC set-aside funds.
No Federal funds are provided for sea scallop research under this notification. The Federal Government’s contribution to the project will be a Letter of Authorization that will provide special fishing privileges in response to sea scallop research proposals selected to participate in this program. The Federal Government shall not be liable for any costs incurred in the conduct of the project. The funds generated from the additional landings authorized in the Letter of Authorization shall be used to cover the cost of the sea scallop research, including vessel costs, and to compensate vessel owners for expenses incurred. Therefore, the owner of each fishing vessel selected to land scallops in excess of the trip limit or from additional authorized trips must use the proceeds of the sale of the excess catch to compensate the researcher for costs associated with the research activities and use of the vessel. Any additional funds above the cost of the research activities (or excess program income) shall be retained by the vessel owner as compensation for the use of his/her vessel.
Projects funded under the sea scallop TAC set-aside program should enhance understanding of the scallop resource or contribute to the body of information on which management decisions are made. Sea scallop research may be conducted in or outside of a closed area, within or outside of the Sea Scallop Exemption Program timeframe, and onboard a fishing or other type of vessel. Sea scallop research conducted with these TAC set-aside funds also may or may not involve the harvest of scallops.
Funds generated from the set-aside landings shall be used to cover the cost of the research activities, including vessel costs, and to compensate boats for expenses incurred during the collection of set-aside scallops. For example, they could be used to pay for gear modifications, monitoring equipment, additional provisions (e.g., fuel, ice, food for scientists) or the salaries of research personnel. The Federal Government is not liable for any costs incurred by the researcher or vessel owner, should the sale of the excess catch not fully reimburse the
All for-profit and non-profit institutions; state, local or tribal governments; educational institutions; institutions of higher education; and individuals are eligible to apply, provided that all proposal requirements are satisfied and the proposal is received by the date specified in this notice.
Pursuant to Executive Orders 12876, 12900, and 13021, the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (DOC/NOAA) is strongly committed to broadening the participation of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions and Tribal Colleges and Universities in its educational and research programs. The DOC/NOAA vision, mission and goals are to achieve full participation by Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) in order to advance the development of human potential, to strengthen the nation's capacity to provide high-quality education, and to increase opportunities for MSIs to participate in, and benefit from, Federal Financial Assistance programs. DOC/NOAA encourages all applicants to include meaningful participation of MSIs.
Proposals must be submitted to NOAA and must identify the sea scallop research to be conducted, state which scallop closed area the research and/or compensation trip is to be conducted, and the total amount of scallops requested for the project, including their approximate cash value. Additionally, each proposal must identify the requirements for the participating vessel(s) that would make a closed area trip to collect the scallop set-aside. The vessel selected by the applicant should be listed in the proposal, if possible, or specifically identified prior to final approval by NOAA. Proposals may request that the scallop set-aside be collected separately from the sea scallop research trip or other related research trip. The separate sea scallop research compensation trips do not necessarily have to be conducted by the same vessel. The Council or NMFS contact person may provide assistance to researchers who are seeking vessels to participate in the collection of set-aside scallops or directly in research projects. The Council or NMFS may publish a list of those vessel owners willing to participate through their respective homepages.
The researcher's proposal must state which scallop closed area the research and/or compensation trip is to be conducted in and the amount of funds required to support the research project, as well as the amount required to compensate the vessel owner either for the collection of set-aside scallops or for participation in the research project, or both. The proposal must also include the agreement between the vessel owner and researcher that shows exactly how the research activity is to be paid for, if possible, or such agreement must be provided prior to final approval by NOAA.
Applications may be reviewed and evaluated by the Council at the request of NOAA and become subject to public review as part of an open public comment process at the Council meeting. In the event that an application contains information or data that the applicant does not want disclosed prior to award for purposes other than the evaluation of the application, the applicant should mark each page containing such information or data with the words “Privileged Information/Confidential/Commercial or Financial Information - Limited Use” at the top of the page to assist NOAA in making disclosure determinations when submitting information to the Council for review. DOC regulations implementing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) are found at 15 CFR part 4, “Public Information,” which sets forth rules for DOC to make requested materials, information, and records publicly available under the FOIA. To the extent permitted under the FOIA, the contents of applications and proposals submitted by successful applicants may be released in response to FOIA requests.
Sea scallop research projects that identify and evaluate gear to reduce groundfish bycatch and habitat impacts and that provide improved information concerning scallop abundance estimates are considered high priority by the Council. Sea scallop research that involves evaluating the distribution, size composition, and density of scallops in the closed areas prior to the open periods also will be considered high priority. Other research needs (not listed in order of priority) that also will be considered by the Council and NOAA follow:
1. Evaluation of ways to control predation on scallops;
2. Research to actively manage spat collection and seeding of sea scallops;
3. Social and economic impacts and consequences of closing areas to enhance productivity and improve yield for sea scallops and other species;
4. High resolution surveys that include distribution, recruitment, mortality and growth rate information;
5. Estimation of factors affecting fishing power for each limited access vessel;
6. Demonstration projects to identify ways to reduce discard mortality, increase efficiency without increasing fishing power (e.g., decreasing processing time with sorters) and improve safety;
7. Research to identify scallop habitat and ecological relationships that affect reproduction, recruitment mortality and growth, including those enhanced/impeded by area closures;
8. Quantification of fishing costs related to fishing for sea scallops in specific areas (e.g., fishing gear modification, steaming time, and opportunity cost);
9. Experimental designs with control areas using alternative management strategies, such as area licensing and rotational closures (projects should include an analysis of yield improvement, habitat impacts and social impacts, including conflict resolution across fisheries);
10. Identification of fishermen's perceptions about area-based management and alternative strategies;
11. Processing and analyzing of data that will be collected or that have already been collected;
12. Broader investigations of variability in dredging efficiency across habitats (substrates, current velocities, etc.) times, areas, and gear designs; and
13. Research that provides more detailed sea scallop life history information (especially on age-and-area specific natural mortality and growth) and to identify stock-recruitment relationships.
Independent technical experts may be asked to participate in the evaluation process. Proposals will be evaluated based on the assigned score for each of the following criteria:
1. A clear definition of the problem, need, issue or hypothesis to be addressed (10 points);
2. A clear definition of the approach to be used, including theoretical studies, laboratory analyses, and/or field work (15 points);
3. Adequate justification as to how the project is likely to achieve its stated objectives (20 points);
4. Identification of anticipated benefits, potential users and methods of disseminating results (10 points);
5. Relevance of the project to the research needs identified by the Council (20 points);
6. Demonstration of support, cooperation and/or collaboration with the fishing industry (15 points); and
7. Cost-effectiveness of the project (10 points).
If the Council participates in the selection process, the Committee will evaluate each research proposal based on the criteria identified in this notification and make recommendations for selection to the Council. The Council will then make its recommendations to the Regional Administrator based on the Committee’s recommendations. NOAA must then consider the Council's recommendations; provide final approval of the projects, and authorize selected vessel(s) to exceed the possession limit, take additional trips, or be exempt from other regulations specified in the FMP through written notification to the applicant. Because NOAA will take into account program policy factors such as time of year the research activities are to be conducted, administrative functions, including evaluations of proposals through the Experimental Fishery Procedures contained in 50 CFR 600.745 and 648.12, and logistic concerns, projects may not be selected in the order recommended by the Council.
If the Council does not participate in the evaluation of the proposals, NOAA will convene a review panel to evaluate the proposals using the same criteria and scoring process. Based on the recommendation of the members of this panel and program policy factors identified in this notification, NOAA will provide final approval and authorize vessels to participate in the research projects. All sea scallop research must be conducted in accordance with provisions approved by NOAA and provided in a Letter of Authorization issued by NMFS.
Proposals should be limited to 6 pages, excluding item 5 below. The format may vary but must include:
1. A project summary;
2. A narrative project description to include: (a) Project goals and objectives; (b) the relationship of the proposed project to management needs or priorities identified by the Council; (c) a statement of work (project design and management—who is responsible, expected products, participants other than applicant); and (d) a summary of the existing state of knowledge related to project and contribution and relevance of the proposed work;
3. A description of all funding sources (including revenues derived from the sale of scallops harvested under the research TAC set-aside) and funding needs; this element of the proposal must include the amount of scallop TAC set-aside requested, state which scallop closed area the research and/or compensation trip is to be conducted in, and the expected funds to be generated by the sale of those scallops; also the expected percentage of funds to be allocated to the researcher and any involved fishing vessel;
4. A budget that includes a breakdown of costs (permit costs, equipment, supplies, overhead); applicants must submit a Standard Form 424 “Application for Federal Assistance” including a detailed budget using Standard Form 424A, “Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs,” Standard Form 424B, “Assurances—Non-Construction Programs,” and Commerce Department Form CD-511, “Certifications Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters: Drug Free Workplace Requirements and Lobbying.” Copies of these Standard Forms may be found on the Internet in a PDF (Portable Document Format) version at
5. Supporting documents (resumes, cooperative research agreements, contracts, etc.).
NOAA or the Council will require project researchers to submit an interim and/or final report describing their research project results, or other acceptable deliverable(s), in a timeframe that is specific to the type of research conducted. The format of the final report may vary, but must contain:
1. A brief summary of the final report;
2. A description of the issue/problem that was addressed;
3. A detailed description of methods of data collection and analyses;
4. A discussion of results and any relevant conclusions presented in a format that is understandable to a non-technical audience; this should include benefits and/or contributions to management decision-making;
5. A list of entities, firms or organizations that actually performed the work and a description of how that was accomplished; and
6. A detailed final accounting of all funds used to conduct sea scallop research, including those provided through the research set-aside. The financial information must be submitted on Office of Management and Budget Standard Form-269. Copies of this Standard Form may be found on the Internet in a PDF version at http://www.rdc.noaa.gov/&grants/pdf/ under the title “Grants Management Forms”, or by contacting the Council office (see
Evaluations of the impacts of sea scallop research, which involve exemptions to the current fishing regulations, other than those stated in the FMP, will be made by NMFS. Vessels conducting certain types of sea scallop research requiring relief from fishery regulations may be required to obtain an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP). To apply for an EFP, interested parties must submit an application to NMFS at least 60 days before the effective date of the EFP. Additional time could be necessary for NMFS to make determinations regarding requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). If required, preparation of a NEPA assessment document (e.g., Environmental Assessment) may be the responsibility of the researcher.
1. Federal Policies and Procedures
Recipients and subrecipients are subject to all Federal laws and Federal and DOC policies, regulations, and procedures applicable to Federal financial assistance awards.
2. Past Performance
Unsatisfactory performance under prior Federal awards may result in a proposal not being selected.
3. Delinquent Federal Debt
A proposal submitted by an applicant who has an outstanding delinquent Federal debt is not eligible for selection until either:
i. The delinquent account is paid in full,
ii. A negotiated repayment schedule is established and at least one payment is received, or
iii.Other arrangements satisfactory to DOC are made.
4. Name Check Review
All non-profit and for-profit applicants are subject to a name check review process. Name checks are intended to reveal if any key individuals associated with the applicant have been convicted of or are presently facing criminal charges such as fraud, theft, perjury, or other matters that significantly reflect on the applicant's
5. Primary Applicant Certifications
All primary applicants must submit a completed Form CD-511, “Certifications Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters; Drug-Free Workplace Requirements and Lobbying,” and the following explanations are hereby provided:
i. Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension. Prospective participants (as defined at 15 CFR 26.105) are subject to 15 CFR part 26, “Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension” and the related section of the certification form prescribed above applies;
ii. Drug-Free Workplace. Grantees (as defined at 15 CFR 26.605) are subject to 15 CFR part 26, subpart F, “Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants)” and the related section of the certification form prescribed above applies;
iii. Anti-Lobbying. Persons (as defined at 15 CFR 28.105) are subject to the lobbying provisions of 31 U.S.C. 1352, “Limitation on use of appropriated funds to influence certain Federal contracting and financial transactions,” and the lobbying section of the certification form prescribed above applies to applications/bids for grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts for more than $100,000, and loans and loan guarantees for more than $150,000; and
iv. Anti-Lobbying Disclosures. Any applicant that has paid or will pay for lobbying using any funds must submit an SF-LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” as required under 15 CFR part 28, appendix B.
6. Lower Tier Certifications
Recipients shall require applicants/bidders for subgrants, contracts, subcontracts, or other lower tier covered transactions at any tier under the award to submit, if applicable, a completed Form CD-512, “Certifications Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transactions and Lobbying” and disclosure form, SF-LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities.” Form CD-512 is intended for the use of recipients and should not be transmitted to DOC. SF-LLL submitted by any tier recipient or subrecipient should be submitted to DOC in accordance with the instructions contained in the award document.
7. False Statements
A false statement on an application is grounds for denial or termination of funds and grounds for possible punishment by a fine or imprisonment as provided in 18 U.S.C. 1001.
8. Preaward Activities
If you incur any costs prior to receiving an award agreement signed by an authorized NOAA official, you do so solely at your own risk of these costs not being included under the award. Notwithstanding any verbal or written assurance that you may have received, preaward costs are not allowed under the award unless the grants officer approves them in accordance with 15 CFR 14.28.
9. Future Awards
If we select your application to perform sea scallop research to be conducted with the scallop TAC set-aside, we have no obligation to provide any additional TAC set-aside obligations in connection with that award.
Prior notice and opportunity for public comments are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for this notice concerning grants, benefits, and contracts.
Because a general notice of proposed rulemaking as specified in 5 U.S.C. 533, or any other law, was not required for this action, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
This document contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The standard application forms have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under control numbers 0348-0043 and 0348-0044. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the PRA, unless that collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Applications under this program are subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”
This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of cancellation of public meetings.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has cancelled public meetings of its Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands groundfish plan teams that were scheduled for September 13-15, 2000, at 9 a.m., respectively.
Jane DiCosimo, North Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone 907-271-2809.
The initial notice published in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit; request for comments.
NMFS announces the receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit (EFP) from Mr. Steve Vogel III, Curator, South Carolina Aquarium on behalf of the South Carolina Aquarium (applicant), Charleston, South Carolina. If granted, the EFP would authorize the applicant, with certain conditions, to collect an average of 25 specimens each of numerous species of marine
Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on September 29, 2000.
Comments on the application must be mailed to Peter Eldridge, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL 33702. Comments also may be sent via fax to 727-570-5583. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.
The application and related documents are available for review upon written request to the address above.
Peter Eldridge, 727-570-5305; fax 727-570-5583; e-mail: peter.eldridge@noaa.gov.
The EFP is requested under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
According to the applicant, the South Carolina Aquarium (SCA), located in Charleston, is a public, non-profit, self-supporting institution devoted to the understanding and conservation of South Carolina’s natural aquatic habitats and is a major educational and conservation institution with free admission to school children in groups and extensive field study and outreach programs. The collected specimens will be maintained in the SCA for public display.
The applicant intends, over a period of 2 years, to collect for public display an average of 25 specimens each of 76 species of marine invertebrates and 221 species of marine fish from the EEZ off South Carolina, using a variety of fishing gears and the fish anesthetic, quinaldine.
The proposed collection for public display involves activities otherwise prohibited by regulations implementing the Fishery Management Plans for Coral, Coral Reefs, and Live/Hard Bottom Habitats, Golden Crab, Shrimp, Spiny Lobster, Red Drum, Coastal Migratory Pelagics, Calico Scallop, and Snapper-Grouper Fisheries of the South Atlantic Region (FMPs). The applicant requires authorization to harvest and possess corals, live rock, golden crab, rock shrimp, red drum, wreckfish, Nassau grouper, warsaw grouper, and jewfish taken from the EEZ off South Carolina. In addition, authorization is required to use quinaldine in a coral area and to possess spiny lobster, bluefish, cobia, king and Spanish mackerel, groupers and snappers, greater amberjack, hogfish and red porgy below the minimum size limit, in excess of established bag limits, or taken with prohibited gear.
The applicant also intends to collect a large number of species that are either not subject to Federal fishery management in the South Atlantic Region or are management unit species under FMPs that contain no management measures restricting possession or harvest. The applicant was referred to NMFS' Highly Migratory Species Division for authorization to collect highly migratory species such as sharks and tunas for public display.
Based on a preliminary review, NMFS finds that this application warrants further consideration and intends to issue an EFP. A final decision on issuance of the EFP will depend on a NMFS review of public comments received on the application, conclusions of environmental analyses conducted pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, and consultations with South Carolina, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, and the U.S. Coast Guard. The applicant requests a 24-month effective period for the EFP.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs adjusting limits.
August 31, 2000
Naomi Freeman, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards of each Customs port, call (202) 927-5850, or refer to the U.S. Customs website at http://www.customs.gov. For information on embargoes and quota reopenings, call (202) 482-3715.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted for carryforward and special shift.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see
Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel, the directive issued to you on September 13, 1999, by the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That directive concerns imports of certain cotton, wool and man-made fiber textile products, produced or manufactured in the Dominican Republic and exported during the twelve-month period which began on January 1, 2000 and extends through December 31, 2000.
Effective on August 31, 2000, you are directed to adjust the current limits for the following categories, as provided for under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing:
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs reducing limits.
August 30, 2000
Naomi Freeman, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards of each Customs port, call (202) 927-5850, or refer to the U.S. Customs website at http://www.customs.gov. For information on embargoes and quota reopenings, call (202) 482-3715.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
The current limits for certain categories are being reduced for carryforward used.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see
Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel, the directive issued to you on November 23, 1999, by the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That directive concerns imports of certain cotton, wool, man-made fiber, silk blend and other vegetable fiber textiles and textile products, produced or manufactured in Hong Kong and exported during the twelve-month period which began on January 1, 2000 and extends through December 31, 2000.
Effective on August 30, 2000, you are directed to reduce the limits for the following categories, as provided for under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing:
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception to the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs increasing a limit.
August 31, 2000
Roy Unger, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of this limit, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards of each Customs port, call (202) 927-5850, or refer to the U.S. Customs website at http://www.customs.gov. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, call (202) 482-3715.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
The current limit for Category 340 is being increased for carryforward.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see
Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel, the directive issued to you on October 4, 1999, by the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. This directive concern imports of certain cotton and man-made fiber textile products, produced or manufactured in Nepal and exported during the twelve-month period which began on January 1, 2000 and extends through December 31, 2000.
Effective on August 31, 2000, you are directed to increase the current limit for
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that this actions falls within the foreign affairs exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs adjusting limits.
August 31, 2000
Roy Unger, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards of each Customs port, call (202) 927-5850, or refer to the U.S. Customs website at http://www.customs.gov. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, call (202) 482-3715.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
The current limit for Categories 347/348 is being increased for swing, reducing the limit for Categories 341/641 to account for the swing being applied.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see
Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel, the directive issued to you on December 10, 1999, by the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That directive concerns imports of certain cotton, man-made fiber, silk blend and other vegetable fiber textile products, produced or manufactured in Qatar and exported during the twelve-month period beginning on January 1, 2000 and extending through December 31, 2000.
Effective on August 31, 2000, you are directed to adjust the current limits for the following categories, as provided for under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing:
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs adjusting limits.
August 31, 2000
Roy Unger, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards of each Customs port, call (202) 927-5850, or refer to the U.S. Customs website at http://www.customs.gov. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, call (202) 482-3715.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted, variously, for swing, special shift, carryover and shortfall used.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see
Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel, the directive issued to you on November 2, 1999, by the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That directive concerns imports of certain cotton, wool, man-made fiber, silk blend and other vegetable fiber textiles and textile products, produced or manufactured in Taiwan and exported during the twelve-month period which began on January 1, 2000 and extends through December 31, 2000.
Effective on August 31, 2000, you are directed to adjust the current limits for the following categories, as provided for under the terms of the current bilateral textile agreement:
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Notice of public meeting.
This notice announces the forthcoming public meeting of the Code Committee established by Article 146(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 946(a), to be held at the Courthouse of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 450 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20442-0001, at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, September 12, 2000. The agenda for this meeting will include consideration of proposed changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, and other matters relating to the operation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice throughout the Armed Forces.
September 12, 2000.
Thomas F. Granahan, Clerk of the Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 450 E Street, Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20042-0001, telephone (202) 761-1448.
Department of Defense, Advisory Group on Electron Devices.
Notice.
Working Group B (Microelectronics) of the DoD Advisory Group on Electron Devices (AGED) announces a change to a closed session meeting.
The meeting will be held at 0900, Thursday, September 28, 2000.
The meeting will be held at the Palisades Institute for Research Services, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202.
Elise Rabin, AGED Secretariat, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Square Four, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 22202.
The mission of the Advisory Group is to provide advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, to the Director Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), and through the DDR&E, to the Director Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Military Departments in planning and managing an effective research and development program in the field of electron devices.
The working Group B meeting will be limited to review of research and development programs which the military proposes to initiate with industry, universities or in their
In accordance with section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, as amended, (5 U.S.C. App. 10(d) (1994)), it has been determined that this Advisory Group meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1)(1994), and that accordingly, this meeting will be closed to the public.
Department of Defense, Advisory Group on Electron Devices.
Notice.
The DoD Advisory Group on Electron Devices (AGED) announces a closed session meeting.
The meeting will be held at 0900, Wednesday, September 27, 2000.
The meeting will be held at Palisades Institute for Research Services, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202.
Mr. Eliot Cohen, AGED Secretariat, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Square Four, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 22202.
The mission of the Advisory Group is to provide advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), and through the DDR&E to the Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Military Departments in planning and managing an effective and economical research and development program in the area of electron devices.
The AGED meeting will be limited to review of research and development programs which the Military Departments propose to initiate with industry, universities or in their laboratories. The agenda for this meeting will include programs or Radiation Hardened Devices, Microwave Tubes, Displays and Lasers. The review will include details of classified defense programs throughout.
In accordance with section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, as amended, (5 U.S.C. App. 10(d) (1994)), it has been determined that this Advisory Group meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) (1994), and that accordingly, this meeting will be closed to the public.
Department of Defense, Advisory Group on Electron Devices.
Notice.
Working Group A (Microwave Devices) of the DoD Advisory Group on Electron Devices (AGED) announces a closed session meeting.
The meeting will be held at 0900, Monday, September 11, 2000.
The meeting will be held at Palisades Institute for Research Services, Inc., 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202.
David Cox, AGED Secretariat, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Square Four, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 22202.
The mission of the Advisory Group is to provide advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), and through the DDR&E to the Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) and the Military Departments in planning and managing an effective and economical research and development program in the area of electron devices.
The Working Group A meeting will be limited to review of research and development programs which the Military Departments propose to initiate with industry, universities or in their laboratories. This microwave device area includes programs on developments and research related to microwave tubes, solid state microwave devices, electronic warfare devices, millimeter wave devices, and passive devices. The review will include details of classified defense programs throughout.
In accordance with Section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, as amended, (5 U.S.C. App. 10(d) (1994)), it has been determined that this Advisory Group meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) (1994), and that accordingly, this meeting will be closed to the public.
Office of the Secretary, DoD.
Notice to alter a system of records.
The Office of the Secretary proposes to alter a system of records notice to its existing inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
This proposed action will be effective without further notice on September 29, 2000 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
Send comments to OSD Privacy Act Coordinator, Records Section, Directives and Records Division, Washington Headquarters Services, Correspondence and Directives, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.
Mr. David Bosworth at (703) 588-0159.
The Office of the Secretary systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on August 21, 2000 to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining
Pentagon and Federal Building #2 Carpool Locator (February 22, 1993, 58 FR 10227).
Delete entry and replace with ‘Pentagon Parking/National Capital Region Transit Subsidy Program’.
Delete entry and replace with ‘Primary location: Parking Management Office, Directorate for Real Estate and Facilities, Washington Headquarters Services, Department of Defense, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.
Decentralized location: Department of Transportation, Transportation Administrative Service Center, TASC, Facilities Service Center, Parking Management Office, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Room P2-0327, Washington, DC 20590.’
Delete entry and replace with ‘All Federal or other personnel currently holding DoD parking permits, participating in DoD carpools, or are otherwise authorized to park at the Pentagon or Federal Office Building No. 2 (FOB2). DoD personnel applying for and/or obtaining a public fare transportation subsidy in the National Capital Region.’
Delete entry and replace with ‘Name, Social Security Number, organizational affiliation of the individual, home address, office work number, home zip code, vehicle tag number, applications for a public fare transportation subsidy, and documentation on vehicular compliance with Federal and state environmental and maintenance standards.’
Delete entry and replace with ‘To administer the Pentagon parking permit program where individuals in a carpool are allocated parking spaces, to manage the DoD National Capital Region Public Transportation Benefit Program involving DoD personnel who are eligible for public fare subsidies, and to operate vehicular environmental compliance and maintenance programs involving certain vehicles which are operating on the Pentagon Reservation or FOB2.’
Delete entry and replace with ‘5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations; 10 U.S.C. 2674(c)(1); 42 U.S.C. 7418(d); 5 U.S.C. 7905; E.O. 12191; E.O. 13150; and E.O. 9397 (SSN).’
Delete entry and replace with ‘In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
To other Federal agencies for purposes of administering the DoD National Capital Region Public Transportation Benefit Program and/or verifying the eligibility of individuals to receive a fare subsidy pursuant to a transportation benefit program operated by the DoD or other Federal agencies.
To the Environmental Protection Agency for purposes of certifying that certain vehicles operating on the Pentagon Reservation and FOB2 are in compliance with Clean Air Act requirements.
To state and local governmental authorities for the purpose of reporting vehicular compliance with statutory/regulatory maintenance standards.
The DoD ‘Blanket Routine Uses’ set forth at the beginning of the OSD compilation of systems of records notices apply to this system of records.’
Delete entry and replace with ‘Information is retrieved by individual's name and Social Security Number, parking permit number, vehicle tag number.’
Applications submitted by individuals for private vehicle and carpool parking permits and transit subsidies; applications submitted through DoD component parking control representatives for individual parking permits for cards; information provided by other federal agencies regarding parking permits and fare subsidies; and from periodic certifications and reports regarding fare subsidies.
Pentagon Parking/National Capital Region Transit Subsidy Program.
Primary location: Parking Management Office, Directorate for Real Estate and Facilities, Washington Headquarters Services, Department of Defense, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.
Decentralized location: Department of Transportation, Transportation Administrative Service Center, TASC, Facilities Service Center, Parking Management Office, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Room P2-0327, Washington, DC 20590.
All Federal or other personnel currently holding DoD parking permits, participating in DoD carpools, or are otherwise authorized to park at the Pentagon or Federal Office Building No. 2 (FOB2). DoD personnel applying for and/or obtaining a public fare transportation subsidy in the National Capital Region.
Name, Social Security Number, organizational affiliation of the individual, home address, office work number, home zip code, vehicle tag number, applications for a public fare transportation subsidy, and documentation on vehicular compliance with Federal and state environmental and maintenance standards.
5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations; 10 U.S.C. 2674(c)(1); 42 U.S.C. 7418(d); 5 U.S.C. 7905; E.O. 12191; E.O. 13150; and E.O. 9397 (SSN).
To administer the Pentagon parking permit program where individuals in a carpool are allocated parking spaces, to manage the DoD National Capital Reigon Public Transportation Benefit Program involving DoD personnel who are eligible for public fare subsidies, and to operate vehicular environmental compliance and maintenance programs involving certain vehicles which are operating on the Pentagon Reservation or FOB2.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
To other Federal agencies for purposes of administering the DoD National Capital Region Public Transportation Benefit Program and/or verifying the eligibility of individuals to receive a fare subsidy pursuant to a transportation benefit program operated by the DoD or other Federal agencies.
To the Environmental Protection Agency for purposes of certifying that certain vehicles operating on the Pentagon Reservation and FOB2 are in compliance with Clean Air Act requirements.
To state and local governmental authorities for the purpose of reporting vehicular compliance with statutory/regulatory maintenance standards.
The DoD ‘Blanket Routine Uses’ set forth at the beginning of the OSD compilation of systems of records notices apply to this system of records.
Electronic file storage, computer print-out reports, and paper forms.
Information is retrieved by individual's name and Social Security Number, parking permit number, vehicle tag number.
Records are stored in a secured area accessible only to authorized personnel. Records are accessed by the custodian of the record system and by persons responsible for using or servicing the system, who are properly screened and have a need-to-know. Computer hardware is located in controlled areas with access limited to authorized personnel.
Disposition pending (until NARA has approved the disposition schedule for these records, treat as permanent).
Chief, Defense Protective Service, Real Estate and Facilities Directorate, Washington Headquarters Service, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Chief, Defense Protective Service, Real Estate and Facilities Directorate, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.
Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Chief, Defense Protective Service, Real Estate and Facilities Directorate, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.
Written requests for information should contain the full name of the individual, Social Security Number, current address and telephone number. For personal visits, acceptable identification must be provided such as a driver's license or DoD building pass.
The OSD rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in OSD Administrative Instruction 81; 32 CFR part 311; or may be obtained from the system manager.
Applications submitted by individuals for private vehicle and carpool parking permits and transit subsidies; applications submitted through DoD component parking control representatives for individual parking permits for cards; information provided by other federal agencies regarding parking permits and fare subsidies; and from periodic certifications and reports regarding fare subsidies.
None.
National Reconnaissance Office, DOD.
Notice to Add Systems of Records.
The National Reconnaissance Office is adding four systems of records notices to its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
This proposed action will be effective without further notice on September 29, 2000 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
National Reconnaissance Office, 14675 Lee Road Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
Ms. Barbara Freimann at (703) 808-5029.
The National Reconnaissance Office systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on August 16, 2000, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,’ dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
Training and Enrollment Support System (TESS).
Office of Security, Office of Security Training and Education Division, National Reconnaissance Office, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) civilian, military, and contractor personnel who have chosen to participate in the security training and education program.
Name, Social Security Number, employer, date and place of birth, work addresses, work telephone numbers, facsimile numbers, company, organization, job position, activities (courses) with dates and status, sponsor, program access status, and (occasionally) security investigation date.
National Security Act of 1947, as amended, 50 U.S.C. 401 et seq; 5 U.S.C.
The Training and Enrollment Support System is used to manage the nomination and enrollment administrative process for training in security-related courses.
Some records may be released to employing organizations to document training.
The DoD ‘Blanket Routines Uses’ published at the beginning of the NRO compilation of systems of records notices apply to this system.
Automated information system, maintained in computers and computer output products
Name and Social Security Number.
Records are stored in secure, a gated facility, guard, badge, and password access protected. Access to the automated information system is limited to a small number of staff members. The system is restricted access and password protected. Use of the data in the records is limited to those of the training staff whose official duties require such access.
Records are temporary, to be destroyed when three years old. Earlier disposal is authorized if records are superseded, obsolete, or no longer needed. Records relating to training courses sponsored by other agencies or organizations are also temporary, destroyed when superseded, obsolete, or no longer needed.
Chief, Office of Security Training and Education Division National Reconnaissance Office, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
Individuals seeking to determine whether this system of records contains information about themselves should address written inquiries to the National Reconnaissance Office, Information Access and Release Center, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
Request should include the individual's full name, address, Social Security Number, and other information identifiable from the record.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed without the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
Individuals seeking to access information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the National Reconnaissance Office, Information Access and Release Center, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
Request should include the individual's full name, address, Social Security Number, and other information identifiable from the record.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed without the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
The NRO rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in NRO Directive 110-3 and NRO Instruction 110-5; 32 CFR part 326; or may be obtained from the Privacy Act Coordinator, National Reconnaissance Office, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
Information is supplied by the individual on the course nomination forms. Some information is supplied from the Super Message Case Personnel data base.
None.
Automated Travel Information Processing System.
Management Services and Operations, Travel Reservation and Accounting Center, National Reconnaissance Office, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) military, and civilian personnel who make arrangements for official travel and training, or who have the responsibility to approve such travel and training arrangements.
Name, Social Security Number, date of birth, employer, employee number, parent organization, office room number, work telephone number, grade or rank, accounting number, and travel orders to include travel dates, times, and locations
National Security Act of 1947, as amended, 50 U.S.C. 401 et seq; 5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations; E.O. 12333; and E.O. 9397 (SSN).
Records are used for automated travel preparation, approval, and accounting. Data occasionally may be used for the compilation of statistics and financial audits and accountability.
Records may, on occasion, be released to other government agencies for travel audits or oversight accountability.
The DoD ‘Blanket Routines Uses’ published at the beginning of the NRO compilation of systems of records notices apply to this system.
Automated information system, maintained in computers and computer output products
Name, organization, travel order number, and accounting number.
Records are stored in a secure, gated facility, guard, badge, and password access protected. Although all NRO personnel may access the Automated Travel Information Processing System to make their own individual travel arrangements, access to and use of different categories of records are partitioned and limited to Travel Reservation and Accounting Center staff whose official duties require such access.
Records are temporary and may be destroyed six years after the period of the account.
Chief, Travel Reservation and Accounting Center, Management Services and Operations, National Reconnaissance Office, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
Individuals seeking to determine whether this system of records contains information about themselves should address written inquiries to the National Reconnaissance Office, Information Access and Release Center, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
Request should include the individual's full name, address, Social Security Number, and other information identifiable from the record.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed without the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
Individuals seeking to access information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the National Reconnaissance Office, Information Access and Release Center, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
Request should include the individual's full name, address, Social Security Number, and other information identifiable from the record.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed without the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
The NRO rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in NRO Directive 110-3 and NRO Instruction 110-5; 32 CFR part 326; or may be obtained from the Privacy Act Coordinator, National Reconnaissance Office, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
The NRO rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in NRO Directive 110-3 and NRO Instruction 110-5; 32 CFR part 326; or may be obtained from the Privacy Act Coordinator, National Reconnaissance Office, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
Information is supplied by the users of the system.
None.
NRO Alumni Database.
Office of Policy, Center for the Study of National Reconnaissance, National Reconnaissance Office, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
Current and former government, military, and contractor personnel, who have participated in certain National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) programs and projects.
Name, Social Security Number, employer, work telephone number, home address and telephone number, date of birth, e-mail address, program association, organization or affiliation, dates of participation, and security-briefed status.
National Security Act of 1947, as amended, 50 U.S.C. 401 et seq; 5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations; E.O. 12333; E.O. 9397 (SSN).
The database will track the contributing alumni of national reconnaissance programs, particularly those programs retired or declassified. Data will be used for the activities of the declassification of post-Corona programs; the NRO's 40th Anniversary celebration; and as a resource for the NRO Historian's research.
Certain limited information concerning the alumni may be shared with other government agencies, the alumni's parent organizations, or with private persons, foundations or companies in order to recognize alumni contributions and achievements or, in some cases, to seek advice.
The DoD ‘Blanket Routines Uses’ published at the beginning of the NRO compilation of systems of records notices apply to this system.
Automated information system, maintained in computers and computer output products
Data is retrieved by individual's name and program name.
Records are stored in secure, gated facility, guard, badge, and password access protected. Access to and use of these records are limited to NRO staff who are involved with the projects for which the database is maintained.
Records are historical and are permanent.
Director, Center for the Study of National Reconnaissance, Office of Policy, National Reconnaissance Office, 4675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
Individuals seeking to determine whether this system of records contains information about themselves should address written inquiries to the National Reconnaissance Office, Information Access and Release Center, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
Request should include the individual's full name, address, Social Security Number, and other information identifiable from the record.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed without the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
Individuals seeking to access information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the National Reconnaissance Office, Information Access and Release Center, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
Request should include the individual's full name, address, Social Security Number, and other information identifiable from the record.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed without the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
The NRO rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in NRO Directive 110-3 and NRO Instruction 110-5; 32 CFR part 326; or may be obtained from the Privacy Act Coordinator, National Reconnaissance Office, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
Information is supplied by the individual, by award nominators and fellow alumni, and by source documentation.
None.
Document On-line Control System.
Management Services and Operations, Information Services Center, National Reconnaissance Office, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) civilian, military, and contractor personnel who have custodianship of classified materials
Name, office and document data such as title, (including series, revision, volume and copy number), security classification, type of media, origin date, security control channels, project codes, manifest information, package information and statistics
National Security Act of 1947, as amended, 50 U.S.C. 401 et seq; 5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations; E.O. 12333; E.O. 12958; E.O. 12968.
The Document On-line Control System accounts for the accountable documents and tracks the non-accountable documents, and controls the record of the NRO personnel to whom the document is assigned.
Information may be shared with other government agencies to track a specific document or identify the custodian of a particular document.
The DoD ‘Blanket Routines Uses’ published at the beginning of the NRO compilation of systems of records notices apply to this system.
Automated information system, maintained in computers and computer output products.
Name, office, document title, control number, classification, type of media, transmittal package number, manifest number, date project codes, control channels, and statistics, as well as by scanning the document barcode.
Records are stored in a secure, gated facility, guard, badge, and password access protected. Access to and use of these records are limited to Information Services Center staff whose official duties require such access. System access is pre-determined and restricted.
Records are permanent.
Chief, Information Services Center, Management Services and Operations, National Reconnaissance Office, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
Individuals seeking to determine whether this system of records contains information about themselves should address written inquiries to the National Reconnaissance Office, Information Access and Release Center, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
Request should include the individual's full name, address, Social Security Number, and other information identifiable from the record.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed without the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
Individuals seeking to access information about themselves contained
Request should include the individual's full name, address, Social Security Number, and other information identifiable from the record.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed without the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
The NRO rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in NRO Directive 110-3 and NRO Instruction 110-5; 32 CFR part 326; or may be obtained from the Privacy Act Coordinator, National Reconnaissance Office, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
Information entered into the system is supplied from the documents themselves and from the transmittal process of which the custodian's name is a part.
None.
National Reconnaissance Office, DOD.
Notice to Add Systems of Records.
The National Reconnaissance Office is adding three systems of records notices to its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
This proposed action will be effective without further notice on September 29, 2000 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
National Reconnaissance Office, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
Ms. Barbara Freimann at (703) 808-5029.
The National Reconnaissance Office systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on August 16, 2000, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,’ dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
Freedom of Information Act Reading Room Visitors Log.
Management Services and Operations, Information Access and Release Center, National Reconnaissance Office, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Reading Room visitors, to include requesters, researchers, historians, and news media personnel. Visitors may be U.S. citizens or foreign nationals.
Visitor name, Social Security Number, number of hours spent in the reading room, number of photocopies made, and visitors' duplication charges, if any.
5 U.S.C. 552, Freedom of Information Act; National Security Act of 1947, as amended, 50 U.S.C. 401 et seq; 5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations; E.O. 12333; E.O. 12958; E.O. 12968; and E.O. 9397 (SSN).
Information is used to compile data needed in the annual statistical report to Congress, and to assess duplication charges, if any.
The fact of a FOIA requester's visit can be disclosed in a subsequent FOIA release; however, no other personal information will be released.
The DoD ‘Blanket Routines Uses’ published at the beginning of the NRO compilation of systems of records notices apply to this system.
Paper files and automated information system, maintained in computers and computer output products.
Visitor's name and Social Security Number, and date of visit.
Records are stored in a secure, gated facility, guard, badge, and password access protected. Access to and use of these records are limited to Information Access and Release Center (IARC) staff whose official duties require such access. Computer file access is electronically limited; paper files are stored in the reading room which is locked when unattended by IARC staff.
Records are temporary, destroyed when two years old or sooner if no longer needed for administrative use.
Chief, Information Access and Release Center, Management Services and Operations, National Reconnaissance Office, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
Individuals seeking to determine whether this system of records contains information about themselves should address written inquiries to the National Reconnaissance Office, Information Access and Release Center, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
Request should include the individual's full name, address, Social
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed without the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
Individuals seeking to access information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the National Reconnaissance Office, Information Access and Release Center, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
Request should include the individual's full name, address, Social Security Number, and other information identifiable from the record.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed without the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
The NRO rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in NRO Directive 110-3 and NRO Instruction 110-5; 32 CFR part 326; or may be obtained from the Privacy Act Coordinator, National Reconnaissance Office, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
Information is supplied by the reading room visitors and by Information Access and Release Center staff.
None.
Cub Run Elementary School Volunteers Database.
Cub Run Outreach Program, National Reconnaissance Office, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) civilian, military, and contractor personnel who have chosen to participate in the school sponsorship program.
Name, work telephone number, government or contractor affiliation, number of hours worked at the school or on school projects, the volunteers' interest areas or fields of expertise, and community service awards for volunteer activities
National Security Act of 1947, as amended, 50 U.S.C. 401 et seq; 5 U.S.C. Departmental Regulations; E.O. 12820; and E.O. 12333.
This database records the hours of community service and provides a list of volunteers and their specialties from which the coordinator fills the requests from the school. The system also records the community service awards that volunteers have earned.
Information will be shared with the Cub Run Elementary School personnel for the assignment of volunteers and for the school's recognition of their contributions.
The DoD ‘Blanket Routines Uses’ published at the beginning of the NRO compilation of systems of records notices apply to this system.
Automated information system, maintained in computers and computer output products.
Name, area of expertise, dates of service, and type of award.
Records are stored in a secure, gated facility, guard, badge, and password access protected. Access to and use of these records are electronically limited by password to staff whose official duties require such access.
Records are temporary, deleted when obsolete or no longer needed. The system will not be maintained should the program be discontinued.
Cub Run Outreach Program Coordinator, National Reconnaissance Office, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
Individuals seeking to determine whether this system of records contains information about themselves should address written inquiries to the National Reconnaissance Office, Information Access and Release Center, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
Request should include the individual's full name, address, Social Security Number, and other information identifiable from the record.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed without the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
Individuals seeking to access information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the National Reconnaissance Office, Information Access and Release Center, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
Request should include the individual's full name, address, Social Security Number, and other information identifiable from the record.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed without the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
The NRO rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in NRO Directive 110-3 and NRO Instruction 110-5; 32 CFR part 326; or may be obtained from the Privacy Act Coordinator, National Reconnaissance Office, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
Information is supplied by each volunteer; the school provides a sign-in log which tracks the hours of service of each volunteer.
None.
Technical Library Administration System.
Technical Library, Management Services and Operations, National Reconnaissance Office, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) civilian, military, and contractor personnel who are entitled to use the NRO's technical library services
Name, work telephone number, office address, patron identification number and the last four digits of the patron's Social Security Number.
National Security Act of 1947 as amended, 50 U.S.C. 401 et seq; 5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations; E.O. 12333; and E.O. 9397 (SSN).
The collected information supports administrative, circulation, and inventory functions of the Technical Library.
The DoD ‘Blanket Routines Uses’ published at the beginning of the NRO compilation of systems of records notices apply to this system.
Automated information system, maintained in computers and computer output products
The Library staff retrieves patron information by name and patron identification number. A patron may check his own circulation data by using the last four digits of his Social Security Number. A patron, however, may substitute any non-used four digit numbers rather than those of his Social Security Number.
Records are stored in a secure, gated facility, guard, badge, and password access protected. Access to and use of these records are limited to library staff whose official duties require such access. The automated information system is on a protected network and the system itself is password protected.
Patron information is retained for the duration of NRO assignment and is electronically deleted as part of out-processing. Information regarding the status of an individual's library material(s) is retained for the checkout period only, normally three weeks. Circulation data is retained beyond return of the item(s) only for administrative purposes; at this point the data can be retrieved only by item title.
Chief, Technical Library, Management Services and Operations, National Reconnaissance Office, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
Individuals seeking to determine whether this system of records contains information about themselves should address written inquiries to the National Reconnaissance Office, Information Access and Release Center, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
Request should include the individual's full name, address, Social Security Number, and other information identifiable from the record.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed without the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
Individuals seeking to access information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the National Reconnaissance Office, Information Access and Release Center, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
Request should include the individual's full name, address, Social Security Number, and other information identifiable from the record.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed without the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
The NRO rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in NRO Directive 110-3 and NRO Instruction 110-5; 32 CFR part 326; or may be obtained from the Privacy Act Coordinator, National Reconnaissance Office, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715.
Employee names are initially populated from an employee database; library users subsequently provide information when checking out library materials.
None.
Defense Finance and Accounting Service, DOD.
Notice of New Systems of Records.
The Defense Finance and Accounting Service proposes to add two systems of records notices to its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
This action will be effective without further notice on September 29, 2000 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination.
Privacy Act Officer, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, 1931 Jefferson Davis Highway, ATTN: DFAS/PE, Arlington, VA 22240-5291.
Mrs. Pauline E. Korpanty at (703) 607-3743.
The complete inventory of Defense Finance and Accounting Service records system notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, was submitted on August 16, 2000, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,’ dated February 8, 1996, (61 FR 6427, February 20, 1996).
Disbursing Officer Establishment and Appointment Files.
Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Cleveland Center, 1240 East 9th Street, Cleveland, OH 44199-2055.
Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Kansas City Center, 1500 East 95th Street, Kansas City, MO 64197-0001.
Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Indianapolis Center, 8899 East 56th Street, Indianapolis, IN 46249-0001.
Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Denver Center, 6760 East Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80279-5000.
Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Columbus Center, 4280 East 5th Avenue, Building 3, Columbus, OH 43218-2317.
Military members and DoD civilians who are appointed as deputies and individuals appointed as accountable disbursing officers.
Records include forms for designation and appointment of deputy and disbursing officer, letters to Federal Reserve banks, and requests for approval and appointment of accountable officers; appointment letters; commencement of disbursing duty letters; Financial Management Service Forms 3023, Specimen Signatures and 5583, Signature Card.
5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations; DoD 7000.14-R, DoD Financial Management Regulation; DFAS 005, Delegation of Statutory Authority; and E.O. 9397 (SSN).
Information is used to determine whether an individual has held an accountable position in the past.
To obtain data for the appointment or termination of deputies and the appointment or termination of other than finance officers as accountable officers.
To Federal Reserve banks to verify authority of the accountable individual to issue Treasury checks.
The DoD ‘Blanket Routine Uses’ published at the beginning of the DFAS compilation of systems of records notices apply to this system.
Maintained in file folders, optical disk systems, and computer databases.
By individual's name, Social Security Number and accounting and disbursing station number.
As a minimum, records are accessed by person(s) responsible for servicing, and are authorized to use, the record system in performance of their official duties who are properly screened and cleared for need to know. Additionally, at some Centers, records are in office buildings protected by guards and controlled by screening of personnel and registering of visitors.
Disposition pending. Until the National Archives and Records Administration has approved the disposition, records will be treated as permanent.
Director of Network Operations, Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Cleveland Center, 1240 East 9th Street, Cleveland, OH 44199-2055.
Director of Accounting Operations, Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Kansas City Center, 1500 East 95th Street, Kansas City, MO 64197-0001.
Director of Network Operations, Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Indianapolis Center, 8899 East 56th Street, Indianapolis, IN 46249-0001.
Director of Accounting Operations, Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Denver Center, 6760 East Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80279-5000.
Director of Accounting Operations or Network Operations, Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Columbus Center, 4280 East 5th Avenue, Building 3, Columbus, OH 43218-2317.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Privacy Act Officer at the appropriate DFAS Center.
Individuals should provide sufficient proof of identity, such as full name, Social Security Number, or other information verifiable from the record itself.
Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the records management officer or the Privacy Act Officer at the appropriate DFAS Center.
Individual should provide sufficient proof of identity, such as full name, Social Security Number, or other information verifiable from the record itself.
The DFAS rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in DFAS Regulation 5400.11-R; 32 CFR part 324; or may be obtained from the Privacy Act Officer at any DFAS Center.
Finance and accounting officers.
None.
Uniformed Services Savings Deposit Program (USSDP).
Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Cleveland Center, 1240 East 9th Street, Cleveland, OH 44199-2055.
Military members on a permanent duty assignment outside the United States or its possessions, or members on a temporary duty assignment in support of a contingency operation outside the United States or its possessions, who choose to deposit their current pay and allowances, or a portion thereof, into an account administered by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS).
Members who are in a missing status and whose pay and allowances, or a portion thereof, are deposited into an account administered by DFAS are also included.
Dependents, next-of-kin, survivors and former spouses of Uniformed Services Savings Deposit Program (USSDP) participants may be included.
Records required to administer the account, and account for accrued interest which includes, but is not limited to, the master account records for each depositor, transaction records of monetary data (deposits, withdrawals and adjustments), allotment records, name and Social Security Number change record, settled records, check writing and voucher register data records, interest paid records, quarterly statements records, supplemental address for interest refund records. File also contains correspondence files covering requests for information from members, Federal agencies, spouses, former spouses, dependents, survivors, widows or widowers, next of kin, the American Red Cross, Congress, and other DoD components.
Pub.L. 89-538, Armed Forces Savings Deposits; 5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations; 10 U.S.C. 1035, Deposits of Savings; and E.O. 9397 (SSN)
Information is collected to facilitate account maintenance, including updating for deposits, withdrawals, interest accruals, adjustments and summary data, prior to clearing account when the account is terminated.
All records in this system of records are subject to use in authorized computer matching programs with the Department of Defense and with other Federal agencies or non-Federal agencies as regulated by the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
To the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Social Security Administration to determine eligibility, entitlements, and addresses of Uniformed Services Deposit Program members.
To the Federal Housing Agency (FHA) to verify eligibility for loans.
To the American Red Cross to use in assisting the member or dependents in emergency situations.
To the widow or widower, dependent, or next-of-kin of deceased members to settle the affairs of the former member.
The DoD ‘Blanket Routine Uses’ published at the beginning of the DFAS compilation of record system notices also apply to this system.
Disclosures pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12) may be made from this system to ‘consumer reporting agencies’ as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 14 U.S.C. 1681a(f) or the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966, 31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3). The purpose of this disclosure is to aid in the collection of outstanding debts owed to the Federal government; typically to provide an incentive for debtors to repay delinquent Federal government debts by making these debts part of their credit records.
The disclosure is limited to information necessary to establish the identity of the individual, including name, address, and taxpayer identification number (Social Security Number); the amount, status, and history of the claim; and the agency or program under which the claim arose for the sole purpose of allowing the consumer reporting agency to prepare a commercial credit report.
Maintained in paper files, on computer magnetic tapes and computer paper printouts, and on microfiche.
By name and Social Security Number.
As a minimum, records are accessed by person(s) responsible for servicing, and authorized to use, the record system in performance of their official duties who are properly screened and cleared for need to know.
Disposition pending. Until the National Archives and Records Administration has approved the disposition, records will be treated as permanent.
Deputy Director for Finance Operations, Code F, Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Cleveland Center, 1240 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, OH 44199-2055.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Privacy Act Officer, Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Cleveland Center, 1240 Ninth Street, Cleveland, OH 44199-2055.
Individuals should provide sufficient proof of identity, such as name, Social Security Number, or other information verifiable from the record itself.
Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained
Individuals should provide sufficient proof of identity, such as name, Social Security Number, or other information verifiable from the record itself.
The DFAS rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in DFAS Regulation 5400.11-R; 32 CFR part 324; or may be obtained from the Privacy Act Officer at any DFAS Center.
Information is obtained from the member, spouse, next-of-kin, survivors, and automated system interfaces with other pay systems.
None.
Department of the Army, DOD.
Notice to alter a system of records.
The Department of the Army is altering a system of records notice in its existing inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The alteration adds a routine use to the system of records notice to permit the disclosure of information to news media.
This proposed action will be effective without further notice on September 29, 2000 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
Privacy Act System Notice Manager, Records Management Division, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, ATTN: TAPC-PDD-RP, Stop 5603, Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-5603.
Ms. Janice Thornton at (703) 806-4390 or DSN 656-4390.
The Department of the Army systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on August 18, 2000, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130 “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
Biography Files (February 22, 1993, 58 FR 10002).
Delete entry and replace with “Biographical material including name, position, rank, educational degrees/grade, summary of service, photographs, newspaper clippings, speeches, outstanding achievements may also be included and related documents.”
Delete entry and replace with “To respond to queries from the news Media, and Army agencies/commands relating to individuals concerned.”
Add to entry “Records may be released to the news media to use for informational purposes.”
Biography Files.
Military records are located at General Officer Management Office, Office to the Chief of Staff, Army, 200 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0200.
Civilian records are located at U.S. Army, Senior Executive Service Office, 111 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0111.
Senior Department of the Army military and civilian personnel.
Biographical material including name, position, rank, educational degrees/grade, summary of service, photographs, newspaper clippings, speeches, outstanding achievements may also be included and related documents.
10 U.S.C. 3013, Secretary of the Army; Army Regulation 360-5, Public Information; Army Regulation 690-900, Chapter 920, Civilian Personnel-Senior Executive Service.
To respond to queries from the news media, and Army agencies/commands relating to individuals concerned.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
Records may be released to the news media to use for informational purposes.
The DoD “Blanket Routine Uses” set forth at the beginning of the Army's compilation of systems of records notices also apply to this system.
Electronic media and paper records in file folders.
By individual's surname.
Records are accessed only by designated officials having need therefor in the performance of their assigned duties. Storage areas are locked during non-duty hours.
Disposition pending. Until the National Archives and Records Administration approve the retention and disposal schedule, treat records as permanent.
Chief, General Officer Management Office, Office of the Chief of Staff, Army, 200 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0200 for military records.
Chief, Office of the Secretary of the Army, U.S. Army Senior Executive Service Office, 111 Army Pentagon, Room 2C600 Washington, DC 20310-0111 for civilian records.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Chief, General Officer Management Office, Office to the Chief of Staff, Army, 200 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0200 for military records or to the Chief, U.S. Army, Senior Executive Service Office, 111 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0111 for civilian records.
For verification purposes, individual should provide full name, current address and telephone number, and signature.
Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in the system should address written inquiries to the Chief, General Officer Management Office, Office to the Chief of Staff, Army, 200 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0200 for military records or to the Chief, U.S. Army, Senior Executive Service Office, 111 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0111 for civilian records.
For verification purposes, individual should provide full name, current address and telephone number, and signature.
The Army's rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are contained in Army Regulation 340-21; 32 CFR part 505; or may be obtained from the system manager.
From the individual; clippings from published media; published media; published biographical data from Army records and reports.
None.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice to Alter two Systems of Records.
The Department of the Navy proposes to alter two systems of records notices in its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The alterations add a routine use to permit disclosure of information under the Victim's Rights and Restitution Act of 1990.
This action will be effective on September 29, 2000 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination.
Send comments to the Department of the Navy, PA/FOIA Policy Branch, Chief of Naval Operations (N09B30), 2000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350-2000.
Mrs. Doris Lama at (202) 685-6545 or DSN 325-6545.
The Department of the Navy's record system notices for records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act was submitted on August 16, 2000, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,’ dated February 8, 1996, (61 FR 6427, February 20, 1996).
Naval Clemency and Parole Board Files
Delete entry and replace with ‘10 U.S.C. 874(a), 952-954; 42 U.S.C. 10601 et seq.; Victim’s Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 as implemented by DoD Instruction 1030.2, Victim and Witness Assistance Procedures, SECNAVINST 5815.3H, Department of the Navy Clemency and Parole Systems; and E.O. 9397 (SSN).'
Add new paragraph to read ‘To victims and witnesses of a crime for purposes of providing information regarding the investigation and disposition of an offense (Victim’s Rights and Restitution Act of 1990).'
Delete entry and replace with ‘Director, Naval Council of Personnel Boards, Department of the Navy, 720 Kennon Street SE, Room 309, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5023.’
Naval Clemency and Parole Board Files.
Naval Clemency and Parole Board, 720 Kennon Street SE, Room 308, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5023
Members or former members of the Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard whose cases have been or are being considered by the Naval Clemency and Parole Board.
The file contains individual applications for clemency and/or parole, reports and recommendations thereon indicating progress in confinement or while awaiting completion of appellate review if not confined, or on parole; correspondence between the individual or his counsel and the Naval Clemency and Parole Board or other Navy offices; other correspondence concerning the case; the court-martial order and staff Judge Advocate's review; records of trial; and a summarized record of the proceedings of the Board.
10 U.S.C. 874(a), 952-954; 42 U.S.C. 10601 et seq.; Victim's Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 as implemented by DoD Instruction 1030.2, Victim and Witness Assistance Procedures, SECNAVINST 5815.3H, Department of the Navy Clemency and Parole Systems; and E.O. 9397 (SSN).
The file is used in conjunction with periodic review of the member's or former member's case to determine whether or not clemency or parole is
To victims and witnesses of a crime for purposes of providing information regarding the investigation and disposition of an offense (Victim's Rights and Restitution Act of 1990).
The ‘Blanket Routine Uses’ that appear at the beginning of the Navy's compilation of systems of records notices apply to this system.
Paper records and computerized data base.
Name and Social Security Number.
Files are kept within the Naval Clemency and Parole Board administration office. Access during business hours is controlled by Board personnel. The office is locked at the close of business. Computerized data base is password protected.
Files are transferred to the Washington National Records Center, 4205 Suitland Road, Suitland, MD 20409 one year after discharge of individual from the naval service. Files are destroyed after 25 years after cut-off.
Director, Naval Council of Personnel Boards, Department of the Navy, 720 Kennon Street SE, Room 309, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5023.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Director, Naval Council of Personnel Boards, Department of the Navy, 720 Kennon Street SE, Room 309, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5023.
Requests should contain full name and Social Security Number and must be signed.
Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Director, Naval Council of Personnel Boards, Department of the Navy, 720 Kennon Street SE, Room 309, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5023.
Requests should contain full name and Social Security Number and must be signed.
The Navy's rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5211.5; 32 CFR part 701; or may be obtained from the system manager.
Information contained in the file is obtained from the member or former member or from those acting in their behalf, from confinement facilities, from military commands and offices, from personnel service records and medical records, and from civilian law enforcement agencies or individuals.
Parts of this system may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) if the information is compiled and maintained by a component of the agency which performs as its principle function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws.
