Agricultural Marketing Service
Forest Service
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Rural Housing Service
Export Administration Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Fiscal Service
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Minerals Management Service
Antitrust Division
Employment and Training Administration
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration
Copyright Office, Library of Congress
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office
Fiscal Service
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Customs Service
Fiscal Service
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 Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, HUD.
Final rule.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) is publishing a final regulation that reflects the changes to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) made by the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments Act of 1996 (1996 Act) and revises the method of computing fees. The final regulation provides for: electronic FOIA requests; access to records published or released under FOIA in electronic format; expedited processing of FOIA requests upon a showing of compelling need; publication of responses to FOIA requests that are likely to become repeat requests; aggregation of clearly related requests by a single requester or group of requesters acting in concert; informing the requester of the volume of requested material withheld and the extent of deletions both in publicly available records and records released in response to a FOIA request; and a method for computing fees that is based upon the classification of the employee performing the work as executive, professional, or clerical.
The final regulation is effective October 13, 2000.
Dorothy J. Acosta, Deputy General Counsel, 1700 G Street NW, Fourth Floor, Washington, DC 20552, telephone (202) 414-3829 (not a toll-free number). The telephone number for the Telecommunications Device for the Deaf is (800) 877-8339.
On May 25, 2000 the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) published a proposed regulation, implementing certain provisions of the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996, and revising the fee schedule, 65 FR 33790. The comment period closed July 24, 2000. No comments were received. Accordingly, the proposed regulation is published as a final regulation without change.
The 1996 Act amendments that are reflected in the final regulation are: (1) The requirement to make requested documents available in the form or format specified by the requester, provided the document is readily reproducible in that form or format; (2) the requirement to make publicly available copies of records released in response to FOIA requests that are likely to become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially the same records; (3) the requirement for electronic access to records required to be made public by 5 U.S.C. 552 (a)(2) that were created after November 1, 1996; (4) the requirement to provide expedited processing of FOIA requests upon a showing of compelling need by the requester and in such other cases as the agency may determine; (5) the requirement to indicate the extent of any deletion made in released records and publicly available records; (6) the requirement to inform the requester of the estimated volume of material withheld; and (7) the provision for aggregating clearly related requests as a single request when such a request would constitute an “unusual circumstance” justifying an extension of the response time. Although not required by the 1996 Act, this final regulation would allow requests to be made electronically.
The final regulation also revises the way fees are determined for personnel costs involved in processing a request. Previously, the hourly rate OFHEO charged for actual time spent searching, reviewing, and duplicating was determined by the salary of the particular employee performing the work plus 16% of that amount to reflect the cost of benefits. The final regulation provides for fees to be based on one of three hourly rates for personnel costs associated with responding to a request, depending on whether the employee performing the work is classified as executive, professional, or clerical. An average of the actual compensation (salary and benefits) of all employees of OFHEO in a particular classification determines the actual hourly fee for that classification. These fees will be adjusted periodically to reflect significant changes in average compensation. The current fee schedule will be available on OFHEO's web site (
The definition of “record” in § 1710.2(j) is amended by inserting the phrase “regardless of form or format.”
OFHEO's web site (
The final regulation amends § 1710.11 by relocating the provisions that relate to records required to be made publicly available pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2) to § 1710.12.
Section 1710.11(a) is amended to incorporate the substance of § 1710.11(c), which addresses copying costs, and to state that records will be made available in the form or format requested provided they are readily reproducible in that form or format with reasonable effort. “Readily reproducible” is defined to mean, with respect to electronic format, that the requested record or records can be downloaded or transferred intact to a computer disk, or other electronic medium using equipment currently in use by OFHEO.
Section 1710.11(b), which addresses records required to be made publicly available under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2), is redesignated as § 1710.12(a) and amended to: (1) Incorporate the substance of § 1710.11(c) addressing copying costs; (2) state that all publicly available documents are available by
Section 1710.11(c), which relates to copying charges, is deleted and its substance incorporated in §§ 1710.11(a) and 1710.12(a).
Section 1710.11(d), which sets forth FOIA exemptions, is redesignated as § 1710.11(b).
Section 1710.11(e) is redesignated as § 1710.1(c).
Section 1710.11(f) is redesignated as § 1710.11(d) and amended to require that the amount of any information deleted from a record released under FOIA be indicated on the released portion of the record (at the place the deletion is made, if technically feasible).
Section 1710.11(g), which relates to permissible deletions in publicly available records, is redesignated as § 1710.12(b) and amended to state that the extent of any deletions necessary to protect personal privacy will be indicated on the records that are publicly available under redesignated § 1710.12(a), at the place where the deletion is made if technically feasible, unless including the indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption on which the deletion is based.
Section 1710.11(h) is redesignated as § 1710.11(e).
Section 1710.12 is amended by revising the heading of § 1710.12 to read “Publicly Available Records”; redesignating § 1710.11(b) as § 1710.12(a); and deleting the existing provisions of § 1710.12(a) and replacing them with the provisions of § 1710.11(b), amended as described above.
Section 1710.12(b) previously contained the Director's determination that, because of the lack of requests to date for records required to be indexed, such indexes do not need to be published quarterly. It stated, however, that the indexes would be provided by mail upon request. Because OFHEO proposes to publish current indexes on its web site, this finding is unnecessary and is deleted in the final regulation. The statement that current indexes are available by mail is relocated to § 1710.12(a). Section 1710(b) is amended by replacing the existing provisions with the requirement that OFHEO explain any deletions made to protect personal privacy and indicate where in the record the deletion is made (if technically feasible), unless including that indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption pursuant to which the deletion is made.
Section 1710.13 is amended to permit requests to be made by facsimile or electronic mail and to require that the request include the submitter's name, address and telephone number.
Section 1710.14(c) is amended to state that OFHEO is not required to create a record to respond to a request, replacing a statement that OFHEO will not create a record.
Section 1710.15, which prescribes the form and content of FOIA responses, is amended by adding a requirement that a notice of denial of a FOIA request (in whole or in part) include an estimate of the volume of requested material withheld, unless providing it would harm an interest protected by the exemption on which the denial is based.
Section 1710.16 sets forth the process for appeal of denials. Paragraph (a) is amended to clarify that the appeal procedures also apply to denials of requests for expedited processing. Paragraph (b) is amended to permit appeals to be submitted electronically or by facsimile. Paragraph (g), which sets forth the right to judicial review, states that a requester will be deemed to have exhausted his or her administrative remedies if an administrative appeal has been denied or has not been acted on within 20 days of receipt. This paragraph is amended to state that if OFHEO provides the requester an opportunity to limit the scope of the request or arrange an alternate time for processing the request, the requester's refusal to do either will be considered a factor in determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist. A showing of exceptional circumstances and due diligence on the part of the agency allows a court in which judicial review is sought to grant a stay to allow the agency additional time to complete its review of the records.
Section 1710.17 of the existing rule describes the time limits within which OFHEO will respond to initial requests and appeals of denials of requests. Paragraph (b) is amended to state that appeals of denials of expedited processing will be acted on as expeditiously as practicable. Paragraph (c) is amended by providing that if OFHEO extends the time limit stated in that paragraph and is unable to process the request by the date specified in the notice, OFHEO will offer the requester an opportunity to limit the scope of the request or arrange an alternate time frame for processing the request or a modified request. A new paragraph (d) is added that provides for aggregating multiple requests involving clearly related matters made by a single requester, or group of requesters acting in concert, when such requests would, if considered as a single request, constitute an “unusual circumstance” justifying an extension of the response time. A new paragraph (e) is added that provides for expedited processing upon a showing of compelling need by the requester and in such other cases as OFHEO may determine. A request for expedited processing must be accompanied by a statement, certified to be true and correct by the requester, that demonstrates compelling need. To show compelling need, the requester's statement must demonstrate that failure to obtain the requested records could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual, or, in the case of a requester whose main professional occupation or activity is the dissemination of information, that there is urgency to inform the public of the government activity involved in the request beyond the public's right to know of government activity generally. The requester must be notified within 10 working days of the disposition of the request, and any appeal of the denial must be acted on expeditiously.
Subpart D sets forth the fees that will be assessed for services rendered in responding to and processing requests for records under the FOIA. The definition of “direct costs” in § 1710.21(b) is amended to include the costs of any automated searches and the cost of securing any contract services that may be necessary to respond to a FOIA request. To reflect the revised fee schedule set forth in the amended section 1710.22(b), a reference to that section is substituted for the reference to the actual salary of the person performing the work as a basis for the fees charged.
Section 1710.21(f) is amended by adding a requirement that the copy of the requested record be provided in the form or format requested, provided it is readily reproducible in that form or format with reasonable effort.
Section 1710.22 is revised to reflect a new method for computing fees and to make minor technical changes to better accommodate the changes made in response to the 1996 Act. Instead of basing the fee on the actual salary rate of the employee performing the work plus 16% for benefits, OFHEO is charging one of three hourly fees
Technical changes to § 1710.22 include substituting “computer equipment” for “central processing unit” and changing the heading in § 1710.22(b)(2) from “Duplication” to “Reproduction” to clarify that the paragraph applies both to duplicating a record in the same format and to reproducing a record in a different format, and by changing the word “reproduction” to “photocopied” in the first sentence to clarify that the per page charge applies only to photocopies of records. Conforming changes are made in § 1710.23.
Throughout the regulation, minor, nonsubstantive syntactical changes are made in the revised sections and citations to sections of the Freedom of Information Act are replaced with citations to the sections of the regulation containing the relevant statutory provisions. Citations to 5 U.S.C. 552 are replaced with “the Freedom of Information Act.”
Executive Order 13132 requires that Executive departments and agencies identify regulatory actions that have significant federalism implications. A regulation has federalism implications if it has substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship or distribution of power between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of Government. OFHEO has determined that this rule has no federalism implications that warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment in accordance with Executive Order 13132.
OMB has determined that rulemakings that amend FOIA regulations to implement the requirements of the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996 are not “significant” regulations for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 12988 sets forth guidelines to promote the just and efficient resolution of civil claims and to reduce the risk of litigation to the Federal Government. This final rule meets the applicable standards of sections 3(a) and (b) of Executive Order 12988.
This rule does not include a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. Consequently, the rule does not warrant the preparation of an assessment statement in accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
OFHEO has considered the impact of the regulation under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The General Counsel has certified that this final rule will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, requires that regulations involving the collection of information receive clearance from OMB. This rule contains no such collection of information requiring OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Consequently, no information has been submitted to OMB for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Electronic products, Freedom of information.
5 U.S.C. 301, 552; 12 U.S.C. 4513, 4522, 4639; E.O. 12600; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 235.
(a) OFHEO shall, upon a written request for records that reasonably describes the information or records and is made in accordance with the provisions of this subpart, make the records available as promptly as practicable to any person for inspection and/or copying, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section. OFHEO may charge a fee determined in accordance with subpart D of this part. OFHEO will make the record available in the form or format requested if the record is readily reproducible in that form or format with reasonable effort. “Readily reproducible” means, with respect to electronic format, that the requested record or records can be downloaded or transferred intact to a computer disk, tape, or other electronic medium using equipment currently in use by OFHEO.
(b)
(1) Any record, or portion thereof, that is—
(i) Specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy, and
(ii) Is in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order.
(2) Any record, or portion thereof, related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of OFHEO.
(3) Any record, or portion thereof that is specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than 5 U.S.C. 552b), provided that such statute—
(i) Requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or
(ii) Establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld.
(4) Any matter that is a trade secret or that constitutes commercial or financial information obtained from a person and that is privileged or confidential.
(5) Any matter contained in inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters that would not be available by law to a private party in litigation with OFHEO.
(6) Any information contained in personnel and medical files and similar files (including financial files) the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
(7) Any records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information—
(i) Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings;
(ii) Would deprive a person of a right to fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
(iii) Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(iv) Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution or an Enterprise regulated and examined by OFHEO that furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record of information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source;
(v) Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law; or
(vi) Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.
(8) Any matter that is contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports that are prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of OFHEO.
(9) Any geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.
(c) Even if an exemption described in paragraph (b) of this section may be reasonably applicable to a requested record, or portion thereof, OFHEO may elect under the circumstances of any particular request not to apply the exemption to such requested record, or portion thereof. The fact that the exemption is not applied by OFHEO to any requested record, or portion thereof, has no precedential significance as to the application or nonapplication of the exemption to any other requested record, or portion thereof, no matter when the request is received.
(d) Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person properly requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt under this subpart. The amount of the information deleted shall be indicated on the released portion of the record, unless including that indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption in paragraph (b) of this section pursuant to which the deletion is made. If technically feasible, the amount of the information deleted shall be indicated at the place in the record where the deletion is made.
(e) This section does not authorize withholding of information or limit the availability of records to the public, except as specifically stated in this section. This section is not authority to withhold information from Congress.
(a) The records described in this paragraph are available for public inspection and copying, for a fee determined in accordance with subpart D of this part, at OFHEO's offices located at 1700 G Street, NW., Fourth Floor, Washington, DC 20552. Records created on or after November 1, 1996, and current indexes to all records described in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4) of this section, including those created before November 1, 1996, are available electronically at
(1) Any final opinions issued by OFHEO, as well as orders made in adjudication of cases as set forth in § 1710.9 of subpart B of this part;
(2) Any statements of policy and interpretation that have been adopted by OFHEO and have not been published in the
(3) Any OFHEO administrative staff manuals and instructions to staff that affect a member of the public, and that are not exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act;
(4) Copies of all records released pursuant to this subpart that OFHEO determines have become or are likely to become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially the same records; and
(5) Current indexes to the records described in this paragraph.
(b) To the extent necessary to prevent an invasion of personal privacy, the Director may delete identifying details from a record described in paragraph (a) of this section. In each case of such deletion, the justification will be clearly explained in writing and the extent of such deletion indicated (at the place in the record where the deletion is made if technically feasible), unless including that indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption in § 1710.11(b) pursuant to which the deletion is made.
(a)
(b) * * *
(2) An estimate of the volume of any requested matter that is withheld, unless providing the estimate would harm an interest protected by the exemption in § 1710.11(b) pursuant to which the denial was made;
(a)
(b)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Search for and collect the requested records from facilities that are separate from the office processing the request;
(2) Search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records which are demanded in a single request; or
(3) Consult with another agency having a substantial interest in the determination of the request, or consult with various offices within OFHEO that have a substantial interest in the records requested.
(d)
(e)
(2) To show a compelling need for expedited processing, the requester shall provide a statement demonstrating that:
(i) The failure to obtain the requested records could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual; or
(ii) The requester's main professional occupation or activity is information dissemination and there is a particular urgency to inform the public of government activity involved in the request beyond the public's right to know about government activity generally.
(3) The requester's statement of compelling need must be certified to be true and correct to the best of his or her knowledge and belief and must explain in detail the basis for requesting expedited processing. The formality of the certification required to obtain expedited treatment may be waived by OFHEO in its discretion.
(4) A requester seeking expedited processing will be notified within ten (10) working days of the receipt of the request whether expedited processing has been granted. If the request for expedited processing is denied, OFHEO will act on any appeal expeditiously.
(b)
(f)
(a) Generally, the fees charged for requests for records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act will cover the full allowable direct costs of searching for, reproducing, and reviewing records that are responsive to a request for information. Fees will be assessed according to the schedule contained in paragraph (b) of this section and the category of requesters described in § 1710.23 of this subpart for services rendered by OFHEO staff in responding to, and processing requests for, records under this part. Fees assessed shall be paid by check or money order payable to the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.
(b)
(1)
(ii)
(iii)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(g) For purposes of paragraph (e) of this section, the term “search time” has as its basis, manual search. To apply this term to searches made by computer, OFHEO will determine the hourly cost of operating the computer equipment and the operator's time determined as described in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of § 1710.22. When the cost of the search (including the operator's time and the cost of operating the computer equipment to process a request) equals the equivalent dollar amount of two hours of the time of the person performing the work,
(a)
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (BHTI) Model 412, 412EP, and 412CF helicopters. This AD requires inspecting the upper left-hand cap angle (cap angle) and adjacent structure for a crack and, before further flight, replacing any cracked cap angle and repairing any crack in the adjacent structure. This AD is prompted by a report of a fatigue crack in a tailboom attachment cap angle. The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent failure of a cap angle, loss of the tailboom, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
Effective September 28, 2000.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before November 13, 2000.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-SW-29-AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. You may also send comments electronically to the Rules Docket at the following address: 9-asw-adcomments@faa.gov.
Michael Kohner, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Rotorcraft Certification Office, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0170, telephone (817) 222-5447, fax (817) 222-5783.
This amendment adopts a new AD for BHTI Model 412, 412EP, and 412CF helicopters. This AD requires inspecting and replacing any cracked cap angle, part number (P/N) 212-030-191-001, and repairing any cracked adjacent structure.
This AD is prompted by a report of a fatigue crack in a tailboom attachment cap angle. This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of the tailboom and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
The FAA has reviewed BHTI Alert Service Bulletin No. 412-00-100, and the temporary revision to the Maintenance Manual, BHT-412-MM, both dated March 24, 2000, which specify inspecting the cap angle and adjacent structure for a crack and contacting BHTI if a crack is found.
We have identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other BHTI Model 412, 412EP, and 412CF helicopters of these same type designs. This AD is being issued to prevent failure of a cap angle, loss of the tailboom, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. This AD requires, within 25 hours time-in-service (TIS) and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS, inspecting the cap angle, P/N 212-030-191-001, for a crack. Before further flight, if a crack is found, this AD requires replacing any cracked cap angle with an airworthy cap angle and repairing any cracked adjacent structure. This AD also requires reporting any crack to the Manager, Rotorcraft Certification Office.
The short compliance time involved is required because the previously described critical unsafe condition can adversely affect the controllability or structural integrity of the helicopter. Therefore, inspecting the cap angle, P/N 212-030-191-001, for a crack is required within 25 hours TIS and this AD must be issued immediately.
Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA estimates that 149 helicopters will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately
Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their mailed comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. 2000-SW-29-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not
The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and that it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to each helicopter identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For helicopters that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent failure of a cap angle, loss of the tailboom, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 25 hours time-in-service (TIS) and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS, inspect the cap angle and adjacent structure for a crack in the area shown in figure 1. Use a 10-power or higher magnifying glass.
Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. Alert Service Bulletin 412-00-100, dated March 24, 2000, pertains to the subject of this AD.
(1) If a crack is found in the cap angle, replace it with an airworthy cap angle before further flight.
(2) Repair any crack found in the adjacent structure before further flight.
(3) Report any crack found to the Manager of the Rotorcraft Certification Office within 10 days of the inspection. Reporting requirements have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget and assigned OMB control number 2120-0056.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Rotorcraft Certification Office.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199 to operate the helicopter to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(d) This amendment becomes effective on September 28, 2000.
Bureau of Export Administration, Commerce
Interim rule.
In support of U.S. foreign policy to promote the observance of human rights throughout the world, the Bureau of Export Administration maintains controls on crime control items. This rule expands controls on restraint devices, such as handcuffs, and on discharge type arms, such as stun guns or shock batons.
Written comments should be sent to Hillary Hess, Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Export Administration, Department of Commerce, P.O. Box 273, Washington, DC 20044.
James A. Lewis, Director, Office of Strategic Trade, at (202) 482-0092.
The Bureau of Export Administration maintains the Commerce Control List (CCL), which contains items classified under Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs). This rule removes saps and police helmets and shields from ECCN 0A982, placing saps in new ECCN 0A978 and police helmets and shields in new ECCN 0A979. Distinguishing between restraint devices and other police equipment will result in more transparent licensing statistics on items controlled for crime control reasons. This rule also removes fingerprinting powders, dyes, and inks from ECCN 1A984 and places them in new ECCN 1A985, which improves the grouping of these items on the CCL. This rule then expands controls on restraint devices and on discharge type arms controlled under ECCNs 0A982 and 0A985, respectively, requiring a license for all destinations, except Canada, and imposes controls on technology for the development or production of those items under new ECCN 0E982. In addition, this rule modifies the license review policy to include consideration of whether there is civil disorder in the country or region or whether there is evidence that the government of the importing country may have violated internationally recognized human rights. The judicious use of export controls is intended to deter the development of a consistent pattern of human rights abuses, distance the United States from such abuses and avoid contributing to civil disorder in a country or region.
BXA is revising § 742.7 to reflect the changes to crime control items on the CCL, and is making conforming changes to part 746 (Embargoes and Special Controls).
This action is taken consistent with the provisions of the Export Administration Act (EAA) and with the concurrence of the Secretary of State. BXA submitted a foreign policy report to the Congress indicating the expansion and imposition of new foreign policy controls on August 22, 2000.
Although the Export Administration Act (EAA) expired on August 20, 1994, the President invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and continued in effect the EAR, and, to the extent permitted by law, the provisions of the EAA in Executive Order 12924 of August 19, 1994, as extended by the President's notices of August 15, 1995 (60 FR 42767), August 14, 1996 (61 FR 42527), August 13, 1997 (62 FR 43629), August 13, 1998 (63 FR 44121), August 10, 1999 (64 F.R. 44101) and August 3, 2000 (65 FR 48347).
Shipments of items removed from eligibility for export or reexport under the designator NLR, as a result of this regulatory action, may continue to be exported or reexported under that designator until October 13, 2000. In addition, this rule revises the numbering and structure of certain entries on the Commerce Control List. For items under such entries and for October 13, 2000, BXA will accept license applications for items described either by the entries in effect immediately before September 13, 2000 or the entries described in this rule.
1. This interim rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
2. This rule involves a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism assessment under Executive Order 13132.
4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military and foreign affairs function of the United States.
However, because of the importance of the issues raised by these regulations, this rule is issued in interim form and comments will be considered in the development of final regulations. Accordingly, the Department
The period for submission of comments will close October 13, 2000. The Department will consider all comments received before the close of the comment period in developing final regulations. Comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered if possible, but their consideration cannot be assured. The Department will not accept public comments accompanied by a request that a part or all of the material be treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. The Department will return such comments and materials to the person submitting the comments and will not consider them in the development of final regulations. All public comments on these regulations will be a matter of public record and will be available for public inspection and copying. In the interest of accuracy and completeness, the Department requires comments in written form.
Oral comments must be followed by written memoranda, which will also be a matter of public record and will be available for public review and copying. Communications from agencies of the United States Government or foreign governments will not be made available for public inspection.
Copies of the public record concerning these regulations may be requested from: Bureau of Export Administration, Office of Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 6883, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; (202) 482-0637. This component does not maintain a separate public inspection facility. Requesters should first view BXA's website (which can be reached through
Exports, Foreign trade.
Embargoes, Exports, Foreign trade, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
(a)
(1) Crime control and detection instruments and equipment and related technology and software identified in the appropriate ECCNs on the CCL under CC Column 1 in the Country Chart column of the “License Requirements” section. A license is required to countries listed in CC Column 1 (Supplement No. 1 to part 738 of the EAR). Items affected by this requirement are identified on the CCL under the following ECCNs: 0A978, 0A979, 0A984, 0A987, 0E984, 1A984, 1A985, 3A980, 3A981, 3D980, 3E980, 4A003 (for fingerprint computers only), 4A980, 4D001 (for fingerprint computers only), 4D980, 4E001 (for fingerprint computers only), 4E980, 6A002 (for police-model infrared viewers only), 6E001 (for police-model infrared viewers only), 6E002 (for police-model infrared viewers only), and 9A980.
(2) Shotguns with a barrel length greater than or equal to 24 inches, identified in ECCN 0A984 on the CCL under CC Column 2 in the Country Chart column of the “License Requirements” section regardless of end-user to countries listed in CC Column 2 (Supplement No. 1 part 738 of the EAR).
(3) Shotguns with barrel length greater than or equal to 24 inches, identified in ECCN 0A984 on the CCL under CC Column 3 in the Country Chart column of the “License Requirements” section only if for sale or resale to police or law enforcement entities in countries listed in CC Column 3 (Supplement No. 1 part 738 of the EAR).
(4) Certain crime control items require a license to all destinations, except Canada. These items are identified under ECCNs 0A982, 0A985, and 0E982. Controls for these items appear in each ECCN; a column specific to these controls does not appear in the Country Chart (Supplement No. 1 to part 738 of the EAR).
(5) See § 742.11 of the EAR for further information on items controlled under ECCN 0A983, which require a license to all destinations, including Canada.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) Items described by any ECCN ending in “018”, and items described by ECCNs 0A978; 0A979; 0A982; 0A984; 0A986; 0A988; 0B986; 0E982; 1A005; 5A980; 6A002.a.1, a.2, a.3, and .c; 6A003.b.3 and b.4; 6E001; 6E002; and 9A991.a.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) Items described by ECCNs ending in “018”; and 0A978, 0A979, 0A982, 0A983, 0A984, 0A985, 0A986, 0A988, 0A989, 0B986, 0E982, 0E984, 1A005, 1A984, 1A985, 2A993, 3A980, 3A981, 3D980, 3E980, 4A980, 4D980, 4E980, 5A980, 6A002, 6A003.b.3 and b.4, 6E001, 6E002, 9A980, and 9A991.a.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Final rule.
The Commission is amending its procedures for requesting confidential treatment of records submitted to the Commission when no other procedures are applicable. It is also amending its procedures for requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act and for requesting, amending, or correcting records about individuals under the Privacy Act of 1974. These amendments, which conform the procedures to current statutory and case law and administrative practice and correct clerical errors, reflect staff and public comments on proposed amendments that were announced on April 14, 1999.
October 13, 2000.
Betty A. Lopez, Privacy Act Officer, (202) 942-4320, Office of Filings and Information Services, SEC, Operations Center, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312-2413.
Today, the Commission is adopting amendments that update Rule 80 (17 CFR 200.80] under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) (FOIA), Rule 83 (17 CFR 200.83) under the FOIA, and Rules 303, 306, 308, 310, and 312 (17 CFR 200.303, 306, 308, 310, and 312) under the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a) (Privacy Act).
On April 14, 1999, the Commission proposed to amend Rule 83, which sets forth the procedures for requesting confidential treatment of records submitted to the Commission when no other procedures apply.
The Commission received eight comment letters.
The Commission has several rules laying down procedures for requesting confidential treatment of records submitted to it.
The current version of Rule 83 generally requires all records which
A proposed amendment of Rule 83 would have added that a person, who submits a record to the Commission voluntarily and requests its confidential treatment, must mark each page “Voluntarily Submitted” and explain the circumstances under which the record was voluntarily submitted. Several commenters objected to these additional requirements as being unduly burdensome.
Currently, Rule 83 does not provide an expiration date for confidential treatment requests. A proposed amendment would have stated that a confidential treatment request would expire five years after its receipt by the Commission's FOIA Office unless the person requesting confidentiality renews the request before it expires. Several commenters
Designation of business information. A submitter of business information will use good-faith efforts to designate, by appropriate markings, either at the time of submission or at a reasonable time thereafter, any portions of its submission that it considers to be protected from disclosure under Exemption 4. These designations will expire ten years after the date of the submission unless the submitter requests, and provides justification for, a longer designation period.
A proposed amendment would have stated that a confidential treatment request and a substantiation for it shall be confidential, but if an action is filed in a Federal court by the FOIA or confidential treatment requester, both may become part of the court record. After further consideration, the Commission has decided that both the confidential treatment request and substantiation shall be
The Commission received no unfavorable comments on its proposed amendments to Rule 80 or the rules under the Privacy Act.
Section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act
The Commission is adopting the amendments under the authority of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552; the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a; the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553; section 19 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. 77s; sections 23 and 24 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78w, 78x; section 20 of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, 15 U.S.C. 79t; section 319 of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, 15 U.S.C. 77sss; section 38 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. 80a-37; and section 211 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. 80b-11.
The Commission has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603.
To update its regulations, the Commission is amending its rules to conform them to present Commission organization and practice and current statutory and case law.
These amendments will implement recent amendments to the FOIA, conform Commission rules to current case law and administrative practice, enhance public access to non-privileged, non-confidential Commission records, and protect personal privacy. The amendments are authorized by 5 U.S.C. 552, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and Executive Order 12,600.
The amendments will affect all small entities that request Commission records under the FOIA or confidential treatment for records they submit to the Commission under Rule 83. While it cannot reasonably estimate the number of small entities that could be affected, the Commission believes that any burden that the amendments might place on small entities will be negligible.
The amendments will not impose any additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.
The Commission believes that there are no duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting federal rules.
There are no significant alternatives to the amendments that would accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and executive order.
The Commission is sensitive to the costs imposed by its rules and regulations, such as its rules under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act. Most of the rule amendments adopted today merely conform FOIA and Privacy Act regulations to current law and practice (for example, by specifying what types of information we will post on our web site under the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996).
A number of the rule amendments, however, will impose some costs on persons subject to them. One amendment requires persons seeking confidential treatment for records submitted to the Commission to mark each page with the phrase “Confidential Treatment Requested by [name]” and an identifying number or code. In general, however, the cost of marking each page should be small. Moreover, the cost will be justified by significant benefits from the resulting ease and accuracy of determining which records requested under the FOIA are subject to confidential treatment requests and by whom. Such positive identification will avoid potentially costly, inadvertent mistakes when the records are separated from the confidential treatment request covering them.
Another amendment states that a confidential treatment request will expire 10 years from the date of its receipt by the FOIA Office, unless the request is renewed before its expiration date. In effect, this amendment requires a confidential treatment requester, who wants to renew the request, to ask for such renewal before the initial request expires. The need to protect most commercial or financial records submitted to the Commission generally diminishes over time. Therefore, the Commission anticipates that only a few confidential treatment requesters will renew their requests after 10 years. The Commission believes that the cost of renewing a request will be minimal and will be justified by the assurance that the requester will be notified and given an opportunity to substantiate the confidential treatment request before the records are released under the FOIA.
Finally, an amendment expressly lists review fees among the FOIA fees. Although inadvertently omitted in the introductory text of 17 CFR 200.80(e) and the first sentence of 17 CFR 200.80(e)(1) and (3), the Commission has authorized review fees since 1987. See 17 CFR 200.80(e)(9)(ii), 17 CFR 200.80(e)(10)(ii), and 17 CFR 200.80f. Therefore, this amendment will not impose any additional cost.
Administrative practice and procedures, Confidential business information, Freedom of information, and Privacy.
5 U.S.C. 552, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 77f(d), 77s, 77ggg(a), 78m(F)(3), 78w, 79t, 79v(a), 77sss, 80a-37, 80a-44(a), 80a-44(b), 80b-10(a), 80b-11.
§ 200.80 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552b; 15 U.S.C. 78d-1, 78d-2; 78a
§ 200.80a also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552b.
§§ 200.80b and 200.80c also issued under 11 U.S.C. 901, 1109(a).
§ 200.82 also issued under 15 U.S.C. 78n.
§ 200.83 also issued under Exec. Order 12,600, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 235.
(a)(1) * * *
(2)
(vi) Copies and a general index of all records which have been released to any person under the Freedom of Information Act and which, because of the nature of their subject matter, the Commission determines have become or are likely to become the subject matter of subsequent requests for substantially the same records.
(a)(1) * * *
(3) Records created on or after November 1, 1996, which are required to be available for public inspection and copying under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, shall be made available on the Internet.
(d) * * * (1) * * * The request may also be made by facsimile (703-914-1149) or by Internet (foia/pa@sec.gov).
(d) * * *
(5)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(d) * * *
(6)
(d) * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) The appeal must be mailed to the Office of Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Operations, SEC, Operations Center, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312-2413 or delivered to Room 1418 at that address, and a copy of it must be mailed to the General Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549 or delivered to Room 1012-B at that address.
(d) * * *
(8)
(e) * * *
(4)
(i) The Office of Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Operations may waive or reduce search, review, and duplication fees if:
(A) Disclosure of the requested records is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government; and
(B) Disclosure is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.
(ii) The Office of Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Operations will determine whether disclosure is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government based upon four factors:
(A) Whether the subject of the requested records concerns the operations and activities of the Federal government;
(B) Whether the requested records are meaningfully informative on those operations or activities so that their disclosure would likely contribute to increased public understanding of specific operations or activities of the government;
(C) Whether disclosure will contribute to the understanding of the public at large, rather than the understanding of the requester or a narrow segment of interested persons; and
(D) Whether disclosure would contribute significantly to public understanding of the governmental operations or activities.
(iii) The Office of Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Operations will determine whether disclosure of the requested records is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester based upon two factors:
(A) Whether disclosure would further any commercial interests of the requester; and
(B) Whether the public interest in disclosure is greater than the requester's commercial interest.
(iv) If only a portion of the requested records satisfies both the requirements for a waiver or reduction of fees, a waiver or reduction of fees will be granted for only that portion.
(v) A request for a waiver or reduction of fees may be a part of a request for records. Such requests should address all the factors identified in paragraphs (e)(4)(ii) and (e)(4)(iii) of this section.
(vi) Denials of requests for a waiver or reduction of fees may be appealed to the General Counsel in accordance with the procedure set forth in paragraph (d)(6) of this section.
(c)
(2) A person who submits a record to the Commission for which he or she seeks confidential treatment must clearly mark each page or segregable portion of each page with the words “Confidential Treatment Requested by [name]” and an identifying number and code, such as a Bates-stamped number. In his or her written confidential treatment request, the person must refer to the record by identifying number and code.
(3) In addition to giving a copy of any written request for confidential treatment to the Commission employee receiving the record in question, the person requesting confidential treatment must send a copy of the request (but not the record) by mail to the Office of Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Operations, SEC, Operations Center, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312-2413. The legend “FOIA Confidential Treatment Request” must clearly and prominently appear on the top of the first page of the written request, and the written request must contain the name, address, and telephone number of the person requesting confidential treatment. The person requesting confidential treatment is responsible for informing the Office of Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Operations promptly of any changes in address, telephone number, or representation.
(4) In some circumstances, such as when a person is testifying in the course of a Commission investigation or providing a record requested in the course of a Commission examination or inspection, it may be impracticable to submit a written request for confidential treatment at the time the record is first given to the Commission. In no circumstances can the need to comply with the requirements of this section justify or excuse any delay in submitting any record to the Commission. The person testifying or otherwise submitting the record must inform the Commission employee receiving it, at the time the record is submitted or as soon thereafter as possible, that he or she is requesting confidential treatment. The person must then submit a written confidential treatment request within 30 days from the date of the testimony or the submission of the record. Any confidential treatment request submitted under this paragraph must also comply with paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(5) Where confidential treatment is requested by the submitter on behalf of another person, the request must
(6) No determination on a request for confidential treatment will be made until the Office of Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Operations receives a request for disclosure of the record.
(7) A confidential treatment request will expire ten years from the date the Office of Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Operations receives it, unless that Office receives a renewal request before the confidential treatment request expires. The renewal request must be sent by mail to the Office of Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Operations, SEC, Operations Center, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312-2413, and must clearly identify the record for which confidential treatment is sought. A renewal request will likewise expire ten years from the date that Office receives it, unless that Office receives another timely renewal request which complies with the requirements of this paragraph.
(8) A confidential treatment request shall be nonpublic. If an action is filed in a Federal court, however, by either the Freedom of Information requester (under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4) and § 200.80(d)(6)) or by the confidential treatment requester (under paragraph (e)(5) of this section), the confidential treatment request may become part of the court record.
(d)
(1) * * * Failure to submit a written substantiation within ten calendar days from the time of notification, or any extension thereof, may be deemed a waiver of the confidential treatment request and the confidential treatment requester's right to appeal an initial decision denying confidential treatment to the Commission's General Counsel as permitted by paragraph (e) of this section.
(e)
(e)
(2) * * * The appeal must be sent by mail to the Office of Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Operations, SEC, Operations Center, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312-2413, or by facsimile (703-914-1149). A copy of the appeal must be mailed to the General Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549. * * *
(g)
(k) In their discretion, the Commission, the Commission's General Counsel, and the Freedom of Information Act Officer may use alternative procedures for considering requests for confidential treatment.
5 U.S.C. 552a(f), unless otherwise noted.
(a) * * *
(4)
(i) If executed outside 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)____
(ii) 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)____
(a)
(a) * * *
(2) The appeal shall be delivered or sent by mail to the Office of Information and Privacy Act Operations, SEC, Operations Center, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312-2413, or by facsimile (703-914-1149).
(a) * * *
(1) Enforcement Files;
(2) Office of General Counsel Working Files;
(3) Office of the Chief Accountant Working Files;
(4) Name-Relationship Index System;
(5) Rule 102(e) of the Commission's Rules of Practice—Appearing or Practicing Before the Commission; and
(6) Agency Correspondence Tracking System.
Minerals Management Service, Interior.
Final rule.
The Minerals Management Service (MMS) is revoking its rulemaking published on March 29, 1994, regarding interest rates used to assess interest on late payment or underpayment of monies due on solid minerals and geothermal leases. A decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit invalidated the amendments promulgated in 1994. This rule reinstates the pre-1994 rule.
This rule is effective September 13, 2000.
David S. Guzy, Chief, Rules and Publications Staff, Minerals Management Service, Royalty Management Program, P.O. Box 25165, MS 3021, Denver, Colorado 80225-0165; telephone (303) 231-3432; FAX (303) 231-3385; e-mail David.Guzy@mms.gov.
The principal authors of this final rule are Janet Lin and Geoffrey Heath of the Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior.
On April 28, 1986, MMS promulgated a rule (51 FR 15763) changing a subpart heading so that the provisions under it, including the late payment and underpayment rate provisions, applied to all solid minerals instead of only coal.
In promulgating the 1994 rule, MMS sought to more appropriately compensate the lessor for the lost time value of underpaid royalties and to make interest rates for solid minerals and geothermal resources consistent with those imposed on oil and gas under the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (FOGRMA), section 111(a).
The 1994 rule amended 30 CFR 218.202(c) and (d) and 30 CFR 218.302(c) and (d) with identical provisions that read as follows:
(c) The interest charge on late payments shall be at the underpayment rate established by section 6621(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 6621(a)(2).
(d) Interest will be charged only on the amount of the payment not received by the designated due date. Interest will be charged only for the number of days the payment is late.
The Government appealed. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the District Court's decision in part and affirmed it in part.
The D.C. Circuit agreed with the District Court's conclusion that the Debt Collection Act (DCA)
Under the
Although Amax challenged the interest provision only with regard to coal leases, the
The practical effect of the
In the event that a court finds a regulatory change invalid, the prior regulations are reinstated. The D.C. Circuit, in
As discussed above, the
Although the
The Department of the Interior finds good cause to issue this final rule without notice and opportunity for public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). This final rule is a direct result of a judicial decision invalidating the 1994 rule, and public comment therefore is unnecessary. For the same reasons, a 30-day period is not required between publication of a final rule and its effective date under 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
This rule reinstates the lower interest rates contained in the 1982 rule beginning April 1, 1994. Consequently, this rule imposes the following costs or benefits to the four affected groups: industry, the Federal Government, State and local governments, and Indian tribes and allottees.
We estimate that the solid minerals and geothermal industries will pay approximately 40 percent less late-payment interest on Federal leases under the reinstated 1982 interest rates. Under the 1994 rates, MMS would have billed solid mineral and geothermal payors approximately $2 million per year in late payment interest. Under the reinstated 1982 rates, billed interest will decrease to approximately $1.2 million, for a $800,000 net benefit to industry.
The Federal Government will collect approximately $800,000 less late-payment interest annually (see discussion in section A. Industry). Approximately 50 percent or $400,000 would have been retained by the U.S. Treasury.
The Federal Government will collect approximately $800,000 less late-payment interest annually (see discussion in section A. Industry). Approximately 50 percent or $400,000 would have been paid to States. Those States are primarily the largest solid mineral producing States of Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Montana, and New Mexico.
Most solid mineral revenues are paid directly to the Indian recipients, so MMS does not know the exact receipt dates. Consequently, MMS must estimate the revenue loss to Indian tribes and allottees by extrapolation from Federal payments. Indian solid mineral revenues are 15 percent of Federal solid mineral revenues so we estimate that the revenue loss to Indian tribes and allottees will be 15 percent of $800,000 or $120,000 annually.
The cost and benefit information in this Item 1 of Procedural Matters is used as the basis for the departmental certifications in Items 2-10.
This document is not a significant rule and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
(1) This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.
(2) This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.
(3) This rule does not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients.
(4) This rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues.
The Department of the Interior certifies that this document will not have a significant adverse effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.
c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule does not have significant takings implications. This rule does not impose conditions or limitations on the use of any private property; consequently, a takings implication assessment is not required.
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this proposed rule does not have Federalism implications. This rule does not substantially or directly affect the relationship between the Federal and State governments or impose costs on States or localities.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
This proposed rule does not contain an information collection, as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the submission of Office of Management and Budget Form 83-I is not required.
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is not required.
Coal, Continental shelf, Electronic funds transfers, Geothermal energy, Government contracts, Indian lands, Mineral royalties, Natural gas, Penalties, Petroleum, Public lands—Mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
5 U.S.C. 301
(c) Late payment charges are calculated on the basis of a percentage assessment rate. In the absence of a specific lease, permit, license or contract provision prescribing a different rate, this percentage assessment rate is prescribed by the Department of the Treasury as the “Treasury Current Value of Funds Rate.”
(d) This rate is available in the Treasury Fiscal Requirements Manual Bulletins that are published prior to the first day of each calendar quarter for application to overdue payments or underpayments in the new calendar quarter. The rate is also published in the Notices section of the
(c) Late payment charges are calculated on the basis of a percentage assessment rate. In the absence of a specific lease, permit, license or contract provision prescribing a different rate, this percentage assessment rate is prescribed by the Department of the Treasury as the “Treasury Current Value of Funds Rate.”
(d) This rate is available in the Treasury Fiscal Requirements Manual Bulletins that are published prior to the first day of each calendar quarter for application to overdue payments or
Forest Service, USDA; Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Emergency closures and adjustments.
This provides notice of the Federal Subsistence Board's emergency closures to protect fall chum salmon escapement in the Yukon River drainage and adjustments to allow the taking of coho salmon. These closures and adjustments provide an exception to the Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, published in the
The first Yukon River drainage restrictions were effective August 11, 2000, through October 10, 2000. The second Yukon River drainage restrictions (total closure) superceded the first restrictions and are effective August 23, 2000, through October 22, 2000. The third Yukon River adjustment (allowing the taking of salmon in the lower Yukon River with rod and reel and beach seine) is effective August 27, 2000, through October 26, 2000. The fourth Yukon River adjustment (allowing the taking of coho salmon in the upper Yukon River with live chute-equipped fishwheels) is effective September 2, 2000, through November 1, 2000.
Thomas H. Boyd, Office of Subsistence Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, telephone (907) 786-3888. For questions specific to National Forest System lands, contact Ken Thompson, Subsistence Program Manager, USDA—Forest Service, Alaska Region, telephone (907) 786-3592.
Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3111-3126) requires that the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretaries) implement a joint program to grant a preference for subsistence uses of fish and wildlife resources on public lands, unless the State of Alaska enacts and implements laws of general applicability that are consistent with ANILCA and that provide for the subsistence definition, preference, and participation specified in Sections 803, 804, and 805 of ANILCA. In December 1989, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the rural preference in the State subsistence statute violated the Alaska Constitution and, therefore, negated State compliance with ANILCA.
The Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture (Departments) assumed, on July 1, 1990, responsibility for implementation of Title VIII of ANILCA on public lands. Consistent with Subparts A, B, and C of these regulations, as revised January 8, 1999 (64 FR 1276), the Departments established a Federal Subsistence Board to administer the Federal Subsistence Management Program. The Board's composition includes a Chair appointed by the Secretary of the Interior with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture; the Alaska Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the Alaska Regional Director, U.S. National Park Service; the Alaska State Director, U.S. Bureau of Land Management; the Alaska Regional Director, U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs; and the Alaska Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service. Through the Board, these agencies participate in the development of regulations for Subparts A, B, and C, and the annual Subpart D regulations.
Because this rule relates to public lands managed by an agency or agencies in both the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, identical closures and adjustments would apply to 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100.
Subpart D regulations for the 2000 fishing seasons and harvest limits, and methods and means were published on January 8, 1999 (64 FR 1276).
These emergency closures and adjustments are necessary because of extremely weak returns of fall-run chum salmon in the Yukon River drainage. These emergency actions are authorized and in accordance with 50 CFR 100.19(c) and 36 CFR 242.19(c).
As of August 1, 2000, the fall chum salmon run status was less than half the average and projections continued to drop with each passing day. The expectation for the 2000 fall chum salmon return was projected to be well below 600,000, the number required by the ADF&G Yukon River Drainage Fall Chum Salmon Management Plan to meet escapement and subsistence needs. Based on the Yukon River Drainage Fall Chum Salmon Management Plan, this projection was at the level that recommends subsistence fishing closures. Federal and State Managers and many subsistence users in the region had strong concerns that not enough fall chum salmon would reach their spawning grounds or meet minimum escapement needs. There was also strong concern that the Yukon River fall chum salmon run will be too low to support unrestricted subsistence fishing.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game issued Emergency Orders closing sport and personal use fishing for chum salmon in the Yukon drainage and restricting subsistence fishing to certain times each week in the various fishing districts along the river. The commercial fishery for fall chum salmon in the Yukon River was never opened.
On August 11, 2000, the Federal Subsistence Board instituted the following adjustments for the Yukon River drainage:
During any commercial salmon fishing season closure of greater than five days in duration, you may take salmon only during the following periods in the following districts:
(A) In Districts 1, 2, and 3, salmon may be taken from 3:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. each Saturday;
(B) In District 4, salmon may be taken from 6:00 p.m. Friday until 6:00 p.m. Saturday;
(C) In Subdistrict 5C, salmon may be taken from 8:00 p.m. Saturday until 8:00 a.m. Sunday and from 8:00 p.m. Thursday until 8:00 a.m. Friday;
(D) In District 5D, salmon may be taken from 6:00 p.m. Saturday until 6:00 p.m. Sunday;
(E) In District 6, salmon may be taken from 6:00 p.m. Monday until 6:00 a.m. Wednesday.
During any commercial salmon fishing season closure of greater than five days in duration, you may take fish other than salmon only with gillnets with a stretched mesh size of 4 inches or less or with other legal gear except fishwheels.
These adjustments brought the Federal subsistence fishing regulations in line with the similar ADF&G action for unified management and minimized confusion under the dual management system.
As of August 22, there was strong indication from in-season salmon escapement projects that the Yukon River fall chum salmon run would be too low to support subsistence fishing. The expectation for the 2000 fall chum salmon return was well below 600,000, the number required by the Yukon River Drainage Fall Chum Salmon Management Plan to meet escapement and subsistence needs. The fall chum salmon run was less than half the average and below the 350,000 fall chum salmon minimum needed for escapement. The assessment from the majority of escapement monitoring projects in the lower and upper Yukon River was projecting continued weakness in the fall chum salmon return. These run projections were at levels that recommend subsistence fishing closures. Federal and State Managers and many subsistence users in the Yukon River region had strong concerns that not enough fall chum salmon will reach their spawning grounds or meet minimum escapement needs. This subsistence fishery closure was needed to ensure fall chum salmon stock health.