An exemption rule for this system has been promulgated in accordance with requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(1), (2), and 3, (c) and (e) and published in 32 CFR part 701, subpart G. For additional information contact the system manager.
Navy Personnel Records System
Delete entry and replace with ‘5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations; 42 U.S.C. 10601 et seq., Victim’s Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 as implemented by DoD Instruction 1030.2, Victim and Witness Assistance Procedures; and E.O. 9397 (SSN).'
Add new paragraph to read ‘To victims and witnesses of a crime for purposes of providing information regarding the investigation and disposition of an offense (Victim’s Rights and Restitution Act of 1990).'
Navy Personnel Records System.
Primary locations: Navy Personnel Command, 5720 Integrity Drive, Millington, TN 38055-3130; Naval Reserve Personnel Center, 4400 Dauphine Street, New Orleans, LA 70149-7800; and local activity to which individual is assigned. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Navy's compilation of system of record notices.
Secondary locations: Department of the Navy Activities in the chain of command between the local activity and the headquarters level; Federal Records Storage Centers; National Archives. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Navy's compilation of system of record notices.
All Navy military personnel: officers, enlisted, active, inactive, reserve, fleet reserve, retired, midshipmen, officer candidates, and Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps personnel.
Personnel service jackets and service records, correspondence and records in both automated and non-automated form concerning classification, assignment, distribution, promotion, advancement, performance, recruiting, retention, reenlistment, separation, training, education, morale, personal affairs, benefits, entitlements, discipline and administration of naval personnel.
5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations; 42 U.S.C. 10601 et seq., Victim's Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 as implemented by DoD Instruction 1030.2, Victim and Witness Assistance Procedures; and E.O. 9397 (SSN).
To assist officials and employees of the Navy in the management, supervision and administration of Navy personnel (officer and enlisted) and the operations of related personnel affairs and functions.
To officials and employees of the National Research Council in Cooperative Studies of the National History of Disease, of Prognosis and of Epidemiology. Each study in which the records of members and former members of the naval service are used must be approved by the Chief of Naval Personnel.
To officials and employees of the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Veteran Affairs, and Selective Service Administration in the performance of their official duties related to eligibility, notification and assistance in obtaining benefits by members and former members of the Navy.
To officials and employees of the Department of Veteran Affairs in the performance of their duties relating to approved research projects.
To officials and employees of Navy Relief and the American Red Cross in the performance of their duties relating to the assistance of the members and their dependents and relatives, or related to assistance previously furnished such individuals, without regard to whether the individual assisted or his/her sponsor continues to be a member of the Navy.
To duly appointed Family Ombudsmen in the performance of their duties related to the assistance of the members and their families.
To state and local agencies in the performance of their official duties related to verification of status for determination of eligibility for Veterans Bonuses and other benefits and entitlements, including Department of Labor and state unemployment agencies for unemployment compensation for ex-service members.
To officials and employees of the Office of the Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives in the performance of their official duties related to the verification of the active duty naval service of Members of Congress.
Information as to current military addresses and assignments may be provided to military banking facilities who provide banking services overseas and who are reimbursed by the Government for certain checking and loan losses. For personnel separated, discharged or retired from the Armed Forces information as to last known residential or home of record address may be provided to the military banking facility upon certification by a banking facility officer that the facility has a returned or dishonored check negotiated by the individual or the individual has defaulted on a loan and that if restitution is not made by the individual the United States Government will be liable for the losses the facility may incur.
To federal, state, local, and foreign (within Status of Forces agreements) law enforcement agencies or their authorized representatives in connection with litigation, law enforcement, or other matters under the jurisdiction of such agencies.
Information relating to professional qualifications of chaplains may be provided to civilian certification boards and committees, including, but not limited to, state and federal licensing authorities and ecclesiastical endorsing organizations.
To governmental entities or private organizations under government contract to perform random analytical research into specific aspects of military personnel management and administrative procedures.
To victims and witnesses of a crime for purposes of providing information regarding the investigation and disposition of an offense (Victim's Rights and Restitution Act of 1990).
The ‘Blanket Routine Uses’ that appear at the beginning of the Navy's compilation of system of record notices also apply to this system.
Automated records may be stored on magnetic tapes, disc, and drums. Manual records may be stored in paper file folders, microfiche or microfilm.
Automated records may be retrieved by name and Social Security Number. Manual records may be retrieved by name, Social Security Number, enlisted service number, or officer file number.
Computer facilities and terminals are located in restricted areas accessible only to authorized persons that are properly screened, cleared and trained. Manual records and computer printouts are available only to authorized personnel having a need-to-know.
Transfer to Naval Reserve Personnel Center, New Orleans, LA 70149 six months after discharge, retirement, or death of service member. Naval Reserve Personnel Center will forward to the National Personnel Records Center, (Military Personnel Records), 9700 Page Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63132-5000. Transfer to the National Archives and Records Administration 75 years after separation of service member. [Note: An exception is made for copies of officer fitness reports, enlisted evaluations, and officer and enlisted counseling forms which may be maintained by the member's commanding officer or command for a period not to exceed five years.]
Commander, Navy Personnel Command, 5720 Integrity Drive, Millington, TN 38055-3130; Commanding Officers, Officers in Charge, and Heads of Department of the Navy activities. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Navy's compilation of system of record notices.
Individuals seeking to determine whether this system of records contains information about themselves should address written inquiries to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, 5720 Integrity Drive, Millington, TN 38055-3130; or contact the personnel officer where assigned. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Navy's compilation of system of record notices.
The letter should contain full name, Social Security Number (and/or enlisted service number/officer file number), rank/rate, designator, military status, address, and signature of the requester.
The individual may visit the Navy Personnel Command, Records Review Room, Building 769, Room K615, Millington, TN for assistance with records located in that building; or the individual may visit the local activity to which attached for access to locally maintained records. Proof of identification will consist of Military Identification Card for persons having such cards, or other picture-bearing identification.
Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, 5720 Integrity Drive, Millington, TN 38055-3130, or contact the personnel officer where assigned. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Navy's compilation of system of records notices.
The letter should contain full name, Social Security Number (and/or enlisted service number/officer file number), rank/rate, designator, military status, address, and signature of the requester.
The individual may visit the Navy Personnel Command, Records Review Room, Building 769, Room K615, Millington, TN for assistance with records located in that building; or the individual may visit the local activity to which attached for access to locally maintained records. Proof of identification will consist of Military Identification Card for persons having such cards, or other picture-bearing identification.
The Navy's rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5211.5; 32 CFR part 701; or may be obtained from the system manager.
Correspondence; educational institutions; federal, state, and local court documents; civilian and military investigatory reports; general correspondence concerning the individual; official records of professional qualifications; Navy Relief and American Red Cross requests for verification of status.
None.
Department of Education.
The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 29, 2000.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Wai-Sinn Chan, Acting Desk Officer, Department of Education, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or should be electronically mailed to the internet address Wai-Sinn_L._Chan@omb.eop.gov.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested,
Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from
Department of Education.
The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 29, 2000.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Wai-Sinn Chan, Acting Desk Officer, Department of Education, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N.W., Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503 or should be electronically mailed to the internet address Wai-Sinn_L._Chan@omb.eop.gov.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public
Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Kathy Axt at her internet address Kathy_Axt@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Department of Education.
The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 29, 2000.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Wai-Sinn Chan, Acting Desk Officer, Department of Education, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or should be electronically mailed to the internet address Wai-Sinn_L._Chan@omb.eop.gov.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested,
Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from
Take notice that on August 2, 2000, Alcoa Power Generating, Inc., submitted revised standards of conduct in response to the Commission's July 3, 2000, Order on Standards of Conduct. 88 FERC ¶ 62,173 (1999).
Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. states that it served copies of the filing on the service list in this proceeding.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest the filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 or 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before September 8, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
On June 15, 2000, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) filed in compliance with Order No. 637. Several parties have protested various aspects of ANR's filing. Take notice that the technical conference to discuss the various issues raised by ANR's filing will be held Wednesday, September 20, 2000, at 10:00 am, in a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20426. This technical conference may extend to Thursday, September 21, 2000. Parties protesting aspects of ANR's filing should be prepared to discuss alternatives.
All interested parties and Staff are permitted to attend.
Take notice that on August 17, 2000, Chandeleur Pipe Line Company tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective October 1, 2000.
Chandeleur Pipe Line Company states that the purpose of this filing is to give Chandeleur Pipe Line Company the ability to negotiate rates as provided for by the Commission in its Policy Statement (RM95-6-000,
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Take notice that on August 18, 2000, Coral Power, L.L.C., tendered for filing a notice of change in status and an application under section 203 of the Federal Power Act for approval of the transfer of a 30 percent interest in Coral Power to InterGen N.V., a joint venture between Shell Generating (Holding) B.V. and Bechtel Enterprises Energy, B.V.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before September 8, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Take notice that on August 16, 2000, Dauphin Island Gathering Partners (DIGP) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with an effective date of August 7, 2000. The tariff sheets corrected several minor errors on DIGP's negotiated rates tariff sheets that were related to the nonconforming service agreements filed in this docket. The following tariff sheets are proposed to become effective on August 7, 2000:
DIGP states that on July 7, 2000, it filed tariff sheets to reflect fifteen nonconforming agreements. By Letter Order dated July 28, 2000 (Letter Order), the Commission accepted the nonconforming agreements and the tariff sheets reflecting the shippers listed in those agreements. The Letter Order further directed DIGP to file within 10 days tariff sheets setting forth all negotiated rates. Since the filing of a letter in response, DIGP has discovered three minor corrections on the negotiated rate tariff sheets.
DIGP states that copies of the filing are being served contemporaneously on all participants listed on the service list in this proceeding and on all persons who are required by the Commission's regulations to be served with the application initiating these proceedings.
Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as provided in section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Take notice that on August 17, 2000, Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Destin) tendered for filing the following tariff sheet:
The purpose of the filing is to reflect a change in the World Wide Web address of Destin's Internet Web Site.
Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as provided in section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc/fed/us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Take notice that on August 17, 2000, Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Destin) tendered for filing the following tariff sheet:
The purpose of the filing is to reflect the changes required by the Commission pursuant to letter order issued August 11, 2000.
Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as provided in section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Take notice that on August 23, 2000, IGI Resources, Inc. (IGI), tendered for filing a Notice of Cancellation of its FERC Electric Rate Schedule No. 1. IGI requests that the Commission act in an expedited manner and accept the notice of cancellation by no later than August 31, 2000, to be effective August 23, 2000.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 8888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before September 5, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to
On June 15, 2000, Koch Gateway Pipeline Company (Koch), filed in compliance with Order No. 637. Several parties have protested various aspects of Koch's filing. Take notice that a technical conference to discuss the various issues raised by Koch's filing will be held Wednesday, September 20, 2000, at 9:00 am, in a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20426. This technical conference may extend to Thursday, September 21, 2000. Parties protesting aspects of Koch's filing should be prepared to discuss alternatives.
All interested parties and Staff are permitted to attend.
Take notice that on August 17, 2000, Midcoast Gas Transmission, Inc. (MIT), filed the following tariff sheet to be included in its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1:
MIT states that the primary purpose of filing the Revised Tariff Sheet is to correct certain language in the indicated tariff sheet, which was filed on July 20, 2000 in FERC Docket No. MT00-11-000, updating MIT's tariff to reflect recent changes in shared personnel and facilities, and to reflect minor housekeeping changes for clarification of MIT's FERC Gas Tariff.
Pursuant to section 154.7(a)(7) of the Commission's Regulations, MIT respectfully requests waiver of any additional requirement of the Regulations in order to permit the tendered tariff sheet to become effective September 18, 2000, as submitted.
Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as provided in section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference R oom. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Take notice that on August 18, 2000, Mojave Pipeline Company (Mojave), tendered for filing and acceptance by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) the following tariff sheets to be effective March 26, 2000 and June 1, 2000.
Mojave states that the tariff sheets are being submitted, pursuant to Order No. 637, to (i) remove the maximum rate cap for capacity release transactions of less than one year, (ii) modify the right-of-first-refusal provisions applicable to long term firm contracts at the maximum rate, and (iii) revise the electronic bulletin board description to refer to Mojave's internet Web site.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Take notice that on August 23, 2000, Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. (MSCG), tendered for filing a complaint pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act against the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) requesting that the Commission order NYISO immediately to limit the two- and five-year Transmission Congestion Contracts (TCC) products it intended to offer in its Autumn TCC Auction, beginning September 1, 2000, to no more than six-month terms until market flaws and the transitional, uncertain and unstable nature of the NYISO market have been addressed. MSCG alleges such long-term TCC products offered at this time will serve only to exacerbate
Copies of the filing were served upon the NYISO and other interested parties.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before September 5, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties of the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Answers to the complaint shall also be due on or before September 5, 2000.
Take notice that on August 18, 2000, pursuant to 18 CFR 154.7 and 154.203, and as provided by Section 30 (Negotiated Rates) to the General Terms and Conditions of Part 1 of Questar Pipeline Company's (Questar) FERC Gas Tariff, Questar filed a tariff filing to implement a negotiated-rate contract as authorized by Commission orders issued October 27, 1999, and December 14, 1999, in Docket Nos. RP99-513,
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 7 and Original Sheet No. 7A revise Questar's Tariff to implement a new negotiated-rate transportation service agreement between Questar and River Gas Corporation. Questar requested waiver of 18 C.F.R. 154.207 so that the tendered tariff sheets may become effective August 1, 2000.
A copy of this filing has been served upon Questar's customers, the Public Service Commission of Utah and the Public Service Commission of Wyoming.
Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Take notice that on August 23, 2000, the Commission issued an order in the above-indicated dockets initiating a proceeding in Docket No. EL00-98-000 under section 206 of the Federal Power Act.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL00-98-000 will be 60 days after publication of this notice in the
Take notice that on August 23, 2000, Sempra Energy Trading Corp. (SET) tendered for filing pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824d, SET's Rates Schedules FERC Nos. 12 and 13, providing for the sale of electric energy and ancillary services to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (“SDG&E”), an affiliate of SET.
SET states that its currently effective rate schedules do not provide for sales to SDG&E. It further states that SDG&E has, until recently been required by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to purchase all of the power required for its bundled retail customers through the California Power Exchange Corporation (the PX). Recently, however, the CPUC has authorized other utilities to make bilateral purchases in order to increase their ability to hedge against volatile prices. The utilities' purchases under such contracts are to be deemed reasonable by the CPUC, SET states, if they have completed certain specified pre-clearance procedures. According to SET, SDG&E has applied for such authorization in an emergency motion filed with the CPUC on August 9, 2000.
The purpose of the instant filing, SET states, is to enable SET to make sales of energy and ancillary services to SDG&E on a bilateral basis, under the conditions approved by the CPUC, or, alternative, under the requirement of open, competitive bidding contained in the CPUC's Affiliate Rules. In order to respond to an August 22, 2000 request for bids by SDG&E, SET asks for Commission action on its filing by September 5, 2000, and proposes an effective date for the tendered rate schedules of September 1, 2000.
SET states that it has served a copy of its filing on the CPUC.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
Take notice that on August 15, 2000, Southern LNG Inc. (Southern LNG), 1900 Fifth Avenue North, P.O. Box 2563, Birmingham, Alabama 35202-2563, filed an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for limited amendment to the Order Issuing Certificate, section 3 Authorization, And Denying Request For Rehearing issued in this proceeding on March 16, 2000.
Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. The application may be viewed on the web at www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (Call (202) 208-2222 for assistance). Any questions regarding the application may be directed to Patrick B. Pope, General Counsel, P.O. Box 2563, Birmingham, Alabama 35202-2563, (205) 325-7126.
The Sendout Modification is required to enhance the flexibility and reliability of firm service at Elba Island Terminal, because it will enable the terminal to receive LNG from various sources. El Paso Merchant Energy-Gas, Ltd. (Merchant Energy), which holds the capacity at Elba Island Terminal, now anticipates importing LNG purchased from Enron Americas LNG Company, in addition to Point Fortin LNG Exports Ltd., with supplies coming from various foreign production areas. The Sendout Modification will not alter the marine transfer or storage systems at the Elba Island Terminal. Southern LNG proposes the following modifications to the sendout system:
• Remove five existing Ryan Industries LNG vaporizers with capacity of 108 Mmcf/d each, having submerged combustion, six-burner configuration and replacing these existing units with five state-of-the-art, natural gas-fired vaporizers with high efficiency, single burner configuration and submerged combustion water bath heaters. The new vaporizers will provide a sendout rate of up to 135 Mmcf/d per unit. In addition, Southern LNG will install a spare secondary LNG pump and associated transfer piping.
• Installing facilities to control a heating value of vaporized LNG delivered at the tailgate of the Elba Island Terminal. The imported LNG cargoes may have varying heating values, some of which may exceed the maximum in Southern LNG's tariff of 1,075 Btu per standard cubic foot (scf). Therefore, Southern LNG has developed two design alternatives for Btu stabilization facilities: (1) Injection of 2% Nitrogen into the Sendout Stream which will allow receipt of approximately 1,090 Btu/scf, and (2) injection of 3.8% air which will allow receipt of approximately 1,117 Btu/scf. Southern LNG will propose a final design for Btu stabilization after further progress in the on-going discussions with downstream shippers.
The Sendout Modification will not involve any greenfield construction. The construction will be confined to an onshore area within previously disturbed and currently maintained property owned by Southern LNG and addressed in the environmental assessment (EA) and March 16, 2000 order.
Southern LNG states that no subsidy from the existing customers exists in this proposal. Southern LNG proposes to roll the cost of the Sendout Modification into initial rates approved in the March 16, 2000 order. The rolled-in rate treatment allocates 100% of the cost to Merchant Energy, who holds 100% of the capacity.
The estimates of the capital cost for the Sendout Modification is $32,698,837 using air injection, and $42,197,710 using nitrogen injection, with the decision on the method to be made after further discussions. The cost and rate design effects of these two options are shown in Exhibit P of the amendment.
Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with reference to said application should on or before September 14, 2000, file with the Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene or a protest in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 and 385.214) and the regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). All protests filed with the Commission will be considered by it in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make the protestants parties to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that protestors provide copies of their protests to the party or parties directly involved. Any person wishing to become a party to the proceeding or to participate as a party in any hearing therein must file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules.
A person obtaining intervener status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents issued by the Commission, filed by the applicant, or filed by all other interveners. An intervener can file for rehearing of any Commission order and can petition for court review of any such order. However, an intervener must serve copies of comments or any other filing it makes with the Commission to every other intervener in the proceeding, as well as filing an original and 14 copies with the Commission.
A person does not have to intervene, however, in order to have comments considered. A person, instead, may submit two copies of such comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of environmental documents, and will be able to participate in meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, Commenters will not receive copies of all documents
Take further notice that, pursuant to the authority contained in and subject to the jurisdiction conferred upon, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by sections 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas Act, as amended, and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, a hearing will be held without further notice before the Commission on this Application if no motion to intervene is filed within the time required herein, if the Commission on its own review of the matter finds a grant of the requested authorization is required by the public convenience and necessity. If a motion for leave to intervene is timely filed, or if the Commission on its own believes that a formal hearing is required, further notice of such hearing will be duly given.
Under the procedure herein provided for, unless otherwise advised, it will be unnecessary for Southern LNG to appear or to be represented at the hearing.
Take notice that on August 15, 2000, Total Peaking Services, L.L.C. (TPS), tendered for filing various substitute original tariff sheets to address several minor housekeeping matters, specifically, changing Total Peaking's address, creating a new Internet Web Site, and correcting several typographical errors.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with Mr. David P. Boeregers, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426
Please reference the following number, P-2079-041, on any comments or motions filed.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 285.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTEST”, OR “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426. A copy of any motion to
Agency Comments—Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notices.
This document announces the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) responses to Agency clearance requests, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Sandy Farmer at 260-2740, or email at
EPA ICR No. 1894.02; Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Secondary Aluminum Production—NESHAP; in 40 CFR part 63.9, 63.10 and 63.1500; was approved 07/14/2000; OMB No. 2060-0433; expires 07/31/2003.
EPA ICR No. 1093.06; NSPS for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines; in 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT; was approved 07/25/2000; OMB No. 2060-0162; expires 07/31/2003.
EPA ICR No. 1160.06; NSPS for Wool Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing Plants; in 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP, and NESHAP-MACT-Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Plants; in 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN; was approved 07/25/2000; OMB No. 2060-0114; expires 07/31/2003. This ICR represents a consolidation of activities previously covered by OMB numbers 2060-0114 and 2060-0359.
EPA ICR No. 1560.06; National Water Quality Inventory Reports (TMDL) Final Rule—Clean Water Act Section 305(b), 303(d), 314(a), and 106(a); in 40 CFR part 130.10; was approved 07/10/2000; OMB No. 2040-0071; expires 07/31/2003.
EPA ICR No. 0276.10; Application for Experimental Use Permit (EUP) to Ship and Use a Pesticide for Experimental Purposes Only; in 40 CFR part 172; was approved 06/23/2000; OMB No. 2070-0040; expires 08/31/2000.
EPA ICR No. 1949.01, Performance Track Program Level One: The Environmental Achievement Track; was approved 06/23/2000; OMB No. 2010-0032; expires 06/30/2003.
EPA ICR No. 0877.07; Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System (ERAMS), OMB No. 2060-0015; was withdrawn and continued on 06/26/2000.
EPA ICR No. 1911.01; Data Acquisition for Anticipated Residue and Percent Crop Treated; this ICR was withdrawn from OMB 07/14/2000.
EPA ICR No. 1656.08; Risk Management Program Requirements and Petitions to Modify the List of Regulated Substances (Proposed Rule for Distribution of Off-site Consequence Analysis Information) under the Clean Air Act, Section 112(r); on 07/24/2000 OMB filed comment.
EPA ICR No. 1246.07; Reporting and Recordkeeping for Asbestos Abatement Worker Protection (Proposed Rule: State and Local Amendments); on 07/20/2000 OMB filed comment.
EPA ICR No. 1442.16; Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) Phase IV: Treatment Standards for Wastes from Toxicity Characteristic Metals, Mineral Processing Secondary Materials and the Exclusion of Recycled Wood; in 40 CFR parts 268.7, 268.40 and 268.44; OMB No. 2050-0085; on 07/24/2000 OMB extended the expiration date through 10/31/2000.
EPA ICR No. 1572.04; Hazardous Waste Specific Unit Requirements, and Special Waste processes and Types; in 40 CFR parts 261, 264, 265, and 266, subpart F; OMB No. 2050-0050; on 06/21/2000 OMB extended the expiration date through 09/30/2000.
EPA ICR No. 1725.02; Marine Engine Manufacturers Production Line Testing Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; in 40 CFR part 91; OMB No. 2060-0323; on 07/12/2000 OMB extended the expiration date through 12/31/2000.
EPA ICR No. 1799.01; NESHAP for Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Mineral Wool Production; in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and subpart DDD; OMB No. 2060-0362; on 07/18/2000 OMB extended the expiration date through 10/31/2000.
EPA ICR No. 1080.09; NESHAP for Benzene Emissions from Benzene Storage Vessels, and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants; in 40 CFR part 61, subparts L, and Y; OMB No. 2060-0185; on 07/27/2000 OMB extended the expiration date through 01/31/2001.
EPA ICR No. 1432.17; Recordkeeping and Periodic Reporting of the Production, Import, of Ozone-Depleting Substances; OMB No. 2060-0170; on 07/27/2000 OMB extended the expiration date through 01/31/2001.
EPA ICR No. 1726.02; Marine Engine Manufacturer In-Use Emissions Testing Program; in 40 CFR part 91, subpart I, OMB No. 2060-0322; on 07/12/2000 OMB extended the expiration date through 12/31/2000.
EPA ICR No. 0794.08; Notification of Substantial Risk of Injury to Health and the Environment under TSCA Section 8(e); OMB No. 2070-0046; on 06/22/2000 OMB extended the expiration date through 09/30/2000.
EPA ICR No. 1780.01; Voluntary Cover Sheet for TSCA Submissions; OMB No. 2070-0156; on 06/22/2000 OMB extended the expiration date through 09/30/2000.
EPA ICR No. 0922.05; Data Call-In for Special Review Chemicals; in 40 CFR parts 155, 158, and 160; OMB No. 2070-0057; on 06/29/2000 OMB extended the expiration date through 09/30/2000.
EPA ICR No. 1001.06; Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBS Exclusions, Exemptions, and Use Authorizations; in 40 CFR part 761; OMB No. 2070-0008; on 07/12/2000 OMB extended the expiration date through 11/30/2000.
Section 9 (a) and (b) of the National Environmental Education Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-619) mandates a National Environmental Education Advisory Council. The Advisory Council provides advice, consults with, and makes recommendations to the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on matters relating to the activities, functions, and policies of EPA under the Act. EPA is requesting nominations of candidates for membership on the Council. The Act requires that the Council be comprised of eleven (11) members appointed by the Administrator of EPA. Members represent a balance of perspectives, professional qualifications, and experience. The Act specifies that members must represent the following:
• Primary and secondary education (one of whom shall be a classroom teacher)—two members
• Colleges and universities—two members
• Not-for-profit organizations involved in environmental education—two members
• State departments of education and natural resources—two members
• Business and industry—two members
• Senior Americans—one member
Members are chosen to represent the various geographic regions of the country, and the Council shall have minority representation. The professional backgrounds of Council members include scientific, policy, and other appropriate disciplines. Each member of the Council shall hold office for a one (1) to three (3) year period, which runs from November to November of each calender year. Members are expected to participate in up to two (2) meetings per year and monthly or more conference calls per year. Members of the Council shall receive compensation and allowances, including travel expenses, at a rate fixed by the Administrator.
There are currently six (6) vacancies on the Advisory Council that must be filled.
• Business and Industry'one vacancy (Nov. 2000-Nov. 2003)
• College and University'one vacancy (Nov. 2000-Nov. 2002)
• State Department of Natural Resources'one vacancy (Nov. 2000-Nov. 2003)
• Non-Profit Organization'two vacancies (Nov. 2000-Nov. 2002 and Nov. 2000-Nov. 2003)
• Primary/Secondary Education'one vacancy (Nov. 2000-Nov. 2002)
EPA particularly seeks candidates with demonstrated experience and/or knowledge in any of the following environmental education issue areas:
• Integrating environmental education into state and local education reform and improvement;
• State, local and tribal level capacity building;
• Cross-sector partnerships; leveraging resources for environmental education;
• Design and implementation of environmental education research
• Professional development for teachers and other education professionals; and
• Targeting under-represented audiences, including low-income and multi-cultural audiences, senior citizens, and other adults.
The Council is looking for individuals who demonstrate the following:
• ability to make the time commitment
• strong leadership skills
• strong analytical and writing skills
• ability to stand apart and evaluate programs in an unbiased fashion
• team players
• conviction to follow-through and to meet deadlines
• ability to review items on short notice
Applications to fill the existing vacancies on the Council must be submitted no later than September 24, 2000. The application must include the following:
• Name/address/phone/e-mail of applicant
• 1-2 page resume (Please do not exceed 2 pages.)
• Two (2) letters of support for the applicant
• One (1) page statement of “How the candidate is qualified.” This must not exceed one (1) page.
• One (1) page statement by the applicant on his/her personal perspective on environmental education. This must not exceed one (1) page.
Submit nominations to Ginger Keho, Advisory Council Coordinator, Office of Environmental Education, Office of Communications, Education and Media Relations (1704), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460.
Ginger Keho at the above address, or call (202) 260-4129. E-mail address: keho.ginger@epa.gov
The Council provides the Administrator with advice and recommendations on EPA implementation of the National Environmental Education Act. In general, the Act is designed to increase public understanding of environmental issues and problems, and to improve the training of environmental education professionals. EPA will achieve these goals, in part, by awarding grants and/or establishing partnerships with other Federal agencies, state and local education and natural resource agencies, not-for-profit organizations, universities, and the private sector to encourage and support environmental education and training programs. The Council is also responsible for preparing a national biennial report to Congress that will describe and assess the extent and quality of environmental education, discuss major obstacles to improving environmental education, and identify the skill, education, and training needs for environmental professionals.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces receipt of an amendment to experimental use permit (EUP) 524-EUP-91 for the Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protein and the genetic material for its production (vector PV-GMBT01 and vector PV-GMBT02) in soybean from Monsanto Company. The Agency has determined that the amendment may be of regional and national significance. Therefore, in accordance with 40 CFR 172.11(a), the Agency is soliciting comments on this amendment.
Comments, identified by docket control number OPP-50871, must be
Comments and data may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I. of the
By mail: Alan Reynolds, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 605-0515; e-mail address: reynolds.alan@epa.gov.
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to those persons interested in plant-pesticides or who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPP-50871 in the subject line on the first page of your response.
1.
2.
3.
Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this document.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
EPA has received from Monsanto Company, 700 Chesterfield Parkway North, St. Louis, MO 63198, an amendment to their EUP for Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protein and the genetic material necessary for its production (vector PV-GMBT01 and vector PV-GMBT02) in soybean (524-EUP-91). Notice of the original issuance of this EUP was published in the
Following the review of the Monsanto Company application to amend their EUP and any comments and data received in response to this notice, EPA will decide whether to issue or deny the EUP request for this EUP program, and if issued, the conditions under which it is to be conducted. Any issuance of an amendment will be announced in the
The Agency's authority for taking this action is under FIFRA section 5.
Environmental protection, Experimental use permits.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) on November 19, 1990, to provide independent advice and counsel to EPA on policy issues associated with implementation of the Clean Air Act of 1990. The Committee advises on economic, environmental, technical scientific, and enforcement policy issues.
Open Meeting Notice: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 2 Section 10(a)(2), notice is hereby given that the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee will hold its next open meeting on Friday, September 22, 2000, from approximately 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. at the Radisson Hotel, 11 East Kellogg Blvd., Saint Paul, Minnesota. Seating will be available on a first come, first served basis. Three of the CAAAC's Subcommittees (Linking Energy, Land Use, Transportation, and Air Quality Concerns Subcommittee; the Permits/NSR/Toxics Integration Subcommittee; and the Energy, Clean Air and Climate Change Subcommittee) will hold meetings on Thursday, September 21, 2000 from approximately 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. at the Radisson Hotel, the same location as the full Committee.
In addition, there will be an awards ceremony for recipients of the Year 2000 Clean Air Excellence Awards. The ceremony, which is open to the public, will be held at the Science Museum of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota from approximately 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Inspection of Committee Documents: The Committee agenda and any documents prepared for the meeting will be publicly available at the meeting. Thereafter, these documents, together with CAAAC meeting minutes, will be available by contacting the Office of Air and Radiation Docket and requesting information under docket item A-94-34 (CAAAC). The Docket office can be reached by telephoning 202-260-7548; FAX 202-260-4400.
Concerning this meeting of the full CAAAC, please contact Paul Rasmussen, Office of Air and Radiation, US EPA (202) 564-1306, FAX (202) 564-1352 or by mail at US EPA, Office of Air and Radiation (Mail code 6102 A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20004. For information on the Subcommittee meetings, please contact the following individuals: Energy, Clean Air and Climate Change—Jeanne Briskin, 202-564-9135; Permits/NSR/Toxics Integration—Debbie Stackhouse, 919-541-5354; and Linking Transportation, Land Use and Air Quality Concerns—Lucie Audette, 734-668-4438.
Additional information on these meetings and the CAAAC and its Subcommittees can be found on the CAAAC Web Site:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces Agency approval of applications submitted by AgraQuest, Inc., to conditionally register the pesticide products Serenade
By mail: Susanne Cerrelli, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-308-8077; e-mail address: cerrelli.susanne@epa.gov.
You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
To access a fact sheet which provides more detail on this registration, go to the Home Page for the Office of Pesticide Programs at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/, and select “fact sheet.”
2.
In accordance with section 3(c)(2) of FIFRA, a copy of the approved label, the list of data references, the data and other scientific information used to support registration, except for material specifically protected by section 10 of FIFRA, are available for public inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, Arlington, VA (703) 305-5805). Requests for data must be made in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and must be addressed to the Freedom of Information Office (A-101), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such requests should: Identify the product name and registration number and specify the data or information desired.
A paper copy of the fact sheet, which provides more detail on this registration, may be obtained from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
A conditional registration may be granted under section 3(c)(7)(C) of FIFRA for a new active ingredient where certain data are lacking, on condition that such data are received by the end of the conditional registration period and do not meet or exceed the risk criteria set forth in 40 CFR 154.7; that use of the pesticide during the conditional registration period will not cause unreasonable adverse effects; and that use of the pesticide is in the public interest. The Agency has considered the available data on the risks associated with the proposed use of
Consistent with section 3(c)(7)(C) of FIFRA, the Agency has determined that these conditional registrations are in the public interest. Use of the pesticides are of significance to the user community, and appropriate labeling, use directions, and other measures have been taken to ensure that use of the pesticides will not result in unreasonable adverse effects to man and the environment.
1.
2.
The applications were conditionally approved on June 20, 2000 for an end-use product and a technical listed below:
1. Serenade
2. QST 713 Technical, for use in manufacturing and formulating end-use products to control various fungal plant pathogens and terrestrial use (EPA Registration Number 69592-5).
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability.
This Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice announces an industry-wide task force to jointly develop residential indoor exposure data for pesticides containing one or more of the active ingredients: synthetic pyrethroids, pyrethrum and synergists. This Notice explains why these data are being developed and how registrants may wish to participate in the development of these data by joining the Task Force. The Notice identifies an EPA and Task Force contacts for persons wanting further information under the
Comments, identified by docket control number OPP-00669, must be received on or before September 29, 2000.
Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I.C. of the
Alan Dixon (7505C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305-7237; fax number: (703) 305-6920; e-mail address: dixon.alan@epa.gov.
Paul Keane, Chairman, Steering Committee, Non-Dietary Exposure Task Force, 47 West Division St., Suite 389, Chicago, IL 60610; telephone number: (312) 664-4781; fax number: (312) 664-0728; e-mail address: Pkeane2100@aol.com.
Tom Osimitz, Chairman, Technical Committee, Non-Dietary Exposure Task Force, S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 1525 Howe St., M.S. 122, Racine, WI 53403; telephone number: (414) 260-2669; fax number: (414) 260-0186; e-mail address: tgosimit@scj.com.
This action is directed to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to:
1. Companies or persons responsible for registered pesticide products containing one or more of the active ingredients synthetic pyrethroids, pyrethrum and synergists.
2. Companies or persons responsible for seeking registration of pesticide products containing one or more of the active ingredients synthetic pyrethroids, pyrethrum and synergists.
3. Companies or persons responsible for reregistering pesticide products containing one or more of the active ingredients synthetic pyrethroids, pyrethrum and synergists.
Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the information in this notice, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
3.
You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPP-00669 in the subject line on the first page of your response.
1.
2.
3.
Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
The Agency is taking the action of advertising the efforts of the Non-Dietary Exposure Task Force, in the event interested parties would like to become part of the Task Force.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities.
Comments, identified by docket control number PF-956, must be received on or before September 29, 2000.
Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I.C. of the
By mail: Indira Gairola, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-6379; e-mail address: gairola.indira@epa.gov.
You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number PF-956 in the subject line on the first page of your response.
1
2
3.
Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Comestic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The petitioner summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by section 408(d)(3) of the FFDCA. The summary of the petition was prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioner. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.
EPA has received a pesticide petition PP 6E4728 from International Specialty Products, 1361 Alps Road, Wayne, NJ 07470 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
1.
ii.
2.
ii.
3.
ii.
4.
ii.
5.
ii.
6.
ii.
7.
ii.
8.
ii.
9.
ii.
10.
ii.
11.
ii.
12.
ii.
13.
ii.
14.
15.
16.
ii.
17.
18.
19.
1.
Using these input parameters, a residue file was assembled which lists the chronic reference dose and all of the relevant commodities that are included in the consumption data base. The exposure analysis shows that, for the U.S. population (general population, 48 contiguous states, all seasons), the listed crops utilize only 25% of the reference dose. This analysis shows there is a substantial margin of safety for the use of
ii.
2.
There are no cumulative effects expected since
1.
2.
The applicant is not aware of any international tolerance or CODEX of maximum residue limits (MRLs) for
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the initial filing of pesticide petitions proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of certain pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities.
Comments, identified by docket control number PF-960, must be
Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I.C. of the
By mail: For MinerALL, contact Andrew C. Bryceland, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305-6928; e-mail address: bryceland.andrew@epa.gov.
For section II Platte Chemical Company, Inc., 2, 6-diisopropylnapthalene (2, 6-DIPN), contact Driss Benmhend, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-9525; e-mail address: benmhend.driss@epa.gov.
You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number PF-960 in the subject line on the first page of your response.
1.
2.
3.
Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
EPA has received pesticide petitions as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of certain pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that these petitions contain data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of these petitions. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petitions.
Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests., Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP-0F6148) from Ironwood Clay Company, Inc., c/o Plant Sciences Inc., 342 Green Valley Road, Watsonville, CA 95076-1305, proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the biochemical pesticide Oceanic Clay. Pursuant to section 408(d)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA, as amended, [Ironwood Clay Company] has submitted the following summary of information, data, and arguments in support of their pesticide petition. This summary was prepared by [Ironwood Clay Company] and EPA has not fully evaluated the merits of the pesticide petition. The summary may have been edited by EPA if the terminology used was unclear, the summary contained extraneous material, or the summary unintentionally made the reader conclude that the findings reflected EPA's position and not the position of the petitioner.
Oceanic Clay (tradename: MinerALL) is proposed for use as a crop protectant and growth stimulant on agricultural crops. For growing plants, MinerALL works as a crop protectant by forming a barrier on the plant surface. The barrier protects the plant from insects, heat, and stress, as well as creates an inhospitable environment for plant diseases such as powdery mildew,
1.
2.
3.
Oceanic Clay has been evaluated for acute toxicity through the oral, inhalation, dermal, and ocular routes of exposure. The results of the studies have all indicated toxicity category IV, which poses no significant human health risks.
The acute oral toxicity of Oceanic Clay in rats is greater than 5,000 milligrams per kilograms (mg/kg) (toxicity category IV), and no toxicity or clinical abnormalities were observed throughout the study period. Acute inhalation in rats is greater than 2.47 mg/L (toxicity category IV), and no toxicity or clinical abnormalities were observed in test animals throughout the study. Eye irritation in rabbits was not observed at a dose of 0.1 mL (toxicity category IV), and no toxicity or clinical abnormalities were observed throughout the study period. Skin irritation in rabbits was not observed at a dose of 0.5 mL (toxicity category IV), and no toxicity or clinical abnormalities were observed throughout the study period. No dermal sensitization was observed in guinea pigs (toxicity category IV), and no toxicity or clinical abnormalities were observed throughout the study period. In addition, clinical studies have been conducted for evaluating safety of cosmetic use of the ingredient, primarily in facial products. In a dermal patch test of 35 participants, the ingredient was rated slightly irritating and non-allergenic. In a facial application test of 40 participants, no irritation was observed. No incidents of hypersensitivity have been reported by researchers, manufacturers or users.
A waiver is being requested for acute dermal toxicity and genotoxicity data requirements, based on the fact that the active ingredient is known to be non-toxic and non-irritating to mammals. The ingredient is available commercially as a facial/cosmetic product for dermal application and it has been evaluated for dermal effects through various studies including clinical trials. Oceanic Clay is not related to any known mutagen and does not belong to a chemical class of compounds containing known mutagens. Finally, the ingredient has never been reported as causing any type of adverse effect to humans, in published literature or through commercial use.
1.
ii.
2.
It is not expected that, when used as proposed, Oceanic Clay would result in residues that would remain in human food items. Oceanic Clay has a non-toxic mode of action and therefore has no common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.
1.
2.
Oceanic Clay is a naturally-occurring clay. To date there is no evidence to suggest that Oceanic Clay functions in a manner similar to any known hormone, or that it acts as an endocrine disrupter.
There is no U.S. EPA Tolerance.
A Codex Alimentarium Commission maximum residue level (MRL) is not required for Oceanic Clay.
EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP-8G05008) from Platte Chemical Company, Inc., 419, 18th Street, P.O. Box 1286, Greely, CO 80632 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the biochemical pesticide 2, 6-diisopropylnapthalene (2,6-DIPN).
Pursuant to section 408(d)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA, as amended, Platte Chemical Company, Inc., has submitted the following summary of information, data, and arguments in support of their pesticide petition. This summary was prepared by Platte Chemical Company, Inc. and EPA has not fully evaluated the merits of the pesticide petition. The summary may have been edited by EPA if the terminology used was unclear, the summary contained extraneous material, or the summary unintentionally made the reader conclude that the findings reflected EPA's position and not the position of the petitioner.
In the
The end use product, Amplify® sprout inhibitor, contains 99.7% 2,6-DIPN. The experimental program will be conducted in potato storage facilities located in Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin. According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, approximately 359 cut weight (cwt; 1 cwt equals approximately 100 pounds) of potatoes are grown per acre in the United States. The EUP program will utilize 2,500 pounds of active ingredient on approximately 150 million pounds of stored potatoes during 2000 and 2001. This represents approximately 4,180 acres of potatoes. 2,6-DIPN is a plant growth regulator that is applied as an aerosol at the rate of one pound active ingredient per 600 cwt of potatoes, to achieve a rate of 16.6 parts per million (ppm). Only one application may be made while the potatoes are held in storage.
1.
2.
b.
2,6-DIPN residues for whole potatoes were as follows: Whole potatoes treated once (20 ppm) at 0 DAT had residues of 0.17 ppm, 0.26 ppm, 0.27 ppm, 0.15 ppm, 0.21 ppm, and 0.14 ppm. Potatoes treated once (20 ppm) at 3 DAT had residues of 0.14 ppm, 0.08 ppm, 0.18 ppm, 0.09 ppm, 0.25 ppm, and 0.14 ppm. Potatoes treated 3 times (60 ppm) at 0 DAT had residues of 0.97 ppm, 1.14 ppm, 0.59 ppm, 1.70 ppm, 2.10 ppm, and 1.44 ppm. Potatoes treated 3 times (60 ppm) at 3 DAT had residues of 0.58 ppm, 0.72 ppm, 0.75 ppm, 1.13 ppm, 0.57 ppm, and 0.48 ppm.
For whole potatoes baked in aluminum foil, 2,6-DIPN residues were as follows: Potatoes treated once (20 ppm) had residues of 0.08 ppm, and <0.02 ppm. Potatoes treated 3 times (60 ppm) had residues of 0.50 ppm, 0.07 ppm, and 0.24 ppm.
For whole potatoes baked without aluminum foil, 2,6-DIPN residues were as follows: Potatoes treated once (20 ppm) had residues of 0.32 ppm, 0.26 ppm, and 0.13 ppm. Potatoes treated 3 times (60 ppm) had residues of 0.73 ppm, <0.02 ppm, and 0.46 ppm.
For French fried potatoes, 2,6-DIPN residues were as follows: Potatoes treated once (20 ppm) had residues of 0.07 ppm, 0.04 ppm, and 0.03 ppm. Potatoes treated 3 times (60 ppm) had residues of 0.11 ppm, 0.06 ppm, and 0.11 ppm.
c.
2, 6-DIPN residues for whole potatoes were as follows: Whole potatoes treated once (20 ppm) at 0 DAT had residues of 0.12 ppm, 0.16 ppm, and 0.11 ppm. Potato peels treated once (20 ppm) at 0 DAT had residues of 1.76 ppm, 1.56 ppm, and 1.46 ppm. Potato flesh samples treated once (20 ppm) at 0 DAT had no detectable residues above the limit of quantification (LOQ) of 0.02 ppm. Peeled potato samples from 0, 30, and 90 DAT were analyzed for residues; however, no residues above the LOQ of 0.02 ppm were detected.
Residue levels in whole potatoes that have been treated with 2,6-DIPN at the proposed application rate range from 0.22 ppm to 0.41 ppm at 30 DAT. The average residue value is 0.30 ppm. As stated earlier, the small chamber system used to treat potatoes in this study represents a worst-case scenario.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Significant distribution of DIPNs to liver, heart, kidney, and brain was seen at 2 hours; material in these compartments was eliminated by 48 hours following the single dose. Following repeated doses, the amount of DIPNs distributed in tissues 2 hours after the last dose was lower than or equivalent to that seen following a single dose. The amount in body and subcutaneous fat 2 hours following the last dose, although approximately 2-fold higher than that seen following a single dose, diminished markedly by 30 days post-exposure. The half-life in fat was approximately 7 days. Thus, DIPNs showed a relatively low potential for persistent bioaccumulation.
Another study investigated the urinary metabolites of 2,6-DIPN following a single oral dose. Approximately 23%% of the dose was excreted in the urine by 24 hours post-dosing.
No data have been found in the literature that would indicate 2,6-DIPN has any adverse effect on mammals. No incidents of hypersensitivity or any other adverse effects have been observed in individuals handling the material over the past 8 years.
1.
2,6-DIPN is not approved for use on any food other than potatoes that are associated with Platte's EUP. Thus, there will be no exposure of 2,6-DIPN from food other than treated potatoes.
a.
For the acute analysis presented here, the Monte Carlo approach was used to estimate dietary exposure from potential residues of 2,6-DIPN in all potatoes. In the Monte Carlo model, the distribution of the residue data (0.22 ppm to 0.41 ppm) was used in conjunction with individual consumption data for each food. The residue distribution was multiplied by the processing factors (PF) determined from 2,6-DIPN processing studies on baked (PF=0.54), boiled (PF=0.33), fried (PF=0.17), and peeled potatoes (PF=0.15). In addition, it was assumed that 100%% of the potatoes consumed would be treated with 2,6-DIPN at the proposed label use rate. That is, no adjustments were made for the percentage of all potatoes that would be stored and treated with 2,6-DIPN.
The acute exposure estimate at the 99.9
b.
For the overall U.S. population, chronic exposure was estimated to be 0.000095 mg/kg bwt/day or 0.3%% of the RfD. Chronic exposure also was calculated for women of child-bearing age. The exposure estimate was 0.000089 mg/kg bwt/day (0.2%% of the RfD). For the most highly exposed population subgroup, children 1 to 6 years of age, chronic exposure was estimated to be 0.000175 mg/kg bwt/day or 0.5%% of the RfD.
ii.
2.
There is no evidence to indicate or suggest that 2,6-DIPN has any toxic effects on mammals that would be cumulative with those of any other chemicals. For the purposes of this exemption from tolerance, therefore, Platte assumes that 2,6-DIPN does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.
A dietary exposure assessment for 2,6-DIPN was conducted using Novigen Sciences' dietary exposure evaluation model (DEEM
1.
2.
Platte has no information to suggest that 2,6-DIPN will adversely affect the immune or endocrine systems. The Agency is not requiring information on endocrine effects of this biochemical pesticide at this time.
No Codex maximum residue levels (MRLs) are established for residues of 2,6-DIPN in/on any food or feed crop.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of certain pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities.
Comments, identified by docket control number PF-967, must be received on or before September 24, 2000.
Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I.C. of the
By mail: Mary Waller, Fungicide Branch, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-9354; e-mail address: waller.mary@epa.gov.
You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number PF-967 in the subject line on the first page of your response.
1.
2.
3.
Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI,
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Comestic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The petitioner summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by section 408(d)(3) of the FFDCA. The summary of the petition was prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioners. EPA is publishing the petition summary verbatim without editing it in any way. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.
EPA has received a pesticide petition 9F05044 from Novartis Crop Protection, 410 Swing Rd., Greensboro, NC 27419, proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a tolerance for residues of CGA-329351: (
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
Teratology study in rats with a maternal no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 10 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg) based on reduced body weight gain. The fetuses remained entirely unaffected at the highest dose tested, (HDT) 250 mg/kg. Teratology study in rabbits with a maternal NOAEL of 150 mg/kg based on body weight loss. The developmental NOAEL was greater than or equal to the HDT, 300 mg/kg. 3-generation reproduction study in rats with a NOAEL of 1250 ppm, which was the HDT. The treatment had no effect on reproduction or fertility. Dominant lethal study in mouse - negative.
4.
A 28-days cumulative toxicity study in rats with a NOAEL of 50 mg/kg based on liver changes. A 90-day subchronic dietary toxicity study in rats with a NOAEL of 250 ppm based on liver changes. A 90-day subchronic dietary toxicity study in dogs with a NOAEL of 250 ppm based on changes in blood biochemistry and hematology indicative of functional liver changes. A 21-day dermal toxicity study in rats with a NOAEL equal to or higher than the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg. No local or systemic signs of toxicity were found. A 6-month dietary toxicity study in dogs with a NOAEL of 250 ppm based on changes in blood biochemistry indicative of hepatocellular damage.
5.
A 24-month combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study conducted in rats with a NOAEL of 250 ppm based on liver changes. No evidence of oncogenicity was seen. A 24-month oncogenicity study conducted in mice with a NOAEL of 250 ppm based on liver changes. No evidence of oncogenicity was seen.
6.
7.
8.
1.
ii.
iii.
iv.
2.
Novartis Crop Protection believes that consideration of a common mechanism of toxicity is not appropriate at this time since there is no information to indicate that toxic effects produced by CGA-329351 would be cumulative with those of any other chemicals.
1.
ii.
2.
i.
ii.
There are no Codex Maximum residue levels established for CGA-329351.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities.
Comments, identified by docket control number PF-965, must be received on or before September 29, 2000.
Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I.C. of the
By mail: Sharlene Matten, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 605-0514; e-mail address: matten.sharlene@epa.gov.
You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number PF-965 in the subject line on the first page of your response.
1.
2.
3.
Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The petitioner summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by section 408(d)(3) of the FFDCA. The summary of the petition was prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioner. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.
EPA has received a pesticide petition 0F6136 from Plant Products Co. Ltd., f314 Orenda Rd., Brampton, Ontario, Canada L6T 1G1, proposing pursuant to section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the microbial pesticide
The active ingredient
1.
2.
3.
No evidence of pathogenicity or infectivity of Sporodex has been demonstrated following acute oral gavage, intraperitoneal and intratracheal challenge studies in rats. No toxicity has been shown following a single oral dose in rats. No toxicity or irritation was observed following a single dermal application in rabbits. Slight toxicity was observed following a single intraperitoneal challenge in rats. However, toxicity observed was due to normal immune response to foreign material deposited in the peritoneal cavity. Toxicity was observed in rats dosed by intratracheal challenge. Mortality was associated with the quantity of test material delivered (6 x 10
1.
ii.
2.
Consideration of a common mode of toxicity is not appropriate, given that there is no indication of mammalian toxicity of
1.
2.
Plant Products Co. Ltd. has no information to suggest that
Plant Products Co. Ltd. is not aware of any tolerances, exemptions from tolerance or maximum residue levels issued for
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability.
EPA is requesting comments on a draft Project XL Final Project Agreement (FPA) for the State of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) Coal Remining and Reclamation XL Project (hereafter “Coal Remining and Reclamation”). The FPA is a voluntary agreement developed collaboratively by PADEP and the EPA. Project XL, announced in the
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) has proposed a project aimed at improving overall in-stream water quality by reducing acid mine drainage (AMD) and reclaiming scarred lands resulting from abandoned coal mines in Pennsylvania. Under this project, PADEP will explore a new approach to encourage the remining and reclamation of abandoned coal mine sites and provide environmentally responsible incentives for potential reminers.
The proposed approach would be based on compliance with in-stream pollutant concentration limits and implementation of best management practices (“BMPs”), instead of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) numeric effluent limitations measured at individual discharge points. The project will collect data to compare in-stream pollutant concentrations versus the loading from
The period for submission of comments ends on September 13, 2000.
All comments on the draft Final Project Agreement should be sent to: Steven Donohue, EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029. Comments may also be faxed to Mr. Donohue at (215) 814-2783. Comments may also be received via electronic mail sent to: donohue.steve@epa.gov.
To obtain a copy of the draft Final Project Agreement or a Fact Sheet, contact: Steven Donohue, EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029, or Ted Cochin, Office of Environmental Policy Innovation, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (1802), Washington, DC 20460. The FPA and related documents are also available via the Internet at the following location: http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL. Questions to EPA regarding the documents can be directed to Steven Donohue at (215) 814-3215 or Ted Cochin at (202) 260-0880. To be included on the Coal Remining and Reclamation Project XL mailing list for information about future public meetings, XL progress reports and other mailings from PADEP on the XL project, contact Michael Smith, District Mining Manager, Hawk Run District Mining Office, Empire Road, P.O. Box 209, Hawk Run, Pennsylvania 16840-0209. For information on all other aspects of the XL Program contact Christopher Knopes at the following address: Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (1802), Washington, DC 20460. Additional information on Project XL, including documents referenced in this notice, other EPA policy documents related to Project XL, regional XL contacts, application information, and descriptions of existing XL projects and proposals, is available via the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This document announces the availability of a discussion paper that provides information on how pesticide seed treatment products are currently regulated in both Canada and the United States and reviews the degree of harmonization in pesticide regulation in the two countries. The discussion paper on treated seed contributes to the initiatives of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Technical Working Group (TWG) on Pesticides. The NAFTA TWG on Pesticides aims to develop a harmonized approach to the regulation of pesticides in Canada, Mexico, and the United States, while maintaining current high levels of protection of public health and the environment and supporting the principles of sustainable pest management. Canada has also made this harmonization document available for comment through its regulatory processes.
Comments, identified by docket control number OPP-00675, must be received on or before October 16, 2000.
Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I. of the
Jean M. Frane, Field and External Affairs Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305-5944; e-mail address: frane.jean@epa.gov.
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to persons who produce seed treatment pesticides, or who use such products, both in the United States and Canada. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
To access information about the NAFTA TWG on Pesticides, go directly to the Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/international, and select “NAFTA Technical Woking Group (TWG).” The concurrent Canadian Regulatory Proposal is available on their homepage at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca.
2.
You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPP-00675 in the subject line on the first page of your response.
1.
2.
3.
Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternative ways to improve the document.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
The Agency is making available a document entitled “Discussion Paper: Harmonization of Imported Treated Seed in Canada and the United States” prepared jointly by the Agency and Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA). The purpose of this document is to provide information on how seed treatment products are currently regulated in both Canada and the United States and to review the degree of regulatory harmonization of seed treatment pesticides in the two countries. This discussion regarding treated seed should also contribute toward the realization of the initiatives of the NAFTA TWG on Pesticides aimed at harmonizing pesticide registration requirements in Canada, the United States, and Mexico.
For the purposes of this document, seed treatments include products which are primarily intended to provide protection against soil fungi and insect damage. Seeds for propagation may be treated domestically or imported as treated seed, may be treated domestically for subsequent export, or may be planted to produce crop that is to be exported.
Both Canada and the United States require registration of seed treatment products used for domestic seed treatment. Both countries allow exemptions for imported pesticide-treated seeds providing the seed is treated with a pesticide registered in the host country for that specific purpose and where certain other conditions are met (e.g., compliance with coloration and labeling requirements). This discussion paper contains two Appendices. Appendix I compares the legal frameworks in the United States and Canada. Appendix II is a comparison of the general data requirements for a new seed treatment product in the United States and Canada.
The Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency has issued this document as a Regulatory Proposal with a 45-day comment period.
Environmental protection, intergovernmental relations, pests and pesticides.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice; request for public comment.
In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675, notice is hereby given that a proposed prospective purchaser agreement (“Purchaser Agreement”) associated with the North Penn Area 6 Superfund Site, Lansdale Borough, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania was executed by
For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the Purchaser Agreement. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 29, 2000.
Thomas A. Cinti (3RC42), Senior Assistant Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Phone: (215) 814-2634
Notice of meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and summary agenda for a meeting of the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), and describes the functions of the Committee. Notice of this meeting is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
For information regarding time, place, and agenda, please call Cynthia Chase, of the PCAST Executive Secretariat, at (202) 456-6100, prior to 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 14, 2000. Information may also be available at the PCAST website at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/NSTC/PCAST/pcast.html. Please note that public seating for this meeting is limited, and is available on a first-come first served basis.
The President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology was established by Executive Order 12882, as amended, on November 23, 1993, September 29, 1995, September 29, 1997, and September 30, 1999. The purpose of PCAST is to advise the President on matters of national importance that have significant science and technology content, and to assist the President's National Science and Technology Council in securing private sector participation in its activities. The Committee members are distinguished individuals appointed by the President from non-Federal sectors. The PCAST is co-chaired by the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and, by John Young, former President and CEO of the Hewlett-Packard Company.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency is submitting a request for review and approval of a collection of information under the emergency processing procedures in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulation 5 CFR 1320.13. FEMA is requesting the collection of information be approved by August 28, 2000.
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act Public Law 93-288, as amended, authorizes the President to provide assistance to individuals and to State and local government to help them to respond to and recover from a disaster. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) has amended the Standard Flood Insurance Policy to address the “closed basin lake” continuous flooding circumstance. An endorsement has been added to all policies, allowing policyholders to file a total loss claim for the insured building to be continuously inundated for 90 days. The Closed-Basin Lake Endorsement allows policyholder to file a total loss claim for an insured building that is actually damaged or under imminent threat of flooding, without the requirement for the building to be continuously inundated for 90 days. The claim payment must be used by the policyholder to relocate the structure out of the flood area.
Written comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses.
Interested persons should submit written comments to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, ATTN: FEMA Desk Officer, Room 10202, Washington, DC 20503.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Muriel B. Anderson, FEMA Information Collections Officer, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Room 316, Washington, DC 20472. Telephone number (202) 646-2625. FAX number (202) 646-3524.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the District of Columbia (FEMA-1338-DR), dated August 17, 2000, and related determinations.
August 17, 2000.
Madge Dale, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3772.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated August 17, 2000, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the District of Columbia, resulting from severe thunderstorms on August 7, 2000, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes, such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation in the designated areas and any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act you may deem appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance or Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the authority vested in the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency under Executive Order 12148, I hereby appoint Thomas Davies of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.