This Board action on August 22, 2000, superceded the first Yukon River drainage restrictions and closed Federal subsistence salmon fishing in all Yukon River drainage fishing districts. In all Yukon River drainage districts, fishing for whitefish, suckers and other non-salmon species during closed salmon fishing periods continues to be allowed seven days per week with gillnets of 4 inches or less stretch mesh and other legal gear except fishwheels.
This closure brought the Federal subsistence fishing regulations in line with the similar ADF&G action for unified management and minimized confusion under the dual management system.
As of August 26, 2000, coho salmon returns to the Yukon River were well above average. At that time, above average coho salmon escapement estimates were reported by established monitoring projects throughout the river. In an effort to provide additional subsistence fishing opportunity on Federal lands in the lower Yukon River (Districts 1, 2, and that portion of District 3 within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge), the Board allowed the use of rod and reel and beach seine gear to fish for salmon. Coho salmon could be retained for subsistence purposes in the lower Yukon River area using the specified gear types; however, due to serious conservation concerns, fishermen were encouraged to release all chinook and chum salmon.
This Board action effective August 27, 2000, opened Federal subsistence fishing with beach seines or rod and reel for salmon in Yukon River fishing Districts 1 and 2 and that portion of District 3 within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge boundary.
In all Yukon River drainage districts, fishing for whitefish, suckers and other non-salmon species during closed salmon fishing periods continues to be allowed seven days per week with gillnets of 4 inches or less stretch mesh and other legal gear, except fishwheels.
This adjustment brought the Federal subsistence fishing regulations in line with the similar ADF&G action for unified management and minimized confusion under the dual management system.
Although the extremely poor return of fall chum salmon to the Yukon River drainage prompted the earlier fishing closures and restrictions, coho salmon were experiencing an above-average return. The Board's fourth adjustment provided subsistence fishing opportunity for coho salmon, while minimizing the harvest of fall chum salmon. Federal and state biologists and local subsistence users continued to monitor the Yukon River chinook and chum salmon returns. The Board may alter the subsistence fishing schedules with further actions as additional inseason information becomes available.
The Federal Subsistence Board on August 30, 2000, opened the upper Yukon River fishing Districts 4, 5, and 6 for subsistence coho salmon fishing using fish wheels equipped with live chutes, consistent with Alaska Department of Fish & Game emergency regulations. In Districts 4 and 5-A, the open coho salmon subsistence period using fish wheels with live chutes will be from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. each day. (The Board has not yet established the open periods for the remaining districts.) The live chute fish wheel must be manned at all times during operation. Nonsalmon species may be retained; however, all chinook and chum salmon must be released back into the river alive. Subsistence fishing for nonsalmon species can continue daily throughout the Yukon River drainage with gillnets of 4 inches or less (stretch mesh) and other legal gear, except fishwheels.
This adjustment brought the Federal subsistence fishing regulations in line with the similar ADF&G action for unified management and minimized confusion under the dual management system.
The Board finds that additional public notice and comment requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) for these emergency closures and adjustments are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. Lack of appropriate and immediate conservation measures could seriously affect the continued viability of fish populations, adversely impact future subsistence opportunities for rural Alaskans, and would generally fail to serve the overall public interest. Therefore, the Board finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to waive additional public notice and comment procedures prior to implementation of these actions.
A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was published on February 28, 1992, and a Record of Decision (ROD) signed April 6, 1992. The final rule for Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, Subparts A, B, and C (57 FR 22940-22964, published May 29, 1992) implemented the Federal Subsistence Management Program and included a framework for an annual cycle for subsistence hunting and fishing regulations. A final rule that redefined the jurisdiction of the Federal Subsistence Management Program to include waters subject to the subsistence priority was published on January 8, 1999, (64 FR 1276.)
The intent of all Federal subsistence regulations is to accord subsistence uses of fish and wildlife on public lands a priority over the taking of fish and wildlife on such lands for other
These emergency closures and adjustments do not contain information collection requirements subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
These emergency closures and adjustments are not subject to OMB review under Executive Order 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601
These emergency closures and adjustments will impose no significant costs on small entities.
Title VIII of ANILCA requires the Secretaries to administer a subsistence preference on public lands. The scope of this program is limited by definition to certain public lands. Likewise, these emergency closures and adjustments have no potential takings of private property implications as defined by Executive Order 12630.
The Service has determined and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502
The Service has determined that these emergency closures and adjustments meet the applicable standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, these emergency closures and adjustments do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Title VIII of ANILCA precludes the State from exercising management authority over wildlife resources on Federal lands.
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is a participating agency in this rulemaking.
William Knauer drafted this document under the guidance of Thomas H. Boyd, of the Office of Subsistence Management, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska; Curt Wilson, Alaska State Office, Bureau of Land Management; Greg Bos, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Sandy Rabinowitch, Alaska Regional Office, National Park Service; Ida Hildebrand, Alaska Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs; and Ken Thompson, USDA-Forest Service, provided additional guidance.
16 U.S.C. 3, 472, 551, 668dd, 3101-3126; 18 U.S.C. 3551-3586; 43 U.S.C. 1733.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule; technical correction.
By statute, the monthly rates of basic educational assistance payable to veterans under the Montgomery GI Bill—Active Duty must be adjusted each fiscal year. In a document published in the
For more information concerning the dates of applicability, see the
William G. Susling, Jr., Assistant Director for Policy and Program Development, Education Service (225C), Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, (202) 273-7187.
The changes set forth in this final rule are effective from the date of publication, but the changes in rates are applied retroactively from October 1, 1999, in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions.
Changes made by this final rule merely reflect statutory requirements and adjustments made based on previously established formulas. Accordingly, there is a basis for dispensing with prior notice and comment and delayed effective date provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This final rule directly affects only individuals and does not directly affect small entities. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule, therefore, is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analyses requirements of sections 603 and 604.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requires (in section 202) that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before developing any rule that may result in an expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This rule would have no consequential
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for the program affected by this final rule is 64.124.
Administrative practice and procedure, Armed forces, Civil rights, Claims, Colleges and universities, Conflict of interests, Defense Department, Education, Employment, Grant programs-education, Grant programs-veterans, Health programs, Loan programs-education, Loan programs-veterans, Manpower training programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Travel and transportation expenses, Veterans, Vocational education, Vocational rehabilitation.
38 U.S.C. 501(a), chs. 30, 36, unless otherwise noted.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval of a revision to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District's portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action was proposed in the
This rule is effective on October 13, 2000.
You can inspect copies of the administrative record for this action at EPA's Region IX office during normal business hours. You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revision at the following locations:
Yvonne Fong, Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 744-1199.
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
On April 17, 2000 (65 FR 20421), EPA proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of the following rule that was submitted for incorporation into the California SIP.
We proposed a limited approval because we determined that this rule improves the SIP and is largely consistent with the relevant CAA requirements. We simultaneously proposed a limited disapproval because some rule provisions conflict with section 110 and part D of the Act. These provisions include the following:
1. Rule 4653 establishes VOC limits for adhesives used for three specific applications and for solvents used in surface preparation which do not meet Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) levels of control. The three VOC limits that exceed RACT are for the application of adhesives on porous substrates and the application of contact adhesives labeled exclusively for bonding of single-ply roofing materials and immersible products.
2. Under section 4.1.1, certain exempt operations which may potentially use noncompliant materials are only required to maintain monthly records. Any use of noncompliant materials, however, necessitates that daily records be kept to demonstrate compliance with the rule.
3. Section 4.1.9 exempts contact adhesives subject to 16 CFR part 1302 although compliant formulations of these products that perform adequately already exist in the market place. Our proposed action contains more information on the basis for this rulemaking and on our evaluation of the submittal.
EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received comments from the following parties.
1. Matt Stewart, DAP Inc.; letter May 16, 2000 and received by facsimile on May 17, 2000.
2. H. Allen Irish, National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA); letter dated May 16, 2000 and received by facsimile on May 17, 2000.
3. Mark Collatz, The Adhesive and Sealant Council, Inc., (ASC); letter dated May 15, 2000. The comments and our responses are summarized below.
The submitted comments relating to the section 4.1.9 exemption change our assessment of that provision as a rule deficiency and is no longer one of our grounds for a limited disapproval of Rule 4653. Other submitted comments, however, do not affect our decisions regarding the deficiencies described as items 1 and 2 under the above section entitled “Proposed Action.” Therefore, as authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is finalizing a limited approval of the submitted rule. This action incorporates the submitted rule into the California SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. As authorized under section 110(k)(3), EPA is simultaneously finalizing a limited disapproval of the rule. As a result, sanctions will be imposed unless EPA approves a subsequent SIP revision that corrects the rule deficiencies within 18 months of the effective date of this action. These sanctions will be imposed under section 179 of the Act according to 40 CFR 52.31. In addition, EPA must promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) under section 110(c) unless we approve a subsequent SIP revision that corrects the rule deficiencies within 24 months. Note that the submitted rule has been adopted by the SJVUAPCD, and EPA's final limited disapproval does not prevent the local agency from enforcing it.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”
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, 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, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of Indian tribal governments “to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.”
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
Executive Order 13132, entitled 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
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely acts on a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
This final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply act on 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.
EPA's disapproval of the state request under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act does not affect any existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing federal requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal disapproval of the state submittal does not affect state enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does not impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 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 acts on pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing 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.
EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to today's action because it does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 13, 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, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(266) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) * * *
(
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
We are approving a site-specific revision to the Wisconsin sulfur dioxide (SO
This action is effective on October 13, 2000.
Copies of the SIP revision, public comments, and other materials relating to this action are available for inspection during normal business hours at the following address: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division (AR-18J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. (Please contact Christos Panos at (312) 353-8328, before visiting the Region 5 Office.)
Christos Panos, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division (AR-18J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8328.
This supplementary information section is organized as follows:
A. What action is EPA taking today?
B. Why was this SIP revision submitted?
C. What is the background for this rulemaking?
D. Why can EPA approve this request?
E. What comments were submitted to EPA?
We are approving WDNR's February 26, 1999 request for a site-specific revision to the Wisconsin SO
Murphy Oil owns and operates a petroleum refinery in Superior, Wisconsin. The categorical statewide emission limit that we had approved on May 21, 1993 for any process heater firing residual fuel oil at petroleum refineries is 0.8 pounds of SO
Both our alternative emission limit requirements and WDNR's NR 417.05(5) require, among other things, that before an alternate emission limit can be approved, it must be demonstrated that the proposed alternate limit will not delay attainment or prevent maintenance of the applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Additionally, the federal requirement limits the demonstration to no more than 75 percent of the NAAQS. Murphy Oil has requested an alternate emission limit of 3.0 lbs/MMBTU for any combustion unit when combusting #6 fuel oil. The WDNR air quality modeling evaluates this alternate limit in comparison to the SO
On April 26, 1984 we notified the Governor of Wisconsin that the Wisconsin SO
As allowed under NR 417.07(5), Murphy Oil initially submitted a request for an alternate SO
On February 26, 1999 the state submitted a site-specific SIP revision for Murphy Oil and requested that we approve the alternate SO
EPA published a direct final action approving the alternate SO
We are approving the current SIP submittal because the source has followed the procedures of Wisconsin State Rule NR 417.07(5) for obtaining alternate emission limits, which we approved on May 21, 1993 at 58 FR 29538. This SIP revision was submitted by WDNR in response to a January 1, 1985 request for an alternate SO
We received 12 timely comment letters opposing our approval of the site-specific SIP revision for Murphy Oil. (We also received three letters postmarked after the September 15, 1999 close of the comment period). Because of the similarity of the comments received, rather than responding to the letters individually, the comments were summarized and categorized under the issues raised. We evaluated all the comments with respect to our proposed approval and prepared a “Response to Comments” document dated April 20, 2000 which summarizes the comments received and includes our evaluation and detailed response.
The summarized comments and their responses are divided into the following six points that commenters raised as to why we should deny the state's request to approve alternate SO
The state published a notice on September 18, 1998 stating that a public hearing to receive comments on the air pollution control operating permit for Murphy Oil, which included a request for alternate SO
The state also submitted as technical support for the Murphy Oil SIP revision (1) a certification, dated February 18, 1999, that a public hearing was held on October 21, 1998 in Superior, Wisconsin and that written comments were received until October 21, 1998; and (2) a February 4, 1999 compilation of public comments and the state's response, entitled “Summary of Comments and Responses for Permit #95-SDD-120-OP”, from Steve Dunn, WDNR, to Lloyd Egan, WDNR.
Further, EPA has established guidance for conducting air quality modeling. The guidance, referred to as “The Guideline on Air Quality Models,” is codified in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W. It provides a common basis for estimating the air quality concentrations used in assessing control strategies and developing emission limits. It is used primarily for modeling conducted on criteria pollutants, where predicted concentrations are compared with the appropriate NAAQS. The data gathered during the two inspections in 1998 focused on emissions from only one SO
In addition to emissions from Murphy Oil, WDNR also included in the modeling emissions from three nearby sources, the University of Wisconsin-Superior, CLM, and Superior Fiber. The analysis also adds a background value to the modeled concentrations to represent the contribution of SO
Modeling results were given for two separate operating options incorporating the proposed alternative limit, one with lower SO
In this rulemaking action, EPA approves the SO
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or establishing a precedent for any future implementation plan. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments “to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.”
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA consults with state and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the 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 November 13, 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, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
42 U.S.C. 7401
42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
(c) * * *
(99) On February 26, 1999, the State of Wisconsin submitted a site-specific revision to the sulfur dioxide (SO
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Air Pollution Control Operation Permit No. 95-SDD-120-OP, issued by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) to Murphy Oil USA on February 17, 1999.
(ii) Additional material.
(A) Analysis and Preliminary Determination for the Proposed Operation Permit for the Operation of Process Heaters and Processes Emitting Sulfur Dioxide for Murphy Oil, performed by the WDNR on September 18, 1998. This document contains a source description, analysis of the alternate emission limitation request, and an air quality review, which includes the results of an air quality modeling analysis demonstrating modeled attainment of the SO
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from graphic arts printing and coating operations. We are approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
This rule is effective on November 13, 2000 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 13, 2000. If we receive such comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Mail comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions and EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) at our Region IX office during normal business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted SIP revisions at the following locations:
Max Fantillo, Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 744-1183.
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
On March 1, 2000 and April 12, 2000, these rule submittals were found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
There are previous versions of Rules 1130 and 8.20 in the SIP. We approved into the SIP a version of Rule 1130 on May 4, 1999 and Rule 8.20 on December 27, 1997. The SCAQMD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version on October 8, 1999 and the BAAQMD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version on March 3, 1999. CARB submitted these rule revisions to us on January 21, 2000 (Rule 1130) and on March 28, 2000 (Rule 8.20).
Rule 1130 controls emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from graphic arts operations located within the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin. The changes in the SCAQMD's submitted Rule 1130, Graphic Arts, from the approved SIP rule include:
• Lowered VOC emission limits for certain categories;
• Increased the requirements for overall add-on control equipment efficiencies;
• Established retention factors for lithographic ink oils for coldset and heatset printing inks;
• Limited the proof press exemption to the use of fountain solutions;
• Deleted exemption threshold of 8 pounds of VOC per day for small emitters and added exemption for posted stamp cancellation ink (a very small category) not to exceed 60 pounds per calendar month; and
• Added definitions and revised some language in the rule to improve clarity.
Rule 8.20 controls emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from graphic arts printing and coating operation located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The changes in the BAAQMD's submitted Rule 8.20, Graphic Arts Printing and Coating Operation, from the approved SIP rule include:
• Exemption of Acetone as VOC in cleaning products (60 FR 31633 dated June 16, 1995);
• Lowering the small facility and laboratory and experimental operations exemption threshold limits;
• Addition of VOC limits for cleaning products;
• Addition of new provisions to improve enforceability and clarity; and
• Deletion of extraneous provisions.
The TSDs have more information about these rules.
Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for major sources in nonattainment areas (see section 182(a)(2)(A)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The SCAQMD and the BAAQMD regulate ozone nonattainment areas (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rules 1130 and 8.20 must fulfill RACT.
Guidance and policy documents that we used to define specific enforceability and RACT requirements include the following:
1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987.
2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987
3. Model Volatile Organic Compound Rules for Reasonably Available Control Technology, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, June 1992.
4. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume VIII: Graphic Arts-Rotogravure and Flexography, EPA-450/2-78-033, December 1978.
5. Recordkeeping Guidance Document for Surface Coating Operations and the Graphic Art Industry, EPA 340/1-88-003, July 1989.
We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this, so we are finalizing the approval without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this
VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Table 2 lists some of the national milestones leading to the submittal of these local agency VOC Rules.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air
Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 13, 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, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(277) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(
(278) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were submitted on January 21, 2000, by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
(
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues this final rule to implement a previously disapproved measure that was originally contained in Amendment 9 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). This final rule establishes a commercial trip limit for greater amberjack. The intended effect is to prevent overfishing and conserve and manage greater amberjack.
This final rule is effective October 13, 2000.
Comments on ambiguity or unnecessary complexity arising from the language used in this rule should be directed to the Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL 33702.
Dr. Peter J. Eldridge, telephone: 727-570-5305; fax: 727-570-5583; e-mail: Peter.Eldridge@noaa.gov.
The snapper-grouper fishery off the southern Atlantic states is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), approved by NMFS, and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
On October 26, 1999, NMFS announced the availability of, and requested comments on, a resubmission of a measure to establish a 1,000-lb (454-kg) trip limit for greater amberjack (64 FR 57623). This measure was previously disapproved when it was submitted as part of the original submission by the Council of FMP Amendment 9. NMFS approved the resubmitted trip limit measure on January 26, 2000. On May 18, 2000, NMFS published a proposed rule to implement the approved measure and requested comments on the rule (65 FR 31507). The background and rationale for the resubmitted measure are contained in the preamble to the proposed rule and are not repeated here.
NMFS received three comments in response to the notice of availability for the resubmitted trip limit measure (64 FR 57623, October 26, 1999). No comments were received on the proposed rule. A summary of the comments received and NMFS' responses follow.
NMFS agrees that some fishing revenues could be lost due to the trip limit. During the 1996-97 fishing year, a total of 553 commercial fishing craft landed greater amberjack and took 3,685 trips on which landings of greater amberjack were reported. Of the 553 fishing craft that could be impacted, 73 reported a total of 290 trips that resulted in landings over 1,000 lb (454-kg) of greater amberjack. This represents 8 percent of all greater amberjack trips. For those 73 entities reporting at least one trip on which 1,000 lb (454-kg) of greater amberjack were reported, greater amberjack represented about 30 percent of their annual gross revenue. It is expected that these vessels will lose some revenue if they do not change their fishing behavior. However, it is known from empirical observations in other fisheries where a trip limit was implemented that fishing behavior indeed changes. A NMFS economic analysis, based on landings data for this fishery, indicated that fishermen could make additional trips and recover most of the lost revenue. The analysis further indicated that the overall outcome of the trip limit would be a loss of about 3 percent of net operating revenue per vessel. The potential loss could be reduced to the extent that the affected vessels could target other species. The trip limit is not expected to result in any of the affected small entities being forced to cease operations. In approving and implementing the trip limit measure, NMFS decided that the long-term conservation benefits of the commercial trip limit exceeded the small revenue loss associated with the measure given the available information.
In § 622.44(c)(5), regarding commercial trip limits for greater amberjack, the provision that no more than one trip may be made per day has been removed. That additional restriction was not consistent with the Council’s intent that the commercial trip limit restrict the amount of greater amberjack that may be possessed on board or landed, purchased, or sold from a vessel on any given day. Section 622.44(c)(5), as worded in this final rule, in combination with the existing regulatory language in § 622.44 introductory text, achieves the Council's intent.
The Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, determined that this resubmission of the greater amberjack trip limit is necessary for the conservation and management of greater amberjack and that the trip limit is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Council prepared a final supplemental environmental impact statement for FMP Amendment 9, which assessed the expected environmental impacts of the greater amberjack trip limit. A notice of its availability was published on October 9, 1998 (63 FR 54476).
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not prepared.
The President has directed Federal agencies to use plain language in their communications with the public, including regulations. To comply with this directive, we seek public comment on any ambiguity or unnecessary complexity arising from the language used in this final rule. Such comments should be sent to NMFS Southeast Regional Office (see
Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Virgin Islands.
16 U.S.C. 1801
(c) * * *
(5) Greater amberjack. Until the fishing year quota specified in § 622.42(e)(3) is reached, 1,000 lb (454 kg). See § 622.43(a)(5)(i) for the limitations regarding greater amberjack after the fishing year quota is reached.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from graphic arts printing and coating operations. We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
Any comments on this proposal must arrive by October 13, 2000.
Mail comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions and EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) at our Region IX office during normal business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted SIP revisions at the following locations:
Max Fantillo, Rulemaking Office (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 744-1183.
This proposal addresses the following local rules: SCAQMD 1130 and BAAQMD 8.20. In the Rules and Regulations section of this
Coast Guard, DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public meeting.
The Coast Guard amends the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published on April 14, 2000. We are proposing changes in the rates currently charged for pilotage on the Great Lakes by increasing pilotage rates in Area 1 by 4%; decreasing rates in Area 2 by 3%; decreasing rates in Area 4 by 2%; decreasing rates in Area 5 by 6%; leaving rates unchanged in Area 6; increasing rates in Area 7 by 9%; decreasing rates in Area 8 by 4%; and decreasing mutual rates by 1%. The average change in rates for District 1 was an increase of 2%, for District 2 an average decrease of 4%, and rates remained unchanged in District 3. This equates to an average decrease of 1% across all Districts.
In response to comments received on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published in the
The pilotage rate adjustments proposed in this SNPRM are different from the rates proposed in the NPRM, because adjustments have been made based on comments received in response to the NPRM. These adjustments are discussed in the section of this SNPRM entitled “Discussion of Comments and Changes.”
Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before November 13, 2000.
To make sure your comments and related material are not entered more than once in the docket, please submit them by only one of the following means:
(1) By mail to the Docket Management Facility (USCG-1999-6098), U.S. Department of Transportation, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(2) By delivery to room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.
(3) By fax to the Docket Management Facility at 202-493-2251.
(4) Electronically through the Web Site for the Docket Management System at http://dms.dot.gov.
The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this SNPRM. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also
For questions on this SNPRM, call Mr. Tom Lawler, Chief Economist, Office of Great Lakes Pilotage, Commandant (G-MW-1), U.S. Coast Guard, at 202-267-1241, or by facsimile 202-267-4700. For questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Dorothy Beard, Chief, Dockets, Department of Transportation, telephone 202-366-9329.
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-1999-6098), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material by mail, hand delivery, fax, or electronic means to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
We plan to hold a public meeting to allow for additional comments on the SNPRM for Great Lakes Pilotage Rates. The scope of the meeting is limited only to matters addressed in the SNPRM.
At that time, public comments regarding this rulemaking will be heard. In addition, the annual Public Meeting on Great Lakes Pilotage is scheduled for January 2001, where we will discuss the Ratemaking Methodology and the 1999 Rate Review.
For information on facilities or services for people with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meeting Contact Tom Lawler, Chief Economist, Great Lakes Pilotage (G-MW-1), U.S. Coast Guard, at 202-267-1241, or by facsimile 202-267-4700 as soon as possible.
On May 9, 1996, the Department of Transportation published a final rule in the
On April 14,2000, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the
The Coast Guard is required by 46 CFR 404.1 (b) to conduct an annual review of rates for pilotage in the Great Lakes. This SNPRM discusses the results of the 1999 Rate Review.
In response to the requests for comments on the 1999 Rate Review, a total of eight written comment letters were received. Four of the comment letters were from the District Pilots' Associations, one from the District 2 Pilots' Association accounting firm, one from the American Pilot Association, one from the Grand Lodge International Ship Masters' Association, and one from the Atlantic Coast District Council of the International Longshoremen's Association. All of the commenters addressed issues that pertained to the 1999 Rate Review, while some went beyond the scope of the solicitation regarding the methodology used to determine pilotage rates. The discussion of comments contained herein addresses only issues raised in the 1999 Rate Review.
Four commenters, the District 1 and 2 Pilots' Associations, the American Pilots' Association, and the Grand Lodge International Ship Masters' Association, requested a Public Meeting to discuss the Ratemaking Methodology. The Ratemaking Methodology and the 1999 Rate Review are agenda items for the annual Public Meeting on Great Lakes Pilotage scheduled for January 2001. The October Public Meeting will only discuss the proposed changes to the current rates charged for pilotage on the Great Lakes.
Five commenters, each of the three District Pilots' Associations, District 2's accounting firm, and the Grand Lodge International Ship Masters' Association, disagreed with the Coast Guard's decision to disallow legal expenses not directly related to the provision of pilotage services. In September 1999, the Director requested each of the District Pilots' Associations to justify their legal expenses, in that they directly pertained to and were necessary for the provision of pilotage services. District 1 provided justification for $1,244. Districts 2 and 3 did not provide any justification. Furthermore, a review of reports filed with the office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives in compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 reveals that in 1997, the District 1 and District 3 Pilots' Associations paid $40,000 and $80,000 respectively in lobbying fees. Lobbying fees are specifically excluded as a recognized expense in accordance with 46 CFR § 404.5. Additionally, it has been determined that $16,510 of professional fees reported by District 3 were not related to legal expenses and have been reinstated in District 3's expense base.
Three commenters, the District 2 Pilots' Association, their accounting firm, and the Atlantic Coast District of the International Longshoremen's Association, disagreed on the disallowance of pilot training expenses in District 2. In summary, they stated that because these expenses were recognized in the past, they should not be disallowed. They claimed that until a pilot is registered, he is, in fact, being trained and during this time, the Pilot Association compensates temporarily registered pilots. The approval of these expenses in the 1998 Rate Review was an oversight on the part of the Coast Guard and they should not have been approved. This is due to the fact that these expenses were not for instructional courses or material, which would have been approved, but actually represented compensation or salary paid directly to temporarily registered pilots in District 2. Compensation for temporarily registered pilots is fully accounted for in the Ratemaking Methodology, as explained in Appendix A to 46 CFR Part 404. Utilizing this methodology to determine pilotage rates in District 2: the total projected number of pilots required in District 2, both fully registered and temporarily registered, is multiplied by the individual target pilot compensation for that particular year. This results in the total target pilot compensation required for District 2. Total target pilot compensation is then added to a projection of total operating expenses
Seven commenters, the three pilotage Districts or their respective representatives, the accounting firm for District 2, the American Pilots' Association, the Atlantic Coast District of the International Longshoremen's Association, and the Grand Lodge International Ship Masters' Association, all disagreed with the use of 1997 expense data and 1998 revenues to determine a pilotage rate for 1999. The lobbying firm representing District 1 further questioned the procedure because of its belief that 1998 expense data had been available to the Coast Guard for well over a year.
The preliminary fieldwork for the Director's 1998 audit of the Great Lakes Pilotage Districts was completed in mid October 1999. The preliminary draft of the final report was delivered to the Coast Guard mid December 1999. The 1999 Rate Review was finalized in August of 1999 and routed for review and clearance within the Coast Guard in mid September 1999. The 1999 Rate Review followed the methodology prescribed in Appendix A to 46 CFR Part 404. 1997 expenses for each of the pilotage Districts were projected forward to 1999 based on the actual change in traffic from 1997 to 1998 and the projected change in bridge hours or traffic for 1999, based on economic surveys. Economic surveys from industry and the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation indicated that 1999 would experience an overall 5% reduction in bridge hours and traffic from 1998 levels. In 1998, the actual bridge hour data and revenues for 1998 in each of the pilotage areas became available to the Coast Guard in May 1999, through the submission of unqualified audited 1998 financial data by each of the District's Pilot associations, as required by 46 CFR § 403.300. A review of the financial data indicated that on average, revenues and bridge hours throughout the Great Lakes increased 30% in 1998 over 1997 levels. The actual 1998 observed increase for each District was then combined with the projected 5% decrease in traffic for 1999 to establish an overall change in traffic from 1997 to 1999. For example, in 1998, District 1 experienced an average 36% increase in bridge hours over 1997. Considering the projected 5% reduction in 1999 from 1998 levels, this resulted in an overall projected increase of 31% in 1999 over 1997 levels (36%−5% = 31%) for District 1. For the 1999 rulemaking, each District's approved 1997 expenses were adjusted for inflation (Approved Expenses x (1+Inflation Factor)) multiplied by the aggregate percentage change of traffic projected for each District over 1997 levels. We then factored in the percentage of Association expenses that change in relation to a change in traffic (pilotage hours). Analysis indicates that 57% of Association expenses are affected by a change in pilotage hours. For example, in District 1, pilotage hours for 1999 are projected to increase 31% over 1997 levels, which is multiplied by 57% (.31 × .57 = .18) to project that District 1's operating expenses should increase 18% in response to the projected increase in pilotage hours for 1999 from 1997 levels. Therefore, the following formula was utilized to project 1999 expenses ((Approved 1997 expenses × (1+Inflation Factor) × (1+(.31 x 57)). In the case of District 1, in order to incorporate approved transportation and training costs into the rate, an additional $86,000 was added to District 1's expense base for the 1999 ratemaking.
Two Commenters, the District 2 Pilots' Association and their accounting firm, requested an explanation of why and how their pilot boat expenses were reduced for the 1999 Rate Review. 46 CFR Part § 404.5 establishes the guidelines for the Director of Great Lakes Pilotage in determining whether expenses will be recognized in the ratemaking process. It specifies that each expense item be evaluated to determine whether it is necessary for the provision of pilotage service and if so, whether it is reasonable, that is, is it comparable or similar to the expenses paid by others in the maritime industry for the same service or item. Pilot boat expenses in District 2 average $176 per trip, whereas in District 1, they average $110 and in District 3 they average $83 per trip. District 3 contracts all pilot boat services while Districts 1 and 2 utilize affiliated companies owned totally or partially by registered pilots, to provide pilot boat services. These affiliated companies reported a net income of $4,520 in District 1 and $70,506 in District 2, in 1997. In District 2 Erie Leasing's net income of $70,506 represents a 19% return on total equipment and property less land of $372,270. To bring pilot boat expenses in line with Districts 1 and 3, the Director is reducing District 2's expense base by $45,602. This deduction is intended to offset Erie Leasing's net income of $70,506 from operations. This, in effect, reduces Erie Leasing's net income to $24,904, which represents a 6.69% return on Erie Leasing's property and equipment. When this offset is applied against the 1997 pilot boat expenses, it reduces the pilot boat cost in District 2 to $154 per trip.
Two commenters, the District 1 Pilots' Association and District 2's accounting firm, disagreed with the results of the computation that determined the number of pilots required for their respective Districts. In District 1 they disagreed with the number of pilots required in Area 2, Lake Ontario. 46 CFR Part 404 clearly establishes the methodology in determining the number of pilots required for each area: “The basis for the number of pilots needed in each area of undesignated water is established by dividing the projected bridge hours by 1800. In 1998, District 1 Lake Pilots recorded a total of 6,335 bridge hours on the undesignated waters of Lake Ontario. The 1999 Rate Review projected a 5% decrease resulting in a projection of 6,018 bridge hours for 1999. The number of pilots required is then determined by dividing 6,018 by 1800; the result is 3.34, which for the purposes of the 1999 Rate Review, was rounded up to 4 pilots. District 2's accounting firm disagreed with the standard of 1800 hours used to determine the number of pilots in undesignated waters, and included delay, detention and pilot travel hours together with bridge hours to calculate the number of pilots required in District 2. Again 46 CFR Part 404 established
One commenter, the District 2 Pilots' Association, questioned the deduction of $3,328 in “combined expenses.” As explained in note 3 of the 1997 Director's audit, of $3,328 incurred legal expenses, one half, $1,664, was deducted because expenses relating to lobbying are not allowed for ratemaking purposes, 46 CFR, Part 404, § 404.5.
Two commenters, the District 2 Pilots' Association and District's 2 accounting firm, disagreed with the deduction of daily subsistence amounts that did not conform to IRS guidelines. 46 CFR
One commenter, District 2, requested a copy of the 1997 audit. A copy of the 1997 Director's Audit was mailed to District 2 in June 1999. A copy of the Director's audit is also included as part of the docket supporting this rulemaking (USCG-1999-6098).
One commenter, District 2's accounting firm, disagreed with the independent auditor's reduction from the expense base of $947 for business promotion, $400 in contributions, and $1,988 as uniforms expense. These deductions are justified because these expenses are not directly related to the provision of pilotage (46 CFR § 404.5).
One commenter, District 2's accounting firm, disagreed with the independent auditor's reduction of $4,800 a year in total rental expenses for a six bedroom house, rented to the Pilots' Association by Erie Leasing, an affiliated company. The house is used as temporary accommodations in Port Colborn. The auditor's adjustment is based on the fact that similar accommodations in the area rent an average $400 a month less than the Association pays on a monthly basis.
One commenter, the District 2 Pilots' Association, disagreed with the independent auditor's reduction of a portion of the expenses related to Association dues paid to the American Pilots' Association. This deduction is justified because the reduction consists of dues associated with lobbying. Expenses related to lobbying are not recognized for ratemaking purposes (46 CFR § 404.5).
One commenter, the representative for the District 1 Pilots' Association, disagreed with the proposed amount of $45,000 budgeted for car service and recommended $56,000. The recommendation is valid and District 1's expense base is adjusted accordingly to reflect an expected car service expense of $56,000.
One commenter, the representative for the District 1 Pilots' Association, disagreed with the projected 2.8% decrease in operating expenses for the 1999 navigational season in Area 2, considering the 23% increase in bridge hours experienced from 1997 to 1998. This 2.8% decrease is consistent with the data, because the number of pilots authorized in Area 2 in 1997 was in excess of what was required to operate efficiently in the area. In both 1997 and 1998, five pilots were authorized in Area 2. In 1997 and 1998, the actual bridge hours worked in Area 2 were 4,580 and 6,335 hours respectively. The methodology for determining the number of pilots required, as explained in 46 CFR Part 404, results in a requirement of 2.6 or 3 pilots in 1997, and 3.5 or 4 pilots in 1998. Based on bridge hour projections for 1999, the 1999 Rate Review calculated that four pilots are required in Area 2. This equates to a reduction of approximately $103,644 in pilot compensation, thus a reduction in expenses or total revenue required for Area 2.
Two commenters, the District 2 Pilots' Association accounting firm and the District 3 Pilots' Association, disagreed with the use of the 2.1% inflation factor used in the calculations for the 1999 Rate Review, as the figure failed to account for inflation experienced during the 1999 navigational season. Upon further review, the Coast Guard agrees with the commenter and has adjusted the expense base of each of the Pilotage Districts to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index from the close of the 1997 season to December 1999. This equates to a 3.1% inflation factor.
Two commenters, the District 2 and District 3 Pilots' Associations, disagreed with the Coast Guard's calculation of Investment Base for Return on Investment purposes, stating that it should take into account all assets employed in support of pilotage operations. One commenter stated the rate of return should be annualized, since the rates were last adjusted in 1997. In calculating the rate of return the Coast Guard only considers property and equipment, because cash assets held on deposit earn interest. Inclusion of cash assets would encourage Pilot Associations to unnecessarily inflate their Investment Base and provide an additional source of return not available to other private businesses. Analysis of pilot associations' Investment Base indicated that since the concept of Return on Investment was introduced into the ratemaking methodology, Districts 2 and 3 greatly increased their Investment Base. In District 2, the Investment Base rose from $265,488 in 1995 to $413,998 in 1996, of which only $116,041 was property and equipment. In District 3, the Investment Base soared from $119,823 in 1995 to $994,896 in 1996, and only $25,583 was property and equipment. The Coast Guard factored Return on Investment (ROI) into each of its Rate Reviews since the rates were last set in 1997. The 1998 Review considered the appropriate ROI and calculated that rates should be lowered an average of 3%. The 1999 Rate Review utilized a 6.69% ROI to determine rates. However, in view of the fact that the 1999 rates will apply for a portion of the 2000 navigational season, the ROI for the 1999 Rate Review has been adjusted to reflect the 1999 average return on high grade corporate bonds of 7.04%. The expense base for each District will be adjusted accordingly for the purposes of this SNPRM.
One commenter, the District 2 accounting firm, commented on the fact that the Coast Guard did not reply to their comments on the 1998 Rate Review. Responses to all comments received on the 1998 Rate Review were drafted. They were not published because the Coast Guard determined that the 1997 rates fell within an acceptable range and decided not to change the rates, even though the 1998 Rate Review called for an average reduction in rates of 3%.
The changes discussed above are summarized in Tables A, B, and C below.
As summarized in tables A, B, and C above, the Coast Guard proposes changes to the pilotage rates found in 46 CFR §§ 404.405-410 by increasing pilotage rates in Area 1 by 4%, decreasing rates in Area 2 by 3%, decreasing rates in Area 4 by 2%, decreasing rates in Area 5 by 6%, leaving rates unchanged in Area 6, increasing rates in Area 7 by 9%, decreasing rates in Area 8 by 4% and decreasing mutual rates by 1%.
This SNPRM 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 SNPRM to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This proposed rule would make minimal adjustments to the pilotage rates for the Great Lakes 2000 shipping season. The Coast Guard used the ratemaking methodology found in 46 CFR part 404, Appendix A, to identify adjustments necessary to achieve target pilot compensation, by establishing these new rates for pilotage. This ratemaking methodology is designed to annually review pilotage rates in order to avoid large fluctuations in pilot compensation, thus avoiding large changes in pilotage rates. This SNPRM provides a step-by-step economic guide to show how the pilotage rates would be changed. The results of this rulemaking are in keeping with the Coast Guard's desire for a safe, reliable and efficient pilotage system.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this SNPRM 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.
For the Great Lakes region, small entities potentially impacted by this proposed rulemaking include shippers, Great Lakes ports, carriers, and shipping agents. The proposed decreases in Great Lakes pilotage rates are not expected to significantly impact small businesses because this rulemaking actually reduces the financial burden on small entities and on the general public.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this SNPRM would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
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 SNPRM would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
The Coast Guard has analyzed this SNPRM under the principles and criteria in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255; August 10, 1999) and has determined that this SNPRM does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions not specifically required by law. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Although this SNPRM would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This SNPRM would 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 SNPRM 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 SNPRM 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 considered the environmental impact of this SNPRM and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(a), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C; this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. The SNPRM is procedural in nature because it deals exclusively with adjusting pilotage rates for the Great Lakes. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under
Administrative practice and procedure, Great Lakes, Navigation (water), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes amending 46 CFR Part 401 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 401 continues to read as follows:
46 U.S.C. 2104(a), 6101, 7701, 8105, 9303, 9304; 49 CFR 1.45, 1.46 (mmm), 46 CFR 401.105 also issued the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507.
2. In § 401.405, revise tables (a) and (b) to read as follows:
(a) Area 1 (Designated Waters):
(b) Area 2 (Undesignated Waters):
3. In § 401.407, revise tables (a) and (b) to read as follows:
(a) Area 4 (Undesignated Waters):
(b) Area 5 (Designated Waters):
4. In § 401.410, revise tables (b) and (c) to read as follows:
(b) Area 7 (Designated Waters):
(c) Area 8 (Undesignated Waters):
5. In § 401.420—
a. In paragraph (a), remove the number “$51” and add, in its place, the number “$50”; and remove the number “$807” and add, in its place, the number “$799”.
b. In paragraph (b), remove the number “$51” and add, in its place, the number “$50”; and remove the number “$807” and add, in its place, the number “$799”.
c. In paragraph (c)(1), remove the number “$305” and add, in its place, the number “$302”; in paragraph (c)(3), remove the number “$51” and add, in its place, the number “$50” and also in paragraph (c)(3), remove the number “$807”, and add, in its place, the number “$799”.
6. In § 401.428, remove the number “$312” and add, in its place, the number “$309”.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of regulatory review; request for comments.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) seeks comments on the economic impact of its regulations on small entities. As required by Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we are attempting to identify rules that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We also request comments on ways to make these regulations easier to read and understand. The focus of this notice is rules that specifically relate to school bus safety.
Comments must be received on or before September 29, 2000.
You should mention the docket number of this document in your comments and submit your comments in writing to: Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20590. You may call Docket Management at: (202) 366-9324. You may visit the Docket from 10:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday.
Nita Kavalauskas, Office of Regulatory Analysis and Evaluation, Office of Plans and Policy, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2584. Facsimile (fax): (202) 366-2559.
Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), requires agencies to conduct periodic reviews of final rules that have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. The purpose of the reviews is to determine whether such rules should be continued without change, amended, or rescinded, consistent with the objectives of applicable statutes, to minimize any significant economic impact of the rules on a substantial number of such small entities.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) published its Semiannual Regulatory Agenda on November 22, 1999, listing in Appendix D (64 FR
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA, (“we”) has divided its rules into 10 groups by subject area. Each group will be reviewed once every 10 years, undergoing a two-stage process—an Analysis Year and a Review Year. For purposes of these reviews, a year will coincide with the fall-to-fall publication schedule of the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda. Thus, Year 1 (1998) began in fall of 1998 and ends in the fall of 1999; Year 2 (1999) begins in the fall of 1999 and ends in the fall of 2000; and so on.
During the Analysis Year, we will request public comment on and analyze each of the rules in a given year's group to determine whether any rule has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities and, thus, requires review in accordance with section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In each fall's Regulatory Agenda, we will publish the results of the analyses we completed during the previous year. For rules that have subparts, or other discrete sections of rules that do have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, we will announce that we will be conducting a formal section 610 review during the following 12 months.
The section 610 review will determine whether a specific rule should be revised or revoked to lessen its impact on small entities. We will consider: (1) The continued need for the rule; (2) the nature of complaints or comments received from the public; (3) the complexity of the rule; (4) the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other federal rules or with state or local government rules; and (5) the length of time since the rule has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule. At the end of the Review Year, we will publish the results of our review.
The following table shows the 10-year analysis and review schedule:
During Year 2 (1999), the Analysis Year, we will conduct a preliminary assessment of the following sections of 49 CFR Part 571.
We are seeking comments on whether any requirements in Parts 571.131, 571.217, and 571.220 through 571.222 have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. “Small entities” include small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations under 50,000. Business entities are generally defined as small businesses by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code, for the purposes of receiving Small Business Administration (SBA) assistance. Size standards established by SBA in 13 CFR 121.201 are expressed either in number of employees or annual receipts in millions of dollars, unless otherwise specified. The number of employees or annual receipts indicates the maximum allowed for a concern and its affiliates to be considered small. If your business or organization is a small entity and if any of the requirements in Parts 571.131, 571.217, and 571.220 through 571.222 have a significant economic impact on your business or organization, please submit a comment to explain how and to what degree these rules affect you, the extent of the economic impact on your business or organization, and why you believe the economic impact is significant.
If the agency determines that there is a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, it will ask for comment in a subsequent notice during the Review Year on how these impacts could be reduced without reducing safety.
Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:
• Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
• Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings,
• Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
• What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in your comments on this document.
In conjunction with our section 610 reviews, we will be performing plain language reviews over a ten-year period on a schedule consistent with the section 610 review schedule. We will review Parts 571.131, 571.217, and 571.220 through 571.222 to determine if these regulations can be reorganized and/or rewritten to make them easier to read, understand, and use. We encourage interested persons to submit draft regulatory language that clearly and simply communicates regulatory requirements, and other recommendations, such as for putting information in tables, that may make the regulations easier to use.
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21.) We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System website at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on “Help & Information” or “Help/Info” to obtain instructions for filing your comments electronically.
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address given above under
You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, take the following steps:
(1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
(2) On that page, click on “search.”
(3) On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. Example: If the docket number were “NHTSA-1998-1234,” you would type “1234.” After typing the docket number, click on “search.”
(4) On the next page, which contains docket summary information for the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may download the comments. However, since the comments are imaged documents, instead of word processing documents, the “pdf” versions of the documents are word searchable.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; notice of control date for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery; request for comments.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) as authorized by the American Fisheries Act (AFA) is considering management measures to recommend to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to protect the Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries from adverse impacts caused by the AFA. This document announces a control date of June 29, 2000; any limited entry permit on that date owned by an owner of a vessel eligible for benefits under the AFA (AFA-qualified) and registered for use with an AFA-qualified vessel that does not meet minimum participation requirements that may be established in the future may be subject to restrictions on being registered to participate in the Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries. Additionally, participation by AFA-qualified catcher/processors and motherships not previously active in the at-sea whiting fishery may be restricted. The intended effect of this action is to discourage speculative entry or increased effort in the Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries by entities eligible for AFA benefits and to provide notice of potential permit restrictions or revocation to purchasers or lessees of limited entry permits owned by AFA-qualified vessel owners and registered for use with AFA-qualified vessels.
Comments may be submitted in writing by October 13, 2000.
Comments may be mailed to Jim Lone, Chairman, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2130 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 224, Portland OR 97201.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council at 503-326-6352; or Bill Robinson at 206-526-6140; or Svein Fougner at 562-980-4000.
The Pacific Council which was established under section 302(a)(1)(F) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1852 (a)(1)(F) is considering conservation and management measures to recommend to the Secretary to protect fisheries under its jurisdiction and the participants in those fisheries from adverse impacts caused by the AFA (Pub.L. 105-277, Div. C, Title II, October 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681-616; 16 U.S.C. 1851 note; 46 U.S.C. 101 note, 12102, 31322; 46 App. 1274 note), or by any fishery cooperatives in the Alaska pollock fishery, as required by section 211(c)(3)(A) of the AFA. Section 211(b)(5) of the AFA prohibits catcher/processors and motherships eligible under the AFA from harvesting or processing fish in any U.S. fishery outside Alaska, except the Pacific whiting fishery, unless harvesting or processing by those catcher/processors and motherships is specifically authorized under a fishery management plan. The Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) was approved on January 4, 1982 (47 FR 43964, October 5 1982), and has been amended 11 times. Implementing regulations for the FMP and its amendments are codified at 50 CFR Part 660, subpart G.
Under the AFA, only certain vessels are eligible to participate in the Bering Sea pollock fishery. This eligibility provides greater operational flexibility in when and how these vessels participate in the pollock fishery. Because these AFA-qualified vessels are better able to arrange their schedules, they could potentially increase participation in other fisheries, including Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries. The concern is that AFA-qualified vessels will use benefits gained by the AFA to move into Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries, increase effort, and cause negative impacts on current participants. To prevent any negative impact or “adverse impact”, the AFA provides the Council the opportunity to recommend management measures to the Secretary to protect fisheries under its jurisdiction and participants in those fisheries.