I do hereby determine the following areas of the District of Columbia to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:
The District of Columbia for Public Assistance.
The District of Columbia is eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of Minnesota (FEMA-1333-DR), dated June 27, 2000, and related determinations.
August 14, 2000.
Madge Dale, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3772.
The notice of a major disaster for the State of Minnesota is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 27, 2000:
Chippewa County for Individual Assistance.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New Jersey FEMA-1337-DR, dated August 17, 2000, and related determinations.
August 17, 2000.
Madge Dale, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3772.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated August 17, 2000, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of New Jersey, resulting from severe storms, flooding and mudslides on August 12, 2000, and continuing is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes, such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance, Public Assistance, and Hazard Mitigation in the designated areas. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance or Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the authority vested in the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency under Executive Order 12148, I hereby appoint Peter Martinasco of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.
I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of New Jersey to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:
Morris and Sussex Counties for Individual and Public Assistance.
All counties within the State of New Jersey are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of Wisconsin (FEMA-1332-DR), dated June 23, 2000, and related determinations.
August 21, 2000.
Madge Dale, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3772.
The notice of a major disaster for the State of Wisconsin is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 23, 2000:
Dodge County for Individual Assistance. Lafayette County for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance).
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Notice of open meeting.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, FEMA announces the following committee meeting:
Emergency Management Institute,
Conference Room, Building N, Room 408,
Emmitsburg, Maryland 21727.
Wednesday, September 27, 2000, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
The meeting will be open to the public with approximately 10 seats available on a first-come, first-serve basis. Members of the general public who plan to attend the meeting should contact the Office of the Superintendent, Emergency Management Institute, 16825 South Seton Avenue, Emmitsburg, MD 21727, (301) 447-1286.
Minutes of the meeting will be prepared and will be available for public viewing in the Office of the Superintendent, Emergency Management Institute, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Building N, National Emergency Training Center, Emmitsburg, MD 21727. Copies of the minutes will be available upon request 30 days after the meeting.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement(s) under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties can review or obtain copies of agreements at the Washington, DC offices of the Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Room 940. Interested parties may submit comments on an agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within 10 days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary license has been reissued by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984, as amended by OSRA 1998 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR 515.
Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for licenses as Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR 515).
Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
11:00 a.m., Tuesday, September 5, 2000.
Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.
Closed.
1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees.
2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.
Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the Board; 202-452-3204.
You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice; publication of two new systems of records and the amendment of one system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is publishing notice of two new systems of records, entitled: “Benefits Records” (BGFRS-29), and “Academic Assistance Program Files” (BGFRS-30); as well as amendments to “Medical Records” (BGFRS-3). We invite public comment on this notice.
The new systems of records and amendments to the existing system of records will become effective without further notice, on October 10, 2000, unless comments dictate otherwise.
Comments, which should refer to Docket No. R-1081, may be mailed to Ms. Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20551 or mailed electronically to regs.comments@federalreserve.gov. Comments addressed to Ms. Johnson also may be delivered to the Board's mail room between 8:45 a.m. and 5:15 p.m. weekdays and to the security control room outside of those hours. The mail room and the security control room are accessible from the Eccles Building courtyard entrance, located on 20th Street between Constitution Avenue and C Street, NW. Comments may be inspected in Room MP-500 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Elaine M. Boutilier, Managing Senior Counsel, Legal Division (202/452-2418), or Chris Fields, Manager, Human Resources Function, Management Division (202/452-3654), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551. For users of the Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) only, contact Janice Simms at 202/452-4984.
The establishment of the new systems of records and amendments to one existing system of records result from a review of the Board's information practices conducted in accordance with the President's May 14, 1998, memorandum on privacy and information in federal records.
Unlike most Federal government agencies whose personnel files are maintained by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Board maintains its own personnel-related files because the Board has independent statutory authority to hire staff and set the salary and benefit terms for its staff. Accordingly, the personnel-related files of Board employees are not contained in the government-wide systems of records published by OPM. Nevertheless, the Board's personnel-related files are used in much the same manner as those of other federal employees. Accordingly, after reviewing the routine uses for the existing system of records, the Board has determined to adopt many of the routine uses that are used in OPM's government-wide systems of records.
The Benefits Records contain information concerning each employee's benefits, such as health insurance, life insurance, and flexible spending accounts. There records were previously part of each employee's General Personnel File, but a review of record-keeping practices indicated that they should be maintained in a separate file. Accordingly, the Board is publishing a new system of records to describe the information maintained in these separate files.
The system of records for the Academic Assistance Program contains records concerning an employee's external and internal training, and any reimbursements made for such training.
The revisions to the existing system of records, Medical Records, incorporate information needed as a result of the Board's adoption of the Drug-Free Workplace Plan and revise the routine uses based on OPM's routine uses for the equivalent government-wide system of records.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), a report of these actions is being filed with the Chair of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the Chair of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget.
Benefits Records.
None.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and Constitution, NW., Washington, DC 20551.
Current and former Board employees and their named beneficiaries.
All forms relating to employee's benefits, records relating to claims filed for benefits, and memoranda relating to that individual's benefits. These benefits include: health insurance, dental plan, life insurance, disability coverage, accident insurance, flexible spending accounts, premium conversion accounts, and thrift plan.
Sections 10(4) and 11(l) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 244 and 248(l)).
To administer the Board's benefits programs for its employees and assist in personnel management.
The information in the records may be used:
a. To disclose information to the Board's Thrift Plan, the Board's Group Life Insurance administrators, Department of Labor, Department of Veterans Administration, Social Security Administration, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, or a national, State, or local social security type agency, when necessary to adjudicate a claim (filed by or on behalf of the individual) under a retirement, insurance, or health benefit program.
b. To disclose to health insurance carriers that provide a health benefits plan under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program information that is necessary to verify eligibility for payment of a claim for health benefits.
c. To disclose information, when an individual to whom the record pertains is mentally incompetent or under other legal disability, to any person who is responsible for the care of the individual, to the extent necessary.
d. To disclose pertinent information to the appropriate Federal, State, or
e. To disclose to a Federal agency in the executive, legislative or judicial branch of government, or to a Federal Reserve Bank, in response to its request, or at the initiation of the Board, information in connection with the hiring of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the conducting of a security or suitability investigation of an individual, the classifying of jobs, the letting of a contract, the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefits by the requesting agency, or the lawful statutory, administrative, or investigative purpose of the agency to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision.
f. To provide information to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of the individual.
g. To disclose information to another Federal agency, a court, or a party in litigation before a court or in an administrative proceeding being conducted by a Federal agency, when the Board is a party to the judicial or administrative proceeding.
h. To disclose information to the Department of Justice or in a proceeding before a court, adjudicative body, or other administrative body before which the Board is authorized to appear, when:
(1) The Board or any employee of the Board in his or her official capacity; or
(2) Any employee of the Board in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice or the Board has agreed to represent the employee; or
(3) The United States (when the Board determines that the litigation is likely to affect the Board) is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and the use of such records by the Department of Justice or the Board is deemed by the Board to be relevant and necessary to the litigation provided, however, that in each case it has been determined that the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected.
i. By the National Archives and Records Administration in connection with records management inspections and its role as Archivist.
j. To disclose information to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when requested in connection with investigations or other functions vested in the Commission.
k. To disclose information to the Merit Systems Protection Board in connection with appeals filed by preference-eligible employees.
l. To disclose information in connection with the investigation and resolution of allegations of unfair labor practices by the Federal Reserve Board Labor Relations Panel when requested.
m. To disclose, in response to a request for discovery or for appearance of a witness, information that is relevant to the subject matter involved in a pending judicial or administrative proceeding.
n. To locate individuals for personnel research or survey response and in producing summary descriptive statistics and analytical studies to support the function for which the records are collected and maintained, or for related work force studies. While published statistics and studies do not contain individual identifiers, in some instances the selection of elements of data included in the study may be structured in such a way as to make the data individually identifiable by inference.
o. To disclose to contractors, grantees or volunteers performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or job for the Board.
Not applicable.
These records are maintained in file folders in lockable cabinets and in electronic data bases.
These records are indexed by the names of the individuals on whom they are maintained.
Access to and use of these records are limited to those persons whose official duties require such access.
Records are destroyed 65 years after the employee's separation from the Federal government.
Associate Director, Human Resources Function, Management Division, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 20th & Constitution, NW, Washington, DC 20551.
Inquiries should be sent to the Secretary of the Board, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20551. The request should contain the individual's name, date of birth, Social Security number, identification number (if known), approximate date of record, and type of position.
Same as “Notification procedure” above.
Same as “Notification procedure” above.
The employee, the benefit provider, and staff of the Human Resources Function of the Management Division.
None.
Academic Assistance Program Files
None.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and Constitution, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551. The primary files are maintained by the Human Resources Function of the Management Division. Supporting documentation may be maintained in the Division where the employee works or worked.
Current and former Board employees.
Applications for academic assistance for external training; registration forms for internal training; technical training participant lists for courses offered by the Board's Information Technology Division; descriptions of course work by employees; course evaluations for completed course work; reimbursement documentation for textbooks and external training; and a data base that tracks all courses (internal and external) taken by employees.
Sections 10(4) and 11(l) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 244 and 248(l)).
These records are collected and maintained to assist the Board in its personnel management and in providing training and educational opportunities to its employees.
The information in the records may be used:
a. To disclose pertinent information to the appropriate Federal, State, or local agency responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing a statute, rule, regulation, or order, when the Board becomes aware of an indication of a violation or potential violation of civil or criminal law or regulation.
b. To disclose to a Federal agency in the executive, legislative or judicial branch of government, or to a Federal Reserve Bank, in response to its request, or at the initiation of the Board, information in connection with the hiring of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the conducting of a security or suitability investigation of an individual, the classifying of jobs, the letting of a contract, the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefits by the requesting agency, or the lawful statutory, administrative, or investigative purpose of the agency to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision.
c. To provide information to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of the individual.
d. To disclose information to another Federal agency, a court, or a party in litigation before a court or in an administrative proceeding being conducted by a Federal agency, when the Board is a party to the judicial or administrative proceeding.
e. To disclose information to the Department of Justice or in a proceeding before a court, adjudicative body, or other administrative body before which the Board is authorized to appear, when:
(1) The Board or any employee of the Board in his or her official capacity; or
(2) Any employee of the Board in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice or the Board has agreed to represent the employee; or
(3) The United States (when the Board determines that the litigation is likely to affect the Board) is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and the use of such records by the Department of Justice or the Board is deemed by the Board to be relevant and necessary to the litigation provided, however, that in each case it has been determined that the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected.
f. By the National Archives and Records Administration in connection with records management inspections and its role as Archivist.
g. To disclose information to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when requested in connection with investigations or other functions vested in the Commission.
h. To disclose information to the Merit Systems Protection Board in connection with appeals filed by preference-eligible employees.
i. To disclose information in connection with the investigation and resolution of allegations of unfair labor practices by the Federal Reserve Board Labor Relations Panel when requested.
j. To disclose, in response to a request for discovery or for appearance of a witness, information that is relevant to the subject matter involved in a pending judicial or administrative proceeding.
k. To locate individuals for personnel research or survey response and in producing summary descriptive statistics and analytical studies to support the function for which the records are collected and maintained, or for related work force studies. While published statistics and studies do not contain individual identifiers, in some instances the selection of elements of data included in the study may be structured in such a way as to make the data individually identifiable by inference.
l. To disclose to contractors, grantees or volunteers performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or job for the Board.
Not applicable.
These records are maintained in file folders in lockable cabinets and in electronic data bases.
These records are indexed by the names of the individuals on whom they are maintained.
Access to and use of these records are limited to those persons whose official duties require such access.
The technical training participant lists are retained for 2 years, then destroyed. The remaining records are retained for 5 years, then destroyed.
Associate Director, Human Resources Function, Management Division, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 20th & Constitution, NW, Washington, DC 20551.
Inquiries should be sent to the Secretary of the Board, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20551. The request should contain the individual's name, date of birth, Social Security number, identification number (if known), approximate date of record, and type of position.
Same as “Notification procedure” above.
Same as Notification procedure” above.
The employee, employee's supervisor, technical training participant list compiled by the Board's Division of Information Technology, external course description material.
None.
FRB—Medical Records
None.
Board Physician, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and Constitution, NW., Washington, DC 20551. Records relating to drug-testing under the Drug-Free Workplace Plan may be retained by a contractor laboratory.
Current and former Board employees (including special employees). Applicants who have been medically examined for Board employment.
This system of records contains information relating to: pre-employment medical examinations of potential employees; periodic medical examinations of employees; treatment and/or advice provided by the Health Unit's staff to an employee; an employee's participation in an occupational health services program; the Board's Drug-Free Workplace Plan; and employees' use of the Board's exercise facilities.
Executive Order 12564 and 12 U.S.C. 244 and 248(l).
These records are collected and maintained to assist the Board in determining an employee's fitness for duty, to assist the Board in providing a safe and healthy working environment, and to comply with E.O. 12564.
With the exception of Routine Use “n,” none of the other Routine Uses are applicable to records relating to drug testing under Executive Order 12564. Further, such records shall be disclosed only to a very limited number of officials within the Board, generally only to the Medical Review Officer, the administrator of the Employee Assistance Program, and the management official empowered to recommend or take adverse action affecting the individual.
In other cases, the information in these records may be used:
a. To disclose information to the Board's Thrift Plan, the Board's Group Life Insurance administrators, Department of Labor, Department of Veterans Administration, Social Security Administration, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, or a national, State, or local social security type agency, when necessary to adjudicate a claim (filed by or on behalf of the individual) under a retirement, insurance, or health benefit program.
b. To disclose information to a Federal, State, or local agency to the extent necessary to comply with laws governing reporting of communicable disease.
c. To disclose to contractors, grantees or volunteers performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or job for the Board, where necessary to performance.
d. To disclose information to a Federal agency in the executive, legislative or judicial branch of government, or to a Federal Reserve Bank, in response to its request or at the initiation of the Board, information in connection with the retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the conducting of a security or suitability investigation of an individual, the classifying of jobs, the letting of a contract, the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, or the lawful, statutory, administrative, or investigative purpose of the agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter.
e. To provide information to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of the individual.
f. To disclose pertinent information to the appropriate Federal, State, or local agency responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing a statute, rule, regulation, or order, when the Board becomes aware of an indication of a violation or potential violation of civil or criminal law or regulation.
g. To disclose information to another Federal agency, to a court, or a party in litigation before a court or in an administrative proceeding being conducted by a Federal agency, when the Board is a party to the judicial or administrative proceeding.
h. To disclose information to the Department of Justice, or in a proceeding before a court, adjudicative body, or other administrative body before which the Board is authorized to appear, when:
(1) The Board or any employee of the Board in his or her official capacity; or
(2) Any employee of the Board in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice or the Board has agreed to represent the employee; or
(3) The United States (when the Board determines that the litigation is likely to affect the Board) is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and the use of such records by the Department of Justice or the Board is deemed by the Board to be relevant and necessary to the litigation provided, however, that in each case it has been determined that the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected.
i. By the National Archives and Records Administration in connection with records management inspections and its role as Archivist.
j. To disclose information to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when requested in connection with investigations or other functions vested in the Commission.
k. To disclose information to the Merit Systems Protection Board in connection with appeals filed by preference-eligible employees.
l. To disclose information in connection with the investigation and resolution of allegations of unfair labor practices before the Federal Reserve Board Labor Relations Panel when requested.
m. To disclose, in response to a request for discovery or for appearance of a witness, information that is relevant to the subject matter involved in a pending judicial or administrative proceeding.
n. To disclose the results of a drug test of a Board employee pursuant to an order of a court of competent jurisdiction where required by the U.S. Government to defend against any challenge of any adverse personnel action.
o. To disclose to health insurance carriers that provide a health benefits plan under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program information that is necessary to verify eligibility for payment of a claim for health benefits.
p. To disclose information, when an individual to whom the record pertains is mentally incompetent or under other legal disability, to any person who is responsible for the care of the individual, to the extent necessary.
q. To disclose to a requesting agency, organization, or individual the home address and other information concerning those individuals who it is reasonably believed might have contracted an illness or been exposed to or suffered from a health hazard while employed in the Federal workforce.
Not applicable.
Records are in file folders or in automated media.
Records are indexed by name, identification number, and/or date of birth.
Access to and use of these records are limited to those persons whose official duties require such access. Records are stored in lockable metal containers or in automated media which is password protected.
Records are maintained until six years after the employee leaves the Board, at which time they are destroyed, except for correspondence, which is destroyed six months after the employee has left the Board.
Board Physician, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th & Constitution, NW, Washington, DC 20551.
Inquiries should be sent to the Secretary of the Board, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20551. The request should contain the individual's name, date of birth, Social Security number, identification number (if known), approximate date of record, and type of position.
Same as “Notification procedure” above, but see the special procedures set forth in the Board's Rules Regarding Access to and Review of Personal Information Under the Privacy Act, 12 CFR 261a.7.
Same as “Notification procedure” above.
The individual to whom the record pertains; an employee's physical or mental health care provider or counselor; the contractor administering the Drug-Free Workplace Plan; official records of other federal agencies; Federal Reserve System personnel records.
None.
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, acting through the Secretary of the Board under delegated authority, August 24, 2000.
Office for Civil Rights, HHS.
Notice of policy guidance with request for comment.
The United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is publishing policy guidance on Title VI's prohibition against national origin discrimination as it affects limited English proficient persons.
This guidance is effective immediately. Comments must be submitted on or before October 30, 2000. OCR will review all comments and will determine what modifications to the policy guidance, if any, are necessary.
Interested persons should submit written comments to Ms. Carole Brown, Office for Civil Rights, Room 506F, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20201. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail at lepcoms@os.dhhs.gov.
Carole Brown or Ronald Copeland at the Office for Civil Rights, Room 506F, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20201, telephone 202-619-0805 or 202-619-0553; TDD: 1-800-537-7697. Arrangements to receive the policy in an alternative format may be made by contacting the named individuals.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et. seq. and its implementing regulation at 45 CFR Part 80 provide that no person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin under any program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance.
The purpose of this policy guidance is to clarify the responsibilities of providers of health and social services who receive Federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (“recipients,” “providers” or “covered entities”), and assist them in fulfilling their responsibilities to Limited English Proficient (LEP) persons, pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The policy guidance reiterates HHS' longstanding position that in order to avoid discrimination against LEP persons on grounds of national origin, health and social service providers must take adequate steps to ensure that such persons receive the language assistance necessary to afford them meaningful access to their services, free of charge. The guidance also clarifies for health and social service providers, and members of the public, that a recipient/covered entity must ensure that eligible LEP persons have meaningful access to programs and services. The guidance also provides examples of policies and practices that OCR would find violative of Title VI, and sets out the policies, procedures and other steps that recipients can take to ensure meaningful access to their programs by LEP persons.
The guidance does not impose any new requirements but reiterates longstanding Title VI principles that OCR has been enforcing for over 30 years. The guidance discusses methods by which recipient/covered entities can meet their obligation to provide oral interpretation to LEP persons. The guidance also outlines the general parameters of a recipient/covered entity's obligation to provide translation of written materials, providing examples that illustrate both the importance of such translation and the flexibility that recipients have in meeting this obligation.
For recipient/covered entities who desire greater certainty in understanding some specific circumstances under which OCR will find them in compliance with the obligation to translate written materials, the guidance contains “safe harbors.” A recipient/covered entity that translates written materials under circumstances outlined in the “safe harbor” provisions will have assurance that OCR will find it in compliance with its Title VI obligation regarding translation of written materials. These “safe harbor” provisions are not mandatory requirements and do not establish numerical thresholds that trigger a requirement for the translation of documents into languages other than English. They are one way for a recipient/covered entity to be assured that it has met the obligation to translate. In fact, the guidance explicitly states that the failure to meet the “safe harbors” will not result in a finding of noncompliance, but that OCR will review a number of other factors in determining compliance.
During the past 30 years, OCR has provided substantial technical assistance to recipient/covered entities who were seeking to ensure that LEP persons can meaningfully access their
This policy guidance addresses situations and issues presented by HHS-funded health and social service programs and is not necessarily transferable to other federal programs or contexts.
The text of the guidance appears below. Appendix A to the guidance is a series of questions and answers that provides a useful summary of a number of the major aspects of the guidance.
English is the predominant language of the United States. According to the 1990 Census, English is spoken by 95% of its residents. Of those U.S. residents who speak languages other than English at home, the 1990 Census reports that 57% above the age of four speak English “well to very well.”
The United States is also, however, home to millions of national origin minority individuals who are “limited English proficient” (LEP). That is, they cannot speak, read, write or understand the English language at a level that permits them to interact effectively with health care providers and social service agencies. Because of these language differences and their inability to speak or understand English, LEP persons are often excluded from programs, experience delays or denials of services, or receive care and services based on inaccurate or incomplete information.
In the course of its enforcement activities, OCR has found that persons who lack proficiency in English frequently are unable to obtain basic knowledge of how to access various benefits and services for which they are eligible, such as the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), Medicare, Medicaid or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) benefits, clinical research programs, or basic health care and social services. For example, many intake interviewers and other front line employees who interact with LEP individuals are neither bilingual nor trained in how to properly serve an LEP person. As a result, the LEP applicant all too often is either turned away, forced to wait for substantial periods of time, forced to find his/her own interpreter who often is not qualified to interpret, or forced to make repeated visits to the provider's office until an interpreter is available to assist in conducting the interview.
The lack of language assistance capability among provider agency employees has especially adverse consequences in the area of professional staff services, such as health services. Doctors, nurses, social workers, psychologists, and other professionals provide vitally important services whose very nature requires the establishment of a close relationship with the client or patient that is based on empathy, confidence and mutual trust. Such intimate personal relationships depend heavily on the free flow of communication between professional and client. This essential exchange of information is difficult when the two parties involved speak different languages; it may be impeded further by the presence of an unqualified third person who attempts to serve as an interpreter.
Some health and social service providers have sought to bridge the language gap by encouraging language minority clients to provide their own interpreters as an alternative to the agency's use of qualified bilingual employees or interpreters. Persons of limited English proficiency must sometimes rely on their minor children to interpret for them during visits to a health or social service facility. Alternatively, these clients may be required to call upon neighbors or even strangers they encounter at the provider's office to act as interpreters or translators.
These practices have severe drawbacks and may violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In each case, the impediments to effective communication and adequate service are formidable. The client's untrained “interpreter” is often unable to understand the concepts or official terminology he or she is being asked to interpret or translate. Even if the interpreter possesses the necessary language and comprehension skills, his or her mere presence may obstruct the flow of confidential information to the provider. This is because the client would naturally be reluctant to disclose or discuss intimate details of personal and family life in front of the client's child or a complete stranger who has no formal training or obligation to observe confidentiality.
When these types of circumstances are encountered, the level and quality of health and social services available to persons of limited English proficiency stand in stark conflict to Title VI's promise of equal access to federally assisted programs and activities. Services denied, delayed or provided under adverse circumstances have serious and sometimes life threatening consequences for an LEP person and generally will constitute discrimination on the basis of national origin, in violation of Title VI. Accommodation of these language differences through the provision of effective language assistance will promote compliance with Title VI. Moreover, by ensuring accurate client histories, better understanding of exit and discharge instructions, and better assurances of informed consent, providers will better protect themselves against tort liability, malpractice lawsuits, and charges of negligence.
Although OCR's enforcement authority derives from Title VI, the duty of health and human service providers to ensure that LEP persons can meaningfully access programs and services flows from a host of additional sources, including federal and state laws and regulations, managed care contracts, and health care accreditation organizations.
OCR issued internal guidance to its staff in January 1998 on a recipient's obligation to provide language assistance to LEP persons. That
This policy guidance is consistent with a Department of Justice (DOJ) directive noting that recipient/covered entities have an obligation pursuant to Title VI's prohibition against national origin discrimination to provide oral and written language assistance to LEP persons.
Over the last 30 years, OCR has conducted thousands of investigations and reviews involving language differences that impede the access of LEP persons to medical care and social services. Where the failure to accommodate language differences discriminates on the basis of national origin, OCR has required recipient/covered entities to provide appropriate language assistance to LEP persons. For instance, OCR has entered into voluntary compliance agreements and consent decrees that require recipients who operate health and social service programs to ensure that there are bilingual employees or language interpreters to meet the needs of LEP persons seeking services. OCR has also required these recipient/covered entities to provide written materials and post notices in languages other than English.
Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000d
Regulations implementing Title VI, provide in part at 45 CFR Section 80.3 (b):
“(1) A recipient under any program to which this part applies may not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, on ground of race, color, or national origin:
(i) Deny an individual any service, financial aid, or other benefit provided under the program;
(ii) Provide any service, financial aid, or other benefit to an individual which is different, or is provided in a different manner, from that provided to others under the program;
(2) A recipient, in determining the types of services, financial aid, or other benefits, or facilities which will be provided under any such program or the class of individuals to whom, or the situations in which such services, financial aid or other benefits, or facilities will be provided .-.-.
Extensive case law affirms the obligation of recipients of federal financial assistance to ensure that LEP persons can meaningfully access federal-assisted programs.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in
The
As early as 1926, the Supreme Court recognized that language rules were often discriminatory. In
In
Another case that noted the link between language and national origin discrimination is
The Fifth Circuit addressed language as an impermissible barrier to participation in society in
Most recently, the Eleventh Circuit in
In the health and human service context, a recipient's failure to provide appropriate language assistance to LEP individuals parallels many of the fact situations discussed in the cases above and, as in those cases, may have an adverse effect on the basis of national origin, in violation of Title VI.
The Title VI regulations prohibit both intentional discrimination and policies and practices that appear neutral but have a discriminatory effect. Thus, a recipient/covered entity's policies or practices regarding the provision of benefits and services to LEP persons need not be intentional to be discriminatory, but may constitute a violation of Title VI if they have an adverse effect on the ability of national origin minorities to meaningfully access programs and services. Accordingly, it is useful for recipient/covered entities to examine their policies and practices to determine whether they adversely affect LEP persons. This policy guidance provides a legal framework to assist recipient/covered entities in conducting such assessments.
All entities that receive Federal financial assistance from HHS, either directly or indirectly, through a grant, contract or subcontract, are covered by this policy guidance. Covered entities include: (1) Any state or local agency, private institution or organization, or any public or private individual that; (2) operates, provides or engages in health, or social service programs and activities and that; (3) receives federal financial assistance from HHS directly or through another recipient/covered entity. Examples of covered entities include but are not limited to hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies, managed care organizations, universities and other entities with health or social service research programs, state, county and local health agencies, state Medicaid agencies, state, county and local welfare agencies, programs for families, youth and children, Head Start programs, public and private contractors, subcontractors and vendors, physicians, and other providers who receive Federal financial assistance from HHS.
The term Federal financial assistance to which Title VI applies includes but is not limited to grants and loans of Federal funds, grants or donations of Federal property, details of Federal personnel, or any agreement, arrangement or other contract which has as one of its purposes the provision of assistance. (See, 45 CFR Section 80.13(f); and Appendix A to the Title VI regulations, 45 CFR Part 80, for additional discussion of what constitutes Federal financial assistance).
Title VI prohibits discrimination in any program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance. What constitutes a program or activity covered by Title VI was clarified by Congress in 1988, when the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (CRRA) was enacted. The CRRA provides that, in most cases, when a recipient/covered entity receives Federal financial assistance for a particular program or activity, all operations of the recipient/covered entity are covered by Title VI, not just the part of the program that uses the Federal assistance. Thus, all parts of the recipient's operations would be covered by Title VI, even if the Federal assistance is used only by one part.
A recipient/covered entity whose policies, practices or procedures exclude, limit, or have the effect of excluding or limiting, the participation of any LEP person in a federally-assisted program on the basis of national origin may be engaged in discrimination in violation of Title VI. In order to ensure compliance with Title VI, recipient/covered entities must take steps to ensure that LEP persons who are eligible for their programs or services have meaningful access to the health and social service benefits that they provide. The most important step in meeting this obligation is for recipients of Federal financial assistance such as grants, contracts, and subcontracts to provide the language assistance necessary to ensure such access, at no cost to the LEP person.
The type of language assistance a recipient/covered entity provides to ensure meaningful access will depend on a variety of factors, including the size of the recipient/covered entity, the size of the eligible LEP population it serves, the nature of the program or service, the objectives of the program, the total resources available to the recipient/covered entity, the frequency with which particular languages are encountered, and the frequency with which LEP persons come into contact with the program. There is no “one size fits all” solution for Title VI compliance with respect to LEP persons. OCR will make its assessment of the language assistance needed to ensure meaningful access on a case by case basis, and a recipient/covered entity will have considerable flexibility in determining precisely how to fulfill this obligation. OCR will focus on the end result—whether the recipient/covered entity has taken the necessary steps to ensure that LEP persons have meaningful access to its programs and services.
The key to providing meaningful access for LEP persons is to ensure that the recipient/covered entity and LEP person can communicate effectively. The steps taken by a covered entity must ensure that the LEP person is given adequate information, is able to understand the services and benefits available, and is able to receive those for which he or she is eligible. The covered entity must also ensure that the LEP person can effectively communicate the relevant circumstances of his or her situation to the service provider.
In enforcing Title VI and its application to LEP persons over the last 30 years, OCR has found that effective language assistance programs usually contain the four elements described in section three below. In reviewing complaints and conducting compliance reviews, OCR will consider a program to be in compliance when the recipient/covered entity effectively incorporates and implements these four elements. The failure to incorporate or implement one or more of these elements does not necessarily mean noncompliance with Title VI, and OCR will review the totality of the circumstances to determine whether LEP persons can
The key to providing meaningful access to benefits and services for LEP persons is to ensure that the language assistance provided results in accurate and effective communication between the provider and LEP applicant/client about the types of services and/or benefits available and about the applicant's or client's circumstances. Although HHS recipients have considerable flexibility in fulfilling this obligation, OCR has found that effective programs usually have the following four elements:
The failure to implement one or more of these measures does not necessarily mean noncompliance with Title VI, and OCR will review the totality of the circumstances in each case. If implementation of one or more of these options would be so financially burdensome as to defeat the legitimate objectives of a recipient/covered entity's program, or if there are equally effective alternatives for ensuring that LEP persons have meaningful access to programs and services, OCR will not find the recipient/covered entity in noncompliance.
The first key to ensuring meaningful access is for the recipient/covered entity to assess the language needs of the affected population. A recipient/covered entity assesses language needs by:
• identifying the non-English languages that are likely to be encountered in its program and by estimating the number of LEP persons that are eligible for services and that are likely to be directly affected by its program. This can be done by reviewing census data, client utilization data from client files, and data from school systems and community agencies and organizations;
• identifying the language needs of each LEP patient/client and recording this information in the client's file;
• identifying the points of contact in the program or activity where language assistance is likely to be needed;
• identifying the resources that will be needed to provide effective language assistance; identifying the location and availability of these resources; and
• identifying the arrangements that must be made to access these resources in a timely fashion.
A recipient/covered entity can ensure effective communication by developing and implementing a comprehensive written language assistance program that includes policies and procedures for identifying and assessing the language needs of its LEP applicants/clients, and that provides for a range of oral language assistance options, notice to LEP persons in a language they can understand of the right to free language assistance, periodic training of staff, monitoring of the program, and translation of written materials in certain circumstances.
(1)
• Hiring bilingual staff who are trained and competent in the skill of interpreting;
• Hiring staff interpreters who are trained and competent in the skill of interpreting;
• Contracting with an outside interpreter service for trained and competent interpreters;
• Arranging formally for the services of voluntary community interpreters who are trained and competent in the skill of interpreting;
• Arranging/contracting for the use of a telephone language interpreter service. See Section 3(e)(2) for a discussion on “Competence of Interpreters.”
The following provides guidance to recipient/covered entities in determining which language assistance options will be of sufficient quantity and quality to meet the needs of their LEP beneficiaries:
Bilingual Staff—Hiring bilingual staff for patient and client contact positions facilitates participation by LEP persons. However, where there are a variety of LEP language groups in a recipient's service area, this option may be insufficient to meet the needs of all LEP applicants and clients. Where this option is insufficient to meet the needs, the recipient/covered entity must provide additional and timely language assistance. Bilingual staff must be trained and must demonstrate competence as interpreters.
Staff Interpreters—Paid staff interpreters are especially appropriate where there is a frequent and/or regular need for interpreting services. These persons must be competent and readily available.
Contract Interpreters—The use of contract interpreters may be an option for recipient/covered entities that have an infrequent need for interpreting services, have less common LEP language groups in their service areas, or need to supplement their in-house capabilities on an as-needed basis. Such contract interpreters must be readily available and competent.
Community Volunteers—Use of community volunteers may provide recipient/covered entities with a cost-effective method for providing interpreter services. However, experience has shown that to use community volunteers effectively, recipient/covered entities must ensure that formal arrangements for interpreting services are made with community organizations so that these organizations are not subjected to ad hoc requests for assistance. In addition, recipient/covered entities must ensure that these volunteers are competent as interpreters and understand their obligation to maintain client confidentiality. Additional language assistance must be provided where competent volunteers are not readily available during all hours of service.
Telephone Interpreter Lines—A telephone interpreter service line may be a useful option as a supplemental system, or may be useful when a recipient/covered entity encounters a language that it cannot otherwise accommodate. Such a service often offers interpreting assistance in many
(2)
As part of its overall language assistance program, a recipient must develop and implement a plan to provide written materials in languages other than English where a significant number or percentage of the population eligible to be served or likely to be directly affected by the program needs services or information in a language other than English to communicate effectively. 28 CFR Section 42.405(d)(1). OCR will determine the extent of the recipient/covered entity's obligation to provide written translation of documents on a case by case basis, taking into account all relevant circumstances, including the nature of the recipient/covered entity's services or benefits, the size of the recipient/covered entity, the number and size of the LEP language groups in its service area, the nature and length of the document, the objectives of the program, the total resources available to the recipient/covered entity, the frequency with which translated documents are needed, and the cost of translation.
One way for a recipient/covered entity to know with greater certainty that it will be found in compliance with its obligation to provide written translations in languages other than English is for the recipient/covered entity to meet the guidelines outlined in paragraphs (A) and (B) below.
Paragraphs (A) and (B) outline the circumstances that provide a “safe harbor” for recipient/covered entities. A recipient/covered entity that provides written translations under these circumstances can be confident that it will be found in compliance with its obligation under Title VI regarding written translations.
In such circumstances, OCR will review the totality of the circumstances to determine the precise nature of a recipient/covered entity's obligation to provide written materials in languages other than English. If written translation of a certain document or set of documents would be so financially burdensome as to defeat the legitimate objectives of its program, or if there is an alternative means of ensuring that LEP persons have meaningful access to the information provided in the document (such as timely, effective oral interpretation of vital documents), OCR will not find the translation of written materials necessary for compliance with Title VI.
OCR will consider a recipient/covered entity to be in compliance with its Title VI obligation to provide written materials in non-English languages if:
(A) The recipient/covered entity provides translated written materials, including vital documents, for each eligible LEP language group that constitutes ten percent or 3,000, whichever is less, of the population of persons eligible to be served or likely to be directly affected by the recipient/covered entity's program
(B) Regarding LEP language groups that do not fall within paragraph (A) above, but constitute five percent or 1,000, whichever is less, of the population of persons eligible to be served or likely to be directly affected, the recipient/covered entity ensures that, at a minimum, vital documents are translated into the appropriate non-English languages of such LEP persons. Translation of other documents, if needed, can be provided orally; and
(C) Notwithstanding paragraphs (A) and (B) above, a recipient with fewer than 100 persons in a language group eligible to be served or likely to be directly affected by the recipient/covered entity's program, does not translate written materials but provides written notice in the primary language of the LEP language group of the right to receive competent oral translation of written materials.
The term “persons eligible to be served on likely to be directly affected” relates to the issue of what is the recipient/covered entity's service area for purposes of meeting its Title VI obligation. There is no “one size fits all” definition of what constitutes “persons eligible to be served or likely to be directly affected” and OCR will address this issue on a case by case basis.
Ordinarily, persons eligible to be served or likely to be directly affected by a recipient's program are those persons who are in the geographic area that has been approved by a Federal grant agency as the recipient/covered entity's service area, and who either are eligible for the recipient/covered entity's benefits or services, or otherwise might be directly affected by such an entity's conduct. For example, a parent who might seek services for a child would be seen as likely to be affected by a recipient/covered entity's policies and practices. Where no service area has been approved by a Federal grant agency, OCR will consider the relevant service area for determining persons eligible to be served as that designated and/or approved by state or local authorities or designated by the recipient/covered entity itself, provided that these designations do not
• A complaint filed with OCR alleges that a private hospital discriminates against Hispanic and Chinese LEP patients by failing to provide such persons with language assistance, including written translations of consent forms. The hospital identifies its service area as the geographic area identified in its marketing plan. OCR determines that a substantial number of the hospital's patients are drawn from the area identified in the marketing plan and that no area with concentrations of racial, ethnic or other minorities is discriminatorily excluded from the plan. OCR is likely to accept the area identified in the marketing plan as the relevant service area.
• A state enters into a contract with a managed care plan for the provision of health services to Medicaid beneficiaries. The Medicaid managed care contract provides that the plan will serve beneficiaries in three counties. The contract is reviewed and approved by HHS. In determining the persons eligible to be served or likely to be affected, the relevant service area would be that designated in the contract.
As this guidance notes, Title VI provides that no person may be denied meaningful access to a recipient/covered entity's benefits and services, on the basis of national origin. To comply with the Title VI requirement, a recipient/covered entity must ensure that LEP persons have meaningful access to and can understand information contained in program-related written documents. Thus, for language groups that do not fall within paragraphs (A) and (B), above, a recipient can ensure such access by, at a minimum, providing notice, in writing, in the LEP person's primary language, of the right to receive free language assistance in a language other than English, including the right to competent oral translation of written materials, free of cost.
Recent technological advances have made it easier for recipient/covered entities to store translated documents readily. At the same time, OCR recognizes that recipient/covered entities in a number of areas, such as many large cities, regularly serve LEP persons from many different areas of the world who speak dozens and sometimes over 100 different languages. It would be unduly burdensome to demand that recipient/covered entities in these circumstances translate all written materials into dozens, if not more than 100 languages. As a result, OCR will determine the extent of the recipient/covered entity's obligation to provide written translations of documents on a case by case basis, looking at the totality of the circumstances.
It is also important to ensure that the person translating the materials is well qualified. In addition, it is important to note that in some circumstances verbatim translation of materials may not accurately or appropriately convey the substance of what is contained in the written materials. An effective way to address this potential problem is to reach out to community-based organizations to review translated materials to ensure that they are accurate and easily understood by LEP persons.
(3)
Another vital element in ensuring that its policies are followed is a recipient/covered entity's dissemination of its policy to all employees likely to have contact with LEP persons, and periodic training of these employees. Effective training ensures that employees are knowledgeable and aware of LEP policies and procedures, are trained to work effectively with in-person and telephone interpreters, and understand the dynamics of interpretation between clients, providers and interpreters. It is important that this training be part of the orientation for new employees and that all employees in client contact positions be properly trained. Given the high turnover rate among some employees, recipient/covered entities may find it useful to maintain a training registry that records the names and dates of employees' training. Over the years, OCR has observed that recipient/covered entities often develop effective language assistance policies and procedures but that employees are unaware of the policies, or do not know how to, or otherwise fail to, provide available assistance. Effective training is one means of ensuring that there is not a gap between a recipient/covered entity's written policies and procedures, and the actual practices of employees who are in the front lines interacting with LEP persons.
It is also crucial for a recipient/covered entity to monitor its language assistance program at least annually to assess the current LEP makeup of its service area, the current communication needs of LEP applicants and clients, whether existing assistance is meeting the needs of such persons, whether staff is knowledgeable about policies and procedures and how to implement them, and whether sources of and arrangements for assistance are still current and viable. One element of such an assessment is for a recipient/covered entity to seek feedback from clients and advocates. OCR has found that compliance with the Title VI language assistance obligation is most likely when a recipient/covered entity continuously monitors its program, makes modifications where necessary, and periodically trains employees in implementation of the policies and procedures.
The failure to take all of the steps outlined in Section C. 3, above, will not necessarily mean that a recipient/covered entity has failed to provide meaningful access to LEP clients. As noted above, OCR will make assessments on a case by case basis and will consider several factors in assessing whether the steps taken by a recipient/covered entity provide meaningful access. Those factors include the size of the recipient/covered entity and of the eligible LEP population, the nature of the program or service, the objectives of the program, the total resources available, the frequency with which particular languages are encountered, and the frequency with which LEP persons come into contact with the program. The following are examples of how meaningful access will be assessed by OCR:
Two recurring issues in the area of interpreter services involve (a) the use of friends, family, or minor children as interpreters, and (b) the need to ensure that interpreters are competent, especially in the area of medical interpretation.
(a)
If after a recipient/covered entity informs an LEP person of the right to free interpreter services, the person declines such services and requests the use of a family member or friend, the recipient/covered entity may use the family member or friend, if the use of such a person would not compromise the effectiveness of services or violate the LEP person's confidentiality. The recipient/covered entity should document the offer and declination in the LEP person's file. Even if an LEP person elects to use a family member or friend, the recipient/covered entity should suggest that a trained interpreter sit in on the encounter to ensure accurate interpretation.
(b)
Over the course of the past 30 years enforcing Title VI in the LEP context, OCR has observed a number of recurring problems. The following are examples of frequently encountered policies and practices that are likely to violate Title VI:
In meeting the needs of their LEP patients and clients, some recipient/covered entities have found unique ways of providing interpreter services and reaching out to the LEP community. As part of its technical assistance, OCR has frequently assisted, and will continue to assist, recipient/covered entities who are interested in learning about promising practices in the area of service to LEP populations. Examples of promising practices include the following:
Language Banks—In several parts of the country, both urban and rural, community organizations and providers have created community language banks that train, hire and dispatch competent interpreters to participating organizations, reducing the need to have on-staff interpreters for low demand languages. These language banks are frequently nonprofit and charge reasonable rates. This approach is particularly appropriate where there is a scarcity of language services, or where there is a large variety of language needs.
Language Support Office—A state social services agency has established an “Office for Language Interpreter Services and Translation.” This office tests and certifies all in-house and contract interpreters, provides agency-wide support for translation of forms, client mailings, publications and other written materials into non-English languages, and monitors the policies of the agency and its vendors that affect LEP persons.
Multicultural Delivery Project—Another county agency has established a “Multicultural Delivery Project” that is designed to find interpreters to help immigrants and other LEP persons to navigate the county health and social service systems. The project uses community outreach workers to work with LEP clients and can be used by employees in solving cultural and language issues. A multicultural advisory committee helps to keep the county in touch with community needs.
Pamphlets—A hospital has created pamphlets in several languages, entitled “While Awaiting the Arrival of an Interpreter.” The pamphlets are intended to facilitate basic communication between inpatients/outpatients and staff. They are not intended to replace interpreters but may aid in increasing the comfort level of LEP persons as they wait for services.
Use of Technology—Some recipient/covered entities use their internet and/or intranet capabilities to store translated documents online. These documents can be retrieved as needed.
Telephone Information Lines—Recipient/covered entities have established telephone information lines in languages spoken by frequently encountered language groups to instruct callers, in the non-English languages, on how to leave a recorded message that will be answered by someone who speaks the caller's language.
Signage and Other Outreach—Other recipient/covered entities have provided
The following is an example of a model language assistance program that is potentially useful for all recipient/covered entities, but is particularly appropriate for entities such as hospitals or social service agencies that serve a significant and diverse LEP population. This model plan incorporates a variety of options and methods for providing meaningful access to LEP beneficiaries:
• A formal written language assistance program;
• Identification and assessment of the languages that are likely to be encountered and estimating the number of LEP persons that are eligible for services and that are likely to be affected by its program through a review of census and client utilization data and data from school systems and community agencies and organizations;
• Posting of signs in lobbies and in other waiting areas, in several languages, informing applicants and clients of their right to free interpreter services and inviting them to identify themselves as persons needing language assistance;
• Use of “I speak” cards by intake workers and other patient contact personnel so that patients can identify their primary languages;
• Requiring intake workers to note the language of the LEP person in his/her record so that all staff can identify the language assistance needs of the client;
• Employment of a sufficient number of staff, bilingual in appropriate languages, in patient and client contact positions such as intake workers, caseworkers, nurses, doctors. These persons must be trained and competent as interpreters;
• Contracts with interpreting services that can provide competent interpreters in a wide variety of languages, in a timely manner;
• Formal arrangements with community groups for competent and timely interpreter services by community volunteers;
• An arrangement with a telephone language interpreter line;
• Translation of application forms, instructional, informational and other key documents into appropriate non-English languages. Provision of oral interpreter assistance with documents, for those persons whose language does not exist in written form;
• Procedures for effective telephone communication between staff and LEP persons, including instructions for English-speaking employees to obtain assistance from bilingual staff or interpreters when initiating or receiving calls from LEP persons;
• Notice to and training of all staff, particularly patient and client contact staff, with respect to the recipient/covered entity's Title VI obligation to provide language assistance to LEP persons, and on the language assistance policies and the procedures to be followed in securing such assistance in a timely manner;
• Insertion of notices, in appropriate languages, about the right of LEP applicants and clients to free interpreters and other language assistance, in brochures, pamphlets, manuals, and other materials disseminated to the public and to staff;
• Notice to the public regarding the language assistance policies and procedures, and notice to and consultation with community organizations that represent LEP language groups, regarding problems and solutions, including standards and procedures for using their members as interpreters;
• Adoption of a procedure for the resolution of complaints regarding the provision of language assistance; and for notifying clients of their right to and how to file a complaint under Title VI with HHS.
• Appointment of a senior level employee to coordinate the language assistance program, and ensure that there is regular monitoring of the program.
The recommendations outlined above are not intended to be exhaustive. Recipient/covered entities have considerable flexibility in determining how to comply with their legal obligation in the LEP setting, and are not required to use all of the suggested methods and options listed. However, recipient/covered entities must establish and implement policies and procedures for providing language assistance sufficient to fulfill their Title VI responsibilities and provide LEP persons with meaningful access to services.
OCR will enforce Title VI as it applies to recipient/covered entities' responsibilities to LEP persons through the procedures provided for in the Title VI regulations. These procedures include complaint investigations, compliance reviews, efforts to secure voluntary compliance, and technical assistance.
The Title VI regulations provide that OCR will investigate whenever it receives a complaint, report or other information that alleges or indicates possible noncompliance with Title VI. If the investigation results in a finding of compliance, OCR will inform the recipient/covered entity in writing of this determination, including the basis for the determination. If the investigation results in a finding of noncompliance, OCR must inform the recipient/covered entity of the noncompliance through a Letter of Findings that sets out the areas of noncompliance and the steps that must be taken to correct the noncompliance, and must attempt to secure voluntary compliance through informal means. If the matter cannot be resolved informally, OCR must secure compliance through (a) the termination of Federal assistance after the recipient/covered entity has been given an opportunity for an administrative hearing, (b) referral to DOJ for injunctive relief or other enforcement proceedings, or (c) any other means authorized by law.
As the Title VI regulations set forth above indicate, OCR has a legal obligation to seek voluntary compliance in resolving cases and cannot seek the termination of funds until it has engaged in voluntary compliance efforts and has determined that compliance cannot be secured voluntarily. OCR will engage in voluntary compliance efforts, and will provide technical assistance to recipients at all stages of its investigation. During these efforts to secure voluntary compliance, OCR will propose reasonable timetables for achieving compliance and will consult with and assist recipient/covered entities in exploring cost effective ways of coming into compliance, by sharing information on potential community resources, by increasing awareness of emerging technologies, and by sharing information on how other recipient/covered entities have addressed the language needs of diverse populations.
OCR will focus its compliance review efforts primarily on larger recipient/covered entities such as hospitals, managed care organizations, state agencies, and social service organizations, that have a significant number or percentage of LEP persons
The fact that OCR is focusing its investigative resources on larger recipient/covered entities with significant numbers or percentages of LEP persons likely to be served or directly affected does not mean that other recipient/covered entities are relieved of their obligation under Title VI, or will not be subject to review by OCR. In fact, OCR has a legal obligation under HHS regulations to promptly investigate all complaints alleging a violation of Title VI. All recipient/covered entities must take steps to overcome language differences that result in barriers and provide the language assistance needed to ensure that LEP persons have meaningful access to services and benefits. However, smaller recipient/covered entities—such as sole practitioners, those with more limited resources, and recipient/covered entities who serve small numbers of LEP persons on an infrequent basis—will have more flexibility in meeting their obligations to ensure meaningful access for LEP persons.
In determining a recipient/covered entity's compliance with Title VI, OCR's primary concern is to ensure that the recipient/covered entity's policies and procedures overcome barriers resulting from language differences that would deny LEP persons a meaningful opportunity to participate in and access programs, services and benefits. A recipient/covered entity's appropriate use of the methods and options discussed in this policy guidance will be viewed by OCR as evidence of a recipient/covered entity's willingness to comply voluntarily with its Title VI obligations.
Over the past 30 years, OCR has provided substantial technical assistance to recipient/covered entities, and will continue to be available to provide such assistance to any recipient/covered entity seeking to ensure that it operates an effective language assistance program. In addition, during its investigative process, OCR is available to provide technical assistance to enable recipient/covered entities to come into voluntary compliance.
Appendix A is a summary, in question and answer format, of a number of the critical elements of this guidance. The purpose of the summary is to assist recipient/covered entities further in understanding this guidance and their obligations under Title VI to ensure meaningful access to LEP persons. Appendix B is a list of numerous provisions, including but not limited to Federal and state laws and regulations, requiring the provision of language assistance to LEP persons in various circumstances. This list is not exhaustive, and is not limited to the health and human service context.
1. Q. What is the purpose of the guidance on language access released by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)?
A. The purpose of the Policy Guidance is two-fold: First, to clarify the responsibilities of providers of health and social services who receive Federal financial assistance from HHS, and assist them in fulfilling their responsibilities to Limited English Proficient (LEP) persons, pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and second, to clarify to members of the public that health and social service providers must ensure that LEP persons have meaningful access to their programs and services.
2. Q. What does the policy guidance do?
A. The policy guidance does the following:
• Reiterates the principles of Title VI with respect to LEP persons.
• Discusses the policies, procedures and other steps that recipients can take to ensure meaningful access to their program by LEP persons.
• Clarifies that failure to take one or more of these steps does not necessarily mean noncompliance with Title VI.
• Provides that OCR will determine compliance on a case by case basis, and that such assessments will take into account the size of the recipient, the size of the LEP population, the nature of the program, the resources available, and the frequency of use by LEP persons.
• Provides that small providers and recipient/covered entities with limited resources, will have a great deal of flexibility in achieving compliance.
• Provides that OCR will provide extensive technical assistance as needed by recipient/covered entities.
3. Q. Does the guidance impose new requirements on recipient/covered entities?
A. No. Since its enactment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in any program or activity that receives federal financial assistance. In order to avoid violating Title VI, recipient/covered entities must ensure that they provide LEP persons meaningful opportunity to participate in their programs, services and benefits. Over the past three decades, OCR has conducted thousands of investigations and reviews involving language differences that affect the access of LEP persons to medical care and social services. Where such language differences prevent meaningful access on the basis of national origin, the law requires that recipient/covered entities provide oral and written language assistance at no cost to the LEP person. This guidance synthesizes the legal requirements that have been on the books and that OCR has been enforcing for over three decades.
4. Q. Who is covered by the guidance?
A. Covered entities include any state or local agency, private institution or organization, or any public or private individual that (1) operates, provides or engages in health, or social service programs and activities, and (2) receives Federal financial assistance from HHS directly or through another recipient/covered entity. Examples of covered entities include but are not limited to hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies, managed care organizations, universities and other entities with health or social service research programs; state, county and local health agencies; state Medicaid agencies; state, county and local welfare agencies; programs for families, youth and children; Head Start programs; public and private contractors, subcontractors and vendors; physicians; and other providers who receive Federal financial assistance from HHS.
5. Q. How does the guidance affect small practitioners and providers?
A. The key to providing meaningful access for LEP persons is to ensure that the relevant circumstances of the LEP person's situation can be effectively communicated to the service provider and the LEP person is able to understand the services and benefits available and is able to receive those services and benefits for which he or she is eligible in a timely manner. Small practitioners and providers will have considerable flexibility in determining precisely how to fulfill their obligations to ensure meaningful access for persons with limited English proficiency. OCR will assess compliance on a case by case basis and will take into account the size of the recipient/covered entity, the size of the eligible LEP population it serves, the nature of the program or service, the objectives of the program, the total resources available to the recipient/covered entity, the frequency with which languages are encountered and the frequency with which LEP persons come into contact with the program. There is no “one size fits all” solution for Title VI compliance with respect to LEP persons.
In other words, OCR will focus on the end result, that is, whether the small practitioner or provider has taken steps, given the factors that will be considered by OCR, to ensure that the LEP persons have access to the programs and services provided by the physician. OCR will continue to be available to provide technical assistance to any physician seeking to ensure that s/he operates an effective language assistance program. For example: A physician, a sole
6. Q. The guidance identifies some specific circumstances under which OCR will consider a program to be in compliance with its obligation under Title VI to provide written materials in languages other than English. Does this mean that a recipient/covered entity will be considered out of compliance with Title VI if its program does not fall within these circumstances?
A. No. The circumstances outlined in the guidance are intended to provide a “safe harbor” for recipients who desire greater certainty with respect to their obligations to provide written translations. Thus, a recipient/covered entity whose policies and practices fall within these circumstances can be confident that, with respect to written translations, it will be found in compliance with Title VI. However, the failure to fall within the “safe harbors” outlined in the guidance does not necessarily mean that a recipient/covered entity is not in compliance with Title VI. In such circumstances, OCR will review the totality of circumstances to determine the precise nature of a recipient/covered entity's obligation to provide written materials in languages other than English. If translation of a certain document or set of documents would be so financially burdensome as to defeat the legitimate objectives of its program, or if there is an alternative means of ensuring that LEP persons have meaningful access to the information provided in the document (such as timely, effective oral interpretation of vital documents), OCR will likely not find the translation necessary for compliance with Title VI.
7. Q. The guidance makes reference to “vital documents” and notes that, in certain circumstances, a recipient/covered entity may have to translate such documents into other languages. What is a vital document?
A. Given the wide array of programs and activities receiving HHS financial assistance, we do not attempt to identify vital documents and information with specificity in each program area. Rather, a document or information should be considered vital if it contains information that is critical for accessing the federal fund recipient's services and/or benefits, or is required by law. Thus, vital documents include, but are not limited to, applications, consent forms, letters and notices pertaining to the reduction, denial or termination of services or benefits, letters or notices that require a response from the beneficiary or client, and documents that advise of free language assistance. OCR will also collaborate with respective HHS agencies in determining which documents and information are deemed to be vital within a particular program.
8. Q. Will recipient/covered entities have to translate large documents such as managed care enrollment handbooks?
A. Not necessarily. As part of its overall language assistance program, a recipient must develop and implement a plan to provide written materials in languages other than English where a significant number or percentage of the population eligible to be served, or likely to be directly affected by the program, needs services or information in a language other than English to communicate effectively. OCR will assess the need for written translation of documents and vital information contained in larger documents on a case by case basis, taking into account all relevant circumstances, including the nature of the recipient/covered entity's services or benefits, the size of the recipient/covered entity, the number and size of the LEP language groups in its service area, the nature and length of the document, the objectives of the program, the total resources available to the recipient/covered entity, the frequency which particular languages are encountered and the frequency with which translated documents are needed and the cost of translation. Depending on these circumstances, large documents, such as enrollment handbooks, may not need to be translated or may not need to be translated in their entirety. For example, a recipient/covered entity may be required to provide written translations of vital information contained in larger documents, but may not have to translate the entire document, to meet its obligations under Title VI.
9. Q. May a recipient/covered entity require an LEP person to use a family member or a friend as his or her interpreter?
A. No. OCR's policy requires the recipient/covered entity to inform the LEP person of the right to receive free interpreter services first and permits the use of family and friends only after such offer of assistance has been declined and documented. Our policy regarding the use of family and friends as interpreters is based on over three decades of experience with Title VI. Although OCR recognizes that some individuals may be uncomfortable having a stranger serve as an interpreter, especially when the situation involves the discussion of very personal or private matters, it is our experience that family and friends frequently are not competent to act as interpreters, since they may be insufficiently proficient in both languages, untrained and unskilled as interpreters, and unfamiliar with specialized terminology. Use of such persons also may result in breaches of confidentiality or reluctance on the part of the individual to reveal personal information critical to their situations. These concerns are even more pronounced when the family member called upon to interpret is a minor. In other words, when family and friends are used, there is a grave risk that interpretation may not be accurate or complete. In medical settings, in particular, this can result in serious, even life threatening consequences.
10. Q. How does low health literacy, non-literacy, non-written languages, blindness and deafness among LEP populations affect the responsibilities of federal fund recipients?
A. Effective communication in any language requires an understanding of the literacy levels of the eligible populations. However, literacy generally is a program operations issue rather than a Title VI issue. Where a LEP individual has a limited understanding of health matters or cannot read, access to the program is complicated by factors not directly related to national origin or language. Under these circumstances, a recipient/covered entity should provide remedial health information to the same extent that it would provide such information to English-speakers. Similarly, a recipient/covered entity should assist LEP individuals who cannot read in understanding written materials as it would non-literate English-speakers. A non-written language precludes the translation of documents, but does not affect the responsibility of the recipient to communicate the vital information contained in the document or to provide notice of the availability of oral translation. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires that federal fund recipients provide sign language and oral interpreters for people who have hearing impairments and provide materials in alternative formats such as in large print, braille or on tape for individuals with impairments. The Americans with Disabilities Act imposes similar requirements on health and human service providers.