To harvest fish in the limited entry groundfish fisheries, vessels only need to purchase a Federal limited entry permit. Currently, no Federal permit is required to participate as a mothership. Because new permit holders and motherships currently have access rights that are equal to those who have open access fishery currently have access rights that are equal to those who have historically participated in the fishery, speculative entry may be encouraged. Additional effort could exacerbate existing management problems and erode the effectiveness of future measures recommended by the Council. As a result, the Council is considering measures that would restrict the use of AFA-qualified vessels and their limited entry trawl permits in segments of the fishery in which the vessel had not been previously active, as determined by minimum participation requirements.
At its September 1999 meeting, the Council adopted September 16, 1999, as a control date to be used in placing restrictions on participation in the Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries by AFA-qualified catcher vessels in the mothership and shore-based sectors of the Pacific whiting fishery, and to all other non-whiting groundfish fisheries in which catch is landed shoreside (64 FR 66158, November 24, 1999), At the April 2000 meeting, the Council reviewed alternatives for providing protection to Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries and its participants from AFA-qualified vessels and processors that failed to meet minimum participation requirements in the Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries. In addition, the Council considered whether to restrict, suspend, or void permits registered to AFA-qualified vessels if the vessels did not meet the participation requirements.
At its June 2000 meeting, the Council gave further consideration to management measures aimed at protecting Pacific Coast groundfish fishery participants from impacts caused by the AFA. The Council voted to establish a control date of June 29, 2000. Any limited entry permit on that date owned by an owner of a vessel eligible for benefits under the AFA (AFA-qualified) and registered for use with an AFA-qualified vessel that does not meet minimum participation requirements that may be established in the future, may be subject to restrictions on being registered to participate in the Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries, similarly to restrictions imposed on the vessel.
The Council is also considering restricting future participation in the whiting fishery by AFA-qualified motherships and catcher/processors that do not have a history in the fishery. For motherships, the criterion being considered is a certain level of participation in the regular whiting season in either 1998 or 1999. For catcher/processors, the criterion being considered is whether the catcher/processor was licensed to harvest groundfish in 1997, 1998, or 1999 through September 16, 1999. No new AFA-qualified motherships or catcher processors have entered the groundfish fishery since September of 1999.
This document notifies the public that the Council is considering measures to protect the Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries from adverse impacts caused by the APA. The intended effect of this document is to discourage speculative entry or increased effort in the Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries by entities eligible for AFA benefits or revocation to purchasers or lessees of limited entry permits owned by AFA-qualified vessel owners and registered for use with AFA-qualified vessels on June 29, 2000.
Implementation of any management measures for the fishery will require amendment of the regulations implementing the FMP, and may require amending the FMP. Any action will require Council development of a regulatory proposal with public input and a supporting analysis, NMFS approval, and publication of implementing regulations in the
16 U.S.C. 1801
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed information collection submitted for public comment and notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request approval of a new information collection under fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing orders and agreements (orders and agreements). This information is to be used to conduct interviews of managers and committee and board members for order and agreement programs. Participants' information would be voluntarily supplied by those willing to respond. An interview would consist of about 15 questions regarding committee and board member participation and about concerns about serving on an order or agreement committee or board.
Comments on this notice must be received by November 13, 2000, to be assured of consideration.
Caroline Thorpe, Marketing Specialist, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, Telephone: (202) 720-8139, Fax: (202) 720-5698, or E-mail: moab.docketclerk@usda.gov.
Small businesses may request information on this notice by contacting Jay Guerber, Regulatory Fairness Representative, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, room 2525-S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, D.C. 20090-6456; telephone (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-5698, or E-mail: Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.
The information collection requirements in this request are essential to carry out the intent of the Act, under 7 U.S.C. 608(c) 7. The purpose would be to provide training to current and prospective members of committees and boards, improve diversity on the committees and boards of the orders and agreements, and to more effectively administer the order and agreement programs.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is encouraging eligible women, minorities, and people with disabilities to participate on USDA's order and agreement committees and boards. In order to encourage a more comprehensive participation on order and agreement programs, AMS would like to better understand the factors that encourage or discourage committee or board participation.
Under the orders and agreements, producers and handlers are nominated by their respective peers. These nominees then serve as representatives on their respective committees or boards and must file background questionnaires and acceptance letters or statements with the Secretary.
This information collection is to be used to conduct interviews of managers and committee and board members for order and agreement programs. Participants' information would be voluntarily supplied by those willing to respond. An interview would consist of about 15 questions regarding committee and board member participation and about concerns about serving on an order or agreement committee or board. The interview questions covered under this information collection will require the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the intent.
The information collected is used only by authorized representatives of the USDA, including AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Programs' regional and headquarter's staff. Authorized representatives of the USDA are the primary users of the information and AMS authorized committee and board employees are the secondary users of the information.
Comments should reference this docket number and the appropriate order or agreement, and be mailed to the Docket Clerk, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room 2525-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456; Fax: (202) 720-5698; or E-mail: moab.docketclerk@usda.gov. Comments should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue of the
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, United States Department of Agriculture, has information that the livestock markets named below are stockyards as defined in section 302 of the Packers and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. 202), and should be made subject to the provisions of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended (7 U.S.C. 181
Pursuant to the authority under section 302 of the Packers and Stockyards Act, notice is hereby given that it is proposed to designate the stockyards named above as posted stockyards subject to the provisions of said Act.
Any person who wishes to submit written data, views or arguments concerning the proposed designation may do so by filing them with the Director, Office of Policy/Litigation Support, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, Room 3418-South Building, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, by September 28, 2000.
All written submissions made pursuant to this notice will be made available for public inspection in the office of the Director of the Office of Policy/Litigation Support during normal business hours.
Rural Housing Service, USDA.
Notice.
This Notice of Fund Availability (NOFA or Notice) announces the timeframe and submission requirements and deadlines to submit proposals in the form of “NOFA responses” for the section 538 Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Program (GRRHP). Eligible lenders, as defined in paragraph VII(D) of this NOFA are invited to submit NOFA proposals for the development of affordable rental housing to serve rural America. Only responses submitted by eligible lenders, on the lender's letterhead, and signed by both the applicant and the lender will be reviewed.
This document describes the overall application process, including the selection and identification of any priorities for selection of proposed applications, and the process by which the Rural Housing Service (RHS or Agency) will score and rank the proposals. Information will also be included concerning the submission requirements. Lenders may submit their application concurrently with their NOFA response.
The deadline for receipt of NOFA responses is 4:00 PM, Eastern Daylight Savings Time on September 20, 2000. Lenders intending to mail a NOFA response must provide sufficient time to permit delivery on or before the closing deadline date and time. Acceptance by a post office or private mailer does not constitute delivery. Facsimile (FAX), Cash on Delivery (COD), and postage due NOFA responses or applications will not be accepted. NOFA responses will not be accepted after the deadlines previously mentioned, unless that date and time is extended by another Notice published in the
Responses for participation in the program must be identified as “Section 538 Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Program” on the envelope and be submitted to: Director, Multi-Family Housing Processing Division, Rural Housing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 1263 (STOP 0781), 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250-0781.
Joyce Allen, Deputy Director, Guaranteed Loans, Multi-Family Housing Processing Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, South Agriculture Building, Room 1271, STOP 0781, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250-0781. E-mail: jallen@rdmail.rural.usda.gov. Telephone: (202) 690-4499. This number is not toll-free. Hearing or speech impaired persons may access that number by calling the Federal Information Relay Service toll-free at (800) 877-8339.
The GRRHP is operated under 7 CFR part 3565. The Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Program Origination and Servicing Handbook (HB-1-3565) is available to provide lenders and the general public with the “how to” administrative guidance needed to administer the program. HB-1-3565, which contains a copy of 7 CFR part 3565 in Appendix 1, may be found on the Rural Development Regulation web site internet address of “http://rdinit.usda.gov/regs”or copies may be obtained from the Rural Housing Service Multi-Family Housing Processing Division at 202-720-1604. This is not a toll-free number. Hearing-or speech-impaired persons may access that number by calling the Federal Information Relay Service toll-free at (800) 877-8339.
On March 28, 1996, President Clinton signed the “Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996,” Public Law 104-120, authorizing the section 538 Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Program (GRRHP). The program is designed to increase the supply of
This NOFA announces the availability of approximately $10.44 million in Non-Interest Credit section 538 program dollars for FY 2000. There are no Interest Credit funds remaining for FY 2000. Responses requesting interest credit assistance will not be considered in this NOFA. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 budget authority provided approximately $100 million in program dollars. Approximately $89.56 million dollars in NOFA awards have been awarded to date and all interest credit funds have been expended. FY 2000 funds will be held in the National Office. There are no set-asides or demonstration purposes for the GRRHP for FY 2000.
Lenders should respond to section 538 NOFA's only when they have completed a preliminary underwriting analysis and are willing to make the proposed loan subject only to the issuance of a guarantee by the Agency. Unfortunately, the Agency has found that in some instances, this has not been the case. In an effort to reduce the number of unacceptable NOFA responses and judiciously commit program dollars to projects that demonstrate a readiness to proceed, the Agency will strictly adhere to the submission requirements.
In the interest of time, lenders have the option of submitting a combined NOFA response and application. However, the Agency will not give preference to a submission containing both a NOFA response and an application. Lenders who submit complete applications are encouraged, but not required, to include a checklist and to have their applications indexed and tabbed to facilitate the review process.
Upon notice of selection, lenders with the top ranked NOFA responses will be requested to submit the required application fee of $2,500.00 and full application if not already submitted. When the conditions of the conditional commitment are met, the lender will submit the required information with a separate guarantee fee of 1% of the total guarantee amount.
NOFA submission requirements are subject to change and it is important to note that all responses must be submitted in accordance with the terms of this NOFA which are different from the last published NOFA.
Incomplete submissions will not be considered, and the lender will be notified of the reason the response was incomplete. The required information is listed as follows:
(1) A brief description of the proposed location of the project, including town, county, state, and congressional district.
(2) A description of the property and improvements, including lot size, number of units and bids, building type, type of construction, etc., including preliminary drawings, if available.
(3) The proposed development schedule.
(4) Total project development cost.
(5) The proposed rent structure and area median income—(HUD published area median incomes can be found online at http://www.huduser.org).
(6) Evidence of site control by the proposed borrower or a purchase option.
(7) Description of any environmental issues that may affect the project.
(8) Amount of loan to be guaranteed.
(1) Proposed loan amount and the proposed borrower's equity.
(2) Estimated development budget (total and cost per unit), and the proposed sources and uses of funds. This information should include all proposed financing sources—the amount, type, rates and terms of loans, tax credits, or grant funds. Letters of application and commitment letters should be included, if available.
(3) Estimated loan-to-value ratio for guaranteed loan.
(4) Proposed Agency guarantee percentage for guaranteed loan (under no condition can the percentage exceed 90 percent of the loan amount).
(5) Collateral—all security, in addition to the real property, proposed to secure the loan.
(1) The name of the borrower and the type of ownership entity—list the general partners if a limited partnership, officers if a corporation or members of an LLC.
(2) Borrower's contact name, mailing address, phone and fax numbers, and e-mail address.
(3) Statement of borrower's housing development experience.
Evidence that the lender is either an approved lender for the purposes of the GRRHP or that the lender is eligible to apply for approved lender status as defined in paragraph VII(D) of this NOFA. The application for lender approval must be made at the same time as the first loan application.
Information that shows how the proposal is responsive to the selection criteria specified in the NOFA. (See paragraph V of this NOFA).
A commitment letter or certification by the lender that will make a loan to the borrower for the proposed project, under specified terms and conditions subject only to the issuance of a guarantee by the Agency. The lender certification must be on the lender's letterhead, and be signed by both the lender and the applicant, and be submitted by the lender to the Agency.
In order to expedite the review of the applications, RHS suggests using the following sample NOFA response checklist to ensure that you have addressed all the submission requirements and competitive criteria of this NOFA.
NOFA proposals will be reviewed as received. Priorities will be assigned to eligible proposals on the basis of the following criteria as contained in 7 CFR 3565.5(b), and points will be assigned as follows:
(A) Projects located in rural communities with the smallest population will receive priority. All proposals will be ranked in order of their population. The proposals will be given a point score starting with the project located in the area with the lowest population receiving 20 points, the next 19 points and so forth, until up to 20 projects have received points.
(B) The most needy communities as determined by the median income from the most recently available census data. The proposals will be given a point score starting with the community having the lowest median income receiving 20 points, the next 19 points and so forth until up to 20 proposals have received points.
(C) Partnering and leveraging in order to develop the maximum number of housing units and promote partnerships with state and local communities, including other partners with similar housing goals. Leveraging points will be awarded as follows:
(D) Loans with interest rates less than the maximum allowable 250 basis points over the 30 Year Treasury Rate will be awarded points as follows (fractional basis points will be rounded to the nearest whole basis point):
(E) Preference will be given to proposals having a higher percentage of 3-5 bedroom units to total units. The proposals will be ranked in order of this percentage with the proposal with the highest percent receiving 20 points, the next 19 points and so forth until up to 20 projects have received points.
(F) Proposals to be developed in a colonia, on tribal land, in an Empowerment Zone or Enterprise Community, or in a place identified in the State consolidated plan or State needs assessment as a high need community for multifamily housing (20 points).
(G) Projects will be ranked by the length of the amortization period, with the longest receiving priority as follows:
The maximum allowable interest rate on a loan submitted for a guarantee is 250 basis points over the 30-year Treasury Bond Yield as published in the Wall Street Journal as of the business day prior to the business day the rate is set.
There is no surcharge for guarantee of construction advances for FY 2000.
(1) There is an initial guarantee fee for 1% of the total guarantee amount which will be due when the loan guarantee is issued. For purposes of calculating this fee, the guarantee amount is the product of the percentage of the guarantee times the initial principal amount of the guaranteed loan.
(2) There is an annual renewal fee of 0.5% of the guaranteed outstanding principal balance charged each year or portion of the year that the guarantee is in effect. This fee will be collected prospectively on January 1, of the calendar year.
(3) There is no fee for site assessment and market analysis for preliminary feasibility in FY 2000.
(4) There is a non-refundable application fee of $2,500 when the application is submitted following proposal selection under the NOFA.
(5) There is a flat fee of $500 when a lender requests RHS to extend the term of a guarantee commitment.
(6) There is a flat fee of $500 when a lender requests RHS to reopen a guarantee commitment after the period of the commitment lapses.
(7) There is a flat fee of $1,250 when a lender requests RHS to approve the transfer of property and assumption of the loan to an eligible applicant.
The application for lender approval must be made at the same time as the
An eligible lender must be a licensed business entity or Housing Finance Authority (HFA) in good standing in the state or states where it conducts business; be approved by the Agency; and meet at least one of the criteria contained below. Lenders who are not eligible may participate in the program if they maintain a correspondent relationship with a lender who is eligible. An eligible lender must:
(a) Meet the qualifications of, and be approved by, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to make multifamily housing loans that are to be insured under the National Housing Act;
(b) Meet the qualifications and be approved by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac to make multifamily housing loans that are to be sold to such corporations;
(c) Be a state or local HFA, or a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank system, with a demonstrated ability to underwrite, originate, process, close, service, manage, and dispose of multifamily housing loans in a prudent manner;
(d) Be a lender who meets the requirements for Agency approval contained in 7 CFR part 3565 subpart B and has a demonstrated ability to underwrite, originate, process, close, service, manage, and dispose of multifamily housing loans in a prudent manner; or
(e) Be a lender who meets the following requirements in addition to the other requirements of 7 CFR part 3565 subpart B and of subpart I:
(1) Have qualified staff to perform multifamily housing servicing and asset management;
(2) Have facilities and systems that support servicing and asset management functions; and
(3) Have documented procedures for carrying out servicing and asset management responsibilities.
Notice is hereby given in accordance with Section 552b of Title 5, United States Code, that a meeting of the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission will be held on Thursday, September 28, 2000.
The Commission was established pursuant to Public Law 99-647. The purpose of the Commission is to assist federal, state and local authorities in the development and implementation of an integrated resource management plan for those lands and waters within the Corridor.
The meeting will convene at 7 p.m. at the Slatersville Congregational Church for the following reasons:
It is anticipated that about twenty people will be able to attend the session in addition to the Commission members.
Interested persons may make oral or written presentations to the Commission or file written statements. Such requests should be made prior to the meeting to: Michael Creasey, Executive Director, John H. Chafee, Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission, One Depot Square, Woonsocket, RI 02895, Tel.: (401) 762-0250.
Further information concerning this meeting may be obtained from Michael Creasey, Executive Director of the Commission at the aforementioned address.
The President's Export Council Subcommittee on Export Administration (PECSEA) will meet on October 3, 2000, 9 a.m., at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 4832, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The PECSEA provides advice on matters pertinent to those portions of the Export Administration Act, as amended, that deal with United States policies of encouraging trade with all countries with which the United States has diplomatic or trading relations and of controlling trade for national security and foreign policy reasons.
1. Opening remarks by the Chairman.
2. Presentation of papers or comments by the public.
3. Update on Administration export control initiatives.
4. Task Force reports.
5. Discussion of matters properly classified under Executive Order 12958, dealing with the U.S. export control program and strategic criteria related thereto.
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the PECSEA. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to PECSEA members, the PECSEA suggests that public presentation materials or comments be forwarded before the meeting to the address listed below: Ms. Lee Ann Carpenter, OSIES/EA/BXA MS: 3876, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th St. & Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230.
A Notice of Determination to close meetings, or portions of meetings, of the PECSEA to the public on the basis of 5 U.S.C. 522(c)(1) was approved October 25, 1999, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. A copy of the Notice of Determination is available for public inspection and copying in the Central Reference and Records Inspection Facility, Room 6020, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. For more information, contact Ms. Lee Ann Carpenter on (202) 482-2583.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the Board) by the Sanford Airport Authority, to establish a general-purpose foreign-trade zone at sites in the Seminole County, Florida area, within the Sanford Customs port of entry. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the FTZ Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on September 5, 2000. The applicant is authorized to make the proposal under Section 288.36., Florida Statutes Annotated (1997).
The proposed zone would consist of sites covering 2,436 acres in the Seminole County area:
The application indicates a need for additional foreign-trade zone services in the Seminole County area. Several firms have indicated an interest in using zone procedures for warehousing/distribution of such items as architectural hardware, computer software, electronics, interior fire suppression sprinkler systems and specialized glass products. Specific manufacturing approvals are not being sought at this time. Requests would be made to the Board on a case-by-case basis.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board.
As part of the investigation, the Commerce examiner will hold a public hearing on October 11, 2000, at 9 a.m., Orlando Sanford Airport, Board Room, One Red Cleveland Boulevard, Sanford, Florida 32773.
Public comment on the application is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is November 13, 2000. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period (to November 27, 2000).
A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available during this time for public inspection at the following locations:
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of initiation and preliminary results of changed circumstance antidumping duty review, and intent to revoke order in part.
September 13, 2000.
On August 1, 2000, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) received a request on behalf of General Chemical Corporation, and its subsidiary, Printing Developments, Inc., (“PDI”) for a changed circumstance antidumping duty (“AD”) review and an intent to revoke in part the AD order with respect to specific stainless steel and strip from Japan. The Department received a letter on August 16, 2000, from Allegheny Ludlum, AK Steel (formerly Armco, Inc.), Washington Steel Division of Bethlehem Steel Corporation (formerly Lukens, Inc.), the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, the Butler Armco Independent Union and the Zanesville Armco Independent Organization, Inc. (“petitioners”) indicting that they do not oppose PDI's request for revocation in part of the order pursuant to a changed circumstance review with respect to the subject merchandise defined in the Scope of the Review section below. Based on this expression of no interest we are initiating a changed circumstance review and preliminary determine that the AD order should be revoked in part with respect to that product.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Alex Villanueva or James C. Doyle, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-6412 and (202) 482-0159, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR part 351 (April 1999).
On July 27, 1999, the Department published the Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order on stainless steel sheet and strip from Japan (64 FR 40565).
On August 1, 2000, PDI requested revocation in part of the antidumping order pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act and § 351.216(b) of the Department's regulations with respect to specific stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Japan, as described below. PDI further requested that revocation be effective for all unliquidated entries on or after the date of publication of the Department's January 4, 1999 preliminary less than fair value
The product covered by this exclusion request is certain stainless steel lithographic sheet. This sheet is made of 304-grade stainless steel and must satisfy each of the following specifications. The sheet must: (1) Have an ultimate tensile strength of minimum 75 KSI; (2) a yield strength of minimum 30 KSI; (3) a minimum elongation of 40 percent; (4) a coil weight of 4,000-6,000 lbs.; (5) a width tolerance of −0/+0.0625 inch and (6) a gauge tolerance of +/−0.001 inch. With regard to flatness; (7) the wave height and wave length dimensions must correspond to both edge wave and center buckle conditions; (8) the maximum wave height shall not exceed 0.75 percent of the wave length or 3 mm (0.118 inch), whichever is less, and (9) the wave length shall not be less than 100 mm (3.937 inch). With regard to the surface, (10) the surface roughness must be RMS (RA) 4-8; (11) the surface must be degreased and no oil will be applied during the slitting operation; (12) the surface finish shall be free from all visual cosmetic surface variations or stains in spot or streak form that affect the performance of the material; (13) no annealing border is acceptable; (14) the surface finish shall be free from all defects in raised or depression nature (
At the request of PDI, and in accordance with sections 751(d)(1) and 751(b)(1) of the Act and section 351.216 of the Department's regulations, the Department is initiating a changed circumstance review of stainless steel sheet and strip from Japan to determine whether partial revocation of the antidumping order is warranted with respect to the stainless steel sheet and strip subject to this request. Section 782(h)(2) of the Act and § 351.222(g)(l)(1) of the Department's regulations provide that the Department may revoke an order (in whole or in part) if it determines that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product have no further interest in the order, in whole or in part. In addition, in the event the Department determines that expedited action is warranted, section 351.221(c)(3)(ii) of the regulations permits the Department to combine the notices of initiation and preliminary results.
In accordance with section 751(b) of the Act, and § § 351.222(g)(l)(1) and 351.221(c)(3) of the Department's regulations, we are initiating this changed circumstance review and have determined that expedited action is warranted. Our decision to expedite this review stems from the domestic industry's lack of interest in applying the antidumping order to the specific stainless steel sheet and strip covered by this request. Additionally, in accordance with § 351.216(c) we find that the petitioners' affirmative statement of no interest constitutes good cause for the conduct of this review.
Based on the expression of no interest by petitioners and absent any objection by any other domestic interested parties, we have preliminarily determined that substantially all of the domestic producers of the like product have no interest in continued application of the AD order to the stainless steel sheet and strip subject to this request. Therefore, we are notifying the public of our intent to revoke, in part, the AD order as it relates to imports of the merchandise described above from Japan.
Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 14 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 21 days after the date of publication. The Department will issue the final results of this changed circumstance review, which will include the results of its analysis raised in any such written comments, no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated, or written 45 days if all parties agree to our preliminary determinations.
If final revocation occurs, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to end the suspension of liquidation for the merchandise covered by the revocation effective on or after January 4, 1999, the date of publication of the Department's preliminary LTFV determination (64 FR 108) and to release any cash deposit or bond.
This initiation of review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(b)) and 19 C.F.R. 351.216, 351.221, and 351.222.
This decision is made pursuant to section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
We know of no other instrument or apparatus of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument which is being manufactured in the United States.
This decision is made pursuant to section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
We know of no other instrument or apparatus of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument which is being manufactured in the United States.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Issuance of an exempted fishing permit.
NMFS announces the issuance of an exempted fishing permit (EFP) 00-01 to Groundfish Forum, Inc., and the At-sea Processors Association (applicants). The EFP authorizes the applicants to conduct an experiment in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and the Bering Sea that will test the effectiveness of a halibut excluder device for Pacific cod trawls in reducing halibut bycatch rates without significantly lowering catch rates of cod. This EFP is necessary to provide information not otherwise available through research or commercial fishing operations. The intended effect of this action is to promote the purposes and policies of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
Copies of the EFP and the Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared for the EFP are available from Lori J. Gravel, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
Nina Mollett, 907-586-7462.
The Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska and the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area authorize the issuance of EFPs to fish for groundfish in a manner that would otherwise be prohibited under existing regulations. The procedures for issuing EFPs are set out at 50 CFR 679.6.
On April 11, 2000, NMFS announced in the
The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has approved the EFP application and has issued EFP 00-01 to the applicants. The experiment will take place in two parts. Part A will be conducted by a head-and-gut catcher/processor vessel in the GOA in September 2000. The rationale for the timing is that few options exist for open access fishing in the fall, and participating vessels would have a low opportunity cost. Part B will be conducted by a pollock/cod fillet catcher/processor vessel in the Bering Sea in March 2001, during or following the winter cod fishery.
Vessels wishing to participate in the experiment have submitted or will submit applications that include fishing plans describing the vessel’s observer sampling facilities, the general area to be fished, number of tows expected per day, the proposed coordination of observer sampling and deck crew duties during the experiment, and the number of observers (from one to three, subject to NMFS approval).
The vessel for Part A was chosen by a NMFS panel headed up by a NMFS gear expert working with the applicants on this experiment. The vessel for Part B will be a member of the pollock fishery cooperative associated with the At-sea Processors Association (the Pollock Conservation Cooperative). Selection of the vessel will be made by the cooperative, subject to approval by NMFS of the fishing plan and number of observers.
Each part of the experiment will consist of 30 tows. At a rate of 4-5 tows per day, each of the two parts will take 7-10 days to complete. Groundfish and prohibited species catch amounts authorized under the EFP will not be deducted from total allowable catch or prohibited species catch allowances specified for the 2000-2001 groundfish fisheries. This will not cause a conservation problem because estimated total removals under the EFP are within acceptable levels biologically and will not cause the fishery to exceed overfishing levels already considered in the EA for the 2000 specifications.
The EFP authorizes taking up to 396 metric tons (mt) of groundfish in the GOA and 594 mt of groundfish in the Bering Sea, principally cod. Vessels selected for participation will retain all cod and pollock and may retain other groundfish species in accordance with the maximum retainable incidental catch amounts at 50 CFR 679.20(e) and (f), using only cod as the basis species.
The authorized halibut bycatch for this experiment is 47 mt in the GOA and 12 mt in the Bering Sea. Based on the assumed 2000 halibut mortality rates for the GOA cod fishery (63 percent) and the Bering Sea cod fishery (66 percent)(65 FR 8298, February 18, 2000; and 65 FR 8282, February 18, 2000, respectively), these amounts are
Bering Sea crab bycatch will not exceed 2,500
The researchers will use a recapture bag, as opposed to doing blocks of similar tows to measure the effects of using an excluder device. The latter method was used by Groundfish Forum, Inc., in a similar experiment conducted in 1998 to develop a halibut excluder device for the deepwater flatfish fisheries. The recapture bag is considered a more powerful design than paired tows for assessing the efficacy of an excluder, but increases the amount of labor and dedicated staff needed to collect the required data from each tow and to get halibut overboard with minimal mortality.
The prototype device was developed during a research trip conducted in July 2000 by a NMFS gear specialist. The researchers’ goal is to develop a device with the following characteristics:
1. It will release a large percentage of the halibut that come into the trawl;
2. It will avoid significant reductions in target catch;
3. It will function with limited failures or breakages;
4. It will be resistant to clogging and debris jams;
5. It will be durable and easily stored on deck;
6. It will be constructed from affordable materials that are readily available.
The Regional Administrator may terminate the experiment if prohibited species bycatch exceeds the high-end projections of the permit applicants. The experiment may not be conducted in Steller sea lion critical habitat (as defined at 50 CFR 226.202) in the Bering Sea and in the GOA west of 144° W. long.
Failure of the permittees to comply with the terms and conditions of the EFP and all applicable provisions of 50 CFR parts 600 and 679, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, or any regulations promulgated thereunder, or any other applicable laws, may be grounds for revocation, suspension or modification of this permit as well as civil or criminal sanctions imposed under those laws.
NMFS prepared an EA for this EFP. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, concluded that no significant impact on the human environment will occur as a result of fishing under this EFP. A copy of the EA is available from NMFS (see
This notice is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. It also is exempt under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required. Therefore, the analytical requirements of the RFA are inapplicable.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Issuance of permit amendment.
Notice is hereby given that Southeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, FL 33149 (Principal Investigator: Dr. Keith D. Mullin) has been issued an amendment to scientific research Permit No. 779-1339.
The amendment and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/713-2289);
Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive North, St. Petersburg, FL 33702-2432 (813/570-5312); and
Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, (978/281-9250).
Ruth Johnson or Simona Roberts, 301/713-2289.
On July 11, 2000, notice was published in the
Permit 779-1339 authorized the Holder to: (1) harass cetaceans for the purpose of estimating abundance, collecting behavioral data, photography and biopsy sampling, and (2) collect and import biopsy tissue samples taken with a projectile dart from cetaceans. The amendment increased the number of animals that could be biopsy sampled annually.
Issuance of this amendment, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which is the subject of this permit, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
Proposed collection; comment request.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its
Written comments must be submitted on or before November 13, 2000.
Direct all written comments to Thao P. Nguyen, Acting Records Officer, Office of Data Management, Data Administration Division, (703) 308-7397, USPTO, Suite 310, 2231 Crystal Drive, Washington, DC 20231.
Requests for additional information should be directed to Ellen J. Seeherman, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Washington, DC 20231, by telephone at (703)308-9300 (ext 206).
This collection of information is required by Section 13 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1063, and Section 14 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1064. The Act provides for the Federal registration of trademarks and service marks. Any individual or entity that adopts a trademark or service mark to identify its goods or services may apply to federally register its mark. Section 14 of the Trademark Act allows individuals and entities to file a petition to cancel a registration of a mark. Section 13 of the Trademark Act allows individuals and entities who believe that they would be damaged by the registration of a mark to file an opposition to the registration of a mark.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) administers the Trademark Act according to 37 CFR Part 2, which contains the rules that implement the Trademark Act. 37 CFR Sections 2.111 and 2.112 govern the filing of a Petition to Cancel. 37 CFR Sections 2.101, 2.102 and 2.104 govern the filing of an opposition to the registration of a trademark. Petitions to cancel a trademark registration and oppositions are filed with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).
By mail, facsimile, or hand carry when the applicant or agent files a petition to cancel a trademark registration or an opposition to the registration of a trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Advisory Committee will meet in closed session at the Ritz-Carlton Pentagon City, 1250 South Hayes Street, Arlington, Virginia 22202, on September 25-26, 2000.
The mission of the BMD Advisory Committee is to advise the Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of Defense, through the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics), on all matters relating to BMD acquisition, system development, and technology.
In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law No. 92-463, as amended by 5 U.S.C., Appendix II, it is hereby determined that this BMD Advisory Committee meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C., 552b(c)(1), and that
Historical Advisory Committee, DOD.
Notice of open meeting.
Notice is hereby given of the forthcoming meeting of the Historical Records Declassification Advisory Panel (HRDAP). The purpose of this meeting is to discuss recommendations to the Department of Defense on topical areas of interest that, from a historical perspective, would be of the greatest benefit to the public if declassified. This is the second session held in 2000. The OSD Historical will chair this meeting.
Tuesday, September 26, 2000.
The meeting is scheduled 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
The National Archives Building, Room 105, 7th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20408.
Mr. Jeffrey Ross, Room 1D760B, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Security and Information Operations), Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence), 6000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20302-6000, telephone (703) 614-5995.
Notice of meeting.
The Defense Science Board Task Force on Improving Fuel Efficiency of Weapons Platforms will meet in closed session on September 19-20, 2000, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Amherst E40-55, Cambridge, MA 30332-0801.
The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this meeting, The Task Force will review fuel-efficient technologies, including new or improved fuels, engines, Alternative Fueled Vehicles, and other advanced technologies and assess their operational, logistical, cost, and environmental impacts for a range of practical implementation scenarios.
Persons interested in further information should call Commander Brian D. Hughes, USN, at (703) 695-4157.
Department of Defense, Advisory Committee on Women in the Services.
Notice.
Pursuant to section 10(a), Public Law 92-463, as amended, notice is hereby given of a forthcoming semiannual conference of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS). The purpose of Fall 2000 DACOWITS Conference is to assist the Secretary of Defense on matters relating to women in the Services. Conference sessions will be held daily and will be open to the public, unless otherwise noted below.
October 18-22, 2000.
Luxor Las Vegas, 3900 Las Vegas Blvd., South, Las Vegas, NV; telephone: (702) 262-4606.
MAJ Susan E. Kolb, ARNG or MSG Verena Sander, USA, DACOWITS and Military Women Matters, OASD (Force Management Policy), 4000 Defense Pentagon, Room 3D769, Washington, DC 20301-4000; telephone (703) 697-2122.
The following rules will govern the participation by members of the public at the conference:
(1) Members of the public will not be permitted to attend the OSD Reception and Dinner and Conference Field Trip.
(2) The Opening Session, General Session, all subcommittee sessions and the Voting Session will be open to the public.
(3) Interested persons may submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and/or make an oral presentation of such during the conference.
Persons desiring to make an oral presentation or submit a written statement to the Committee must notify the point of contact listed above no later than October 13, 2000.
(5) Length and number of oral presentations to be made will depend on the number of requests received from members of the public.
(6) Oral presentations by members of the public will be permitted only on Sunday, October 22, 2000, before the full Committee.
(7) Each person desiring to make an oral presentation must provide the DACOWITS office with one (1) copy of the presentation by October 13, 2000 and bring 175 copies of any material that is intended for distribution at the conference.
(8) Persons submitting a written statement for inclusion in the minutes of the conference must submit to the DACOWITS staff one (1) copy of the statement by the close of the conference on Sunday, October 22, 2000.
(9) Other new items from members of the public may be presented in writing to any DACOWTIS member for transmittal to the DACOWITS chair or Military Director, DACOWITS and Military Women Matters, for consideration.
(10) Members of the public will not be permitted to enter oral discussions conducted by the Committee members at any of the sessions; however, they will be permitted to reply to questions directed to them by the members of the Committee. After the official participants have asked questions and/or made comments to the scheduled speakers, members of the public will be permitted to ask questions if recognized by the Chair and if time allows.
(11) Non-social agenda events that are not open to the public are for administrative matters unrelated to substantive advice provided to the Department of Defense and do not involve DACOWITS deliberations or decision-making issues before the Committee.
Conference sessions will be conducted according to the following agenda:
Department of Education.
The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 13, 2000.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, 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,
Responses: 5,750.
Burden Hours: 1,438.
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 proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 13, 2000.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or
The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Responses: 642.
Burden Hours: 15,408.
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 Jacqueline Montague at (202) 708-5359 or via her internet address Jackie_Montague@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.
Idaho Operations Office, DOE.
Notice of availability of solicitation number DE-PS07-01ID13965—Nuclear Engineering Education Research (NEER) Program.
The U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, is soliciting applications for awards of financial assistance (
Applications should be submitted to: U.S. Department of Energy, INEEL, ATTN: Marie Warnick, P.O. Box 1625, Mail Stop 3860, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415-3860.
Dallas L. Hoffer, Contract Specialist,
The solicitation was issued pursuant to 10 CFR 600.6(b). Eligibility for awards under this Nuclear Engineering Education Research (NEER) Program will be restricted to U.S. colleges and universities with nuclear engineering degree programs or options or an operating research reactor. The purpose of this NEER Program is to (1) support basic research in nuclear engineering; (2) assist in developing nuclear engineering students; and (3) contribute to strengthening the academic community's nuclear engineering infrastructure.
The statutory authority for this program is Public Law 95-91.
Department of Energy.
Notice of meeting.
Subject to timely enactment of legislation to reinstate the antitrust defense under section 252 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, a meeting of the Industry Advisory Board to the International Energy Agency (IEA) will be held on September 20 and 21, 2000, at the headquarters of the IEA in Paris, France in connection with a meeting of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions.
Samuel M. Bradley, Assistant General Counsel for International and National Security Programs, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, 202-586-6738.
Subject to timely enactment of legislation to reinstate the antitrust defense under section 252 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), the following meeting notice is provided, in accordance with section 252(c)(1)(A)(i) of the EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(i)):
A meeting of the Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International Energy Agency (IEA) will be held at the headquarters of the IEA, 9, rue de la Fe
The Agenda for the preparatory encounter among company representatives is to elicit views regarding items on the SEQ's Agenda. The Agenda for the SEQ meeting is under the control of the SEQ. It is expected that the SEQ will adopt the following Agenda:
As provided in section 252(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(ii)), this meeting is open only to representatives of members of the IAB and their counsel, representatives of members of the SEQ, representatives of the Departments of Energy, Justice, and State, the Federal Trade Commission, the General Accounting Office, Committees of Congress, the IEA, and the European Commission, and invitees of the IAB, the SEQ, or the IEA.
Take notice that on September 5, 2000, Algonquin Gas Transmission Company (Algonquin) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets to become effective as indicated:
Algonquin states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the requirements of Order Nos. 637, 637-A and 637-B regarding the waiver of the rate ceiling for short-term capacity release transactions and the prospective limitations on the availability of the Right-of-First-Refusal.
Algonquin states that copies of the filing were mailed to all affected customers and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, 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 31, 2000, Colorado Interstate Gas Company (CIG), tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, Sixteenth Revised Sheet No. 10, to be effective October 1, 2000.
CIG states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, Article 20.1 of the General Terms and Conditions. CIG states these tariff sheets reflect the requirements of its FERC Gas Tariff, Article 20.1 and relates to gas quality controls associated with volumes which are delivered on CIG's “Valley Line”.
CIG states that copies of the filing have been mailed to all affected customers and state regulatory commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 first Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 of 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 31, 2000, Colorado Interstate Gas Company (CIG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, Eighteenth Revised Sheet No. 11A, with an effective date of October 1, 2000.
CIG states that filing tariff sheets is reflecting an increase in its fuel reimbursement percentage for Lost, Unaccounted-For and Other Fuel Gas from 0.70% to 0.71%, reflecting an increase in the fuel reimbursement percentage for Transportation Fuel Gas from 2.47% to 2.59%, and reflecting an decrease in the fuel reimbursement percentage for Storage Fuel Gas from 1.32% to 1.31% effective October 1, 2000.
CIG states that copies of this filing have been served on CIG's jurisdictional customers and public bodies, and that the filing is available for public inspection at CIG's offices in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 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 also 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 31, 2000, Crossroads Pipeline Company (Crossroads) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, original Volume No. 1 the following revised tariff sheets to be effective March 27, 2000:
Crossroads indicated that the purpose of the filing is to correct a typographical error in one of the revised tariff sheets filed by Crossroads on August 21, 2000 to comply with the requirements of Order Nos. 637 and 637-A with respect to the revised rules governing capacity releases.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 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 he 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 31, 2000, Dauphin Island Gathering Partners (DIGP) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with an effective date of October 1, 2000:
DIGP states that the filing is being made pursuant to Section 154.402(c) of the Commission's Regulations pursuant to FERC Order No. 472 in Docket No. RM87-3-000. DIGP states that this is its first ACA charge filing, and that it has revised Sheet Nos. 6, 7 and 250 to reflect the ACA unit charge of $0.0022 per Dekatherm as specified by the Commission.
DIGP states that copies of the filing are being served on its customers and other interested parties.
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
Take notice that on September 5, 2000, East Tennessee Natural Gas Company (East Tennessee) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets to become effective as indicated:
East Tennessee states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the requirements of Order No. 637 regarding the waiver of the rate ceiling for short-term capacity release transactions and the prospective limitations on the availability of the Right-of-First-Refusal.
East Tennessee states that copies of the filing were mailed to all affected customers and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 384.214 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 maybe viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Take notice that on September 5, 2000, Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company (Eastern Shore) tendered for filing a refund report for the period April 1, 1999 through March 31, 2000 in accordance with Sections 31 and 35 of the General Terms and Conditions of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1.
Eastern Shore states that copies of this filing have been served upon Eastern Shore's customers and state commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or before September 14, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of 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 31, 2000, El Paso Natural Gas Company (El Paso) tendered for filing its Report of Rate Refunds and Fuel Adjustments at Docket No. RP95-363-002,
El Paso states that the Report of Rate Refunds and Fuel Adjustments reflects that on August 1, 2000, El Paso distributed refunds totaling $3,584,943.81, inclusive of interest, to eligible shippers. The Report also reflects that on August 11, 2000, El Paso made adjustments to shippers' imbalance accounts for fuel charges assessed, as applicable, to reflect revised fuel charges for the period July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000. The adjustments totaled 247,744 MMBtu owed to shippers.
El Paso states that copies of the document were served upon all affected customers and state regulatory commissions.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on or before September 14, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://
Take notice that on August 31, 2000, Florida Gas Transmission Company (FGT) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective October 1, 2000:
FGT states that the tariff sheets listed above are being filed pursuant to Section 27 of the General Terms and Conditions (GTC) of FGT's Tariff which provides for the recovery by FGT of gas used in the operation of its system and gas lost from the system or otherwise unaccounted for. The fuel reimbursement charges pursuant to Section 27 consist of the Fuel Reimbursement Charge Percentage (FRCP), designed to recover current fuel usage on an in-kind basis, and the Unit Fuel Surcharge (UFS), designed to recover or refund previous under or overcollections on a cash basis. Both the FRCP and the UFS are applicable to Market Area deliveries and are effective for seasonal periods, changing effective each April 1 (for the Summer Period) and each October 1 (for the Winter Period).
FGT states that it is filing herein to establish an FRCP of 3.14% to become effective October 1, 2000 based on the actual company fuel use, lost and unaccounted for volumes and Market Area deliveries for the period from October 1, 1999 through March 31, 2000. The proposed FRCP of 3.14%, to become effective October 1, 2000, is an increase of 0.15% from the currently effective FRCP of 2.99%. FGT is also filing herein to establish a Winter Period UFS of $0.0071 per MMBtu to become effective October 1, 2000, an increase of $0.0052 per MMBtu from the currently effective UFS of $0.0019.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 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 September 1, 2000, Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. (Iroquois) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets with the proposed effective date of September 1, 2000.
Iroquois makes the instant tariff filing to implement the directives of Order Nos. 637 and 637-A regarding the lifting of the rate ceiling for short-term capacity release transactions and certain reporting requirements.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Take notice that on August 31, 2000, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company (Panhandle) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing, to become effective October 1, 2000.
Panhandle states that this filing is to remove from it's currently effective rates the Carryover Docket No. RP96-260-000 Settlement Volumetric Surcharge applicable to transportation service provided under Rate Schedules IT and EIT. The Carryover Docket No. RP96-260-000 Settlement Volumetric Surcharge, which was established in Docket No. RP99-497-000, was approved by Commission letter order issued September 30, 1999. In accordance with the Commission's letter order issued September 30, 1999, the Carryover Docket No. RP96-260-000 Settlement Volumetric Surcharge will terminate on September 30, 2000.
Panhandle states that copies of this filing are being served on all affected customers and applicable state regulatory agencies.
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 of 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 30, 2000, PG&E Gas Transmission, Northwest Corporation (PG&E GTN) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1-A, the following tariff sheets, with an effective date of September 1, 2000:
PG&E GTN states that these sheets were filed with the Commission on March 1, 2000, and accepted and suspended by the Commission for 5 months by order of March 31, 2000 (90 FERC ¶ 61,349 (2000).
PG&E GTN further states that a copy of this filing has been served on the parties to this proceeding as well as PG&E GTN's jurisdictional customers and interested state regulatory agencies.
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 31, 2000, Questar Pipeline Company (Questar) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, the following tariff sheets, with an effective date of October 1, 2000:
Questar states that this filing incorporates into its storage and transportation rates the annual charge adjustment (ACA) unit rate of $0.00219 per Dth.
Questar states that this filing were served upon Questar's customers, the Public Service Commission of Utah and the Public Service Commission of Wyoming.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Take notice that on September 1, 2000, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E), tendered for filing an Application in the above-referenced proceeding requesting that the Commission extend the authorization previously granted to RG&E), to makes sales to an affiliate in conjunction with the Retail Access Program and the Retail Access Pilot Program. RG&E also requests expedited treatment of its Application so that the Commission may issue an order by September 14, 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, 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 11, 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
Take notice that on August 31, 2000, Southern Natural Gas Company (Southern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective March 27, 2000:
Southern states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the Commission's letter order dated August 21, 2000 in the above-referenced docket. Such letter order generally approved Southern's tariff filing made in compliance with Order No. 637 to remove the price cap provisions applicable to short-term releases under its capacity release provisions of the General Terms and Conditions of its Tariff. Such letter order required Southern to make a compliance filing (i) to reflect properly the term of the price cap waiver; (ii) to revise its tariff to provide that the price cap waiver applies to releases of less than one year; and (iii) to revise its tariff to specify that releases of one year or more at the maximum rate and term are eligible as nonposted, prearranged releases.
Southern states that copies of the filing will be served upon its shippers and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed 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 September 5, 2000, Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation (Texas Eastern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets to become effective as indicated:
Texas Eastern states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the requirements of Order No. 637 regarding the waiver of the rate ceiling for short-term capacity release transactions and the prospective limitations on the availability of the Right-of-First-Refusal.
Texas Eastern states that copies of the filing were mailed to all affected customers and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance.)
Take notice that on September 1, 2000, Venice Gathering system, L.L.C. (VGS), submitted a
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 on or before October 2, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/
Take notice that the following filings have been made with the Commission:
Take notice that on August 28, 2000, Edison Sault Electric Company filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the Application of Edison Sault Electric Company for Authorization to Transfer Jurisdictional Transmission Assets Pursuant to Section 203 of the Federal Power Act.
Take notice that on August 30, 2000, the City of Vernon, California (Vernon) submitted a Petition for a Declaratory Order determining that Vernon's proffered Transmission Revenue Requirement (TRR) is appropriate under the California Independent System Operator Corporation's FERC Electric Tariff for purposes of Vernon's becoming a participating transmission owner.
Take notice that on September 1, 2000, Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation (AECC) tendered for filing a Complaint against Entergy Services, Inc., (ESI).
In its Complaint, AECC alleges that ESI's annual informational filing submitted in Docket No. ER00-2415-000 pursuant to a partial settlement in Docket No. ER98-112-000 containing ESI's 2000 rate redetermination update (2000 Update) for its OATT is incomplete. Consequently, pursuant to the terms of the partial settlement in Docket No. ER98-112-000, AECC requests that the Commission not allow ESI's 2000 Update to be considered final and not subject to refund until at least 120 days after ESI submits the data necessary to accurately complete its 2000 Update.
Take notice that on August 30, 2000, the Members of the Transmission Owners Committee of the Energy Association of New York State, formerly known as the Member Systems of the New York Power Pool (Member Systems), tendered for filing certain revised tariff sheets to their NYISO Open Access Transmission Tariff and NYISO Services Tariff. These tariff sheets are submitted in compliance with the Commission's July 31, 2000 order in this proceeding. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp., et al., 92 FERC ¶61,128 (2000).
The Member Systems request that the above-referenced tariff sheets become effective on September 1, 2000.