11. Q. Can OCR provide help to recipient/covered entities who wish to come into compliance with Title VI?
A. Absolutely. For over three decades, OCR has provided substantial technical assistance to recipient/covered entities who are seeking to ensure that LEP persons can meaningfully access their programs or services. Our regional staff is prepared to work with recipients to help them meet their obligations under Title VI. As part of its technical assistance services, OCR can help identify best practices and successful strategies used by other federal fund recipients, identify sources of federal reimbursement for translation services, and point providers to other resources.
12. Q. How will OCR enforce compliance by recipient/covered entities with the LEP requirements of Title VI?
A. OCR will enforce Title VI as it applies to recipient/covered entities through the procedures provided for in the Title VI regulations. The Title VI regulations provide that OCR will investigate whenever it receives a complaint, report, or other information that alleges or indicates possible noncompliance with Title VI. If the investigation results in a finding of compliance, OCR will inform the recipient/covered entity in writing of this determination, including the basis for the determination. If the investigation results in a finding of noncompliance, OCR must inform the recipient/covered entity of the noncompliance through a Letter of Findings
13. Q. Does issuing this guidance mean that OCR will be changing how it enforces compliance with Title VI?
A. No. How OCR enforces Title VI is governed by the Title VI implementing regulations. The methods and procedures used to investigate and resolve complaints, and conduct compliance reviews, have not changed.
14. Q. What is HHS doing to ensure it is following the guidance it is giving to States and others?
A. Although legally, federally conducted programs and activities are not subject to Title VI, HHS recognizes the importance of ensuring that its programs and services are accessible to LEP persons. To this end, HHS has established a working group to assess how HHS itself is providing language access. Currently, agencies across HHS have taken a number of important steps to ensure that their programs and services are accessible to LEP persons. For example, a number of agencies have translated important consumer materials into languages other than English. Also, several agencies have launched Spanish language web sites. In order to ensure that all HHS federally conducted programs and activities are accessible to LEP persons, the Secretary has directed the working group to develop and implement a Department-wide plan for ensuring LEP persons meaningful access to HHS programs. This internal HHS initiative was begun prior to the President's August 11, 2000, Executive Order 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency”. The Executive Order requires Federal Agencies to develop and implement a system for ensuring LEP persons meaningful access to their federally-conducted programs. It also requires agencies to issue guidance to their recipients on the recipients' obligations to provide LEP persons meaningful access to their federally-assisted programs. HHS is a step ahead on each of the obligations outlined in the Executive Order.
Federal laws that recognize the need for language assistance include:
1. The Voting Rights Act, which bans English-only elections and prescribes other remedial devices to ensure nondiscrimination against language minorities;
2. The Food Stamp Act of 1977, which requires states to provide written and oral language assistance to LEP persons under certain circumstances;
3. Judicial procedure laws that require the use of certified or otherwise qualified interpreters for LEP parties and witnesses, at the government's expense, in certain proceedings;
4. The Older Americans Act, which requires state planning agencies to use outreach workers who are fluent in the languages of older LEP persons, where there is a substantial number of such persons in a planning area;
5. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration Reorganization Act, which requires services provided with funds under the statute to be bilingual if appropriate;
6. The Disadvantaged Minority Health Improvement Act, which requires the Office of Minority Health (OMH) to enter into contracts to increase the access of LEP persons to health care by developing programs to provide bilingual or interpreter services;
7. The Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, which requires educational agencies to take appropriate action to accommodate the language differences that impede equal participation by students in instructional programs;
8. Regulations issued by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) which require that evaluations for the mentally ill and mentally retarded be adapted to the cultural background, language, ethnic origin and means of communication of the person being evaluated.
Many states have recognized the seriousness of the language access challenge and have enacted laws that require providers to offer language assistance to LEP persons in many service settings.
1. California, which provides that intermediate care facilities must use interpreters and other methods to ensure adequate communication between staff and patients;
2. New Jersey, which provides that drug and alcohol treatment facilities must provide interpreter services if their patient population in non-English speaking;
3. Pennsylvania, which provides that a patient who does not speak English should have access, where possible, to an interpreter;
4. Massachusetts, which in April 2000, enacted legislation that requires every acute care hospital to provide competent interpreter services to LEP patients in connection with all emergency room services.
1. The Joint Committee on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), which accredits hospitals and other health care institutions, requires language assistance in a number of situations. For example, its accreditation manual for hospitals provides that written notice of patients' rights must be appropriate to the patient's age, understanding and language.
2. The National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA), which provides accreditation for managed care organizations, also requires language assistance in a variety of settings. As part of its evaluation process, the NCQA assesses managed care member materials to determine whether they are available in languages, other than English, spoken by major population groups.
Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to The Administration for Children and Families, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Infant Promenade, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
The background material that the committees will review will be available 1 business day before the meeting on the Internet at: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/acmenu.htm. Click on the year 2000 and then locate the Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee meeting for October 20, 2000.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Analytical Procedures and Methods Validation: Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls Documentation.” This draft guidance is intended to provide recommendations to applicants on submitting analytical procedures, validation data, and samples to support the identity, strength, quality, purity, and potency of drug substances and drug products. The recommendations apply to drug substances and drug products covered in new drug applications (NDA's), abbreviated new drug applications (ANDA's), biologics license applications (BLA's), product license applications (PLA's), and supplements to these applications.
Submit written comments on the draft guidance by November 28, 2000. General comments on agency guidance documents are welcome at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance for industry to the Drug Information Branch (HFD-210), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; or to the Office of Communication, Training, and Manufacturers Assistance (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1488, FAX 888-CBERFAX or 301-827-3844. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. Submit written comments on the draft guidance to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. To expedite FDA review of your comments to the docket on this draft guidance, CDER requests that, if possible, you also send an electronic copy of these comments by e-mail to cunninghamp@cder.fda.gov.
Radhika Rajagopalan, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-645), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-5849, or
Alfred Del Grosso, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-250), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-435-4988.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Analytical Procedures and Methods Validation: Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls Documentation.” This draft guidance is intended to assist applicants in assembling information, submitting samples, and presenting data to support analytical methodologies. The recommendations apply to drug substances and drug products covered in NDA's, ANDA's, BLA's, PLA's, and supplements to these applications. The principles also apply to drug substances and drug products covered in Type II drug master files.
The principles of methods validation described in this guidance apply to all types of analytical procedures; however, the specific recommendations in this guidance may not be applicable to certain analytical procedures unique to products such as biological, biotechnological, botanical, or radiopharmaceutical drugs.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices (62 FR 8961, February 27, 1997). It represents the agency's current thinking on analytical procedures and methods validation. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute, regulations, or both.
Interested persons may submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments regarding the draft guidance by November 28, 2000. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be
Copies of this draft guidance for industry are available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm or http://www.fda.gov/cber/guidelines.htm.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notification of the re-designation of an existing system of records and proposed amendments to the system of records.
Pursuant to the provision of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a), the Department of Housing and Urban Development is re-designating HUD/PIH-1, “Tenant Eligibility Verification Files,” previously published on February 9, 1999 (64 FR 6371); to the new designation HUD/REAC-1, “Tenant Eligibility Verification Files.” The system of records notice below supersedes the system of records notice published on, February 9, 1999 (64 FR 6371). HUD/REAC-1 contains the same provisions as HUD/PIH-1 except for the following substantive changes: (1) The re-designation of the system of records to HUD/REAC-1 recognizes the transfer of responsibilities for the computer matching program from the Office of Public and Indian Housing to the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC); and (2) HUD/REAC-1 expands the type of files to include: (a) Automated records used by housing agencies, owners and agents when providing HUD with information on actions taken to resolve income differences noted by computer matching, and (b) encrypted read-only files REAC employees may use while at housing agency, owner or agent sites containing SSA and IRS information subject to the disclosure provisions of 26 U.S.C. 6103. Aggregated statistics on the initial computer matching results and actions taken to resolve income differences may be made available to internal HUD Program Offices and HUD-contracted Contract Administrators.
HUD/REAC-1 contains computer matching and other tenant eligibility verification records necessary to support the identification of tenants who have been or may be obtaining inappropriate (excessive or insufficient) rental assistance. The system of records also supports disclosure of information, other than Federal tax return information, concerning those tenants to entities that administer HUD rental assistance programs and to law enforcement agencies for possible administrative or legal actions, as appropriate. Entities that administer HUD rental assistance programs are: housing agencies, Indian Tribes and Tribally Designated Housing Entities participating in the Section 8 Program, owners of subsidized multifamily projects, and management agents (hereinafter referred to collectively as “POAs”); under certain limited circumstances, such as when HUD declares a Public Housing Authority in breach of an annual contributions contract, HUD itself may act as a POA. Additionally, HUD/REAC-1 provides information needed to evaluate actions taken to resolve income discrepancies affecting rental assistance.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice to the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of General Counsel, Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications should refer to the above docket number and title. An original and four copies of comments should be submitted. Facsimile (FAX) comments are not acceptable. A copy of each communication submitted will be available for public inspection and copying between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. weekdays at the above address.
Jeanette Smith, Departmental Privacy Act Officer, Telephone Number (202) 708-2374, concerning Privacy Act matters. Regarding records maintained in Washington, DC; Chicago, Illinois; and Seattle, Washington contact the following, respectively: David L. Decker, Project Manager, Tenant Assessment Sub-System, REAC, Telephone Number (202) 708-4932, extension 3214; William Siska, Director, Chicago Technical Assistance Center, Telephone Number (312) 353-6236, extension 2084; and Gordon Brandhagen, Director, Seattle Technical Assistance Center, Telephone Number (206) 220-5312. (These are not toll free numbers.)
HUD published a notice on September 14, 1999 (64 FR 49817) of its plan for large-scale implementation of its existing computer matching program concerning tenant data in assisted housing programs. During the second and third quarter of Fiscal Year 2000 HUD began sending letters containing SSA and IRS return information to tenants, and notices of potential income discrepancies to housing agencies, owners and agents based on its large-scale matching initiative.
A report of the Department's intention to establish the system has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the House Committee on Government Operations pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” July 25, 1994; 59 FR 37914.
5 U.S.C. 552a; 88 Stat. 1896; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
Tenant Eligibility Verification Files.
The files will be maintained at the following locations: (1) U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Real Estate Assessment Center, 1280 Maryland Avenue, SW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20024-2635; (2) Chicago Technical Assistance Center, U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, Ralph H. Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604; (3) Seattle Technical Assistance Center, U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, Seattle Federal Building, 909 First Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104. Controls will be established at 1280 Maryland Avenue, SW, for any encrypted files containing SSA and IRS return information (subject to the
Tenants receiving rental assistance provided by programs administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, state agencies, and POAs.
Records consist of: (1) Automated tenant data obtained from HUD/H-11, Tenant Housing Assistance and Contract Verification Data, published at 62 FR 11909; March 13, 1997, [two HUD automated systems—the Multifamily Tenant Certification System and the Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System—are the primary components of HUD/H-11]; (2) automated tenant data provided by POAs [generally these records are available in HUD/H-11]; (3) information obtained from computer matching with automated earned income data that the Social Security Administration (SSA) provides under 26 U.S.C. 6103(l)(7)(A) from the Earnings Recording and Self-Employment Income System (HHS/SSA/OSR, 09-60-0059) (Earnings Record) and Master Beneficiary Record (HHS/SSA/OSR, 09-60-0090); (4) information obtained from computer matching with automated unearned income data that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) provides to HUD under 26 U.S.C. 6103(l)(7)(B) from Treasury/IRS 22.061, Wage and Information Returns Processing (IRP) File Treasury/IRS; (5) information obtained from computer matching with automated Title II (social security) and Title XVI (supplemental security income) data that the SSA provides to HUD under a routine use from the Supplemental Security Income Record, HHS/SSA/OSR 90-60-0103; (6) information obtained from computer matching with wage and unemployment compensation data from State wage information collection agencies; (7) information obtained from computer matching with automated data from the Office of Personnel Management's General Personnel Records (OPM/GOVT-1), and the Civil Service Retirement and Insurance Records System (OPM/Central-1) pursuant to a routine use; (8) information obtained from computer matching with automated data from the Department of Defense's Defense Manpower Data Center Data Base (S322.10.DMDC) pursuant to a routine use; (9) information obtained from computer matching with automated records from the SSA's Master Files of Social Security Number Holders, known as the Enumeration Verification System (HHS/SSA/OSR, 09-60-0058) pursuant to a routine use; (10) applications for rental assistance and other related documentation obtained from tenant case files maintained by POAs; (11) data received from employers confirming income or deductions supporting determinations of eligibility for, and the amount of, rental assistance benefits; (12) automated records provided by other Federal agencies under the investigative exclusion of the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988; (13) automated records provided by POAs regarding actions taken on computer matching results; (14) automated records created by the REAC for use by POAs in recording the actions taken to resolve income differences noted by the computer matching and (15) correspondence or other documents received from tenants concerning potential income discrepancies.
Subparagraph (D) of section 6103(l)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code 26 U.S.C. 6103(l)(7)(D), permits HUD to request from the Commissioner of the SSA and the Secretary of the Treasury, SSA and IRS earned and unearned income information, respectively, needed to verify the incomes of tenants who receive rental assistance. Section 6103(l)(7)(D) precludes HUD from redisclosing that information to entities that administer HUD programs (i.e. POAs). Section 542(b) of HUD's 1998 Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 105-65; October 27, 1997) eliminated a September 30, 1998 sunset provision to 26 U.S.C. 6103(l)(7)(D), effectively making permanent the authority for SSA and IRS disclosures of return information to HUD.
The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. 3544, as amended, allows HUD to notify POAs that discrepancies exist between the tenant-reported incomes and income obtained from independent income sources, i.e., the SSA or the IRS. The McKinney Amendments of 1988 also authorized HUD to request, under section 303(i) of the Social Security Act, wage and claim information from state agencies responsible for the administration of state unemployment law. Section 542(a)(1) of HUD's 1998 Appropriation Act, referenced above, eliminated an October 1, 1994, sunset provision to section 303(i) of the Social Security Act, effectively making permanent the authority requiring state agencies to disclose wage and claim information to HUD and public housing agencies.
Section 165 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987, Public Law 100-242; authorizes HUD to require applicants and participants in HUD-administered programs involving rental assistance to disclose to HUD their social security numbers as a condition of initial or continuing eligibility for participation. Subpart T of 24 CFR part 200 applies this requirement to member of households six (6) years of age and older.
Applicable laws concerning HUD's assisted housing programs include: the United States Housing Act of 1937, 42 U.S.C. 1437 note; and section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, 12 U.S.C. 1701s, and the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, 25 U.S.C. 4101,
The primary purposes of HUD/REAC-1 are to aid HUD and entities that administer HUD's assisted housing programs in: (a) Increasing the availability of rental assistance to individuals who meet the requirements of Federal rental assistance programs, (b) detecting abuses in assisted housing programs, (c) taking administrative or legal actions to resolve past abuses of assisted housing programs, (d) deterring abuses, and (e) evaluating the effectiveness of income discrepancy resolution actions taken by public housing agencies, owners and agents for HUD's rental assistance programs. HUD/REAC-1 serves as a repository for automated information used in and resulting from computer matching of tenant data for recipients of Federal rental assistance to other data sources; HUD/REAC-1 also contains non-automated information used in and resulting from verifying computer matching results and in accomplishing the purposes previously cited. Records in this system are subject to use in authorized and approved computer matching programs regulated under the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended.
For all routine uses, return information obtained from the Internal Revenue Service under 26 U.S.C. 6103(l)(7) may only be disclosed as provided by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
1. Records included in the system may be used in conducting computer matching with Federal and State agencies to aid in the identification of tenants who have received inappropriate (excessive or insufficient) rental housing assistance.
2. Records that HUD obtains from the SSA and the IRS under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 6103(l)(7), may be disclosed only as permitted under 26 U.S.C. 6103, which limits disclosure to the tenant/taxpayer, and to HUD employees whose duties require access for the purpose for which the disclosure to HUD was made.
3. Records other than return information obtained from the SSA and IRS under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 6103(l)(7), may be disclosed to the appropriate Federal, state or local agency charged with the responsibility for investigating or prosecuting a violation of law, whether criminal, civil or regulatory in nature, or enforcing or implementing a statute, rule or regulation.
4. Records other than return information obtained from the SSA and IRS under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 6103(l)(7), may be disclosed to a congressional office in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual who is the subject of the records.
5. Records other than return information obtained from the SSA and IRS under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 6103(l)(7), may be disclosed to POAs in order to assist them in determining tenants' eligibility for rental assistance, and the amount of that assistance and to facilitate recovery of money or property or other administrative actions (
6. Records other than return information obtained from the SSA and the IRS under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 6103(l)(7), may be disclosed during the course of an administrative proceeding where HUD or POAs are a party to the litigation and disclosure is relevant and reasonably necessary to adjudicate the matter.
7. Records other than return information obtained from the SSA and the IRS under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 6103(l)(7), may be disclosed to a Federal agency, in response to its request, in connection with the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the record is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter.
8. Records other than return information obtained from the SSA and the IRS under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 6103(l)(7), may be disclosed to a Federal agency to initiate Federal salary or annuity offsets as necessary to collect excessive rental assistance received by the tenant.
9. Records other than return information obtained from the SSA and the IRS under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 6103(l)(7), concerning an individual's receipt of excessive rental assistance, including the individual's actions to repay the same, may be disclosed to the Federal agency that employs such individual, for the purpose of notifying the employer of potential violation of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch.
10. Records other than return information obtained from the SSA and IRS under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 6103(l)(7), may be used to provide aggregate information on POAs' resolution efforts to Contract Administrators and internal HUD Offices for use in their mandated oversight responsibilities to ensure that POAs are providing appropriate rental assistance to eligible families and are resolving discrepancies identified by HUD.
11. Records may be used to provide statistical information to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget for use in evaluating: the effectiveness of computer matching and income verification programs; program policies; and actions taken by entities that administer HUD's rental assistance programs to resolve income discrepancies identified through computer matching.
Records are stored manually in tenant case files and electronically in office automation equipment. Records other than return information obtained from the SSA and the IRS under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 6103(l)(7), may also be stored on mainframe computer facilities or computer servers for public housing agencies', owners' and agents' access via the Internet to: (1) Obtain social security and supplemental security income data that is not subject to provisions of 26 U.S.C. 6103, and (2) update actions taken in resolving income discrepancies. Records containing data subject to provisions of 26 U.S.C. 6103 may be stored in encrypted form on laptop computers that are taken to the sites of public housing agencies, owners and agents that administer HUD's rental assistance programs. Software precludes the transfer of any data subject to 26 U.S.C. 6103 to unencrypted media.
Records may be retrieved by manual or computer search of indices by the name, social security number, or POA.
Records are maintained in locked file cabinets or in metal file cabinets in secured rooms or premises with access limited to those persons whose official duties require access. Computer files and printed listings are maintained in locked cabinets. Computer terminals are secured in controlled areas which are locked when unoccupied. Access to automated records is limited to authorized personnel who must use a password system to gain access. HUD will safeguard the SSA and the IRS return information obtained pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 6103(l)(7)(A) and (B) in accordance with 26 U.S.C. 6103(p)(4) and the IRS's “Tax Information Security Guidelines for Federal, State and Local Agencies,” Publication 1075 (REV. 3/99).
Only those computer files and printouts created from the computer matching that meet predetermined criteria are maintained. These records will be destroyed as soon as they have served the matching program's purpose. All other records will be destroyed as soon as possible within 1 year. Paper listings containing personal identifiers will be shredded. Computer source files provided by other organizations will be returned to those organizations or destroyed in accordance with computer matching agreements.
Information obtained through computer matching and tenant case file reviews will be destroyed as soon as follow-up processing of this information is completed, unless the information is required for evidentiary reasons or needed by POAs for use in program eligibility determinations. When needed for evidentiary documentation, the information will be referred to the HUD Office of Inspector General (OIG) or other appropriate Federal, state or local agencies charged with the responsibility for investigating or prosecuting such violations. When referred to the HUD OIG the information then becomes a part of the Investigative Files of the Office of Inspector General, HUD/OIG-1.
Project Manager, Technical Assessment Sub-System, Real Estate Assessment Center, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1280 Maryland Avenue, SW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20024-2135.
Individuals seeking to determine whether this system of records contains information about themselves, or seeking access to such records, should address inquiries to the Project Manager, Technical Assessment Sub-System, Real Estate Assessment Center, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1280 Maryland Avenue, SW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20024-2635.
Written requests should contain the full name, Social Security Number, date of birth, current address and telephone number of the individual.
For personal visits, the individual must be able to provide some acceptable identification, such as a driver's license or other identification card.
The procedures for amendment or correction of records, and for appealing initial agency determinations, appear in 24 CFR part 16.
The REAC receives automated tenant data from the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing and the Assistant Secretary for Housing. The Assistant Secretaries collect information from a variety of sources, including POAs. The REAC receives data from POAs concerning actions taken to resolve income differences noted by HUD. Additionally, the REAC also receives data from other Federal and state agencies, law enforcement agencies, program participants, complainants, and other non-governmental sources.
To the extent that information in this system of records falls within the coverage of subsection (k)(2) of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), the system is exempt from the requirements of subsections (c)(3), (d)(1), (d)(2) and (e)(1) of the Privacy Act. To the extent that information in this system of records falls within the coverage of subsection (k)(5) of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), the system is exempt from the requirements of subsection (d)(1) of the Privacy Act. See 24 CFR 16.15 (c) and (d).
Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces an upcoming meeting of the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission. Notice of this meeting is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463).
The agenda for the meeting will focus on implementation of the Management Action Plan for the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corrdior and State Heritage Park. The Commission was established to assist the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and its political subdivisions in planning and implementing an integrated strategy for protecting and promoting cultural, historic and natural resources. The Commission reports to the Secretary of the Interior and to Congress.
The Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission was established by Public Law 100-692, November 18, 1988 and extended through Public Law 105-355, November 13, 1988.
C. Allen Sachse, Executive Director, Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission, 10 E. Church Street, Room A-208, Bethlehem, PA 18018, (610) 861-9345.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Salt Lake Field Office, Utah announces the availability of an EA/FONSI for a plan amendment to the Pony Express RMP. On February 3, 1997, as amended on August 10, 1999, the Salt Lake Field Office published in the
Under the Bureau Planning System, Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA) are designated where significant public recreation issues or management concerns occur. Special or more intensive types of management are typically needed. Detailed activity planning, including recreation, is required in these areas and greater managerial investment is likely. This amendment will accomplish two main objectives: One, designate Fivemile Pass a SRMA, to facilitate the planning process to address recreation use and management issues, needs, and priorities; and two, establish Off-Road Vehicle designations. Designation of a SRMA initiates the activity level planning process, including the development of an activity plan. This activity plan will be developed as a Coordinated Resource Management Plan and address site specific recreation development, maintenance, and operational details such as specific route identification, camping areas, staging areas, facilities (loading ramps, outhouses, weed spray stations, etc.), special stipulations for organized events, use limits, and specific regulations for the area as well as site specific management prescriptions for other resources in the area. The SRMA would be managed primarily for recreational uses, but would remain a multiple-use management area. The existing RMP would be updated for all uses incorporating changes in land use patterns.
The proposed plan amendment may be protested. The protest period will commence with the date of
Protests must be addressed to the Director (WO-210), Bureau of Land Management, Attn.: Brenda Williams, Resource Planning Team, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20240, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice for the proposed planning amendment.
For information on the BLM plan amendment contact Britta Laub, Outdoor Recreation Planner, telephone (801) 977-4389. Existing planning documents and information are available at the above Utah BLM Salt Lake Field Office address.
Any person who participated in the planning process and has an interest which is or may be adversely affected by the Proposed Plan Amendment may protest to the Director of the Bureau of Land Management. The protest must be in writing and filed within 30 days of the date of publication of this Notice of Availability in the
In the absence of timely objections, this proposal shall become the final determination of the Department of the Interior.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Correction.
The meeting location for the Northwest Colorado Resource Advisory Council Meeting published in the
In the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of intent and call for coal information.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Farmington Field Office, New Mexico, is initiating the preparation of a Resource Management Plan Revision (RMP Revision) and Amendment which will include an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The RMP Revision will establish land use management policy for multiple resource uses on approximately 1.5 million acres of public land and 2.26 million acres of federal mineral resources in the Farmington Field Office. The RMP will estimate reasonable foreseeable development (RFD) of federal oil and gas mineral resources in the San Juan Basin portions of the Albuquerque and Farmington Field Offices. The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 43, Subpart 1600, will be followed for this planning effort. The public is invited to participate in the planning process, beginning with the identification of issues and planning criteria for the RMP Revision.
This notice also solicits coal resource information for federal minerals located adjacent to existing mines pursuant to 43 CFR 3420.1-2 for inclusion in the RMP Revision. Coal companies, state and local governments, and the general public is encouraged to submit information to the BLM to assist in the determinations of coal development potential and possible conflicts with other resources. If this information is determined to indicate development potential, further considerations for leasing will be given.
Comments relating to the identification of issues, planning criteria and information submitted for the Call for Coal Information will be accepted until October 16, 2000.
Send comments to: BLM, Farmington Field Office, RMP Revision, 1235 La Plata Highway, Suite A, Farmington, NM 87401.
Steve Henke, Project Manager, Albuquerque Field Office, NM, (505) 761-8935.
The planning area will include the public land (Farmington Field Office) and federal mineral ownership (Albuquerque and Farmington Field Offices) in all or part of McKinley, Rio Arriba, San Juan, and Sandoval Counties. This encompasses approximately 1.5 million acres of BLM-administered surface and 2.26 million acres of federal minerals under federal, state, or private surface in the four-county area in the Farmington Field Office. The planning area also includes the federal minerals located in the San Juan Basin portion of the Albuquerque Field Office (McKinley, Rio Arriba, and Sandoval Counties).
Anticipated issues to be addressed during development of the RMP Revision include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Which public lands could be transferred to other than BLM-administration and which lands would be beneficial to BLM programs if acquired; (2) which public lands should be designated as open, restricted or closed to motorized vehicle access; (3) which public lands will be considered for special management designation; (4) which federal minerals should be closed to leasing or designated as open to oil and gas development under (a) standard terms and conditions, (b) timing limitations (seasonal) constraints, (c) controlled surface use constraints, or (d) no surface occupancy constraints; and
Four criteria are proposed to guide the resolution of the issues that will be considered in the RMP Revision.
1. Actions must comply with laws, regulations, and executive orders.
2. Actions must be reasonable and achievable.
3. Actions will be considered for their long-term benefits to the public in relation to short-term benefits.
4. Actions will be considered in an interdisciplinary approach.
Industry and other interested parties are asked to provide any information for areas adjacent to existing mines that will be useful in meeting the requirements of the Federal Coal Management Program defined in 43 CFR part 3420, including application of the coal planning screens and possible future activity planning such as tract delineation, ranking and selection. Information resulting from this call will be used to determine potential for coal development and the likelihood of conflict with other resources.
The issue of federal coal leasing and development will include:
1. Determining areas acceptable for further coal leasing consideration with standard stipulations;
2. Determining areas acceptable for consideration with special stipulations;
3. Determining areas unacceptable for further coal leasing consideration.
The BLM will apply the coal development, unsuitability criteria, multiple use conflict and consultation screens in order to make these determinations.
The type of information needed includes, but is not limited to, the following:
1. Location:
a. Federal coal tracts desired by mining companies should include a narrative description with areas delineated on a map with a scale of not less than
b. Descriptions of both public and private industry coal users in the general region.
2. Quantity needs (tonnage, dates) for both public and private industry coal users and coal developers.
3. Quality needs (by type and grade) for end users of the coal.
4. Coal reserve drilling data which may pertain to the planning area.
5. Information relating to surface and mineral ownership.
a. Surface owner consents previously granted, whether consent is transferable, surface owner leases with coal companies.
b. Non-federal, or fee coal ownership adjacent to federal tracts currently leased or mined.
6. Other resource values occurring within the planning area which may conflict with coal development:
a. Describe the resource value and locate it on a map with a scale of not less than
b. State the reasons the particular resource would conflict with coal development. Any individual, business entity, or public body may participate in this process by providing coal or other resource information under this call for information. A public participation plan is being prepared. It is intended to involve interested or affected parties early and continuously throughout the planning process. The public participation plan will emphasize localized one-to-one contacts, media coverage, direct mailings, and continual coordination and collaboration. Meetings will be held to (1) determine the scope of the RMP Revision and Amendment and (2) obtain input on issues and planning criteria. The meetings will be held in Cuba, Crownpoint, and Farmington, New Mexico at the following times and locations.
Complete records of all phases of the planning process will be available for public review at the Farmington Field Office throughout development of the RMP Revision and Amendment. It is estimated it will take approximately 18 months to complete the Proposed RMP Revision and Amendment. Alternatives will be developed and analyzed to resolve the issues addressed in the document. A Draft RMP Revision and Amendment and Draft EIS will be published and made available for a 90-day comment period. Comments made on the Draft RMP Revision and Amendment and Draft EIS will be addressed in a Proposed RMP Revision and Amendment and Final EIS. There will be a 30-day protest period on the Proposed RMP Revision and Amendment for individuals who participated in the planning process.
The plat of the corrective dependent resurvey of a portion of the east boundary, a portion of the south boundary, a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the corrective survey of the subdivision of certain sections in Township 15 North, Range 23 West, Fifth Principal Meridian, Arkansas, will be officially filed in Eastern States, Springfield, Virginia, at 7:30 a.m., on October 2, 2000.
The survey was requested by the National Park Service.
All inquiries or protests concerning the technical aspects of the survey must be sent to the Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Eastern States, Bureau of Land Management, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153, prior to 7:30 a.m., October 2, 2000.
Copies of the plat will be made available upon request and prepayment of the appropriate fee.
National Park Service, Department of the Interior.
Notice of availability.
The National Park Service (NPS) has prepared a Director's Order setting forth its policies and procedures governing use of Value Analysis. When adopted, the policies and procedures will apply to all units of the national park system and will supersede and replace the policies and procedures issued in July 1994.
Written comments will be accepted until September 19, 2000.
Draft Director's Order #90 is available on the Internet at http://www.nps.gov/refdesk/Dorders/index.htm. Requests for copies and written comments should be sent to Richard Turk, NPS Value Analysis Program Coordinator, Construction Program Management, P.O. Box 25287, 12795 W. Alameda Parkway, Denver, Colorado 80225-0287 or to his Internet address: rich_turk@nps.gov.
Rich Turk at (303) 969-2470.
The NPS is updating its current system of internal written instructions. When these documents contain new policy or procedural requirements that may affect parties outside the NPS, they are first made available for public review and comment before being adopted. The policies and procedures governing Value Analysis have previously been published in the form of guideline NPS 90. That guideline will be superseded by the new Director's Order 90 (and a reference manual that will be issued subsequent to the Director's Order). The draft Director's Order covers topics such as the value analysis program, thresholds for application of value analysis for construction and non-construction projects, value engineering change proposals (VECP), annual report, plan of action, coordination, and funding.
Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the administrative record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment.
Oral presentations may not exceed ten (10) minutes. The time for individual presentations may be reduced proportionately, if necessary, to afford all participants who have submitted a timely request to participate an opportunity to be heard.
Participants wishing to submit a written statement for the record must submit a copy of such statement to OPIC's Corporate Secretary no later than 5 PM, September 13, 2000. Such statements must be typewritten, double-spaced and may not exceed twenty-five (25) pages.
Upon receipt of the required notice, OPIC will prepare an agenda for the hearing identifying speakers, setting forth the subject on which each participant will speak, and the time allotted for each presentation. The agenda will be available at the hearing.
A written summary of the hearing will be compiled, and such summary will be made available, upon written request to OPIC's Corporate Secretary, at the cost of reproduction.
On the basis of the record
On July 10, 2000, a petition was filed with the Commission and the Department of Commerce by Cooper Natural Resources (CNR), Tulsa, OK, and IMC Chemicals (IMCC), Overland Park, KS, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV imports of anhydrous sodium sulfate from Canada. Accordingly, effective July 10, 2000, the Commission instituted antidumping investigation No. 731-TA-884 (Preliminary).
Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigation and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission transmitted its determination in this investigation to the Secretary of Commerce on August 24, 2000. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3345 (September 2000), entitled Anhydrous Sodium Sulfate From Canada: Investigation No. 731-TA-884 (Preliminary).
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The products subject to this investigation are covered by statistical reporting numbers 7304.10.5020; 7304.10.5050; 7304.10.5080; 7304.41.3005; 7304.41.3015; 7304.41.3045; 7304.41.6005; 7304.41.6015; 7304.41.6045; 7304.49.0005; 7304.49.0015; 7304.49.0045; and 7304.49.0060 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS).
The Commission instituted this investigation effective October 26, 1999, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and the Department of Commerce by Altx, Inc., Watervliet, NY; American Extruded Products Corp., Beaver Falls, PA; DMV Stainless USA, Inc., Houston, TX; Salem Tube, Inc., Greenville, PA; Sandvik, Steel Co., Scranton, PA; International Extruded Products LLC d/b/a Wyman-Gordon Energy Products—IXP Buffalo, Buffalo, NY;
The Commission transmitted its determination in this investigation to the Secretary of Commerce on August 25, 2000. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3344 (September 2000), entitled Circular Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow Products from Japan: Investigation No. 731-TA-859 (Final).
By order of the Commission.
International Trade Commission.
Scheduling of a full five-year review concerning the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from China.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a full review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207). Recent amendments to the Rules of Practice and Procedure pertinent to five-year reviews, including the text of subpart F of part 207, are published at 63 FR 30599, June 5, 1998, and may be downloaded from the Commission's World Wide Web site at http://www.usitc.gov/rules.htm.
August 22, 2000.
Joanna Bonarriva (202-708-4083), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http://www.usitc.gov).
On March 3, 2000, the Commission determined that responses to its notice of institution of the subject five-year review were such that a full review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act should proceed (65 FR 13989, March 15, 2000). A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's web site.
Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level,
Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in this review available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the review, provided that the application is made by 45 days after publication of this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the review. A party granted access to BPI following publication of the Commission's notice of institution of the review need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.
The prehearing staff report in the review will be placed in the nonpublic record on December 1, 2000, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.64 of the Commission's rules.
The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the review beginning at 9:30 a.m. on December 19, 2000, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before December 11, 2000. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 a.m. on December 14, 2000, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, and 207.66 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 days prior to the date of the hearing.
Each party to the review may submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of section 207.65 of the Commission's rules; the deadline for filing is December 12, 2000. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in section 207.24 of the Commission's rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of section 207.67 of the Commission's rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is January 3, 2001; witness testimony must be filed no later than three days before the hearing. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the review may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the review on or before January 3, 2001. On January 30, 2001, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before February 1, 2001, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.68 of the Commission's rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these reviews on June 1, 1999 (64 FR 29342) and determined on September 3, 1999, that it would conduct full reviews (64 FR 50106, September 15, 1999). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's reviews and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission transmitted its determinations in these reviews to the Secretary of Commerce on August 18, 2000. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3341 (August 2000), entitled Certain Industrial Belts from Germany, Italy, Japan, and Singapore: Investigations Nos. 731-TA-413-415 and 419 (Review).
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these reviews on June 1, 1999 (64 FR 29344) and determined on September 3, 1999 that it would conduct full reviews (64 FR 50107, September 15, 1999). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's reviews and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission transmitted its determinations in these investigations to the Secretary of Commerce on August 24, 2000. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3342 (August 2000), entitled Industrial Nitrocellulose from Brazil, China, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, the United Kingdom, and Yugoslavia: Investigations Nos. 731-TA-96 and 439-445 (Review).
By order of the Commission.
International Trade Commission.
Cancellation of the hearing for the subject reviews.
August 24, 2000.
Vera Libeau (202-205-3176), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http://www.usitc.gov).
On June 14, 2000 (65 FR 37408), the Commission published a notice in the
For further information concerning these reviews, see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and F (19 CFR part 207).
These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 201.35 and 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that on August 17, 2000, the United States lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, in
The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree for 30 days following publication of this Notice. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station, Washington,
In accordance with Departmental policy, 38 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed consent decree in
In addition, the consent decree resolves the claims alleged in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's complaint-in-intervention, which is based upon the same violations referenced above.
Under the consent decree, Appleton has agreed to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $490,000. Further, Appleton will implement agreed-upon injunctive relief, requiring the construction of a Pulp Project that will bring Appleton into compliance with the Clean Air Act and the applicable NSPS regulations not later than January 31, 2002. Moreover, completion and implementation of the Pulp Project will result in Appleton's early compliance with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Pulp and Paper Industry, 40 CFR part 63, subpart S, which become effective in 2006.
The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should refer to
The proposed consent decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, 633 Post Office and Courthouse Building, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219; and the Region III Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. A copy of the proposed consent decree may be obtained by mail from the Department of Justice Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, D.C. 20044. In requesting a copy, please refer to the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount of $12.75 (.25 cents per page production costs), payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Consistent with Department of Justice policy, notice is hereby given that on August 18, 2000, a proposed Consent Decree in
In the action, the United States sought civil penalties under Section 311(b)(7) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(7), and the recovery of removal costs under Sections 1002 and 1017 of the Oil Pollution Act, 33 U.S.C. 2702, 2717, resulting from a discharge of oil into the Wilkenson Creek in Chelsea, Washtenaw County, Michigan, in September of 1995. Under the Consent Decree, the Defendants will pay $80,000, plus interest, over the course of two years in satisfaction of the claim for costs that the Coast Guard paid to a contractor who performed removal activities.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, 211 W. Fort St., Suite 2300, Detroit, MI 48226-3211. A copy of the Consent Decree may be obtained by mail from the Department of Justice Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044. In requesting a copy, please refer to the above-referenced case and DOJ Reference Number 90-5-1-1-06768, and enclose a check in the amount of $4.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the Consent Decree Library.
In accordance with the policy of the Department of Justice, 28 U.S.C. 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed consent decree in
Under the proposed consent decree, Metropolitan Council will undertake a series of compliance measures designed with the goal of eliminating future violations of applicable emission limitations until new control equipment is installed. Defendant, among other things, has designed and installed new dampers and seals on the incinerator's emergency stacks that will prevent leakage of particulate matter; will develop a fan alarm system; will develop and implement an operator training program; will develop and implement an improved operation and maintenance plan; and will limit the feed rate to the incinerators. In addition, Metropolitan Council is required to replace the existing multiple hearth incinerators with new fluidized bed incinerators in accordance with a schedule attached to the proposed decree.
In addition to the above, Metropolitan Council has agreed to expend not less than $1.6 million to perform a Supplemental Environmental Project—the installation of a dry electrostatic precipitator—which will result in an additional forty percent (40%) removal of particulate matter from emissions. Installation of this additional control device is not required by the Act or the Minnesota SIP. Beyond these various compliance measures, Metropolitan Council will also pay a civil penalty of $250,000.
The proposed consent decree may be examined at: (1) the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota, United States Courthouse, 300 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, MN (contact Assistant United States Attorney Friedrich A.P. Siekert (612-664-5600)); (2) the United States Environmental Protection Agency (Region 5), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590 (contact Mary McAuliffe (312-886-6237)); and, (3) a copy of the proposed Consent Decree may be obtained by mail from the Department of Justice Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. When requesting a copy, please refer to
Notice is hereby given that the public comment period on a proposed eighth Consent Decree in
Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044, and should refer to
Pursuant to Section 122(d)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(d)(2), and 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed consent decree embodying a settlement in
In a complaint filed concurrently with the lodging of the consent decree, the United States, the State of California, and the California Hazardous Substance Account, seek injunctive relief for performance of response actions and reimbursement of response costs incurred by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”), pursuant to Sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606, 9607, in response to releases of hazardous substances at the Operating Industries, Inc. (“OII”) Superfund site in Monterey Park, California.
Under the proposed consent decree, the settling defendants have agreed to fund and perform future response actions at the OII Site. The consent decree also imposes obligations on, and provides benefits to Greenfield Monterey Park, LLC (“Greenfield”), an entity that intends to purchase a portion of the site for redevelopment purposes.
The consent decree requires the Owner/Operator Group, the City of Monterey Park and Southern California Edison to contribute approximately $8.65 million to a trust that will be used to pay for past and future costs of remediating the site, and the Owner/Operator Group to pay $3.1 million to the OII Custodial Trust, to be established for the purpose of receiving, holding and distributing funds in accordance with the provisions of the consent decree. If Greenfield purchases the Development Parcel it will conduct remedial action work valued at approximately $6-$7 million at the northern portion of the site and pay approximately $3,633,000 to the Owner/Operator Group which, in turn, will deposit those funds into the OII Site Custodial Trust. The Generator Group will create and administer an escrow account, and conduct certain work valued at approximately $850,000 at the
The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General for the environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Box 7611 Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044-7611, and should refer to
The proposed consent decree may be examined at the EPA Region 9 Superfund Records Center, 75 Hawthorne Street, Fourth Floor, San Francisco, California 94105, and at the Office of the United States Attorney for the Central District of California, Federal Building, Room 7516, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. A copy of the proposed consent decree may also be obtained by mail from the Department of Justice Consent Decree Library, Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044-7611. In requesting a copy, please refer to the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount of $212.75 (25 cents per page reproduction costs), payable to the Consent Decree Library. A copy of the decree, exclusive of the defendants' signature pages and the attachments, may be obtained for $52.50.
In accordance with Department of Justice policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed consent decree in the action entitled
Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, the defendants will pay a civil penalty of $200,000 to the United States and will be permanently enjoined from discharging any pollutant from any source at the Copamarina Beach Resort into the waters of the United States unless such discharge is in full compliance with the Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations.
The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should refer to
The proposed consent decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, Federal Building, Chardon Avenue, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00918, and at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866. A copy may be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044-7611. In requesting a copy by mail, please refer to the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount of $3.50 (25 cents per page reproduction costs for the Decree) made payable to Consent Decree Library.
Immigration and Naturalization Service, Justice.
Notice.
The Attorney General's designation of Bosnia-Herzegovina for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) expires on August 10, 2000. After reviewing country conditions and consulting with the appropriate Government agencies, the Attorney General has determined that conditions in Bosnia-Herzegovina no longer support TPS designation. However, because this determination was not made at least 60 days before the termination date, the designation of Bosnia-Herzegovina for TPS is automatically extended for a period of 6 months, valid until February 10, 2001. The termination of the TPS designation of Bosnia-Herzegovina will therefore take effect on February 10, 2001. After that date, aliens who are nationals of Bosnia-Herzegovina (and aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Bosnia-Herzegovina) who have been granted TPS under the Bosnia-Herzegovina designation will no longer possess such status. This notice contains information regarding the 6-month extension and subsequent termination of the TPS designation for Bosnia-Herzegovina.
The TPS designation for Bosnia-Herzegovina is extended until February 10, 2001. On February 10, 2001, the TPS designation for Bosnia-Herzegovina will be terminated. The re-registration period for the default 6-month extension begins August 30, 2000 and ends September 29, 2000.
Michael Valverde, Adjudications Officer, Office of Adjudications, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Room 3040, 425 I Street, NW., Washington, DC 20536, telephone (202) 514-4754.
Under section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act), 8 U.S.C. 1254a, the Attorney General is authorized to designate a foreign state (or part of a state for TPS. The Attorney
Section 244(b)(3) of the Act further requires the Attorney General to determine whether the conditions for such a designation continue to be met and to terminate the state's designation when the Attorney General determines conditions are no longer met. 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(A), (B). The Attorney General must then publish a notice of termination in the
On August 11, 1999, the Attorney General published a notice in the
Based upon a more recent review of conditions within Bosnia-Herzegovina by the Departments of Justice and State, the Attorney General finds that conditions no longer support a TPS designation. Since June 10, 1999, when Serb forces withdrew from northern Kosovo and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization suspended its airstrikes, Bosnia-Herzegovina has been relatively peaceful, with the exception of occasional and isolated outbreaks of violence. In addition, major infrastructure improvements have recently begun in Bosnia-Herzegovina and democratic elections are planned for later this year.
A Department of State memorandum concerning Bosnia-Herzegovina states that, “Bosnia and Herzegovina is now experiencing unprecedented spontaneous return of its nationals (of all three ethnic groups) from neighboring countries. This spontaneous return suggests that large and increasing numbers of Bosnians themselves have concluded that it is safe enough to return.”
Based on these findings, the Attorney General has decided to terminate the designation of Bosnia-Herzegovina for TPS. However, since the Attorney General did not make this determination at least 60 days before the end of the current designation, the designation is automatically extended by section 244(b)(3)(C) of the Act for an additional 6 months. The termination will therefore take effect at the end of the 6-month extension.
Persons previously granted TPS under the Bosnia-Herzegovina designation may apply for the 6-month extension by filing the Form I-821, Application for Temporary Protected Status, without the fee, during the re-registration period that begins August 30, 2000 and ends September 29, 2000. Additionally, those applying must file the Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization. See the chart below to determine whether or not you must submit the $100 filing fee with the Form I-765.
To re-register for TPS, you must also include two identification photographs (1
Yes, in addition to timely re-registration, late initial registration is possible for some persons from Bosnia-Herzegovina under 8 CFR 244.2(f)(2).
To apply for late initial registration an applicant must:
• Be a national of Bosnia-Herzegovina (or an alien having no nationality who last habitually resided in Bosnia-Herzegovina);
• Have been continuously physically present in the United States since August 10, 1992;
• Have continuously resided in the United States since August 10, 1992; and
• Be admissible as an immigrant, except as otherwise provided in section 244(c) of the Act.
Additionally, the applicant for late initial registration must be able to demonstrate that, during the initial registration period, he or she:
• Was a nonimmigrant, or was granted voluntary departure or any relief from removal;
• Had an application for change of status, adjustment of status, asylum, voluntary departure, or any relief from removal pending or subject to further review;
• Was a parolee or had a pending request for reparole; or
• Is the spouse or child of an alien currently eligible to be a TPS registrant.
An applicant for late initial registration must register no later than 60 days from the expiration or termination of the qualifying condition.
You may register for the extension of TPS by submitting an application and accompanying materials to the Immigration and Naturalization Service's local office that has jurisdiction over your place of residence.
The 30-day re-registration period begins August 30, 2000, and will remain in effect until September 29, 2000.
There may be other avenues of immigration protection or relief available to aliens who are nationals of Bosnia-Herzegovina (and aliens having no nationality who last habitually
After the designation of Bosnia-Herzegovina for TPS is terminated on February 10, 2001, those aliens who are nationals of Bosnia-Herzegovina (and aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Bosnia-Herzegovina) will revert back to the immigration status they had prior to TPS, unless they have been granted another immigration status. The stay of removal and eligibility for employment authorization due to the designation of Bosnia-Herzegovina for TPS will no longer be available. The termination of the TPS designation for Bosnia-Herzegovina, however, will not affect any pending applications for other forms of immigration relief.
Those persons who were granted TPS under the Bosnia-Herzegovina designation may begin accruing unlawful presence as of February 10, 2001, if they have not been granted any other immigration benefit or have no application for such a benefit pending. Aliens who accrue certain periods of unlawful presence in the United States may be barred from admission to the United States under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) of the Act. See 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i).
By the authority vested in me as Attorney General under section 244(b)(3) of the Act, I have consulted with the appropriate agencies of Government concerning conflict and security conditions in Bosnia-Herzegovina. 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3). Based on these consultations, I have determined that Bosnia-Herzegovina no longer meets the conditions for designation of TPS under section 233(b)(1) of the Act. See 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1).
I understand that, although Bosnia-Herzegovina is still rebuilding from the war, persons can return to Bosnia-Herzegovina in safety. In view of the recommendations of the Departments of Justice and State for termination, I terminate the designation of Bosnia-Herzegovina under the TPS program. However, Since I did not make this determination at least 60 days before the expiration of the designation, the designation is automatically extended for 6 months, until February 10, 2001.
Accordingly, I order as follows:
(1) The designation of Bosnia-Herzegovina for TPS under section 244(b) of the Act is terminated effective February 10, 2001.
(2) I estimate that there are no more than 400 nationals of Bosnia-Herzegovina (and aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Bosnia-Herzegovina) who have been previously granted TPS.
(3) Information concerning the termination of the TPS program for nationals of Bosnia-Herzegovina (and aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Bosnia-Herzegovina) will be available at local Service offices upon publication of this notice or at the Service's website at http://www.ins.usdoj.gov.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463 as amended), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Steering Subcommittee of the Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy.
Jorge Perez-Lopez, Director, Office of International Economic Affairs; Phone: (202) 219-7579.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment.
The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of charge
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by September 29, 2000. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. Amy Farrell, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0090), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Comments can also be submitted by telephone at (202) 395-3087.
The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, 301-415-7233.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment.
The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW (lower level), Washington, DC. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide web site (http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/PUBLIC/OMB/index.html). The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice.
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by September 29, 2000. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. Amy Farrell, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0066), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Comments can also be submitted by telephone at (202) 395-3087.
The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, 301-415-7233.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of Wisconsin Electric Power Company (the licensee) to withdraw its February 28, 1998, application for amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27 for the Point Beach Nuclear Plants, Units 1 and 2, respectively, located in Two Rivers, Wisconsin.
The proposed amendments would have modified the following six Technical Specification sections: (1) 15.3.6, “Containment System,” bases; (2) 15.3.12, “Control Room Emergency Filtration,” including bases; (3) 15.4.4, “Containment Tests,” bases; (4) 15.4.11 “Control Room Emergency Filtration,” including bases; (5) 15.6.8, “Plant Operating Procedures;” and (6) 15.6.12, “Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program.”
The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendments dated February 26, 1998, as supplemented July 12, 1999, and the licensee's letter dated August 17, 2000, which withdrew the application for license amendment. The above documents are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and accessible electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of public workshop.
This notice announces a Public Workshop to discuss current issues associated with the design and placement of erosion protection. The goal of the workshop will be to provide a forum for NRC staff to discuss, with the NRC licensees and other interested stakeholders, NRC's process for evaluating the erosion protection aspects of reclamation plans, decommissioning plans, and completion reports. Other erosion protection issues associated with the closure and reclamation of radioactive waste sites will also be discussed.
The workshop will be held at the Adam's Mark Hotel in Grand Junction, Colorado on October 3-4, 2000, beginning at 8:15 a.m.
Over the past 15 years, various licensees and the Department of Energy (DOE) have completed reclamation activities at over 20 uranium mill tailings sites across the United States. At most of these sites, a significant amount of rock riprap erosion protection was placed to protect the reclaimed tailings piles from erosion. NRC staff review of construction activities at these sites indicated that some were deficient in meeting construction specifications, particularly in the placement of the rock layers and in achieving the proper in-place gradations. The NRC staff has determined that some of the placement problems were related to inadequate quality assurance and testing programs, inexperience of contractor construction personnel with rock placement, an insufficient knowledge of standard industry practice, and an insufficient understanding of the quality of rock placement expected by the NRC staff to meet regulatory requirements.
The NRC staff held a rock placement workshop in 1999 for the benefit of agreement states to discuss various technical issues associated with rock placement. As part of our continuing efforts to involve the regulated community and other stakeholders in our reclamation approval activities, we will hold an expanded workshop on October 3-4, 2000 to discuss current issues related to riprap design and placement at various types of waste disposal facilities. The workshop will focus primarily on riprap placement, with recommendations for improving rock placement by using proper placement techniques and specific design techniques. The staff seeks to obtain perspectives from other regulators, agreement states, licensees, consultants, and other interested stakeholders.
The workshop will be held at the Adam's Mark Hotel in Grand Junction, Colorado on October 3-4, 2000, beginning at 8:15 a.m. The preliminary agenda for the first day includes presentations by:
(1) NRC staff, discussing experiences, regulatory requirements, expectations, and recommendations for achieving acceptable rock placement;
(2) NRC consultants, presenting the history and development of design guidance, including videotapes of prototype flume studies that simulate large flood flows over riprap layers;
(3) regulators from agreement states, providing their perspectives and experiences with rock placement;
(4) NRC licensees, discussing their perspective and experiences in meeting regulatory requirements;
(5) licensee contractors, discussing actual construction techniques that have been used to achieve acceptable rock placement and providing recommendations for designers;
(6) DOE representatives discussing the history of the DOE Title I program, the long-term surveillance and maintenance program, and the evolution and development of successful rock placement techniques;
(7) licensee consultants, discussing their experiences with riprap design and placement; and
(8) other interested parties, who may wish to provide input.
On October 4, 2000, site tours will be conducted at several sites where rock placement has been reviewed and approved by the NRC staff. These sites include Grand Junction (Cheney Reservoir) and Naturita (Umetco Upper Burbank). In addition, rock placement at the Umetco Title II site, regulated by the State of Colorado, will be observed.
The workshop is free and will be open to the public. Hotel accommodations and transportation are the responsibility of each participant. A block of rooms has been set aside at the Adam's Mark Hotel, (970) 241-8888, until September 22, 2000. These rooms are available at the government rate of $55 plus tax, and reservations should be made as early as possible. Rental cars are available from major rental car companies at the Grand Junction airport.
The NRC staff strongly encourages all interested stakeholders to attend and participate in this workshop. It will offer a unique opportunity for NRC staff and the industry to provide insights, perspectives, and information that is important for the NRC staff to consider as it seeks ways to improve its regulatory program.
Ted Johnson, Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS/FCSS/FCLB), at (301) 415-6658 or e-mail at TLJ@NRC.GOV. In addition, to obtain an approximate estimate of the total number of participants and equipment needed, please contact Mr. Johnson if you plan to attend the workshop or if you have specific audio-visual requirements.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of August 28, September 4, 11, 18, 25, and October 2, 2000.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of August 28.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of September 4.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of September 11.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of September 18.
* THE SCHEDULE FOR COMMISSION MEETINGS IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE ON SHORT NOTICE. TO VERIFY THE STATUS OF MEETINGS CALL (RECORDING)—(301) 415-1292. CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Bill Hill (301) 415-1661.
By a vote of 5-0 on August 21, the Commission determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and § 9.107(a) of the Commission's rules that “Affirmation of HYDRO RESOURCES, INC. Motion for Partial Reconsideration of CLI-00-08” be held on August 21, and on less than one week's notice to the public.
By a vote of 5-0 on August 21, the Commission determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and § 9.107(a) of the Commission's rules that “Discussion of Intragovernmental Issues (Closed Ex. 4 and 9)” be held on August 21, and on less than one week's notice to the public.
By a vote of 5-0 on August 24, the Commission determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and § 9.107(a) of the Commission's rules that “Affirmation of Proposed License to Export Highly Enriched Uranium to the Netherlands for Use as Fuel in the High Flux Reactor in Petten (Application No. XSNM02611—Revised)” be held on August 24, and on less than one week's notice to the public.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
http://www.nrc.gov/SECY/smj/schedule.htm
This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to it, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Attn: Operations Branch, Washington, D.C. 20555 (301-415-1661). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to wmh@nrc.gov or dkw@nrc.gov.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”).
Notice of Application for an order of exemption under Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“the Act”) for exemptions from the provisions of Sections 9(a), 13(a), 15(a) and 15(b) of the Act and Rules 6e-2(b)(15) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15) thereunder.
Applicants seek an order to the extent necessary to permit shares of any current or future series of Nationwide Separate Account Trust (“NSAT”) and shares of any investment company or series thereof now or in the future registered under the Act that is designed to fund insurance products and for which Villanova Mutual Fund Capital Trust, or any of its affiliates (“VMF”), may serve as investment adviser, administrator, manager, principal underwriter or sponsor (NSAT and such other investment companies are referred to collectively as “NSAT”), to be sold to and held by (1) variable annuity and variable life insurance separate accounts of both affiliated and unaffiliated life insurance companies; and (2) qualified pension and retirement plans.
Nationwide Separate Account Trust and Villanova Mutual Fund Capital Trust. NSAT and VMF are, collectively, referred to herein as the “Applicants.”
The application was filed on May 16, 2000.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on the application by writing to the Secretary of the SEC and serving Applicants with a copy of the request, in person or by mail. Hearing requests must be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on September 18, 2000, and accompanied by proof of service on the Applicants in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Person may request notification of the date of a hearing by writing to the Secretary of the SEC.
Secretary, SEC, 450 5th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Applicants, c/o Dina A. Tantra, Counsel, Nationwide Insurance, One Nationwide Plaza, 1-35-13, Columbus, Ohio 43215.
Rebecca A. Marquigny, Senior Counsel, or Keith Carpenter, Branch Chief, Office of Insurance Products, Division of Investment Management, (202) 942-0670.
Following is a summary of the application. The complete application is available for a fee from the SEC's Public Reference Branch, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0102 (tel. (202) 942-8090).
1. NSAT is an open-end investment company organized under the laws of Massachusetts by Declaration of Trust. NSAT currently is comprised of 21 separate series, not all of which have yet commenced operations; additional series may be added in the future.
2. VMF is a registered investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) and is an indirect, majority-owned subsidiary of Nationwide Financial Services, Inc., a provider, through its subsidiaries and affiliates of diversified financial services. VMF serves as the investment adviser for each current series of NSAT.
3. NSAT currently offers its shares to affiliated insurance companies' separate accounts to fund the benefits under variable contracts and variable life insurance policies. NSAT also proposes to offer its shares to both affiliated and unaffiliated insurance companies for their separate accounts as the underlying investment vehicle to fund either variable annuity or variable life insurance policies or contracts (collectively, “Variable Contracts”). Affiliated and unaffiliated separate accounts owning shares of NSAT and their insurance company depositors are
4. NSAT also proposes to offer one or more series of its shares directly to qualified pension and retirement plans (“Qualified Plans”) outside the separate account context. The Qualified Plans will be pension or retirement plans intended to qualify under Sections 401(a) and 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (“Code”). NSAT's shares will be sold to Qualified Plans which are, or are designed to be, subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1984 (“ERISA”), as amended.
5. The Participating Insurance Companies will establish their own Participating Separate Accounts and design their own contracts. Each Participating Insurance Company will enter into a fund participation agreement with NSAT on behalf of its Participating Separate Account will have the legal obligation of satisfying all requirements under state and federal law. The role of NSAT, so far as the federal securities laws are applicable, will be to offer their shares to separate accounts of Participating Insurance Companies and to Qualified Plans and to fulfill any conditions that the Commission may impose upon granting the order requested in the application.
6. Qualified Plans may choose NSAT (or any series thereof) as their sole investment or as one of several investments. Qualified Plan participants may or may not be given an investment choice depending on the Qualified Plan itself. Shares of NSAT sold to Qualified Plans would be held by the trustee(s) of the Qualified Plans as mandated by Section 403(a) of ERISA. VMF will not act as investment adviser to any of the Qualified Plans that will purchase shares of NSAT. There will be no pass-through voting to the participants in such Qualified Plans as it is not required to be provided under ERISA.
1. Applicants request that the Commission issue an order pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Act granting exemptive relief from Sections 9(a), 13(a), 15(a) and 15(b) of the Act and Rules 6e-2(b)(15) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15) (including any comparable provisions of a rule that replaces Rule 6e-3(T)) thereunder, respectively to the extent necessary to permit shares of NSAT to be offered and sold to variable annuity and variable life insurance separate accounts of both affiliated and unaffiliated insurance companies and to Qualified Plans. Applicants submit that the exemptions requested are appropriate in the public interest, consistent with the protection of investors, and consistent with the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides, in part, that the Commission, by order upon application, may conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person, security or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions from any provisions of the Act or the rules or regulations thereunder, if and to the extent such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy of the Act.
3. In connection with the funding of scheduled premium variable life insurance contracts issued through a separate account registered under the Act as a unit investment trust, Rule 6e-2(b)(15) provides partial exemptions from Section 9(a) of the Act, which makes it unlawful for certain individuals to act in the capacity of employee, officer, or director for a UIT, by limiting the application of the eligibility restrictions in Section 9(a) to affiliated persons directly participating in the management of a registered investment company; and Sections 13(a), 15(a), and 15(b) of the Act to the extent those Sections might be deemed to require “pass through voting” with respect to an underlying fund's shares, by allowing an insurance company to disregard voting instructions of contract owners in certain circumstances. The exemptions granted by Rule 6e-2(b)(15) are available, however, only where the management investment company underlying the separate account (“Underlying Fund”) offers its shares “exclusively to variable life insurance separate accounts of the life insurer or any affiliated life insurance company.* * *” Therefore, the relief granted by Rule 6e-2(b)(15) is not available with respect to a scheduled premium variable life insurance separate account that owns shares of an underlying fund that also offers its shares to a variable annuity or flexible premium variable life insurance company. The use of a common management investment company as the underlying investment medium for both variable annuity and variable life insurance separate accounts of the same insurance company or of any affiliated life insurance company is referred to herein as “mixed funding.” In addition, the relief granted by Rule 6e-2(b)(15) is not available if shares of the underlying management investment company are offered to variable annuity or variable life insurance separate accounts of unaffiliated life insurance companies. The use of a common management investment company as the underlying investment medium for separate accounts of unaffiliated life insurance companies is referred to herein as “shared funding.” Rule 6e-2(b)(15) also does not permit the sale of shares of the underlying fund to Qualified Plans.
4. In connection with the funding of flexible premium variable life insurance contracts issued through a separate account, Rule 6e-3(T)(b)(15) provides partial exemptions from Sections 9(a), 13(a), and 15(a) and 15(b) of the Act. The exemptions granted by Rule 6e-3(T)(b)(15) are available, however, only where the separate account's underlying fund offers its shares “exclusively to separate accounts of the life insurer, or of any affiliated life insurance company, offering either scheduled contracts or flexible contracts, or both; or which also offer their shares to variable annuity separate accounts of the life insurer or of an affiliated life insurance company, or which offer their shares to any such life insurance company in consideration solely for advances made by the life insurer in connection with the operation of the separate account * * * ” Therefore, Rule 6e-3(T)(b)(15) permits mixed funding with respect to a flexible premium variable life insurance separate account. However, Rule 6e-3(T)(b)(15) does not permit shared funding because the relief granted by Rule 6e-3(T)(b)(15) is not available with respect to a flexible premium variable life insurance separate account that owns shares of a management investment company that also offers its shares to separate accounts (including flexible premium variable life insurance separate accounts) of unaffiliated life insurance companies and also does not permit the sale of the underlying funds to Qualified Plans.
5. Applicants state that the relief granted by Rules 6e-2(b)(15) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15) is not affected by the purchase of shares of NST by a Qualified Plan. However, because the relief under Rules 6e-2(b)(15) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15) is available only where shares of the underling fund are offered exclusively to separate accounts, exemptive relief is necessary if shares of NSAT are also to be sold to Qualified Plans.
6. Applicants state that the current tax law permits NSAT to increase its asset base through the sale of shares to Qualified Plans. Section 817(h) of the Code imposes certain diversification standards on the underlying assets of the variable contracts. The Code provides that such contracts shall not be
7. Applicants state that the promulgation of Rules 6e-2(b)(15) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15) of the Act preceded the issuance of these Treasury regulations which made it possible for shares of a fund to be held by the trustee of a Qualified Plan without adversely affecting the ability of shares of NSAT to also be held by the separate accounts of insurance companies in connection with their variable life insurance contracts. Thus, Applicants assert that the sale of shares of the same investment company both to separate accounts through which variable life insurance contracts are issued and Qualified Plans could not have been contemplated at the time of the adoption of Rules 6e-2(b)(15) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15), given the then-current tax law.
8. Applicants assert that if NSAT were to sell shares only to Qualified Plans or to separate accounts funding variable annuity contracts, no exemptive relief would be necessary. Applicants state that none of the relief provided under Rules 6e-2(b)(15) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15) relates to Qualified Plans or to a registered investment company's ability to sell its shares to such purchasers. Exemptive relief is requested in the application only because some of the separate accounts that will invest in NSAT (or series thereof) may themselves be investment companies that rely on Rules 6e-2 and 6e-3(T) and that desire to have the relief continue in place.
9. In general, Section 9(a) of the Act disqualifies any person convicted of certain offenses, and any company affiliated with that person, from serving in various capacities with respect to an underlying registered management investment company. More specifically, Section 9(a)(3) of the Act provides that it is unlawful for any registered open-end investment company to act as investment adviser to, or principal underwriter for, any registered open-end investment company if an affiliated person of that company is subject to a disqualification enumerated in Sections 9(a)(1) or (2). Rules 6e-2(b)(15)(i) and (ii), and 6e-3(T)(b)(15)(i) and (ii) provide partial exemptions from Section 9(a) under certain circumstances, subject to the limitations on mixed and shared funding. These exemptions limit the application of eligibility restrictions to affiliated individuals or companies that directly participate in the management of the underlying management investment company.
10. Applicants state that the relief provided by Rules 6e-2(b)(15) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15) permits the life insurer to serve as the underlying fund's investment adviser or principal underwriter, provided that none of the insurer's personnel who are ineligible pursuant to Section 9(a) are participating in the management or administration of NSAT. Applicants state that the partial relief from Section 9(a) provided by Rules 6e-2(b)(15) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15), in effect, limits the amount of monitoring necessary to ensure compliance with Section 9 to that which is appropriate in light of the policy and purposes of Section 9. Applicants assert that it is not necessary for the protection of investors or the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act to apply the provisions of Section 9(a) to the many individuals in an insurance company complex, most of whom typically will have no involvement in matters pertaining to investment companies funding the separate accounts. Applicants assert that it also is unnecessary to apply the restrictions of Section 9(a) to the many individuals in various unaffiliated insurance companies (or affiliated companies of participating insurance companies) that may utilize the funds as a funding medium for variable contracts. Moreover, Applicants state that the appropriateness of the relief requested will not be affected by the proposed sale of shares of NSAT to Qualified Plans, because the insulation of NSAT from those individuals who are disqualified under the Act remains in place.
11. Applicants state that Rules 6e-2(b)(15)(iii) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15)(iii) under the Act provide exemptions from the pass-through voting requirements with respect to several significant matters, assuming the limitations on mixed and shared funding are observed. Rules 6e-2(b)(15)(iii)(A) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15)(iii)(A) provide that an insurance company may disregard the voting instructions of the contract owners with respect to the investments of an underlying fund or any contract between a fund and its investment adviser, when required to do so by an insurance regulating authority (subject to the provisions of paragraphs (b)(5)(i) and (b)(7)(ii)(A) of the Rules). Rules 6e-2(b)(15)(iii)(B) and 6e-3(T)(b)(15)(iii)(A)(2) provide the insurance company may disregard contract owners' voting instructions if the contract owners initiate any change in such company's investment policies, principal underwriter, or any investment advisor (provided that disregarding such voting instructions is reasonable and subject to other provisions of paragraphs (b)(5)(ii) and (b)(7)(ii)(B) and (C) of the Rules).
12. Applicants further represent that the sale of NSAT shares to Qualified Plans should not affect the relief requested. With respect to Qualified Plans, there is no requirement to pass-through voting rights to Qualified Plan participants. Shares of the Funds sold to Qualified Plans would be held by the trustees of such Qualified Plans as mandated by Section 403(a) of ERISA. Section 403(a) also provides that the trustees must have exclusive authority and discretion to manage and control the Plan with two exceptions: (1) When the Qualified Plan expressly provides that the trustees are subject to the direction of a named fiduciary who is not a trustee, in which case the trustees are subject to proper directions made in accordance with the terms of the Qualified Plan and not contrary to ERISA; and (2) when the authority to manage, acquire or dispose of assets of the Plan is delegated to one or more investment managers pursuant to Section 402(c)(3) of ERISA. Unless one of the two exceptions stated in Section 403(a) applies. the Plan trustees have exclusive authority and responsibility for voting proxies.
13. Applicants state that where a named fiduciary appoints an investment manager, the investment manager has the responsibility to vote the shares held unless the right to vote such shares is reserved to the trustees or the named fiduciary. Accordingly, Applicants submit that unlike the case with insurance company separate accounts, the issue of the resolution of material irreconcilable conflicts with respect to voting is not present with respect to Qualified Plans since such Qualified Plans are not entitled to pass-through voting privileges.
14. Applicants generally expect many Qualified Plans to have their trustee(s) or other fiduciaries exercise voting rights attributable to investment
15. Applicants submit that even if a Qualified Plan were to hold a controlling interest in NSAT, such control would not disadvantage other investors in NSAT to any greater extent than is the case when any institutional shareholder holds a majority of the voting securities of any open-end management investment company. In this regard, Applicants submit that investment in NSAT by a Qualified Plan will not create any of the voting complications occasioned by mixed and shared funding. Unlike mixed or shared funding, Qualified Plan investor voting rights cannot be frustrated by veto rights of insurers or state regulators.
16. Applicants state that no increased conflicts of interest would be presented by the granting of the requested relief. Applicants assert that shared funding does not present any issues that do not already exist where a single insurance company is licensed to do business in several states. Applicants note that where different Participating Insurance Companies are domiciled in different states, it is possible that the state insurance regulatory body in a state in which one Participating Insurance Company is domiciled could require action that is inconsistent with the requirements of other insurance regulators in one or more other states in which other Participating Insurance Companies are domiciled. Applicants submit that this possibility is no different or greater than exists where a single insurer and its affiliates offer their insurance products in several states.
17. Applicants further submit that affiliation does not reduce the potential for differences in state regulatory requirements. In any event, the conditions discussed below are designed to safeguard against any adverse effects that these differences may produce. If a particular state insurance regulator's decision conflicts with the majority of other state regulators, the affected insurer may be required to withdraw its Participating Separate Account's investment in NSAT.
18. Applicants also argue that affiliation does not eliminate the potential, if any exists, for divergent judgments as to when a Participating Insurance Company could disregard contract owner voting instructions. Potential disagreement is limited by the requirement that disregarding voting instructions be both reasonable and based on specified good faith determinations. However, if a Participating Insurance Company's decision to disregard Contract owner voting instructions represents a minority position or would preclude a majority vote approving a particular change, such Participating Insurance Company may be required, at the election of NSAT, to withdraw its separate account investment in NSAT. No charge or penalty will be imposed as a result of such a withdrawal.
19. Applicants submit that there is no reason why the investment policies of NSAT with mixed funding would, or should, be materially different from what those policies would, or should, be if NSAT supported only variable annuity or only variable life insurance contracts. Hence, Applicants state, there is no reason to believe that conflicts of interest would result from mixed funding. Moreover, Applicants represent that NSAT will not be managed to favor or disfavor any particular insurer or type of contract.
20. As noted above, Section 817(h) of the Code imposes certain diversification standards on the assets underlying the variable contracts held in the portfolios of management investment companies. Treasury Regulation Section 1.817-5(f)(3)(iii), which establishes diversification requirements for such portfolios, specifically permits, among other things, “qualified pension or retirement plans” and separate accounts to share the same underlying management investment company. Therefore, Applicants assert that neither the Code, the Treasury regulations, nor the revenue rulings thereunder, recognize or proscribe any inherent conflicts of interest if qualified plans, variable annuity separate accounts, and variable life separate accounts all invest in the same management investment company.
21. Applicants note that while there are differences in the manner in which distributions from variable contracts and Qualified Plans are taxed, the tax consequences do not raise any conflicts of interest. When distributions are to be made, and the Participating Separate Account or a Qualified Plan cannot net purchase payments to make the distributions, the Participating Separate Account or Qualified Plan will redeem shares of NSAT at their net asset value in conformity with Rule 22c-1 under the Act to provide proceeds to meet distribution needs. The Qualified Plan will then make distributions in accordance with the terms of the Qualified Plan. The life insurance company will surrender values from the separate account into the general account to make distributions in accordance with the terms of the Variable Contract.
22. Applicants state that the sale of shares to Qualified Plans should not increase the potential for material irreconcilable conflicts of interest between or among different types of investors. Applicants submit that there should be very little potential for such conflicts beyond that which would otherwise exist between variable annuity and variable life insurance contract owners.
23. Applicants also state that it is possible to provide an equitable means of giving voting rights to Participating Separate Account contract owners and to Qualified Plans. The transfer agent for NSAT will inform each Participating Insurance Company of each Participating Separate Account's share ownership in NSAT, as well as inform the trustees of Qualified Plans of their holdings. The Participating Insurance company then will solicit voting instructions in accordance with Rules 6e-2 and 6e-3(T), as applicable, and its participation agreement with NSAT. Shares held by Qualified Plans will be voted in accordance with applicable law. The voting rights provided to Qualified Plans with respect to shares of NSAT would be no different from the voting rights that are provided to Qualified Plans with respect to shares of funds sold to the general public.
24. Applicants submit that the ability of NSAT to sell its shares directly to Qualified Plans does not create a “senior security,” as such term is defined under Section 18(g) of the Act, with respect to any contract owner as opposed to a Qualified Plan participant.
25. Applicants state that there are no conflicts between the contract owners of Participating Separate Accounts and Plan participants with respect to the state insurance commissioners' veto powers over investment objectives. The basic premise of shareholder voting is that shareholders may not all agree with a particular proposal. While interests and opinions of shareholders may differ, however, this does not mean that there are any inherent conflicts of interest between or among such shareholders. State insurance commissioners have been given the veto power in recognition of the fact that insurance companies usually cannot simply redeem their separate accounts out of one fund and invest in another. Generally, complex and time-consuming transactions must be undertaken to accomplish such redemptions and transfers. Conversely, trustees of Qualified Plans can make the decision quickly and redeem their shares of NSAT and reinvest in another funding vehicle without the same regulatory impediments faced by separate accounts, or, as is the case with most Qualified Plans, even hold cash pending a suitable investment. Based on the foregoing, Applicants represent that even should the interests of contract owners and the interests of Qualified Plans conflict, the conflicts can be resolved almost immediately because the trustees of the Qualified Plans can, independently, redeem shares out of NSAT.
26. Applicants also assert that there does not appear to be any greater potential for material irreconcilable conflicts arising between the interests of Qualified Plan participants and contract owners of Participating Insurance Companies from possible future changes in the federal tax laws than that which already exists between variable annuity and variable life insurance contract owners.
27. Applicants believe that the summary of the discussion contained herein demonstrates that the sale of shares of NSAT to qualified plans and variable contracts does not increase the risk of material irreconcilable conflicts of interest. Furthermore, Applicants state that the use of NSAT with respect to Qualified Plans is not substantially different from NSAT's current use, in that Qualified Plans, like variable contracts, are generally long-term retirement vehicles. In addition, Applicants assert that regardless of the type of shareholder in NSAT, VMF is or would be contractually or otherwise obligated to manage NSAT solely and exclusively in accordance with NSAT's investment objectives, policies and restrictions as well as any guidelines established by NSAT's Board of Trustees.
28. Applicants assert that various factors have prevented more insurance companies from offering variable annuity and variable life insurance contracts than currently do so. These factors include the costs of organizing and operating a funding medium, the lack of expertise with respect to investment management, and the lack of public name recognition as investment professionals. In particular, some smaller life insurance companies may not find it economically feasible, or within their investment or administrative expertise, to enter the variable contract business on their own. Applicants assert that use of NSAT as a common investment medium for variable contracts would ameliorate these concerns. Participating Insurance companies would benefit not only from the investment advisory and administrative expertise of VMF and its affiliates, but also from the cost efficiencies and investment flexibility afforded by a large pool of funds. Applicants submit that therefore, making NSAT available for mixed and shared funding will encourage more insurance companies to offer variable contracts. Applicants claim that this should result in increased competition with respect to both variable contract design and pricing, which can be expected to result in more product variation and lower charges. Moreover, the sale of the shares of NSAT to Qualified Plans should further increase the amount of assets available for investment by NSAT. This in turn, should inure to the benefit of contract owners by promoting economies of scale, by permitting greater safety through greater diversification, and by making the addition of new portfolios to NSAT more feasible.
29. Applicants assert that there is no significant legal impediment to permitting mixed and shared funding and sales of Fund shares to Qualified Plans.
Applicants consent to the following conditions if the application is granted:
1. A majority of the Board of Trustees or Board of Directors (“Board”) of NSAT shall consist of persons who are not “interested persons” of NSAT, as defined by Section 2(a)(19) of the Act and the Rules thereunder and as modified by any applicable orders of the Commission, except that if this condition is not met by reason of the death, disqualification, or bona fide resignation of any trustee or director, then the operation of this condition shall be suspended: (a) For a period of 45 days if the vacancy or vacancies may be filled by the Board; (b) for a period of 60 days if a vote of shareholders is required to fill the vacancy or vacancies; or (c) for such longer period as the Commission may prescribe by rule, or by order upon application.
2. The Board will monitor NSAT for the existence of any material irreconcilable conflict among the interests of the contract owners of all Participating Separate Accounts and of the participants of Qualified Plans investing in NSAT. A material irreconcilable conflict may arise for a variety of reasons, including: (a) An action by any state insurance regulatory authority; (b) a change in applicable federal or state insurance, tax, or securities laws or regulations, or a public ruling, private letter ruling, no-action or interpretative letter, or any similar action by insurance, tax, or securities regulatory authorities; (c) an administrative or judicial decision in any relevant proceeding; (e) a difference in voting instructions given by variable annuity contract owners and variable life insurance contract owners; (f) a decision by an insurer to disregard the voting instructions of contract owners; or (g) if applicable, a decision by a Plan to disregard voting instructions of Plan participants.
3. Participating Insurance Companies, VMF, any other investment adviser to any series of NSAT, and any Qualified Plans that execute a fund participation agreement upon becoming an owner of 10% or more of the assets of NSAT (“Participants”) will report any potential or existing conflicts to the Board. Participants will be responsible for assisting the Board in carrying out its responsibilities under these conditions by providing the Board with all information reasonable necessary for the Board to consider any issues raised. This responsibility includes, but is not limited to, an obligation by each Participating Insurance Company to inform the Board whenever it has determined to disregard contract owner voting instructions and, when pass-through voting is applicable, an obligation of each Qualified Plan to inform the Board whenever it has determined to disregard voting
4. If it is determined by a majority of the Board, or a majority of its disinterested trustees or directors, that a material irreconcilable conflict exists, the relevant Participating Insurance Companies and Qualified Plans, at their expense and to the extent reasonably practicable (as determined by a majority of the disinterested trustees or directors), shall take whatever steps are necessary to remedy or eliminate the material irreconcilable conflict. Such steps could include: (a) Withdrawing the assets allocable to some or all of the separate accounts from NSAT or any series thereof and reinvesting such assets in a different investment medium which may include another series of NSAT; (b) in the case of Participating Insurance Companies, submitting the question as to whether such segregation should be implemented to a vote of all affected contract owners and, as appropriate, segregating the assets of any appropriate group (
For purposes of Condition 4, a majority of the disinterested members of the Board shall determine whether or not any proposed action adequately remedies any material irreconcilable conflict but in no event will NSAT, or VMF (or any other investment adviser) be required to establish a new funding medium for any variable contract. No Participating Insurance Company shall be required by Condition 4 to establish a new funding medium for any variable contract if an offer to do so has been declined by a vote of the majority of contract owners materially and adversely affected by the material irreconcilable conflict. No Qualified Plan shall be required by this Condition 4 to establish a new funding medium for such Qualified Plan if: (a) An offer to do so has been declined by a vote of a majority of Qualified Plan participants materially and adversely affected by the irreconcilable material conflict, or (b) pursuant to governing Qualified Plan documents and applicable law, such Qualified Plan makes such decision without a vote of its participants.
5. Participants will be informed promptly in writing of the Board's determination of the existence of a material irreconcilable conflict and its implications.
6. Participating Insurance Companies will provide pass-through voting privileges to contract owners who invest in Participating Separate Accounts so long as the Commission continues to interpret the Act as requiring pass-through voting privileges for contract owners. Accordingly, Participating Insurance Companies will vote shares of NSAT or series thereof held in Participating Separate Accounts in a manner consistent with voting instructions timely received from contract owners. In addition, each Participating Insurance Company will vote shares of NSAT, or series thereof, held in its separate accounts for which it has not received timely voting instructions as well as shares it owns, in the same proportion as those shares for which it has received voting instructions. Participating Insurance Companies will be responsible for assuring that each of their Participating Separate Accounts calculate voting privileges in a manner consistent with all other Participating Insurance Companies. The obligation to vote NSAT's shares and calculate voting privileges in a manner consistent with all other Participating Separate Accounts shall be a contractual obligation of all Participating Insurance Companies under the agreements governing participation in NSAT. Each Plan will vote as required by applicable law and governing Plan documents.
7. All reports of potential or existing conflicts of interest received by the Board, and all Board action with regard to: (a) Determining the existence of a conflict; (b) notifying Participants of a conflict; and (c) determining whether any proposed action adequately remedies a conflict, will be properly recorded in the minutes of the Board or other appropriate records and such minutes or other records shall be made available to the Commission upon request.
8. NSAT will notify all Participating Insurance Companies and Qualified Plans that disclosure in separate account prospectuses or plan prospectuses or other plan disclosure documents regarding potential risks of mixed and shared funding may be appropriate. NSAT shall disclose in its prospectus that: (a) Its shares are offered to insurance company separate accounts which fund both annuity and life insurance contracts, (b) due to differences in tax treatment and other considerations, the interests of various contract owners participating in NSAT and the interest of Qualified Plans investing in NSAT may conflict, and (c) the Board will monitor for the existence of any material conflicts and determine what action, if any, should be taken.
9. NSAT will comply with all provisions of the Act requiring voting by shareholders (for these purposes, the persons having a voting interest in the shares of NSAT). In particular, NSAT will either provide for annual meetings (except to the extent that the Commission may interpret Section 16 of the Act not to require such meetings) or comply with Section 16(c) of the Act (although NSAT is not one of the trusts described in Section 16(c) of the Act) as well as with Section 16(a) and, if and when applicable, Section 16(b) of the Act. Further, NSAT will act in accordance with the Commission's interpretation of the requirements of Section 16(a) with respect to periodic elections of Board members and with whatever rules the Commission may promulgate with respect thereto.
10. If and to the extent Rule 6e-2 and Rule 6e-3(T) are amended, or Rule 6e-3 under the Act is adopted, to provide exemptive relief from any provision of the Act or the rules thereunder with respect to mixed or shared funding on terms and conditions materially different from any exemptions granted in the order requested by Applicants, then NSAT and/or Participating Insurance Companies, as appropriate, shall take such steps as may be necessary to comply with Rules 6e-2 and 6e-3(T), as amended, and proposed Rule 6e-3, as adopted, to the extent applicable.
11. No less than annually, the Participants shall submit to the Board such reports, materials or data as the Board may reasonably request so that the Board may carry out fully the obligations imposed upon it by the conditions contained in the Application. Such reports, materials and data shall be submitted more frequently if deemed appropriate by the Board. The obligations of the Participants to provide these reports, materials, and data to the Board when it so reasonably requests shall be a contractual obligation of all Participants under the agreements governing their participation in NSAT.
12. NSAT and its respective series will not accept a purchase from a Qualified Plan or a Qualified Plan participant shareholder if such purchase would make the shareholder an owner of 10% or more of the shares of any series of NSAT, unless such Qualified Plan executes a participation agreement including the conditions of the Application set forth herein, to the extent applicable. A qualified Plan or Qualified Plan participant will execute an application containing an acknowledgement of this condition at the time of its initial purchase of shares of any series of NSAT.
For the reasons and upon the facts stated above, Applicants assert that the requested exemptions are appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to codify its current practice of documenting the reasons for certain actions taken by Exchange officials with respect to its operation of the Retail Automatic Execution System (“RAES”). The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change as constituting a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing Exchange rule.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the CBOE and the Commission.
In its filing with the Commission, the CBOE included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to add an Interpretation to Exchange Rule 6.8, RAES Operations (“RAES Rule”), in order to codify the Exchange's existing practice of documenting the reasons for actions taken by Exchange officials that result either in the deactivation of RAES or in the operation of RAES in other than the normal manner (“RAES Action” or “RAES Actions”).
The RAES Rule details the operation of the Exchange's RAES system, including which orders are eligible for execution on RAES; how eligible order size is determined; how execution price is determined; how market-makers are assigned to RAES trades; when otherwise eligible orders are rejected from RAES for manual handling; and under what circumstances RAES may be disengaged. Furthermore, Exchange Rule 6.6, Unusual Market Conditions (“Fast Market Rule”), provides authority for deactivating RAES and for deactivating the feature of RAES that causes RAES orders to be rejected and rerouted for manual execution (“RAES Reject Feature”). The CBOE represents that the provisions of the RAES Rule and the Fast Market Rule present members and investors with a clear description of: (1) Exactly how an order may be handled by the RAES system; and (2) the circumstances under which RAES Deactivation or Non-Normal Operation Action may be taken.
The CBOE represents that it has long employed procedures for ensuring that a RAES Action is taken pursuant to authority under Exchange rules. One such procedure, required in connection with all such RAES Actions, is the documentation of the reasons for any RAES Action taken. The Exchange represents that it has required reasons for each such RAES Action taken to be recorded in a Control Room log. The log contains, among other information, a description of the RAES Action; an annotation as to the time of the RAES Action; a list of option classes affected by the particular RAES Action; and a brief summary of the reasons for each RAES Action.
The CBOE also represents that it employs a number of methods for notifying Exchange members and the public about any RAES Actions. These methods include making an announcement over the trading floor public address system; generating a printer message and sending it to the floor operations of member firms; and attaching an “F” indicator (indicating that a “fast market” has been declared) to price and quote information for affected option classes. In short, the Exchange represents that the provisions of the CBOE rules regarding the operation of RAES and the procedures for ensuring proper application of the rules and methods employed to notify members and the public of a RAES Action indicate that the Exchange is dedicated to ensuring that both members and investors are well informed about the operation of RAES and the circumstances under which RAES may be unavailable.
The CBOE is now proposing to add an Interpretation .08 to the RAES Rule. This change would codify the Exchange's current practice of documenting the reasons for taking any RAES Action. The following rules provide specific authority for taking such Action:
The CBOE represents that whenever a RAES Action is taken pursuant to one of the rules above—whether by Floor Officials, through the operation of the Monitoring System, or by the senior person in the Exchange's Control Room—the RAES Action and the reasons therefore are recorded in the Control Room log. The CBOE rules may stipulate that a RAES Action be taken,
The proposed rule would codify the Exchange's requirement that reasons for taking any RAES Action be documented. The Exchange represents that such Action includes deactivating RAES or switching off the “RAES Reject Feature”; changing the parameters of the eligible RAES order size; or otherwise operating RAES in other than the normal manner. The proposed rule would ensure that the Control Room log contains a historical record of the time any RAES Actions was taken, as well as the circumstances under which it was taken. The Exchange represents, therefore, that the proposed rule change is consistent with, and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Act
The CBOE represents that it does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(i)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-00-38 in the caption above and should be submitted by September 20, 2000.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend the CHX rules governing automatic execution sequences and algorithms relating to the trading of Nasdaq/NM Securities on the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend portions of Article XX, Rule 37. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange and at the Commission.
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received regarding the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specifies in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Section A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the CHX rules governing automatic execution sequences and algorithms relating to the trading of Nasdaq/NM Securities. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend portions of Article XX, Rule 37. The proposed amendments are intended to bring the Exchange's rules in line with the patterns and practices that currently exist in other markets with respect to the trading of Nasdaq/NM Securities.
Article XX, Rule 37, describes among other things, the circumstances under which orders must be accepted and guaranteed an execution at the national best or offer (the “BEST Rule”). Rule 37 also describes a specialist's ability to set a parameter (the auto-execution threshold) that identifies which of the orders guaranteed a fill under the BEST Rule will be automatically, not manually, executed. The proposed rule change would allow specialists to reduce the minimum auto-execution threshold from 1000 shares to 300 shares, but would not change specialists' obligations under the Best Rule.
The rule change also would provide new guidelines for Nasdaq/NM specialists seeking to switch from
The foregoing changes are intended to place the Exchange's rules in line with existing market pattern and practice relating to the trading of Nasdaq/NM Securities. The rule change thus necessarily contemplates certain distinctions between transactions in Dual Trading System issues and Nasdaq/NM issues. All such distinctions were approved by the Exchange's Rules Committee and its Committee on Floor Procedure, both of which are populated by specialists. Both committees concur that the proposed changes do not place specialists on unequal footing based on the type of issue traded, but rather merely reflect the distinctions between the markets for Dual Trading System issues and Nasdaq/NM issues.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of section 6(b).
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any inappropriate burden on competition.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve the proposed rule change, or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying at the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CHX-00-20 and should be submitted by September 20, 2000.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On October 1, 1999, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”), through its wholly-owned subsidiary, the Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (“Nasdaq”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
To give the public additional time to comment on Amendment Nos. 5, 6, and 7, the Commission is extending the comment period for Amendment Nos. 5, 6, and 7 to September 14, 2000. A copy of the proposed rule change, as amended, is available in the Commission's Public Reference Room in File No. SR-NASD-99-53.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment Nos. 5, 6, and 7 are consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NASD. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NASD-99-53 and should be submitted by September 14, 2000.
By the Commission.
Department of State.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C. 2459), the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the exhibit object, contact Paul Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/619-5997). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.
Department of State.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C. 2459), the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of exhibit objects, contact Jacqueline Caldwell, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/619-6982). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.
Research and Special Programs Administration, DOT.
List of applicants for exemptions.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, exemptions from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR part 107, subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the applications described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular exemption is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before September 29, 2000.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the exemption application number.
Copies of the applications (See Docket Number) are available for inspection at the New Docket Management Facility, PL-401, at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Nassif building, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 or at http://dms.dot.gov.
This notice of receipt of applications for new exemptions is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
In
Research and Special Programs Administration, DOT.
List of applications for modification of exemptions.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, exemptions from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR part 107, subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the applications described herein. This notice is abbreviated to expedite docketing and public notice. Because the sections affected, modes of transportation, and the nature of application have been shown in earlier
Comments must be received on or before September 14, 2000.
Records Center, Research and Special Programs, Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590. Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the exemption number.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, Nassif Building, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC or at http://dms.dot.gov.
This notice of receipt of applications for modification of exemptions is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. I) notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Board of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC), to be held at 12:00 noon on Saturday, September 30, 2000, in the conference room of the Corporation's Administration Building, 180 Andrews Street, Massena, NY. The agenda for this meeting will be as follows: Opening Remarks; Consideration of Minutes of Past Meeting; Review of Programs; New Business; and Closing Remarks.
Attendance at meeting is open to the interested public but limited to the space available. With the approval of the Administrator, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing further information should contact not later than September 22, 2000, Marc C. Owen, Advisory Board Liaison, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; 202-366-6823.
Any member of the public may present a written statement to the Advisory Board at any time.
On August 14, 2000, Wisconsin Central Ltd. (WCL) and Fox Valley & Western Ltd. (FVW) filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(5) to relocate certain lines of railroad in Wisconsin Rapids, WI. The transaction was scheduled to be consummated no sooner than August 22, 2000.
WCL operates a line in Wisconsin Rapids that runs in a generally north-south orientation (WCL Line). The WCL Line is a portion of WCL's Valley Sub between Tomahawk, WI, and New Lisbon, WI. FVW operates a line in Wisconsin Rapids that runs in a generally east-west orientation (FVW Line). The FVW Line is a portion of FVW's Whitehall Sub between East Winona, WI, and Plover, WI. WCL and FVW currently share the use of an Industrial Spur currently owned by the City of Wisconsin Rapids. As part of this transaction FVW will acquire ownership of the Industrial Spur. WCL will continue to have rights to access the Industrial Spur after the transaction is consummated.
In addition, under the joint relocation project, WCL and FVW propose the following transactions:
(1) FVW will abandon a line of railroad on the FVW Line, as it currently sits, from milepost 97.28 to milepost 96.15;
(2) FVW will use the Industrial Spur, which connects with the FVW Line at FVW milepost 97.28, to access the WCL Line, at WCL milepost 50.80, which will also become FVW milepost 96.71;
(3) WCL will grant FVW trackage rights to operate on the WCL Line from WCL milepost 50.80 to WCL milepost 49.85, where FVW trains will be able to access the FVW Line at FVW milepost 96.15.
The proposed joint relocation project will not disrupt service to shippers. Its purpose is to simplify rail operations in Wisconsin Rapids and accommodate efforts to reduce rail interference with vehicular traffic.
The Board will exercise jurisdiction over the abandonment or construction components of a relocation project, and require separate approval or exemption, only where the removal of track affects service to shippers or the construction of new track involves expansion into new territory.
As a condition to this exemption, any employees affected by the trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in
If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring STB Finance Docket No. 33912, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Michael J. Barron, Esq., Wisconsin Central Ltd. and Fox Valley & Western Ltd., 6250 North River Road, Suite 9000, Rosemond, IL 60018.
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at “WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.”
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Surface Transportation Board, Department of Transportation.
Notice tentatively approving finance transaction.
Stagecoach Holdings PLC (Stagecoach) and its subsidiary, Coach USA, Inc. (Coach), noncarriers, and various subsidiaries of each
Comments must be filed by October 16, 2000. Applicants may file a reply by October 30, 2000. If no comments are filed by October 16, 2000, this notice is effective on that date.
Send an original and 10 copies of any comments referring to STB Docket No. MC-F-20973 to: Surface Transportation Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, send one copy of any comments to applicants' representative: Betty Jo Christian, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20036.
Joseph H. Dettmar (202) 565-1600. [TDD for the hearing impaired: 1-800-877-8339.]
Stagecoach is a public limited corporation organized under the laws of Scotland. With operations in several countries, Stagecoach is one of the world's largest providers of passenger transportation services. Stagecoach had annual revenues for the fiscal year ending April 30, 2000, of $3.29 billion. Coach is a Delaware corporation that currently controls over 80 motor passenger carriers.
Stagecoach and its subsidiaries currently control Coach,
Applicants state that, on May 2, 2000, Coach purchased all of the stock of Tour USA International, Inc. (Tour USA), then a noncarrier. In a transaction approved by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Tour USA simultaneously acquired federally-issued interstate motor passenger carrier operating authority held by an individual, Raimo Nikunen d/b/a Midnight Sun. Simultaneous with that acquisition, Coach placed the stock of Tour USA, the name of which corporation was subsequently changed to Midnight Sun, into an independent voting trust. The control transaction that is the subject of this application will not involve any further transfer of the federal operating authority held by Midnight Sun and will not entail any change in its operations.
Applicants have submitted information, as required by 49 CFR 1182.2(a)(7), to demonstrate that the proposed acquisition of control is consistent with the public interest under 49 U.S.C. 14303(b). Applicants state that the proposed transaction will not reduce competitive options, adversely impact fixed charges, or adversely impact the interests of the employees of Midnight Sun. In addition, applicants have submitted all of the other statements and certifications required by 49 CFR 1182.2. Additional information, including a copy of the application, may be obtained from the applicants' representative.
Under 49 U.S.C. 14303(b), we must approve and authorize a transaction we find consistent with the public interest, taking into consideration at least: (1) The effect of the transaction on the adequacy of transportation to the public; (2) the total fixed charges that result; and (3) the interest of affected carrier employees.
On the basis of the application, we find that the proposed acquisition of control is consistent with the public interest and should be authorized. If any opposing comments are timely filed, this finding will be deemed vacated and, unless a final decision can be made on the record as developed, a procedural schedule will be adopted to reconsider the application.
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at “WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.”
This decision will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
1. The proposed acquisition of control is approved and authorized, subject to the filing of opposing comments.
2. If timely opposing comments are filed, the findings made in this decision will be deemed as having been vacated.
3. This decision will be effective on October 16, 2000, unless timely opposing comments are filed.
4. A copy of this notice will be served on: (1) The U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration—HMCE-20, 400 Virginia Avenue, SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024; (2) the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 10th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530; and (3) the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the General Counsel, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Burkes, and Commissioner Clyburn.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing final regulation, INTL-64-93
Written comments should be received on or before October 30, 2000 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Garrick R. Shear, Internal Revenue Service, room 5244, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of this regulation should be directed to Faye Bruce, (202) 622-6665, Internal Revenue Service, room 5244, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Abstract: This regulation provides rules that permit the district director to recharacterize a financing arrangement as a conduit arrangement. The recharacterization will affect the amount of U.S. withholding tax due on financing transactions that are part of the financing arrangement. This regulation affects withholding agents and foreign investors who engage in multi-party financing arrangements.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice.
An open meeting of the South Florida Citizen Advocacy Panel will be held in Sunrise, Florida.
The meeting will be held Friday, September 22, 2000 and Saturday, September 23, 2000.
Nancy Ferree at 1-888-912-1227, or 954-423-7973.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Citizen Advocacy Panel will be held Friday, September 22, 2000 from 6:00 pm to 9:00 pm and Saturday, September 23, 2000 from 9:00 am to 12:00 pm, in Room 225, CAP Office, 7771 W. Oakland Park Blvd., Sunrise, Florida 33351. The public is invited to make oral comments. Individual comments will be limited to 10 minutes. If you would like to have the CAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7973, or write Nancy Ferree, CAP Office, 7771 W. Oakland Park Blvd. Rm. 225, Sunrise, FL 33351. Due to limited conference space, notification of intent to attend the meeting must be made with Nancy Ferree. Ms. Ferree can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7973.
The Agenda will include the following: various IRS issue updates and reports by the CAP sub-groups.
Last minute changes to the agenda are possible and could prevent effective advance notice.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice.
A meeting of the Midwest Citizen Advocacy Panel will be held in West Des Moines, IA.
The meeting will be held Thursday, September 21, 2000, and Friday, September 22, 2000.
Sandra McQuin at 1-888-912-1227, or 414-297-1604.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Citizen Advocacy Panel (CAP) will be held Thursday, September 21, 2000, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and Friday, September 22, 2000, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. at the Hampton Inn, 7060 Lake Drive, West Des Moines, IA 50266. The Citizen Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. Written comments can be submitted to the panel by faxing to (414) 297-1623, or by mail to Citizen Advocacy Panel, Mail Stop 1006 MIL, 310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203-2221.
The Agenda will include the following: Introduction of new members, reports by the CAP sub-groups, presentation of taxpayer issues by individual members, discussion of issues, and CAP office report.
Last minute changes to the agenda are possible and could prevent effective advance notice.
In Rule document 00-19853 appearing on page 48146 in the issue of Monday, August 7, 2000, make the following correction:
On page 48146, in the third column, in §71.1, under the heading “
In rule document 00-20453 beginning on page 49192 in the issue of Friday, August 11, 2000, make the following correction:
On page 49193, in the third column, in
Administration for Children and Families, HHS.
Final rule.
The Administration for Children and Families is issuing final regulations to implement section 403(a)(4) of the Social Security Act. This provision authorizes bonuses to high performing States in meeting the purposes of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant (the TANF program). We will base the bonus awards in FY 2002 and beyond on work measures (substantially the same work measures currently in effect for the FY 1999-2001 awards); measures that support work and self-sufficiency related to: participation by low-income working families in the Food Stamp Program, participation of former TANF recipients in the Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP), and receipt of child care subsidies; and a measure related to family formation and stability (increase in the number of children in the State who reside in married couple families).
Bonus funds of up to $200 million each year were authorized for awards in fiscal years 1999 through 2003. This rule specifies a formula for allocating these funds in FY 2002 and FY 2003. The amount awarded to each high performing State may not exceed five percent of the State's family assistance grant.
Earlier, we issued program guidance covering bonus awards in FY 1999, FY 2000, and FY 2001. We published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to cover awards beginning in FY 2002 on December 6, 1999 (64 FR 68202).
In a related regulatory action, we are amending 45 CFR Part 265, the TANF Data Collection and Reporting Requirements, to reduce the burden of reporting data on Separate State Program-Maintenance of Effort (SSP-MOE) programs. This amendment will allow waivers of certain reporting requirements under limited circumstances.
These regulations are effective Ocotber 30, 2000 except for Section 270.4(e)(2)(ii), which requires an information collection that is not yet approved by OMB. We will publish an announcement in the
Sean Hurley, Director, Division of Data Collection and Analysis, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, ACF, at 202-401-9297. Mr. Hurley's e-mail address is: shurley@acf.dhhs.gov.
This rule is accessible electronically via the Internet from the ACF Welfare Reform Home Page at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/welfare.
Title I of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-193, established the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program at title IV-A of the Social Security Act (the Act). TANF is a block grant program designed to make dramatic reforms in the nation's welfare system. Its focus is on moving recipients into work and turning welfare into a program of temporary assistance, preventing and reducing the incidence of out-of-wedlock births, and promoting stable two-parent families. Other key features of TANF include provisions that emphasize program accountability through financial penalties and rewards for high performance.
Title I also “de-linked” the eligibility for cash assistance and Medicaid benefits. Under the Medicaid amendments, a family's eligibility for Medicaid is based on whether the family would have been eligible under the State's prior AFDC plan.
TANF replaced the national welfare program known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) that provided cash assistance to needy families on an entitlement basis. It also replaced the related programs known as the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program and the Emergency Assistance (EA) program.
The new TANF program went into effect on July 1, 1997, except in States that elected to submit a complete plan and implement the program at an earlier date. We published final regulations to implement the work, penalties, and data collection provisions of the TANF program in the
The 1996 welfare reform law reflected widespread, bipartisan agreement on a number of key principles:
• Welfare reform should help move people from welfare to work.
• Welfare should be a short-term, transitional experience, not a way of life.
• Parents should receive the child care, health care, and other supports that they need to protect their children as they move from welfare to work.
• Child support enforcement programs should become tougher and more effective in securing support from noncustodial parents.
• Because many factors contribute to poverty and dependency, solutions to these problems should not be “one size fits all.” The system should allow States, Indian tribes, and localities to develop diverse and creative responses to these problems.
• The Federal government should place more emphasis on program results.
Under section 401(a)(1) of the Act, States (and certain Indian tribes) have the authority to use Federal welfare funds “in any manner that is reasonably
In short, they have the opportunity to try new, far-reaching changes that enable them to respond more effectively to the needs of families within their own unique environments.
Section 403(a)(4) of the Act requires the Secretary to award bonuses to “high performing States.” (Indian tribes are not eligible for these bonuses.) The term “high performing State” is defined in section 403(a)(4) of the Act to mean a State that is most successful in achieving the purposes of the TANF program as specified in section 401(a) of the Act. These purposes are to—
(1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives;
(2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage;
(3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and
(4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
Section 403(a)(4)(B) of the Act specifies that the bonus award for a fiscal year will be based on a State's performance in the previous fiscal year and may not exceed five percent of the State's family assistance grant.
Section 403(a)(4)(C) of the Act requires the Department to develop a formula for measuring State performance in consultation with the National Governors' Association (NGA) and the American Public Welfare Association, now known as the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA).
Section 403(a)(4)(D) of the Act requires the Secretary to use the formula developed to assign a score to each eligible State for the fiscal year preceding the bonus year and prescribe a performance threshold as the basis for awarding the bonus. Section 403(a)(4)(D) of the Act also specifies that $1 billion (or an average total of $200 million each year) will be awarded over five years, beginning in FY 1999.
As we have done with all regulations related to the TANF program, we implemented a broad consultation strategy prior to our rulemaking. In addition, as required by section 403(a)(4)(C) of the Act, we consulted intensively with representatives of the NGA and the APHSA. We met with staff of these two national organizations as well as staff of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and approximately 30 State representatives who participated by regularly scheduled conference calls over a period of approximately nine months.
We also consulted with a number of other audiences: researchers, data experts, and academics; other Federal and non-Federal agencies that had developed or were in the process of developing performance measures for their programs; and representatives of a broad range of non-profit, advocacy, and community-based programs.
We would have preferred to set the formula for all years through rulemaking. However, we were not able to conduct adequate consultations and complete a formal rulemaking process in order to advise States, in a timely way, how we would be assessing their performance (for both the performance year and the comparison year used to measure improvement) in FYs 1997-1998, FYs 1998-1999, and FYs 1999-2000, in order to make awards in FY 1999, FY 2000, and FY 2001. Therefore, we issued program guidance covering the first three award years without the benefit of a formal rulemaking process. (For the program guidance for the awards in FY 1999, see TANF-ACF-PI-98-1 and TANF-ACF-PI-98-5 (Form ACF 200, OMB #1970-0180); for the guidance for the FY 2000 awards, see TANF-ACF-PI-99-1; and for the guidance for the FY 2001 awards, see TANF-ACF-PI-99-5.)
The FY 1999 program guidance based the first-year bonus awards on four work measures,
On December 4, 1999, the President announced three actions relating to the high performance bonus:
• The award of $200 million for the first-year bonus awards to 27 States with the best records in moving parents on welfare into jobs and subsequent success in the work force;
• The program guidance for the FY 2001 awards; and
• The publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) covering awards in FY 2002 and beyond.
According to the reports filed by the 46 States competing for the first-year bonus, nationwide more than 1.3 million adults on welfare went to work in the one-year period between October 1, 1997, and September 30, 1998. Retention rates were also promising: 80 percent of those who had gotten jobs were still working three months later. The States also reported an average earnings increase of 23 percent for welfare recipients (some of whom were now former recipients) from $2,088 in the first quarter of employment to $2,571 in the third quarter.
The States ranked the highest in each category were Indiana (job entry), Minnesota (success in the work force,
The other States that received bonuses were: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Eleven States received bonuses in two categories, and one State, Minnesota, was successful in three.
In announcing these awards for FY 1999, we recognized that the award criteria did not necessarily identify all States that have implemented successful welfare reform strategies. For example, some States may have implemented exceptionally strong programs whose success was not captured by this award because of timing or the specific measures we used. In addition, although we awarded bonuses to the ten States with the highest scores in each measure, the performance scores for many other States were also high.
We faced a significant challenge in developing a performance measurement system for the new TANF program. Although there is considerable activity underway in both the public and private sectors, performance measurement is a field that is still evolving. Our aim in developing the bonus award system was to reflect outcomes based on the purposes of the Act, propose a system as simple as possible to understand and administer, and incorporate the best information available.
To provide context, in the NPRM, we included a discussion of some of the difficult and inter-related questions and issues with which we, and the groups
We also included a discussion of more specific issues related to TANF performance measurement, including issues around absolute performance and performance improvement and concerns about achieving a level playing field among States, and we discussed measures that we had considered and rejected. We also spoke about the difficulty of identifying appropriate measures without incurring new data collection responsibilities while relying, to the extent possible, on uniform, objective, and reliable State data; rewarding positive performance; and producing no unintended consequences.
Finally, as an additional encouragement to focus public comment on specific alternative approaches, we raised a series of questions on major sections of the proposed rule.
The consultations with NGA, APHSA, and others were very useful in helping us identify key issues, evaluate policy options, and develop both the program guidance for FY 1999, FY 2000, and FY 2001 and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. As a part of our consultations, NGA and APHSA developed a set of principles they believed should apply to a high performance bonus system. We found that these principles offered a positive framework for developing such a system and avoiding some major pitfalls. We also found these principles helpful as we addressed specific issues in developing the NPRM. The NGA/APHSA principles stated that a high performance bonus system should:
• Be simple, credible, quantifiable, understandable to the public, and consistent with the goals of the law;
• Focus on outcomes rather than process;
• Take varying State economic circumstances and policies into account and not impede the flexibility provided to States under Pub.L. 104-193;
• Minimize double jeopardy or reward. (For example, the law already provides bonuses for reducing out-of-wedlock births, a caseload reduction credit, and penalties and incentives related to child support enforcement and paternity establishment.);
• Avoid additional data collection requirements and costs and build on existing systems;
• Avoid unintended consequences;
• Focus on positive rather than negative measures; and
• Reflect the strong emphasis on employment and self-sufficiency in the Federal law and in the States' implementation of the law. This emphasis should influence the measures included in the system and the distribution of bonus funds.
We published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on December 6, 1999 (64 FR 68202). Since our initial consultations, we have held several additional formal and less formal discussions about TANF performance measures with States, State groups, and others. For example, on July 21, 1999, we invited States, advocates, researchers, and others to a day-long consultation on issues related to outcome and performance measurement related to the preparation of a “Study and Report to Congress on Alternative Outcome Measures” (section 107 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act). In addition, the core provisions of the NPRM were very similar to the measures, issues, and principles discussed in earlier consultations. Finally, we knew that the NPRM would provide an additional opportunity for public comment and believed it was important to move the regulations process forward.
In summary, the NPRM proposed to:
• Award bonuses beginning in FY 2002 based on four work measures (substantially the same work measures currently in use for FY 1999 and FY 2000 and specified for use in FY 2001);
• Award bonuses beginning in FY 2002 based on three non-work measures: one measure on family formation and family stability (increase in the number of children below 200 percent of poverty who reside in married couple families) and two measures that support work and self-sufficiency,
• Use one of two possible alternative sets of data for the four work measures, including the National Directory of New Hires;
• Use the Census Bureau's decennial and annual demographic programs as the data sources for two of the three work support measures,
• Measure performance on Medicaid/SCHIP participation, through State matches of TANF data with data on Medicaid/SCHIP enrollment;
• Award bonuses to the ten States with the highest scores in each measure;
• Specify an allocation of funds for each measure in FYs 2002 and FY 2003 (and beyond, if high performance bonus awards are subsequently authorized), under which we would award $140 million to the work measures and $60 million to the work support measures:
• Reiterate the requirement in § 265.3(d) of this chapter that, if a State wishes to receive a high performance bonus, it must file the information in Sections One and Three of the SSP-MOE Data Report; and
• Create an annual review process, as needed, if future modifications and technical changes are necessary.
We took this approach for several reasons. First, we believed that, given the primary focus of the TANF program on work, we should continue to focus the rewards to States for their efforts in this area. The funds allocation we proposed reflected the importance we placed on State performance directed towards work,
Second, potential new data sources appeared to be available with respect to both the proposed work measures and the work support measures:
In developing both the program guidance and the NPRM, the Department has been interested in utilizing a broad set of measures (
Given the potential availability of the two new data sources, we proposed both work and work support measures. We strongly believe that Medicaid/SCHIP and Food Stamps are critical supports for many working families as they move towards self-sufficiency through employment. State performance to ensure that eligible families receive Food Stamps and Medicaid/SCHIP addresses two of the statutory purposes of the TANF program: Providing assistance to needy families so that
In addition, the non-work measures reflected our concern that the lives of children and families, particularly low-income children and families, should be a focus of attention within the TANF program. We also believe that strong families are one of the key factors in developing and sustaining high levels of individual competence and functioning in our complex society. Thus, we concluded that States should be rewarded for their efforts in addressing family formation and the other purposes of the Act noted above.
We received 130 comment letters, some with multiple signatures, from a wide range of national, State, and local entities and organizations, including: City and county governments; State human service agencies, and national organizations representing States, State legislatures, and State human service organizations; national and State children, family, and domestic violence advocacy and service organizations; national and local faith-based organizations; national, State, and local employment, housing, and legal advocacy organizations; national labor unions and a State labor agency; food and nutrition service and advocacy organizations; Members of Congress; a national foundation; and others.
Some of the 130 individual comment letters were similar or identical to the more than 300 identical notecards we received as a result of a letter-writing campaign organized by a broad-based national coalition monitoring the effects of welfare reform.
The major themes of the comments included the following:
• Most commenters supported the work measures, but a number made recommendations for substantive and technical changes.
• There was a division of opinion on the inclusion of the Food Stamp and Medicaid/SCHIP measures. For a number of reasons, States objected to the inclusion of these measures. Advocacy, service, and faith-based organizations strongly supported these measures, as did all of the Members of Congress who commented on the NPRM.
• Almost all commenters objected to the family formation and stability measure, although a few suggested modifications.
• A large number of commenters, primarily national advocacy organizations and three Members of Congress, recommended the addition of a new measure on child care.
• To a lesser extent, a number of organizations also recommended other new measures, including domestic violence measures and worker protection measures.
• Some commenters made recommendations for changes in the allocation of funds, although these comments did not present a consistent view. Many who supported the Medicaid/SCHIP and Food Stamp measures suggested substantial increases in the dollars for these measures and decreases in the dollars for the work measures, while national organizations representing States and State human service agencies recommended that all dollars go to the work measures.
With a few exceptions, commenters considered the work measures of job entry, job retention, and earnings gain to be the appropriate measures for assessing State performance in moving TANF recipients from welfare to work and self-sufficiency. At the same time, we received a number of substantive and technical suggestions on how we should modify these measures,
The States, their representative organizations, and other commenters expressed strong support for the proposed work measures (substantially the same work measures that are used for the high performance bonus awards for FYs 1999-2001). We considered a range of suggested changes, both substantive and technical, but, given the level of support for the proposed work measures, we made only a few technical changes in the final rule. We have changed the way we calculate performance improvement,
In the NPRM, we also proposed that States report one of two alternative sets of data—either a minimal set of identifying information on adult TANF recipients, which we would match against data from the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) at the Federal level, or a more extensive set of work performance data. We proposed the use of the NDNH in response to concerns that States raised about access to out-of-State and Federal employment data during our initial consultations and implementation of the FY 1999 bonus awards. States and other commenters were strongly supportive of the use of the NDNH.
We agree that the use of the NDNH, matched with State data, will result in reduced burden for States and greater accuracy in implementing bonus awards. Therefore, in the final rule, we require States to report identifying information on adult TANF recipients that we will match with the NDNH data. We address these changes later in the section-by-section discussion of the rule.
The proposed rules contained two measures that focused on State efforts to provide critical supports needed by low-income working families. One measure looked at improvements in the percentage of families leaving TANF who were enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP six months later. The second measure looked at improvement in the rate of food stamp participation for certain low-income working families. These two proposals generated extensive comments, which were highly diverse in nature.
Because many commenters addressed these proposals together, and the comments on the two provisions were somewhat similar, this overview will address both provisions. However, there were also a variety of comments that spoke more directly to the separate proposals. You will find the discussion of these detailed and distinct comments
These two proposals also drew a significant negative response, primarily from State agencies and organizations representing States. While generally agreeing that these programs provide important supports for low-income families, commenters raised a variety of philosophical, programmatic, administrative, and equity objections to including these measures as part of the high performance bonus. Philosophically, and particularly for the food stamp measures, some commenters indicated that the measures were inconsistent with TANF purposes, promoting dependency rather than self-sufficiency. In addition, State agencies objected to being held accountable, under a TANF provision, for serving families that were beyond the reach of the TANF program and for complying with requirements in other Federal programs. In the case of food stamp participation, in particular, they also objected to being held accountable when they lacked control over many program rules, and they could not spend TANF funds to pay for activities that are reimbursable under the Food Stamp Act. They expressed concern about the adequacy of national data, the equity of looking at annual improvement only from FY 2000 forward, the equity of applying annual improvement measures when some States had made significant efforts to improve access prior to the measurement period, and a variety of other issues.