A copy of this filing was served upon all persons on the Commission's official service list(s) in the captioned proceeding(s), and the respective electric utility regulatory agencies in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Take notice that on August 30, 2000, Kansas Gas & Electric Company (KGE), tendered for filing a change in its Federal Power Commission Electric Service Tariff No. 93. KGE states that the change is to reflect the amount of transmission capacity requirements required by Western Resources, Inc. (WR) under Service Schedule M to FPC Rate Schedule No. 93 for the period from June 1, 2000 through May 31, 2001.
KGE requests an effective date of June 1, 2000.
Notice of the filing has been served upon the Kansas Corporation Commission.
Take notice that on August 30, 2000, PacifiCorp, tendered for filing in accordance with 18 CFR 35 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, Long-term Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreements with the Idaho Power Company (Idaho) under PacifiCorp's FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 11 (Tariff).
Copies of this filing were supplied to the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission and the Public Utility Commission of Oregon.
Take notice that on August 30, 2000, Entergy Services, Inc. (Entergy Services), acting as agent for Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans, Inc., tendered for filing notice of cancellation of the Non-firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service Agreement, dated February 1, 1997, between Entergy Services and Sonat Power Marketing, L.P. (now known as El Paso Merchant Energy L.P.).
Take notice that on August 30, 2000, Pennsylvania Electric Company (Penelec) (doing business as GPU Energy), tendered for filing a Notice of Cancellation of the following service agreements:
Penelec requests that cancellation be effective the June 1, 1999.
Take notice that on August 30, 2000, Consumers Energy Company (Consumers), tendered for filing a revision to the annual charges due Consumers from Northern Indiana Public Service Company (Northern), under the terms of the Barton Lake-Batavia Interconnection Facilities Agreement (designated Consumers Energy Company Electric Rate Schedule FERC No. 44).
The revised charges are provided for in Subsection 1.043 of the Agreement, which provides that the annual charges may be redetermined effective May 1 of each year. As a result of the redetermination, the monthly charges to be paid by Northern were increased from $14,923 to $16,099.
Consumers requests an effective date of May 1, 2000, and therefore requests waiver of the Commission's notice requirements.
Copies of the filing were served upon Northern, the Michigan Public Service Commission and the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.
Take notice that on August 30, 2000, WPS Resources Operating Companies (WPS), tendered for filing executed service agreements with Manitowoc Public Utilities (Manitowoc) and Consolidated Water Power Company (CWP) for ancillary services under WPS's open access transmission tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Volume No. 1.
Copies of the filing were served upon Manitowoc, CWP, the Michigan Public Service Commission and the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin.
Take notice that on August 30, 2000, Arizona Public Service Company (APS), tendered for filing Service Agreements to provide Long-Term Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service to Panda Gila River, L.P. under APS' Open Access Transmission Tariff.
A copy of this filing has been served Panda Gila River, L.P. and the Arizona Corporation Commission.
Take notice that on August 30, 2000, Calpine Energy Services, L.P. (CES), tendered for filing under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act, a request for authorization to sell electricity at market-based rates under the market-based tariff that will be transferred to CES by its affiliate, Calpine Power Services Company, as part of an intra-corporate Reorganization.
Take Notice that on August 29, 2000, Midwest Energy, Inc. (Midwest), tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the Service Agreement for Market-Based Sales Service entered into between Midwest and The British Columbia Power Exchange Corporation.
Midwest states that it is serving copies of the instant filing to its customers, State Commissions and other interested parties.
Take notice that on August 29, 2000, Midwest Energy, Inc. (Midwest), tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the Service Agreement for Market-Based Sales Service entered into between Midwest and Western Area Power Administration.
Midwest states that it is serving copies of the instant filing to its customers, State Commissions and other interested parties.
Take notice that on August 30, 2000, Central Vermont Public Service Corporation tendered for filing executed versions of its Network Integration Service Agreement and Network Operating Agreement with the Village of Ludlow Electric Light Department (Ludlow) and the Village of Hyde Park Water and Light Department (Hyde Park) under FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 7. These agreements were previously accepted by the Commission in unexecuted form in Docket No. ER00-1317-000.
Copies of the filing were served upon Ludlow, Hyde Park and the Vermont Public Service Board.
E. Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of these filings are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition
Comments, identified by docket control number PF-971, must be received on or before October 13, 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: Ann Sibold, Registration Support Branch, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305-6502; e-mail address: sibold.ann@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-971 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 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 (PP 6F4716) from BASF Agro Research, P.O. Box 400, Princeton, NJ 08543-0400 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a tolerance for residues of 4-bromo-2-(4-chlorophenyl)-1-(ethoxymethyl)-5-(trifluoromethyl)-1-pyrrole-3-carbonitrile (chlorfenapyr) in or on the raw agricultural commodity (RAC) (fruiting vegetables grown under greenhouse conditions) at (1.5 parts per million (ppm)). EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
1.
2.
3.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
2.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
3.
i.
ii.
iii.
4.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
5.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
6.
7.
8.
1.
i.
ii.
2.
The pyrrole insecticides represent a new class of chemistry with a unique mechanism of action. The parent molecule, AC 303,630 is a pro-insecticide which is converted to the active form, CL 303,268, via rapid metabolism by mixed function oxidases (MFOs). The active form uncouples oxidative phosphorylation in the insect mitochondria by disrupting the proton gradient across the mitochondrial membrane. The production of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) is inhibited resulting in the cessation of all cellular functions. Because of this unique mechanism of action, it is highly unlikely that toxic effects produced by chlorfenapyr would be cumulative with those of any other pesticide chemical.
In mammals, there is a lower titer of MFOs, and chlorfenapyr is metabolized by different pathways (including dehalogenation, oxidation and ring hydroxylation) to other polar metabolites without any significant accumulation of the potent uncoupler, CL 303,268. In the rat, approximately 85% of the administered dose is excreted in the feces within 48 hours, thereby reducing the levels of AC 303,630 and CL 303,268 that are capable of reaching the mitochondria. This differential metabolism of AC 303,630 to CL 303,268 in insects versus to other polar metabolites in mammals is responsible for the selective insect toxicity of the pyrroles.
1.
2.
Section 408 (b)(4) of the amended FFDCA requires EPA to determine whether a maximum residue level has been established for the pesticide chemical by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
There is neither a Codex proposal, nor Canadian or Mexican tolerances/limits for residues of chlorfenapyr in/on fruiting vegetables. Therefore, a
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-973, must be received on or before October 13, 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: Vera Soltero, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-9359; e-mail address: soltero.vera@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-973 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 (PP 5E4430) from Wacker Silicones Corporation, 3301 Sutton Road, Adrian, Michigan 49221-9397 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.1001(c) to amend the existing exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for dimethylpolysiloxane in or on the raw agricultural commodities when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations which were applied to the growing crop and/or after harvest. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
The Agency has established a set of criteria which identifies categories of polymers that present low risk. These criteria (described in 40 CFR 723.250) identify polymers that are relatively unreactive and stable compounds compared to other chemical substances as well as polymers that typically are not readily absorbed. These properties generally limit polymer's ability to cause adverse effects. The Agency believes that polymers meeting the criteria noted above will present minimal or no risk. Dimethylpolysiloxane conforms to the definition of polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to identify low risk polymers.
1. Dimethylpolysiloxane is not a cationic polymer, nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in the natural aquatic environment.
2. Dimethylpolysiloxane contains as an integral part of its composition the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and silicon.
3. Dimethylpolysiloxane does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250 (d)(2)(ii).
4. Dimethylpolysiloxane is not reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose or depolymerize.
5. Dimethylpolysiloxane is not manufactured or imported from monomers and/or other reactants that are not already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
6. Dimethylpolysiloxane is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight greater than or equal to 10,0000 daltons.
7. Dimethylpolysiloxane has a molecular weight ranging from 10,148 daltons to 61,380 daltons. Dimethylpolysiloxane meets the requirements for molecular weight distribution of oligomer contents of less than 5%% with molecular weights less than 1,000 and less than 2% with molecular weights less than 500.
1.
i.
ii.
2.
There are no data to support cumulative risk from dimethylpolysiloxane since polymers with molecular weights greater than 400 generally are not absorbed through the intact skin and substances with molecular weights greater than 1,000 generally are not absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract (GI). Chemical not absorbed through the skin or GI tract generally are incapable of eliciting a toxic response. Therefore, there is no reasonable expectation of risk due to cumulative exposure.
1.
2.
There are no CODEX Maximum Residue Limits established for dimethylpolysiloxane in/on any crop commodities at this time.
Farm Credit Administration.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of the forthcoming regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board).
The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on September 14, 2000, from 9:00 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business.
Kelly Mikel Williams, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4009, TDD (703) 883-4444.
Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090.
Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts of this meeting will be closed to the public. In order to increase the accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in advance. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Written comments should be submitted on or before October 13, 2000. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all comments to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554 or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov.
For additional information or copies of the information collection(s), contact Judy Boley at 202-418-0214 or via the Internet at jboley@fcc.gov.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
On August 23, 2000, the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (“CTIA”) filed a petition to immediately suspend the September 30, 2001 compliance date for implementation of certain assistance capabilities under the Communications
Rodney Small, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2452.
This is a summary of the text of the Public Notice, DA 2022, released September 1, 2000. The document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC, and also may be purchased from the Commission's duplication contractor, International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW. Washington, DC 20036.
1. On August 23, 2000, the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (“CTIA”) filed a petition to immediately suspend the September 30, 2001 compliance date for implementation of certain assistance capabilities under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (“CALEA”). CTIA states that in view of the August 15, 2000 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“Court”) to vacate and remand portions of the Commission's
2. We hereby solicit comment on the CTIA Petition, and establish the comment date as September 15, 2000. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. To file formally, parties must file an original and four copies. If parties want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of their comments, they must file an original plus nine copies. Parties should send comments to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Parties are also encouraged to file a copy of all pleadings on a 3.5-inch diskette in Word 97 format.
3. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs,html. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To obtain filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message: “get form <your e-mail address.” A sample form and directions will be sent in reply.
4. The full text of the CTIA Petition is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW, 20036, telephone 202-857-3800, facsimile 202-857-3805, TTY 202-293-8810. You may also view this document by accessing the ECFS at:
5. This matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
6. This action is taken pursuant to authority found in Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and 303(r); and pursuant to Sections 0.31 and 0.241 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 0.31 and 0.241.
7. For further information on the CTIA Petition, contact Rodney Small, Office of Engineering and Technology, 202-418-2452 <rsmall@fcc.gov>.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
This document reschedules the next auction (Auction No. 35) of C and F block broadband Personal Communications Service (“PCS”) licenses for December 12, 2000 and seeks comment on upfront payments, reserve prices or minimum opening bids, and other auction procedural issues for this auction.
Comments are due on or before September 18, 2000, and reply comments are due on or before September 25, 2000.
An original and four copies of all pleadings must be filed with the Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW, TW-A325, Washington, DC 20054, in accordance with § 1.51(c) of the Commission's rules.
Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Craig Bomberger, Auctions Analyst, or Audrey Bashkin, Attorney, at (202) 418-0660; or Lisa Stover, Project Manager, at (717) 338-2888.
This is a summary of a Public Notice released September 6, 2000. The complete text of the Public Notice, including Attachment A the revised list of licenses available, is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. It may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc. (ITS, Inc.) 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800. It is also available on the Commission's web site at
1. By the Public Notice, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (“Bureau”) reschedules the next auction (Auction No. 35) of C and F block broadband Personal Communications Service (“PCS”) licenses for December 12, 2000, provides a revised list of licenses available in Auction No. 35, and seeks comment on upfront payments, reserve prices or minimum opening bids, and other auction procedural issues for Auction No. 35.
2. The Communications Act of 1934 as amended by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33, requires the Commission to “ensure that, in the scheduling of any competitive bidding under this subsection, an adequate period is allowed * * * before issuance of bidding rules, to permit notice and comment on proposed auction procedures * * *.” Consistent with the provisions of the Balanced Budget Act, and to ensure that potential bidders have adequate time to familiarize themselves with the specific rules that will govern the day-to-day conduct of an auction, the Commission directed the Bureau, under its existing delegated authority, to seek comment on a variety of auction-specific procedures prior to the start of each auction.
3. In January 2000, the Bureau announced that the next C and F block auction was scheduled to begin on July 26, 2000, and provided a preliminary list of licenses for auction, including 30 MHz and 15 MHz C block licenses, as well as F block licenses (all 10 MHz each), for operation on frequencies for which previous licenses had automatically cancelled or had been returned to the Commission. On March 3, 2000, the Bureau released Auction No. 35 Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd. 4702, seeking comment on reserve prices, minimum opening bids and other auction procedural issues for the next C and F block auction, Auction No. 35.
4. After release of the C and F Block Broadband PCS Spectrum Auction Scheduled for July 26, 2000, Public Notice, (
5. On August 14, 2000, the Commission released the
6. On August 29, 2000, the Commission released the
7. The following table contains the Block/Eligibility Status/Frequency Cross Reference List for Auction No. 35:
8. In addition to the license reconfiguration, the revised license inventory reflects additional licenses, not included in the
9. In order to provide additional time between the effective date of the new rules and the auction application deadline, Auction No. 35 has been rescheduled for December 12, 2000. Because the
The critical dates and deadlines for Auction No. 35 are as follows:
10.
11. As is the case with many business investment opportunities, some unscrupulous entrepreneurs may attempt to use Auction No. 35 to deceive and defraud unsuspecting investors. Common warning signals of fraud include the following:
• The first contact is a “cold call” from a telemarketer, or is made in response to an inquiry prompted by a radio or television infomercial.
• The offering materials used to invest in the venture appear to be targeted at IRA funds, for example, by including all documents and papers needed for the transfer of funds maintained in IRA accounts.
• The amount of investment is less than $25,000.
• The sales representative makes verbal representations that: (a) the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), FCC, or other government agency has approved the investment; (b) the investment is not subject to state or federal securities laws; or (c) the investment will yield unrealistically high short-term profits. In addition, the offering materials often include copies of actual FCC releases, or quotes from FCC personnel, giving the appearance of FCC knowledge or approval of the solicitation.
12. Information about deceptive telemarketing investment schemes is available from the FTC at (202) 326-2222 and from the SEC at (202) 942-7040. Complaints about specific deceptive telemarketing investment schemes should be directed to the FTC, the SEC, or the National Fraud Information Center at (800) 876-7060. Consumers who have concerns about specific proposals regarding Auction No. 35 may also call the FCC National Call Center at (888) CALL-FCC or (888) 225-5322.
13.
14. Potential bidders and interested parties should be aware that various proceedings that may relate to the licenses available in Auction No. 35 may be pending or subject to further administrative review before the Commission, including, for example, waiver requests, petitions for reconsideration, and applications for review. In addition, certain judicial proceedings that may relate to the licenses available in Auction No. 35 are pending or may be subject to further review. Resolution of these matters could have an effect on the availability of spectrum included in Auction No. 35 and the auction is subject to such matters. Some of these matters (whether before the Commission or the courts) may not be resolved by the time of the
15. Additionally, potential bidders may obtain some information about licenses available in Auction No. 35 through the Bureau's licensing databases on the World Wide Web at <
16. Further, potential bidders are strongly encouraged to physically inspect any sites located in, or near, the geographic area for which they plan to bid.
17. Finally, potential bidders are strongly encouraged to make periodic, and continuing, inquiries to the Office of the Secretary and other available sources regarding any proceedings that are, or may be, pending with respect to the licenses available in Auction No. 35.
18. As noted, potential bidders should be aware that certain of the licenses included in Auction No. 35 are or may become the subject of Commission or judicial proceedings initiated by parties claiming to have continuing interests in the licenses, despite their failure to meet payment obligations. The Public Notice clarifies that the Commission will return the payments made by winning bidders of licenses in Auction No. 35 in the event that such bidders are subsequently required to surrender licenses won to prior applicants or license holders as a result of final determinations reached in pending proceedings. The Commission, however, will not pay interest on the returned payments as it lacks legal authority to do so.
19. Including contested licenses in the auction helps to fulfill the Commission's statutory mandate to hasten the development and deployment of new technologies and services and to promote competition for the benefit of the public. Returning payments to winning bidders if licenses won are later determined to be unavailable due to subsequent resolution of other proceedings furthers these vital public interest goals by reducing uncertainty in the licensing process and encouraging auction participants to bid on licenses regardless of whether they are subject to pending proceedings. Retaining payments under the circumstances could have a chilling effect on participation in Auction No. 35 and would therefore undermine our efforts to encourage more efficient use of the spectrum. We note that winning bidders of licenses subject to pending proceedings are still required to meet the normal payment and construction schedules established by the Commission.
20. The Commission proposes to conduct the competitive bidding for these licenses by using a single, simultaneous multiple-round auction. As described further, this methodology offers every license for bid at the same time, with successive bidding rounds in which bidders may place bids. We seek comment on this proposal.
21. The Bureau has delegated authority and discretion to determine an appropriate upfront payment for each license being auctioned, taking into account such factors as the population in each geographic license area, and the value of similar spectrum. As described further, the upfront payment is a refundable deposit made by each bidder to establish eligibility to bid on licenses. The proposed upfront payment formulae take into account information gained from previous auctions of broadband PCS C and F block licenses. Also, as required by the
22. We proposed and sought comment on upfront payments in the
23. For Auction No. 35, we further propose that the amount of the upfront payment submitted by a bidder will determine the initial maximum eligibility (as measured in bidding units) for each bidder. Upfront payments will not be attributed to specific licenses, but instead will be translated into bidding units to define a bidder's initial maximum eligibility, which cannot be increased during the auction. Thus, in calculating the upfront payment amount, an applicant must determine the
24. In order to ensure that the auction closes within a reasonable period of time, an activity rule requires bidders to bid actively on a percentage of their maximum bidding eligibility during each round of the auction rather than waiting until the end to participate. A bidder that does not satisfy the activity rule will either lose bidding eligibility in the next round or use an activity rule waiver, if any remain.
25. We propose to divide the auction into three stages: Stage One, Stage Two, and Stage Three—each characterized by an increased activity requirement. The auction will start in Stage One. We propose that the auction will generally advance to the next stage (
26. For Auction No. 35, we propose the following activity requirements:
We seek comment on these proposals. If commenters believe that these activity rules should be changed, they should explain their reasoning and comment on the desirability of an alternative approach. Commenters are advised to support their claims with analyses and suggested alternative activity rules.
27. Use of an activity rule waiver preserves the bidder's current bidding eligibility despite the bidder's activity in the current round being below the required minimum level. An activity rule waiver applies to an entire round of bidding and not to a particular license. Activity rule waivers are principally a mechanism for auction participants to avoid the loss of auction eligibility in the event that exigent circumstances prevent them from placing a bid in a particular round.
28. The FCC auction system assumes that bidders with insufficient activity would prefer to use an activity rule waiver (if available) rather than lose bidding eligibility. Therefore, the system will automatically apply a waiver (known as an “automatic waiver”) at the end of any bidding period where a bidder's activity level is below the minimum required unless: (1) There are no activity rule waivers available; or (2) the bidder overrides the automatic application of a waiver by reducing eligibility, thereby meeting the minimum requirements.
29. A bidder with insufficient activity may wish to reduce its bidding eligibility rather than use an activity rule waiver. If so, the bidder must affirmatively override the automatic waiver mechanism during the bidding period by using the reduce eligibility function in the software. In this case, the bidder's eligibility is permanently reduced to bring the bidder into compliance with the activity rules. Once eligibility has been reduced, a bidder will not be permitted to regain its lost bidding eligibility.
30. A bidder may proactively use an activity rule waiver as a means to keep the auction open without placing a bid. If a bidder submits a proactive waiver (using the proactive waiver function in the bidding software) during a bidding period in which no bids or withdrawals are submitted, the auction will remain open and the bidder's eligibility will be preserved. An automatic waiver invoked in a round in which there are no new valid bids or withdrawals will not keep the auction open.
31. We propose that each bidder in Auction No. 35 be provided with five activity rule waivers that may be used at the bidder's discretion during the course of the auction. We seek comment on this proposal.
32. For Auction No. 35, we propose that, by public notice or by announcement during the auction, the Bureau may delay, suspend or cancel the auction in the event of natural disaster, technical obstacle, evidence of an auction security breach, unlawful bidding activity, administrative or weather necessity, or for any other reason that affects the fair and competitive conduct of competitive bidding. In such cases, the Bureau, in its sole discretion, may elect to resume the auction starting from the beginning of the current round, resume the auction starting from some previous round, or cancel the auction in its entirety. Network interruption may cause the Bureau to delay or suspend the auction. We emphasize that exercise of this authority is solely within the discretion of the Bureau, and its use is not intended to be a substitute for situations in which bidders may wish to apply their activity rule waivers. We seek comment on this proposal.
33. The Commission will use its Automated Auction System to conduct the electronic simultaneous multiple round auction format for Auction No. 35. The initial bidding schedule will be announced in a public notice to be released at least one week before the start of the auction, and will be included in the registration mailings. The auction format will consist of sequential bidding rounds, each followed by the release of round results. Details regarding the location and format of round results will be included in the same public notice.
34. The Bureau has discretion to change the bidding schedule in order to foster an auction pace that reasonably balances speed with the bidders' need to study round results and adjust their bidding strategies. The Bureau may increase or decrease the amount of time for the bidding rounds and review periods, or the number of rounds per day, depending upon the bidding activity level and other factors. We seek comment on this proposal.
35. The Balanced Budget Act calls upon the Commission to prescribe methods by which a reasonable reserve price will be required or a minimum opening bid established when FCC licenses are subject to auction (
36. Normally, a reserve price is an absolute minimum price below which an item will not be sold in a given auction. Reserve prices can be either
37. In light of the Balanced Budget Act, the Bureau proposes to establish minimum opening bids for Auction No. 35. The Bureau believes a minimum opening bid, which has been utilized in other auctions, is an effective bidding tool. A minimum opening bid, rather than a reserve price, will help to regulate the pace of the auction and provides flexibility.
38. Because both the C and F spectrum blocks are being auctioned at the same time, under the same general conditions, the Commission believes that it is appropriate to use a common baseline to establish the minimum opening bid formulae for all of the licenses in the auction. The net high bids from prior C block auctions provide the most comprehensive broadband PCS baseline. We, therefore, propose to base the minimum opening bids for each license available in Auction No. 35, including F block licenses, on the most recent net high bid for the C block license in the same BTA.
39. We proposed and sought comment on minimum opening bids in the Auction No. 35 Public Notice. In light of the comments received in response and the rules adopted in the
40. The specific minimum opening bid for each license available in Auction No. 35 is set forth in Attachment A of the complete Public Notice. We believe these minimum opening bids best meet the objectives of our auction authority in establishing reasonable minimum opening bids. The Commission believes these minimum opening bids will speed the course of the auction and ensure that valuable assets are not sold for nominal prices without unduly interfering with the efficient assignment of licenses. Minimum opening bids are reducible at the discretion of the Bureau. This discretion will allow the Bureau flexibility to adjust the minimum opening bids if circumstances warrant. We emphasize, however, that such discretion will be exercised, if at all, sparingly and early in the auction,
41. If commenters believe that these minimum opening bids will result in substantial numbers of unsold licenses, or is not a reasonable amount, or should instead operate as a reserve price, they should explain why this is so and comment on the desirability of an alternative approach. Commenters are advised to support their claims with valuation analyses and suggested reserve prices or minimum opening bid levels or formulas. In establishing the minimum opening bids, we particularly seek comment on such factors as, among other things, the amount of spectrum being auctioned, levels of incumbency, the availability of technology to provide service, the size of the geographic service areas, issues of interference with other spectrum bands and any other relevant factors that could reasonably have an impact on valuation of C and F block licenses. Alternatively, comment is sought on whether, consistent with the Balanced Budget Act, the public interest would be served by having no minimum opening bid or reserve price.
42. Once there is a standing high bid on a license, a bid increment will be applied to that license to establish a minimum acceptable bid for the following round. For Auction No. 35, we propose to use a smoothing methodology to calculate bid increments, as we have done in several other auctions. The Bureau retains the discretion to change the minimum bid increment if it determines that circumstances so dictate. The Bureau will do so by announcement in the Automated Auction System. We seek comment on these proposals.
43. The exponential smoothing formula calculates the bid increment for each license based on a weighted average of the activity received on each license in all previous rounds. This methodology will tailor the bid increment for each license based on activity, rather than setting a global increment for all licenses. For every license that receives a bid, the bid increment for the next round for that license will be established using the exponential smoothing formula.
44. The calculation of the percentage bid increment for each license in a given round is made at the end of the previous round. The computation is based on an activity index, which is calculated as the weighted average of the activity in that round and the activity index from the prior round. The activity index at the start of the auction (round 0) will be set at 0. The current activity index is equal to a weighting factor times the number of new bids received on the license in the most recent bidding round plus one minus the weighting factor times the activity index from the prior round. The activity index is then used to calculate a percentage increment by multiplying a minimum percentage increment by one plus the activity index with that result being subject to a maximum percentage increment. The Commission will initially set the weighting factor at 0.5, the minimum percentage increment at 0.1 (10%), and the maximum percentage increment at 0.2 (20%).
i. Calculation of percentage increment for round 2 using exponential smoothing:
ii. Minimum bid increment for round 2 using the percentage increment (I
iii. Minimum acceptable bid for round 2 = $1,200,000
i. Calculation of percentage increment for round 3 using exponential smoothing:
ii. Minimum bid increment for round 3 using the percentage increment (I
iii. Minimum acceptable bid for round 3 = $2,400,000
i. Calculation of percentage increment for round 4 using exponential smoothing:
ii. Minimum bid increment for round 4 using the percentage increment (I
iii. Minimum acceptable bid for round 4 = $2,880,000
45. For Auction No. 35, we propose the following bid removal and bid withdrawal procedures. Before the close of a bidding period, a bidder has the option of removing any bids placed in that round. By using the remove bid function in the software, a bidder may effectively “unsubmit” any bid placed within that round. A bidder removing a bid placed in the same round is not subject to withdrawal payments, but will affect a bidder's activity for the round in which it is removed.
46. Once a round closes, a bidder may no longer remove a bid. However, in the next round, a bidder may withdraw standing high bids from previous rounds using the withdraw bid function. A high bidder that withdraws its standing high bid from a previous round is subject to the bid withdrawal payment provisions. We seek comment on these bid removal and bid withdrawal procedures.
47. In the
48. Applying this reasoning, we propose to limit each bidder in Auction No. 35 to withdraw standing high bids in no more than two rounds during the course of the auction. To permit a bidder to withdraw bids in more than two rounds would likely encourage insincere bidding or the use of withdrawals for anti-competitive strategic purposes. The two rounds in which withdrawals are utilized will be at the bidder's discretion; withdrawals otherwise must be in accordance with the Commission's rules. There is no limit on the number of standing high bids that may be withdrawn in either of the rounds in which withdrawals are utilized. Withdrawals will remain subject to the bid withdrawal payment provisions specified in the Commission's rules. We seek comment on this proposal.
49. For Auction No. 35, the Bureau proposes to employ a simultaneous stopping rule approach. The Bureau has discretion “to establish stopping rules before or during multiple round auctions in order to terminate the auction within a reasonable time.” A simultaneous stopping rule means that all licenses remain open until the first round in which no new acceptable bids, proactive waivers or withdrawals are received. After the first such round, bidding closes simultaneously on all licenses. Thus, unless circumstances dictate otherwise, bidding would remain open on all licenses until bidding stops on every license.
50. The Bureau seeks comment on a modified version of the simultaneous stopping rule. The modified stopping rule would close the auction for all licenses after the first round in which no bidder submits a proactive waiver, a withdrawal, or a new bid on any license on which it is not the standing high bidder. Thus, absent any other bidding activity, a bidder placing a new bid on a license for which it is the standing high bidder would not keep the auction open under this modified stopping rule.
51. The Bureau proposes to retain the discretion to keep an auction open even if no new acceptable bids or proactive waivers are submitted and no previous high bids are withdrawn. In this event, the effect will be the same as if a bidder had submitted a proactive waiver. The activity rule, therefore, will apply as usual, and a bidder with insufficient activity will either lose bidding eligibility or use a remaining activity rule waiver.
52. Finally, we propose that the Bureau reserve the right to declare that the auction will end after a specified number of additional rounds (“special stopping rule”). If the Bureau invokes this special stopping rule, it will accept bids in the final round(s) only for licenses on which the high bid increased in at least one of the preceding specified number of rounds. The Bureau proposes to exercise this option only in certain circumstances, such as, for example, where the auction is proceeding very slowly, there is minimal overall bidding activity, or it appears likely that the auction will not close within a reasonable period of time. Before exercising this option, the Bureau is likely to attempt to increase the pace of the auction by, for example, moving the auction into the next stage (where bidders would be required to maintain a higher level of bidding activity), increasing the number of bidding rounds per day, and/or increasing the amount of the minimum bid increments for the limited number of licenses where there is still a high level of bidding activity. We seek comment on these proposals.
Federal Election Commission
Tuesday September 19, 2000 at 10:00 a.m.
999 E Street, N.W., Washington, DC.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 437g. Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 437g, § 438(b) and Title 26, U.S.C. Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration. Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a particular employee.
Thursday September 21, 2000 at 10 a.m.
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC. (Ninth floor).
This meeting will be open to the public.
Correction and Approval of Minutes. Administrative Matters.
Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
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.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act, as per 5 CFR 1320.16, to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board under conditions set forth in 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the OMB 83-Is and supporting statements and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The following information collection, which is being handled under this delegated authority, has received initial Board approval and is hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collection, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments must be submitted on or before November 13, 2000.
Comments, which should refer to the OMB control number or agency form number, should be addressed to Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551, or mailed electronically to regs.comments@federalreserve.gov. Comments addressed to Ms. Johnson may be delivered to the Board's mail room between 8:45 a.m. and 5:15 p.m., and to the security control room outside of those hours. Both the mail room and the security control room are accessible from the courtyard entrance on 20th Street between Constitution Avenue and C Street, NW. Comments received may be inspected in room M-P-500 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., except as provided in section 261.14 of the Board's Rules Regarding Availability of Information, 12 CFR 261.14(a).
A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the Board: Alexander T. Hunt, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 3208, Washington, DC 20503.
A copy of the proposed form and instructions, the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission (OMB 83-I), supporting statement, and other documents that will be placed into OMB's public docket files once approved may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears below. Mary M. West, Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer (202-452-3829), Division of Research
1.
Small businesses are not affected.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than September 27, 2000.
A.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 6, 2000.
A.
1.
B.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 10, 2000.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 26, 2000.
A.
1.
The Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary will periodically publish summaries of proposed information collection projects and solicit public comments in compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. To request more information on the project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans and instruments, call the OS Reports Clearance Office on (202) 690-6207.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Send comments to Cynthia Agens Bauer, OS Reports Clearance Officer, Room 503H, Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20201. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice and request for comments.
CDC is soliciting proposals to add additional ports to or otherwise modify the list of those at which it will conduct rodent infestation inspection of ships and issue Deratting and Deratting Exemption Certificates. While the United States does not require these certificates for ships to enter its seaports, Article 17 of the International Health Regulations requires that the U.S. provide these services, and 42 CFR 71.46 authorizes their performance by CDC through the Public Health Service (PHS).
Written comments must be received on or before September 30, 2000.
James E. Barrow, Chief, Program Operations Branch, Division of Quarantine, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Mailstop E03, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, telephone (404) 639-8107, FAX (404) 639-2599, E-mail jeb1@cdc.gov.
42 U.S.C. 264-271, 42 CFR 71.46, IHR Articles 17 and 53.
The purpose of this announcement is to solicit comments on adding to or otherwise modifying the list of United States ports at which CDC will conduct rodent infestation inspections of ships and issue Deratting and Deratting Exemption Certificates. While the United States does not require these certificates for ships to enter its seaports, CDC currently provides rodent infestation inspections and issues Deratting and Deratting Exemption Certificates for ships at 11 major ports upon request. These ports include: Baltimore, MD; Honolulu, HI; Houston, TX; Jacksonville, FL; Los Angeles, CA; Miami, FL; New Orleans, LA; New York, NY; San Francisco, CA; Savannah, GA; and Seattle, WA., Article 17 of the International Health Regulations, published by the World Health Organization, Geneva, requires that each Health Administration provide these services, and Article 82 outlines the criteria for charging fees; 42 CFR 71.46 authorizes the performance of these services by PHS as carried out by CDC. For many years, CDC provided these services at no cost to the owners or agents of ships requesting them. Consistent with the practice of most foreign countries, and to reduce the cost of the inspection program, beginning on October 1, 1997, CDC consolidated its inspection activities to include only the ports listed above (
User fees will continue to be applicable to all rodent infestation inspections conducted by CDC or its vendors.
Proposal for the addition of ports for conducting rodent infestation inspections and issuing Deratting and Deratting Exemption Certificates.
Shipping companies, agents, and all other interested parties are invited to submit proposals for the addition of ports to the list at which rodent infestation inspections will be conducted by CDC or its vendors, and Deratting or Deratting Exemption Certificates issued pursuant to those inspections. Proposals to delete or modify ports on the current list may also be submitted and will be considered. Proposals should be in the following format and should include all supporting information that is to be considered by CDC:
1. Port.
2. Estimated annual number of inspections to be conducted at this port.
3. Estimated annual cost savings to shipping interests attributable to services at this port.
4. Narrative justification and additional supporting information.
Any addition to or modification of the list of ports at which services will be provided will be at the sole discretion of CDC. Information submitted will be considered, along with the availability and suitability of potential vendors at the ports proposed for addition or modification. The user fee charged for services at all ports may be affected by the cost of vendor-provided services at any added or modified ports.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection.
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), ACF, DHHS.
Notice of Fiscal Year 2001 Early Head Start availability of financial assistance for select areas and request for applications.
The Administration on Children, Youth and Families announces financial assistance to be competitively awarded to local public and local non-profit and for-profit private entities—including Early Head Start and Head Start grantees—to provide child and family development services for low-income families with children under age three and pregnant women. Early Head Start programs provide early, continuous, intensive and comprehensive child development and family support services on a year-round basis to low-income families. The purpose of the Early Head Start program is to enhance children's physical, social, emotional, and intellectual development; to support parents' efforts to fulfill their parental roles; and to help parents move toward self-sufficiency.
The funds available will be competitively awarded to eligible applicants to operate Early Head Start programs in select service areas.
Grants will be competitively awarded to eligible applicants, including current Head Start and Early Head Start grantees, to operate Early Head Start programs in geographic areas currently served by existing Early Head Start research grantees which were first funded in fiscal years 1995 and 1996 and other Early Head Start grantees first funded in fiscal year 1996 (see list below for the geographic areas). In awarding these grants, ACYF is interested in assuring that communities currently served by these existing grantees will have an opportunity to continue receiving services to low-income families with infants and toddlers and pregnant women through Early Head Start. Applicants in each geographic area will compete for funds against other applicants wishing to serve the same geographic area. There are 83 such competitive areas.
The closing date and time for receipt of applications is 5 p.m. EST on November 13, 2000.
Applications should be submitted to the ACYF Operations Center at: 1815 N. Fort Myer Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22209. However, prior to preparing and submitting an application, in order to satisfactorily compete under this announcement, it will be necessary for potential applicants to read the full announcement which is available through the addresses listed below.
A copy of the program announcement, necessary application forms, and appendices can be obtained by contacting: Early Head Start, ACYF Operations Center, 1815 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite 300 Arlington, Virginia 22209. The telephone number is 1-800-351-2293, or email to:
Copies of the program announcement and necessary application forms can be downloaded from the Head Start web site at:
ACYF Operations Center at: 1815 N. Fort Myer Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22209 or telephone: 1-800-351-2293 or email to:
Competing applications for financial assistance will be reviewed and evaluated on the six criteria which are summarized below. The point values following each criterion indicate the numerical weight each criterion will be accorded in the review process.
The extent to which, based on community assessment information, the applicant identifies any relevant physical, economic (
The extent to which the applicant lists relevant program objectives that adequately address the strengths and needs of the community.
The extent to which the applicant describes the population to be served by the project and explains why this population is most in need of the services to be provided by the program.
The extent to which the applicant gives a precise location and rationale for the project site(s) and area(s) to be served by the proposed project.
The extent to which the applicant identifies the results and benefits to be derived from the project and links these to the stated objectives.
The extent to which the applicant describes the kinds of data to be collected and how they will be utilized to measure progress towards the stated results or benefits.
The extent to which the applicant demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of the Head Start Program Performance Standards.
The extent to which the applicant explains why the approach chosen is effective in light of the needs, objectives, results and benefits described above.
The extent to which the approach is grounded in recognized standards and/or guidelines for high quality service provision or is defensible from a research or “best practices” standpoint.
The extent to which the proposed program director, proposed key project staff, the organization's experience, including experience in providing early, continuous, and comprehensive child and family development services, and the organization's history with the community demonstrate the ability to effectively and efficiently administer a project of this size, complexity and scope.
The extent to which the applicant's management plan demonstrates sufficient management capacity to implement a high quality Early Head Start program.
The extent to which the organization demonstrates an ability to carry out continuous improvement activities.
The extent to which the applicant presents documentation of efforts (letters of commitment, interagency agreements, etc.) to establish and maintain ongoing collaborative relationships with community partners.
The extent and thoroughness of approaches to combining Early Head Start resources and capabilities with those of other local child care agencies and providers to provide high quality child care services to infants and toddlers which meet the Head Start Program Performance Standards.
The extent to which the program's costs are reasonable in view of the planning and activities to be carried out and the anticipated outcomes.
The extent to which the program has succeeded in garnering cash or in-kind resources, in excess of the required Federal match, from local, State, other Federal or private funding sources. The extent to which costs for facilities are reasonable and cost effective.
The extent to which the salaries and fringe benefits reflect the level of compensation appropriate for the responsibilities of staff.
The extent to which assurances are provided that the applicant can and will contribute the non-Federal share of the total project cost.
This program is covered under Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” and 45 CFR Part 100, “Intergovernmental Review of Department of Health and Human Services Programs and Activities.” Under the Order, States may design their own processes for reviewing and commenting on proposed Federal assistance under covered programs.
All States and territories except Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, American Samoa, and Palau have elected to participate in the Executive Order process and have established Single Points of Contact (SPOCs). Applicants from these jurisdictions need not take action regarding Executive Order 12372.
Applications for projects to be administered by Federally recognized Indian Tribes are also exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12372. Otherwise, applicants should contact their SPOC as soon as possible to alert them to the prospective application and to receive any necessary instructions. Applicants must submit any required material to the SPOC as early as possible so that the program office can obtain and review SPOC comments as part of the award process. It is imperative that the applicant submit all required materials, if any, to the SPOC and indicate the date of this submittal (or date of contact if no submittal is required) on the Standard Form 424, item 16a.
Under 45 CFR 100.8(a)(2), a SPOC has 60 days from the application deadline to comment on proposed new or competing continuation awards.
SPOCs are encouraged to eliminate the submission of routine endorsements as official recommendations.
Additionally, SPOCs are requested to clearly differentiate between mere advisory comments and those official State process recommendations which
When comments are submitted directly to the ACF, they should be addressed to: William Wilson, Head Start Bureau, Grants Officer, 330 C Street SW., Room 2220, Washington, DC 20447, Attn: Early Head Start Competition for Select Service Areas.
A list of the Single Points of Contact for each State and Territory can be found on the following web site:
Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of open consultations.
Notice is hereby given for the dates, locations and hotel sites for two of the four Tribal consultations on the Notice of Proposed Rule Making for direct Federal funding of Tribal child support enforcement (CSE) programs and the interim final rule for funding of comprehensive Tribal CSE programs that are currently operating. On August 21, 2000, the
The initial two consultations will be held October 3-5, 2000 in Minneapolis, Minnesota and October 24-26, 2000 in Anchorage, Alaska. The consultations will begin promptly at 8:00 a.m. and end at 5:00 p.m. on the first two days. The final half-day session will begin promptly at 8:00 am and end at 12 noon.
The first consultations, October 3-5, 2000, will be held at the Four Points Hotel, 1330 Industrial Boulevard, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413. The telephone numbers for reservations are 1 (800) 325-3535 or (612) 331-1900. The second consultation, October 24-26, 2000, will be held at the Holiday Inn-Downtown Anchorage, 239 West 4th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99501. The telephone number for reservations is 1 (907) 279-8671. All interested parties are invited to attend these public consultations. Seating may be limited and will be available on a first-come, first-serve basis. Persons needing special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other special accommodation, should contact the Deputy Director of the Native American Child Support Enforcement Program, Office of Child Support Enforcement, at the address listed below.
Ms. Virginia Apodaca, Deputy Director, Native American Child Support Enforcement Program, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Fourth Floor East, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW, Washington, DC 20447 (telephone (202) 401-9376; fax (202) 401-5559; e-mail: vapodaca@acf.dhhs.gov). These are not toll-free numbers. The date, locations and times for the remaining two consultations will be announced in advance in the
The purpose of these consultations will be to provide an overview of the proposed regulations and the interim final rule to attendees. In addition, public comment will be elicited on the proposed regulation and interim final rule. Federal officials will explain both the proposed rules and interim final rules. Persons who attend the consultations may make oral presentations and/or provide written comments for the record at the consultations, at their option. We encourage persons who make oral presentations at the consultations to submit written comments in support of their presentations.
In order to obtain the broadest public participation possible on these proposed rules, the Office of Child Enforcement plans to conduct four public consultations during the 120-day comment period. These consultations are intended to further solicit public comment, Native American and Tribal input on the Native American child support enforcement direct Federal funding proposed rule. The agenda for these consultations consists of two full days where public comments on the proposed rule will be elicited. There will also be a one-half day review of the interim funding application process for those Tribes and Tribal organizations with currently existing comprehensive child support enforcement programs wishing to submit applications for interim funding of their programs.
Members of the public wishing to present oral statements at the consultations should send their requests to Ms. Virginia Apodaca, Deputy Director of the Native American Child Support Enforcement Program, as soon as possible or they may register on site at the beginning of each consultation. Such requests should be made by telephone, fax machine, or mail, as shown above. The Deputy Director of the Native American Program will accommodate all such requests on site by reserving time for presentations. The order of persons making such presentations will be assigned in the order in which the requests are received. Members of the public are encouraged to limit oral statements to five minutes, but extended written statements may be submitted for the record. Members of the public also may submit written statements for inclusion in the public record without presenting oral statements. Such written statements should be sent to the Native American Child Support Enforcement Program Deputy Director, as shown above, by mail or fax at least five business days before each meeting.
Minutes of all public meetings and other documents will be available for public inspection and copying at the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) fourteen days after the conclusion of each consultation. At DHHS, these documents will be available at the Deputy Director, Native American Child Support Enforcement Program, Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Aerospace Building, Fourth Floor—East, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW, Washington, DC from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Questions regarding the availability of documents from DHHS should be directed to Virginia Apodaca, OCSE (telephone (202) 401-9376). This is not a toll-free number. Any written comments on the minutes should be directed to Ms. Virginia Apodaca, Deputy Director of the Native American Child Support Enforcement Program, as shown above.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that the proposed collection of information listed below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA).
Submit written comments on the collection of information by October 13, 2000.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, New Executive Office Bldg., 725 17th St. NW., rm. 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Wendy Taylor, Desk Officer for FDA.
Peggy Schlosburg, Office of Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223.
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Under sections 532 through 542 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360ii through ss), FDA has the responsibility to protect the public from unnecessary exposure from radiation from electronic products. The regulations issued under these authorities are listed in the Code of Federal Regulations, title 21, chapter I, subchapter J. Specifically, subchapter A regulations, 21 CFR 5.10(a)(3), 5.25(b), 5.35(a)(1), and 5.86 through 5.92, delegate administrative authorities to FDA.
Section 532 of the act directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to establish and carry out an electronic product radiation control program, including the development, issuance, and administration of performance standards to control the emission of electronic product radiation from electronic products. The program is designed to protect the public health and safety from electronic radiation, and the act authorizes the Secretary to procure (by negotiation or otherwise) electronic products for research and testing purposes and to sell or otherwise dispose of such products.
Section 534(g) of the act directs the Secretary to review and evaluate industry testing programs on a continuing basis; and section 535(e) and (f) of the act directs the Secretary to immediately notify manufacturers of, and ensure correction of, radiation defects or noncompliances with performance standards.
Section 537(b) of the act contains the authority to establish and maintain records (including testing records), make reports, and provide information to determine whether the manufacturer has acted in compliance.
Parts 1002 through 1010 (21 CFR parts 1002 through 1010) specify reports to be provided by manufacturers and distributors to FDA and records to be maintained in the event of an investigation of a safety concern or a product recall.
FDA conducts laboratory compliance testing of products covered by regulations for product standards in parts 1020, 1030, 1040, and 1050 (21 CFR parts 1020, 1030, 1040, and 1050). FDA details product-specific performance standards that specify information to be supplied with the product or require specific reports. The information collections are either specifically called for in the act or were developed to aid the agency in performing its obligations under the act. The data reported to FDA and the records maintained are used by FDA and the industry to make decisions and take actions that protect the public from radiation hazards presented by electronic products. This information refers to the identification of, location of, operational characteristics of, quality assurance programs for, and problem identification and correction of electronic products. The data provided to users and others are intended to encourage actions to reduce or eliminate radiation exposures.
FDA uses the following forms to aid respondents in the submission of information for this information collection: (1) Form FDA 2767, “Notice of Availability of Sample Electronic Product,” (2) Form FDA 2877, “Declaration for Imported Electronic Products Subject to Radiation Control Standards,” and (3) Form FDA 3147, “Application for a Variance From 21 CFR 1040.11(c) for a Laser Light Show, Display, or Device.”
The most likely respondents to this information collection will be electronic product and x-ray manufacturers, importers, and assemblers.
In the
One comment asked for elimination of reporting requirements and enforcement of field surveillance. The comment stated that current reporting requirements are excessive and unnecessary and not in line with international trend. It was suggested that a “Supplier's Declaration of Conformity” to the emission standards would be sufficient. Manufacturers and importers could provide FDA with information required in the current reporting requirements upon request.
FDA was not persuaded by this comment. Reports and field surveillance are needed to ensure that product complies with Federal performance standards. FDA is in the process of re-engineering the Radiological Health Program and is looking into ways of trying to help alleviate some of the burden. FDA is currently reviewing its reporting requirements and is considering exemption from reporting for certain products and electronic filing for others. The comment will be taken into consideration.
One comment requested that Class I laser products containing Class I lasers should be excluded from the reporting requirements and a declaration be added to the import Form FDA 2877 stating that the products are compliant products. This would eliminate the need for an accession number.
FDA partially agrees with this suggestion and has already exempted manufacturers who have previously submitted reports from reporting new Class I products (those to which access to laser radiation in excess of Class I during operation, maintenance, service, and single failure has been limited). At this time, there is no way to distinguish these types of Class I products from other Class I products through either tariff codes or data base product codes.