In response to the technical and substantive concerns raised by the States and others, we very carefully considered all the suggestions for how to improve the measures and looked for ways to address the States' concerns. As you will find in the section-by-section analysis, we have made a number of changes that respond to the concerns. For example, we have made it more explicit that States may choose whether to compete on the Food Stamp measure (consistent with our approach for all the measures), dropped the “qualifying conditions” for both the Food Stamp and Medicaid/SCHIP measures (
Also, we recognize State concerns about being held accountable for activities that are outside of TANF. However:
• Unlike prior law, under TANF, all the key statutory provisions regarding goals and responsibilities refer to the “State” rather than the “State agency”; the concept of “single State agency” is gone; and all notifications go to the chief executive officer of the State, not the State agency. Thus, the statutory language suggests that it is appropriate for the high performance bonus to look more broadly at State performance rather than TANF State agency performance.
• The legislative history suggests that Congress intended that Food Stamps and Medicaid remain as part of the safety net for needy families affected by the TANF changes and that Congress was referring to welfare benefits when it included statutory language about reducing dependency on government benefits. More specifically, Congress did not modify the entitlement nature of Food Stamps and Medicaid when it repealed the entitlement to cash assistance. Further, in enacting sections 1925 and 1931 of the Act, Congress clearly intended that needy families would maintain eligibility for Medicaid benefits on the same basis as prior law (or a less restrictive basis). Indeed, the fact that Congress did not budget any savings for either the Medicaid or Food Stamp programs as the result of TANF indicates that it did not anticipate the declines in program participation that occurred in both programs, and it suggests that Congress did not intend for the declines to happen.
Congressional interest in maintaining Food Stamps and Medicaid as part of the safety net is also suggested by the managers' statement which: (1) Refers to changes in the Food Stamp program, but does not suggest any TANF-related effects; (2) Refers to PRWORA as a “fundamental reform of
• The statutory purposes of the TANF program reflect a broad view of the program that goes beyond families that are needy and receiving cash assistance.
• In most cases, the same State and local agencies are administering the TANF, Medicaid, and Food Stamp programs (or the TANF agency is making Medicaid eligibility determinations on behalf of the Medicaid agency), and a single caseworker is often responsible for determining eligibility and benefits in the three programs. Thus, in the course of administering the TANF program, TANF program managers often have the opportunity to work on eliminating barriers that may be deterring clients from seeking or retaining Medicaid or food stamp benefits.
For example, they can work on clearing up client misunderstandings about the applicability of TANF requirements to other program benefits (
The proposed rules contained one non-work measure directed at the second and fourth statutory purposes of TANF—
• States could earn awards based on bad outcomes, and thus the measure could have unintended negative effects.
• The measure fails to reward increases in marriage rates among families with higher incomes.
• Success in increasing marriage among single parents could inadvertently diminish a State's chances of receiving a bonus.
• This measure might also disadvantage those 10 or more States with State or local EITC programs.
Among the philosophical objections were:
• The measure's focus on marriage as the one acceptable form of “two-parent” families, noting that TANF purpose four refers to two-parent families, not marriage;
• The measure's failure to recognize noncustodial parents and a variety of less traditional family structures or to recognize the value of strengthening families through means other than marriage;
• The appropriateness of promoting marriage,
• The appropriateness of engaging the government in decisions that are essentially personal and private.
In addition, some commenters questioned our preamble justification of the measure by referring to research findings that being raised in a single-parent family did not, in and of itself, negatively affect children.
Commenters also raised concerns about: (1) States being measured on something that seemed beyond their jurisdiction and control; (2) double jeopardy,
We received some suggestions for changes to this measure or for alternative measures related to family formation. Two organizations suggested we might establish a competition and award bonuses based on innovative policy initiatives and program demonstrations, and one State suggested we evaluate individual State descriptions of their own initiatives in this area. Commenters also suggested that we consider marriage rates for the entire State population and reward only “noncoercive public education campaigns”; reward States for increasing the percentage of families receiving TANF cash assistance that are two-parent families; and add domestic violence provisions (either as threshold qualifying conditions or adjustments). A few commenters suggested, alternatively, that we could encourage States to reduce teen pregnancy.
The proposed family formation measure in the NPRM reflected our best attempt to synthesize what we had heard and develop a measure that was feasible in light of the data that were available to us. While we recognized some of the measure's flaws, we hoped that proposal might either generate some useful suggestions for modifications that would improve it or present us with some viable alternatives.
We seriously considered the suggestion to establish a panel-based competitive process that would reward innovative initiatives or demonstrations. However, we did not include it in the final rule because the approach is inconsistent with the statutory language at section 403(a)(4)(C)-(E), which clearly expects us to employ quantitative measures. Also, this approach seemed to move us away from focusing on outcomes. We also thought that, without specific quantitative standards, it would be extremely difficult to implement a system that was sufficiently objective and fair to serve as the basis for awarding millions of dollars a year.
We are committed to the marriage and family formation purposes of the Act and believe it is important that these purposes, in addition to the work and work-related purposes, be addressed in the high performance bonus system. We also believe that it is important for us to help States focus on the non-work related purposes of the TANF statute. This measure is intended to provide an additional incentive for State activity and creativity in this area.
Thus, we have retained a family formation measure in the final rule similar, but not identical, to the measure proposed in the NPRM. We agree with commenters who recommended a broader population measure, i.e., that we measure the increase in the percent of all children in each State who reside in married couple families, not just low-income children, and we have made this change in the final rule. We believe that this will address commenters' concerns that including a ceiling could produce unintended consequences. However, because the measurement issues associated with family formation are more significant than those for the work and work support measures, we have reduced the funding allocation for this measure to $10 million. The final rule specifies that, in FY 2002 and beyond, we will award $10 million to the ten States with the greatest percentage point improvement in this measure. We have also made clear that States may choose to compete on this measure (we will rank only those States that indicate that they wish to compete), emphasizing our overall policy that participation in the high performance bonus system is voluntary.
We address comments more specifically in Part VI of the preamble regarding new § 270.4(f).
In the NPRM, we proposed not only specific measures for FY 2002 and beyond, but we discussed a number of other measures and data sources that we had considered but elected not to include for various reasons. We actively encouraged comments on all aspects of these measures and data sources and solicited recommendations for other measures and data sources that we might not have considered.
Over one-half of the letters we received and all of the notecards offered suggestions for the inclusion of a range of new bonus measures, either as a
We appreciate the number of thoughtful, well-reasoned comments we received regarding new measures, as well as the detailed analysis and other information provided in support of the commenters' recommendations. We also appreciate commenters' commitment to the success of welfare reform, the focus on work and self-sufficiency, and the importance of the well-being of families and children.
We gave considerable thought and attention to all recommendations for new measures, particularly where commenters had provided suggestions for further exploration and analysis. In evaluating measures and data sources, we based our deliberations on the NPRM and the final rule on the principles for a high performance bonus system developed by NGA and APHSA. We were at all times aware of the availability and sufficiency of data sources and wanted to avoid new data collection requirements and costs. We have been particularly aware of the issue of diversity among States and how that diversity might impact the design and implementation of a fair bonus system. Finally, we wanted the bonus system to remain as simple as possible to understand and administer and focus on (1) positive, not negative goals; and (2) outcomes, not processes.
In light of the comments we received, we have added a child care measure in the final rule. We strongly agree with commenters that child care subsidies or assistance are essential supports for low-income families and a critical part of a successful welfare reform program. A child care measure was the one measure that received the strongest and most consistent support from commenters. It was also the one for which commenters offered the most concrete suggestions about how we might specify the measure. Supporters included a broad array of national, State, and local advocacy and service organizations, Members of Congress, and a number of individual commenters.
We discuss the specific child care measure and respond to comments in Part VI of the preamble, “Section-by-Section Discussion of the Rule and the Public Comments,” § 270.4(e). Following the discussion of the child care measure, we also respond to commenters' recommendations for other new measures.
We continue to be committed to a high performance bonus system that meets statutory requirements; reflects the principles developed by NGA and APHSA; is based on measurable outcomes using the most uniform, objective, and reliable data available; and offers States an opportunity to be recognized for their achievements in several areas.
In making changes to the final rule, we seriously considered all concerns and recommendations of the commenters. We appreciate the thoughtful and detailed letters we received, and we particularly appreciate the sense of common goals, expressed directly or indirectly in the letters, focusing on both effective implementation of the TANF program and the economic self-sufficiency and well-being of families and children.
We also paid attention to the concerns of States and State representative organizations, given the statutory provision on consultation with NGA and APHSA and the diversity of views on certain issues between States and a number of other commenters. We believe that the final rule takes a balanced approach to this diversity. We believe we have been responsive to, and incorporated a number of, State recommendations regarding ways of making the measures less burdensome and more workable; at the same time, we incorporated other provisions that were not generally supported by States but were supported by a very broad range of other commenters,
1. Awards bonuses to the ten States with the highest scores in the four work measures proposed in the NPRM, with minor modifications;
2. Awards bonuses to the three States with the highest scores on a new absolute measure and the seven States with the highest scores on the proposed improvement measure related to the participation by low-income working families in the Food Stamp Program;
3. Awards bonuses to the three States with the highest scores on a new absolute measure and to the seven States with the highest scores on the proposed improvement measure related to the participation of former TANF recipients in the Medicaid and SCHIP programs;
4. Awards bonuses to the ten States with the highest scores on a new child care measure and the family formation and stability improvement measure;
5. Bases competition on the family formation and stability measure on a universal population,
6. Makes more explicit that States may choose any of the measures on which they wish to compete in order to conform the language of the proposed Food Stamp and family formation measures to the overall policy that participation is voluntary;
7. Eliminates the qualifying conditions and qualifying options proposed in the NPRM for the Food Stamp and the Medicaid/SCHIP measures;
8. Allots $140 million to the work measures, $20 million each to the Food Stamp and Medicaid/SCHIP measures, and $10 million each to the child care and family formation measures;
9. Reduces the reporting burden on States by allowing waivers of the reporting requirements for SSP-MOE data under certain limited circumstances;
10. Reduces the reporting burden on those States competing on the work measures by requiring only minimal identifying information on adult TANF recipients that we will use to match with NDNH data at the Federal level;
11. Bases competition on the Food Stamp measure and the family formation and stability measure initially on the Census Bureau's Census 2000 Supplementary Survey and the Census Long-Form Transitional Database and, later, on data from the American Community Survey;
12. Bases competition on the Medicaid/SCHIP measure on State Medicaid/SCHIP data, matched with TANF data at the State level;
13. Bases competition in FY 2002 on the child care measure, which focuses on child care accessibility (the percent of CCDF-eligible children receiving services), affordability (assessed family co-payments), and child care quality (based on State reimbursement rates) using data States currently report to us under the CCDF program;
14. Specifies the dates by which States must report data and other information to us;
15. Clarifies the use of the bonus funds; and
16. Makes technical and clarifying changes in the work measures,
We received no comments on this section and have made no changes to it.
This section of the NPRM proposed a number of definitions used in this part.
We have made several changes in this section: (1) We have updated the acronym and name of the CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program) to SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program); (2) we have defined the acronym “CCDF” as the Child Care and Development Fund; (3) we have added the words “or the calendar year” in the definition of “performance year” to indicate that, for the Food Stamp measure and the family formation measure, we will be comparing State performance based on a calendar year rather than a fiscal year; (4) we have moved the definition of “improvement rate” as proposed in § 270.5(c) of the NPRM to this section; and (5) we have added a definition of “absolute rate.” We have added these last two definitions in this section for clarity and because these terms now apply to both the work measures and the work support measures.
We received no comments on the definition of “improvement rate,” but we want to call attention to one change we have made in this definition and explain how it affects our ranking of States and making bonus awards. In the final rule, “Improvement rate” means the positive percentage point change between the absolute rate of performance in the performance year and the comparison year, except for the calculation and ranking of States on the increase in success in the work force measure in § 270.5(a)(4). The definition proposed in the NPRM did not include an exception and would have prohibited us from considering a State with a negative score in one sub-measure in the increase in the success in the work force measure in the ranking process. For example, a State may have a negative score on one sub-measure (
We received the following comments on this section:
This commenter recommended that we should base the health coverage measure on the States' overall efforts beginning with the effective date of the TANF program.
However, we have made no change in the definitions in response to this comment. The statute specifies the “bonus years” for purposes of these awards as FYs 1999 through 2003, and we based bonus awards in FY 1999 on a State's performance in FYs 1997 and 1998. We did not believe that measuring performance in earlier years was responsive to the requirement that awards reflect a State's performance under, and following the establishment of, the TANF program.
Nevertheless, we have made two changes in the final rule that may help address concerns regarding a “level playing field,”
In accordance with section 403(a)(4)(B)(ii) of the Act, we proposed that the amount payable to a State in a given bonus year will not exceed five percent of the State's family assistance grant (SFAG). We also published, as an Appendix to the NPRM, a list of the total amount of each State's SFAG and the amount equal to five percent of each State's SFAG.
In the NPRM, we proposed in paragraph (a) of this section to award bonuses based on four work measures and three “non-work” measures. We proposed the work measures in paragraph (b) of this section. As we said
Under the proposed food stamp outcome measure, we would measure the improvement in the number of low-income working families (
We also proposed that, in order to compete on the food stamp outcome measure, a State must be in compliance with four qualifying conditions. The qualifying conditions proposed in the rule were the following:
(1) The State agency has issued policy instructions or regulations clearly specifying that, at first contact with the State agency which administers the Food Stamp Program, individuals must be informed of the opportunity to apply for food stamps in accordance with 7 CFR 273.2(c)(1).
(2) The State agency has issued policy instructions or regulations clearly specifying that food stamp application forms are to be readily accessible and available upon request, in accordance with 7 CFR 273.2(c)(3).
(3) As evidenced through policy instructions, regulations, and administrative reviews, the State agency is complying with application processing time frames and expedited service rules, as required by 7 CFR 273.2(g).
(4) As evidenced through policy instructions, regulations, and administrative reviews, the State agency has taken steps to prevent inappropriate denials and terminations of eligible food stamp participants who have lost TANF eligibility, in accordance with 7 CFR 273.12(f). Since food stamp eligibility is not based on TANF eligibility, States may not deny food stamp eligibility to a family or family member simply because the family is ineligible for TANF.
We proposed that the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture would determine each State's compliance with the qualifying conditions, as a part of its ongoing oversight of the Food Stamp Program.
As noted earlier in this preamble, the majority of total comments received on the food stamp outcome measure supported the proposed measure. However, for a number of reasons, almost all of the State commenters opposed the inclusion of the food stamp outcome measure. We have seriously considered all comments, particularly the concerns of States. We believe that we have addressed many, though not all, of their concerns in the final rule. We have also accepted recommendations made by other commenters.
Briefly, we have made the following changes in § 270.4(c) of the final rule:
(1) Added an absolute performance measure;
(2) Changed the award structure to grant bonuses to the three States that rank the highest on the absolute performance measure and the seven States that rank the highest on the improvement measure;
(3) Changed the measured unit from “families” to “households with children”;
(4) Revised the improvement component to measure the percentage point improvement, rather than the percentage improvement, in the participation of low-income working households with children;
(5) Dropped the qualifying conditions;
(6) Made more explicit that competition on the measure is optional for States, to conform to the overall bonus policy that participation is voluntary; and
(7) Clarified how we will deal with tie scores.
We address the specific comments below.
We recognize that a number of commenters felt that, far from ending the dependence of needy parents on government benefits, the food stamp outcome measure encourages dependence by encouraging States to assist working families to participate in the Food Stamp Program. We strongly disagree with this viewpoint. Ending the dependence of needy parents on government assistance requires successfully transitioning parents from welfare to work. Key to that successful transition is the Food Stamp Program. Food stamps provide needed nutritional benefits during that period when families are working but are not earning at the level that will enable them to achieve full self-sufficiency. In some cases, working parents may only be able to keep their jobs and feed their families because food stamps help them make ends meet.
Traditionally, the program has had lower participation rates among eligible low-income families who are not receiving cash assistance. This means that as more families move from cash assistance to work, we have begun to see a dramatic decline in the food stamp rolls even though many of these low-income families remain eligible for food stamps. The food stamp outcome measure is designed to provide States with an incentive to implement policies and procedures necessary to improve access to the program among working families.
In addition, in a recently published proposed rule, Noncitizen Eligibility and Certification Provisions of Pub. L. 104-193, as amended by Public Laws 104-208, 105-33, and 105-185, (65 FR 10855), FNS proposed a number of provisions for further simplifying program rules and expanding State flexibility. The rule proposed the following: (1) Simplifying current verification requirements by removing overly prescriptive requirements for use of specific documents for verification; (2) allowing for the use of a simplified method of calculating self-employment expenses for certain specified types of businesses; and (3) establishing the ground rules for implementing the Simplified Food Stamp Program, under which States may determine food stamp benefit levels for households receiving TANF by using food stamp requirements, TANF rules, or a combination of the two.
In regard to achieving better conformity between TANF and food stamps, FNS has tried to provide States with as much flexibility as possible in conforming food stamp rules to TANF requirements without compromising the food security of the low-income population the program serves. State efforts to conform food stamp rules with TANF rules need to recognize that the Food Stamp Program serves a large and diverse range of people, two-thirds of whom do not receive TANF assistance,
Also, States should be focused on improving the food stamp participation rate among all low-income, working households with children, not just those receiving TANF assistance. There are many more low-income working households with children who are eligible for food stamps than there are TANF participants. Those States that will do the best in the improvement measure are not those who improve the food stamp participation rate the most among current or former recipients of TANF assistance. Rather, it will be those States that increase the food stamp participation rate the most among all low-income working households with children. Similarly, the absolute measure will reward States that serve the greatest percentage of low-income working households with children overall, not the most current or former TANF recipients.
Also, States can close the gap between the number of households that are only income eligible for food stamps and those that are actually eligible for the program by taking advantage of the
In the proposed food stamp outcome measure, a family that is included in the count of working families in a State that are income eligible for food stamps may not, because of the presence of another person in the home who purchases and prepares meals with the family, be in fact eligible for food stamps. This incongruity could cause the ratio of working families participating in the Food Stamp Program to families that are income eligible for the program in a State to appear lower than it in fact is.
Because this would be true in all States, we do not believe that this incongruity creates a bias in favor of any State in the competition or affects over time comparisons within States. However, in the final rule, we have changed the measured unit in the food stamp measures from families to households in order to better align the measure with the Food Stamp Program. We have revised the proposed regulations at § 270.4(c) to indicate that we will measure the number of low-income working households with children participating in the Food Stamp Program as a percentage of the number of low-income working households with children in the State.
Based on the comments we have received on the provision, however, we have decided to modify the food stamp outcome measure by adding a measure of absolute performance. This measure is designed to reward those States that, in a given year, demonstrate the very best performance in serving low-income working families. Under the outcome measure in the final rule, we will award $6 million in bonus funds to the three States that serve the highest percentage of low-income working households with children in the current year (the absolute measure) and award $14 million to the seven States that show the most improvement in performance from the previous year to the current year. We chose to reward more States for improving performance than for maintaining high overall performance because we wish to keep the emphasis of the bonus on improving service to low-income working households with children. We believe that this provision offers an effective compromise between rewarding States that currently do the best job of serving low-income working families and providing an incentive for other States to improve their performance. We have revised the proposed regulations at § 270.4(c) to reflect these changes.
A number of other commenters, however, recommended that we
Other commenters noted that the conditions proposed in the rule are already requirements in the Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended, and therefore are among the many factors already monitored for compliance by both the States and FNS. These commenters recommended that FNS allow States to self-certify their compliance with the conditions. Otherwise, they argue, FNS would need to redirect its limited staff resources and focus on the qualifying conditions, to the exclusion of other important State assistance and monitoring activities.
Although we are removing the qualifying conditions from the food stamp outcome measure, State compliance with those requirements, and with other legal and regulatory provisions related to program access, remains a high priority with FNS. For example, FNS has released two program access guides, one for working families and another for elderly and disabled households, that are designed to assist State policy makers and others in understanding what the food stamp statute and regulations require of States in terms of food stamp eligibility application processing, recertification, notice and appeal rights, among other matters. In addition, FNS is conducting customer service access reviews in every State that are designed to identify barriers to program participation, including problems stemming from noncompliance with the program's legal and regulatory requirements. By the end of FY 2000, FNS will have completed between one to three access reviews in every State. Beyond FY 2000, FNS intends to make customer service access reviews a permanent part of its oversight of the Food Stamp Program.
We recognize there are problems inherent in using existing Census Bureau data sources for awarding TANF bonus funds. However, we hope to avoid many of the pitfalls identified by commenters by using new Census Bureau surveys. We will use the annual State estimates produced by the Census Bureau from its annual household survey program, beginning with the Census 2000 Supplementary Survey and transitioning to the Census Bureau's American Community Survey by 2004.
Also, we have not included State-funded food stamp recipients in the count of a State's number of low-income working families receiving food stamps. Many of the individuals served in the State-funded program who have citizen children will already be included in the count of food stamp participating households. The majority of the remaining participants in the State-funded programs will be individuals without children who will not be included in the count of the number of low-income working households eligible for food stamps in the State.
Finally, improving customer service is a vital component to increasing participation among low-income working families in the Food Stamp Program. States that wish to realistically compete for the food stamp related bonus will have to improve their customer service standards along the lines discussed in USDA's food stamp access guide, “The Nutrition Safety Net at Work for Families: A Primer for Enhancing the Nutrition Safety Net for Workers and Their Children,” published in 1999. Therefore, we are making no changes to the proposed rule.
In the proposed rule, we included a non-work measure related to Medicaid/SCHIP that would reward State efforts to support work, self-sufficiency and the well-being of low-income families. This measure looked at improvement in the percentage of TANF families who were enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP at the time they lost TANF and who are enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP six months later. We chose this approach because nearly all of these families leaving TANF are likely to be eligible for a minimum of six months of transitional Medicaid under section 1925 of the Act or to qualify for Medicaid under other eligibility groups. In addition, there have been reports from consumer advocates and State and national studies indicating that many eligible families are losing Medicaid benefits when they leave TANF. While there may be a number of outside forces contributing to the decline in Medicaid enrollment,
We considered an outcome measure that would capture State performance in enrolling and retaining all eligible families and children in Medicaid and SCHIP, regardless of their former or current welfare status. However, we limited the outcome measure to individuals leaving TANF assistance because:
(1) States have a clear responsibility for serving these families under PRWORA; and
(2) welfare “leaver” studies and other studies on program participation indicated that these families frequently were not being served.
While a broader population measure would be consistent with a goal of expanding health coverage and have the positive effect of encouraging States to enroll eligible individuals who are diverted from TANF assistance or who do not apply for TANF assistance, the proposed measure was more directly related to the goals and purposes of TANF, as well as title I of PRWORA. Also, with no national data source on health coverage for low-income families, we believed that the focus on TANF “leavers” would result in a smaller reporting burden and in the collection of more accurate and consistent information by States. It, thus, should produce fairer comparisons in assessing State performance.
In the NPRM, we also proposed certain qualifying conditions, based on requirements in Medicaid law and regulations, that States must meet before competing for an award in the Medicaid/SCHIP measure. Those qualifying conditions were:
(1) The State has issued policy instructions or regulations clearly specifying that, at first contact with the TANF agency (when the TANF agency is also the Medicaid agency), an individual must be given the opportunity to apply for Medicaid in accordance with 42 CFR 435.906;
(2) When eligibility under section 1931 of the Act is lost due to hours of, or earnings from employment or loss of time-limited earning disregards, the State issues to the affected family a written notice that meets the requirements of section 1925(a)(2)(A) of the Act and a card or other evidence of the family's entitlement to assistance as required under section 1925(a)(2)(B) of the Act;
(3) The State has issued policy instructions or regulations clearly specifying that family members may not be terminated from Medicaid until it has been determined that they are not eligible under any other Medicaid group; and
(4) The State has fulfilled all data requirements under the law, including being up to date on all Medicaid and
We proposed these qualifying conditions because we did not believe that a State that is out of compliance with basic program requirements should be eligible for a bonus related to Medicaid and SCHIP participation.
In addition to complying with the qualifying conditions, we proposed that applicant States must meet at least two qualifying State options. We believe that States exercising these options are likely to increase enrollment of eligible families and, therefore, would perform better on the outcome measure. The proposed programmatic options were:
(1) The State accepts mail-in or phone-in applications for Medicaid for families and children, which can be completed without a face-to-face interview;
(2) State Medicaid workers have been outstationed at locations in addition to the locations required under 42 CFR 435.904(c)(1) and (c)(2);
(3) The State has expanded Medicaid eligibility for recipient and applicant families through the use of less restrictive methodologies, authorized by section 1931(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act;
(4) The State uses a definition of “unemployed parent” that includes parents who are employed more than 100 hours per month, as authorized under 45 CFR 233.101 and section 1931(b) of the Act.
(5) The State provides continuous Medicaid eligibility for children for a period of time without regard to changes in circumstances, as authorized by section 1902(e)(12) of the Act;
(6) The State provides a period of presumptive Medicaid eligibility for children as authorized by section 1920A of the Act; or
(7) The State has simplified the enrollment and re-enrollment processes for children and low-income families by implementing such improvements as shortened application forms.
We proposed that those States that met the qualifying conditions and options would be eligible to compete for the bonus award based on their performance under the outcome measure. Specifically, the outcome measure would assess Medicaid and SCHIP participation among persons whose TANF assistance cases were closed in the calendar year who also were enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP at the time of case closure. The measure of State performance would be the percentage of such individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP six months after leaving TANF and who are not currently receiving TANF assistance in that month. We proposed to compare a State's performance to its performance in the previous year, beginning with a comparison of CY 2000 to CY 2001, and to award bonuses to the 10 States with the greatest percentage improvement in this measure. We proposed to allocate $20 million annually for this measure.
We received a significant number of comments from States objecting to the Medicaid measure. We received a larger number of comments from other individuals and organizations, including national advocacy organizations and Members of Congress, in support of the Medicaid measure. Some States objected based on philosophical grounds while others objected for programmatic, administrative and equity reasons. Those commenters supporting the inclusion of a Medicaid measure cited the importance of Medicaid to low-income working families and referred to several recent studies on the declines in Medicaid caseloads where individuals, particularly children, were eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP benefits. (See “Overview of Comments in the Food Stamp and Medicaid/SCHIP Measures” in Part IV above.)
Briefly, in response to the comments, we have made the following changes in the final rule:
• Added an absolute performance measure;
• Changed the award structure to grant bonuses to the three States that rank the highest on the absolute performance measure and the seven States that rank the highest on the improvement measure;
• Revised the improvement measure to measure the percentage point improvement, rather than the percentage improvement, in participation;
• Changed the six-month time frame to a four-month time frame;
• Dropped the qualifying conditions and qualifying options;
• Required that States competing on these measures submit data on a fiscal year, rather than a calendar year, basis; and
• Clarified how we would deal with tie scores.
In addition, based on our own review and analysis, we have revised the regulatory text at § 270.4(d) to clarify that the denominators of the Medicaid/SCHIP measures exclude individuals who are receiving TANF at the time of follow-up (
Below, we summarize the comments we received and our responses.
• The measure is inappropriate because it unfairly rates the success of TANF on the State performance in other programs;
• The high performance bonus awards should not be used to enforce Medicaid law;
• Including Medicaid shifts the focus away from work and the TANF population; and
• It is not an outcome measure of the number of former TANF customers who are better off, but instead a process measure of the number of enrollees in another government program.
Commenters supporting inclusion of the Medicaid measure viewed Medicaid as a critical support to low-income working families; in view of the declines in the Medicaid rolls after passage of welfare reform, they noted that the measure looks to reward State improvements in increasing Medicaid and SCHIP participation.
The commenters are correct that one of the goals under section 401(a) of the Act is to end welfare dependence by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage. However, States can best promote self-sufficiency through job preparation and work by providing the support systems, such as health insurance coverage, that are essential to families during their transition from welfare to work.
As noted by several commenters, there have been many studies that indicate the need for Medicaid coverage while families make this transition. A January 2000 Urban Institute study found that more than one-third of women and nearly one out of five children are uninsured within the first six months of leaving welfare. State studies of families that have left TANF are also finding that at least 20% of children and the majority of parents are no longer receiving Medicaid (see
In enacting section 114 of PRWORA, Congress clearly intended to preserve Medicaid coverage for low-income families whose parents left welfare and went to work if they needed health care coverage and otherwise qualified for Medicaid. Congress preserved the health care safety net because it considers Medicaid a critical support for working families who might otherwise have no health insurance.
We do not believe that the fact that Medicaid may be administered by an agency other than the agency principally responsible for TANF is a reason for not including Medicaid enrollment as a measure in this high performance bonus regulation. As we stated earlier, it is more appropriate to view the high performance bonus as an award for State, not State agency, performance. TANF funds are used by many State and local agencies to accomplish the goals of the TANF legislation; indeed, the TANF block grant opens up new opportunities for additional agencies and nongovernmental organizations to get involved in the administration of the TANF program and the delivery of TANF benefits and services. It also provides new incentives for improved State and local interagency cooperation and cross-program efforts to encourage work and self-sufficiency.
TANF and Medicaid are closely related whether or not the programs are administered jointly by the State. Inclusion of a Medicaid outcome measure as part of the high performance bonus award is not an attempt to enforce Medicaid law, but rather to measure a State's overall success in serving low-income families leaving welfare. We believe that we should use the high performance bonus to encourage and recognize State efforts to effectively coordinate TANF and Medicaid program operations and reduce or eliminate barriers to ongoing Medicaid coverage for eligible families leaving TANF. Inclusion of a Medicaid performance measure provides focus on how well a State is achieving the goals of TANF and further meets congressional intent to provide support services while ending dependence on cash assistance.
A number of other commenters supported inclusion of the qualifying conditions and options, but recommended modifications. The specific suggestions included one to strengthen the qualifying conditions by requiring States to “affirmatively demonstrate compliance” and others to strengthen the qualifying options by requiring that States adopt a higher number of the seven qualifying options.
In addition, we have concluded that the bonus award system is not the appropriate vehicle by which to evaluate or certify State compliance with Federal Medicaid requirements. For example, at the time we are making the high performance awards, we might not have completed a recent assessment of all State programs or there might be a potential compliance issue pending with one State that cannot be resolved in a short enough timeframe. Thus, we agree that it would be more appropriate to address such issues through ongoing Federal oversight of State Medicaid programs and a vigorous agenda of technical assistance and guidance. Therefore, we are dropping the qualifying conditions and qualifying options from the final rule.
Among the significant activities in the Department's agenda to resolve Medicaid enrollment issues are the following:
• Reviews of all State Medicaid programs, primarily during the summer and fall of 1999, to assess compliance with Medicaid requirements and to advise States when corrective actions are necessary;
• Issuance of additional program guidance to State Medicaid Directors clarifying the expectations that apply (
• Development and distribution of thousands of copies of a guide entitled Supporting Families in Transition: A Guide to Expanding Health Coverage in the Post-Welfare Reform World, which explains the basic rules for Medicaid eligibility under the PRWORA amendments;
• Development and distribution of special guides for State and local partners in the child care and Head Start communities to promote their participation in enrollment efforts;
• Issuance of guidance encouraging States to use the $500 million made available to help them provide outreach and address administrative changes related to delinking development and distribution;
• Issuance of a TANF guidance (in the form of a guide entitled “Helping Families Achieve Self-Sufficiency: A Guide of Funding Services for Children and Families through the TANF Program”) making clear that States may use TANF funds to “provide outreach activities that will improve access of needy families to medical benefits under the Medicaid and [S]CHIP programs”;
• In cooperation with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, interdepartmental support for the “Supporting Families” initiative to assist 22 sites in assessing and resolving barriers to initial and continuous participation in Medicaid and SCHIP. (Six of these sites will look at food stamp issues as well);
• Related contract support for development of a literature review and “promising practices” report to provide background information and technical assistance for all States; and
• Meetings with State agencies to discuss access issues of general concern.
We are revising the final regulation at § 270.4(d) to reduce the measurement period in both the absolute measure and the improvement measure from six months to four months. We believe that a four-month time frame better accommodates States' concerns about tracking and the availability of case management information while still providing a reasonable time frame for assessing Medicaid or SCHIP participation by individuals in families who leave TANF. Also, the four-month time frame accommodates families that receive Medicaid extensions based on increased child support collections since this form of transitional benefit only lasts four months.
Most families who leave TANF are eligible for Medicaid through transitional Medicaid, under section 1931 of the Act, or under the medically needy or poverty level groups. Because families eligible under Medicaid must enroll in Medicaid rather than SCHIP, the instances under which children will be eligible for coverage under a separate SCHIP program are greatly limited. States can use methods such as case identifiers to match SCHIP and TANF cases in those instances.
We have also required that States competing on these measures submit their information on a fiscal year, rather than a calendar year basis as we proposed in the NPRM. We are changing to reporting semi-annually on a fiscal year basis for ease of processing the information and to parallel the requirements for reporting information for the work measures.
In response to widespread concerns that PRWORA's delinkage of Medicaid and cash assistance had negatively affected access of low-income families to medical benefits, HCFA conducted on-site reviews in all the States and Territories from September to December 1999 to examine State TANF and Medicaid application and enrollment policies and procedures to ensure that eligible families learn about, receive, and maintain Medicaid coverage. A particular focus of these reviews was on how the TANF application, denial, diversion, and termination processes affect application for and receipt of Medicaid. Based on these reviews, HCFA is in the process of identifying areas where States need to improve their Medicaid application, enrollment, and re-enrollment processes either solely in their Medicaid programs or in conjunction with the administration of their TANF programs. HCFA released policy guidance in some of these areas by way of an April 7, 2000, State Medicaid Directors Letter. This guidance directs States to identify individuals who have been improperly terminated from Medicaid and to reinstate their coverage; clarifies the proper procedures for eligibility redeterminations, and reviews the obligations imposed by Federal law with regard to operation of computerized eligibility systems. In view of the need for continued improvement in these areas and the purpose of the high performance bonus, we believe that the high performance bonus system should include a Medicaid/SCHIP measure that focuses on how well States are meeting the TANF goals of work preparation, work and self-sufficiency.
As stated earlier, we limited the outcome measure to individuals leaving TANF assistance because: (1) States have a clear responsibility for serving these families under title I of PRWORA,
We do not agree with the comment that this measure merely rewards States for complying with the law. The transitional Medicaid provision under section 1925 of the Act covers only those families who were eligible and received Medicaid under section 1931 of the Act. (This is the PRWORA provision covering families who meet AFDC-related eligibility standards for three of the six months prior to losing Medicaid because of income or employment.) Some families leaving TANF because of work are not eligible for transitional Medicaid because they were not receiving Medicaid under section 1931 for three of the six months before losing Medicaid due to earnings or income. However, under section 1931, States may adopt less restrictive income methodologies to ensure that families seeking TANF benefits, but moving quickly to work, can qualify for transitional Medicaid benefits.
In cases not covered by this transitional Medicaid provision, the dependent children generally continue to receive Medicaid under the State's poverty levels groups or may qualify for benefits under the SCHIP program, and we want to ensure that these children are receiving these benefits. A different provision in section 1931 of the Act provides transitional Medicaid for families losing benefits as the result of child support collections. Other families might be eligible under a State's medically needy group.
In addition, many of the factors affecting enrollment in Medicaid are not compliance matters. Two States that fully comply with all Federal requirements could have vastly different participation rates because of differences in how they operate their programs. While there are potential compliance issues with respect to matters such as
In view of the reasons stated above addressing the responsibilities of States to provide Medicaid to eligible families, particularly those leaving TANF, and the flexibility afforded States to meet these responsibilities, we are retaining in the final rule at § 270.4(d) the outcome measure limited to those families who leave TANF, but are enrolled in Medicaid after leaving TANF.
Similarly, we have decided not to make adjustments for families who obtain private health insurance after leaving TANF. While we applaud State efforts to get individuals into jobs that provide health coverage and related benefits, and we would like to be able to credit States somehow for success in this area, adequate data on private health insurance coverage do not exist. Further, the costs that would be associated with collecting comparable, adequate data for all States would be prohibitive. One underlying issue is that private insurance coverage varies substantially across employers and individual employee circumstances. This variability suggests that, in order to treat States fairly, we should somehow measure the quality and level of coverage under the private plans and include appropriate adjustments.
In summary, since private plans seldom offer benefits comparable to Medicaid, we would not necessarily want to give States the same credit for private coverage. Furthermore, participation in employer-sponsored insurance does not affect an individual's entitlement to transitional medical assistance.
Finally, although we recognize that some States have given a high priority to job placements that provide health coverage and have achieved some success, the national statistics suggest that it would be quite rare for those entering low-wage jobs to obtain private health insurance that is affordable and comparable to the benefits provided by Medicaid. The types of employment situations these families generally access, especially in the short run, mitigate against adequate health coverage. The types of industries and the types of occupations, union status, the size of establishments, length of time on the job, and the use of part-time or temporary employment all increase the chances that a family would not have adequate coverage.
For example, according to a study in the June 1995 Monthly Labor Review, while six of ten workers had employer-based coverage, only one-fourth of service workers in service-producing industries had such coverage. The study also noted that, in general, industries where coverage has traditionally been more prevalent have been in decline as a portion of the U.S. economy. It cited service jobs such as waitressing, cosmetology, and cleaning as occupations with less access to employer-based coverage. According to more recent data (1996-1997) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), while 70 percent of those employed full-time in the private sector participate in employer-based plans, only 11 percent of part-time private-sector employees do.
In the event that private insurance is available, it is apt to be under a plan with a limited benefits package. Data from the 1996 and 1997 BLS Employee Benefits Surveys show that 78 percent of those participating in an employer-based plan had to contribute to the cost for family coverage (“Compensation and Working Conditions,” Winter 1999). Earlier BLS data showed a 200 percent increase in the average family premium between 1983 and 1993. Accordingly, “premiums may be difficult for some workers to afford, causing them to decline coverage.” Also, about three-fifths of all participants have coverage that is subject to a pre-existing condition clause, limiting the care they can receive. Thus, even where individuals have access to employee benefits, we are concerned that families receive the wrap-around services that Medicaid can provide and to which they are entitled.
Under the proposed measure, a State that increased Medicaid participation from 5 percent to 10 percent (a 100 percent improvement) would be ranked higher than a State that increases participation from 30 percent to 45 percent (a 50 percent improvement). In the final rule, a State that increases participation from five percent to ten percent would achieve a five percentage point improvement while a State that increases participation from 30 percent to 45 percent would achieve a 15 percentage point improvement and would be ranked higher than the first State.
In awarding bonuses to the top performing States under both performance measures, we will divide the $20 million in bonus funds, as specified in § 270.8, among the three States that have the highest percentage of Medicaid/SCHIP participation rates by individuals in families four months after leaving TANF and who are not receiving TANF in the fourth month (absolute performance measure) and the seven States that show the most improvement performance from the previous year to the current year (improvement performance measure). This allocation of bonus funds among the States is consistent with the Food Stamp allocation of bonus funds among States that compete on the Food Stamps measure.
Also, since participation in the high performance bonus award system is voluntary, we will rank only those States that choose to compete, notify us by February 28 of the bonus year of their intent (§ 270.11), and provide the requisite data.
A substantial number of commenters recommended a child care measure, either as an additional new measure or as a replacement for the family formation measure. We agree that child care is of critical importance to working families, and we share the commenters' view that access to affordable, high quality care is a necessary part of a welfare reform program. We believe that high quality care is of critical importance to children of TANF and other very low-income families. A growing body of research indicates that quality and stability of the child care setting influences outcomes for children as well as the ability of parents to retain employment.
In support of their recommendations, commenters observed that currently there is no reward for good performance in providing child care. A child care bonus, they believed, would be an excellent incentive toward better State performance, given that only a small percentage of income-eligible children are now receiving subsidies, according to published estimates from this Department. Many commenters based their rationale simply on the fact that child care is a critical work support needed in order for poor families to work. The suggestions for how we should construct a specific child care measure centered primarily on the number or proportion of children receiving child care subsidies and/or the amount of expenditures on eligible children.
In developing the NPRM, we had considered the possibility of including a child care measure, not only because of its importance to working families but also because the CCDF program and the TANF program are closely related. However, we did not propose a child care measure for various reasons. Our reasons included the lack of currently available data that would completely capture State performance on all of the crucial elements, including quality, affordability and accessibility of an effective child care subsidy delivery system. We also took into account the lack of data that would fully capture how well States are performing in serving the TANF/CCDF population given the considerable duplication in data sets and inconsistencies in statutory data collection between the two programs.
Based on the extensive support among commenters for a child care measure and upon further evaluation of the availability of data, we have devised a child care measure that we believe will reward States based on an appropriate range of important child care program elements. This new measure is located at § 270.4(e) of this final rule. The three components of the measure address child care accessibility, as indicated by the percent of CCDF-eligible children receiving services; affordability, as indicated by assessed family co-payments; and quality, as indicated by State reimbursement rates. We believe it is essential to include all three components in order to assess a State's performance in making high quality child care more accessible to low-income families. We will use Census Bureau and existing CCDF data on two elements for the FY 2002 bonus year and add an additional element for subsequent years that will require additional information to be reported by
We intend to engage States and others, particularly data experts, in discussions regarding the technicalities of implementing key elements of the measure. While there were many comments in support of a child care measure, and many of these comments supported the areas that we have selected for measurement—accessibility, affordability, and quality of child care—there was no opportunity for detailed consultation or comment on the technical aspects of measurement within these areas, because a child care measure was not included in the NPRM. After consultation with States and others. We intend to issue details regarding the components of the measure by the end of the calendar year.
For the FY 2002 bonus year, the measure consists of two components: the percentage of eligible children served and the affordability of care for the families of the children served as indicated by the relationship between the State's reported family CCDF co-payments and reported family income. These components of the measure use existing data reported by the States on the ACF-801 and the ACF-800 as the source for the number of children served, family copayments, and family income. We will calculate the percentage of children served with “pooled” funds,
Each State's rank on the measure in the FY 2002 bonus year will be a composite weighted score of the two components, with the component on percent of population served having a weight of 6 and the component on affordability of family co-payment having a weight of 4.
We will use Census Bureau data (the Census 2000 Supplementary Survey and the Long-Form Transitional Database) as the data source for family income at 85% of the State's median income,
To determine affordability, we will compare family income with assessed state family co-payment as reported on the ACF-801. Because States have tremendous flexibility in setting sliding fee scales under the regulations governing the CCDF, in order that they can balance different needs and make child care affordable for families at a range of incomes, we will refine the technical details of this measure through additional consultation with States and data experts.
For FY the 2003 bonus year we will further strengthen the measure by adding a third component that compares actual rates paid by the State to the market rates applicable to the performance year. Each State's rank on the measure in the FY 2003 bonus year will be a composite weighted score of the three components, with the component on percent of population served having a weight of 5, the component on affordability of family co-payment having a weight of 3 and the third component on the comparison of rates paid to market rates having a weight of 2.
This third component cannot be implemented in the FY 2002 bonus year because States do not currently report the data collected in the CCDF-required market rate surveys, nor is there any consistency among States in how the surveys are conducted. However, we believe this additional component of the measure will strengthen our ability to assess a State's performance with respect to both affordability and quality, since access to higher quality, more stable care for families receiving subsidies is often linked to the rates paid to providers by the State.
This component will use existing data on actual rates paid for children receiving CCDF subsidies as reported on the ACF-801, and data on actual market rates that will be submitted by those States that choose to compete on the child care high performance measure. We will draw the necessary data from the market rate data collected by the State in the CCDF-required survey. Consistent with existing CCDF requirements, this survey must be completed no earlier than two years prior to the beginning of the performance year when the performance year is the first of the biennial State CCDF Plan cycle, or no earlier than three years prior to the beginning of the performance year when the performance year is the second year of the State CCDF Plan cycle. While States must complete their surveys within the specified time frame, CCDF regulations do not require submission of the survey data. A process for submission of this data by States choosing to compete on the child care measure and the precise methodology to be used in ranking States on the relationship between rates paid and market rates will be developed through additional consultation with States and data experts.
For all bonus years, we will distribute bonuses to the top 10 qualifying States that have both fully obligated their CCDF Matching Funds for the fiscal year corresponding to the performance year and fully expended their CCDF Matching Funds for the fiscal year preceding the performance year. The source of this financial information is the ACF-696 for the corresponding bonus performance period. This requirement contributes to the effective use of Federal funds and to a level playing field across States, by ensuring that no State can win the child care high performance bonus through substituting TANF or other 100% Federal funds for CCDF Matching Funds (although States may certainly add resources to the CCDF “pool” of funds). Thus, all States competing for the child care bonus must have committed all of their dedicated child care funds.
We address commenters' specific recommendations for the child care measure below. The approaches suggested by many of the commenters were similar. The commenters proposed a variety of options, some more detailed than others, while none provided an in-depth analysis of potential data sources. To avoid repetition, we have organized the comments by type, rather than by content of individual letters.
(1) TANF recipients and former TANF recipients;
(2) Children eligible under the provisions of the Child Care and Development Fund (
(3) Children at or below 200 percent of poverty;
(4) Children served under both the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) and, at State option, other subsidy programs funded by TANF or State sources; or
(5) Children in two-parent households receiving child care services (as a suggested substitute for the family formation measure).
We do not have an existing data source that would accurately capture child care subsidy services to all TANF recipients. Nor could we determine a method of eliminating duplicate counting of children served with TANF and CCDF maintenance-of-effort funds.
Since we are adopting a separate family formation measure, we did not see a rationale for focusing the child care measure solely on two-parent families. Child care is a critical support for one-parent as well as two-parent families when parents are working. Our measure does recognize that this is a TANF high performance bonus by capturing those children connected to TANF, transitioning from TANF or at risk of becoming eligible for TANF who are served in the CCDF system, including families served with “pooled” funds reported on the ACF-696.
In the second year of the child care bonus we will add a component that compares reimbursement rates to applicable market rates. These facets of the measure will also at least indirectly address quality of services, since families in top performing States would likely have access to a broader range of higher quality care, which often costs more than mediocre care. We cannot implement the payment component in the FY 2002 bonus year because States are not currently required to submit data on the relationship between their reimbursement rates and the market rates in the State. Nor do we have access to consistent information on what constitutes the 75th percentile in each State.
We believe that this approach is stronger than an approach that would link extra bonus funds to a specific level of rates, such as the 75th percentile. First, we believe that an approach that rewards States for rates that provide more access to the market for low-income families without setting a single standard is more consistent with the flexibility in the CCDF statute. The CCDF final rule (63 FR 39959) uses the 75th percentile as a benchmark, not a requirement. Second, we want to ensure that States have a continued incentive to improve the access of low-income families to the market beyond any specific marker. Third, we want to ensure that the bonus approach does not inadvertently inhibit the ability of States to try a variety of approaches to rate-setting that might enhance quality, including rate structures that offer incentives linked to provider qualifications, certification, or other quality measures. In the context of a shortage of dedicated Federal child care funds and the trade-offs that States could be forced to make as a result, we are concerned that a bonus linked to a single approach to payment could inadvertently be counter-productive. Our approach is intended to reward States that, by making the best use of all the resources and choices available to them, have established higher rates.
• Excluding children who are in informal or unlicensed care from the population measure;
• Measuring the use of licensed care by subsidized families; and
• The payment of higher rates to accredited centers.
1. Before a State could compete on a child care measure, the State must pay a child care rate equal to at least the 75th percentile of the local market rate based on a survey that is not more than two years old; or
2. To qualify to compete, a State must spend a required percentage of child care funding for care that meets State certification standards.
Other suggestions included granting high performance bonus awards only on the condition that a State based its child care payments on recent market surveys or served at least 70% of its income-eligible children.
In addition to recommendations for a new child care measure, we received many comments for other measures as well as suggestions for how the high performance bonus system might be improved. We summarize and respond to these comments below.
Most commenters on this issue recommended that the measure be designed to “look at the proportion of women who disclose they are victims of domestic violence who receive services or waivers under the [TANF] family violence option.” Alternatively, a few other commenters suggested that we add a threshold measure related to domestic violence,
• Strengthen the health care system's ability to screen, treat, and prevent family and intimate partner violence;
• Provide education, training, and support for battered women and their families;
• Increase the ability of battered women, including those on welfare, to obtain and retain employment and obtain child support;
• Encourage greater linkages between child welfare, family and intimate partner violence, and criminal justice fields to better protect both children and parents in homes where violence occurs;
• Enhance community prevention and response systems by increasing collaboration between the Department's State and Tribal family violence grantees and the Department of Justice's State and community-based grantees and other community-based groups; and
• Increase the knowledge base about family and intimate partner violence, through data collection and research;
Specific examples of activities related to this initiative include:
• As the commenters recognized, the TANF final rule includes provisions pertaining to the Family Violence Option instituted under PRWORA. The TANF final rule also provides States penalty relief when they fail to meet the numerical standards for time limits and the work participation rates because they provide good cause domestic violence waivers to battered women. It also includes provisions for the reporting of the strategies and procedures the State has put into place to ensure that victims of domestic violence receive appropriate alternative services.
• ACF awarded grants to several States and localities to increase collaboration between domestic violence programs and welfare programs. These grants have been used for training, policy development, and joint intervention responses.
• ACF's Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) has four ongoing grants examining child support cooperation/good cause and domestic violence, and a fifth cross-site evaluation of the projects. The grants will provide additional information about the incidence of domestic violence among child support recipients and ways the child support and domestic violence communities can work collaboratively to meet the needs of battered women.
• OCSE has also been working with States on implementation of the “Family Violence Indicator,” an automated flagging mechanism within OCSE's national database, the Federal Parent Locator Service, that will prevent the release of data on battered women.
• ACF has formed an interstate domestic violence working group that is examining a number of issues surrounding domestic violence and child support.
• The Department's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation is conducting assessments of State policies and practices regarding domestic violence in the TANF program.
ACF will issue periodic reports and technical assistance materials reflecting the results of these and other activities. For example, the Center for Law and Social Policy, in conjunction with OCSE, recently published “models of Safe Child Support Enforcement,” a guide for States and others.
Finally, through the Family Violence and Services Program, ACF also provides grants to all States, all State coalitions, and a number of Indian tribes to provide immediate shelter and related assistance to victims of family violence and their dependents. ACF also funds five national resource centers and the national Domestic Violence Hotline.
Although we are committed to addressing the problems and the often tragic consequences of domestic violence, our task with respect to the high performance bonus was to assess the appropriateness of such a measure in the context of our policy and evaluative framework. In the NPRM, we indicated that we considered a measure looking at the proportion of TANF recipients who received domestic violence services, but we noted that we had identified no objective and reliable data sources for this measure. Similarly, there is no existing source or uniform standards for determining whether a State is meeting federally recognized good cause waiver requirements (especially if it is not penalty-liable), and no existing Federal standards for qualitative measures of service.
After carefully considering the comments and verifying that no data were available to support an outcome rather than a process measure, we decided we would not include a domestic violence measure in the bonus system at this time. Because competition for the bonus is voluntary, we were concerned that additional data collection would be burdensome and would not generate competition—particularly since we had a fixed amount of bonus funds.
We also evaluated the recommendation for including domestic violence as a threshold measure,
Nevertheless, we are continuing our efforts to encourage all States to plan pro-actively to meet the needs of victims of domestic violence and their dependents. We will be making technical assistance materials and research results available to States to enhance their efforts to prevent domestic violence and provide services to those in need.
In the preamble to the TANF final rule (April 12, 1999, 64 FR 17748), we indicated that we would invite comments on whether to include a worker displacement/worker protection bonus measure during our rulemaking on the high performance bonus. We carried out this commitment in the NPRM when we specifically asked for comments on whether we should “consider State enforcement of the TANF non-displacement requirements in awarding bonuses, and, if so, how.”
• Require States to provide evidence of anti-displacement measures,
• Add a new measure based on: (a) Evidence of the integration of TANF, the Work force Investment Act (WIA), and the Welfare-to-Work (WtW) worker protection procedures (
These commenters believed in the importance of worker displacement protections in the TANF program and noted that they found that some States have been slow to put procedures into place. They provided one concrete suggestion for data sources. However, adopting this recommendation would have required additional State reporting—an approach that we said we wanted to avoid. One commenter specifically acknowledged that it is difficult to measure displacement accurately.
Additionally, as the commenters also observed, the statutory WIA and WtW requirements in the area of worker protection are more detailed than the statutory TANF requirements; these differences would appear to pose problems for establishing uniform standards.
Worker displacement is a matter of concern to us, however, and we will be monitoring it through review of information each State provides to us in its TANF annual report. Specifically, a State must include a description of procedures that it has established and is maintaining to resolve displacement complaints. (See 45 CFR 265.9(a)(7).)
At the same time there are no standards available for us to objectively assess the extent and quality of State displacement procedures. Thus, we do not believe that we have adequate criteria or data upon which to base either a threshold or additional performance measure.
In the preamble to the proposed rule, we discussed our consideration of whether to include a child poverty measure in the high performance bonus system. We cited the importance of this matter, our belief that States had the flexibility and resources to make an impact on child poverty, and the connection of a child poverty measure to two of the purposes of TANF: (1) Promoting work and employment; and (2) strengthening child and family well-being by assisting needy children in their own homes or in the homes of relatives. We invited public comment on this issue.
On the other hand, child poverty is an area for which there are other mechanisms in the statute for monitoring and promoting positive State action. Section 413(i) of the Act requires that States report their child poverty rate annually and take corrective action when an increase in the child poverty rate is the result of the TANF program in the State. We published a final rule implementing these provisions on June 23, 2000 (65 FR 39234).
The commenters recommended the use of the official poverty measure (developed by the Census Bureau) and suggested possible measurement approaches for our future consideration. They also suggested that when there were economic conditions beyond the control of States, ACF could use rules for setting aside the measure.
• Diversion from TANF;
• Recidivism,
• Savings and asset-building;
• Housing (with the measure to be developed by ACF in collaboration with the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
• Transportation,
• Education or training,
• Reduction in the incidence of teenage pregnancy through abstinence education and other programs that encourage children to postpone starting a family until married;
• Availability of and utilization of various transitional services,
• Programs to enhance family relationships and reduce family violence;
• Decreases in the number of children in foster care; and
• Child support,
We received a few additional recommendations and suggestions to which we wish to respond.
The commenter recognized the lack of currently available data that could be used to support such a measure, but suggested that we could develop such data. They gave examples of factors that we could measure in an overall bonus but did not go into detail regarding the data that would need to be developed. Rather, they suggested an alternate approach of letting individual States choose multiple areas in which they wished to compete.
We believe the measures in the final rule permit an overall high performing State to compete successfully on several of the measures and to receive a commensurate monetary award. At the same time, a statutory cap on the total award a State can receive in a year provides a deterrent to any misplaced incentive to over-focus on certain aspects of welfare reform that might be generated by the proposed system of bonuses.
In addition, having States compete for an overall bonus that encompasses items of their own choosing would not only be exceedingly complex, but would be a challenge to objectivity. Also, based on our experience in awarding the FY 1999 bonuses, we did not identify a large number of States winning on certain measures that exhibited only mediocre success on other measures.
ACF has in place a strong system of peer technical assistance that serves to recognize promising practices. The Welfare Peer Technical Assistance Network provides guidance and instruction to States on promising practices for moving welfare and low-income families to self-sufficiency. It provides information to States about TANF program resources and increases communication among the States about promising practices. Access to this Network is available at: http://www.calib.com/peerta/.
The commenter recommended that ACF could use the data sources proposed in the NPRM since they either contained race/ethnicity variables or could be matched with a data source, such as TANF data, that contained the variables. The commenter acknowledged, however, that there could be additional reporting burden and that “states are the only entities in a position to perform the matching of data to determine whether certain groups are faring worse than others.” The commenter urged DHHS to explore ways to incorporate the results of the various studies and analyses into the bonus system.
In addition, the commenter suggested that DHHS “use any statistically significant racial or ethnic disparity of outcomes as a factor in evaluating the state's performance the following year,”
We also believe that, if it were feasible to secure adequate data, there may be factors beyond a State's control when there are disparities in the outcomes among welfare sub-populations. Immigration and refugee resettlement patterns are examples of factors that are beyond State control. Thus, it would be difficult to construct a measure that would be fair to States. The commenter did not assess the availability and interaction of racial/ethnic data for the various measures. Without doing a full analysis, we were also concerned that the suggestion might require that States conduct additional data collection and analysis. For these reasons, we have decided not to add a performance or a threshold measure based on racial/ethnic disparities.
In the overview section above (IV.C. Overview of Comments on the Family Formation Measure), we described our continuing efforts to develop an outcome measure related to family formation and our commitment to including in the high performance bonus system measures to address the non-work purposes of the statute. In addition, we summarized the public comments on, and the objections to, this proposed measure and our rationale for retaining the measure in the final rule.
By including this measure in the final rule, we want to emphasize that our primary focus is on the second statutory purpose of TANF,
We have made one substantive change in this measure. In response to comments, we will base this measure on a universal population,
We want to respond more specifically to some of the commenters' major concerns.
Some of the recent steps ACF has taken will help us track State efforts to meet the family formation goals of TANF. First, under the provisions in the final TANF rule, published April 12, 1999 (64 FR 17720), the new fiscal reporting form (ACF-196) will capture expenditures on “Two-parent family formation and maintenance activities.” This will help us determine which States are making the biggest investments in this area.
Second, the new annual report from States will include summaries of State programs and activities directed at the third and fourth purposes of the TANF program (see 45 CFR 265.9(a)(8)). We anticipate that this information will provide leads about promising practices that we can share among States to encourage innovation and increase efforts in these areas. It might also provide leads about policies or practices that merit further review.