One comment stated that FDA's import requirements are outdated and most of the information requested for every entry is redundant. FDA can simplify the import clearance process by limiting data fields and cross-referencing data bases. Also, the import Form FDA 2877 does not take into account multiple regulated products that can be included on an entry.
FDA disagrees with the comment that import requirements are outdated and most of the information requested for entries is redundant. Some data elements on the Form FDA 2877 are required by Customs and also assist FDA in limiting the scope of import detentions or import review. For example, some countries may have a problem while other countries do not, or some product types may have a higher surveillance rate due to a non-compliance problem. By obtaining such data FDA can better target those shipments that need to be detained for investigation and thus permit more shipments to proceed unhindered.
FDA agrees that the process can be simplified but cannot cross-reference data between data bases at this time because data bases are very different. Budget allocation and several years' effort will be required to update the data bases.
FDA agrees that the import Form FDA 2877 does not take into account multiple regulated products that are included on an entry. If the information does not fit in the box provided on the form a list may be attached.
One comment stated that the name and address of manufacturing site and country of origin creates confidentiality concerns for the manufacturer of record.
FDA was not persuaded by this comment. While FDA appreciates the unique situation to manufacturers this information is required by Customs and assists FDA in targeting certain areas where there is a need to monitor certain products. FDA will continue to explore methods to reduce informational requirements while maintaining FDA's ability to detain and refuse violative products.
One comment recommended that a new declaration be added to the Form FDA 2877 reflecting the May 14, 1997, notice to industry regarding importation of non-compliant products intended for testing and evaluation during the design and development stage instead of the importer having to use declaration C.
FDA disagrees with this comment. Currently there is a declaration (A6) that takes into account the notice. The notice is intended for certain types of non-compliant products. Declaration C should be used for products that are not listed in that notice.
Three comments proposed electronic filing of radiation reports to minimize the burden of the collection of information and enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information to be collected.
FDA agrees with this comment and is currently working on this process. FDA must accept electronic submissions by September 2003.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The burden estimates were derived by consultation with FDA and industry personnel and actual data collected from industry over the past 3 years. An evaluation of the type and scope of information requested was also used to derive some time estimates. For example, disclosure information primarily requires time only to update and maintain existing manuals. Initial development of manuals has been performed except for new firms entering the industry. When information is generally provided to users, assemblers, or dealers in the same manual, they have been grouped together in the “Estimated Annual Reporting Burden” table.
The following information collection requirements are not subject to review by OMB because they do not constitute a “collection of information” under the PRA: Sections 1002.31(c); 1003.10(a), (b), and (c); 1003.11(a)(3) and (b); 1003.20(a) through (h); 1003.21(a) through (d); 1003.22(a) and (b); 1003.30(a) and (b); 1003.31(a) and (b); 1004.2(a) through (i); 1004.3(a) through (i); 1004.4(a) through (h); and 1005.21(a) through (c). These requirements “apply to the collection of information during the conduct of general investigations or audits” (5 CFR 1320.4(b)). The following labeling requirements are also not subject to review under the PRA because they are a public disclosure of information originally supplied by the Federal Government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public (5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2)): Sections 1020.10(c)(4), 1030.10(c)(6), 1040.10(g), 1040.30(c)(1), and 1050.10(d)(1).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that the Electric Power Research Institute, Agriculture and Food Technology Alliance has filed a petition proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of ozone in gaseous and aqueous phases as an antimicrobial agent for the treatment, storage, and processing of foods.
Robert L. Martin, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-215), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-418-3074.
Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (sec. 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5))), notice is given that a food additive petition (FAP 0A4721) has been filed by the Electric Power Research Institute, Agriculture and Food Technology Alliance, 2747 Hutchinson Ct., Walnut Creek, CA 94598. The petition proposes to amend the food additive regulations in part 173 Secondary Direct Food Additives Permitted in Food for Human Consumption (21 CFR part 173) to provide for the safe use of ozone in gaseous and aqueous phases as an antimicrobial agent for the treatment, storage, and processing of foods.
The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.32(r) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is withdrawing approval of 28 new drug applications (NDA's). The holders of the applications notified the agency in writing that the drug products were no longer marketed and requested that the approval of the applications be withdrawn.
Effective September 30, 2000.
Olivia A. Pritzlaff, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-7), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-594-2041.
The holders of the applications listed in the table in this document have informed FDA that these drug products are no longer marketed and have requested that FDA withdraw approval of the applications. The applicants have also, by their request, waived their opportunity for a hearing.
Therefore, under section 505(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(e)) and under authority delegated to the Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (21 CFR 5.82), approval of the applications listed in the table in this document, and all amendments and supplements thereto, is hereby withdrawn, effective September 30, 2000.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Compliance Guidance: The Mammography Quality Standards Act Final Regulations Document #4.” This draft guidance is neither final nor is it in effect at this time. The final regulations implementing the Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992 (the MQSA) became effective April 28, 1999. The draft guidance document is intended to help facilities and their personnel meet the MQSA final regulations.
Submit written comments concerning this draft guidance by December 12, 2000.
Submit written requests for single copies on a 3.5″ diskette of the draft guidance entitled “Compliance Guidance: The Mammography Quality Standards Act Final Regulations Document #4” to the Division of Small
Charles A. Finder, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ 240), Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., Rockville, MD 20850, 301-594-3332.
The MQSA was passed on October 27, 1992, to establish national quality standards for mammography. After October 1, 1994, the MQSA required all mammography facilities, except facilities of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, to be accredited by an approved accreditation body and certified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary). The authority to approve accreditation bodies and to certify facilities was delegated by the Secretary to FDA. In the
This draft guidance document represents the agency's current thinking on the final regulations implementing the MQSA. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the applicable statute, regulations, or both.
The agency has adopted good guidance practices (GGP's), which set forth the agency's policies and procedures for the development, issuance, and use of guidance documents (62 FR 8961, February 27, 1997). This draft guidance document is issued as a Level 1 guidance consistent with GGP's.
In order to receive the draft guidance entitled “Compliance Guidance: The Mammography Quality Standards Act Final Regulations Document #4” via your fax machine, call the CDRH Facts-On-Demand system at 800-899-0381 or 301-827-0111 from a touch-tone telephone. At the first voice prompt press 1 to enter the system. At the second voice prompt press 1 to order a document. Enter the document number (1159) followed by the pound sign (#). Follow the remaining voice prompts to complete your request.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may also do so using the Internet. CDRH maintains an entry on the Internet for easy access to information including text, graphics, and files that may be downloaded to a personal computer with access to the Internet. Updated on a regular basis, the CDRH home page includes “Compliance Guidance: The Mammography Quality Standards Act Final Regulations Document #4,” device safety alerts,
Interested persons may submit to Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments regarding this draft guidance by December 12, 2000. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individual may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. The draft guidance document and received comments are available for public examination in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to Wayne Eddins, Reports Management Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., L'Enfant Plaza Building, Room 8100, Washington, DC 20410.
Steven A. Trojan, Systems Accountant, Office of Financial Services, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 401-2168, extension 2823 (this is not a toll free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available information.
The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility: (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information: (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
This Notice also lists the following information:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notification of the Establishment of a New System of Records.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is giving notice that it proposes to establish a new system of records entitled Independent Public Accountant Quality Assurance Files which will be used in performing quality assurance reviews on the audited Financial Data Sheets and Automated Financial Submissions submitted to the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) either directly, or by the Independent Public Accountants (IPAs) of certain Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) and FHA-insured, direct loan, HUD-held or assisted multifamily property owners.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice to the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of General Counsel, Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications should refer to the above docket number and title. Comments submitted by facsimile (FAX) will not be accepted. A copy of each communication submitted will be available for public inspection and copying between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. weekdays at the above address.
For Privacy Act information: Jeanette Smith, Departmental Privacy Act Officer, Telephone Number (202) 708-2374. For REAC, Financial Assessment Subsystem Quality Assurance information, Peter Bell, Director, Telephone Number (202) 708-4932, x3135. (These are not toll-free numbers). A telecommunications device for hearing and speech-impaired persons (TTY) is available at 1-800-877-8339 (Federal Information Relay Services). (This is a toll-free number).
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, notice is given that HUD proposes to establish a new system of records identified as HUD/REAC-2, Independent Public Accountant Quality Assurance Files. REAC is responsible for evaluating the physical and financial condition of over 3,000 PHAs and over 30,000 Federal Housing Administration (FHA) multifamily insured, direct loan, HUD-held, and Section 8 project-based subsidized properties. To track the performance of these properties, certain PHAs are required to submit a Financial Data Sheet (FDS) and certain multifamily properties are required to submit an Automated Financial Submission (AFS) to REAC, which contains financial, audit, and compliance data. PHAs and multifamily property owners who are required to submit an FDS or AFS are also required to have an independent audit performed by an independent public accountant. The IPA is then required to express an opinion as to the accuracy of the data contained on the FDS or AFS.
REAC performs a Quality Assurance Review (QAR) of the audited financial statements submitted by IPAs. This QAR provides HUD with the assurance that the information contained in the audited financial statements is accurate by independently reviewing the work of the IPAs performing the audits. The QAR process will also assure that the audits performed by these IPAs are being conducted in accordance with the auditing standards of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and government auditing standards issued by the General Accounting Office.
Title 5 U.S.C 552a(e)(4) and (11) provide that the public be afforded a 30-day period in which to comment on the new record systems. The new system report was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix l to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” July 25, 1994; 59 FR 37914.
Accordingly, this notice establishes a new system of records and accompanying routine uses to be created during the financial quality assurance review process at HUD's Real Estate Assessment Center.
5 U.S.C. 552a:88 Stat. 1896; 342 U.S.C. 3535(d).
Independent Public Accountant Quality Assurance Files.
Headquarters.
All independent public accountants who have conducted audits of PHAs or FHA-insured, direct loan, HUD-held or assisted multifamily properties under HUD programs. An independent public accountant is defined as (a) a licensed, certified public accountant or a person working for a licensed certified public accounting firm, or (b) a public
The system contains the names and ID numbers of REAC auditors, and of IPAs who perform audits of PHAs or FHA-insured, direct loan, HUD-held, or assisted multifamily properties under HUD programs. Records consist of materials generated in connection with quality assurance reviews of the working papers of IPAs including information from the FDS and the AFS submitted to HUD. These materials include QAR checklists, documentation of work performed by REAC auditors in evaluating the work of the IPA, interviews with IPAs, correspondence between REAC auditors and the IPA, and copies of work papers from IPA files and other documents used in evaluating an IPA's work performance to assure compliance with government and AICPA auditing standards. Other records include information regarding the planning, conduct and results of the QAR, trend analyses, internal legal assistance requests, information requests, responses to such requests, reports of findings, etc.
OMB Circular A-133 (the Single Audit Act) requires that PHAs and non-profit organizations receiving federal funds obtain an IPA-performed audit. The AICPA has issued Statements of Position (SOP) 98-3 “Audits of States, Local Governments, and Not-for-Profit Organizations Receiving Federal Awards” to address the additional requirements of government auditing standards. Additional guidance is offered in the HUD Consolidated Audit Guide for Audits of HUD Programs, HUD Handbook 2000.04 REV-2.
REAC performs a quality assurance review of the audited financial statements submitted by IPAs in order to assure that the information contained in the financial statements is accurate and reliable and that the IPA's work was performed in accordance with government and AICPA auditing standards. In the event that records generated during the QAR process indicate a violation or potential violation of law, the relevant records may be disclosed to the appropriate federal, state or local disciplinary forum, or the AICPA, for investigation or enforcement of the applicable laws.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under subsection (b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), records may also be disclosed routinely to other users under the following circumstances:
1. In the event that records indicate a violation or potential violation of law, whether criminal, civil or regulatory in nature, the relevant records may be disclosed to the appropriate federal, state, or local agency charged with the responsibility for investigating or prosecuting such violation or enforcing or implementing such statute, rule or regulation.
2. Records may be disclosed to a congressional office in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual who is the subject of the records.
3. Records may be disclosed to HUD contractors, PHAs or management agents of HUD-assisted housing properties, in order to assist such entities in taking action to recover money or property, where such recovery serves to promote the integrity of the programs or operations of HUD.
4. Records may be disclosed during the course of an administrative proceeding where HUD is a party to the litigation and the disclosure is relevant, reasonable and necessary to adjudicate the matter.
5. Records may be disclosed to appropriate state boards of accountancy, or the AICPA, for possible administrative or disciplinary sanctions such as license revocation. These referrals will be made only after the IPA has been notified that HUD is contemplating disclosure of its findings to an appropriate state board of accountancy, or the AICPA, and the IPA has been provided with an opportunity to respond in writing to HUD's findings.
6. Records may be disclosed to the Department of Justice for litigation purposes associated with the representation of HUD before the courts.
7. Records may be disclosed to any source, either private or governmental, to the extent necessary to elicit information relevant to an Office of Inspector General investigation.
8. Records may be disclosed to the auditee to evaluate the contractual relationship between the IPA and the PHA, owner or management agent of a FHA-insured, direct loan, HUD-held or assisted multifamily property.
Records are stored electronically in office automation equipment and manually in file jackets.
Records may be retrieved by computer search using the AutoAudit software, and/or by reference to a particular file number, or by name, address, tax identification number or social security number of the IPA.
Records are maintained in a secure computer network, and in locked file cabinets or in metal file cabinets in rooms with controlled access.
The records are retained and disposed of in accordance with the General Records Schedule contained in HUD Handbook 2228.2, appendix 14, item 25.
Peter Bell, Real Estate Assessment Center, 1280 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20024.
For information, assistance, or inquiry about the existence of records, contact the Privacy Act Officer at HUD, 451 7th Street, SW, Room P8001, Washington, DC 20410, in accordance with the procedures in 24 CFR part 16.
The procedures for requesting access to records appear in 24 CFR parts 16 and 2003.
The procedures for requesting amendment or correction of records appear in 24 CFR part 16.
Information may be collected from a wide variety of sources, including from HUD, program participants, subject individuals, complainants, witnesses and other non-government sources.
None.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of document availability and public comment period.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability for public review of the technical/agency draft revised recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker. The red-cockaded woodpecker is a bird species endemic to the southeastern United States. We solicit review and comment from the public on this draft plan.
We must receive comments on the draft recovery plan on or before November 13, 2000 to receive consideration by us.
You may obtain a copy of the draft recovery plan by contacting Ralph Costa, Clemson Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina 29634 (telephone 864/656-2432). Send written comments and materials regarding the plan to the Field Supervisor at the above address. Comments and materials received are available upon request for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.
Mr. Ralph Costa at the above address and telephone number.
Restoring endangered or threatened animals or plants to the point where they are again secure, self-sustaining members of their ecosystems is a primary goal of our endangered species program. To help guide the recovery effort, we are working to prepare recovery plans for most of the listed species native to the United States. Recovery plans describe actions considered necessary for conservation of the species, establish criteria for downlisting or delisting them, and estimate time and cost for implementing the recovery measures needed.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Red-cockaded woodpeckers are endemic to mature pine woodlands of the southeastern United States. Because of habitat loss and alteration, the species suffered severe declines throughout the first three quarters of the twentieth century. We officially listed the red-cockaded woodpecker as an endangered species in 1970 (35 FR 16047). Intensive research has greatly increased our understanding of the ecology of red-cockaded woodpeckers and has provided powerful management tools that have been highly successful in reversing the widespread declines of past decades. With appropriate management, the species can achieve full recovery. This draft revised recovery plan describes in detail the ecology and management of red-cockaded woodpeckers, and outlines a mechanism to recover the species based on new insight into population and species viability. We will use comments and information provided during this review in preparing the final recovery plan.
We solicit written comments on the recovery plan described. We will consider all comments received by the date specified above prior to approval of the plan.
The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533 (f).
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Motor Vehicle Closure of BLM-Administered Public Land Disturbed or Damaged by Wildfire Suppression Activity Within the Wildhorse Basin Wildfire, Black Butte Wildfire, Sage Creek Wildfire, and Sheep Mountain Wildfire areas; BLM Rock Spring Field Office, Wyoming; correction.
The Bureau of Land Management published a document in the
Stan McKee, Field Manager, Rock Springs Field Office, 280 Highway 191 North, Rock Springs, Wyoming 82901. Telephone: (307) 352-0201.
In the
Revised schedule for the subject reviews.
September 7, 2000.
Jim McClure (202-205-3191), 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 27, 2000, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the subject reviews (65 FR 17901, April 5, 2000). The Commission has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B), and is hereby revising its schedule.
The Commission's new schedule for the investigation is as follows: The Commission will make its final release of information on September 22, 2000; and final party comments are due on September 26, 2000.
For further information concerning this investigation 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 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure, Judicial Conference of the United States.
Notice of open meeting.
The Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure will hold a two-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation.
October 16-17, 2000.
8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Westin La Paloma Hotel, 3800 East Sunrise Drive, Tucson, AZ.
John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.
Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, Judicial Conference of the United States.
Notice of open meeting.
The Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure will hold a two-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation.
October 19-20, 2000.
8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
La Valencia Hotel, 1132 Prospect Street, La Jolla, CA.
John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.
Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, Judicial Conference of the United States.
Notice of open meeting.
The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure will hold a two-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation.
January 4-5, 2001.
8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Westin La Paloma Hotel, 3800 East Sunrise Drive, Tucson, AZ.
John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.
Advisory Committee on Rules of Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, and Criminal Procedure, Judicial Conference of the United States.
Notice of open hearings.
The Advisory Committees on Rules of Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, and Criminal Procedure have proposed the following rules:
Appellate Rules: 1, 4, 5, 15, 21, 24, 25, 26, 26.1, 27, 28, 31, 32, 36, 41, 44, and 45, and new Form 6
Bankruptcy Rules: 1004, 2004, 2014, 2015, 4004, 9014, and 9027, and new rule 1004.1, and Official Form 1
Civil Rules: 54, 58, 81, and new rule 7.1
Criminal Rules: 5, 5.1, 10, 12.2, 26, 30, 32, 35, 41, and 43, and new rule 12.4, and “Style Revision” of Rules 1-60
Section 2254 Rules: 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 10
Section 2255 Rules: 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 10
Public hearings are scheduled to be held on the amendments to:
• Appellate Rules in San Francisco, California, on January 29, 2001;
• Bankruptcy Rules in Washington, DC, on January 26, 2001;
• Civil Rules in San Francisco, California, on January 29, 2001; and
• Criminal Rules in New Orleans, Louisiana, on January 24, 2001; in San Francisco, California, on January 29, 2001; and in Washington, DC, on February 12, 2001.
The Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure submits these rules for public comment. All comments and suggestions with respect to them must be placed in the
Comments on the proposed rule amendments may also be sent electronically via the Internet at <
The text of the proposed rule amendments and the accompanying Committee Notes can be found at the United States Federal Courts' Home Page at <
John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. section 16(b) through (h), that a proposed Final Judgment, Hold Separate Stipulation and Order, and Competitive Impact Statement have been filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in
Public comment is invited within 60 days of the date of this notice. Such comments, and responses thereto, will be published in the
The United States of America, acting under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, brings this civil action to enjoin preliminarily and permanently the proposed acquisition by Flowserve Corporation (“Flowserve”) of Ingersoll-Dresser Pump Company (“IDP”), pursuant to a Purchase Agreement entered into by the defendants and dated February 9, 2000. The United States alleges as follows:
1. Unless it is enjoined, Flowserve's proposed acquisition of IDP will reduce the already small number of firms that compete on bids to sell certain costly, specialized and highly engineered pumps used in oil refineries and electrical generating facilities in the United States, in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18. Such a reduction in competition is likely to result in higher prices and reduced selection for those pumps.
2. This complaint is filed and this action is instituted under Section 15 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 25, to prevent and restrain defendants from violating Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18.
3. Each of the defendants is engaged in interstate commerce and in activities substantially affecting interstate commerce. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action, and jurisdiction over the parties, pursuant to Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 22, and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1337(a) and 1345.
4. Each of the defendants has consented to personal jurisdiction in the District of Columbia. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 22, and 28 U.S.C. 1391(c).
5. Flowserve is a New York corporation with its principal executive offices in Irving, Texas. Flowserve manufactures and sells a broad array of pumps, valves and seals used in a wide variety of manufacturing and processing industries, and provides parts and service for pumps, in the United States and abroad. Flowserve has total annual sales of over $1 billion and maintains offices and facilities at approximately 25 locations in the United States.
6. Ingersoll-Rand is a New Jersey corporation with its principal executive offices in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey. Ingersoll-Rand is a general partner in, and controls, IDP.
7. ID is a Delaware general partnership, headquartered in Liberty Corner, New Jersey. IDP manufactures and sells a broad array of pumps, and provides service and parts for such pumps, in the United States and abroad. IDP is one of the world's largest pump manufacturers, with annual sales of over $875 million. IDP maintains offices and facilities at approximately 27 locations in the United States.
8. Flowserve and IDP each manufacture and sell for use in the United States two categories of specialized, highly engineered pumps known as “API 610 pumps” and “power plant pumps.” API 610 pumps are used in the oil and gas industry, including in oil refineries, and power plant pumps are used in electrical generating facilities or “power plants.”
9. API 610 pumps are specialized, rugged, highly engineered pumps that generally perform critical functions in an oil refinery, including the movement of erosive, corrosive, hot and flammable petroleum-based liquids under high pressure. API 610 pumps are designed, built, tested and shipped in accordance with comprehensive standards of the American Petroleum Institute.
10. Power plant pumps are specialized, highly engineered pumps that perform critical functions in the steam cycle of a power plant. (The steam cycle consists of a boiler or steam generator that feeds steam to a steam turbine that drives an electricity-producing generator.) The three basic categories of power plant pumps are: (1) “Circulating water pumps,” which deliver cooling water to condensers that condense the spent steam that has passed through a steam turbine; (2) “condensate pumps,” which extract the
11. Each manufacturer of API 610 and power plant pump lines offers its lines in an array of different models and sizes. The pumps within a line differ with respect to capacity and capabilities, including, for example, the number of stages, speed, efficiency, bearing type, suction and discharge pressure, head, temperature range, vapor pressure, rated gallons per minute, impeller diameter, suction nozzle size, discharge nozzle size, metallurgical properties, and motor type and size.
12. API 610 pumps and power plant pumps are sold pursuant to bids, which are based on extensive specifications from the customer. For each pump application in a given oil refinery or power plant project, the manufacturer selects a model and size pump and accessories to bid, and makes additional modifications to try to meet the customer's specifications.
13. The match between the requirements of a particular pump application, and the optimum operating range of the pump a manufacturer proposes to use for that application, is referred to as the “fit” of the proposed pump. A manufacturer's ability to provide an economically priced API 610 or power plant pump with a good fit is largely a function of the breadth of that manufacturer's lines of pumps and accessories.
14. Customers evaluate the competing bids, in part, on the basis of their compliance with the technical specifications that the customer had provided. For example, in addition to a manufacturer's proposed price for the required pumps, a customer may also consider how the fit of the pumps that that manufacturer proposes to use will affect the long-term operating costs of the oil refinery or power plant.
15. Customers also evaluate the commercial terms of the competing proposals, including each manufacturer's proposed price and proposed delivery dates. Delivery dates are an important aspect of the competition among API 610 and power plant pump manufacturers because the amount of time a manufacturer will require to deliver the pumps (which can vary from several months to over a year) may significantly affect the construction schedule for the project.
16. A customer that is undertaking an oil refinery or power plant construction project can avoid costly construction delays, or costly down-time in the operation of the refinery or power plant, by selecting a manufacturer that will be able to respond quickly to requests for technical information or design changes during the design phase of the project; to requests for technical assistance, modifications or repairs during the construction or commissioning phases of the project; and to requests for service or repairs during the operating life of the pumps.
17. For those reasons, customers that are planning oil refinery or power plant construction projects in the United States seek to obtain the API 610 or power plant pumps from a manufacturer that has a substantial presence in the United States, including engineering expertise, reputation and practical operating experience with the pump's application in similar facilities in the United States; parts availability in the United States; and a substantial network of service and repair facilities in the United States.
18. The combined technical and commercial needs of the customer differ markedly for each API 610 pump or power plant pump bid. A small but significant increase in the price of a product that meets the bid specifications would not cause a significant number of customers in the United States to substitute other products that do not meet those bid specifications.
19. Each bid for API 610 pumps and power plant pumps for installation in oil refineries and power generation plants in the United States is a line of commerce and relevant product market under Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
20. Those competitors that could constrain Flowserve and IDP from raising prices on bids for API 610 pumps and power plant pumps for installation in oil refineries and power generation plants, respectively, in the United States are API 610 and power plant pump manufacturers with a substantial physical presence in the United States.
21. Customers installing these pumps in the United States prefer domestic pump suppliers because reputation is important, as is the ability to provide quick and reliable servicing with parts availability and to avoid shipping costs and delays. In addition, with minor exceptions, only domestic manufacturers have an installed base of pumps in the United States, thus allowing customers to more readily observe and evaluate the operation and reliability of the pump in comparable applications. Moreover, pumps manufactured abroad may cost more than comparable pumps manufactured in the United States.
22. The relevant geographic market for analyzing the proposed acquisition under Section 7 of the Clayton Act is the United States.
23. Based on capabilities and bidding history, there are only four credible competitors, including Flowserve and IDP, that might bid on a large majority of bids for API 610 pumps for oil refinery projects in the United States.
24. Based on capabilities and bidding history, there are only four credible competitors, including Flowserve and IDP, that might bid on a large majority of bids for circulating water pumps for power plant construction projects in the United States.
25. Based on capabilities and bidding history, there are only three credible competitors, including Flowserve and IDP, that might bid on a large majority of bids for condensate pumps for power plant construction projects in the United States.
26. Based on capabilities and bidding history, there are only four credible competitors, including Flowserve and IDP, that might bid on a large majority of bids for boiler feed pumps for power plant construction projects in the United States.
27. Although each bidder for API 610 pumps and power plant pumps may be familiar with its competitors, it does not know with any degree of certainty the commercial or technical terms of its competitors' bids prior to submitting its own bid. That uncertainty restrains bidders' pricing. By eliminating IDP, one of Flowserve's few, significant competitors. Flowserve would be able to increase its bid without increasing the probability it would lose the bid. Similarly, the few remaining bidders could also increase their bids without increasing their risk losing. Thus, the acquisition of IDP by Flowserve creates an incentive for each bidder to bid a higher amount than it would have were IDP still a competitor.
28. Due to the broad range of pumps IDP and Flowserve offer, their overall expertise in meeting the API 610 and power plan pump needs of customers, the fit offered by their pumps, their ability to meet delivery time frames, their aftermarket parts and service availability, and other technical and commercial factors, IDP and Flowserve are frequently perceived by each other,
29. The magnitude of the anticompetitive effect from the proposed acquisition will be greater the more that IDP and Flowserve view each other as close or strong competitors, and other rivals view IDP as a major competitive factor.
30. United States' oil refineries and power generators have benefitted from this competition through lower prices and greater choice. The combination of IDP and Flowserve will eliminate this competition, and the customers' benefits from this competition.
31. Substantial, timely entry of additional competitors is unlikely and, therefore, will not restrain any price increases caused by the elimination of IDP as a bidder.
32. Entry by a firm that does not currently manufacture API 610 pumps or power plant pumps would be extraordinarily difficult, costly, time consuming and financially risky; hence, such entry is highly unlikely.
33. To compete effectively, a new firm would need to offer an array of API 610 or power plant pump models. The design, production and testing of a single model of such a pump can take several years, and would require the expenditure of substantial sunk costs, as would the establishment of an engineering, parts and service network. To develop an array of pumps would further increase that time and cost.
34. Timely, substantial entry by an existing manufacturer of API 610 or power plant pumps that does not currently sell those pumps for installation in United States' oil refineries or power plants is unlikely. Such a firm could not effectively compete for sales of API 610 or power plant pumps unless it first established, in the United States, a substantial contingent of engineering personnel; a local availability of spare parts; and a substantial network of service and repair facilities. Moreover, many oil refineries and power plants will not purchase pumps from a supplier that has not demonstrated, in the United States, the reliability and efficiency of its pumps and the expertise of its engineers in the particular use for which the pump is being sought. This process can take years and the expenditure of substantial sunk costs.
35. Flowserve's acquisition of IDP may substantially lessen competition on a significant number of bids for the sale of API 610 pumps used in oil refineries in the United States and power plant pumps used in power plants in the United States, in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.
36. The acquisition will have the following effects, among others:
(a) Actual and potential competition between IDP and Flowserve will be eliminated;
(b) Competition generally in the manufacture, marketing and sale of API 610 pumps and power plant pumps will be lessened substantially; and
(c) Prices of API 610 pumps and power plant pumps will increase, and innovation in the development of these pumps will decrease.
(a) That the proposed acquisition of IDP by Flowserve be adjudged and decreed to be unlawful and in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18;
(b) That defendants and all persons acting on their behalf be preliminarily and permanently restrained and enjoined from implementing the February 9, 2000 Purchase Agreement or any other agreement of like intent or effect;
(c) That plaintiff be awarded its costs of this action; and
(d) That plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.
Respectfully submitted,
It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the undersigned parties, subject to approval and entry by the Court, that:
As used in this Hold Separate Stipulation and Order.
A. “Acquirer(s)” means the entity or entities to whom defendants divest the Divestiture Assets.
B. “Divestiture Assets” means the “Divestiture Plant,” “Divestiture Pump Lines,” and “Divestiture Repair Facilities,” as defined below.
C. “Divestiture Plant” means Flowserve's pump plant in Tulsa, Oklahoma, including manufacturing equipment, tooling and fixed assets, personal property, inventory, office furniture, materials, supplies, and other tangible property used in connection with the manufacturer of the SCE, VLT, VMT and HQ pump lines; manufacturing equipment and tooling dedicated to the production of the J and CGT pump lines and located in IDP's pump plant in Phillipsburg, New Jersey, all contracts, agreements, leases, commitments, certifications, and understandings, relating to the Divestiture Plant, including supply agreements; and all licenses, permits and authorizations issued by any governmental organization relating to the Divestiture Plant.
D. “Divestiture Pump Lines” means Flowserve's SCE, VLT, VMT, HQ, HX and WX (excluding the 93 inch size of the WX) pump lines, including parts for said lines, and IDP's and J and CGT pump lines, including parts for said lines, and also including all customer lists, contracts, accounts, credit records, repair and performance records and all other records relating to said pump lines; and all intangible assets used in the development, production, servicing and sale of Divestiture Pump Lines, including, but not limited to all patents, licenses and sublicenses, intellectual property, copyrights, trademarks, trade names, service marks, service names (excluding names and marks that relate to the corporate owner of said pump lines such as “Flowserve” and “IDP,” and predecessor acquired companies), technical information, computer software and related documentation, know-how, trade secrets, drawings, blueprints, designs, design protocols, specifications for materials, specifications for parts and devices, safety procedures for the handling of materials and substances, quality assurance and control procedures, molds, patterns and design tools, manuals and technical information defendants provide to their own employees, customers, suppliers, agents or licensees, and research and
E. “Divestiture Repair Facilities” means the IDP service centers in Batavia, Illinois and La Mirada, California, including production, repair and service equipment at said facilities.
F. “Flowserve” means defendant FLOWSERVE CORPORATION, a New York corporation with its headquarters in Irving, Texas, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
G. “IDP” means defendant INGERSOLL-DRESSER PUMP COMPANY, a Delaware general partnership with its headquarters in Liberty Corner, New Jersey, its successors and assigns, subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
H. “Tulsa Plant” means Flowserve's pump plant in Tulsa, Oklahoma, including manufacturing equipment, tooling and fixed assets, personal property, inventory, office furniture, materials, supplies, and other tangible property used in connection with the manufacture of the SCE, VLT, VMT and HQ pump lines; and excluding dedicated manufacturing equipment and tooling inventory, materials and supplies not used in connection with the manufacture of the SCE, VLT, VMT and HQ pump lines.
The proposed Final Judgment filed in this case is meant to ensure defendants' prompt divestitures Assets for the purpose of establishing one or more viable competitors in the production and sale of certain types of centrifugal pumps used in oil refineries (hereinafter “API pumps”) and certain power plant pumps used in combined cycle, co-generation and solid fuel power plants (hereinafter “power plant pumps”) in order to remedy the effects that the United States alleges would otherwise result from Flowserve's acquisition of IDP. This Hold Separate Stipulation and Order ensures, prior to such divestitures, that the Divestiture Assets remain independent, economically viable, and ongoing business assets that will remain independent and uninfluenced by defendants except as stated herein, and that competition is maintained during the pendency of the ordered divestitures.
The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and over each of the parties hereto, and venue of this action is proper in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
A. The parties stipulate that a Final Judgment in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A may be filed with and entered by the Court, upon the motion of any party or upon the Court's own motion, at any time after compliance with the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (15 U.S.C. 16), and without further notice to any party or other proceedings, provided that the United States has not withdrawn its consent, which it may do at any time before the entry of the proposed Final Judgment by serving notice thereof on defendants and by filing that notice with the Court.
B. Defendants shall abide by and comply with the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment, pending the Judgment's entry by the Court, or until expiration of time for all appeals of any Court ruling declining entry of the proposed Final Judgment, and shall, from the date of the signing of this Hold Separate Stipulation and Order by the parties, comply with all the terms and provisions of the proposed Final Judgment as though the same were in full force and effect as an order of the Court.
C. Defendants shall not consummate the transaction sought to be enjoined by the Complaint herein before the Court has signed this Hold Separate Stipulation and Order.
D. This Hold Separate Stipulation and Order shall apply with equal force and effect to any amended proposed Final Judgment agreed upon in writing by the parties and submitted to the Court.
E. In the event (1) the United States has withdrawn its consent, as provided in Section IV(A) above, or (2) the proposed Final Judgment is not entered pursuant to this Hold Separate Stipulation and Order, the time has expired for all appeals of any Court ruling declining entry of the proposed Final Judgment, and the Court has not otherwise ordered continued compliance with the terms and provisions of the proposed Final Judgment, or (3) Flowserve fails to acquire IDP and certifies to the United States in writing that Flowserve will not seek to acquire IDP without first filing a new pre-merger notification under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, then the parties are released from all further obligations under this Hold Separate Stipulation and Order, and the making of this Hold Separate Stipulation and Order shall be without prejudice to any party in this or any other proceeding.
F. Defendants represent that the divestitures ordered in the proposed Final Judgment can and will be made, and that defendants will later raise no claim of mistake, hardship or difficulty of compliance as grounds for asking the Court to modify any of the provisions contained therein.
Until the divestitures required by the proposed Final Judgment have been accomplished:
A. Defendants shall preserve, maintain, and continue to operate the Tulsa Plant as an independent, ongoing, economically viable competitive business unit, with management and operations of the Tulsa Plant held entirely separate, distinct and apart from those of defendants' other operations. Defendants shall not coordinate its production, marketing, or terms of sale of any products with those produced by the Tulsa Plant except as necessary to effectuate the terms of the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order and the proposed Final Judgment. Within twenty (20) days after the entry of the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order, defendants will inform the United States of the steps defendants have taken to comply with this Hold Separate Stipulation and Order.
B. Defendants shall take all steps necessary to ensure that (1) the Tulsa Plant will be maintained and operated as an independent, ongoing, economically viable and active competitive buisness unit in the API pumps and power plant pumps businesses; (2) management of the Tulsa Plant will not be influenced by defendants except to the extent required herein; and (3) the books, records, competitively sensitive sales, marketing and pricing information, and decision-making concerning production, distribution or sales of products from the Tulsa Plant will be kept separate and apart from defendant Flowserve's other operations.
C. Defendants shall use all reasonable efforts to maintain the increase the sales and revenues of the Divestiture Pump Lines. Defendants shall not alter the commissions, incentives or compensation of sales personnel in any way that might negatively impact sales of the Divestiture Pump Lines.
D. Defendants shall provide sufficient working capital and lines and sources of credit to continue to maintain the Tulsa
E. Defendants shall take all steps necessary to ensure that the Tulsa Plant is fully maintained in operable condition at no less than its current capacity and sales, and shall maintain and adhere to normal repair and maintenance schedules for the Tulsa Plant.
F. Defendants shall not, except as part of a divestiture approved by the United States in accordance with the terms of the proposed Final Judgment, remove, sell, lease, assign, transfer, pledge or otherwise dispose of any of the Divestiture Assets.
G. Defendants shall maintain, in accordance with sound accounting principles, separate, accurate and complete financial ledgers, books and records that report on a periodic basis, such as the last business day of every month, consistent with past practices, the assets, liabilities, expenses, revenues and income of the Divestiture Assets.
H. Defendants' employees with primary responsibility for the production and sale of the Divestiture Pump Lines at the Tulsa Plant shall not be transferred or reassigned to other areas within the company except for transfers initiated by employees. Defendant shall provide the United States with ten (10) calendar days notice of such transfer.
I. Defendants shall appoint persons to oversee the Divestiture Assets, subject to the approval of the United States, and who will be responsible for defendants' compliance with this section. These persons shall have complete managerial responsibility for the Divestiture Assets, subject to the provisions of this proposed Final Judgment. In the event such a person(s) is unable to perform his duties, defendants shall appoint, subject to the approval of the United States, a replacement within ten (10) working days. Should defendants fail to appoint a replacement acceptable to the United States within this time period, the United States shall appoint a replacement at the expense of the defendants.
J. Defendants shall take no action that would interfere with the ability of any trustee appointed pursuant to the proposed Final Judgment to complete the divestiture pursuant to the Final Judgment to Acquirer(s) acceptable to the United States.
K. This Hold Separate Stipulation and Order shall remain in effect until consummation of the divestitures required by the proposed Final Judgment or until further order of the Court.
Dated: July 28, 2000
Respectifully submitted,
It Is So Ordered by the Court, this 28th day of July, 2000.
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of, and each of the parties to, this action. The Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted against defendants under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 18).
As used in this Final Judgment:
A. “Acquirer(s)” means the entity or entities to whom defendants divest the Divestiture Assets.
B. “Flowserve” means defendant
C. “IDP” means defendant
D. “I-R” means defendant
E. “Divestiture Assets” means the “Divestiture Plant,” “Divestiture Pump Lines,” and “Divestiture Repair Facilities,” as defined below.
F. “Divestiture Plant” means Flowserve's pump plant in Tulsa, Oklahoma, including manufacturing equipment, tooling and fixed assets, personal property, inventory, office furniture, materials, supplies, and other tangible property used in connection with the manufacture of the SCE, VLT, VMT and HQ pump lines; manufacturing equipment and tooling dedicated to the production of the J and CGT pump liens and located in IDP's pump plant in Phillipsburg, New Jersey; all contracts, agreements, leases, commitments, certifications, and understandings, relating to the Divestiture Plant, including supply
G. “Divestiture Pump Lines” means Flowserve's SCE, VLT, VMT, HQ, HX and WX (excluding the 93 inch size of the WX) pump lines, including parts for said lines, and IDP's J and CGT pump lines, including parts for said lines; and also including all customer lists, contracts, accounts, credit records, repair and performance records and all other records relating to said pump lines; and all intangible assets used in the development, production, servicing and sale of Divestiture Pump Lines, including, but not limited to all patents, licenses, and sublicenses, intellectual property, copyrights, trademarks, trade names, service marks, service names (excluding names and marks that relate to the corporate owner of said pump lines such as “Flowserve,” “I-R” and “IDP,” and predecessor acquired companies), technical information, computer software and related documentation, know-how, trade secrets, drawings, blueprints, designs, design protocols, specifications for materials, specifications for parts and devices, safety procedures for the handling of materials and substances, quality assurance and control procedures, molds, patterns and design tools, manuals and technical information defendants provide to their own employees, customers, suppliers, agents or licensees, and research and development activities and data concerning historic and current research and development efforts, including, but not limited to, designs of possible modifications or improvements, relating to said pump lines.
H. “Divestiture Repair Facilities” means the IDP service centers in Batavia, Illinois and La Mirada, California, including production, repair and service equipment at said facilities.
A. This Final Judgment applies to IDP, I-R and Flowserve, as defined above, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service or otherwise.
B. Defendants shall require, as a condition of the sale or other disposition of all or substantially all of their assets or of lesser business units that include the Divestiture Assets, that the Acquirer(s) agrees to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment.
A. Defendants are ordered and directed to divest, in a manner consistent with this Final Judgment, to an Acquirer(s) acceptable to the United States in its sole discretion:
1. A perpetual, royalty-free, assignable, transferable license(s) to manufacture the Divestiture Pump Lines, including the exclusive right to sell the Divestiture Pump Lines for installation within the United States and a nonexclusive right to sell the Divestiture Pump Lines for installation in the rest of the world; provided, however, that Flowserve may continue to sell the SCE pump line and parts to its alliance customers Shell and Mobil for a period up to ten (10) years from entry of this Final Judgment for installation within the United States, and Flowserve may continue to sell parts for the J and VLT pump lines to its alliance customers Shell and Mobil for a period up to five (5) years from entry of this Final Judgment for installation within the United States; and
2. The Divestiture Plant and the Divestiture Repair Facilities.
B. Defendants must make the above divestitures within one hundred fifty (150) calendar days after the filing of the Complaint in this matter, or five (5) days after notice of the entry of this Final Judgment by the Court, whichever is later. The United States, in its sole discretion, may agree to an extension of this period of up to thirty (30) days, and shall notify the Court in such circumstance. Defendants agree to use their best efforts to divest the Divestiture Assets as expeditiously as possible.
C. In accomplishing the divestitures ordered by this Final Judgment, defendants promptly shall make known, by usual and customary means, the availability of the Divestiture Assets. Defendants shall inform any person making inquiry regarding a possible purchase of the Divestiture Assets that they are being divested pursuant to this Final Judgment and provide that person with a copy of this Final Judgment. Defendants shall offer to furnish to all prospective Acquirers, subject to customary confidentiality assurances, all information and documents relating to the Divestiture Assets customarily provided in a due diligence process except such information or documents subject to the attorney-client or work-product privilege. Defendants shall make available such information to the United States at the same time that such information is made available to any other person.
D. Defendants shall provide the Acquirer(s) and the United States information relating to the personnel whose primary responsibilities include the production, development and sale of the Divestiture Pump Lines to enable the Acquirer(s) to make offers of employment. Defendants will not interfere with any negotiations by the Acquirer(s) to employ any defendant employee whose primary responsibility is the production, development and sale of the Divestiture Pump Lines.
E. Defendants shall permit prospective Acquirer(s) of the Divestiture Assets to have reasonable access to personnel and to make inspections of the physical facilities of the Divestiture Plant; to have access to any and all environmental, zoning, and other permit documents and information; and to have access to any and all financial, operational, or other documents and information customarily provided as part of a due diligence process.
F. Defendants shall warrant to all Acquirer(s) of the Divestiture Assets that each asset will be operational on the date of sale.
G. Defendants shall take no action that will impede in any way the permitting, operation, or divestiture of the Divestiture Assets.
H. Defendants shall warrant to the Acquirer(s) of the Divestiture Assets that there are no material defects in the environmental, zoning or other permits pertaining to the operation of each asset, and that following the sale of the Divestiture Assets, defendants will not undertake, directly or indirectly, any challenges to the environmental, zoning, or other permits relating to the operation of the Divestiture Assets.
I. Unless the United States otherwise consents in writing, the divestitures pursuant to Section IV, or by trustee appointed pursuant to Section V, of this Final Judgment, shall include the entire Divestiture Assets, and shall be accomplished in such a way as to satisfy the United States, in its sole discretion, that the Divestiture Assets can and will be used by the Acquirer(s) as part of a viable, ongoing business of manufacturing and selling the Divestiture Pump Lines to customers, including those in the petroleum and power generation industries in the United States. Divestiture of the Divestiture Assets may be made to one or more Acquirers, provided that in each instance it is demonstrated to the sole satisfaction of the United States that the Divestiture Assets will remain viable and the divestiture of such assets will remedy the competitive harm alleged in the Complaint. The
1. Shall be made to an Acquirer(s) that, in the United States's sole judgment, has the intent and capability (including the necessary managerial, operational, technical and financial capability) of competing effectively in the business of manufacturing and selling the Divestiture Pump Lines to customers, including those in the petroleum and power generation industries in the United States; and
2. Shall be accomplished so as to satisfy the United States, in its sole discretion, that none of the terms of any agreement between an Acquirer(s) and IDP or Flowserve give IDP or Flowserve the ability unreasonably to raise the Acquirer's costs, to lower the Acquirer's efficiency, or otherwise to interfere in the ability of the Acquirer(s) to compete effectively.
A. If defendants have not divested the Divestiture Assets within the time specified in Section IV(B), defendants shall notify the United States of that fact in writing. Upon application of the United States, the Court shall appoint a trustee selected by the United States and approved by the Court to effect the divestitures of the Divestiture Assets.
B. After the appointment of a trustee becomes effective, only the trustee shall have the right to sell the Divestiture Assets. The trustee shall have the power and authority to accomplish the divestitures to an Acquirer(s) acceptable to the United States at such price and on such terms as are then obtainable upon reasonable effort by the trustee, subject to the provisions of Section IV, V, and VI of this Final Judgment, and shall have such other powers as this Court deems appropriate. Subject to Section V(D) of this Final Judgment, the trustee may hire, at the cost and expense of defendants, any investment bankers, attorneys, and other agents, who shall be solely accountable to the trustee, and reasonably necessary in the trustee's judgment to assist in the divestitures.
C. Defendants shall not object to a sale by the trustee on any ground other than the trustee's malfeasance. Any such objections by defendants must be conveyed in writing to the United States and the trustee within ten (10) calendar days after the trustee has provided the notice required under Section VI.
D. The trustee shall serve at the cost and expenses of defendants, on such terms and conditions as the plaintiff approved, and shall account for all monies derived from the sale of the assets sold by the trustee and all costs and expenses so incurred. After approval by the Court of the trustee's accounting, including fees for its services and those of any professionals and agents retained by the trustee, all remaining money shall be paid to defendants and the trust shall then be terminated. The compensation of the trustee and any professionals and agents retained by the trustee shall be reasonable in light of the value of the Divestiture Assets and based on a fee arrangement providing the trustee with an incentive based on the price and terms of the divestitures and the speed with which they are accomplished, but timeliness is paramount.
E. Defendants shall use their best efforts to assist the trustee in accomplishing the required divestitures. The trustee and any consultants, accountants, attorneys, and other persons retained by the trustee shall have full and complete access to the personnel, books, records, and facilities of the business to be divested, and defendants shall develop financial and other information relevant to such business as the trustee may reasonably request, subject to reasonable protection for trade secrets or other confidential research, development, or commercial information. Defendants shall take no action to interfere with or to impede the trustee's accomplishment of the divestitures.