Third, in the summer of 1999, we issued a TANF funding guidance document entitled “Helping Families Achieve Self-Sufficiency.” This document provides several examples of family formation activities that States could undertake to encourage and reduce barriers to marriage, funded with Federal TANF or State MOE funds,
Finally, recent results from a rigorous evaluation of the Minnesota Family Investment Plan found that a program combining generous work incentives with work requirements significantly increased the proportion of married families for both two-parent recipients and single-parent, long-term recipient families.
We had previously devoted considerable thought to the question of whether we should include a teen pregnancy measure because this question came up in our earlier consultation with the States. While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Alan Guttmacher Institute both publish State-level teen pregnancy data, some of these data are based on estimates because teen abortion data are not available for all States, and we did not consider these figures sufficiently reliable for the purpose of awarding bonuses.
In the areas of teen pregnancy prevention and out-of-wedlock childbearing, we have sought to focus more State attention on the pregnancy prevention goals of TANF. First, we believe the new reporting form (ACF-196) and the annual reports from States will provide information on promising State practices that we can share to encourage innovation in this area. The TANF funding guidance (“Helping Families Achieve Self-Sufficiency”) also provided several examples of pregnancy prevention activities that States could undertake with Federal TANF or State MOE funds.
In addition, the Department has continued its efforts to improve State and national outcomes in these areas. The latest national data show continued success in reducing the teen birth rate (which dropped 20 percent between 1991 and 1999). The 1999 rate of births
On April 14, 1999, we issued the final regulations on the bonus to reward States with the largest decreases in their out-of-wedlock childbearing. On September 13, 1999, Secretary Shalala announced the first five winners of that bonus: Alabama, California, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and Michigan. Each received $20 million. The reductions in their out-of-wedlock birth ratios ranged from 1.5 to 5.7 percent.
Prior to these issuances, the Department had undertaken a number of initiatives directed at reducing out-of-wedlock and teen pregnancies.
• In 1995, the Department produced the
• In 1997, the Department developed the National Strategy to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, as required in section 905 of PRWORA. The Department has released three annual reports to Congress since then. Among other things, the 2000 report noted that HHS has funded teen pregnancy prevention programs in at least 35 percent of communities across the country and listed more than 20 Departmental programs aimed at educating teens and preventing pregnancy (including Girl Neighborhood Power! and demonstration grants to 13 communities in 11 States funded through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Community Coalition Partnership Programs).
• The Department, in partnership with the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy and Johnson and Johnson, has developed “Get Organized: A Guide to Preventing Teen Pregnancy.” This publication stresses a localized approach, a long-term commitment, and careful evaluation. The Department will be disseminating additional information to communities regarding programs that specifically target boys and young men.
• The Department has been administering the State Abstinence Education Program, as authorized by section 912 of the PRWORA. This program authorizes $50 million per year beginning in FY 1998. Every State applied for this money to build on its efforts to prevent teen pregnancy in FY 1998 and FY 1999 (although New Hampshire declined its funding for FY 1998 and California did not draw down its 1998 or 1999 grant). For FY 2000, all States applied for an abstinence education grant except California. As mandated in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the Department is conducting an evaluation of a selected number of sites receiving funding under this provision.
• The Department is actively supporting expanding pregnancy prevention efforts to include a focus on boys and young men.
• The Department's Regional Offices have awarded $2 million in small grants to Title X Family Planning Clinics to develop pilot programs designed to prevent premature fatherhood. These projects employ male high school students as interns to provide them with on-the-job training in clinic operations and allied health occupations and provide education about male responsibility, family planning and reproductive health.
• In addition to these initiatives, the Department supports other research efforts, including the National Study of Adolescent Health, the National Survey of Family Growth, and the National Survey of Adolescent Males, which have all provided important insight into adolescent risk behaviors including sexual activity and response to pregnancy.
Under the NPRM, we proposed to rank only the competing States for the work measures, but to rank all States that met the qualifying conditions for the Food Stamp and the family formation measure, based on Census Bureau data.
In § 270.5 of the NPRM, we proposed definitions of the four work measures and a description of the factors that we would use to determine a State's score on the work measures. We also proposed that States could compete on one, any number of, or none of these work measures. We would score and rank competing States and award bonuses to the ten States with the highest scores in each measure.
The four work measures are: Job Entry; Success in the Work Force (Job Retention and Earnings Gain); and improvement from the prior fiscal year in each of these measures. We would use the proposed measures to measure State performance along three parameters of employment: the extent to which States are moving recipients into the work force; the degree to which recipients are able to remain in the work force; and the degree to which their earnings increase over time.
The comments were strongly supportive of our proposed work measures, although a number of commenters suggested substantive and technical modifications or recommended the addition of threshold measures. A few commenters opposed some of the measures. Briefly, we made the following changes in the final rule in response to comments:
(1) Revised the calculation of the improvement measures to measure percentage point improvement rather than percentage improvement in § 270.5(a);
(2) Revised the calculation of the State rankings in § 270.5(b) to drop the proposed double-weighting of the job retention sub-measure—thus giving both sub-measures equal weight;
(3) Dropped the distinction on what kinds of subsidized jobs count under the work measures;
(4) Streamlined the description of the ranking procedures in § 270.5(b);
(5) Clarified that we will award bonuses only to States with positive scores; and
(6) Clarified how we will rank States on the increase in success in the work force improvement measure.
Following is a discussion of the comments we received, by issue.
The NPRM did not specify a level of earnings or other threshold factor that a TANF recipient would need to achieve in order for the State to count the individual in the job entry, job retention, or earnings gain measures. Thus, as little as one dollar of earnings in a quarter would count in determining who entered employment, how long they remained employed, and how much their earnings increased.
Two commenters recommended that we link job entry with success in the work place. They asserted that a State could receive bonus grants for moving TANF recipients into work and at the same time have a dismal record regarding recipients' remaining employed and/or earning a livable wage that would propel them out of poverty.
Several commenters recommended that we establish a threshold requiring a minimum percentage of expenditures to be spent on education and training or requiring the full use of Federal programs,
We do not agree with the commenters' recommendations that we establish a threshold requiring a minimum percentage of expenditures to be spent on education and training or requiring the full use of Federal programs,
In the definition of “job retention rate,” we proposed a job retention period of six months,
We also considered the suggestion that we measure retention in the same job, but decided against it because, moving to another job can, in fact, represent moving up to a better job. In addition, tracking job characteristics, other than wages,
In the NPRM, we proposed a “success in the work force measure” that combined the performance scores of two sub-measures,
• Treat earnings gain as a separate measure instead of incorporating it into the success in the work force measure;
• Measure earnings gain at both six and 12 months;
• Adjust the earnings gain for the cost of living in each State using the HUD fair market rent amount;
• Measure only full quarters' earnings; or
• Allow administrative data on a voluntary basis as a source of earnings.
For the reasons expressed by the commenters and, after further analysis of the available data, we agree that job retention and earnings gain should be weighted equally in developing State rankings. We have made this change in § 270.5(b).
We agree that separate measures for both job retention and earnings gain would provide a discrete focus and reward for each measure. Job retention is an important measure of success in transitioning from welfare to work. It is correlated with long-term employment stability,
Therefore, we have retained the link between job retention and earnings gain in order to focus attention and resources on both. Helping people rapidly get employed, remain employed, or enter higher paying jobs after training and progress to even higher paying jobs are all important strategies. States may choose to emphasize different strategies at different times, depending on their populations, goals, and economies.
Several commenters recommended that we measure earnings gain at both six and twelve months. We did not want to make this change for essentially the same reasons we did not want to extend the retention rate to twelve months,
In addition, we have not accepted the comment to adjust the earnings gain sub-measure based on the cost of living in each State using the HUD fair market rate amount as this would add a level of complexity that would counter one of our basic principles,
We also did not accept the recommendation to measure only full quarters' earnings because that would require a substantially increased data collection and reporting burden on the States. Because Unemployment Insurance (UI) and NDNH records do not indicate whether earnings reflect a full quarter of employment or not, we would have to establish a proxy measure, require States to collect and submit administrative data, or conduct new surveys. Also, allowing States to submit administrative data on a voluntary basis would not be helpful because we believe that the bonus awards must be based on data that are uniformly available and comparable across States.
Finally, although we received no comments on this matter, we have clarified how we will calculate scores, rank States, and award bonuses for the increase in success in the work force measure. First, we will award bonuses only to States with a positive improvement score on at least one of the sub-measures. Second, we will not exclude a State with a negative score in calculating a rate and ranking States on this measure. For example, a State may have a negative score on one sub-measure (
They recommended that we develop a single sustained employment rate in lieu of the job entry and job retention rates. The base (denominator) for the sustained employment rate would be all TANF adult recipients except those engaged in employment with earnings equal to or greater than an average of twenty hours per week for the quarter multiplied by the Federal minimum wage. A recipient would be counted as a “sustained employment recipient” if the recipient has at least two consecutive quarters with earnings at or above the threshold noted above during the next year. The earnings gain rate would be measured over a one-year period beginning after the initial quarter of employment where the earnings are at or above the earnings threshold in the measurement quarter,
Under the earnings gap measure, the difference between the amount of earnings for poor families with children in a State and the official poverty level would be determined. We would rank States on their success (improvement) in closing that difference. We would also make adjustments based on changes in unemployment rates and changes in the number of families in the measurement period.
In the NPRM, we proposed to count only jobs that were not fully subsidized in order to focus on jobs that were likely to lead to self-sufficiency.
In the NPRM, we proposed to award bonuses to the States demonstrating the greatest improvement in job entry and success in the work force. We proposed to measure the percentage increase from the comparison year to the performance year.
Another commenter, however, recommended that we should use only absolute measures or reduce the amount of the awards for the improvement measures because States that have been high performers in the past would have little room for improvement. They believed that the proposed method of calculating the performance improvement rate for job entry and the success in the work force measure (combination of job retention and earnings gain) did not take into consideration the past performance of States that had implemented welfare reform early. These commenters indicated that States were disadvantaged if they had achieved earlier success in moving recipients from welfare to work and self-sufficiency that would not be measured. In addition, such States' remaining caseloads have a higher proportion of recipients that have significant employment barriers. Commenters made the following recommendations:
• Adjust the proposed method of calculating the improvement rate,
• Set a minimum target for improvement,
Finally, we recalculated the FY 1999 bonus improvement scores based on the recommended adjustment formula and found that it had the effect of narrowing the range of the improvement scores and had some limited impact on bonus winners. There was only a modest change in the improvement rate ranking of “early reform” States, based on this recommended approach. For these reasons, we have not adopted the suggestion to consider past performance earlier than the comparison year.
We also have not accepted the recommendation that we establish a minimum target for improvement largely because caseloads are changing. With the available baseline data it would be difficult to determine a reasonable goal, especially over more than one bonus year.
However, in § 270.5(a) and (b)(3), we have changed the method of calculating the improvement rate. Specifically, we have decided to use the percentage point change instead of the percentage change. For example, under the NPRM, a State that went from a 50 percent to a 60 percent job entry rate would have an improvement rate of 20 percent ((60%−;50%)/50%=20%), while a State that went from a lower base of 40 percent to a 50 percent job entry rate would have a bigger increase,
We stated in the NPRM that we believed that competition for the high performance bonus should primarily reflect a State's welfare to work strategies and should be a competition among States that is objective and fair. We indicated that there are factors over which the State has little control, such as the health of the State's economy, the demographics of its TANF caseload and its resident population, and State population growth. We asked if we should attempt to develop adjustment factors in order to ensure an objective and fair competition.
The adjustment of performance scores by external factors would be a complex and difficult task involving the establishment of a correlation between external factors and the performance being measured and, if a strong correlation was detected, determining the scope of the adjustment. Also, such adjustment(s) could add a level of subjectivity and contentiousness to the performance system beyond the value of potentially leveling the playing field.
Nevertheless, in order to test whether we could detect a correlation between certain external factors and the work measures, we performed regression analysis using job entry rate performance and such factors as the unemployment rate, recipient characteristics, and TANF payment levels. (We chose job entry rate performance because we thought State performance under this work measure would more likely be influenced by external factors.) Our analysis showed that none of these factors was highly correlated with job entry rate. In fact, the highest correlation coefficient was −0.28 for the unemployment rate. Thus, the implication is that these specific factors do not determine the job entry rate to any significant degree. In addition, adding adjustment factors makes it much more difficult to explain performance and for States to set meaningful targets. Therefore, we have decided not to make any adjustments to the way we calculate job entry or any of the other work measures based on economic, demographic, or other factors.
In the NPRM, we proposed that the State, if it chose to compete on any or all of the work measures, must report one of two alternative sets of data, as specified by the Secretary. In one alternative, the State would provide three items of identifying information on its adult TANF recipients that we would match against the NDNH data. In the second alternative, the State would provide actual performance data for the work measures based on data matches with State UI records or other records. We also specified the SSP-MOE reporting requirements.
We have broadened the content of this section in the final rule. In paragraph (a), we specify the data a State must report if it wishes to compete on the work measures. In paragraph (b), we specify that a State must report data on SSP-MOE programs in order to compete on any high performance bonus measure. In new paragraphs (c) and (d), we specify the data a State must report if it wishes to compete on the Medicaid/SCHIP measures and/or the child care measure. Finally, in paragraph (e), we have retained the requirement (paragraph (d) in the NPRM) that each State must notify us regarding which measures it will compete on in each bonus year.
We have not specified the identifying information that States must submit in § 270.6(a). Rather, because some operational factors are unclear in our use of the NDNH, we will specify these data in program guidance. The data that will be required will be limited to some or all of the information proposed in the NPRM,
In addition, we want to clarify what data are available through the NDNH. The NDNH contains not only a national database of new hires, but also national wage data compiled by the State Unemployment Insurance agencies and Federal employment and wages. (This addresses commenters' concerns for information on out-of-State and Federal employment.) Matching adult TANF recipient data with quarterly wage data on the NDNH data base will provide the necessary work performance information to rank States on all the work measures.
With respect to the privacy concerns, the match of adult TANF recipients with the NDNH database will not reflect information about individuals, but will produce only aggregate information for use in calculating the State rankings on the work measures.
Prior to these regulations, we provided States flexibility in what data source(s) they could use for compiling performance data for the work
We specify in new paragraph (c) that we will issue program guidance on the data a State must submit if it wishes to compete on the Medicaid/SCHIP measure.
We specify in new paragraph (d) that if a State wishes to compete on the child care measure in FY 2002, it must report the data required by the CCDF program. These data are found in ACF Forms 800, 801, and 696. In addition, after external consultation, we will issue program guidance to specify the additional data on child care market rates that States must submit in order to compete in FY 2003.
In the NPRM, we proposed to use Census Bureau data to rank State performance on the Food Stamp and the Family Formation measures. We also proposed to rank State performance on the Medicaid/SCHIP measure based on the data submitted by States following their match of individuals no longer receiving TANF assistance with Medicaid/SCHIP enrollment data.
In the final rule, we specify in paragraph (c) that we will use data from the ACF Forms 800, 801, and 696 to rank State performance on the child care measure. Also, after external consultation, we will issue program guidance specifying the other information States must submit in order to compete on this measure.
In addition, we have made the following editorial and technical changes in this section: we have substituted the acronym SCHIP for the acronym CHIP and clarified that we will rank only those States that choose to compete on these measures. In addition, we received a number of comments on this section.
We want to clarify that we will use data from the Census Bureau's Census 2000 Supplementary Survey and the Census Long-Form Transitional Database in awarding bonuses for FY 2002 and FY 2003. The Supplementary Survey and the Transitional Database will provide reliable State-level data based on a sample of 700,000 cases. If high performance bonus awards are authorized in subsequent years, we plan to use data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS), which will provide annual reliable State and county-level data, starting in 2004 for areas with populations of 65,000 or more.
This section of the NPRM proposed to:
There were no major objections to this section of the NPRM, but several commenters made alternate recommendations. In general, most States and their representative organizations recommended that the full amount of the annual bonus ($200 million) be awarded based on the work measures. On the other hand, a large number of the other commenters recommended various increases in the amount of funding allocated to the work support measures.
In addition, although there was general support for awarding bonuses to the top ten States with the highest scores in each measure, we received several suggestions for alternative approaches to the Food Stamp and Medicaid/SCHIP measures: (1) Award bonuses in each measure for both absolute performance and performance improvement; (2) award five bonuses for absolute performance and five for improved performance; (3) alternatively, award three bonuses for absolute performance and seven for performance improvement; and (4) award the same amount of money for each measure.
• Job entry—$28 million
• Success in work force—$56 million
• Increase in job entry—$21 million
• Increase in success in work force—$35 million
• States already have many incentives to help individuals enter the work force,
• Families will not be able to get or maintain employment without these essential supports. Further, the work support measures (including the addition of any new measures related to child care or other measure) support two of the four purposes on TANF by providing assistance so that children can be cared for in their own homes as well as promoting job preparation and work.
• As proposed in the NPRM, the $20 million for each of the Food Stamp and Medicaid/SCHIP measures, divided among the top ten winning States, creates little incentive for States, compared to the more generously funded work measures.
As we said in the NPRM, awarding bonuses to the top ten States not only provides a clear incentive to States, but also helps avoid problems associated with the need to re-allocate funds. More importantly, we did not want to set a numerical threshold based on an absolute level of performance, given the absence of baseline data. Another factor we considered is that what works now in terms of a bonus system may not be appropriate as the States' caseloads continue to change.
Finally, we believe that State programs are still evolving and continue to reflect the flexibility provided in the statute in their programs and services. Given that diversity, we have decided not to change our proposed standard.
In the NPRM, we proposed a two-step process to redistribute funds, if for some reason we cannot award the full annual amount of $200 million in any fiscal year. We proposed that, if we could not distribute the funds as specified in § 270.8, due to the statutory limit on each State's bonus award, we would reallocate the funds among the measures proposed in § 270.4. If the funds still could not be distributed within the bonus year, we proposed that they would be available for distribution in the following year.
We have made one editorial change in the regulatory text for clarity. In § 270.9(a), we deleted the phrase “due to the statutory limit on the amount of each State's bonus award,” as there may be additional reasons why funds could not be awarded,
However, we will reconsider this suggestion if: (1) We find that, in FY 2003, the bonus awards have not been re-authorized in the statute, and we cannot roll funds forward; and (2) we have a situation in which funds would remain unawarded.
In this section of the NPRM, we proposed to annually review the measures, data sources, and funding allocations for the high performance bonus system to determine if modifications, adjustments, or technical changes were needed. We stated explicitly that we would not add new measures or change funding allocations except through regulations.
Also in this section, we proposed that we would consult with NGA and APHSA and other interested parties before we made our final decisions on performance components for bonus awards in FY 2002, FY 2003 and beyond; notify States through program guidance of our decisions; and post this information on the Internet.
(1) Regarding the proposed annual review of data sources, one commenter urged us to use the review process to evaluate annually whether new data sources are available. They supported a broader measure for determining State success in assuring health coverage for low-income families that would require additional data sources.
(2) Regarding the proposed consultation activities, a State “welcomed the flexibility and input but only if changes produce little burden on States.”
(3) Other commenters urged us to include members of the advocacy community in the review process,
(4) One commenter recommended that we should release the findings of the annual review process.
We view the high performance bonus system, however, as one that is still new for both the States and the Federal government and one that will evolve and need refinements in the future. We agree with the first commenter and are committed to looking to identify new, more reliable data sources. We also agree that our external consultations, as they have done in the past, will include a broad range of “interested parties.” However, we have not added specific examples of such agencies and organizations in the regulatory text because we do not think it is necessary or appropriate. (We specified the National Governors' Association and the American Public Human Services Association in this section because they are specified in the statute.)
Finally, we have not accepted the suggestion to release the findings of the annual review. We believe such a release would be duplicative because the results will be shared through our consultation activities and/or through periodic guidance. If any changes result, the guidance containing these changes will explain the basis for the changes, including our rationale and the results of our review and consultation.
We will not make any social security numbers available.
In the NPRM, we proposed time frames for States to submit various information and data required to compete on the proposed work measures.
In the final rule, we have broadened the content of this section to include
In the NPRM, we proposed that States must submit data for the work measures by February 28 and August 31 of each bonus year. These time frames reflected the proposed option for States to match adult recipient data with Unemployment Insurance data. We have dropped that option in the final rule. The final rule provides that we will match State adult recipient identifying information provided by competing States with wage data in the NDNH. We are working closely with the Office of Child Support Enforcement to finalize all technical issues related to this match, and we will specify the reporting timeframes in program guidance at a later date.
In this section, we proposed that, in order to compete for the high performance bonus, each State must submit data electronically on the work measures and on the Medicaid/SCHIP outcome measure in a manner that we and HCFA will specify.
In the NPRM, we specified some of the requirements for the use of bonus funds,
In emphasizing recommendations for flexibility, several commenters noted the lack of congruence between the proposed bonus awards tied to success in the Food Stamp and the Medicaid/SCHIP programs and a State TANF agency's inability to use TANF dollars to, for example, increase health care coverage for an additional portion of the low-income population, provide food stamp outreach, or directly fund food shelves. They recommended that we allow bonus dollars for expenditures that could positively affect the outcomes being measured,
Other commenters suggested that, if flexibility were provided, States could use bonus funds for a wide range of activities, such as economic development targeted at TANF families; supplemental wages for newly employed TANF workers; allowable medical services; supplements for physician reimbursement rates for Medicaid to stimulate more access to health care; State programs or initiatives that reduce poverty, such as EITC credits; and increases in the number and quality of child care slots.
One commenter, aware of the statutory restrictions on these funds, urged us to seek a legislative amendment to provide greater flexibility.
Second, despite a commenter's assertion that the statute does not require these limitations on the bonus funding, sections 404 and 408 of the Act limit the purposes for which high performance bonus funds can be used. Both sections refer to the use of a grant “under section 403.” Since high performance bonus awards (as well as bonus awards to reduce out-of-wedlock births, contingency funds, and supplemental funds) are grants under section 403, the limitations in sections 404 and 408 are statutory. Likewise, the restriction on the use of TANF funds for Food Stamp outreach is statutory, based on the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-185.
In the NPRM, we also indicated that any expenditures for “assistance” are subject to the restrictions on the use of Federal funds at 45 CFR 263.11. We have revised the proposed regulatory language because we did not want it
For clarity, we have added new paragraph (d) in this section to specify that States must report quarterly on the use of the bonus funds, along with other TANF funds, using the ACF-196.
Last year, when we published the TANF final rule and the high performance bonus NPRM, we believed that submission of the SSP-MOE reports was critical to understanding State caseload changes and work performance. However, as TANF and SSPs have continued to evolve, and we have gained more experience with the caseload reduction credit and high performance bonus processes, we have encountered situations where a waiver of the SSP-MOE reporting requirement seemed appropriate. Most notably, as discussed in more detail later, States have raised questions about a very few SSPs that do not address basic needs; do not appear to be particularly germane to assessing State caseload reductions, work efforts, or performance; and are not amenable to TANF-like reporting. Our general TANF rules do not allow us any discretion to grant waivers of the SSP-MOE reporting requirements, even in such circumstances. Based on discussions with States, we are concerned that, in some of these cases where the SSP-MOE reporting requirements are particularly problematic, States might elect not to provide certain benefits that support the goals of TANF rather than to develop the data collection and reporting system that the SSP-MOE requirements would entail.
Since these problematic situations can arise with respect to either the high performance bonus or the caseload reduction credit, we wanted to provide an opportunity for waiver of the requirements in both circumstances. We believe the clearest way to make that change is in the general TANF rule. Thus, in this rulemaking, we have revised the TANF final rules at § 265.3(d)(2) to allow waivers of the SSP-MOE reporting requirements, under very limited circumstances. More specifically, we would allow waivers only if the benefits being provided in the SSPs were considered assistance under § 260.31(a)(3) and the State made a clear case that the cost and burden associated with collection and reporting of the data substantially outweighed any potential benefit.
The first condition means that waivers would be available only for benefits that are defined as “assistance” because they are “supportive services such as transportation and child care provided to families that are not employed.” We would not waive SSP-MOE reporting requirements for SSPs that provide assistance under paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2)—that is, for programs that: (1) provide assistance that meets the basic needs of a family (even if the family's receipt of such benefits is conditioned upon participation in work experience or community service); or (2) provide benefits that would have historically been considered “welfare” benefits. For example, we would never waive SSP-MOE reporting when the State had elected to meet the basic needs of its two-parent TANF cases through a SSP. We would only grant waivers for SSPs that provide supportive services, such as transportation and child care, to families that are unemployed. In fact, we anticipate that SSPs receiving reporting waivers would typically be serving a mix of employed and unemployed families, but mostly employed families. However, separating the families into employed and unemployed families and gathering detailed characteristics data on a monthly basis for only the employed families would be extremely burdensome.
In deciding whether a State had made its case, we would look at factors such as:
• The capacity of the SSP to provide the kind of information required in the SSP-MOE report;
• The size of the separate State program (
• Whether the data would be important to a full understanding of the State's work efforts, caseload changes, or performance.
An example of a situation where we might waive SSP-MOE reporting would be the following: a State provides funds to a local transportation initiative that provides shuttle bus service between a low-income, inner-city neighborhood and suburban jobs. While most of the shuttle passengers are employed, unemployed neighborhood residents can use the shuttle to get to a pre-employment training program. Thus, there may be families receiving benefits that meet the definition of “assistance” under § 260.31(a)(3). The State agency, working with the transportation program, can determine the proportion of “eligible families” using this service through a simple survey. However, the program does not collect detailed case-specific and monthly information on the families they serve, and it has no mechanism for collecting such data or submitting data electronically to the State. In addition, the number of families receiving “assistance” in the program is thought to be negligible, and they would have little chance of showing up in, or affecting, the SSP sample.
Executive Order 12866 requires that regulations be drafted to ensure that they are consistent with the priorities and principles set forth in the Executive Order. The Department has determined that this final rule is consistent with these priorities and principles.
The Executive Order encourages agencies, as appropriate, to provide the public with meaningful participation in the regulatory process. This rulemaking implements statutory authority based on broad consultation and coordination. Section 403(a)(4) of the Act requires the Department to consult with the National Governors' Association and the American Public Human Services Association in the development of a system for awarding high performance bonuses. As described earlier in the preamble and in section G. of this
This rule is a significant regulatory action that will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, according to section 3(F)(1) of the Executive Order. It will determine how $200 million will be awarded annually to high performing States to be used to carry out the purposes of the TANF program. It will also have the additional effect of improving State efforts to implement welfare reform. High performing States could see their funding increase by as much as five percent of their State family assistance grant. We believe the cost of competing for a high performance bonus award in FY 2002 should be minimal since competition for these awards will be based, to the extent possible, on existing data sources. After consultation with States, advocates, and others, we will specify the data States must submit in order to compete on the child care measure in FY 2003.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Ch. 6) requires the Federal government to anticipate and reduce the impact of rules and paperwork requirements on small businesses and other small entities. Small entities are defined in the Act to include small businesses, small non-profit organizations, and small governmental entities. This rule will affect only the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and certain territories. Therefore, the Secretary certifies that this rule will not have a significant impact on small entities.
We certify that we have made an assessment of this rule's impact on the well-being of families, as required under section 654 of The Treasury and General Appropriations Act of 1999. The high performance bonus awards are a statutory part of the TANF program and are designed to reward State efforts in strengthening the economic and social stability of families and carrying out other purposes in the statute. The final rule does not limit State flexibility to design programs to serve these purposes.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. As required by the PRA, we have submitted the data collection requirements to OMB for review and approval. We used the NPRM as a vehicle for seeking comment from the public on these and any additional information collection activities that they believe should be added as a part of the bonus award process.
Based on this final rule, we will award bonuses, in FY 2002 and beyond, on four work measures, five work support measures, and one measure on family formation and stability in § 270.4. We have computed the burden based only on the work measures and the measure of Medicaid/SCHIP participation. No reporting burden would fall on the States in competing on the Food Stamp measure or the family formation measure as we will use the Census Bureau's Census 2000 Supplementary Survey and the Transitional Long-Form Database as the data source for this measure. In FY 2002, no additional reporting burden will fall on the States in competing on the child care measure as States will be ranked based on data they currently report under the Child Care and Development Fund program (ACF Forms 800, 801, and 696). After external consultation on the child care measure, we will specify, by the end of the calendar year, the additional information States must submit in order to compete on this measure in FY 2003 and submit any additional paperwork burden requirements to OMB for approval. These requirements would not become effective until approved by OMB.
In § 270.6 of the NPRM, we proposed the use of two alternative sets of data. In the first alternative, States would collect quarterly and report semi-annually a minimal set of identifying information on adult TANF recipients that we would match against the information in the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) to determine the State's scores for the work measures. In the second alternative, the State would submit more detailed work performance data based on its matching of adult recipient data with its UI data. Commenters strongly supported the first alternative and the use of the NDNH whenever possible.
In the final rule, we specify that we will use the first reporting alternative. We estimate the reporting burden for the first reporting alternative in § 270.6(a) to be 1,728 hours, based on the requirement that States report some or all of the following three data elements: the name, birth date, and social security number of all adult TANF and SSP-MOE recipients. (The specific data elements will be issued in program guidance.) Our estimate of the burden is as follows: 16 hours per response, times 54 respondents, times two (semi-annual reporting), for a total annual burden of 1,728 hours.
In addition, if a State wishes to receive a high performance bonus, it must report the data in Sections One and Three of the SSP-MOE Data Report as required in § 265.3(d) of this chapter. The burden for this reporting requirement was previously estimated in the TANF final rule, published April 12, 1999 (64 FR 17720).) We have not revised our estimates, but we note that this burden may be reduced in view of the amendment to § 265.3(d) included in this rulemaking which waives SSP-MOE reporting requirements under certain circumstances.
We believe the burden of reporting the identifying information on work measures will be minimal for most States, particularly as we will be using the NDNH as a match at the Federal level. In addition, States already have experience in extracting case/individual identifying information from their electronic data bases for matching purposes, including the Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) matches required by statute.
The Medicaid/SCHIP performance measures at § 270.4(d) are based on semi-annual reporting of the data from a match of TANF data and Medicaid/SCHIP enrollment data, using information from HCFA's MSIS system and the HCFA Form 21-E. Because this activity is similar to State activity in matching TANF data and UI data, as is currently done for the ACF-200 (OMB No. 0970-0180), we estimate that the burden will be approximately the same,
The total annual burden estimate includes the development of a one-time extraction program (based on our specifications), computer run-time to execute the program, the creation of an extract data file, and transmitting the information.
We estimate that the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands will be potential respondents. (Currently, American Samoa has not applied to implement the TANF program.)
The annual burden estimate for this data collection is:
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Unfunded Mandates Act) requires that a covered agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.
If a covered agency must prepare a budgetary impact statement, section 205 further requires that it select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with the statutory requirements. In addition, section 203 requires a plan for informing and advising any small government that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the proposed rule.
We have determined that this final rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million in any one year. Competition for a high performance bonus is entirely at State option. Accordingly, we have not prepared a budgetary impact statement, specifically addressed the regulatory alternatives considered, or prepared a plan for informing and advising any significantly or uniquely impacted State or small government.
This final rule is a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C., Chapter 8.
On August 4, 1999, the President issued Executive Order 13132, “federalism.” The purposes of the Order are: “to guarantee the division of governmental responsibilities between the national government and the States that was intended by the Framers of the Constitution, to ensure that the principles of federalism established by the Framers guide the executive departments and agencies in the formulation and implementation of policies, and to further the policies of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act * * * *”
We certify that this final rule does not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The final rule does not pre-empt State law and does not impose unfunded mandates.
This rule does not contain regulatory policies with federalism implications that would require specific consultations with State or local elected officials. The statute, however, requires consultations with the National Governors' Association and the American Public Human Services Association in the development of a high performance bonus system.
During the development of the NPRM, we held two types of consultations. First, we raised issues related to this provision in the general TANF consultation meetings with a broad range of representatives of State and local governments; nonprofit, advocacy, and community organizations; foundations; and others. Second, we consulted intensively with representatives of the National Governors' Association, the American Public Human Services Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and approximately 30 State representatives who participated by regularly scheduled conference calls over a period of approximately nine months.
Grant programs—social programs; Public assistance programs; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Poverty.
42 U.S.C. 603, 605, 607, 609, 611, and 613.
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) We may grant waivers of this reporting requirement under certain limited circumstances.
(A) We will only grant waivers for separate State programs that provide benefits that meet the definition of assistance under § 260.31(a)(3) of this chapter; and
(B) The State must demonstrate to our satisfaction that the cost and burden associated with collection and reporting of the data would substantially outweigh any potential benefit.
42 U.S.C. 603(a)(4).
This part covers the regulatory provisions relating to the bonus to reward high performing States in the TANF program, as authorized in section 403(a)(4) of the Social Security Act.
The following definitions apply under this part:
(a) Except as provided in § 270.9, we will award $200 million in bonus funds annually, subject to Congressional authorization and the availability of the appropriation.
(b) The amount payable to a State in a bonus year may not exceed five percent of a State's family assistance grant.
(a)
In FY 2002 and beyond, we will base the high performance bonus awards on: four work measures; five measures that support work and self-sufficiency related to participation by low-income working families in the Food Stamp Program, participation of former TANF recipients in the Medicaid and SCHIP programs, and receipt of child care; and one measure on family formation and stability.
(b)
(1) Beginning in FY 2002, we will measure State performance on the following work measures:
(i) Job entry rate;
(ii) Success in the work force rate;
(iii) Increase in the job entry rate; and
(iv) Increase in success in the work force rate.
(2) For any given year, we will score and rank competing States and award bonuses to the ten States with the highest scores in each work measure.
(c)
(1)
(i) Beginning in FY 2002, we will measure the number of low-income working households with children (
(ii) We will rank all States that choose to compete on this measure and will award bonuses to the three States with the highest scores. We will calculate the percentage rate for this measure to two decimal points. If two or more States have the same percentage rate for the measure, we will calculate the rates for these States to as many decimal points as necessary to eliminate the tie.
(2)
(i) Beginning in FY 2002, we will measure the improvement in the number of low-income working households with children (
(ii) For any given year, we will compare a State's performance on this measure to its performance in the previous year, beginning with a comparison of calendar (CY) 2000 to CY 2001, based on Census Bureau decennial and annual demographic program data.
(iii) We will rank all States that choose to compete on this measure and will award bonuses to the seven States with the greatest percentage point improvement in this measure. We will
(d) Measures of participation by low-income families in the Medicaid/SCHIP Programs.
(1)
(i) Beginning in FY 2002, we will measure the number of individuals receiving TANF benefits who are also enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP, who leave TANF in a calendar year and are enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP in the fourth month after leaving TANF assistance, and who are not receiving TANF assistance in the fourth month as a percentage of individuals who left TANF in the fiscal year and are not receiving TANF assistance in the fourth month after leaving.
(ii) We will rank the performance of each State that chooses to compete on this absolute measure and award bonuses to the three States with the highest scores.
(iii) We will calculate the percentage rate for this measure to two decimal points. If two or more States have the same percentage rate for this measure, we will calculate the rates for these States to as many decimal points as necessary to eliminate the tie.
(2)
(i) Beginning in FY 2002, we will measure the improvement in the number of individuals receiving TANF benefits who are also enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP, who leave TANF in a fiscal year and are enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP in the fourth month after leaving TANF assistance, and who are not receiving TANF assistance in the fourth month as a percentage of individuals who left TANF in the fiscal year and are not receiving TANF assistance in the fourth month after leaving.
(ii) For any given year, we will compare a State's performance on this improvement measure to its performance in the previous year, beginning with a comparison of FY 2000 to FY 2001, based on a quarterly submission by the State as determined by matching individuals (adults and children) who have left TANF assistance and who are not receiving it in the fourth month with Medicaid or SCHIP enrollment data.
(iii) We will rank the performance of all States that choose to compete on this improvement measure and will award bonuses to the seven States with the greatest percentage point improvement in this measure.
(iv) We will calculate the percentage rate for the measure to two decimal points. If two or more States have the same percentage rate for this measure, we will calculate the rates for these States to as many decimal points as necessary to eliminate the tie.
(e)
(1) Beginning in FY 2002, we will measure State performance based upon a composite ranking of:
(i) The percentage of children in the State who meet the maximum allowable Federal eligibility requirements for the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) who are served by the State during the performance year, including any such eligible children served with additional funds reported on the ACF-696 financial reporting form for the same fiscal year; and
(ii) The affordability of CCDF services based on a comparison of the reported assessed family co-payment to reported family income.
(2) Beginning in FY 2003, we will measure State performance based upon a composite ranking of:
(i) The two measures described in § 270.4(e)(1); and
(ii) A measure that compares reimbursement rates during the performance year to the market rates, determined in accordance with 45 CFR 98.43(b)(2), applicable to that year.
(3) For any given year, we will rank the States that choose to compete on the child care measure on each component of the overall measure and award bonuses to the ten States with the highest composite rankings.
(4) We will calculate each component score for this measure to two decimal points. If two or more States have the same score for a component, we will calculate the scores for these States to as many decimal points as necessary to eliminate the tie.
(5)(i) The rank of the measure for the FY 2002 bonus year will be a composite weighted score of the two components at 270.4(e)(1), with the measure at § 270.4(e)(1)(i) having a weight of 6 and the component at § 270.4(e)(1)(ii) having a weight of 4.
(ii) The rank of the measure for the bonus beginning in FY 2003 will be a composite weighted score of the three components at § 270.4(e)(2), with the component at § 270.4(e)(1)(i) having a weight of 5, the component at § 270.4(e)(1)(ii) having a weight of 3, and the component at § 270.4(e)(2)(ii) having a weight of 2.
(6) We will award bonuses only to the top ten qualifying States that have fully obligated their CCDF Matching Funds for the fiscal year corresponding to the performance year and fully expended their CCDF Matching Funds for the fiscal year preceding the performance year.
(f)
(1) Beginning in FY 2002 and beyond, we will measure the increase in the percent of children in each State who reside in married couple families, beginning with a comparison of CY 2000 and CY 2001 data from the Census Bureau. For any given subsequent year we will compare a State's performance on this measure to its performance in the previous year.
(2) We will rank the performance of those States that choose to compete on this measure and will award bonuses to the ten States with the greatest percentage point improvement in this measure.
(3) We will calculate the percentage rate for the measure to two decimal points. If two or more States have the same percentage rate for this measure, we will calculate the rates for these States to as many decimal points as necessary to eliminate the tie.
(g)
Each State has the option to compete on one, any number of, or none of the measures specified in this section.
(a)
The work measures are defined as follows:
(1) The
(2) The
(i) The
(ii) The
(3) The
(4) The Increase in Success in the Work Force Rate means the positive percentage point difference on at least one sub-measure between the success in the work force rate for the performance year and the success in the work force rate for the comparison year. It is composed of two equally weighted sub-measures defined as follows:
(i) The
(ii) The
(b)
(1) We will measure State performance in the work measures over the course of an entire fiscal year both for the performance year and the comparison year, if applicable.
(2) We will rank the competing States on the work measures for which they:
(i) Indicate they wish to compete; and
(ii) Submit the data specified in § 270.6 within the time frames specified in § 270.11.
(3) We will rank the States on absolute performance in each of the work measures in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section. For each of the work measures in paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) of this section, we will rank States based on the percentage point change in their improvement rate in the performance year compared to the comparison year. The rank of the performance in paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(4) of this section will be a composite score of the rank of the job retention and the earnings gain measures.
(4) We will calculate the percentage rate for each work measure to two decimal points. If two or more States have the same absolute or improvement rate for a specific work measure, we will calculate the rates for these States to as many decimal points as necessary to eliminate the tie.
(a)
(1) If a State wishes to compete on any of the work measures specified in § 270.5(a), it must collect quarterly and report semi-annually for the performance year and, if the State chooses to compete on an improvement measure, the comparison year, the identifying information on all adult TANF recipients as specified in program guidance.
(2) Each State must submit the information in this paragraph for both adult TANF recipients and adult SSP-MOE recipients for whom the State would report the data described in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b)
In order to compete on any high performance bonus measure, each State must submit the information in Sections One and Three of the SSP-MOE Data Report as specified in § 265.3(d) of this chapter.
(c)
If a State wishes to compete on the Medicaid/SCHIP measures in § 270.4(d), it must submit the information that we and HCFA will specify.
(d)
If a State wishes to compete on the child care measure in § 270.4(e), it must report the data as required by the CCDF program and additional data on child care market rates that we will specify.
(e)
Each State must notify us on which of the measures it will compete in each bonus year.
(a) We will use Census Bureau data to rank States on their performance on the Food Stamp measures in § 270.4(c) and on the measure of family formation and stability in § 270.4(f). We will also use Census Bureau data, along with other information, to rank States on the child care measure in § 270.4(e). We will rank only those States that choose to compete on these measures.
(b) We will rank State performance on the Medicaid/SCHIP measures in § 270.4(d) based on data submitted by those States that choose to compete on these measures, as determined by matching TANF individuals who were enrolled in Medicaid/SCHIP and are no longer receiving TANF assistance with Medicaid/SCHIP enrollment data.
(c) We will rank State performance on the child care measure based on data submitted by those States that choose to compete on this measure. We will use data reported on Forms ACF 800, ACF 801, ACF 696 and other necessary data we will specify.
(a) In FY 2002 and beyond, we will allocate and award $140 million to the ten States with the highest scores for each work measure as follows, subject to reallocation as specified in § 270.9:
(1) Job Entry Rate—$56 million
(2) Success in the Work Force—$35 million
(3) Increase in Job Entry Rate—$28 million
(4) Increase in Success in the Work Force—$21 million;
(b) In FY 2002 and beyond, we will allocate and award $20 million to the ten States with the highest scores on the Food Stamp measures and $20 million to the ten States with the highest scores on the Medicaid/SCHIP measures, subject to reallocation as specified in § 270.9. For these measures, we will:
(1) Award $6 million to the three States with the highest scores on the Food Stamp absolute measure;
(2) Award $6 million to the three States with the highest scores on the Medicaid/SCHIP absolute measure;
(3) Award $14 million to the seven States with the highest scores on the Food Stamp improvement measure; and
(4) Award $14 million to the seven States with the highest scores on the Medicaid/SCHIP improvement measure.
(c) In FY 2002 and beyond, we will allocate and award $10 million to the ten States with the highest scores on the child care subsidy measure and $10 million to the ten States with the highest scores on the family formation and stability improvement measure.
(d) We will distribute the bonus dollars for each measure based on each State's percentage of the total amount of the State family assistance grants of the States that will receive a bonus.
(a) If we cannot distribute the funds as specified in § 270.8, we will reallocate any undistributed funds among the measures listed in § 270.4.
(b) If we still cannot distribute funds within the bonus year, they will remain available for distribution in the next bonus year, to the extent authorized by law.
(a)
Annually, as needed, we will review the measures, data sources, and funding allocations specified in this part to determine if modifications, adjustments, or technical changes are necessary. We will add new measures or make changes in the funding allocations for the
(b)
We will determine if any modifications, adjustments, or technical changes need to be made based on:
(1) Our experience in awarding high performance bonuses in previous years; and
(2) The availability of national, State-reliable, and objective data.
(c)
We will consult with the National Governors' Association, the American Public Human Services Association, and other interested parties before we make our final decisions on any modification, adjustment, or technical changes for the bonus awards. We will notify States and other interested parties of our decisions through annual program guidance. We will also post this information on the Internet.
(a)
Each State must submit a list of the measures on which it is competing by February 28 of each bonus year.
(b)
Each State must collect quarterly and submit semi-annually during the bonus year the data specified in § 270.6(a) as follows:
(1) The data for the first and second quarters of the performance year and, if a State chooses to compete on an improvement measure, the first and second quarters of the comparison year, must be submitted by the dates we will specify in program guidance.
(2) The data for the third and fourth quarters of the performance year and, if a State chooses to compete on an improvement measure, the third and fourth quarters of the comparison year, must be submitted by the dates we will specify in program guidance.
(c)
Each State must collect quarterly its SSP-MOE Data Report as specified in § 270.6(b) and submit it:
(1) At the same time as it submits its quarterly TANF Data Report; or
(2) At the time it seeks to be considered for a high performance bonus as long as it submits the required data for the full period for which this determination will be made.
(d)
Each State must submit the data required to compete on the Medicaid/SCHIP measures by the dates and in a manner that we and HCFA will specify.
(e)
Each State must submit the data required to compete on the child care measure by the date(s) we will specify.
Each State must submit the data required to compete for the high performance bonus work measures and the Medicaid/SCHIP measures electronically in a manner that we and HCFA will specify.
(a) A State must use bonus award funds to carry out the purposes of the TANF block grant as specified in section 401 (Purpose) and section 404 (Use of Grants) of the Act.
(b) As applicable, these funds are subject to the requirements in and limitations of sections 404 and 408 of the Act and § 263.11 of this chapter.
(c) For Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa, the bonus award funds are not subject to the mandatory ceilings on funding established in section 1108(c)(4) of the Act.
(d) States must report quarterly on the use of the bonus funds.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Small Business Administration; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Department of Commerce; Tennessee Valley Authority; Department of State; Agency for International Development; Department of Housing and Urban Development; Department of Justice; Department of Labor; Department of the Treasury; Department of Defense; National Archives and Records Administration; Department of Veterans Affairs; Environmental Protection Agency; General Services Administration; Department of the Interior; Federal Emergency Management Agency; National Science Foundation; Corporation for National and Community Service; Department of Transportation.
Final common rule.
This final common rule provides for the enforcement of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (“Title IX”), by the agencies identified above. Title IX prohibits recipients of Federal financial assistance from discriminating on the basis of sex in education programs or activities. The promulgation of these Title IX regulations will provide guidance to recipients of Federal financial assistance who administer education programs or activities. The provisions of this common rule will also promote consistent and adequate enforcement of Title IX by the agencies identified above.
September 29, 2000.
Merrily A. Friedlander, Chief, Coordination and Review Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 65960, Washington, D.C. 20035-6560. Telephone: (202) 307-2222 (voice), (202) 307-2687 (TTY). Facsimile: (202) 307-0595.
Copies of this common rule are available, upon request, in large print and electronic file on computer disk. Other formats will be considered upon request.
The purpose of this common rule is to provide for the enforcement of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1681,
On October 29, 1999, the participating agencies published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to implement Title IX. See 64 FR 58567 (1999).
As set forth in this common rule, the substantive nondiscrimination obligations of recipients, for the most part, are identical to those established by the Department of Education (“ED”) under Title IX. See 34 CFR Part 106. ED's regulations are the model for these Title IX regulations for several reasons: the history of public participation in the development and congressional approval of ED's regulations, ED's leadership role in Title IX enforcement, judicial interpretations of ED's regulations, recipients' familiarity with the regulations, and an interest in maintaining consistency of interpretation of regulations enforcing Title IX. ED's regulations, initially issued by the former Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (“HEW”) (and adopted by ED upon its establishment in 1980), are the result of an extensive public comment process and congressional review. HEW received and considered more than 9700 comments before drafting its final regulations. 40 FR 24128 (1975). Further, after the final regulations were issued, but before they became effective, Congress held six days of hearings to determine whether the regulations were consistent with the statute. Sex Discrimination Regulations: Hearings before the Subcomm. on Postsecondary Education of the House Comm. on Education and Labor, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975).
In addition, under Executive Order 12250, the Department of Justice is responsible for the “consistent and effective implementation” of several civil rights laws, including Title IX. Using ED's regulations as the basis for this common rule promotes consistency and efficiency not only for agencies but for the recipient community. ED is the lead agency for enforcement of Title IX through its guidance, interpretations, technical assistance, investigative expertise, and resources committed. As the vast majority of recipients of Federal assistance from the identified agencies also receive assistance from ED, recipients should be subject to a single set of obligations with respect to Title IX.
Further, both Congress and the courts have interpreted Title IX based on ED's regulations. For example, in 1974, Congress amended the statute after holding hearings on provisions in ED's proposed rule.
As discussed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, however, these Title IX regulations are not identical to ED's regulations.
Title IX prohibits recipients of Federal financial assistance from discriminating on the basis of sex in educational programs or activities. Specifically, the statute states that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance,” with specific exceptions for various entities, programs, and activities. 20 U.S.C. 1681(a). This statute was modeled after Title VI, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in all programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance. The goal of Title IX is to ensure that Federal funds are not utilized for and do not support sex-based discrimination, and that individuals have equal opportunities, without regard to sex, to pursue, engage or participate in, and benefit from academic, extracurricular, research, occupational training, employment, or other educational programs or activities. For example (and without limitation), subject to exceptions described in these Title IX regulations, Title IX prohibits a recipient from discriminating on the basis of sex in: student admissions, scholarship awards and tuition assistance, recruitment of students and employees, the provision of courses and other academic offerings, the provision of and participation in athletics and extracurricular activities, and all aspects of employment, including, but not limited to, selection, hiring, compensation, benefits, job assignments and classification, promotions, demotions, tenure, training, transfers, leave, layoffs, and termination.
Thus, for example, these Title IX regulations will apply to such diverse activities as a forestry workshop run by a state park receiving funds from the Department of Interior; a boater education program sponsored by a county parks and recreation department receiving funding from the Coast Guard; a local course concerning how to start a small business, sponsored by the state department of labor that receives funding from the Small Business Administration; and state and local courses funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in planning how to deal with disasters. Vocational training for inmates in prisons receiving assistance from the Department of Justice is also covered by these Title IX regulations. In short, these Title IX regulations apply to the educational programs or activities of any entity receiving financial assistance from the participating agencies.
Subpart A sets forth definitions as well as provisions concerning remedial action and affirmative action, required
Subpart D addresses nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities. Specific areas covered in this subpart are housing, access to course offerings, access to schools operated by local education agencies, counseling, financial assistance, employment assistance to students, health and insurance benefits and services, consideration of marital and parental status, and athletics.
Subpart E covers the prohibitions of discrimination on the basis of sex in employment in educational programs or activities. Specific aspects of employment that are addressed include hiring and employment criteria, recruitment, compensation, job classification and structure, promotion and termination, fringe benefits, consideration of marital or parental status, leave practices, advertising, and preemployment inquiries as to parental and marital status. This subpart also includes a provision to exempt from Title IX coverage employment actions where sex is a bona fide occupational qualification.
Finally, Subpart F addresses the agencies' respective procedures for implementation and enforcement of Title IX. By October 30, 2000, each agency will publish a notice in the
For those agencies that have regulations to enforce Title VI, such procedures are adopted and referenced. Titles VI and IX address discrimination in federally assisted programs and have identical statutory enforcement schemes. The administrative enforcement procedures in Title VI regulations are virtually identical among the participating agencies, and differences are minor. For the Department of the Treasury and NARA, the specific text is set forth herein since neither has a Title VI regulation. The Corporation for Community and National Service, which is the successor to ACTION, is subject to the Title VI regulations promulgated by ACTION.
The great majority of comments received expressed strong support for these regulations, and many noted that they represent a long overdue effort to provide an effective enforcement mechanism for Title IX. Many of these comments also urged prompt and final adoption of the common rule, emphasizing that the substance of the regulations should not be open to extensive debate or modification because it is almost identical to the Department of Education's longstanding Title IX regulations that were the subject of an extensive public comment process and congressional oversight and approval.
The participating agencies recognize the importance of ensuring that the recipient community has the benefit of continued reliance on past interpretations of Title IX and its regulations. Thus, the participating agencies have attempted to follow the recommendation of these commenters by endeavoring to minimize the extent to which these Title IX regulations differ from the Department of Education's Title IX rule.
The participating agencies have, however, carefully considered all of the comments submitted regarding these Title IX regulations. Responses to these comments, including specific clarifications and revisions, are set forth below.
The participating agencies received one comment noting that the Supplementary Information Section of the proposed common rule cited only the Department of Education as previously having published a regulation to implement Title IX. This may have inadvertently given the impression that no other Federal agencies have adopted Title IX regulations.
The participating agencies therefore wish to clarify that, in fact, three other Federal agencies have previously published Title IX rules. The Department of Agriculture published 7 CFR part 15a on April 11, 1979; the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published 45 CFR part 86 on June 4, 1975;
Aside from comments expressing general support for the regulations, the issue most frequently commented upon pertained to section _.235(d), which incorporates the Civil Rights Restoration Act's “abortion neutrality” provision, commonly known as the Danforth Amendment. More specifically, these comments concerned section _.235(d)(1), which provides that: “Nothing in these Title IX regulations shall be construed to require or prohibit any person, or public or private entity, to provide or pay for any benefit or service, including the use of facilities, related to an abortion. Medical procedures, benefits, services, and the use of facilities necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman or to address complications related to an abortion are not subject to this section.”
One comment argued that the exceptions set forth by this provision were too broad and should not include an exception to save the life of a pregnant woman. Eight comments, however, expressed concern that the exceptions delineated in section _.235(d)(1) were too narrow and should be expanded to include an additional exception for those cases in which pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.
After carefully reviewing these comments, the text of the amendment, and the relevant legislative history, the participating agencies have concluded that the exceptions set forth in the proposed common rule are neither too broad nor too narrow and are consistent with Congressional intent in adopting the Danforth Amendment. Thus, this provision has not been changed in the final common rule.
The participating agencies received a number of comments requesting clarification regarding the potential application of the common rule to the presentation of artistic content. In response to these comments, the participating agencies wish to confirm that this common rule does not cover,
Indeed, normal rules of statutory construction require Federal agencies, wherever possible, to interpret statutory language in such a way as to avoid potential conflicts with the Constitution. The participating agencies fully intend to enforce the common rule in a manner consistent with this principle.
The participating agencies also received several comments related to coverage of the common rule. A few of these comments expressed concern that the common rule expands the scope of Title IX. This concern, however, is unfounded. The educational programs or activities operated by recipients of Federal funding have been covered by Title IX since its enactment in 1972. The common rule is merely an implementing regulation and does not expand the scope of coverage mandated by Title IX.
In addressing this concern, it is of course important to note that Title IX was amended by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, which defined the terms “program” and “program or activity.” Thus, the scope of coverage set forth by the common rule is based upon the mandate of Title IX as amended by the CRRA. The common rule incorporates the statutory definitions of “program” and “program or activity” but does not expand the scope of covered programs in any way.
One comment specifically questioned whether youth training programs conducted by the National Guard Bureau in conjunction with State Adjutant Generals would be covered by this rule. If such education or training programs are operated by recipients of Federal funding, they are covered by Title IX (and have been since 1972), and will be covered by these Title IX regulations.
A few comments also noted the need for additional guidance and clarification regarding what constitutes a covered education program or activity. In response to this concern, the participating agencies note that, pursuant to section _.600, each Federal agency will be publishing a list of covered programs in the
One comment expressed concern that the definition of an “educational institution” covered by Title IX and set forth in the proposed common rule was too limited as it would not encompass certain entities outside the traditional school setting such as an orchestra. In response to this concern, the participating agencies note that this definition is the same as the definition of an “educational institution” set forth in the Department of Education's regulations and has not been modified in the final common rule. However, it is important to note that the key to coverage under Title IX and these Title IX regulations is an education program or activity operated by a recipient of Federal funding; while educational institutions are certainly one type of covered education program, clearly there are many others as well.
One comment argued that the definition of “recipient” set forth in the common rule is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision in
The concerns expressed in this comment are unfounded. Inclusion of the phrase “or through another recipient” merely ensures that sub-recipients (entities that receive Federal financial assistance through sub-grants from primary recipients) are covered by these Title IX regulations. Coverage of sub-recipients is in no way inconsistent with the NCAA decision or with the principle that indirect beneficiaries are not covered by Title IX. The definition of recipient set forth in the common rule in no way expands the scope of coverage of Title IX or these Title IX regulations and has, therefore, not been modified in the final common rule.
Several comments inquired about the viability of single-sex programs such as an educational science program targeted at young women and designed to encourage their interest in a profession in which they are underrepresented. Such courses may, under appropriate circumstances, be permissible as part of a remedial or affirmative action program as provided for by section _.110 of these Title IX regulations.
In addition, other single-sex programs may be permissible under the common rule. For example, these Title IX regulations do not apply to the membership practices of many voluntary youth service organizations or to the membership practices of the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA), the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA), the Girl Scouts, the Boy Scouts, and the Camp Fire Girls.
It also should be noted that the U.S. Department of Education, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is reviewing provisions in ED's current Title IX regulations regarding single-sex programs to determine whether Title IX can and should be interpreted to permit certain sex-segregated educational programs or activities that are not based upon sex stereotyping, provided, of course, that equal educational opportunities and benefits are afforded to students of both sexes. Any proposed rule changes will be published in a proposed form for public comment, and conforming changes will be made in the regulations covered by this notice.
One comment also expressed concern that the regulations might preclude orchestras from establishing single-sex choirs necessary for the authentic presentation of certain artistic works. In response to this concern, the participating agencies note that these Title IX regulations specifically provide, consistent with the Department of Education's longstanding regulations, that recipients may make requirements based on vocal range or quality that may result in a chorus or choruses of one or predominantly one sex.
Finally, individuals or entities with more specific questions regarding the viability of a particular program may of course seek further guidance from the Federal funding agency or the Department of Justice.
Some comments raised concerns regarding the application of this common rule to educational programs or activities conducted outside traditional educational institutions. They noted that because this common rule is an extension of the Department of Education's Title IX regulations, which were designed to apply to schools, portions of the common rule may not always be a “perfect fit” for educational programs or activities operated by other entities. These comments therefore requested that agencies be given flexibility in applying these Title IX regulations to the wide variety of unique education programs or activities operated by recipients of Federal financial assistance.