F. After its appointment, the trustee shall file monthly reports with the United States and the Court setting forth the trustee's efforts to accomplish the divestitures ordered under this Final Judgment. To the extent such reports contain information that the trustee deems confidential, such reports shall not be filed in the public docket of the Court. Such reports shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each person who, during the preceding month, made an offer to acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into negotiations to acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry about acquiring, any interest in the Divestiture Assets, and shall describe in detail each contact with any such person. The trustee shall maintain full records of all efforts made to divest the Divestiture Assets.
G. If the trustee has not accomplished such divestitures within six months after its appointment, the trustee shall promptly file with the Court a report setting forth (1) the trustee's efforts to accomplish the required divestitures, (2) the reasons, in the trustee's judgment, why the required divestitures have not been accomplished, and (3) the trustee's recommendations. To the extent such reports contain information that the trustee deems confidential, such reports shall not be filed in the public docket of the Court. The trustee shall at the same time furnish such report to the plaintiff, who shall have the right to make additional recommendations consistent with the purpose of the trust. The Court thereafter shall enter such orders as it deems appropriate to carry out the purpose of the Final Judgment, which may, if necessary, include extending the trust and the term of the trustee's appointment by a period requested by the United States.
A. Within two (2) business days following execution of a definitive divestiture agreement, defendants or the trustee, whichever is then responsible for effecting the divestitures required herein, shall notify the United States of any proposed divestitures required by Section IV or V of this Final Judgment. If the trustee is responsible, it shall similarly notify defendants. The notice shall set forth the details of the proposed divestitures and list the name, address, and telephone number of each person not previously identified who offered or expressed an interest in or desire to acquire any ownership interest in the Divestiture Assets, together with full details of same.
B. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt by the United States of such notice, the United States may request from defendants, the proposed Acquirer(s), any other third party, or the trustee, if applicable, additional information concerning the proposed divestiture, the proposed Acquirer(s), and any other potential Acquirer(s). Defendants and the trustee shall furnish any additional information requested within fifteen (15) calendar days of the receipt of the request, unless the parties shall otherwise agree.
C. Within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the notice or within twenty (20) calendar days after the United States has been provided the additional information requested from defendants, the proposed Acquirer(s), any third party, and the trustee, whichever is later, the United States shall provide written notice to defendants and the trustee, if there is one, stating whether it objects to the proposed divestitures. If the United States provides written notice that it does not object, the divestitures may be consummated, subject only to defendants' limited right to object to the sale under Section V(C) of this Final Judgment. Absent written notice that the United States does not object to the proposed Acquirer(s) or upon objection by the United States, a divestiture
Defendants shall not finance all or any part of any purchase made pursuant to Section IV or V of this Final Judgment.
Until the divestitures required by this Final Judgment have been accomplished, defendants shall take all steps necessary to comply with the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order entered by this Court. Defendants shall take no action that would jeopardize the divestitures ordered by this Court.
A. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the filing of the Complaint in this matter, and every thirty (30) calendar days thereafter until the divestitures have been completed under Section IV or V, defendants shall deliver to the United States an affidavit as to the fact and manner of its compliance with Section IV or V of this Final Judgment. Each such affidavit shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each person who, during the preceding thirty days, made an offer to acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into negotiations to acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry about acquiring, any interest in the Divestiture Assets, and shall describe in detail each contact with any such person during that period. Each such affidavit shall also include a description of the efforts defendants have taken to solicit buyers for the Divestiture Assets, and to provide required information to prospective purchasers, including the limitations, if any, on such information. Assuming the information set forth in the affidavit is true and complete, any objection by the United States to information provided by defendants, including limitation on information, shall be made within fourteen (14) days of receipt of such affidavit.
B. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the filing of the Complaint in this matter, defendants shall deliver to the United States an affidavit that describes in reasonable detail all actions defendants have taken and all steps defendants have implemented on an ongoing basis to comply with Section VIII of this Final Judgment. Defendants shall deliver to the United States an affidavit describing any changes to the efforts and actions outlined in defendants' earlier affidavits filed pursuant to this section within fifteen (15) calendar days after the change is implemented.
C. Defendants shall keep all records of all efforts made to preserve and divest the Divestiture Assets until one year after such divestitures have been completed.
A. For the purposes of determining or securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or of determining whether the Final Judgment should be modified or vacated, and subject to any legally recognized privilege, from time to time duly authorized representatives of the United States Department of Justice, including consultants and other persons retained by the United States, shall, upon written request of a duly authorized representative of the Assistance Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, and on reasonable notice to defendants, be permitted:
1. Access during defendants' office hours to inspect and copy, or at plantiff's option demand defendants provide copies of, all books, ledgers, accounts, records and documents in the possession or control of defendants, who may have counsel present, relating to any matters contained in this Final Judgment; and
2. To interview, either informally or on the record, defendants' officers, employees, or agents, who may have their individual counsel present, regarding such matters. The interviews shall be subject to the interviewees' reasonable convenience and without restraint or interference by defendants.
B. Upon the written request of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, defendants shall submit such written reports, under oath if requested, relating to any of the matters contained in this Final Judgment as may be requested.
No information or documents obtained by the means provided in this section shall be divulged by the United States to any person other than an authorized representative of the executive branch of the United States, except in the course of legal proceedings to which the United States is a party (including grand jury proceedings), or for the purpose of securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or as otherwise required by law.
D. If at the time information or documents are furnished by defendants to the United States, defendants represent and identify in writing the material in any such information or documents to which a claim of protection may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and defendants mark each pertinent page of such material, “Subject to claim of protection under Rule 26(c)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” then the United States shall give defendants ten (10) calendar days notice prior to divulging such material in any legal proceeding (other than a grand jury proceeding).
Defendants may not reacquire any part of the Divestiture Assets during the term of this Final Judgment.
This Court retains jurisdiction to enable any party to this Final Judgment to apply to this Court at any time for further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out or construe this Final Judgment, to modify any of its provisions, to enforce compliance, and to punish violations of its provisions.
Unless this Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment shall expire ten (10) years from the date of its entry.
Entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest.
Date: __________
Court approval subject to procedures of Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16.
I hereby certify that on this day of July 28, 2000, I caused a copy of the Complaint, the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order and the proposed Final Judgment to be served by U.S. First Class Mail or overnight delivery upon:
The United States, pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (“APPA”), 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), files this Competitive Impact Statement relating to the proposed Final Judgment submitted for entry in this civil antitrust proceeding.
On July 28, 2000, the United States filed a civil antitrust suit alleging that an acquisition by Flowserve Corporation (“Flowserve”) of Ingersoll-Dresser Pump Company (“IDP”) would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. The Complaint alleges that Flowserve's proposed acquisition of IDP would reduce the already small number of firms that compete on bids to sell certain costly, specialized and highly engineered pumps used in oil refineries and electrical generating facilities in the United States. According to the Complaint, such a reduction in competition would likely result in higher prices and reduced selection for those pumps. The prayer for relief in the Complaint seeks a judgment that the proposed acquisition would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, a permanent injunction that would prevent Flowserve from acquiring IDP, that the United States be awarded costs, and other relief that the Court deems just and proper.
At the same time the Complaint was filed, the United States also filed a proposed settlement that would permit Flowserve to complete its acquisition of IDP, yet preserve competition in the markets in which the transaction would otherwise raise significant competitive concerns. The settlement consists of a proposed Final Judgment and a Hold Separate Stipulation and Order. In essence, the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order would require Flowserve to maintain certain pump lines, and associated production assets, as economically viable, ongoing concerns, operated independently of Flowserve's other businesses until the divestitures mandated by the Final Judgment have been accomplished.
The proposed Final Judgment orders defendants to divest to one or more acquirers a perpetual, royalty-free, assignable, transferable license to manufacture and sell Flowserve's SCE, VLT, VMT, HQ, HX and WX pump lines, and IDP's J and CGT pump lines; Flowserve's pump plant in Tulsa, Oklahoma; and the IDP service centers in Batavia, Illinois and La Mirada, California. Defendants must complete these divestitures within 150 days after filing of the Complaint, or five days after entry of the Final Judgment, whichever is later. If they do not complete the divestitures within the prescribed time, the Court will appoint a trustee to sell the assets.
The United States and defendants have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered after compliance with the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16 (“APPA”). Entry of the proposed Final Judgment would terminate this action, except that the Court would retain jurisdiction to construe, modify, or enforce the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment and to punish violations thereof.
Flowserve is a New York corporation with its principal executive offices in Irving, Texas. Flowserve manufactures and sells a broad array of pumps, valves and seals used in a wide variety of manufacturing and processing industries, and provides parts and service for pumps, in the United States and abroad. Flowserve has total annual sales of over $1 billion and maintains offices and facilities at approximately 25 locations in the United States.
Ingersoll-Rand Company (“I-R”) is a New Jersey corporation with its principal executive offices in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey. I-R is a general partner in, and controls IDP. IDP is a Delaware general partnership, headquartered in Liberty Corner, New Jersey. IDP manufactures and sells a broad array of pumps, and provides service and parts for such pumps, in the United States and abroad. IDP is one of the world's largest pump manufacturers, with annual sales of over $875 million. IDP maintains offices and facilities at approximately 27 locations in the United States.
On February 9, 2000, Flowserve agreed to acquire IDP for about $775 million. This proposed transaction, which would combine Flowserve and IDP and substantially lessen competition in the sale of certain types of pumps, precipitated the government's antitrust suit.
Power plant pumps are specialized, highly engineered pumps that perform critical functions in the steam cycle of a power plant. The steam cycle consists of a boiler or steam generator that feeds steam to a steam turbine that drives an electricity-producing generator. The three basic categories of power plant pumps are: (1) “circulating water pumps,” which deliver cooling water to condensers that condense the spent steam that has passed through a steam turbine; (2) “condensate pumps,” which extract the condensed steam; and (3) “boiler feed pumps,” which move the condensed steam (now very hot water) back into the boiler or steam generator to make new steam.
Those competitors that could constrain Flowserve and IDP from
The Complaint alleges that substantial entry by other pump manufacturers into the sale of API 610 and power plant pumps for installation in the United States is time-consuming, expensive and difficult, and hence, unlikely to counteract these anticompetitive effects.
The proposed Final Judgment would preserve competition in the sale of API 610 and power plant pumps for installation in the United States. Within 150 days after the date the Complaint was filed, or five days after entry of the proposed Final Judgment, whichever is later, defendants must divest to an economically viable and effective acquirer(s) perpetual, royalty-free, assignable, transferable licenses to manufacture and sell Flowserve's SCE, VLT, VMT, HQ, HX and WX pump lines; and IDP's J and CGT pump lines; Flowserve's pump plant in Tulsa, Oklahoma; and the IDP service centers in Batavia, Illinois and La Mirada, California. Defendants must use their best efforts to accomplish the divestitures as expeditiously as possible. The proposed Final Judgment requires that these assets must be divested in such a way as to satisfy the United States, in its sole discretion, that the assets can and will be used by the acquirer(s) to compete effectively in the business of manufacturing and selling the divested pump lines to customers, including those in the petroleum and power generation industries in the United States,
Until the ordered divestitures take place, defendants must take all reasonable steps necessary to accomplish the divestitures and cooperate with any prospective acquirer(s). If defendants do not accomplish the ordered divestitures within the prescribed time period, the proposed Final Judgment provides that the Court will appoint a trustee to complete the divestitures. If a trustee is appointed, the proposed Final Judgment provides that defendants must pay all costs and expenses of the trustee. The trustee's commission will be structured to provide an incentive for the trustee based on the price obtained and the speed with which divestitures are accomplished. After his or her appointment becomes effective, the trustee shall serve under such other conditions as the Court may prescribe. The trustee will file monthly reports with the parties and the Court, setting forth the trustee's efforts to accomplish the required divestitures. At the end of 150 days, if the divestitures have not been accomplished, the trustee and the parties will make recommendations to the Court, which shall enter such orders as appropriate to accomplish the divestitures.
The relief in the proposed Final Judgment has been tailored to ensure that the ordered divestitures maintain competition that would have been eliminated as a result of the acquisition and to prevent the exercise of market power after the acquisition in the markets alleged in the Complaint.
Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15, provides that any person who has been injured as a result of conduct prohibited by the antitrust laws may bring suit in federal court to recover three times the damages the person has suffered, as well as costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment will neither impair nor assist the bringing of any private antitrust damage action. Under the provisions of section 5(a) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(a), the proposed Final Judgment has no
The parties have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered by the Court after compliance with the provisions of the APPA, provided that the United States has not withdrawn its consent. The APPA conditions entry of the decree upon the Court's determination that the proposed Final Judgment is in the public interest.
The APPA provides a period of at least 60 days preceding the effective date of the proposed Final Judgment within which any person may submit to the United States written comments regarding the proposed Final Judgment. Any person who wishes to comment should do so within sixty (60) days of the date of publication of this Competitive Impact Statement in the
Written comments should be submitted to: Gail Kursh, Chief, Health Care Task Force, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice, 325 7th Street, NW, Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20530.
The proposed Final Judgment provides that the Court retains jurisdiction over this action, and the parties may apply to the Court for any order necessary or appropriate for the modification, interpretation, or enforcement of the Final Judgment.
The United States considered, as an alternative to the proposed Final Judgment, a full trial on the merits against defendants Flowserve, I-R and IDP. The United States could have continued such litigation to seek preliminary and permanent injunctions against Flowserve's acquisition of IDP. The United States is satisfied, however, that defendants' divestiture of the assets described in the proposed Final Judgment will establish, preserve and ensure a viable competitor in the relevant markets identified by the United States. To this end, the United States is convinced that the proposed relief, once implemented by the Court, will prevent Flowserve's acquisition of IDP from having adverse competitive effects.
The APPA requires that proposed consent judgments in antitrust cases brought by the United States be subject to a sixty-day comment period, after which the court shall determine whether entry of the proposed Final Judgment “is in the public interest.” In making that determination, the court
(1) The competitive impact of such judgment, including termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and modification, duration or relief sought, anticipated effects of alternative remedies actually considered, and any other considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such judgment;
(2) The impact of entry of such judgment upon the public generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial.
Courts have recognized that the term “ ‘public interest’ take[s] meaning from the purposes of the regulatory legislation.”
In conducting this inquiry, “the Court is nowhere compelled to go to trial or to engage in extended proceedings which might have the effect of vitiating the benefits of prompt and less costly settlement through the consent decree process.”
Accordingly, with respect to the adequacy of the relief secured by the decree, a court may not “engage in an unrestricted evaluation of what relief would best serve the public.”
A proposed consent decree is an agreement between the parties which is reached after exhaustive negotiations and discussions. Parties do not hastily and thoughtlessly stipulate to a decree because, in doing so, they
The proposed decree, therefore, should not be reviewed under a standard of whether it is certain to eliminate every anticompetitive effect of a particular practice or whether it mandates certainty of free competition in the future. Court approval of a proposed final judgment requires a standard more flexible and less strict than the standard required for a finding of liability. “[A] proposed decree must be approved even if it falls short of the remedy the court would impose on its own, as long as it falls within the range of acceptability or is ‘within the reaches of public interest’ (citations omitted).
Moreover, the court's role under the Tunney Act is limited to reviewing the remedy in relationship to the violations that the United States has alleged in its complaint, and does not authorize the Court to “construct [its] own hypothetical case and then evaluate the
There are no determinative materials or documents within the meaning of the APPA that were considered by the United States in formulating the proposed Final Judgment.
Dated: July 31, 2000.
Respectfully submitted,
I hereby certify that on this day of July 31, 2000, I caused a copy of the Competitive Impact Statement to be served by U.S. First Class Mail or overnight delivery upon:
Notice is hereby given that, on March 10, 1999, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and CableLabs intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On August 8, 1988, CableLabs filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on August 28, 1998. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on August 2, 2000, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Digital Imaging Group, Inc. intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On September 25, 1997, Digital Imaging Group, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on May 4, 2000. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on May 18, 1999, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned
On December 19, 1990, GURF filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on April 28, 1999. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on April 7, 2000, pursuant to section 6(a) of the national Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
The nature and objective of IMS Global Learning Consortium are to formulate open technical specifications (including without limitation specifications for packaging and exchanging digitized information about courses, learners, content and education or training operations) for distributed learning environments, including related hardware and software; to promote the development of global distributed learning through the cooperative and collaborative efforts of universities, non-profit organizations, agencies of federal and state governments, companies and other organizations that make a definitive, substantial and continuing commitment to the development, evolution and/or use of advanced distributed learning environments; to gather requirements from distributed learning customers and providers; to foster widespread access to, mutual sharing and adoption of the strategies and specifications developed by the organization, both by its members and by the general public; to collaborate with other associations or agencies interested in similar and related activities; to acquire, evaluate, and disseminate information in said areas, including, but not limited to, providing such information to the general public; and to prepare and disseminate training materials for use in distributed learning environments and conduct training and educational sessions pursuant to the development and use of the strategies and specifications developed by the organization.
Notice is hereby given that, on July 21, 2000, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On April 7, 2000, IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. A notice has not yet been published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on May 26, 2000, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Membership in the Collaboration remains open, and the Collaboration intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 27, 1993, the Collaboration filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 25, 1999. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on July 20, 2000, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Interoperability Consortium intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On January 13, 2000, Interoperability Consortium filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on April 17, 2000. A notice has not yet been published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on August 8, 2000, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and PERF No. 98-04 intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On February 4, 2000, PERF 98-04 filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
Notice is hereby given that, on November 5, 1998, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301,
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Petroleum Environmental Research Forum (“PERF”) intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On February 10, 1986, Petroleum Environmental Research Forum (“PERF”) filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on June 5, 1998. A notice was published in the
The Department of Labor has submitted the following (see below) emergency processing public
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on August 21, 2000, in response to a worker petition which was filed by the company on behalf of its workers at The Arnold Palmer Golf Company, Pocahontas, Arkansas. The workers produced golf bags and golf clubs.
Upon examination of the petition, it was discovered that a duplicate petition for the subject workers was instituted on August 14, 2000. The identifying number is TA-W-37,969.
Consequently further investigation in this case (TA-W-37,982) would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on June 19, 2000, in response to a worker petition which was filed on behalf of workers at Kountry Kreations, Towanda, Pennsylvania.
On August 17, 2000, the petitioner requested that her petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was
The company official submitting the petition has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on August 7, 2000, in response to a worker petition which was filed by the company on behalf of its workers at Smith & Nephew, Inc., Casting Division, Charlotte, North Carolina.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on June 12, 2000, in response to a petition which was filed by UNITE on behalf of workers at UFE, Incorporated, El Paso, Texas.
The signatories of the petition do not represent the workforce at the subject firm, either as a union or as a duly authorized representative. Thus, this investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on August 21, 2000, in response to a petition filed on the same date on behalf of workers at W. P. Industries, South Gate, California.
The petitioning group of workers is subject to an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued (TA-W-37,867). Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment and Training Administration is soliciting comments concerning the extension (Pending emergency OMB approval) of the collection of the One-Stop Labor Market Information Grant Plan and Progress Reports. A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addressee section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee's section below on or before November 13, 2000.
Steve Aaronson, U.S. Employment Service, Office of Workforce Security, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room C-4512, Washington, DC 20210; telephone 202-219-9092 x 151 fax 202-208-5844 (these are not toll-free numbers).
This extension is being requested in order to continue collecting information from States for One-Stop Labor Market Information Grant Plan and Progress Reports. This information will be used by the Department of Labor and its managing State partners to assure that an employment statistics system required by Wagner Peyser as amended by the Workforce Investment Act meets the needs of its customers. States seeking grants are requested to provide an annual grant narrative that provides specific information on how the grant funds will accomplish any of seven priorities developed by the Department through the Workforce Information Council. In addition the States are requested to provide a brief progress report twice during the grant period which explains the progress of the grantee in accomplishing the plan.
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collection; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this comment request will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment and Training Administration is soliciting comments concerning the extension of the collection of the One-Stop Occupational Employment Statistics Survey Plan and Progress Reports. A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addressee section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee's section below on or before November 13, 2000.
Steve Aaronson, U.S. Employment Service, Office of Workforce Security, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room C-4512, Washington, DC 20210; telephone 202-219-9092 x.151 fax 202-208-5844 (these are not toll-free numbers).
This extension is being requested in order to continue collecting information from States for One-Stop Occupational Employment Statistics survey grants. Specifically we are seeking approval for an annual grant narrative and two brief progress reports. This information is needed in order for the Secretary of Labor to assure that the Department is meeting in part the responsibilities in Wagner-Peyser section 15 for an employment statistics system. Further, this information is necessary in order that departmental staff, primarily in the Employment and Training Administration, may make intelligent and informed decisions as to whether or not funds awarded to the States were productive and produced a return on investment and met customer needs.
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information have a practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this comment request will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Notice of availability of funds and solicitation for grant applications (SGA).
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Employment and Training Administration (ETA) announces a competitive solicitation for grant applications (SGA) and the availability of approximately $4.5 million for approximately six grant awards. Through this notice, DOL seeks to identify local Workforce Investment Areas (local areas) committed to implementing three distinctly different approaches for delivering Individual Training Accounts (ITAs) to their customers (participants). Applicants awarded a grant under this SGA will participate in the ITA Experiment, the purpose of which is to provide better information to State and local administrators as they determine the roles of counselors in the management of participant choices in ITAs; plan the allocation of staff and training resources to best meet their objectives; and strive for the continuous improvement of services under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA).
The WIA legislation provides States and locals with considerable flexibility in using ITAs to manage participants' choices of training providers. State and local administrators are therefore faced with developing their own ITA approaches to best serve their participants. The ITA Experiment will test three ITA approaches from a spectrum of possible ITA approaches that could be adopted by local areas. All eligible participants will receive an ITA offer; that is, there will be no “control group” where participants are denied ITAs. Control groups will not be used because the goal of the ITA Experiment is to see which type of ITA approach, or aspects of those approaches, works best. By rigorously testing three very different ITA approaches, the ITA Experiment will help to establish which approach(es) work best for participants, for counselors, for local areas, and for the workforce development system as a whole. Administrators will be able to use this information to determine how to design an ITA system best suited for their State or local community.
Applicants awarded a grant under this SGA will receive the following benefits: (1) Federal funding to support administrative costs and other activities related to implementation and operation of ITAs; (2) support from DOL and research contractor staff experienced with and knowledgeable about ITAs and related employment and training activities; (3) technical assistance in implementing ITAs that is based on the most current research findings from the employment and training community nationwide; (4) on-going support from the research contractors in conducting all experimental activities, where the objectives of the research contractors will be to involve local staff in planning, minimize the burden on local staff, and provide responsive technical assistance and clear training materials; and (5) practical information on what ITA approach works best in their community. It is anticipated that grantees selected to implement the ITA approaches under this SGA will be exempt from performance measures for the length of the intake period.
Applications will be accepted commencing on the date of publication. The closing date for receipt of applications under this announcement is Thursday, November 30, 2000, at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) at the address below.
Applications shall be mailed to the U. S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Division of Federal Assistance, Attention: Ms. Yvonne Harrell, SGA/DFA 00-111, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-4203, Washington, DC 20210.
Questions should be faxed to Ms. Yvonne Harrell, Grants Management Specialist, Division of Federal Assistance, Fax (202) 219-8739. This is not a toll-free number. All inquires should include the SGA number (DFA 00-111), and a contact name, fax and telephone numbers. This solicitation is also being published on the Internet at ETA's home page at
The Individual Training Account (ITA) Experiment is being conducted under Section 171(c) of the Workforce Investment Act, which provides DOL/ETA with the authority to conduct multi-service projects, research projects, and multi-state projects. For example, multi-service projects test an array of approaches to the provision of employment and training services to a variety of targeted population; design, develop, and test various training approaches in order to determine effective practices; and assist in the development and replication of effective service delivery strategies for targeted populations for the national employment system as a whole. Research projects contribute to the solution of employment and training problems. Multi-state projects effectively disseminate best practices and models for implementing employment and training services; and obtain information relating to the provision of services under different economic conditions or to various demographic groups in order to provide guidance at the national and State levels about how to best administer specific employment and training services.
ETA is soliciting proposals on a competitive basis for the implementation of three different ITA approaches for managing a participant's choice in the administration of ITAs under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). The ITA approaches will be implemented through the ITA Experiment to provide State and local administrators with information on the effects of different ITA approaches to assist them in determining which approach is most appropriate to adopt.
This announcement consists of six parts:
On August 7, 1998, President Clinton signed the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998, a comprehensive reform legislation that superseded the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) on July 1, 2000. The WIA encourages States and localities to envision and implement a system of delivering training services to participants that goes beyond the status quo, as well as strive to continuously improve that system over time. A key element of the WIA is the requirement that local Workforce Investment Areas (WIAs) establish Individual Training Accounts (ITAs) to provide training services to participants. ITAs are intended to transform the delivery of services to adults and dislocated workers by enabling participants to choose their training providers. WIA also gives States and local areas a great deal of flexibility in deciding how much guidance and direction they will provide to participants in choosing the appropriate training.
Given the flexibility provided by WIA, State and local officials must decide how to administer ITAs for their participants who need training services. The ITA Experiment is designed to form these decisions by testing different approaches to managing participant choices in the administration of ITAs. The findings from this experiment will reveal how the different ITA approaches affect training choices, employment and earnings outcomes, returns on training investments, and participant satisfaction. State and local administrators may use this information to determine which ITA approach, or aspects of these approaches, is most appropriate for their participants.
Participation in the ITA Experiment will offer the following benefits for local areas:
• Federal funding to support administrative costs and other activities related to implementation and operation of ITAs;
• Support from the Department of Labor and research contractor staff experienced with and knowledgeable about ITAs and related employment and training activities;
• Technical assistance in implementing ITAs based on the most current research findings from the employment and training community nationwide;
• Ongoing support from the research contractors in conducting all experimental activities, where the objectives of the contractors will be to involve local staff in planning, minimize the burden on local staff, and provide responsive technical assistance and clear training materials; and
• Information on which of the ITA approaches work best in their community.
Applicants eligible for this grant must be either (1) a single local Workforce Investment Board (Local Board) applying with strong evidence of support from the State, or (2) a consortium of two contiguous Local Boards applying with strong support from their respective State(s). Applicants must provide clear evidence of support from the State in their application. Applications will not be considered without this evidence.
One of the key objectives of the ITA Experiment is to detect the impacts of substantially different ITA approaches to determine which approach works best, and for whom. In order to obtain accurate and reliable estimates of outcomes for the different ITA approaches, the research contractor for this effort has determined that a minimum sample size requirement of at least 550 training recipients in one program year is needed for each selected applicant. Thus, applicants applying as an individual Local Board must provide evidence of a minimum flow of 550 training recipients in one program year. Applicants applying as a consortium must provide evidence of a combined total of at least 550 training recipients in one program year. DOL encourages collaboration among Local Boards with a smaller flow of training recipients to apply as a consortium if the combined flow of training recipients is anticipated to be at least 550. Applicants applying together as a consortium must be contiguous, i.e., Local Boards must be from the same adjoining region. Applicants applying as a consortium who are selected for the project will receive a maximum amount of $750,000 for the consortium. This amount will be distributed proportionately to the number of training recipients each Local Board expects to contribute to the total number of expected training recipients. For example, if a consortium consists of two Local Boards, and the first Local Board anticipates a flow of 250 training recipients, while the second Local Board anticipates a flow of 400, the consortium will have a combined total of 650 training recipients. Since the first Local Board is providing for 250 of the 650 total training recipients (38% of the total number of training recipients), it will receive approximately $285,000 of the $750,000 grant (38% of the total grant award). Since the second Local Board is providing for 400 of the total 650 training recipients (62% of the total number of training recipients), it will therefore receive approximately $465,000 of the $750,000 grant (62% of the total grant award).
Applicants awarded this SGA must serve both adults and dislocated workers eligible for WIA training.
It is anticipated that $4.5 million will be available to make approximately six grant awards with a maximum award amount of $750,000 each. The period of performance will be approximately 36 months from the date of execution by the Department.
The Department of Labor may exercise its option to extend these grants for an additional period depending upon the availability of funds, the awardee's performance, and the needs of the ITA Experiment.
In general, there are specific activities that will be funded through the grant funds awarded under this contract. These include activities related to implementation, random assignment of the participants to one of the three ITA approaches, and data collection for the ITA Experiment. The following are some examples of how these funds might be used to support the ITA Experiment:
a. Administrative expenses (including staff training) necessary for understanding the delivery of the ITA approaches, random assignment, and data collection;
b. Administrative expenses for the delivery of orientation sessions on ITAs, counseling, and other services required under the ITA Experiment;
c. Administrative expenses related to the Eligible Training Provider (ETP) list process;
d. Expenses related to the operation and maintenance of the Service Tracking System (STS) for the ITA Experiment;
e. Travel and other expenses related to participation in networking and dissemination activities offered in conjunction with the ITA Experiment;
f. Travel and related expenses for the ITA Experiment; and
g. Other related and reasonable costs associated with implementation of the ITA Experiment.
One of the objectives for the ITA Experiment is to provide information on ITA approaches using resources consistent with the funding level normally available to Local Boards for training participants under WIA. As a result, grant funds are not intended to supplement direct ITA expenditures for their participants. Limited exceptions may be made only with the recommendation and approval of DOL. For example, DOL may approve up to 10% of the grant for direct training expenditures to participants.
Applicants are expected to collaborate with State, One-Stop administrative staff, counselors, training vendors, participants, management information systems staff, financial staff, and other related partners. Applicants are also expected to collaborate with DOL and the research contractors evaluating the ITA Experiment.
A key element of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) is the requirement that local Workforce Investment Areas (local areas) establish Individual Training Accounts (ITAs) to provide training services to participants. ITAs are intended to transform the delivery of services to adults and dislocated workers by ensuring that participants can choose their training providers. WIA also gives States and local areas a great deal of flexibility in deciding how much guidance and direction they will provide to participants in choosing appropriate training.
Given the flexibility provided by WIA, State and local officials must decide how to administer ITAs for their participants who need training services. The ITA Experiment is designed to provide assistance in these decisions by testing different approaches to managing participant choice in the administration of ITAs. The findings from this experiment will reveal how the different ITA approaches affect different training choices, employment and earnings outcomes, returns on training investments, and participant satisfaction. State and local administrators can use this information to determine which ITA approach, or combination of approaches, is most appropriate for their participants.
The ITA Experiment will test three alternative approaches to managing participant choice with ITAs. These approaches were designed based on extensive research conducted by the Department of Labor and the team of research contractors evaluating the experiment. This research included discussions with various stakeholders and visits to several local areas that are already operating some type of training voucher program. Information gathered during this research was used to design three ITA approaches that are consistent with WIA; have the potential for generating different training choices and outcomes; and are both feasible and likely to be of interest to local areas implementing WIA.
The ITA approaches to be tested in the experiment vary on three characteristics related to the management of participant choice: (1) The method used to determine each participant's ITA spending; (2) the ability of local counselors to guide or limit the choice of training providers made by participants; and (3) the type of counseling provided and whether it is mandatory or voluntary. We use these variations as the basis for defining the three ITA approaches to be tested from a spectrum of possible ITA systems, which range from a highly structured approach to a true voucher approach. The approach in the middle of this range is intended to broadly represent what most local areas are doing on their own, while the other two approaches are designed to be more or less structured than what most local areas are doing on their own.
The ITA approaches will be tested in an experimental setting; that is, new participants determined to be eligible for training will be randomly assigned by lottery to one of the ITA approaches. The lottery will be conducted by the research contractors evaluating the experiment. The participant will then be directed to participate in the activities of the ITA approach to which he or she is randomly assigned. All eligible participants will receive an ITA offer; that is, there will be no “control group” where participants are denied ITAs. Control groups will not be used because the goal of the ITA Experiment is to see which type of ITA approach works best overall and for different participants. Random assignment is crucial to the success of the experiment because it will ensure that participants assigned to each ITA approach are similar, on average. Hence, any differences between approaches in terms of the experiences of participants and their outcomes can be attributed to the ITA approaches themselves.
Enrollment into the experiment will begin on July 1, 2001, and local areas awarded grants under this SGA must commit to an enrollment period of 12 to 18 months. Local areas choosing to participate in the experiment must also commit to operating the three ITA approaches, supporting random assignment, and helping collect data to support the experiment. DOL and the research contractors will guide and assist local areas in carrying out each of these activities.
DOL has funded a separate contract with a research contractor, Mathematica Policy Research, to provide technical assistance and evaluation activities for the ITA Experiment. Based on preliminary grantee site visits, the researchers will adapt the experimental procedures to the conditions at each site. Each site will be provided with the necessary hardware to operate the software being developed for this project, pre-implementation training sessions, an implementation guide, and a variety of related documents to support the implementation and operation of ITAs through the ITA Experiment.
Participation in the ITA Experiment will offer the following benefits for the local areas selected under this SGA:
• Federal funding to support administrative costs and other activities related to implementation and operation of ITAs;
• Support from Department of Labor and research contractor staff experienced with and knowledgeable about ITAs and related employment and training activities;
• Technical assistance in implementing ITAs that is based on the most current research findings from the employment and training community nationwide;
• Ongoing support from the research contractors in conducting all experimental activities, where the objectives of the researchers will be to involve local staff in planning, minimize the burden on local staff, and provide responsive technical assistance and clear training materials; and
• Information on which of these ITA approach(es) works best in their community.
A challenge for One-Stop administrators is to allocate limited training resources to achieve the best possible outcomes while preserving participant choice. To provide information to localities on which ITA approach may work best for them and their participants, the ITA Experiment will rigorously assess three distinct ITA approaches that represent different
Task 1. Understanding and planning for the delivery of the three ITA approaches that are described in this Statement of Work;
Task 2. Implementation of the ITA Experiment, including the delivery of the three ITA approaches, enrollment, and random assignment of participants to one of the ITA approaches;
Task 3. Data collection of information necessary for the evaluation of the ITA Experiment.
A preliminary time line for the implementation of the ITA Experiment is as follows:
The ITA Experiment will be evaluated by a team of research contractors, which will be led by Mathematica Policy Research, and will include Social Policy Research Associates and Decision Information Resources. Please note that this evaluation is fully funded through a separate contract with DOL, and will not require any additional funding through this SGA. The evaluation will include two parts. The first part will be an analysis of implementation and operation of the different ITA approaches. This analysis will be based on data collected during three rounds of visits to the grantees participating in the experiment. During these visits the researchers will examine implementation and operation of the three ITA approaches from various perspectives, including those of State and local administrators, participants, and training providers. The second part of the evaluation will be an analysis of participant outcomes and the returns on the investment in the different ITA approaches. This analysis will focus on the differences in participant outcomes, such as training choices and employment and earnings, generated by the three ITA approaches. Data for this analysis will be drawn from State wage record files and other administrative records, the Service Tracking System (STS) developed by DOL specifically for the experiment, and a follow-up survey of participants.
The basic features of the three ITA approaches to be tested are summarized in Table 1. These features include the overall philosophy of the approach, the structure of the ITA, the counseling activities required for participants, and the role counselors play in helping participants formulate their training decisions.
The first activity in each ITA approach is an orientation session, in which participants are informed about all available services and about the activities that are required for their particular approach. Beyond this point, the activities in each approach diverge. The researchers will provide documents and other tools to support the orientation sessions as well as the various counseling activities in each approach. Counseling activities selected for the experiment will represent some of the best practices that have been found in support of informed participant choice of training.
1.
Once appropriate training has been chosen, participants will receive an ITA to cover the costs of training. Therefore, the amount of the ITA is considered to be “customized” to the individual based on the training program approved by the counselor. More specifically, the value of the ITA will equal the cost of the approved training program minus any support available from other sources, subject to a local ceiling or “cap” on ITA expenditures. With guidance from the research evaluation team, localities
To help participants identify appropriate training, local staff will take participants through a sequence of training-related counseling activities. These activities have been designed to help local staff identify high-return training strategies and determine the appropriate ITA amount. Staff will use a benefit-cost guidebook and worksheet, which will be provided by the researchers, to guide participants to high-return training. Participants must complete the required counseling activities to receive approval for their training selections. Approval will be based on three conditions: (1) The selected program is on the State-approved list of eligible training providers, (2) the participant is expected to be able to complete the training, and (3) the selected program is expected to enable the participant to become employed in an occupation with high earnings relative to the resources being invested. While counselors will not be able to require a particular training program for a participant, they will have the authority to reject a participant's training selection if it does not meet any one of these three conditions. In this way, counselors will have a fairly high degree of control in directing participants to training programs that promise the highest returns on investment.
2.
Counselors will recommend appropriate, modest-cost programs to ensure that participants reserve ITA funds for anticipated training-related needs (such as transportation to the training site) and to allow the locality to reserve WIA funds in order to serve more training participants. However, participants will continue to have final control over their selections. Once participants have selected their training, local staff must approve the selected training as long as (1) the participant has satisfied the approach's counseling requirements and (2) the selected program is covered in the State's list of eligible providers and appears feasible, given the amount of the ITA and other available resources.
Under Approach 2, the ITA has the same “fixed” value for all participants. Because participants may choose any feasible, State-approved program, counselors cannot customize the ITA amount to each individual as in Approach 1. The fixed ITA amount will be significantly lower than the cap under Approach 1. Participants will be made aware of this amount before choosing a training provider. Since counselors will recommend appropriate and relatively low-cost training, some participants will not spend the full amount of their ITA, and ITA expenditures will therefore differ for Approach 2 participants.
Last, participants will be given the flexibility to use ITA funds to pay for direct training costs (that is, tuition and fees) and for training-related expenses (for example, books, equipment, or certification exams), subject to counselor approval.
3.
Approach 3 participants may pursue the training of their choice without any further interaction with local staff once they have participated in an orientation. Participants under this approach have maximum choice because counselors can reject training choices only if the provider is not included in the State's list of eligible training providers. Unlike Approaches 1 and 2, participation in counseling services will not be mandatory for Approach 3 participants, and failure to participate will not restrict their access to ITA funds. Approach 3 participants may elect to receive counseling or other assistance from local staff to help them select the training of their choice.
Before the ITA Experiment is implemented, staff from Mathematica will visit the grantees to evaluate how the three ITA approaches will be adapted to the local conditions. Following these visits, Mathematica will develop operational manuals to guide the implementation of the experiment in each site. These manuals, to be developed in collaboration with grantee staff, will describe the various ITA approaches and procedures in enough detail to ensure that local operations will be consistent with the design of the experiment. Each site will receive an operational manual customized to its local area operation.
The experiment will be pilot-tested by one grantee site. Prior to implementing the experiment in the remaining grantee sites, a debriefing will be conducted on the pilot experience. To prepare grantee staff for implementation, the researchers will develop training materials and train local staff approximately one month before enrollment begins. Once operations have begun, the researchers will provide support and technical assistance to local staff throughout the experiment. Information from this pilot test will be used to further refine ITA procedures.
The project enrollment period will last between 12 to 18 months. All grantees must commit to conducting enrollment of participants for up to 18 months. During this time, the researchers will randomly assign all participants to one of the three ITA approaches after the point at which it is determined that training is part of the participant's individual employment plan. Thus, the ITA experiment will not affect any of the core or intensive services provided to participants before determining training eligibility. It is important to remember that all three ITA approaches will be implemented by all of the selected grantees. Before random assignment, local staff will inform participants about the
Once the participant has completed a participation agreement and a BIF, the site will enter the information from the BIF into the Service Tracking System (STS), a computer system created by DOL especially for the experiment. Once the BIF is entered, the STS will conduct random assignment, and the site will be notified by e-mail about the ITA approach to which a participant has been assigned.
As mentioned in the introduction, the researchers will use several data sources in the evaluation of the experiment. In addition, the local areas (and respective States) participating in the experiment will play a fairly large role in data collection. During enrollment, local staff will oversee the completion of the participation agreement and the BIF. As participants flow through the program, local staff will enter data into the STS to track enrollment into the experiment and the participation of ITA participants in training-related services and training. The STS will generate reports that will help counselors monitor participants' activities, training expenditures, and ITA accounts. Please note that local staff will not be required to enter data on core and intensive services into the STS. Each grantee site will receive computer hardware and software for the STS. Technical assistance for installing and operating the STS, will also be provided and funded by DOL under a separate contract.
In three rounds of site visits to support the analysis of implementation and operation of the ITA approaches. Following the completion of experimental operations, State staff will be expected to help the researchers compile wage records and other administrative data on all participants in the experiment.
Local areas need to provide a signed letter from their State assuring that State wage records and other administrative data required for the evaluation of the experiment will be made available.
There are three required sections of the application. Requirements for each section are provided in this application package. Applications that fail to meet the requirements will not be considered.
Section I—Executive Summary—Project Synopsis;
Section II—Project Financial Plan;
Section III—Project Narrative—Technical Proposal (including Appendices,
a. The applicant;
b. The type of organization the applicant represents;
c. The identification of consortium partners and the type of organization they represent;
d. The project service area;
e. Whether the service area is an entire local workforce investment area, more than one local area, and/or all local areas in a State;
f. The specific areas of focus in the announcement which are addressed by the project;
g. The amount of funds requested;
h. The planned period of performance;
i. The comprehensive strategy proposed for providing seamless service delivery;
j. The level of commitment the applicant and consortium members have to serving participants,
The financial plan must describe all costs associated with implementing the project that are to be covered with the grant funds. All cost should be necessary and reasonable according to the Federal guidelines set forth in the “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments,” (also known as the :Common Rule”) codified at 29 CFR Part 97 (97.22), and “Grants and Agreements with Institutes of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations' (also known as OMB Circular A-110). Codified at 29 CFR Part 95 (95.27).
The financial plan must contain the following parts:
a. Completed “SF 424—Application for Federal Assistance” (see Appendix A for required form)
b. Completed “Budget Information Form” by line item for all costs required to implemented the project design effectively. (See Appendix B for these required forms.)
c. Budget narrative/justification which provides sufficient information to support the reasonableness of the cost included in the budget in relation to the service strategy and planned outcomes. Budget categories are administration and program activities, and should be planned in accordance with recent changes in the Department of Labor financial reporting requirements (see attached Budget Information Form).
Applications should be mailed no later than five (5) days prior to the closing date for the receipt of applications. However if applications are hand-delivered, they must be received at the designated place by 4 p.m., Eastern Time on the closing date (Thursday, November 30, 2000) for receipt of applications. All overnight mail will be considered to be hand-delivered and must be received at the designated place by the specified time and closing date. Telegraphed and/or faxed proposals will not be honored. Applications that fail to adhere to the above instructions will not be honored.
Any application received at the office designated in the solicitation after the exact time specified for receipt will not be considered unless it:
(1) Was sent by U.S. Postal Service registered or certified mail not later than the fifth calender day before the closing date specified for receipt of applications (
(2) Was sent by U.S. Postal Service Express Mail Next Day Service—Post Office to Addressee, not later than 5:00 p.m. at the place of mailing two working days prior to the date specified for receipt of application. The term “working days” excludes weekends and U.S. Federal holidays. The only acceptable evidence to establish the date of mailing of a late application sent by U.S. Postal Service registered or certified mail is the U.S. postmark on the envelope or wrapper and on the original receipt from the U.S. Postal Service.
The only acceptable evidence to establish the date of mailing of a late application sent by “Express Mail Next-Day Service—Post Office to Addressee” is the date entered by the post office receiving clerk on the “Express Mail Next Day Service—Post Office to Addressee”and the postmarks on both the envelope and wrapper and the original receipt from the U.S. Postal Service.
Applications may be withdrawn by written notice or telegram (including mailgram) received at any time before award. Applications may be withdrawn in person by the applicant or by an authorized representative thereof, if the representative's identity is made known and the representative signs a receipt for the proposal.
A careful evaluation of applications will be made by a technical review panel who will evaluate the applications against the criteria below. The panel results are advisory in nature and not binding on the Grant Officer. The Government may elect to award the grant with or without discussions with the offeror. In situations without discussions, an award will be based on the offeror's signature on the (SF) 424, which constitutes a binding offer. Awards made will be those that are in the best interest of the Government. It is important that applicants demonstrate that they are positioned to implement the ITA approaches described in this solicitation and to share learning that can contribute to the development of successful workforce development systems elsewhere.
a. Applicant must be either (1) a local Workforce Investment Board (Local Board) applying with evidence of strong support from the State in which it is located, or (2) a consortium of two contiguous Local Boards applying with strong support from their State(s). Each Local Board applying for this SGA, either singularly or as a consortium, must include, as part of the evidence of support, a statement (
i. If applicant is one Local Board, the Local Board must provide evidence of an expected minimum flow of 550 training recipients for one program year. Applicant must describe the estimated flow of training recipients it expects to offer training to in one program year. This number should be supported by historical information (
ii. If applicant is a consortium of two Local Boards, the consortium must expect a minimum combined flow of 550 participants for training. The Local Boards in a consortium must be contiguous,
The estimated flow of training recipients determines the eligibility of a single Local Board or consortium of Local Boards to apply for this grant. One of the key objectives of the ITA Experiment is to detect the impacts of substantially different ITA approaches to determine which approach works best, and for whom. In order to obtain accurate and reliable estimates of outcomes for the different ITA approaches, the research contractor has determined that a minimum sample size requirement of at least 550 training recipients in one program year is necessary from each applicant. Therefore, DOL will not consider proposals that fail to show evidence of meeting this criteria.
b. Describe the Local Board(s), including (but not limited to) a brief history, the number of One-Stop Centers within the local area, the number of staff that counsel training recipients for all One-Stops, anticipated WIA funding levels, and size and demographics of local workforce investment area(s) served.
a. Provide a complete flowchart and description of the array of services currently used, as well as the services that are anticipated to be available, to locally support and serve training recipients.
b. Provide a complete flowchart and description of the procedures and services used to determine how and when a participant is determined eligible for training, including a description of how the services are different between participants receiving intensive services and participants receiving training services.
c. Discuss any potential roadblocks or considerations in implementing any of the ITA approaches or operational aspects of the ITA Experiment. Also, describe possible solutions to handling these issues.
d. Describe the Eligible Training Provider (ETP) list and Consumer Reporting System (CRS) in your state. On each of the systems, include information on the format, types of information posted, how it is accessed and used by counselors and participants, how they are maintained, and how long they have been in use by the applicant. Also, provide the estimated number of providers on the ETP list. Copies of parts of the ETP list and the CRS can be used as examples of format.
e. Present a detailed time line describing how the applicant could perform the tasks for implementing the ITA Experiment, given the milestones described in the Statement of Work.
f. Provide a brief description of the computer management information system used locally at the site, if any, and include the types of data that is collected and how it is maintained.
a. Discuss the applicant's commitment to providing site staff availability for staff training and other related activities planned by DOL and the researchers to ensure proper implementation of the ITA approaches, random assignment, and data collection. Applicant must provide commitment of one full-time project manager for this project, for a minimum of 18 months, along with the project manager's resume. Applicant must also provide a staffing chart for the ITA Experiment, and provide names, positions, and functions of key staff committed to the experiment,
b. Describe the applicant's interest in and commitment to implementing random assignment for the ITA Experiment.
c. Describe the applicant's level of interest in participating as the Pilot Site to operate the ITA Experiment 8-12 weeks before the other grantees begin the experiment. As noted in the
d. Explain the applicant's interest in treating the ITA Experiment as a priority in comparison with other workforce development system innovations.
a. Describe the applicant's previous experience, if any, with designing and/or implementing ITAs, or any other voucher-type programs.
b. Discuss the applicant's history of peer-to-peer assistance with learning from program innovations, especially on a regional or national basis.
c. Provide an example of a creative approach the applicant organization(s) has designed to improve their local area's workforce development system.
DOL shall be responsible for ensuring effective implementation of each competitive grant project under the ITA Experiment in accordance with the Workforce Investment Act legislation, regulations, the provisions of this announcement, and the negotiated grant agreement. Applicants should assume that at least one on-site project reviews will be conducted by Department staff, or their designees. This review will focus on the project's performance in meeting the goals of the ITA Experiment, implementing with the requirements of each ITA approach for participants who are served, expenditure of grant funds on allowable activities, and collaboration with other organizations as required. Grants may be subject to additional reviews at the discretion of DOL.
DOL will arrange for providing technical assistance to selected grantees in establishing appropriate reporting and data collection methods and processes based upon the STS created by DOL for the experiment. An effort will be made to accommodate and provide assistance to selected grantees to be able to complete all reporting electronically. In addition to the STS, selected grantees will be required to provide the following reports:
a. Monthly progress reports; and
b. Standard Form 269, Financial Status Report Form, on a quarterly basis.
Evaluation reports for the ITA Experiment will be prepared by an independent research evaluation firm, Mathematica Policy Research. The evaluation reports, including interim and final reports, are fully funded by DOL through a separate contract, and will not require any additional funding through this SGA.
DOL has contracted with an independent research evaluation firm, Mathematica Policy Research, to conduct an evaluation of the process, outcomes, impacts, and return on investment of the ITA Experiment. RFP #DCS-99-28 describes the evaluation criteria and is available for review at http://www.wdsc.org/sga/rfp/rfp99-28.htm. Grantees must agree to make their records available to research contractor personnel, as necessary. The research contractor will be required to maintain the confidentiality of all individual records they receive for the purpose of evaluating the ITA Experiment.
The WIA legislation provides States and locals with considerable flexibility in using ITAs to manage a participant's choice of training providers. State and local administrators are therefore faced with developing their own ITA approaches to best serve their participants. The ITA Experiment will test three ITA approaches that could be adopted by local Workforce Investment Areas. By rigorously testing these three approaches, the ITA Experiment can help to establish which approaches work best for participants, for counselors, for Workforce Investment Boards, and for the workforce development system as a whole. Administrators will be able to use this information to determine which of the ITA approaches is best suited for their State or local community.
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration (PWBA) is announcing that collection of information included in its Prohibited Transaction Exemption 97-41 has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA 95). This notice announces the OMB approval number and expiration date.
Address requests for copies of the information collection request (ICR) to Gerald B. Lindrew, U.S. Department of Labor, Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room N-5647, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: (202) 219-4782. This is not a toll-free number.
In the
Under 5 CFR 1320.5 (b), an Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.
Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Notice with a request for comments.
The Copyright Office is announcing receipt of a petition to convene a Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (“CARP”) to set rates and terms for the period beginning January 1, 2001, for two statutory licenses which, in one case, allows certain eligible nonsubscription services to perform sound recordings publicly by means of digital audio transmissions and, in the second case, allows a transmitting organization to make an ephemeral recording of a sound recording for the purpose of making a permitted public performance. The Office is also announcing the date by which a party who wishes to participate in the rate adjustment proceeding must file its Notice of Intention to Participate.
Comments and Notices of Intention to Participate are due no later than October 13, 2000.
An original and five copies of a Notice of Intention to Participate and an original and five copies of any comment shall be delivered to: Office of the General Counsel, Copyright Office, James Madison Building, Room LM-403, First and Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20559-6000; or mailed to: Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP), P.O. Box 70977, Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024.
David O. Carson, General Counsel, or Tanya M. Sandros, Senior Attorney, Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel, P.O. Box 70977, Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 707-8380. Telefax: (202) 252-3423.
Since 1995 copyright owners of sound recordings have enjoyed an exclusive right to perform publicly their copyrighted work by means of a digital audio transmission, subject to certain limitations. 17 U.S.C. 106(6). Among the initial limitations placed on the performance of the sound recording was the creation of a statutory license to cover performances made by nonexempt, noninteractive, digital subscription services. 17 U.S.C. 114 (1995).
However, it soon became apparent that with the increased use of digital communications networks, like the Internet, further legislation was needed to clarify how the law applied to nonsubscription digital audio services. Congress responded by passing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (“DMCA”), Public Law 105-304, which amended section 114 to expand the scope of the statutory license to include a public performance of a sound recording by means of “an eligible nonsubscription transmission”
The DMCA also created a second statutory license to cover the making of an “ephemeral recording” of a sound recording—a necessary adjunct to the making of a digital transmission. 17 U.S.C. 112(e). The new statutory license allows entities that transmit performances of sound recordings to business establishments, pursuant to the limitations set forth in section 114(d)(1)(C)(iv), to make an ephemeral recording of a sound recording for purposes of a later transmission. The new license also provides a means by which a transmitting entity with a statutory license under section 114(f) can make more than the one phonorecord specified in section 112(a). 17 U.S.C. 112(e).
The procedure set forth in the statute for establishing reasonable terms and rates is the same for both licenses.
To initiate the arbitration phase of the proceeding, an interested party must file a petition with the Copyright Office, requesting that a CARP be convened for the purpose of determining the rates and terms for the statutory licenses.
When Congress passed the DMCA in 1998, it chose not to set rates and terms for either the new section 112 or the expanded section 114 license. Instead, the statute directed the Librarian of Congress to initiate a voluntary negotiation period within 30 days of enactment of the act for the purpose of determining reasonable terms and rates for each license for the period beginning on the date of enactment of the DMCA and ending on December 31, 2000. 17 U.S.C. 112(e)(4) and 114(f)(2)(A); see also, 63 FR 65555 (November 27, 1998).
In response to the November 27 notice, interested parties engaged in extensive negotiations but were unable to reach a settlement agreeable to all parties. Consequently, the Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. (“RIAA”) filed a petition on July 23, 1999, with the Copyright Office in accordance with 17 U.S.C. 112(e)(4) and 114(f)(2)(B), requesting that the Office convene a CARP for the purpose of setting rates and terms for the public performance of sound recordings by means of eligible nonsubscription transmissions and the making of the necessary ephemeral recordings to facilitate the transmissions during the period beginning on October 28, 1998, and ending on December 31, 2000.
Accordingly, the Office announced a schedule, setting the dates for the 45-day precontroversy discovery period and the initiation of the date of the 180-day arbitration period for the initial rate adjustment proceeding.
In the interim, the Copyright Office announced a new negotiation period, in accordance with section 112(e)(6) and 114(f)(2)(C)(i)(II) of the Copyright Act.
On August 28, 2000, RIAA filed a petition in accordance with 17 U.S.C. 112(e)(6) and 114(f)(2)(C) requesting that the Office convene a CARP for the purpose of setting rates and terms in accordance with these provisions for the two-year period beginning January 1, 2001. In the petition, RIAA also states that it “reserves the right to request that the Librarian adopt terms and rates under sections 112 and 114 for the 2001-2002 license period without convening a CARP, depending on the outcome of the pending negotiations and the 1998-2000 CARP proceeding . . . [and] the right to seek separate proceedings to establish terms and rates as appropriate even though [it] is submitting a single petition under both Section 112 and Section 114 statutory licenses and for all eligible services.” Petition at 2-3.
Any party who wishes to comment on the RIAA petition may file a comment with the Copyright Office no later than close of business on October 13, 2000. The Librarian will consider these comments when evaluating the sufficiency of the petition.
The regulations governing rate adjustment proceedings require that, upon the filing of a petition for rate adjustment, the Office establish a date certain by which parties wishing to participate in the proceeding must file with the Librarian a Notice of Intention to Participate. 37 CFR 251.45(a). In consideration of the ongoing negotiations, the Office is setting October 13, 2000 as the date by which an interested party must file its Notice of Intention to Participate. Failure to submit a timely notice will preclude the interested party from participating in the CARP proceeding the purpose of which will be to set rates and terms for: (1) certain digital audio transmissions by a service eligible to make use of the expanded section 114 license, and (2) for ephemeral recordings made in accordance with the section 112 license.
Schedules for the 45-day precontroversy discovery period will be announced for the rate adjustment proceedings, Docket Nos. 99-6 CARP DTRA and 2000-3 CARP DTRA2, once the Office concludes the rulemaking proceeding concerning the streaming of an AM/FM radio signal over the Internet by an FCC-licensed broadcaster and issues its ruling on a pending motion to consolidate the initial rate adjustment proceeding with the second proceeding the purpose of which is to consider rates and terms for the sections 112 and 114 statutory licenses for the period beginning on January 1, 2001.
11 a.m., Thursday, September 14, 2000.
Room 6005, 6th Floor, 1730 K Street, NW, Washington, DC.
Closed [Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552b(c)(10)].
It was determined by a majority vote of the Commission that the Commission consider and act upon the following in closed session:
1. Disciplinary Proceeding, Docket No. D 2000-1.
2 p.m., Thursday, September 14, 2000.
Room 6005, 6th Floor, 1730 K Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Open.
The Commission will consider and act upon the following:
1. Secretary of Labor on behalf of Noe v. J & C Mining, Docket No. KENT 99-248-D (Issues include whether the judge erred in concluding that J & C Mining did not constructively discharge a miner after he refused to transfer to the third shift).
Any person attending an open meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR §§ 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).
Jean Ellen (202) 653-5629/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice.
NARA is giving public notice that the agency proposes to request extension of three currently approved information collections. The first information collection is used in all NARA research rooms and museums for customers to provide comments, suggestions, and complaints about NARA service. The information will be used to improve service and plan future services. The other two currently approved information collections are used in the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC's) grant program for subvention of part of the costs of manufacturing and distributing volumes published by NHPRC-supported documentary editorial projects. One of the NHPRC information collections is a grant application prepared by university and other non-profit presses applying for a subvention grant. The other NHPRC information collection is a sales report made by a non-profit press which has received a subvention grant from the NHPRC. The public is invited to comment on the proposed information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be received on or before November 13, 2000 to be assured of consideration.
Comments should be sent to: Paperwork Reduction Act Comments (NHP), Room 3200, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Rd, College Park, MD 20740-6001; or faxed to 301-713-6913; or electronically mailed to tamee.fechhelm@arch2.nara.gov.
Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information collections and supporting statements should be directed to Tamee Fechhelm at telephone number 301-713-6730, or fax number 301-713-6913.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13), NARA invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed information collections. The comments and suggestions should address one or more of the following points: (a) Whether the proposed information collections are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NARA; (b) the accuracy of NARA's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collections; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of information technology. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the NARA request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this notice, NARA is soliciting comments concerning the following information collections:
1.
2.
3.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463 as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting.
The FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC/the licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating License No. NPF-73 that authorizes operation of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2. The license provides, among other things, that the licensee is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter in effect.
The facility consists of a pressurized water reactor located in Shippingport, Beaver County, Pennsylvania.
Title 10 of the
Pressurized water reactor licensees have installed low temperature overpressure protection (LTOP) systems in order to protect the reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB) from being operated outside of the boundaries established by the P/T limit curves and to provide pressure relief of the RCPB during low temperature overpressurization events. The licensee is required by the Beaver Valley Unit 2 Technical Specifications (TSs) to update and submit the changes to its LTOP setpoints whenever the licensee is requesting approval for amendments to the P/T limit curves in the Beaver Valley Unit 2 TSs.
In order to address provisions of amendments to the TS P/T limits and LTOP curves, the licensee requested in its submittal dated June 17, 1999, that the staff exempt Beaver Valley Unit 2 from application of specific requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, § 50.60(a), and 10 CFR Part 50, appendix G, and substitute the use of ASME Code Case N-640. It should be noted that, as a result of ASME Code committee action, the original designation for this Code Case (N-626) was changed to N-640. Therefore, Code Case N-640 will be discussed below rather than Code Case N-626, which is the designation referenced in Attachments C and D of the submittal. Code Case N-640 is an alternate reference for fracture toughness for reactor vessel materials for use in determining the P/T limits.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for exemption contained in a submittal dated June 17, 1999, and is needed to support the TS amendment that is contained in the same submittal. The proposed amendment will revise the P/T limits of TS 3/4.4.9 for Beaver Valley Unit 2 related to the heatup, cooldown, and inservice test limitations for the reactor coolant system (RCS) to 15 Effective Full Power Years (EFPYs). It will also revise the section of the TSs that relates to the overpressure protection system (OPPS) to reflect the revised P/T limits of the reactor vessels.
The licensee has proposed an exemption to allow the use of ASME Code Case N-640 in conjunction with ASME Section XI, 10 CFR 50.60(a), and 10 CFR Part 50, appendix G.
The proposed amendment to revise the P/T limits for Beaver Valley Unit 2, relies, in part, on the requested exemption. In accordance with Code Case N-640, these revised P/T limits have been developed using the KK
Use of the K
Since the RCS P/T operating window is defined by the P/T operating and test limit curves developed in accordance with the ASME Section XI, Appendix G, procedure, continued operation of Beaver Valley Unit 2 with these P/T curves without the relief provided by ASME Code Case N-640 would unnecessarily restrict the P/T operating window, especially at low temperature conditions. Reducing this operating window could potentially have an adverse safety impact by increasing the possibility of inadvertent OPPS actuation due to pressure surges
Additionally, the impact on the P/T limits and OPPS setpoints has been evaluated for an increased service period to 15 EFPYs based on ASME Section XI, Appendix G, requirements. The results indicate that OPPS would significantly restrict the ability to perform plant heatup and cooldown, create an unnecessary burden to plant operations, and challenge control of plant evolutions required with OPPS enabled. Implementation of the proposed P-T curves, as allowed by ASME Code Case N-640, does not significantly reduce the margin of safety. Thus, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), the underlying purpose of the regulation will continue to be served.
In summary, the ASME Section XI, Appendix G, procedure was conservatively developed based on the level of knowledge existing in 1974 concerning RPV materials and the estimated effects of operation. Since 1974, the level of knowledge about these topics has been greatly expanded. The NRC staff concurs that this increased knowledge permits relaxation of the ASME Section XI, Appendix G, requirements by application of ASME Code Case N-640, while maintaining, pursuant to 10 CFR50.12(a)(2)(ii), the underlying purpose of the ASME Code and the NRC regulations to ensure an acceptable margin of safety.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, when (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) when special circumstances are present. Special circumstances are present whenever, according to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), “Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule * * *.”
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR part 50, section 50.60(a), and 10 CFR part 50, appendix G, is to protect the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary in nuclear power plants. This is accomplished through these regulations that, in part, specify fracture toughness requirements for ferritic materials of the reactor coolant pressure boundary. The NRC staff accepts the licensee's determination that an exemption would be required to approve the use of Code Case N-640.
The NRC staff examined the licensee's rationale to support the exemption request. Based upon a consideration of the conservatism that is explicitly incorporated into the methodologies of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G; ASME Section XI, appendix G; and Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, the NRC staff finds that the application of Code Case N-640 will provide results which are sufficiently conservative to ensure the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and, thus, meet the underlying intent of 10 CFR part 50, section 50.60(a), and 10 CFR part 50, appendix G. This is also consistent with determinations that the NRC staff has reached for other licensees under similar conditions, and based on the same considerations. Therefore, the NRC staff finds that special circumstances set forth in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) are present and that the methodology of Code Case N-640 may be used to revise the P/T limits and the LTOP setpoints for the Beaver Valley Unit 2 RCS.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or common defense and security, and is, otherwise, in the public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants FENOC an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, section 50.60(a), and 10 CFR part 50, appendix G, for the Beaver Valley Unit 2 reactor coolant system.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption will not result in any significant effect on the quality of the human environment. (65 FR 50722).
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Correction.
This document corrects a notice appearing in the
Len Wiens, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, telephone 301-415-1495, e-mail: law@nrc.gov.
On page 34741, in the second column, in the fourth complete paragraph, “May 23, 2000,” is corrected to read “May 22, 2000.”
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of PSEG Nuclear, LLC (the licensee) to withdraw Public Service Electric & Gas Company's (PSE&G) December 28, 1998, application for proposed amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-57 for the Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS), located in Salem County, New Jersey.
The proposed amendment would have revised the technical specifications to increase the allowable leak rate of the main steam isolation valves (MSIV) and delete the MSIV Sealing System.
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 amendment dated December 28, 1998, and the licensee's letter dated August 29, 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.
Weeks of September 11, 18, 25, October 2, and 9, 2000.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of September 18.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of October 9.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)—(301) 415-1292.
Bill Hill (301) 415-1661.
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, DC 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.
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice of medically underserved areas for 2001.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has completed its annual determination of the States that qualify as Medically Underserved Areas under the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program for the calendar year 2001. This is necessary to comply with a provision of the FEHB law that mandates special consideration for enrollees of certain FEHB plans who receive covered health services in States with critical shortages of primary care physicians. Accordingly, for calendar year 2001, OPM's calculations show that the following States are Medically Underserved Areas under the FEHB Program: Alabama, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. The 2001 list is identical to the 2000 list, except we have removed North Dakota from the list for calendar year 2001.
January 1, 2001.
Ingrid Burford, 202-606-0004.
FEHB law (5 U.S.C. 8902(m)(2)) mandates special consideration for enrollees of certain FEHB plans who receive covered health services in States with critical shortages of primary care physicians. The FEHB law also requires that a State be designated as a Medically Underserved Area if 25 percent or more of the population lives in an area designated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as a primary medical care manpower shortage area. Such States are designated as Medically Underserved Areas for purposes of the FEHB Program, and the law requires plan payments to all qualified providers in these States.
FEHB regulations (5 CFR 890.701) require OPM to make an annual determination of the States that qualify as Medically Underserved Areas for the
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice of meeting.
Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 2a19-1 under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) provides that investment company directors will not be considered interested persons, as defined by section 2(a)(19) of the Act, solely because they are registered broker-dealers or affiliated persons of registered broker-dealers, provided that the broker-dealer does not execute any portfolio transactions for the company's complex, engage in any principal transactions with the complex or distribute shares for the complex for at least six months prior to the time that the director is to be considered not to be an interested person and for the period during which the director continues to be considered not to be an interested person. The rule also requires the investment company's board of directors to determine that the company would not be adversely affected by refraining from business with the broker-dealer. In addition, the rule provides that no more than a minority of the disinterested directors of the company may be registered broker-dealers or their affiliates.
Before the adoption of Rule 2a19-1, many investment companies found it necessary to file with the Commission applications for orders exempting directors from section 2(a)(19) of the Act. Rule 2a19-1 is intended to alleviate the burdens on the investment company industry of filing for such orders in circumstances where there is no potential conflict of interest. The conditions of the rule are designed to indicate whether the director has a stake in the broker-dealer's business with the company such that he or she might not be able to act independently of the company's management.
The Commission estimates that approximately 3,200 investment companies may choose to rely on rule 2a19-1, and that each investment company may spend one hour annually compiling and keeping records related to the requirements of the rule. The total annual burden associated with the rule is estimated to be 3,200 hours.
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms.
Complying with the collection of information requirements of the rule is necessary to obtain the benefit of relying on the rule. Rule 2a19-1 does not require the filing of any information with the Commission. To the extent that records kept in connection with this rule are made available to the Commission's staff as part of the Commission's inspection program, those records are generally kept confidential. 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 control number.
Written comments regarding the above information should be directed to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and
Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 27e-1 [17 CFR 270.27e-1] is entitled “Requirements for Notice to be Mailed to Certain Purchasers of Periodic Payment Plan Certificates Sold Subject to Section 27(d) of the Act.” Form N-27E-1 is entitled “Notice to Periodic Payment Plan Certificate Holders of 18 Month Surrender Rights with Respect to Periodic Payment Plan Certificates.” Rule 27f-1 [17 CFR 270.27f-1] is entitled “Notice of Right of Withdrawal Required to Be Mailed to Periodic Payment Plan Certificate Holders and Exemption from Section 27(f) for Certain Periodic Payment Plan Certificates.” Form N-27F-1 is entitled “Notice to Periodic Payment Plan Certificate Holders of 45 Day Withdrawal Right with Respect to Periodic Payment Plan Certificates.” Form N-27E-1, which is prescribed by Rule 27e-1 in order to implement the statutory mandate in section 27(e) of the Act, serves to notify holders of periodic payment plan certificates who have missed certain payments of their surrender rights with respect to the certificates. Form N-27F-1, which is prescribed by Rule 27f-1, is used to notify recent purchasers of periodic payment plan certificates, of their right under section 27(f) of the Act to return the certificates within a specified period for a full refund. The Form N-27E-1 and Form N-27F-1 notices, which are sent directly to holders of periodic payment plan certificates, serve to alert purchasers of periodic payment plans of their rights in connection with their plan certificates.
Commission staff estimates that there are fewer than five issuers of periodic payment plan certificates affected by Rules 27e-1 and 27f-1. The frequency with which each of these issuers or their representatives must file the Form N-27E-1 and Form N-27F-1 notices varies with the number of periodic payment plans sold and the number of certificate holders who miss payments. The Commission estimates, however, that approximately 5,000 Form N-27E-1 notices and 48,900 Form N-27F-1 notices are sent out annually. The Commission estimates that each Form N-27E-1 notice takes approximately 4.5 minutes (0.075 hours) to prepare. Therefore, the total annual burden of Form N-27E-1 is estimated to be approximately 375 hours. The Commission estimates that each Form N-27F-1 notice takes approximately 3.5 minutes (.05833 hours) to prepare. Therefore, the total annual burden of Form 27F-1 is estimated to be 2,852 hours.
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms.
Complying with the collection of information requirements of Rule 27e-1 is mandatory for issuers of periodic payment plans or their depositors or underwriters in the event holders of plan certificates miss certain payments within eighteen months after issuance. Complying with the collection of information requirements of Rule 27f-1 is mandatory for custodian banks of periodic payment plans for which the sales load deducted from any payment exceeds 9 percent of the payment. The information provided pursuant to Rules 27e-1 and 27f-1 will be provided to third parties and, therefore, will not be kept confidential. The Commission is seeking OMB approval, because 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 control number.
Please direct general comments regarding the above information to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; and (ii) Michael E. Bartell, Associate Executive Director, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0004. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.
In
Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”).
Notice of application for an order under Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act” or “Act”) granting exemptions from the provisions of Sections 2(a)(32),22(c), and 27(i)(2)(A)
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 5th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Applicants, c/o The Prudential Insurance Company of America, 100 Mulberry Street, Newark, NJ 07102-4077, Attn: Lee D. Augsburger, Esq.
Joyce M. Pickholz, Senior Counsel, or Keith E. Carpenter, Branch Chief, Office of Insurance Products, Division of Investment Management, at (202) 942-0670.
the 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. Pruco Life is a stock life insurance company organized under the laws of the State of Arizona. Pruco Life of New Jersey is a stock life insurance company organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey. Pruco Life of New Jersey is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pruco Life, which is itself a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Prudential Insurance Company of America (“Prudential”).
2. PIMS, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Prudential, is the principal underwriter of the Contracts. PIMS is registered with the Commission as a broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “1934 Act”) and is a member of the NASD. PIMS will enter into arrangements with one or more registered broker-dealers, which may be affiliated with PIMS, to offer and sell the Contracts. PIMS also may enter into these arrangements with banks that may be acting as broker-dealers without separate registration under the 1934 Act pursuant to legal and regulatory exceptions. PIMS may distribute the Contracts directly. PIMS may enter into similar arrangements for Future Contracts.
3. Pruco Life will be the issuer of the Contracts funded through Pruco Life Account and serves as depositor of the account. Pruco Life of New Jersey will be the issuer of the Contracts funded through Pruco Life of New Jersey Account and serves as depositor of the account. Pruco Life and Pruco Life of New Jersey may in the future issue Future Contracts through the Accounts, or through Future Accounts for which they would also serve as depositor.
4. Pruco Life Account is a segregated asset account of Pruco Life, and Pruco Life of New Jersey Account is a segregated asset account of Pruco Life of New Jersey. The respective Accounts will fund the variable benefits available under the Contracts. The offering of the Contracts will be registered under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “1933 Act”). The Insurance Companies may issue Future Contracts through their respective accounts or through Future Accounts. That portion of the assets of Pruco Life Account and Pruco Life of New Jersey Account equal to the reserves and other Contract liabilities with respect to those Accounts are not chargeable with liabilities arising out of any other business of Pruco Life and Pruco Life of New Jersey, respectively. Any income, gains or losses, realized or unrealized, from assets allocated to Pruco Life Account or Pruco Life of New Jersey Account, as applicable, without regard to other income, gains or losses of Pruco Life or Pruco Life of New Jersey. The same will be true of any Future Account.
5. The Contracts are variable flexible premium deferred annuity contracts and are substantially similar in all material respects. Future Contracts funded by any Account of Future Account will be substantially similar to the Contracts in all material respects. Registered representatives of PIMS and affiliated or unaffiliated broker-dealers with which PIMS enters into selling agreements will sell the Contracts. The Contracts may be issued on a non-tax qualified basis or in connection with retirement plans that qualify for favorable federal income tax treatment under Section 408 of the Internal Revenue Code as an individual retirement plan. The Contracts provide a choice of features, including a guaranteed minimum death benefit and a guaranteed minimum income benefit, which are elected at issue. The benefits under each of these features are based on the protected value option that is elected. Depending upon the terms of the Contract, the protected value is either the highest contract value on any contract anniversary (“Step-Up”), purchase payments credited with a 5% effective annual rate of interest (“Roll-Up”), or the greater of the Step-Up and Roll-Up. The Contracts provide for various withdrawal options, annuity benefits and payout annuity options, as well as transfer privileges among the investment options, dollar cost averaging, and other features.
6. A Contract may be purchased with a minimum initial payment of $10,000. Subsequent purchase payments must be
7. Each time an Insurance Company receives a purchase payment under the Contracts, it will allocate to the contract value a credit equal to a percentage of each purchase payment received (a “Credit”). The Credit percentage will equal 4%. The Credit will be allocated among the variable investment options in the same percentages as the purchase payment to which it relates. Each Credit is subject to its own vesting schedule. If a withdrawal is made of all or part of a purchase payment, the non-vested portion of the Credit attributable to that purchase payment will be recaptured according to the following schedule:
8. Each Insurance Company will fund Credits from its general account assets. An Insurance Company will recapture the non-vested portion of the Credits under the following circumstances: (a) A withdrawal or surrender is made during the vesting period applicable to the Credit, (b) the Contract is canceled under the “free look” provision; (c) death occurs within one year of a purchase payment; or (d) annuitization occurs during the vesting period applicable to the Credit. If the calculation of the death benefit occurs within one year of a purchase payment, then in calculating the death benefit payable, the contract value will be adjusted to recapture the non-vested Credit attributable to that purchase payment. Any Credit applied one year or more prior to the date of death will not be subject to recapture.
9. Owners of the Contracts may allocate their purchase payments among 25 subaccounts of the Accounts, and each subaccount will invest in shares of a corresponding portfolio (each, a “Portfolio” of an open-end, diversified series management investment company registered under the Act (each, a “Fund,” and collectively, the “Funds”). The funds currently available under the Contracts are The Prudential Series Fund, Inc., and Janus Aspen Series. At a later date, the Insurance Companies may create additional subaccounts of the Accounts to invest in additional Portfolios, or other such underlying portfolios or other investments as may now or in the future be available. Similarly, subaccounts of the Accounts may be combined or eliminated from time to time. Future Contracts may offer Funds managed by the same as well as other investment advisers.
10. The Contracts provide for a withdrawal charge equal to a percentage of purchase payments surrendered that declines according to the following schedule.
Some Contract may offer lower withdrawal charges. In no event will the withdrawal charge after a given number of Contract Anniversaries be greater than the percentage set forth in this paragraph. A “charge-fee” amount, generally equal, on an annual basis, to 10% of the excess of purchase payments over withdrawals and applied on a first-in first-out basis, is exempt from the withdrawal charge.
11. Other charges under the Contracts are: (a) Asset-based mortality and expense risk charges at annual rates of 1.40% for the base death benefit, 1.60% for the guaranteed minimum death benefit with either the Step-Up or the Roll-Up, and 1.70% for the guaranteed minimum death benefit with the greater of the Step-Up and the Roll-Up assessed pro-rata against the net assets of each subaccount; (b) for Contracts where the guaranteed minimum income benefit feature has been elected, a charge at a current annual rate of 0.25% of the protected value for either the Step-Up or the Roll-Up and 0.35% for the greater of the Step-Up and Roll-Up, which is deducted proportionally from the net assets of each subaccount on each Contract Anniversary and pro-rata upon partial withdrawals (when the remaining contract value is less than the amount of the charge), and upon surrender of the Contract; (c) an annual contract maintenance charge of up to $60, which is deducted proportionally from the assets invested in each subaccount; (d) in those jurisdictions in which premium taxes are assessed, a charge to cover these taxes, either when the contract is issued or when annuity payment begin; and (e) for each transfer among subaccounts after the twelfth in a single contract year, a charge of up to $30 assessed pro rata from the subaccounts involved in the transfer. The underlying Funds each impose investment management fees and charges for other expenses.
12. Applicants seek exemption pursuant to Section 6(c) from Sections 2(a)(32), 22(c), and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder to the extent necessary to permit an Insurance Company that issues Contracts that provide for Credits upon the receipt of purchase payments, to recapture all or the unvested portion of certain Credits in the following instances: (a) A withdrawal or surrender is made during the vesting period applicable to the Credit; (b) the Contract is canceled under the free look provision; (c) death occurs within one year of a purchase payment; or (d) annuitization occurs during the vesting period applicable to the Credit.
1. Section 6(c) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt any person, security or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions, from the provisions of the Act and the rules promulgated thereunder if and to the extent that 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 and provisions of the Act. Applicants request that the Commission, pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Act, grant the requested exemptions with respect to the Contracts, and any Future Contracts funded by the Accounts or Future Accounts that are issued by the Insurance Companies and underwritten or distributed by PIMS or Affiliated Broker-Dealers. Applicants undertake that Future Contracts funded by the
2. Applicants represent that it is not administratively feasible to track the Credit amount in the subaccounts after the Credit is applied. The asset-based charges applicable to the subaccounts will be assessed against the entire amounts held in the respective subaccounts, including the Credit amount, during the period when the owner's interest in the Credit is not completely vested. During such periods, the aggregate asset-based charges assessed against an owner's contract value will be higher than those that would be charged if the owner's contract value did not include the Credit.
3. Subsection (i) of Section 27 of the Act provides that Section 27 does not apply to any registered separate account funding variable insurance contracts, or to the sponsoring insurance company and principal underwriter of such account, except as provided in paragraph (2) of the subsection. Paragraph (2) provides that it shall be unlawful for such a separate account or sponsoring insurance company to sell a contract funded by the registered separate account unless such contract is a redeemable security. Section 2(a)(32) of the Act defines “redeemable security” as any security, other than short-term paper, under the terms of which the holder, upon presentation to the issuer, is entitled to receive approximately his proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets, or the cash equivalent thereof.
4. Applicants submit that the recapture of the Credit amount in the circumstances set forth in the application would not deprive an owner of his or her proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets. An owner's interest in the amount of any Credits allocated upon receipt of purchase payments is not fully vested until the vesting period for that purchase payment has expired. Until the right to recapture the Credit has expired and any Credit amount is completely vested, the Insurance Companies retain the right and interest in the Credit amount, although not in the earnings attributable to that amount. Thus, when the Insurance Companies recapture any Credit, they are merely retrieving their own assets, and the owner has not been deprived of a proportionate share of the applicable Account's assets, because his or her interest in the Credit amount has not vested. With respect to Credit recaptures upon the exercise of the free-look privilege, it would be unfair to allow an owner exercising that privilege to retain a Credit amount under a Contract that has been returned for a refund after a period of only a few days. If the Insurance Companies could not recapture the Credit, individuals could purchase a Contract with no intention of retaining it, and simply return it for a quick profit. The recapture of Credits relating to purchase payments made within one year prior to death or after death is designed to provide the Insurance Companies with a measure of protection against “anti-selection.” The risk here is that, rather than spreading purchase payments over a number of years, an owner will make very large payments shortly before death, thereby leaving the Insurance Companies less time to recover the cost of the Credits applied, to their financial detriment. Again, the amounts recaptured equal the Credits provided by each Insurance Company from its own general account assets, and any gain would remain as part of the Contract's value when annuity payments begin.
5. Applicants submit that the provisions for recapture of any Credits under the Contracts do not, and any such Future Contract provisions will not, violate Section 2(a)(32) and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act. Indeed, Applicants believe that a contrary conclusion would be inconsistent with a stated purpose of the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 (“NSMIA”), which is “to amend the [Act] to provide more effective and less burdensome regulation.” Sections 26(e) and 27(i) were added to the Act pursuant to Section 205 of NSMIA to implement the purposes of NSMIA and the Congressional intent. Thus, the application of a Credit to purchase payments made under the Contracts should not raise any questions as to each Insurance Company's compliance with the provisions of Section 27(i). Nevertheless, to avoid any uncertainties, Applicants request an exemption from Sections 2(a)(32) and 27(i)(2)(A), to the extent deemed necessary, to permit the recapture of any Credit under the circumstances described herein with respect to the Contracts and any Future Contracts, without the loss of the relief from Section 27 provided by Section 27(i).
6. Section 22(c) of the Act authorizes the Commission to make rules and regulations applicable to registered investment companies and to principal underwriters of, and dealers in, their redeemable securities to accomplish the same purposes as contemplated by Section 22(c). Rule 22c-1 thereunder prohibits a registered investment company issuing any redeemable security, a person designated in such issuer's prospectus as authorized to consummate transactions in any such security, and a principal underwriter of, or dealer in, such security, from selling, redeeming, or repurchasing any such security except at a price based on the current net asset value of such security which is next computed after receipt of a tender of such security for redemption or of an order to purchase or sell such security.
7. An Insurance Company's recapture of the Credit might arguably be viewed as resulting in the redemption of redeemable securities for a price other than one based on the current net asset value of the Accounts. Applicants contend, however, that the recapture of the Credit does not violate Section 22(c) and Rule 22c-1. Applicants argue that the recapture of the Credit does not involve either of the evils that Rule 22c-1 was intended to eliminate or reduce as far as reasonably practicable, namely (i) the dilution of the value of outstanding redeemable securities of registered investment companies through their sale at a price below net asset value or their redemption or repurchase at a price above it, and (ii) other unfair results, including speculative trading practices. These evils were the result of backward pricing, the practice of basing the price of a mutual fund share on the net asset value per share determined as of the close of the market on the previous day. Backward pricing allowed investors to take advantage of increases or decreases in net asset value that were not yet reflected in the price, thereby diluting the value of outstanding mutual fund shares. The proposed recapture of the Credit poses no such threat of dilution. To effect a recapture of a Credit, an Insurance Company will redeem interests in an owners' annuity account at a price determined on the basis of the current net asset value of the respective Accounts. The amount recaptured will equal the amount of the Credit that the Insurance Company paid out of its general account assets. Although owners will be entitled to retain any investment gain attributable to the Credit, the amount of such gain will be determined on the basis of the current net asset value of the respective Accounts. Thus, no dilution will occur upon the recapture of the Credit. Applicants also submit that the second harm that Rule 22c-1 was designed to address, namely,
8. Applicants represent that the Credit will be attractive to and in the interest of investors because it will permit owners to put an amount greater than their purchase payments to work for them in the selected variable investment options. Also, owners will retain any earnings attributable to the Credit and, unless any of the contingencies set forth on the Application apply, the principal amount of all Credit.
9. Applicants submit that the recapture of any Credit only applies in relation to the risk of anti-selection against an Insurance Company. “Anti-selection” can generally be described as a risk that Contract owners obtain an undue advantage based on elements of fairness to the Insurance Companies and the actuarial and other factors each takes into account in designing the Contracts. Each Insurance Company provides all Credits from its general account on a guaranteed basis. Thus, it undertakes a financial obligation that contemplates the retention of the Contracts by their owners over an extended period, consistent with the long-term nature of retirement planning. The Insurance Companies expect generally to recover their costs, including Credits, over an anticipated duration while a Contract is in force. An Insurance Company's right to recapture Credits applied to purchase payments made within a year of death protects the Insurance Company against the risk that owners will contribute larger amounts as they approach death to obtain the Credit, while avoiding Contract charges over the long term. With respect to refunds paid upon the return of Contracts within the “free-look” period, the amount payable by the Insurance Company must be reduced by the allocated Credits. Otherwise, purchasers could apply for Contracts for the sole purpose of exercising the free-look refund provision and making a quick profit.
10. Applicants submit that their request for an order that applies to any Account or any Future Account established by an Insurance Company in connection with the issuance of Contracts and Future Contracts that are substantially similar to the Contracts described herein in all material respects, and underwritten or distributed by PIMS or Affiliated Broker-Dealers, is appropriate in the public interest. Such an order would promote competitiveness in the variable annuity market by eliminating the need to file redundant exemptive applications, thereby reducing administrative expenses and maximizing the efficient use of Applicants' resources. Investors would not receive any benefit or additional protection by requiring Applicants to repeatedly seek exemptive relief that would present no issue under the Act that has not already been addressed in this Application. Having Applicants file additional applications would impair Applicants' ability effectively to take advantage of business opportunities as they arise.
11. Applicants undertake that Future Contracts funded by Accounts or by Future Accounts that seek to rely on the order issued pursuant to this Application will be substantially similar to the Contracts in all material respects.
Sections 6(c) of the Act, in pertinent part, provides that the Commission, by order upon application, may conditionally or unconditionally exempt under persons security or transaction, or any class or classes or persons, securities or transactions, from any provision or provisions of the Act, or any rule or regulation thereunder, to the extent that 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 and provisions of the Act. Applicants submit that, based upon the facts and for the reasons set forth above, their exemptive requests meet the standards set out in Section 6(c) and that an order should, therefore, be granted.
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”),
OCC is proposing to reduce its levels of clearing fees which are charged for established products effective September 1, 2000.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
OCC is proposing to reduce the clearing fees charged for established products. During the first half of 2000, OCC experienced a record volume of options cleared. As a result, OCC proposes to reduce its clearing fees, effective September 1, 2000, as follows:
The proposed discounted fee schedule will enable clearing members to benefit from reduced fees without adversely affecting OCC's ability to maintain an acceptable level of retained earnings. Commencing the first trading day of 2001, the discounted clearing fees will revert to their current levels.
OCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition.
Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change, and none have been received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-OCC-00-06 and should be submitted by October 4, 2000.
For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of public meeting.
The FAA will hold an informal public meeting to seek aviation weather user input. Details: October 10, 2000; Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, 900 Convention Center Blvd., New Orleans, Louisiana; 1 pm to 5 pm in room 244. The objective of this meeting is to provide an opportunity for interested aviation weather users to provide input on FAA;'s plans for implementing new weather products.
The meeting will be held in Room 244 at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, 900 Convention Center Blvd., New Orleans, LA 70130 in conjunction with the National Business Aviation Association, Inc. (NBAA) annual convention. Times: 1 5 pm, on October 10, 2000.
Debi Bacon, Aviation Weather Policy Division, ARW 100, Federal Aviation Administration, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20590; telephone number (2020) 366 1040; fax: (202) 366 5549; email:
The FAA has established an Aviation Weather Technology Transfer (AWTT) Board to manage the orderly transfer of weather capabilities and products from research and development into operations. The AWTT Board is chaired by the head of the Aviation Weather Directorate, ARW-1 and is composed of stakeholders in Air Traffic Services, ATS; Regulation and Certification, AVR; and Research and Acquisitions, ARA in the Federal Aviation Administration and the Office of Meteorology in the National Weather Service.
The AWTT Board will meet semi-annually or as needed, to determine the readiness of weather research and development products for experimental use or for full operational use. The Board's determinations will be based upon criteria in the following areas: users' needs; benefits; costs; risks; technical readiness; operational readiness and budget requirements.
The user interface process is designed to allow FAA to both report progress and receive feedback from industry users. Each AWTT Board meeting will be preceded by a half-day industry review session approximately one month prior to each Board meeting. These industry review sessions will be announced in the
This meeting is the first industry review session and is intended to receive feedback for the November 2000 AWTT Board meeting.
(a) The meeting will be informal in nature and will be conducted by
(b) The meeting will be open to all persons on a space-available basis. Every effort was made to provide a meeting site with sufficient seating capacity for the expected participation. There will be neither admission fee nor other charge to attend and participate. This meeting is being held in conjunction with the NBAA annual conference. There is a charge to attend the NBAA conference, however any person attending this informal meeting only, will be admitted by NBAA conference officials to this meeting only.
(c) FAA personnel present will conduct a briefing on how the new AWTT system works. Any person will be allowed to ask questions during the presentation and FAA personnel will clarify any part of the process that is not clear.
(d) FAA personnel will present a briefing on a specific product that will be reviewed at the November 2000 AWTT Board Meeting. Any person will be allowed to ask questions during the presentation and FAA personnel will clarify any part of the presentation that is not clear.
(e) Any person present may give feedback on the product to be presented. Feedback on the proposed product will be captured through discussion between FAA personnel and any persons attending the meeting. The meeting will not be formally recorded. However, informal tape recordings may be made of the presentations to ensure that each respondent's comments are noted accurately.
(f) An official verbatim transcript or minutes of the informal meeting will not be made. However, a list of the attendees, a digest of discussions during the meeting and an action item list will be produced. Any person attending may receive a copy of the written information upon request to the information contact, above.
(g) Every reasonable effort will be made to hear each person's feedback consistent with a reasonable closing time for the meeting. Written feedback may also be submitted to FAA personnel for up to seven (7) days after the close of the meeting.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of Intent to rule on application.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Duluth International Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).
Comments must be received on or before October 13, 2000.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, Minneapolis Airports District Office, 6020 28th Avenue South, Room 102, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450-2706.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Raymond Klosowski, Executive Director, Duluth Airport Authority, at the following address: Duluth Airport Authority, Duluth International Airport, 4701 Grinden Drive, Duluth, MN 55811.
Air carriers and foreign air carriers may submit copies of written comments previously provided to the Duluth Airport Authority under § 158.23 of part 158.
Mr. Gordon Nelson, Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports District Office, 6020 28th Avenue South, Room 102, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450-2706, telephone (612) 713-4358. The application may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Duluth International Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158).
On August 16, 2000, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by the Duluth Airport Authority was substantially complete within the requirements of § 158.25 of Part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than November 14, 2000.
The following is a brief overview of the application.
Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA Office listed above under
In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Duluth Airport Authority Office.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice; request for applications for Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 Transportation and Community and System Preservation (TCSP) grants; request for FY 2002 TCSP research recommendations; request for comments on program implementation and research needs.
This document provides guidance on section 1221 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), which established the Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot (TCSP) Program. The TCSP provides funding for grants and research to investigate and address the relationship between transportation and community and system preservation. The States, local governments, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), tribal governments, and other local and regional public agencies are eligible for discretionary grants to plan and implement transportation strategies which improve the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce environmental impacts of transportation, reduce the need for costly future public infrastructure investments, ensure efficient access to jobs, services and centers of trade, and examine development patterns and identify strategies to encourage private sector development patterns which achieve these goals. FY 2002 is the fourth year of the TCSP program.
The FHWA seeks requests for FY 2002 TCSP grants, recommendations for FY 2002 TCSP research, and public comments from all interested parties regarding implementation of the TCSP program and research related to the program in FY 2002 and beyond.
Applications for FY 2002 grants and recommendations for research should be received in the appropriate FHWA Division Office by close of business Wednesday, January 31, 2001. Comments on program implementation, research needs, and priorities should be received by the DOT Docket Clerk on or before the close of business Wednesday, January 31, 2001.
Grant applications should be submitted to the FHWA Division Office in the applicant's State. Division addresses and telephone numbers are provided in Attachment III of this notice.
Mail or hand deliver comments on program implementation to the docket number that appears in the heading of this document, U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590, or submit electronically at
Ms. Felicia Young, Office of Human Environment, (HEPH), (202) 366-0106; or Mr. S. Reid Alsop, Office of the Chief Counsel, (HCC-30), (202) 366-1371, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
This document and other program related information are available on the TCSP web site:
You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Document Management System (DMS) at:
An electronic copy of this document also may be downloaded by using a computer, modem and suitable communications software from the Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet users may reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at:
Section 1221 of the TEA-21 (Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 107 (1998)) established the TCSP. The Department of Transportation's Strategic Plan (1997-2003) includes a series of goals related to safety, mobility and access, economic growth and trade, enhancement of communities and the natural environment, and national security. The TCSP pilot program furthers each of these goals by providing funds for grants and research to investigate and address the relationship between transportation and community and system preservation. By funding innovative activities at the neighborhood, local, metropolitan, regional, and State levels, the program is intended to increase the knowledge of the costs and benefits of different approaches to integrating transportation investments, community preservation, land development patterns, and environmental protection. It will enable communities to investigate and address important relationships among these many factors.
The TCSP program offers States, local governments, MPOs, tribal governments, and other public agencies the opportunity to develop, implement and evaluate current preservation practices and activities that support these practices, as well as to develop new and innovative approaches to meet the purposes of the TCSP grant program (see Section II).
The USDOT established the TCSP in cooperation with other Federal agencies, State, regional, and local governments. The FHWA is administering the program and has established an interagency team to assist with program implementation. Representatives include the Department's Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the Research and Special Programs Administration/Volpe Center (RSPA), and the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
This notice includes three sections: Section I: TCSP Program Information; Section II: Requests for FY 2002 TCSP Grants; and Section III: Recommendations for FY 2002 TCSP Research.
The TCSP provides funding for grants and research to investigate and address the relationship between transportation and community and system preservation. States, local governments,
The TCSP supports the Administration's high priority goals to encourage the development of livable communities.
Section 1221 of the TEA-21 identifies five purposes for TCSP projects. The purposes are broad and include transportation efficiency, the environment, access to jobs, services, and trade centers, efficient use of the existing infrastructure, and land use patterns. A key element of the TCSP is exploring the link between transportation and land use patterns. The FHWA is looking for innovative approaches to test and evaluate the effectiveness of integrating land use planning and transportation planning to meet the purposes of TCSP.
Funding in the TCSP is intended to plan, implement, and test new approaches for meeting the TCSP program goals. As a pilot program, the TCSP provides the opportunity to support and encourage non-traditional approaches, including non-traditional partnerships, and for communities to exchange experiences on new transportation and community preservation strategies.
Project evaluation is a key component of the TCSP to help agencies and organizations demonstrate how new transportation related strategies can be most effectively implemented.