In response to these comments, it should be noted that individual funding agencies may consider developing agency-specific guidance to address particular areas of concern. In addition, to further address these comments, the participating agencies have modified two provisions of the common rule to reflect its application to educational programs or activities outside traditional educational institutions. These modifications extend the exceptions in sections _.235(b)(3) and _.415(b)(5) to include education programs or activities other than those in a traditional educational institution. Thus, section _.235(b)(3) now provides that these Title IX regulations do not preclude:
Father-son or mother-daughter activities at an educational institution or in an education program or activity, but if such activities are provided for students of one sex, opportunities for reasonably comparable activities shall be provided to students of the other sex;
portions of classes in elementary and secondary schools or portions of education programs or activities that deal exclusively with human sexuality may be conducted in separate sessions for boys and girls.
Two comments raised concerns about the potential application of the common rule to collegiate athletic programs. These comments criticized the standards used to enforce Title IX in the collegiate athletic context and expressed concern that the participating agencies failed to fully take into account the likely costs of the common rule with regard to collegiate athletic programs and athletic scholarships. In response to these concerns, the participating agencies wish to clarify that virtually all collegiate athletic programs are already covered by the Department of Education's Title IX regulations, and have been since 1975, and will not be affected by this common rule.
A few comments expressed concerns about the possibility that the common rule might result in the application of gender-based quotas to academic programs. Such concerns are unfounded as the common rule neither permits nor imposes quotas.
These Title IX regulations do not permit or require the use of academic quotas. The Department of Education has had Title IX regulations for 25 years without once imposing a quota, and nothing in these Title IX regulations permits or requires the participating agencies to impose quotas.
The concerns about academic quotas expressed in these comments appear to stem from a number of misconceptions about the Department of Education's enforcement of Title IX in athletics, and the applicability of these enforcement standards to academic programs.
First, the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) does not use quotas to enforce Title IX in athletics. In fact, the First Circuit has expressly rejected the notion that OCR uses an impermissible quota system when evaluating whether institutions are providing athletic opportunities to male and female students on a nondiscriminatory basis.
Second, fears about academic quotas are unfounded because such fears are based on the further erroneous assumption that the same standards are used to evaluate athletic and academic programs. Athletics differ from academics in that institutions are permitted to provide many athletic opportunities on a sex-segregated basis. In other words, many athletic programs are sex-segregated by design, whereas Title IX requires that most academic programs be offered to all students regardless of sex. Thus, since most academic classes are not segregated by sex, different standards are used for assessing compliance with Title IX in academic programs.
In short, since OCR does not use a quota system when assessing whether male and female students have equal opportunities to participate in athletics, and since academic programs are not evaluated by the same standards as single-sex athletic programs, there is no validity to claims that the common rule will result in quotas for academic programs.
Indeed, in the 28 years since its passage, Title IX has significantly advanced the goal of creating equal educational opportunities for both sexes. Title IX has never permitted or required quotas in classrooms, and nothing in the common rule will permit or require quotas in classrooms. These Title IX regulations are not designed to regulate the number of men and women in particular courses, and the common rule will not lead to decreased educational opportunities for either sex. Rather, the common rule is simply designed to ensure that the participating agencies have an effective means of enforcing the equal opportunity mandates of Title IX.
One of the comments raised a few additional concerns about quotas. One of these concerns dealt with the affirmative action provisions of the common rule. This comment criticized the inclusion of the phrase “consistent with law” in section _.110(b), arguing that this fails to codify governing judicial decisions and encourages agencies to defer to interpretations of law advanced by political bureaucrats. The inclusion of this phrase, however, simply reflects the evolving nature of judicial decisions with respect to this issue and is merely designed to ensure that enforcement of these regulations is consistent with current judicial decisions. This entire common rule must, of course, always be interpreted consistent with governing law.
A second concern raised by this comment concerned the standard for disparate impact set forth in the regulations and the possibility that recipients might adopt quotas in order to avoid complaints. More specifically, this comment claimed that the disparate impact provisions in the common rule are contrary to existing Federal law regarding disparate impact under Title VII. This claim, however, is without merit as the disparate impact provisions of the common rule are consistent with Title VII and governing Supreme Court case law, as applied and interpreted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
A few comments questioned the need for these Title IX regulations and urged that they be withdrawn. More specifically, one comment noted a lack of evidence of discrimination in
In response to these concerns, it is important to reiterate that the participating agencies are promulgating these regulations in order to comply with a congressional mandate. As originally enacted in 1972, Title IX directed all Federal agencies providing financial assistance to recipients that operate education programs or activities to adopt regulations to achieve the statute's objectives.
In short, the adoption of these Title IX regulations is mandated by law. As such, the participating agencies are required to promulgate these regulations regardless of whether there may be any overlap with other statutes or regulations.
Several comments expressed concern that the requirement that assurances be provided with each and every application for Federal financial assistance would hinder efforts to streamline the Federal grants process. The participating agencies appreciate the importance of simplifying the grants process and of ensuring that agencies are able to obtain assurances as efficiently as possible. As such, the participating agencies have modified section _.115 of the final common rule to provide agencies with greater flexibility in dealing with this issue.
Specifically, the participating agencies have eliminated the requirement that every application for Federal financial assistance contain or be accompanied by an assurance. Instead, the final common rule requires only that all applications for Federal financial assistance, or awards of Federal financial assistance, “contain, be accompanied by, or be covered by” an assurance. What is important is that the grant recipient understand its responsibilities under Title IX. However, by giving agencies the flexibility to obtain assurances at either the application or the award stage of the process, and by eliminating the need for grant-by-grant certifications, the final common rule establishes a less burdensome process for dealing with assurances. Thus, the first sentence of section _.115(a) has been amended to read as follows:
Either at the application stage or the award stage, Federal agencies must ensure that applications for Federal financial assistance or awards of Federal financial assistance contain, be accompanied by, or be covered by a specifically identified assurance from the applicant or recipient, satisfactory to the designated agency official, that each education program or activity operated by the applicant or recipient and to which these Title IX regulations apply will be operated in compliance with these Title IX regulations.
In attempting to further ensure the existence of sufficient flexibility in dealing with assurances, the participating agencies have also modified section _.115(c)(1) regarding the content and form of these assurances. The proposed common rule appeared to contain a requirement that agencies use exact language in their assurances. In response to a comment requesting permission to use equivalent language, the participating agencies have modified this provision so that it now reads as follows:
The assurances required * * * shall include that the applicant or recipient will comply with all applicable Federal statutes relating to nondiscrimination. These include but are not limited to: *** Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1681-1683, 1685-1688).
A few comments also raised concerns about the potential financial and administrative burdens associated with these Title IX regulations. More specifically, one comment expressed concern about the broad powers of designated agency officials and noted that recipients might be burdened by having to respond to 25 differing agency interpretations of the common rule.
In response to this comment, the participating agencies wish to clarify a few points. First, this comment makes the unlikely assumptions that a recipient is funded by all of the participating agencies and that these agencies have significantly different interpretations of these regulations. Second, even in those cases in which a recipient is funded by more than one Federal agency, there are unlikely to be duplicative enforcement efforts.
Indeed, the participating agencies are working to develop a Delegation Agreement to share enforcement responsibilities and information. This Delegation Agreement will ensure that Title IX is enforced in the most efficient and effective manner, while at the same time avoiding duplicative inquiries by the Federal government and any undue burden on recipients due to multiple inquiries.
Several comments also questioned whether the common rule properly complied with all regulatory and statutory requirements. More specifically, one comment raised concerns about the Paperwork Reduction Act provisions of these Title IX regulations.
In response to this comment, the participating agencies note that OMB has indeed reviewed this common rule and approved the Paperwork Reduction Act provisions. In addition, as discussed above, the participating agencies have modified the provisions regarding assurances, thus further reducing the information collection requirements associated with these regulations.
It is also worth noting that many of the concerns raised regarding the Paperwork Reduction Act estimates were based on the mistaken assumption that all entities covered by the common rule are subject to the self-evaluation requirements.
The self-evaluation provisions were included in the common rule to allow for the possible but rare instance where this requirement might continue to be relevant for certain recipients. It is important to note that this requirement applies only to recipient educational institutions, and virtually all such recipients are already covered by the Department of Education's regulations and have previously complied with these provisions. Moreover, as explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, if a recipient educational institution already has conducted a self-evaluation under Title IX, it need not conduct a new self-evaluation as a result of receiving funds from a participating agency, unless the previously conducted self-evaluation is found to be incomplete or not in compliance with the regulations. Thus, concerns regarding the paperwork burdens associated with this provision are unfounded.
Other comments questioned whether the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the
As discussed in the Supplementary Information Section of the proposed rule, many of the requirements set forth in these statutes do not apply to these regulations since this common rule is not a “major rule.” In setting forth the factual basis for this determination, the participating agencies explained that this common rule is not a “major rule” in large part because these regulations do not impose any new substantive obligations on Federal funding recipients. More specifically, the participating agencies explained that:
All recipients of Federal funding that operate educational programs or activities have been bound by Title IX's antidiscrimination provision since 1972. Individual participants in such programs have thus long had the right to be free from sex discrimination, and have enjoyed the corollary ability to file an administrative complaint and/or a private lawsuit when they believe their rights to have been violated. The common rule merely ensures that individuals receive notice of their rights under Title IX and outlines a process for handling administrative complaints for those agencies that do not yet have such a process in place for Title IX. Indeed, by identifying a coherent scheme for resolving complaints administratively, this proposal may help prevent costly private litigation.
Entities receiving funding from one of the four federal agencies that already have Title IX regulations will face no new requirements under the common rule. Those entities receiving funding from an agency that does not currently have Title IX regulations will now be required to notify their students and employees that sex discrimination is prohibited and to adopt and publish grievance procedures outlining the process for filing an administrative complaint.
To the extent that these requirements will be new for some entities, they are not burdensome. Indeed, Federal funding recipients are already required to have most of these procedures under other civil rights statutes, and would generally fulfill the requirements of the common rule by including Title IX within their existing processes. Similarly, the common rule requires a covered recipient to designate an employee to coordinate Title IX compliance efforts. In many cases, if not most, that person would be the same person currently responsible for handling complaints under the other antidiscrimination laws. 64 FR 58573. As such, the participating agencies have certified that this common rule is not a “major rule.” These statutes therefore require no further action by the participating agencies.
Nevertheless, upon careful consideration of these comments, the participating agencies have decided to delete one of the notice provisions in the common rule. Specifically, the participating agencies have modified section _.140 of the common rule to delete the requirement that notice be published in local newspapers. This modification should further reduce any potential financial and administrative costs associated with these regulations.
Finally, in addition to the modifications discussed above, the participating agencies have made a few minor editorial changes to the common rule. Most of these changes are simply designed to ensure that the terms “program” and “program or activity” are not used in any manner other than that contemplated by the CRRA.
As discussed above, the participating agencies carefully considered all comments submitted in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the majority of which expressed strong support for these Title IX regulations. Although the participating agencies have made several modifications in response to concerns raised during the notice and comment period, they have endeavored to minimize changes to the substantive nondiscrimination provisions of the rule to promote consistency with the Department of Education's Title IX regulations. In doing so, the participating agencies hope to ensure that recipients and beneficiaries will have the benefit of continued reliance on past interpretations of Title IX and Title IX regulations, since the Department of Education's regulations have been the subject of extensive public comment, congressional review, and judicial scrutiny.
These Title IX regulations have been reviewed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission pursuant to Executive Order 12067.
These Title IX regulations have been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, section 1(b), Principles of Regulation. The participating agencies have determined that this rule is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review, yet it is not economically significant as defined in section 3(f)(1), and, therefore, the information enumerated in section 6(a)(3)(C) of the order is not required. Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, this rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
The participating agencies have determined that these Title IX regulations are not a major rule as defined by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets. All of the entities that are subject to these regulations are already covered by Title IX. While these regulations address standards of liability and require that recipients establish grievance procedures and take other action, a substantial number of entities already are subject to other agencies' Title IX regulations that impose the same requirements. Accordingly, these regulations will not impose new obligations on many recipients.
These Title IX regulations enforce a statutory prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex and, therefore, the participating agencies certify that no actions were deemed necessary under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Furthermore, these regulations will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and they will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The participating agencies, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), have reviewed these Title IX regulations and by approving them certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because all of the entities that are subject to these regulations are already subject to Title IX, and a substantial number of entities
As discussed above, this is not a “major rule,” nor will it have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, in large part because these regulations do not impose any new substantive obligations on Federal funding recipients. All recipients of Federal funding that operate educational programs or activities have been bound by Title IX's antidiscrimination provision since 1972. Individual participants in such programs have thus long had the right to be free from sex discrimination, and have enjoyed the corollary ability to file an administrative complaint and/or a private lawsuit when they believe their rights to have been violated. The common rule merely ensures that such individuals receive notice regarding their rights under Title IX and outlines a process for handling administrative complaints for those agencies that do not yet have such a process in place for Title IX. Indeed, by identifying a coherent scheme for resolving complaints administratively, this proposal may help prevent costly private litigation.
Entities receiving funding from one of the four Federal agencies that already have Title IX regulations will face no new requirements under the common rule. Those entities receiving funding from an agency that does not currently have Title IX regulations will now be required to notify their students and employees that sex discrimination is prohibited and to adopt and publish grievance procedures outlining the process for filing an administrative complaint.
To the extent these requirements will be new for some entities, they are not burdensome. Indeed, Federal funding recipients are already required to have most of these procedures under other civil rights statutes, and would generally fulfill the requirements of the common rule by including Title IX within their existing processes. Similarly, the common rule also requires a covered recipient to designate an employee to coordinate Title IX compliance efforts. In many, if not most, cases, that person would be the same person currently responsible for handling complaints under the other antidiscrimination laws.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), OMB has reviewed and approved the information collection requirements associated with this common rule. OMB control number 1190-0016.
These Title IX regulations 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. These Title IX regulations do not subject recipients of Federal funding to any new substantive obligations because all recipients of Federal funding that operate education programs or activities have been bound by Title IX's antidiscrimination provision since 1972. Moreover, these Title IX regulations are required by statute; Congress specifically directed Federal agencies to adopt implementing regulations when Title IX was enacted. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, the participating agencies have determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. No further action is required.
The text of this common rule appears below:
20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682, 1683, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688.
The purpose of these Title IX regulations is to effectuate Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (except sections 904 and 906 of those Amendments) (20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682, 1683, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688), which is designed to eliminate (with certain exceptions) discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, whether or not such program or activity is offered or sponsored by an educational institution as defined in these Title IX regulations. The effective date of these Title IX regulations shall be September 29, 2000.
As used in these Title IX regulations, the term:
(1) A grant or loan of Federal financial assistance, including funds made available for:
(i) The acquisition, construction, renovation, restoration, or repair of a building or facility or any portion thereof; and
(ii) Scholarships, loans, grants, wages, or other funds extended to any entity for payment to or on behalf of students admitted to that entity, or extended directly to such students for payment to that entity.
(2) A grant of Federal real or personal property or any interest therein, including surplus property, and the proceeds of the sale or transfer of such property, if the Federal share of the fair market value of the property is not, upon such sale or transfer, properly accounted for to the Federal Government.
(3) Provision of the services of Federal personnel.
(4) Sale or lease of Federal property or any interest therein at nominal consideration, or at consideration reduced for the purpose of assisting the recipient or in recognition of public interest to be served thereby, or permission to use Federal property or any interest therein without consideration.
(5) Any other contract, agreement, or arrangement that has as one of its purposes the provision of assistance to any education program or activity, except a contract of insurance or guaranty.
(1) Offers academic study beyond the bachelor of arts or bachelor of science degree, whether or not leading to a certificate of any higher degree in the liberal arts and sciences;
(2) Awards any degree in a professional field beyond the first professional degree (regardless of whether the first professional degree in such field is awarded by an institution of undergraduate higher education or professional education); or
(3) Awards no degree and offers no further academic study, but operates ordinarily for the purpose of facilitating research by persons who have received the highest graduate degree in any field of study.
(1) An institution offering at least two but less than four years of college-level study beyond the high school level, leading to a diploma or an associate degree, or wholly or principally creditable toward a baccalaureate degree; or
(2) An institution offering academic study leading to a baccalaureate degree; or
(3) An agency or body that certifies credentials or offers degrees, but that may or may not offer academic study.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Evaluate, in terms of the requirements of these Title IX regulations, its current policies and practices and the effects thereof concerning admission of students, treatment of students, and employment of both academic and non-academic personnel working in connection with the recipient's education program or activity;
(2) Modify any of these policies and practices that do not or may not meet the requirements of these Title IX regulations; and
(3) Take appropriate remedial steps to eliminate the effects of any discrimination that resulted or may have resulted from adherence to these policies and practices.
(d)
(a)
(b)
(2) In the case of Federal financial assistance extended to provide personal property, such assurance shall obligate the recipient for the period during which it retains ownership or possession of the property.
(3) In all other cases such assurance shall obligate the recipient for the period during which Federal financial assistance is extended.
(c)
(2) The designated agency official will specify the extent to which such assurances will be required of the applicant's or recipient's subgrantees, contractors, subcontractors, transferees, or successors in interest.
If a recipient sells or otherwise transfers property financed in whole or in part with Federal financial assistance to a transferee that operates any education program or activity, and the Federal share of the fair market value of the property is not upon such sale or transfer properly accounted for to the Federal Government, both the transferor and the transferee shall be deemed to be recipients, subject to the provisions of §§ _.205 through _.235(a).
(a)
(b)
(c)
The obligation to comply with these Title IX regulations is not obviated or alleviated because employment opportunities in any occupation or profession are or may be more limited for members of one sex than for members of the other sex.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(2) Each recipient shall make the initial notification required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section within 90 days of September 29, 2000 or of the date these Title IX regulations first apply to such recipient, whichever comes later, which notification shall include publication in:
(i) Newspapers and magazines operated by such recipient or by student, alumnae, or alumni groups for or in connection with such recipient; and
(ii) Memoranda or other written communications distributed to every student and employee of such recipient.
(b)
(2) A recipient shall not use or distribute a publication of the type described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section that suggests, by text or illustration, that such recipient treats applicants, students, or employees differently on the basis of sex except as such treatment is permitted by these Title IX regulations.
(c)
Except as provided in §§ _.205 through _.235(a), these Title IX regulations apply to every recipient and to each education program or activity operated by such recipient that receives Federal financial assistance.
(a)
(b)
These Title IX regulations do not apply to an educational institution whose primary purpose is the training of individuals for a military service of the United States or for the merchant marine.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a) Admissions to educational institutions prior to June 24, 1973, are not covered by these Title IX regulations.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(1) Admitted students of only one sex as regular students as of June 23, 1972; or
(2) Admitted students of only one sex as regular students as of June 23, 1965, but thereafter admitted, as regular students, students of the sex not admitted prior to June 23, 1965.
(b)
(a)
(b)
(1) State the name, address, and Federal Interagency Committee on Education Code of the educational institution submitting such plan, the administratively separate units to which the plan is applicable, and the name, address, and telephone number of the person to whom questions concerning the plan may be addressed. The person who submits the plan shall be the chief administrator or president of the institution, or another individual legally authorized to bind the institution to all actions set forth in the plan.
(2) State whether the educational institution or administratively separate unit admits students of both sexes as regular students and, if so, when it began to do so.
(3) Identify and describe with respect to the educational institution or administratively separate unit any obstacles to admitting students without discrimination on the basis of sex.
(4) Describe in detail the steps necessary to eliminate as soon as practicable each obstacle so identified and indicate the schedule for taking these steps and the individual directly responsible for their implementation.
(5) Include estimates of the number of students, by sex, expected to apply for, be admitted to, and enter each class during the period covered by the plan.
(c)
(d)
(a) This section, which applies to all provisions of these Title IX regulations, addresses statutory amendments to Title IX.
(b) These Title IX regulations shall not apply to or preclude:
(1) Any program or activity of the American Legion undertaken in connection with the organization or operation of any Boys State conference, Boys Nation conference, Girls State conference, or Girls Nation conference;
(2) Any program or activity of a secondary school or educational institution specifically for:
(i) The promotion of any Boys State conference, Boys Nation conference, Girls State conference, or Girls Nation conference; or
(ii) The selection of students to attend any such conference;
(3) Father-son or mother-daughter activities at an educational institution or in an education program or activity, but if such activities are provided for students of one sex, opportunities for reasonably comparable activities shall be provided to students of the other sex;
(4) Any scholarship or other financial assistance awarded by an institution of higher education to an individual because such individual has received such award in a single-sex pageant based upon a combination of factors related to the individual's personal appearance, poise, and talent. The pageant, however, must comply with other nondiscrimination provisions of Federal law.
(c)
(1) All of the operations of any entity described in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section, any part of which is extended Federal financial assistance:
(i)(A) A department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or of a local government; or
(B) The entity of such State or local government that distributes such assistance and each such department or agency (and each other State or local government entity) to which the assistance is extended, in the case of assistance to a State or local government;
(ii)(A) A college, university, or other postsecondary institution, or a public system of higher education; or
(B) A local educational agency (as defined in section 8801 of title 20), system of vocational education, or other school system;
(iii)(A) An entire corporation, partnership, or other private organization, or an entire sole proprietorship—
(
(
(B) The entire plant or other comparable, geographically separate facility to which Federal financial assistance is extended, in the case of any other corporation, partnership, private organization, or sole proprietorship; or
(iv) Any other entity that is established by two or more of the entities described in paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section.
(2)(i)
(ii) For example, all of the operations of a college, university, or other postsecondary institution, including but not limited to traditional educational operations, faculty and student housing, campus shuttle bus service, campus restaurants, the bookstore, and other commercial activities are part of a “program or activity” subject to these Title IX regulations if the college, university, or other institution receives Federal financial assistance.
(d)(1) Nothing in these Title IX regulations shall be construed to require or prohibit any person, or public or private entity, to provide or pay for any benefit or service, including the use of facilities, related to an abortion. Medical procedures, benefits, services, and the use of facilities, necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman or to address complications related to an abortion are not subject to this section.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit a penalty to be imposed on any person or individual because such person or individual is seeking or has received any benefit or service related to a legal abortion. Accordingly, subject to paragraph (d)(1) of this section, no person shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any academic, extracurricular, research, occupational training, employment, or other educational program or activity operated by a recipient that receives Federal financial assistance because such individual has sought or received, or is seeking, a legal abortion, or any
(a)
(b)
(i) Give preference to one person over another on the basis of sex, by ranking applicants separately on such basis, or otherwise;
(ii) Apply numerical limitations upon the number or proportion of persons of either sex who may be admitted; or
(iii) Otherwise treat one individual differently from another on the basis of sex.
(2) A recipient shall not administer or operate any test or other criterion for admission that has a disproportionately adverse effect on persons on the basis of sex unless the use of such test or criterion is shown to predict validly success in the education program or activity in question and alternative tests or criteria that do not have such a disproportionately adverse effect are shown to be unavailable.
(c)
(1) Shall not apply any rule concerning the actual or potential parental, family, or marital status of a student or applicant that treats persons differently on the basis of sex;
(2) Shall not discriminate against or exclude any person on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom, or establish or follow any rule or practice that so discriminates or excludes;
(3) Subject to § _.235(d), shall treat disabilities related to pregnancy, childbirth, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom in the same manner and under the same policies as any other temporary disability or physical condition; and
(4) Shall not make pre-admission inquiry as to the marital status of an applicant for admission, including whether such applicant is “Miss” or “Mrs.” A recipient may make pre-admission inquiry as to the sex of an applicant for admission, but only if such inquiry is made equally of such applicants of both sexes and if the results of such inquiry are not used in connection with discrimination prohibited by these Title IX regulations.
A recipient to which §§ _.300 through _.310 apply shall not give preference to applicants for admission, on the basis of attendance at any educational institution or other school or entity that admits as students only or predominantly members of one sex, if the giving of such preference has the effect of discriminating on the basis of sex in violation of §§ _.300 through _.310.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(1) Treat one person differently from another in determining whether such person satisfies any requirement or condition for the provision of such aid, benefit, or service;
(2) Provide different aid, benefits, or services or provide aid, benefits, or services in a different manner;
(3) Deny any person any such aid, benefit, or service;
(4) Subject any person to separate or different rules of behavior, sanctions, or other treatment;
(5) Apply any rule concerning the domicile or residence of a student or applicant, including eligibility for in-state fees and tuition;
(6) Aid or perpetuate discrimination against any person by providing significant assistance to any agency, organization, or person that discriminates on the basis of sex in providing any aid, benefit, or service to students or employees;
(7) Otherwise limit any person in the enjoyment of any right, privilege, advantage, or opportunity.
(c)
(d)
(2) Such recipient:
(i) Shall develop and implement a procedure designed to assure itself that the operator or sponsor of such other education program or activity takes no action affecting any applicant, student, or employee of such recipient that these Title IX regulations would prohibit such recipient from taking; and
(ii) Shall not facilitate, require, permit, or consider such participation if such action occurs.
(a)
(b)
(2) Housing provided by a recipient to students of one sex, when compared to that provided to students of the other sex, shall be as a whole:
(i) Proportionate in quantity to the number of students of that sex applying for such housing; and
(ii) Comparable in quality and cost to the student.
(c)
(2)(i) A recipient which, through solicitation, listing, approval of housing, or otherwise, assists any agency, organization, or person in making housing available to any of its students, shall take such reasonable action as may be necessary to assure itself that such housing as is provided to students of one sex, when compared to that provided to students of the other sex, is as a whole:
(A) Proportionate in quantity; and
(B) Comparable in quality and cost to the student.
(ii) A recipient may render such assistance to any agency, organization, or person that provides all or part of such housing to students of only one sex.
A recipient may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for students of the other sex.
(a) A recipient shall not provide any course or otherwise carry out any of its education program or activity separately on the basis of sex, or require or refuse participation therein by any of its students on such basis, including health, physical education, industrial, business, vocational, technical, home economics, music, and adult education courses.
(b)(1) With respect to classes and activities in physical education at the elementary school level, the recipient shall comply fully with this section as expeditiously as possible but in no event later than one year from September 29, 2000. With respect to physical education classes and activities at the secondary and post-secondary levels, the recipient shall comply fully with this section as expeditiously as possible but in no event later than three years from September 29, 2000.
(2) This section does not prohibit grouping of students in physical education classes and activities by ability as assessed by objective standards of individual performance developed and applied without regard to sex.
(3) This section does not prohibit separation of students by sex within physical education classes or activities during participation in wrestling, boxing, rugby, ice hockey, football, basketball, and other sports the purpose or major activity of which involves bodily contact.
(4) Where use of a single standard of measuring skill or progress in a physical education class has an adverse effect on members of one sex, the recipient shall use appropriate standards that do not have such effect.
(5) Portions of classes in elementary and secondary schools, or portions of education programs or activities, that deal exclusively with human sexuality may be conducted in separate sessions for boys and girls.
(6) Recipients may make requirements based on vocal range or quality that may result in a chorus or choruses of one or predominantly one sex.
A recipient that is a local educational agency shall not, on the basis of sex, exclude any person from admission to:
(a) Any institution of vocational education operated by such recipient; or
(b) Any other school or educational unit operated by such recipient, unless such recipient otherwise makes available to such person, pursuant to the same policies and criteria of admission, courses, services, and facilities comparable to each course, service, and facility offered in or through such schools.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(1) On the basis of sex, provide different amounts or types of such assistance, limit eligibility for such assistance that is of any particular type or source, apply different criteria, or otherwise discriminate;
(2) Through solicitation, listing, approval, provision of facilities, or other services, assist any foundation, trust, agency, organization, or person that provides assistance to any of such recipient's students in a manner that discriminates on the basis of sex; or
(3) Apply any rule or assist in application of any rule concerning eligibility for such assistance that treats persons of one sex differently from persons of the other sex with regard to marital or parental status.
(b)
(2) To ensure nondiscriminatory awards of assistance as required in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, recipients shall develop and use procedures under which:
(i) Students are selected for award of financial assistance on the basis of nondiscriminatory criteria and not on the basis of availability of funds restricted to members of a particular sex;
(ii) An appropriate sex-restricted scholarship, fellowship, or other form of financial assistance is allocated to each student selected under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section; and
(iii) No student is denied the award for which he or she was selected under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section because of the absence of a scholarship, fellowship, or other form of financial assistance designated for a member of that student's sex.
(c)
(2) A recipient may provide separate athletic scholarships or grants-in-aid for members of each sex as part of separate athletic teams for members of each sex to the extent consistent with this paragraph (c) and § _.450.
(a)
(1) Shall assure itself that such employment is made available without discrimination on the basis of sex; and
(2) Shall not render such services to any agency, organization, or person that discriminates on the basis of sex in its employment practices.
(b)
Subject to § _.235(d), in providing a medical, hospital, accident, or life insurance benefit, service, policy, or plan to any of its students, a recipient shall not discriminate on the basis of sex, or provide such benefit, service, policy, or plan in a manner that would violate §§ _.500 through _.550 if it were provided to employees of the recipient. This section shall not prohibit a recipient from providing any benefit or service that may be used by a different proportion of students of one sex than of the other, including family planning services. However, any recipient that provides full coverage health service shall provide gynecological care.
(a)
(b)
(2) A recipient may require such a student to obtain the certification of a physician that the student is physically and emotionally able to continue participation as long as such a certification is required of all students for other physical or emotional conditions requiring the attention of a physician.
(3) A recipient that operates a portion of its education program or activity separately for pregnant students, admittance to which is completely voluntary on the part of the student as provided in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, shall ensure that the separate portion is comparable to that offered to non-pregnant students.
(4) Subject to § _.235(d), a recipient shall treat pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy and recovery therefrom in the same manner and under the same policies as any other temporary disability with respect to any medical or hospital benefit, service, plan, or policy that such recipient administers, operates, offers, or participates in with respect to students admitted to the recipient's educational program or activity.
(5) In the case of a recipient that does not maintain a leave policy for its students, or in the case of a student who does not otherwise qualify for leave under such a policy, a recipient shall treat pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, and recovery therefrom as a justification for a leave of absence for as long a period of time as is deemed medically necessary by the student's physician, at the conclusion of which the student shall be reinstated to the status that she held when the leave began.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(i) Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes;
(ii) The provision of equipment and supplies;
(iii) Scheduling of games and practice time;
(iv) Travel and per diem allowance;
(v) Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring;
(vi) Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;
(vii) Provision of locker rooms, practice, and competitive facilities;
(viii) Provision of medical and training facilities and services;
(ix) Provision of housing and dining facilities and services;
(x) Publicity.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams will not constitute noncompliance with this section, but the designated agency official may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex.
(d)
Nothing in these Title IX regulations shall be interpreted as requiring or prohibiting or abridging in any way the use of particular textbooks or curricular materials.
(a)
(2) A recipient shall make all employment decisions in any education program or activity operated by such recipient in a nondiscriminatory manner and shall not limit, segregate, or classify applicants or employees in any way that could adversely affect any applicant's or employee's employment opportunities or status because of sex.
(3) A recipient shall not enter into any contractual or other relationship which directly or indirectly has the effect of subjecting employees or students to discrimination prohibited by §§ _.500 through _.550, including relationships with employment and referral agencies, with labor unions, and with organizations providing or administering fringe benefits to employees of the recipient.
(4) A recipient shall not grant preferences to applicants for employment on the basis of attendance at any educational institution or entity that admits as students only or predominantly members of one sex, if the giving of such preferences has the effect of discriminating on the basis of sex in violation of these Title IX regulations.
(b)
(1) Recruitment, advertising, and the process of application for employment;
(2) Hiring, upgrading, promotion, consideration for and award of tenure, demotion, transfer, layoff, termination, application of nepotism policies, right of return from layoff, and rehiring;
(3) Rates of pay or any other form of compensation, and changes in compensation;
(4) Job assignments, classifications, and structure, including position descriptions, lines of progression, and seniority lists;
(5) The terms of any collective bargaining agreement;
(6) Granting and return from leaves of absence, leave for pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, leave for persons of either sex to care for children or dependents, or any other leave;
(7) Fringe benefits available by virtue of employment, whether or not administered by the recipient;
(8) Selection and financial support for training, including apprenticeship, professional meetings, conferences, and other related activities, selection for tuition assistance, selection for sabbaticals and leaves of absence to pursue training;
(9) Employer-sponsored activities, including social or recreational programs; and
(10) Any other term, condition, or privilege of employment.
A recipient shall not administer or operate any test or other criterion for any employment opportunity that has a disproportionately adverse effect on persons on the basis of sex unless:
(a) Use of such test or other criterion is shown to predict validly successful performance in the position in question; and
(b) Alternative tests or criteria for such purpose, which do not have such disproportionately adverse effect, are shown to be unavailable.
(a)
(b)
A recipient shall not make or enforce any policy or practice that, on the basis of sex:
(a) Makes distinctions in rates of pay or other compensation;
(b) Results in the payment of wages to employees of one sex at a rate less than that paid to employees of the opposite sex for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions.
A recipient shall not:
(a) Classify a job as being for males or for females;
(b) Maintain or establish separate lines of progression, seniority lists, career ladders, or tenure systems based on sex; or
(c) Maintain or establish separate lines of progression, seniority systems, career ladders, or tenure systems for
(a)
(b)
(1) Discriminate on the basis of sex with regard to making fringe benefits available to employees or make fringe benefits available to spouses, families, or dependents of employees differently upon the basis of the employee's sex;
(2) Administer, operate, offer, or participate in a fringe benefit plan that does not provide for equal periodic benefits for members of each sex and for equal contributions to the plan by such recipient for members of each sex; or
(3) Administer, operate, offer, or participate in a pension or retirement plan that establishes different optional or compulsory retirement ages based on sex or that otherwise discriminates in benefits on the basis of sex.
(a)
(1) Concerning the potential marital, parental, or family status of an employee or applicant for employment that treats persons differently on the basis of sex; or
(2) Which is based upon whether an employee or applicant for employment is the head of household or principal wage earner in such employee's or applicant's family unit.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
A recipient shall not in any advertising related to employment indicate preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination based on sex unless sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for the particular job in question.
(a)
(b)
A recipient may take action otherwise prohibited by §§_.500 through _.550 provided it is shown that sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for that action, such that consideration of sex with regard to such action is essential to successful operation of the employment function concerned. A recipient shall not take action pursuant to this section that is based upon alleged comparative employment characteristics or stereotyped characterizations of one or the other sex, or upon preference based on sex of the recipient, employees, students, or other persons, but nothing contained in this section shall prevent a recipient from considering an employee's sex in relation to employment in a locker room or toilet facility used only by members of one sex.
Within 60 days of September 29, 2000, each Federal agency that awards Federal financial assistance shall publish in the
Irene P. Little, Office of Small Business and Civil Rights, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, (301) 415-7380.
Administrative practice and procedure, Buildings and facilities, Civil rights, Colleges and universities, Education of individuals with disabilities, Education, Educational facilities, Educational research, Educational study programs, Equal educational opportunity, Equal employment opportunity, Graduate fellowship program, Grant programs—education, Individuals with disabilities, Investigations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex
20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682, 1683, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688.
The investigative, compliance, and enforcement procedural provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) (“Title VI”) are hereby adopted and applied to these Title IX regulations. These procedures may be found at 10 CFR 4.21 through 4.75.
Assistant Administrator for Equal Employment Opportunity and Civil Rights Compliance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20416, (202) 205-6750.
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Colleges and universities, Educational facilities, Equal employment opportunity, Grant programs—education, Loan programs—education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex discrimination, Women.
15 U.S.C. 633, 634, 687, 1691; 20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682, 1683, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688; 29 U.S.C. 794; Sec. 5, Pub. L. 85-536, 72 Stat. 385, as amended; Sec. 308, Pub. L. 85-699, 72 Stat. 694, as amended.
20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682, 1683, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688.
The investigative, compliance, and enforcement procedural provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) (“Title VI”) are hereby adopted and applied to these Title IX regulations. These procedures may be found at 13 CFR part 112.
Fred Dalton, Office of Equal Opportunity Programs, NASA Headquarters (Code EI), Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-0941.
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Colleges and universities, Education, Education of individuals with disabilities, Educational facilities, Educational research, Educational study programs, Elementary and secondary education, Equal educational opportunity, Equal employment opportunity, Grant programs—education, Investigations, Marital status discrimination, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex discrimination, Student aid, Women.
20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682, 1683, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688.
The investigative, compliance, and enforcement procedural provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) (“Title VI”) are hereby adopted and applied to these Title IX regulations. These procedures may be found at 14 CFR 1250.105 through 1250.110.
Lawrence N. Self, Acting Director, Office of Civil Rights, Department of Commerce, Room 6010, Washington, DC 20230 (202) 482-0625.
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Colleges and universities, Education, Educational facilities, Equal educational opportunity, Equal employment opportunity, Grant programs—education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex discrimination, Women.
20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682, 1683, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688.
The investigative, compliance, and enforcement procedural provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) (“Title VI”) are hereby adopted and applied to these Title IX regulations. These procedures may be found at 15 CFR 8.7 through 8.15, and 13 CFR part 317.
Franklin E. Alford, Manager, Supplier and Diverse Business Relations, 1101 Market Street, WR 3J, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402, (423) 751-7203.
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Colleges and universities, Education, Equal educational opportunity, Equal employment opportunity, Marital status discrimination, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex discrimination, Women.
20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682, 1683, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688.
The investigative, compliance, and enforcement procedural provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) (“Title VI”) are hereby adopted and applied to these Title IX regulations. These procedures may be found at 18 CFR part 1302.
Paul M. Coran, Attorney Advisor, Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Civil Rights, Department of State, Room 4216, Washington, D.C. 20520, (202) 647-9295.
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Colleges and universities, Education, Educational research, Educational study programs, Equal educational opportunity, Equal employment opportunity, Grant programs—education, Sex discrimination, Women.
20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682, 1683, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688.
The investigative, compliance, and enforcement procedural provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) (“Title VI”) are hereby adopted and applied to these Title IX regulations. These procedures may be found at 22 CFR part 141.
Jessalyn L. Pendarvis, Director, Office of Equal Opportunity Programs, Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C. 20523, (202) 712-1110.
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Colleges and universities, Education, Educational facilities, Educational research, Educational study programs, Elementary and secondary education, Equal educational opportunity, Equal employment opportunity, Grant programs—education, Investigations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex discrimination, Student aid, Women.
20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682, 1683, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688.
The investigative, compliance, and enforcement procedural provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) (“Title VI”) are hereby adopted and applied to these Title IX regulations. These procedures may be found at 22 CFR part 209.
David H. Enzel, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, Washington, D.C. 20410-0500, (202) 708-0836. (This telephone number is not toll-free.) Hearing or speech-impaired persons may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Colleges and universities, Education, Educational facilities, Educational research, Educational study programs, Equal educational opportunity, Equal employment opportunity, Grant programs—education, Investigations, Loan programs—education, Religious discrimination, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex discrimination, Student aid, Women.
20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682, 1683, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688.
The investigative, compliance, and enforcement procedural provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) (“Title VI”) are hereby adopted and applied to these Title IX regulations. These procedures may be found at 24 CFR part 1.
Merrily A. Friedlander, Chief, Coordination and Review Section, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice, P.O. Box 66560, Washington, D.C. 20036-6560, (202) 307-2222.
Administrative practice and procedure, Buildings and facilities, Civil rights, Colleges and universities, Education, Educational facilities, Educational research, Educational study programs, Elementary and secondary education, Equal educational opportunity, Equal employment opportunity, Grant programs—education, Individuals with disabilities, Investigations, Loan programs—education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex discrimination, Student aid, Women.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Justice amends 28 CFR chapter I, as follows:
20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682, 1683, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688.
The investigative, compliance, and enforcement procedural provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) (“Title VI”) are hereby adopted and applied to these Title IX regulations. These procedures may be found at 28 CFR 42.106 through 42.111.
Bud West, Senior Policy Advisor, Civil Rights Center, Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room N-4123, Washington, D.C. 20210, (202) 219-8927 (voice), (202) 219-6118, or (202) 326-2577 (TTY/TTD).
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Equal educational opportunity, Equal employment opportunity, Grant programs—labor, Investigations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex discrimination, Women.
20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682, 1683, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688.
2. In § 36.105 in the definition of “Designated agency official,” the brackets and text within brackets are removed and “Director, Civil Rights Center” is added in its place.
3. In § 36.105 in the definition of “Title IX regulations,” the brackets and text within brackets are removed and “§§ 36.100 through 36.610” is added in its place.
4. Section 36.605 is added and § 36.610 is added and reserved to read as follows:
The investigative, compliance, and enforcement procedural provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) (“Title VI”) are hereby adopted and applied to these Title IX regulations. These procedures may be found at 29 CFR 31.5, 31.7 through 31.11.
Marcia H. Coates, Director, Office of Equal Opportunity Program, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 6069 Metropolitan Square, Washington, D.C. 20220, (202) 622-1170.
Administrative practice and procedure, Age discrimination, Civil rights, Colleges and universities, Education, Educational facilities, Educational research, Educational study programs, Elementary and secondary education, Equal educational opportunity, Equal employment opportunity, Grant programs—education, Individuals with disabilities, Investigations, Religious discrimination, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex discrimination, Student aid, Women.
20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682, 1683, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) If an investigation does not warrant action pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section the designated agency official (or designee) will so inform the recipient and the complainant, if any, in writing.
(e)
(a)
(1) A reference to the Department of Justice with a recommendation that appropriate proceedings be brought to enforce any rights of the United States under any law of the United States, or any assurance or other contractual undertaking; and
(2) Any applicable proceeding under State or local law.
(b)
(c)
(i) The designated agency official has advised the applicant or recipient of its failure to comply and has determined that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means;
(ii) There has been an express finding on the record, after opportunity for hearing, of a failure by the applicant or recipient to comply with a requirement imposed by or pursuant to these Title IX regulations; and
(iii) The expiration of 30 days after the Secretary has filed with the committee of the House, and the committee of the Senate having legislative jurisdiction over the program involved, a full written report of the circumstances and the grounds for such action.
(2) Any action to suspend or terminate or to refuse to grant or to continue Federal financial assistance shall be limited to the particular political entity, or part thereof, or other applicant or recipient as to whom such a finding has been made and shall be limited in its effect to the particular program, or part thereof, in which such noncompliance has been so found.
(d)
(i) The designated agency official has determined that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means;
(ii) The recipient has been notified of its failure to comply and of the action to be taken to effect compliance; and
(iii) The expiration of at least 10 days from the mailing of such notice to the recipient.
(2) During this period of at least 10 days additional efforts shall be made to persuade the recipient to comply with these Title IX regulations and to take such corrective action as may be appropriate.
(a)
(1) Fix a date not less than 20 days after the date of such notice within which the applicant or recipient may request of the designated agency official that the matter be scheduled for hearing; or
(2) Advise the applicant or recipient that the matter in question has been set down for hearing at a stated place and time. The time and place so fixed shall be reasonable and shall be subject to change for cause. The complainant, if any, shall be advised of the time and place of the hearing. An applicant or recipient may waive a hearing and submit written information and argument for the record. The failure of an applicant or recipient to request a hearing for which a date has been set shall be deemed to be a waiver of the right to a hearing under 20 U.S.C. 1682 and § 28.615(c) and consent to the making of a decision on the basis of such information as may be filed as the record.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) Technical rules of evidence shall not apply to hearings conducted pursuant to these Title IX regulations, but rules or principles designed to assure production of the most credible evidence available and to subject testimony to test by cross-examination shall be applied where reasonably necessary by the hearing officer. The hearing officer may exclude irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence. All documents and other evidence offered or taken for the record shall be open to examination by the parties and opportunity shall be given to refute facts and arguments advanced on either side of the issues. A transcript shall be made of the oral evidence except to the extent the substance thereof is stipulated for the record. All decisions shall be based upon the hearing record and written findings shall be made.
(e)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(2) Any applicant or recipient adversely affected by an order entered pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section may at any time request the designated agency official to restore fully its eligibility to receive Federal financial assistance. Any such request shall be supported by information showing that the applicant or recipient has met the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this section. If the designated agency official determines that those requirements have been satisfied, the official shall restore such eligibility.
(3) If the designated agency official denies any such request, the applicant or recipient may submit a request for a hearing in writing, specifying why it believes such official to have been in error. It shall thereupon be given an expeditious hearing, with a decision on the record, in accordance with rules of procedure issued by the designated agency official. The applicant or recipient will be restored to such eligibility if it proves at such hearing that it satisfied the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this section. While proceedings under this paragraph (g) are pending, the sanctions imposed by the order issued under paragraph (f) of this section shall remain in effect.
Action taken pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 1682 is subject to judicial review as provided in 20 U.S.C. 1683.
(a)
(b)
William E. Leftwich III, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Equal Opportunity), Room 3A272, The Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 20301-4000, (703) 695-0105.
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Colleges and universities, Education, Educational facilities, Educational research, Educational study programs, Elementary and secondary education, Equal educational opportunity, Grant programs—education, Investigations, Loan programs—education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex discrimination, Student aid, Women.
20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682, 1683, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688.
The investigative, compliance, and enforcement procedural provisions of
Nancy Allard, Policy and Planning Staff (NPLN), 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, Maryland 20740-6001, (301) 713-7360, ext. 226.
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Colleges and universities, Discrimination, Discrimination in Education, Education, Educational study programs, Employment, Equal educational opportunity, Equal employment opportunity, Grant programs—archives and records, Grant programs—education, Nondiscrimination, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex discrimination.
20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682, 1683, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) If an investigation does not warrant action pursuant to paragraph (d) (1) of this section the designated agency official (or designee) will so inform the recipient and the complainant, if any, in writing.
(e)
(a)
(1) A reference to the Department of Justice with a recommendation that appropriate proceedings be brought to enforce any rights of the United States under any law of the United States, or any assurance or other contractual undertaking; and
(2) Any applicable proceeding under State or local law.
(b)
(c)
(i) The designated agency official has advised the applicant or recipient of its failure to comply and has determined that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means;
(ii) There has been an express finding on the record, after opportunity for hearing, of a failure by the applicant or recipient to comply with a requirement imposed by or pursuant to these Title IX regulations; and
(iii) The expiration of 30 days after the Archivist has filed with the committee of the House, and the committee of the Senate having legislative jurisdiction over the program involved, a full written report of the circumstances and the grounds for such action.
(2) Any action to suspend or terminate or to refuse to grant or to continue Federal financial assistance shall be limited to the particular political entity, or part thereof, or other applicant or recipient as to whom such a finding has been made and shall be limited in its effect to the particular program, or part thereof, in which such noncompliance has been so found.
(d)
(i) The designated agency official has determined that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means;
(ii) The recipient has been notified of its failure to comply and of the action to be taken to effect compliance; and
(iii) The expiration of at least 10 days from the mailing of such notice to the recipient.
(2) During this period of at least 10 days additional efforts shall be made to persuade the recipient to comply with these Title IX regulations and to take such corrective action as may be appropriate.
(a)
(1) Fix a date not less than 20 days after the date of such notice within which the applicant or recipient may request of the designated agency official that the matter be scheduled for hearing; or
(2) Advise the applicant or recipient that the matter in question has been set down for hearing at a stated place and time. The time and place so fixed shall
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) Technical rules of evidence shall not apply to hearings conducted pursuant to these Title IX regulations, but rules or principles designed to assure production of the most credible evidence available and to subject testimony to test by cross-examination shall be applied where reasonably necessary by the hearing officer. The hearing officer may exclude irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence. All documents and other evidence offered or taken for the record shall be open to examination by the parties and opportunity shall be given to refute facts and arguments advanced on either side of the issues. A transcript shall be made of the oral evidence except to the extent the substance thereof is stipulated for the record. All decisions shall be based upon the hearing record and written findings shall be made.
(e)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(2) Any applicant or recipient adversely affected by an order entered pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section may at any time request the designated agency official to restore fully its eligibility to receive Federal financial assistance. Any such request shall be supported by information showing that the applicant or recipient has met the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this section. If the designated agency official determines that those requirements have been satisfied, the official shall restore such eligibility.
(3) If the designated agency official denies any such request, the applicant or recipient may submit a request for a hearing in writing, specifying why it believes such official to have been in error. It shall thereupon be given an expeditious hearing, with a decision on the record, in accordance with rules of procedure issued by the designated agency official. The applicant or recipient will be restored to such eligibility if it proves at such hearing that it satisfied the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this section. While proceedings under this paragraph (g) are pending, the sanctions imposed by the order issued under paragraph (f) of this section shall remain in effect.
Action taken pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 1682 is subject to judicial review as provided in 20 U.S.C. 1683.
(a)
(b)
Ventris C. Gibson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Resolution Management (08), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20420, (202) 273-9437.
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Colleges and universities, Education, Educational facilities, Educational research, Educational study programs, Elementary and secondary education, Equal educational opportunity, Equal employment opportunity, Grant programs—education, Investigations, Loan programs—education, Religious discrimination, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex discrimination, Student aid, Women.
20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682, 1683, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688.
The investigative, compliance, and enforcement procedural provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) (“Title VI”) are hereby adopted and applied to these Title IX regulations. These procedures may be found at 38 CFR 18.6 through 18.11.
Ann Goode, Office of Civil Rights, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. (1201A), Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 260-4575.
Administrative practice and procedure, Buildings and facilities, Civil rights, Colleges and universities, Education, Educational facilities, Educational research, Educational study programs, Elementary and secondary education, Environmental protection, Equal educational opportunity, Equal employment opportunity, Grant programs—education, Loan programs—education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex discrimination, Student aid, Women.
20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682, 1683, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688.
The investigative, compliance, and enforcement procedural provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) (“Title VI”) are hereby adopted and applied to these Title IX regulations. These procedures may be found at 40 CFR 7.105 through 7.135.
James M. Taylor, Director, Office of Civil Rights, General Services Administration, 1800 F Street, N.W., Room 5127, Washington, D.C. 20405, (202) 501-0767.
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Colleges and universities, Education, Educational facilities, Elementary and secondary
20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682, 1683, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688.
The investigative, compliance, and enforcement procedural provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) (“Title VI”) are hereby adopted and applied to these Title IX regulations. These procedures may be found at 41 CFR part 101-6, subpart 101-6.2.
Melvin C. Fowler, Office for Equal Opportunity, MS 5221, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240, (202) 208-3455.
Administrative practice and procedure, Adult education, Athletics, Civil rights, Colleges and universities, Counseling, Education, Educational facilities, Educational research, Educational study programs, Elementary and secondary education, Equal educational opportunity, Equal employment opportunity, Grant programs—education, Investigations, Loan programs—education, Marital status discrimination, Religious discrimination, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Sex discrimination, Scholarships, Student aid, Training, Vocational education, Vocational training, Women.
20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682, 1683, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688.
The investigative, compliance, and enforcement procedural provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) (“Title VI”) are hereby adopted and applied to these Title IX regulations. These procedures may be found at 43 CFR 17.5 through 17.11 and 43 CFR part 4, subpart I.
Pauline C. Campbell, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Room 407, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4122, (telefax) (202) 646-4320, or (email)
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Colleges and universities, Education, Educational facilities, Educational research, Educational study programs, Elementary and secondary education, Employment, Equal educational opportunity, Equal employment opportunity, Federal aid programs, Grant programs—education, Investigations, Marital status discrimination, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Secondary education, Sex discrimination, Student aid, Universities, Women.
20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682, 1683, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688.
The investigative, compliance, and enforcement procedural provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) (“Title VI”) are hereby adopted and applied to these Title IX regulations. These procedures may be found at 44 CFR 7.10 through 7.15.
Anita Eisenstadt, Assistant General Counsel, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230, (703) 306-1060.
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Colleges and universities, Education, Education of individuals with disabilities, Educational facilities, Educational research, Educational study programs, Elementary and secondary education, Equal educational opportunity, Equal employment opportunity, Grant programs—education, Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex discrimination, Women.
20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682, 1683, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688.
The investigative, compliance, and enforcement procedural provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) (“Title VI”) are hereby adopted and applied to these Title IX regulations. These procedures may be found at 45 CFR part 611.
Nancy B. Voss, Director, Equal Opportunity, Corporation for National and Community Service, 1201 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20525, (202) 606-5000, extension 308.
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Colleges and universities, Education, Educational facilities, Educational research, Educational study programs, Elementary and secondary education, Equal educational opportunity, Equal employment opportunity, Grant programs—education, Investigations, Loan programs—education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex discrimination, Student aid, Women.
20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682, 1683, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688.
The investigative, compliance, and enforcement procedural provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) (“Title VI”) are hereby adopted and applied to these Title IX regulations. These procedures may be found at 45 CFR 1203.6 through 1203.12.
Marc Brenman, Department Office of Civil Rights, Room 10217, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, (202) 366-1119 voice, (202) 366-8538 TTY, email: marc.brenman@ost.dot.gov; or Nancy Dunham, Senior Attorney-Advisor; Civil Rights, Office of Environmental, Civil Rights, and General Law, Room 5432, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, (202) 366-8072 voice, (202) 366-8538 TTY, email: nancy.dunham@ost.dot.gov.
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Colleges and universities, Discrimination, Education of individuals with disabilities, Education, Educational facilities, Educational research, Educational study programs, Elementary and secondary education, Equal educational opportunity, Equal employment opportunity, Equal opportunity, Gender discrimination, Grant programs—education, Individuals with disabilities, Investigations, Loan Programs—education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex discrimination, Student aid, Training, Women.
20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682, 1683, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688.
The investigative, compliance, and enforcement procedural provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) (“Title VI”) are hereby adopted and applied to these Title IX regulations. These procedures may be found at 49 CFR part 21.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Notice of Final Competitive Preference Points for Fiscal Year 2001 for the Field Initiated competition.
This notice announces the addition of a competitive preference points for the Field Initiated competition under the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) for fiscal year 2001. We take this action to focus research attention on an area of national need. The additional points are intended to improve rehabilitation services and outcomes for individuals with disabilities.
This notice take effect on September 29, 2000.
Donna Nangle. Telephone: (202) 205-5880. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) you may call the TDD number at (202) 205-4475. Internet: donna_nangle@ed.gov
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternate format (
This notice of final competitive preference points does not solicit applications. A notice inviting applications is published in this issue of the
On June 26, 2000 we published a notice of a proposed competitive preference points in the
Within this absolute priority, we will give the following competitive preference to applications that are otherwise eligible for funding under this priority:
Up to ten (10) points based on the extent to which an application includes effective strategies for employing and advancing in employment qualified individuals with disabilities in projects awarded under this absolute priority. In determining the effectiveness of those strategies, we may consider the applicant's success, as described in the application, in employing and advancing in employment qualified individuals with disabilities in the project.
For purposes of this competitive preference, applicants can be awarded up to a total of 10 points in addition to those awarded under the published selection criteria for this priority. That is, an applicant meeting this competitive preference could earn a maximum total of 110 points.
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at either of the preceding sites. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC., area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of document is the document published in the
29 U.S.C. 764.
Field-Initiated (FI) projects must further one or both of the following purposes: (1) Develop methods, procedures, and rehabilitation technology, that maximize the full inclusion and integration into society, employment, independent living, family support, and economic and social self-sufficiency of individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe disabilities; and (2) improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. FI projects carry out either research activities or development activities. In carrying out a research activity, a grantee must identify one or more hypotheses, and based on the hypotheses identified, perform an intensive systematic study directed toward new or full scientific knowledge, or understanding of the subject or problem studied.
In carrying out a development activity, a grantee must use knowledge and understanding gained from research to create materials, devices, systems, or methods beneficial to the target population, including design and development of prototypes and processes. Target population means the group of individuals, organizations, or other entities expected to be affected by the project. More than one group may be involved since a project may affect those who receive services, provide services, or administer services.
The Goals 2000: Education America Act (Goals 2000) focuses the Nation's education reform efforts on the eight National Education Goals and provides a framework for meeting them. Goals 2000 promotes new partnerships to strengthen schools and expands the Department's capacities for helping
This notice would address the National Education Goal that every adult Americans will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
The notice of final competitive preference points for the Field Initiated competition is published elsewhere in this issue of the
Consistent with EDGAR 34 CFR 75.104(b), we will reject any application that proposes a project funding level for any year that exceeds the stated maximum award amount for that year.
The estimated funding level in this notice does not bind the Department of Education to make awards, or to any specific number of awards or funding levels, unless otherwise specified in statute.
Research activities involving human subjects supported by awards under these programs are subject to Department of Education Regulations for the Protection of Human Subjects (34 CFR part 97). Information can be found on the research Web Site at: http://ocfo.ed.gov/humansub.htm
The invitational priorities are based on NIDRR's Long-Range Plan (the Plan). The Plan can be accessed on the World Wide Web at:
We encourage applications from minority entities. The term minority entity means an entity that is a historically Black college or university, a Hispanic-serving institution of higher education, an American Indian Tribal College or university, or another institution of higher education whose minority student enrollment is at least 50 percent.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the application package in an alternate format by contacting the Grants and Contracts Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3317, Switzer Building, Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone: (202) 205-8351. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Information Relay Services (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339. However, the Department is not able to reproduce in an alternate format the standard forms included in the application package.
Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3414, Switzer Building, Washington, DC 20202-2645. Telephone: (202) 205-5880. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the TDD number at (202) 205-4475. Internet: Donna_Nangle@ed.gov
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (
You may review this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the
To use the PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at either of the preceding sites. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
29 U.S.C. 764.
(1) In order to reflect in the HTS the addition of Nigeria as a beneficiary country under the GSP, general note 4(a) to the HTS is modified by adding “Nigeria” to the list of independent countries, effective with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the date of signature of this proclamation.
(2) Any provisions of previous proclamations and Executive Orders that are inconsistent with the actions taken in this proclamation are superseded to the extent of such inconsistency.