Applicants are required to include a project evaluation plan as part of their TCSP application. The evaluation plan should describe roles, responsibilities, project objectives, performance measures, evaluation methodologies, data sources, schedule milestones, and budgets. Clearly, stating the project's objectives and activities and anticipated results are important for successful proposals. It is also important to demonstrate how results will be measured, and how evaluation information will be made available to a national audience (
The TCSP encourages public and private participation in proposed projects. In addition, the TCSP encourages applicants to include non-traditional partners on the project team. The project team should also reflect the project type and scope. The roles and functions of the partners should also be explained.
In response to the November 19, 1999,
Funding for the TCSP was authorized at $20 million for FY 1999 and $25 million each year for FYs 2000 through 2003 by the TEA-21. However, demand for the TCSP funds has exceeded the funds available. The FHWA has been able to provide funding to only 11.2 percent of the TCSP applicants. When combined with congressional earmarking, the funds available for competitive TCSP grants have been further reduced.
The November 19, 1999,
The grants funded under the TCSP program will develop, implement, and evaluate transportation strategies supporting transportation and community and system preservation practices which incorporate beneficial short-and long-term environmental, economic, and social equity effects to help build livable communities.
Applicants must follow the format identified under Attachment I to this notice. The FHWA and a multi-agency technical review panel will review the applications before making recommendations to the Federal Highway Administrator and the USDOT Secretary for final approval.
Because of the high demand for the limited TCSP funds, applicants are strongly recommended to request TCSP support for the smaller innovative phases of larger projects that could be funded from other sources. In addition, leveraging other Federal, State, local, and private funds will further demonstrate local commitment to the project. Phased projects should stand alone and be capable of being implemented and producing results in each phase.
TCSP grant funds are not available up front in a lump sum. Like other Federal-aid programs, TCSP funding is reimbursable to the grant recipient after initial expenditures are made.
State agencies, MPOs, tribal governments, and units of local governments recognized by a State are eligible recipients of TCSP grant funds. This includes towns, cities, public transit agencies, air resources boards, school boards, and park districts. While non-governmental organizations are not eligible to receive TCSP funds under section 1221 of the TEA-21, they are encouraged to form partnerships with an eligible recipient as the project sponsor.
A State or MPO may be both a project sponsor and endorse other activities proposed and submitted by a local government within its boundary.
Activities funded under the TCSP should address and integrate each of the program purposes listed below. Priority will be given to those proposals which most clearly and comprehensively meet and integrate the TCSP purposes and are most likely to produce successful results. How well proposed projects address each purpose is a principal criterion in recommending proposals for funding. Applicants should develop proposals that specifically address these purposes, as follows:
• Identify, develop, and evaluate new strategies and measures of transportation efficiency that are based
• Address the transportation system as a whole rather than focusing on one mode of transportation. This may include, for example, improving the integration of various modes of travel, such as, highway, transit, pedestrian, bicycling, and rail or improving the efficiency of port, rail, and highway connections for freight and jobs.
• Performance measures should include a focus on movement of people and goods and access rather than movement of automobiles, and on services provided rather than vehicle miles traveled.
• Explore the long-term direct and indirect social, economic, and environmental impacts of transportation investments on the natural and built environment. The environmental factors discussion should include air quality, as well as ecosystems, habitat fragmentation, water quality, and community and cultural issues, such as, disadvantaged populations and environmental justice, as appropriate.
• Performance measures should relate the results of TCSP activities to the larger community, regional environment, and the transportation system.
• Describe how the project will reduce the need for costly future public infrastructure investment or create tools and techniques to measure these savings over the life cycle of the activities.
• Performance measures should include projected life cycle savings obtained through avoiding future investments or maintenance.
• Clearly demonstrate how the project will improve efficient, affordable access to jobs, services, and centers of trade and address benefits for disadvantaged populations. This could also include the use of new technologies that increase access for people and businesses while reducing the need to travel.
• Performance measures should include improved access to jobs and services, and improved freight movements.
• Identify and test effective strategies to encourage private sector investments that result in land development patterns that help meet the goals of this pilot program and that avoid or mitigate negative equity impacts on neighborhoods and businesses, effectively linking land use and transportation is a key feature of TCSP.
• Performance measures should demonstrate and permit monitoring of changes in development patterns and private sector investment trends, or opportunities resulting from TCSP-related activities.
In addition to meeting the purposes of the TCSP as discussed above, grant applications are evaluated on the following factors:
Although matching funds are not required, priority is given to projects that leverage non-Federal funds and take advantage of in-kind contributions, such as, maintenance agreements, land donations, and volunteer time. Local funds and resources contributed for a project demonstrates commitment to a project and indicates the likelihood that it will be fully implemented.
Matching funds and resources should be directly related to the proposed project and its activities. The local match also should be available for use at the time the project activities occur.
In addition to non-Federal funds, applicants are encouraged to pursue other Federal resources to support Livability Initiatives, such as, Transportation Enhancement, Congestion Management and Air Quality funds, as well as related programs sponsored by other Federal agencies and departments. A description of the President's Livability Initiative can be found on the White House web site: http://www.livablecommunities.gov/.
The plan to evaluate the project's objectives and outcomes is a required, key element of the grant proposal. The evaluation plan should describe and evaluate goals, expected outcomes, measures, evaluation methodologies, major evaluation milestones and deliverables for the project. See the discussion on Evaluation below.
The FHWA will ensure the equitable geographic and demographic distribution of funds. Applicants should identify and describe who will be served by the project.
Project partners could include public utility operators, social services agencies, community groups, environmental organizations, non-profit organizations, public health agencies, private land development organizations, and real estate investors. The non-traditional partners should be active players on the project team who help develop the project's assumptions and scenarios. Applicants will describe the roles and commitments of all their partners in the application.
The TCSP was intended to support localities that have already begun preservation practices and to encourage those areas just starting these practices. The legislation refers to the types of grants being requested as planning grants and implementation grants, as follows:
(a)
(b)
Projects eligible for Federal highway and transit funding (title 23, U.S.C., or chapter 53 of title 49, U.S.C.) or other activities determined by the Secretary to be appropriate are also eligible for TCSP funding. This allows a broad range of transportation activities to be funded. Grants will be awarded for new and innovative transportation activities meeting the purposes of the TCSP program, but remain unfunded under the current Federal-aid program.
The grant request may include funding for travel for one representative to attend two national workshops to present the project plans, status, and results.
The TCSP's goal is to develop a broad range of strategies for urban, suburban,
The FHWA is using individual project evaluations conducted by grantees, the results of research, and overall program evaluation to determine the strategic priorities for the TCSP. Rather than setting specific strategic priorities, the FHWA is providing information about previously funded projects with suggestions to prospective applicants of the FHWA's interest areas. Applicants should:
1. Highlight innovative and unique aspects of their proposals, and how the results of their proposal will further the purposes of the TCSP;
2. Not duplicate previously funded activities (see the TCSP web site
3. Highlight the results and broad impacts on communities of current preservation practices including urban growth boundaries, infill development, and land use changes. Identify how these were measured; and
4. Consider projects that:
• Integrate community health, safety and social equity goals with transportation to promote livable communities;
• Plan or implement regional and local strategies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions;
• Use technology and communications that provide people and businesses with improved access to goods and services to promote livable communities; and
• Enhance intermodal and freight access to promote economic growth and access to jobs in communities.
Projects should be ready to begin at the beginning of the Federal fiscal year for which funds are requested. Plans and documented results should be available to be shared with others at the completion of each phase of the project. Applications should identify when the project will be started and when results are expected.
Each application is required to have an evaluation plan that monitors, evaluates, and analyzes the project in three areas: process, product, and outcome. The project sponsor will provide the results of the analysis to the FHWA. This information is necessary to provide an opportunity for others to learn more about the practical implications of integrating land use, transportation, and environmental decisionmaking.
The project evaluation should be based on the project's goals and objectives. The project's current and future performance should be measured and evaluated through: (a) Quantitative assessments, such as the measurement of changes in traffic flow and mode choice (
Developing measures to determine the results of the projects is difficult and there is no general consensus on operative measures. A TCSP program evaluation resource guide, references, and case studies are available on the TCSP web site
The TCSP intends to complement, strengthen, and enhance the Statewide and MPO planning process mandated by the TEA-21. This process promotes the ongoing, cooperative, and active involvement of the public, transportation providers, public interest groups, and State, metropolitan, and local government agencies in the development of statewide and metropolitan transportation plans and improvement programs (23 CFR part 450).
The TCSP funds are intended to leverage new transportation and community preservation initiatives rather than to fund the ongoing planning activities of States and MPOs. Applicants:
• Must clearly demonstrate their coordination with State and local planning agencies and the project's consistency with appropriate statewide and metropolitan transportation planning processes.
• May test or implement new, innovative planning methods and programs that significantly enhance the existing statewide and MPO transportation planning processes.
• Must coordinate with the appropriate State DOT or MPO to ensure the project is consistent with and doesn't circumvent the planning processes.
• Should encourage and improve public involvement in the overall planning process, as well as for the individual project.
• May not request funds for projects that have already been scheduled for funding and are in the current State or MPO TIP.
Construction projects funded by the TCSP will ultimately be included in an approved State or MPO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). If proposed highway and transit projects using Federal funds or requiring Federal approvals are in air quality non-attainment or maintenance areas, they should be included in any air quality conformity analysis required as part of the transportation planning process. Because TCSP projects may target improved air quality as part of their broader goals, it is important to document a project's beneficial air quality impacts.
Non-construction activities, such as, regional plan and policy developments, project evaluations, and land development code changes, may not need to appear in a statewide or MPO TIP, but should still have the support or endorsement of the State or MPO. Planning activities should be reflected in the metropolitan area's Unified Planning Work Program. Non-construction activities may result in changes to existing State and MPO plans and, therefore, should be coordinated with other jurisdictions within a metropolitan region or State.
The FHWA Division Office is the first line of contact for the TCSP program. The staff person assigned responsibility for the TCSP will work with applicants and successful grant recipients to ensure that all Federal requirements above those of the TCSP have been met. This person can also help develop project agreements, obtain reimbursements, and can assist in preparing environmental and other paperwork clearances.
Questions about the grant program should be directed to the FHWA's Division Office in the State in which the project is located (Attachment III).
The FHWA has an established financial management process with the State Departments of Transportation to administer Federal-aid projects. However, if a grant recipient prefers another process,
By close of business Wednesday, January 31, 2001, applicants must submit four (4) printed and stapled copies of the application and a 3.5-inch disk with the application file to the appropriate FHWA Division office. The announcement of FY 2002 grant recipients will not be made until after the beginning of the FY 2002 fiscal year (October 1, 2001).
The TCSP includes a comprehensive research program to investigate the relationships between transportation, community preservation, and the environment, and to investigate the role of the private sector in shaping such relationships. The research program also includes monitoring, evaluation, and analysis of projects carried out under the grant program.
Under the research component of TCSP, the FHWA will establish outreach, technical assistance, and other means to share and implement the results elsewhere. Current outreach plans include
Because most of the TCSP funds are being allocated for grants, limited funding will be available to undertake research. The FHWA is soliciting comments on the research needs to support the FY 2002 TCSP.
The goal for TCSP research program is to build a knowledge base to enable State, regional and local government agencies, the private sector, and communities, to develop tools and methodologies to support livable communities. With coordination and input from its partners and stakeholders, the FHWA will identify and initiate needed research to support the purposes of the TCSP. The research program is integral to the TCSP and will support and complement the activities conducted through TCSP planning and implementation grants.
The FHWA requests research recommendations that are consistent with the TCSP strategic priorities to:
1.
2.
1. The application may be no more than 15 pages in length following the format described below.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. Check your disks for viruses.
7. Submit four (4) printed copies of the application and a disk with the application file to the FHWA Division office in the your State by COB Wednesday, January 31, 2001.
8. Applications, once submitted, become the property of the United States Department of Transportation.
“This project forms a unique partnership among the regional air pollution control district, local government, the building industry, business alliances, farming organizations, and non-profit groups to promote smart growth in California's San Joaquin Valley. The partners have come to recognize that without a change in patterns of development, the agricultural economic base of the region will decline, transportation infrastructure will become increasingly congested and poorly maintained, and people will continue to be exposed to harmful levels of air pollution. This project fulfills requests from Valley communities for assistance in implementing the principles through model ordinances, design guidelines and implementation strategies. After completion of this first phase, the City of Fresno, the largest city in the San Joaquin Valley, and the City of Reedley, representing small cities, will participate in pilot projects to implement the new ordinances and strategies in their communities. During the project and after its completion, the Local Government Commission will use its extensive livable communities network to share the project Valley-wide and nationally.”
1. Improve the efficiency of the transportation system.
2. Reduce the impacts of transportation on the environment.
3. Reduce the need for costly future investments in public infrastructure.
4. Ensure efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade.
5. Examine development patterns and identify strategies to encourage private sector development patterns that achieve the goals of the TCSP.
If the project is for construction, identify when and from whom the proposed project received the necessary environmental approvals. These must have been given prior to the application and will help indicate that the project is ready for bidding or implementation. Construction projects should be included in the State or Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
Priority is given to proposals that demonstrate a commitment of non-Federal resources. Clearly describe the use of in-kind and direct funding contributions and distinguish contributions made directly for the proposed projects from those made for other related activities.
1. The recommendation should be no more than 1 page in length following the format described below.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. Check your disks for viruses.
7. Submit four (4) printed copies and a 3.5-inch disk of the recommendation to the FHWA Division office in the your State by COB Wednesday, January 31, 2001.
8. Recommendations, once submitted, become the property of the United States Department of Transportation.
Abstract (Maximum 1 page). The abstract should capture your proposal's main purpose. Describe the research and the expected results. Include the benefits and impacts of conducting the proposed research. The abstract should also describe how the research effort meets each TCSP objective and how the following objectives will be accomplished by the research activities.
1. Improve the efficiency of the transportation system.
2. Reduce the impacts of transportation on the environment.
3. Reduce the need for costly future investments in public infrastructure.
4. Ensure efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade.
5. Examine development patterns and identify strategies to encourage private sector development patterns that achieve the goals of the TCSP.
23 U.S.C. 315; sec. 1221, Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, 221 (1998); and 49 CFR 1.48.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before October 13, 2000.
Alan Block at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Research and Traffic Records (NTS-31), 202-366-6401. 400 Seventh Street., SW, Room 6240, Washington, DC 20590.
Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725-17th Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT
Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming 1996-1998 Ferrari F355 passenger cars are eligible for importation.
This document announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that 1996-1998 Ferrari F355 passenger cars that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards are eligible for importation into the United States because (1) they are substantially similar to vehicles that were originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States and that were certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety standards, and (2) they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards.
The closing date for comments on the petition is October 13, 2000.
Comments should refer to the docket number and notice number, and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 am to 5 pm].
George Entwistle, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-5306).
Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards shall be refused admission
Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the
J.K. Technologies LLC of Baltimore, Maryland (”J.K.”)(Registered Importer 90-006) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming 1996-1998 Ferrari F355 passenger cars are eligible for importation into the United States. The vehicles which J.K. believes are substantially similar are 1996-1998 Ferrari F355 passenger cars that were manufactured for importation into, and sale in, the United States and certified by their manufacturer as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
The petitioner claims that it carefully compared non-U.S. certified 1996-1998 Ferrari F355 passenger cars to their U.S.-certified counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with respect to compliance with most Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
J.K. submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate that non-U.S. certified 1996-1998 Ferrari F355 passenger cars, as originally manufactured, conform to many Federal motor vehicle safety standards in the same manner as their U.S. certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily altered to conform to those standards.
Specifically, the petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified 1996-1998 Ferrari F355 passenger cars are identical to their U.S. certified counterparts with respect to compliance with Standard Nos. 102
Petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner indicated:
Standard No. 101
Standard No. 108
Standard No. 110
Standard No. 111
Standard No. 114
Standard No. 118
Standard No. 201
Standard No. 208
Standard No. 214
Additionally, the petitioner states that small braces must be added to the corner areas of non-U.S. certified 1996-1998 Ferrari F355 passenger cars to comply with the Bumper Standard found in 49 CFR part 581.
The petitioner also states that a vehicle identification plate must be affixed to the vehicle near the left windshield post and a reference and certification label must be affixed in the area of the left front door post to meet the requirements of 49 CFR part 565.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the petition described above. Comments should refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 am to 5 pm]. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition will be published in the
49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Customs Service, Treasury.
General notice.
This document announces that the Automated Commercial System (ACS) Reconciliation Prototype is being extended indefinitely. The prototype will continue to operate in accordance with the notice published in the
Written comments regarding this notice and or applications to participate in the prototype should be addressed to the Reconciliation Team, U.S. Customs Service, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Room 5.2A, Washington, DC 20229-0001, ATTN: Mr. John Leonard.
John Leonard: (202) 927-0915 or Sandra Chilcoat: (202) 927-0032.
Customs announced and explained the ACS prototype test of reconciliation in a general notice document published in the
This document announces that the prototype, originally limited to consumption entries filed through September 30, 2000, will be extended until further notice. Once Customs determines to end the prototype, reasonable notice of the new expiration date will be published in the
Customs Service, Treasury.
General notice.
This document advises the public of an increase in the fees charged user fee airports by Customs for providing Customs services at these designated facilities. The fees are based on actual costs incurred by Customs in purchasing equipment and providing training and one Customs inspector on a full-time basis, and, thus, merely represent reimbursement to Customs for services rendered. The fees to be increased are the initial fee charged for a user fee airport's first year after it signs a Memorandum of Agreement with Customs to become a user fee airport, and the annual fee thereafter charged user fee airports.
The new fees will be effective October 1, 2000, and will be reflected in quarterly, user fee airport billings issued on or after that date.
April Hovey Conti, Office of Finance, (202) 927-2014.
Section 236 of the Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-573, 98 Stat. 2992) (codified at 19 U.S.C. 58b), as amended, authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to make Customs services available and charge a fee for the use of such services at certain specified airports and at any other airport, seaport, or other facility designated by the Secretary pursuant to specified criteria. (The list of user fee airports is found at § 122.15 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 122.15).) The fee that is charged is an amount equal to the expenses incurred by the Secretary in providing the Customs services at the designated facility, which includes purchasing equipment and providing training and inspectional services,
The user fees charged a user fee airport are typically set forth in a Memorandum of Agreement between the user fee facility and Customs. While the amount of these fees are agreed to be at flat rates, they are adjustable, as costs and circumstances change.
As of May 31, 2000, Customs has determined that, in order for the user fee charged to actually reimburse Customs for services provided, the initial fee must be increased from $111,500 to $117,600, and the recurring annual fee subsequently charged must be increased from $80,000 to $84,500. The new fees will be effective October 1, 2000, and will be reflected in quarterly, user fee airport billings issued on or after that date.
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 Form 706-GS(T), Generation-Skipping Transfer Tax Return For Terminations.
Written comments should be received on or before October 13, 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 the form and instructions should be directed to Carol Savage, (202) 622-3945, Internal Revenue
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 Form 706-GS(D-1), Notification of Distribution From a Generation-Skipping Trust.
Written comments should be received on or before November 13, 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 the form and instructions should be directed to Carol Savage, (202) 622-3945, Internal Revenue Service, room 5242, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
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
Written comments should be received on or before November 13, 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 the regulation should be directed to Carol Savage, (202) 622-3945, Internal Revenue Service, room 5242, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
We are proposing a standard to limit hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from facilities that coat paper and other web substrates and are major sources of HAP emissions. The standard is being proposed under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), as amended on November 15, 1990, to protect public health and the environment by reducing HAP emissions from new and existing facilities. The CAA requires these sources to achieve the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is achievable. The proposed standard would eliminate approximately 80 percent of nationwide HAP emissions from major sources.
Mr. Paul Almodovar, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-0283; facsimile number (919) 541-5689; e-mail address: almodovar.paul@epa.gov.
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Mr. Paul Almodovar, c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room 740B), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 411 W. Chapel Hill Street, Durham, NC 27711. The EPA will disclose information identified as CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received by EPA, the information may be made available to the public without further notice to the commenter.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but is just a guide to entities likely to be regulated by final action on this proposal. It lists the types of entities that may be regulated, but you should examine the applicability criteria in section II of this preamble and in
The CAA requires us to establish standards to control HAP emissions from source categories identified under section 112(c) of the CAA. An initial source category list was published in the
The purpose of the proposed rule is to reduce emissions of HAP from paper and other web coating major sources. The source category is for major sources only. Area sources are not included in this source category and therefore are not subject to the proposed standards. We estimate that annual baseline organic HAP emissions from this source category are approximately 35,000 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (39,000 tpy). The proposed rule would eliminate approximately 29,000 Mg/yr (32,000 tpy) of these organic HAP emissions (about an 80 percent reduction).
The organic HAP emitted from the paper and other web coating process include toluene, methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, xylenes, phenol, methylene chloride, ethylene glycol, glycol ethers, hexane, methyl isobutyl ketone, cresols and cresylic acid, dimethylformamide, vinyl acetate, formaldehyde, and ethyl benzene. These pollutants can cause reversible or irreversible toxic effects following sufficient exposure. The potential toxic effects include eye, nose, throat, and skin irritation, and blood cell, heart, liver, and kidney damage.
The degree of adverse effects to human health from exposure to HAP can range from mild to severe. The extent and degree to which the human health effects may be experienced are dependent upon (1) The ambient concentration observed in the area (as influenced by emission rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain); (2) the frequency and duration of exposures; (3) characteristics of exposed individuals (genetics, age, preexisting health conditions, and lifestyle), which vary significantly with the population; and (4) pollutant-specific characteristics
The paper and other web coating source category includes any facility located at a major source and engaged in the coating of paper, plastic film, metallic foil, and other web surfaces. The source category does not include printing operations covered under the printing and publishing national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) (40 CFR part 63, subpart KK). The source category does not include coil coating,
The proposed rule applies to you if you own or operate any web coating lines at a facility that is a major source of HAP emissions. This means that the coating lines at a major source would be subject to the proposed standard without regard to the relative proportion of HAP emissions from the web coating lines to total HAP emissions at the source.
If your facility is a nonmajor (area) source,
If your facility is a major source, you would be required to meet the proposed emission limits for all the web coating lines at your facility. We have defined a web to be a continuous substrate (
We define an affected source as a stationary source, group of stationary sources, or part of a stationary source to which a specific NESHAP applies. Within a source category, we select the specific emission sources (emission points or groupings of emission points) that will make up the affected source for that category. To select these emission sources, we mainly consider the constituent HAP and quantity emitted from individual or groups of emission points.
For the paper and other web coating NESHAP, the affected source is proposed to be the collection of all the web coating lines at a facility. We are not proposing requirements for operations related to coating line and parts cleaning, coating mixing and storage, film formation, and wastewater.
Coating lines and equipment that are not in the source category, and thus, not in the affected source, include those that perform both coating and printing and comply with the national emission standards for the printing and publishing industry; those that coat coil, even if only part of the time, and therefore, are in the coil coating source category; and those that coat only fabric and are in the fabric coating, printing, and dyeing source category (but if both fabric and other web coating is performed on a coating line, the line is included in the paper and other web coating affected source).
Many industrial facilities perform both coating and printing operations. Within the printing industry, the product and packaging rotogravure and wide-web flexographic industry segment (that includes the flexible packaging industry as a major subsector) does the most coating, with material use distributed almost equally between inks and other types of coatings. Printing operations are covered under the NESHAP for the printing and publishing industry. The printing and publishing NESHAP also includes an option for facilities that perform both printing and coating to include certain coating operations. Therefore, many facilities that could potentially be subject to the proposed NESHAP for the paper and other web coating industry may have coating lines already subject to the printing and publishing NESHAP. Such web coating lines included in compliance demonstrations under the printing and publishing NESHAP are not subject to this standard. A detailed discussion of the printing and publishing industry is included in the BID for that industry (Docket No. A-92-42, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Printing and Publishing Industry—Background Information for Proposed Standards (EPA-453/R-95-002a)).
In the proposed rule, you would be able to choose any one of three options to limit organic HAP emissions at existing and new sources and meet the allowable level. The HAP emission limits are based on emission capture and control technology that can reduce total organic HAP emissions by 95 percent at existing sources and 98 percent at new sources. The emission limits reflect this level of control by limiting organic HAP emissions to no more than 5 percent and 2 percent of the organic HAP applied each month at existing and new sources, respectively; and by limiting emissions based on the weight of the solids part of your coating or the weight of your total coating. As discussed in section VIII of this preamble, we believe expressing emission limits in this way is appropriately based on the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) level of control and offers flexibility to reduce emissions through the use of control technology, pollution prevention, or a combination of the two.
The three HAP emission limits proposed for existing sources are: (1) Limit emissions to no more than 5 percent of the organic HAP applied for the month; (2) limit the total amount of organic HAP in your coatings, or the total amount of organic HAP emitted, to no more than 20 weight percent of the total solids applied to web substrates in a month; or (3) limit the total amount of organic HAP in your coatings, or the total amount of organic HAP emitted, to no more than 4 weight percent of the total mass of coating material applied to the web substrate in a month.
The three HAP emission limits proposed for new sources are: (1) Limit emissions to no more than 2 percent of the organic HAP applied for the month; (2) limit the total amount of organic HAP in your coatings, or the total amount of organic HAP emitted, to no more than 8 weight percent of the total solids applied to web substrates in a month; or (3) limit the total amount of organic HAP in your coatings, or the total amount of organic HAP emitted, to no more than 1.6 weight percent of the
In submitting comments, please specify whether the comment pertains to one or all of the emission limitation options of the proposed standard. We will further evaluate the proposed standard based on our review of public comments and other information we may receive. The final rule may reflect any one of the proposed options to limit organic HAP emissions, a combination of the proposed options, or all three options.
The General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) would also apply to you. The General Provisions codify procedures and criteria we use to carry out all part 63 NESHAP promulgated under the CAA. The General Provisions contain administrative procedures, preconstruction review procedures, and procedures for conducting compliance-related activities such as notifications, recordkeeping and reporting, performance testing, and monitoring. The proposed rule refers to individual sections of the General Provisions that we believe will be of particular interest to you. However, unless specifically overridden in table 1 of the proposed rule, all of the General Provisions requirements would apply to you.
You may be subject to both the paper and other web coating NESHAP and other future or existing rules, such as new source performance standards (NSPS) and State rules requiring reasonably available control technology limits on volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions. You must comply with all rules. Duplicative recordkeeping and reporting requirements and differences in emission limitations may be resolved through your title V permit.
Today's proposed rule would limit total organic HAP emissions from coating lines. We did not identify inorganic HAP as pollutants emitted by this source category.
Existing sources would have to comply with the final rule no later than 3 years after the effective date of the final rule. The effective date is the date of publication of the final rule in the
Before your initial compliance demonstration, you would choose one of the three emission limit options for your affected source. In your initial compliance certification, you would notify the Administrator of your choice, and after that you would monitor and report compliance results accordingly. If you decide to change to another emission limitation option, you are also required to notify the Administrator, as with other changes at the facility, discussed in section VI.
In addition to the specific testing and monitoring requirements specified below for the affected source, the proposed rule adopts the testing requirements specified in § 63.7 and specifies that performance tests at existing sources must be conducted by the compliance date.
You may comply with the proposed standards by applying materials meeting the organic HAP emission rate limits, by using capture and control equipment to reduce organic HAP emissions by 95 percent at existing sources and by 98 percent at new sources, or by using a combination of low organic HAP materials and capture and control equipment to meet the organic HAP emission rate limits.
If you demonstrate compliance based on the coating materials applied on your coating lines, you must determine the organic HAP content of materials applied. To make this determination, you may either use EPA Method 311 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 63, use an alternative method for determining the organic HAP content (but only after obtaining EPA approval), or use the volatile organic content of the coating materials applied as the value for the organic HAP content. The volatile organic content must be determined by EPA Method 24 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 (or an approved alternative method). If you are demonstrating compliance by applying coating materials that meet the emission limit based on coating solids applied, the solids content of the materials must be determined using EPA Method 24. You may rely on manufacturer's data to determine the organic HAP content or volatile matter and solids content when these data are equivalent to those obtained from Method 311 (or an approved alternative method) and Method 24 (or an approved alternative method), respectively. You must also determine the mass of each coating material applied using company records. You must calculate the organic HAP content and mass of all coating materials applied on the coating lines for each monthly period. However, only changes in a material formulation would require a redetermination of total organic HAP weight fraction for that material. To demonstrate compliance, you must calculate the average mass of organic HAP in coating materials applied and show that it is less than the organic HAP emission limits specified.
If you use an emission capture and control system to comply with the proposed standard, you must demonstrate that the overall control efficiency reduces total organic emissions by at least 95 percent at existing sources and 98 percent at new sources. Alternatively, you may use capture and control equipment in combination with low organic HAP materials and demonstrate you meet the organic HAP emission limit specified. To comply using the combined approach, you must determine the overall control efficiency of the equipment and the organic HAP and solids content of the materials applied. These values must be determined for each monthly period.
The overall control efficiency for a capture and control system would be demonstrated based on emission capture and reduction efficiency. To determine the capture efficiency, you would either verify the presence of a permanent total enclosure using EPA Method 204 of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M, in which case you could assume 100 percent capture; or use EPA Method 204A through F, or Appendix A of 40 CFR part 63, Subpart KK, to measure capture efficiency.
You must determine the emission reduction efficiency of a control device by conducting a performance test or using a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS). If you use CEMS, you must determine the inlet and outlet concentration to calculate the control efficiency. The CEMS must comply with performance specification 8 or 9 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
If you conduct a performance test, we are proposing that the removal efficiency of a control device be determined based on three runs, each run lasting 1 hour. Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, must be used for selection of the sampling sites. Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, must be used to determine the gas volumetric flow rate. Method 3, 3A or 3B, of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, must be used for gas
If you use a solvent recovery system, you may alternatively determine the overall control efficiency using a liquid-liquid material balance. If you demonstrate compliance with the material balance, you must measure the amount of all materials applied during each month and determine the volatile matter content of these materials. You must also measure the amount of volatile matter recovered by the solvent recovery system during the month and calculate the overall solvent recovery efficiency.
The test methods we propose to require, as discussed above, are existing EPA methods that are familiar to the industry, readily available, and appropriate to the device or the parameter being measured. The tests selected are expected to establish adequately whether the facility is complying with the standard.
According to paragraph (a)(3) of section 114 of the CAA, monitoring of stationary sources is required to determine the compliance status of the sources, and whether compliance is continuous or intermittent. For affected sources complying with the proposed standard with capture and control systems, initial compliance is determined through an initial performance test and ongoing compliance through continuous monitoring. We are proposing the parameters to be monitored for certain types of control devices now used in the industry. You must set the values of these parameters that correspond to compliance with the proposed standard during your initial performance test. These values are your “operating limits.” If future monitoring shows that capture and control equipment is operating outside the range of values established during the initial performance test, then you are deviating from the operating limits.
If you use a capture and control system to meet the proposed standard, you are required to submit a plan identifying the operating limit and monitoring procedures for the capture system. You must monitor in accordance with your plan unless we require an alternate monitoring procedure.
If you use a thermal or catalytic oxidizer, you must monitor temperature using a continuous parameter monitoring system. If you use a thermal oxidizer, you must establish the average combustion temperature recorded during the performance test as the operating limit. If you use a catalytic oxidizer, you must establish as the operating limits the average gas temperatures recorded during the performance test both upstream and downstream of the catalyst bed. The time-weighted average of the values recorded during the performance test shall be computed to establish the parameter value(s). For catalytic oxidizers, temperature monitors are placed immediately before and after the catalyst bed. For thermal oxidizers, the temperature monitor is placed in the firebox or in the duct immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs.
If you use a solvent recovery system, you must conduct monthly mass balances or operate continuous emission monitors as described in the performance test section.
If you use a combination of capture and control devices and low-HAP materials, you are required to monitor the parameters of the capture and control devices as indicated above. In addition, you must record data on the HAP and solids content of the materials applied to determine the HAP emission rate as described in the performance test section.
The proposed rule specifies the types of parameters that must be monitored for common types of control devices: temperature monitoring for oxidizers and either continuous emission monitor systems or mass balance measurements for solvent recovery. These parameters were selected because they are good indicators of control device performance, and because continuous parameter monitoring instrumentation is available at a reasonable cost. You must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate all monitoring equipment as specified in the proposed rule. If you use control devices other than those identified in the proposed standard, you must submit the operating parameters to be monitored to the Administrator for approval. You could be approved, on a case-by-case basis, to monitor parameters not specifically listed in the proposed standards. The authority to approve the parameters to be monitored is retained by the Administrator and is not delegated.
The proposed rule requires you to comply with notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, generally as described in the General Provisions (see table 1 of the proposed rule) and specifically as designed to support demonstration of compliance with this proposed rule. We believe that these requirements are necessary and sufficient to ensure that you comply with the requirements in the proposed subpart JJJJ.
If the NESHAP apply to you, you must send an initial notification to the EPA Regional Office in the region where your facility is located and to your State agency. If you have an existing source, you must submit the initial notification no later than 1 year before the required compliance date for the standard. If you have a new or reconstructed source, you must submit the notification no later than 120 days after either the date of initial start-up or the effective date of the final rule, whichever is later.
The Initial Notification Report notifies us and your State agency that you have an existing facility that is subject to the proposed standard or that you have constructed a new facility. Thus, it allows you and the Federal or State enforcement agency to plan for compliance activities. The General Provisions for NESHAP specifies the information you must include in the initial notification and other reporting requirements for new or reconstructed sources.
If the NESHAP apply to you, you will have several options for demonstrating compliance. If you demonstrate compliance by using a capture and control system to reduce emissions of HAP, you must conduct a performance test as described above. Prior to conducting the performance test, you must notify us or the delegated State or local agency at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin, as indicated in the General Provisions for NESHAP.
You are required to send a notice of compliance status within 180 days after the compliance date as specified in the General Provisions for NESHAP. This report must include your compliance certification, the results of any performance tests and monitoring, and a description of how you will demonstrate continuing compliance.
The notification of compliance status must specifically identify whether low-HAP materials, emission capture and control systems, or a combination of low-HAP materials and capture and control systems were used to comply with this regulation. For capture and control systems, it must also identify the operating limits established during the performance test. Specific reporting requirements are dependent upon how you choose to comply with the proposed rule.
To comply with the proposed standard based on organic HAP content or organic HAP emissions on a weight basis, records must be maintained of the organic HAP, volatile organic content and solids content of each coating applied, and the amount of each coating applied on paper and other web coating lines each month.
If capture and control technology is used, you are required to keep records of the equipment monitoring parameter measurements specified in the proposed rule that are discussed in section V above. You must also develop a start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan. You would have to make the plan available for inspection if the Administrator requests to see it. It would stay in your records for the life of the affected source or until the source no longer must meet the standard in the proposed rule.
Each reporting year is divided into two semiannual reporting periods. If no deviations occur during a semiannual reporting period, you would submit a semiannual compliance report stating that the affected source has been in compliance. A deviation is any instance in which you fail to meet any requirement or obligation of the proposed standard or any term or condition adopted to meet the proposed standard. The following semiannual compliance reports would be required under this proposal when deviations occur:
• If you are complying by using oxidizers, report all deviations from the oxidizer operating parameters.
• If you are complying by using solvent recovery systems and liquid-liquid mass balance, report mass balance calculations for all months when the material balances deviated from the emission limit.
• If you are complying by using oxidizers or solvent recovery systems with continuous emission monitors, report all deviations from the operating parameter values established for the capture system and all deviations of the emission limit.
• If you are complying by using low-HAP coating materials, report all deviations from the emission limit.
• If you are complying by using a combination of capture and control systems with low-HAP coating materials, report all deviations from the emission limit and all deviations from operating parameters described above.
You would also have to send us reports for each semiannual reporting period in which the following occur:
• A change occurs at your facility or within your process that might affect its compliance status.
• A change from what was reported in the initial notice occurs at your facility or within your process.
• You decide to change to another emission limitation option.
We developed model plant facilities to represent the industry based on the data we collected. We estimated environmental, energy, and economic impacts based upon what these facilities must do to meet the proposed rule. There are several options for demonstrating compliance with these standards, and each facility has flexibility to adopt the compliance option which has the least economic impact for their individual situation. Most of the existing major source facilities in this industry apply solvent-based coatings and utilize thermal oxidation to reduce emissions. Therefore, in estimating the impacts associated with the proposed rule, we assumed that most facilities would install a permanent total enclosure and either install a new thermal oxidizer or improve an existing one. If a facility complies with the proposed rule by applying coatings that meet the proposed emission limitation, the capital and operating costs and other impacts would be lower than estimated. Hence, the estimates presented below may overestimate the costs and other impacts as some facilities may comply with the proposed rule by applying low-HAP coatings.
For existing affected sources in the paper and other web coating industry (approximately 210 major sources), the nationwide baseline organic HAP emissions are estimated to be 35,000 Mg/yr (39,000 tpy). We estimate that implementation of the final rule would reduce emissions from major sources by approximately 29,000 Mg/yr (32,000 tpy), or approximately 80 percent.
We have projected the growth of the paper and other web coating industry and anticipate 32 new affected sources will be constructed over the next 5 years. These sources will need to comply with NSPS in 40 CFR part 60 for VOC and, therefore, we estimated baseline emissions using a 90 percent reduction of organic HAP as the existing level of control. We estimated that nationwide organic HAP baseline emissions from new sources will be about 2,875 Mg/yr (3,170 tpy). We estimate that implementation of the final rule would reduce emissions from new affected sources by about 2,300 Mg/yr (2,535 tpy), or approximately 80 percent.
Secondary environmental impacts are considered to be any air, water, or solid waste impacts, positive or negative, associated with the implementation of the final standard. These impacts are exclusive of the direct organic HAP air emissions reductions discussed in the previous section.
We estimate that more than 99 percent of the organic HAP emissions from paper and other web coating are VOC. Therefore, the capture and control of organic HAP that are presently emitted will result in a decrease in VOC emissions. Consequently, we estimate the current nationwide VOC emissions from the paper and other web coating source category to be at least 35,000 Mg/yr (39,000 tpy), the nationwide organic HAP estimate. The proposed emission controls for organic HAP will reduce non-HAP VOC emissions as well. Emissions of VOC have been associated with a variety of health and welfare impacts. The VOC emissions, together with nitrogen oxides, are precursors to the formation of ground-level ozone, or smog. Exposure to ambient ozone is responsible for a series of public health impacts, such as alterations in lung capacity and aggravation of existing respiratory disease. Ozone exposure can also damage forests and crops.
The use of newly installed or upgraded control devices to meet the proposed standard would result in greater electricity consumption (see section VII of this preamble). Increases in emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, as well as certain HAP, from electric utilities could result. The operation of newly installed or upgraded control devices would also require combustion of supplemental fuel, typically natural gas (see section VII of this preamble), resulting in
It is expected that some paper and other web coating facilities will comply with the proposed standard by substituting non-HAP materials for organic HAP presently in use. In some cases, the non-HAP materials may be VOC, however, in other cases, non-VOC materials (
New and upgraded catalytic oxidizers will require catalysts. Catalyst life is estimated to be more than 10 years. Spent catalysts will represent a small amount of solid waste, and sometimes the spent catalyst will be regenerated by the manufacturer for reuse. Activated carbon used in solvent recovery systems is returned to the manufacturer at the end of its useful life and converted to other salable products. Little solid waste impact is expected from this source.
The operation of new and upgraded control devices will require additional energy. Capture of previously uncontrolled solvent-laden air will require fan horsepower. Operation of oxidizers, particularly thermal oxidizers, may require supplemental fuel (typically natural gas) to increase the combustion temperature and improve destruction efficiency.
The total additional electrical energy required to meet the proposed standard is estimated to be 313 million kilowatt-hours per year. Fuel requirements total 3.7 billion British thermal units per year. These fuel impacts are based on a “worst-case” scenario, that is the use of thermal oxidizers at all facilities, which is the control scenario expected to result in the highest energy impacts.
The total nationwide capital and annualized costs (1998 dollars) attributable to compliance with the proposed standard have been estimated for existing and new sources. Costs are based on the use of permanent total enclosures, thermal oxidizers, and monitoring equipment. The capital costs with other methods of control (
It is expected that any new facility using solvent-based coatings will install control systems to comply with applicable State and Federal regulations for reducing VOC emissions from the various sectors of this source category (
Capital costs would be incurred by installing capture and control systems at existing facilities presently without capture and control systems, and upgrading capture and control systems at existing facilities that do not meet the proposed standard. Additionally, we estimated the cost for the purchase of monitoring equipment needed as a capital investment to meet the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the proposed rule. Total nationwide capital costs are estimated to be $210 million with the cost for existing sources and new sources estimated to be $198 million and $12 million, respectively.
Total nationwide annual costs of the proposed standard have been estimated at $68 million with the annual cost for existing and new sources estimated to be $63 million and $5 million, respectively. These costs include capital recovery over a 10-year period, operating costs for the newly installed and upgraded capture and control systems, and costs for monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. These are net costs after taking into account the costs presently being incurred for the baseline control level.
The economic impact analysis (EIA) shows that the expected price increases for affected output would range from only 0.1 to 1.1 percent as a result of the proposed standard. The expected change in production of affected output is a reduction of 0.1 to 1.1 percent as a result of the proposed standard. There are three plant closures predicted out of 169 facilities included in the economic model. Although any facility closure is cause for concern, it should be noted that the baseline economic condition of the facilities predicted to close affects the closure estimate provided by the economic model. Facilities which are already experiencing adverse economic conditions for reasons unconnected to this rule are more vulnerable to the impact of any new costs than those that are not. The facilities predicted to close appear to have low profitability levels currently. While the rule may adversely impact the three facilities predicted to close, we do not predict an adverse economic impact to the industry as a whole.
Section 112(c) of the CAA directs us to develop a list of all categories of major sources and appropriate area sources that emit one or more of the 188 HAP listed under section 112(b) of the CAA. Paper and other web coating is a listed source category because of its organic HAP emissions that include, but are not limited to, toluene, methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, xylenes, phenol, methylene chloride, ethylene glycol and glycol ethers, hexane, methyl isobutyl ketone, cresols and cresylic acid, dimethylformamide, vinyl acetate, formaldehyde, and ethyl benzene. Section 112(d) of the CAA then directs us to promulgate regulations establishing standards for each category or subcategory of major and area sources of HAP listed pursuant to section 112(c). Those emission standards are to reflect the application of MACT.
In selecting the affected source(s) for MACT standards, our primary goal is to ensure that MACT is applied to all the HAP-emitting equipment within the source category or subcategory being regulated. The affected source also defines where new source MACT applies under a particular standard. Specifically, the General Provisions define the terms “construction” and “reconstruction” with reference to the term “affected source” (§ 60.2) and provide that new source MACT applies when construction and reconstruction occur (§ 60.5). The collection of equipment evaluated in determining MACT (including the MACT floor) is usually the collection of equipment used in defining the affected source.
In defining the affected source for the paper and other web coating proposed NESHAP, we considered available information on HAP emissions, control
Although the industry manufactures an extensive list of products, the coating processes used by the different segments of the industry are very similar. Typically, the web substrate is put on a web coating line where it is unwound, coated, rewound and/or cut to size, and packaged. Alternatively, a web may be unwound, coated, and combined with another material by lamination (either before or instead of being rewound). The web coating line may include one work station or multiple work stations which apply the coating to the web. Each work station typically uses a single type of coating applicator (
The primary organic HAP emission source in web coating is the solvent used in the coatings. The solvent acts as a vehicle for the material that is used to coat the web. Once the coating is on the web, the solvent is usually evaporated in dryers or otherwise converted to another material some time during the coating process.
In the various segments of the paper and other web coating industry, the same primary organic HAP emission sources can be found. Dryer organic HAP emissions can represent more than 90 percent of the total organic HAP emissions from coating operations. Some emitted organic HAP are not captured in the dryer exhaust. This uncaptured or fugitive organic HAP include that which evaporate from the coatings into the coating room during application, and that which evaporate from the web in the dryers but are then swept out of the dryer as the web travels toward the succeeding work station. Most, if not all, of the solvent emitted can be collected if capture equipment is installed to collect fugitive solvent vapors.
Dryer exhaust and fugitive emissions can be vented to control devices such as oxidizers or solvent recovery systems. Organic HAP may escape destruction or recovery by the control system, as they may be retained in the coated web. Organic HAP that remains in the web after removal from the coating line may leave the facility in the coated web product or may evaporate during additional processing (
Coating application and drying/curing are the largest emission sources of organic HAP emissions for all segments of the paper and other web coating industry. Because these emission points are on the web coating lines, the web coating lines are the largest emission source. Therefore, the proposed affected source is broadly defined as the collection of all web coating lines at a facility (see section II of this preamble). This broad definition was selected to provide sources with flexibility for compliance demonstrations,
Data were obtained from 268 paper and other web coating facilities. Facility data were obtained through survey instruments, facility visits, and data reported to EPA's Aerometric Information Retrieval System.
Of the 268 facilities, 210 were estimated to have the potential to be major sources. These 210 facilities were analyzed to identify the top performing facilities in terms of emission limitations from coating lines. The best controlled facilities used capture and control systems to reduce HAP emissions. Capture technology included work station hoods and total enclosures around the coating lines. Control technology included catalytic and thermal oxidation, as well as solvent recovery systems using carbon adsorption or condensation units.
In many cases, existing control devices were originally designed and operated to control VOC emissions. We assumed that the performance of these control devices with respect to VOC and organic HAP is equivalent because the organic HAP commonly used in this industry are also VOC.
Of the 210 facilities in the MACT floor database, 119 used capture and control systems. The same types of capture and control systems were used by these facilities even though the types of coatings, web-substrates and products varied widely. All of the facilities were ranked by the percent overall emissions reductions achieved for the collection of all the coating lines at each facility. The average reduction achieved by the best controlled 12 percent of the facilities was 95 percent. Consequently, we identified 95 percent overall control of organic HAP emissions as the MACT floor for existing sources.
We also determined that new sources employing permanent total enclosures with new destruction or recovery systems can be designed to achieve 98 percent overall control of organic HAP emissions. This is the anticipated level of control for new sources using the emission capture and control technologies used by the best controlled sources in the category. Although some facilities reported more than 98 percent overall control of organic HAP emissions, this higher level of control may not be achievable on a continuous basis under all normal operating conditions applicable to new sources. Consequently, 98 percent overall control of organic HAP emissions is the MACT floor for new sources.
We did not identify any control equipment capable of achieving emissions reductions beyond the MACT floor for new sources. We identified and considered one control level more stringent than the MACT floor for existing sources. The more stringent level for existing sources would require 98 percent overall control of organic HAP emissions from coating lines. In evaluating this control option to select the most appropriate MACT level, we calculated the additional costs and emissions reductions associated with requiring existing sources to achieve this more stringent level of control. While many existing sources can improve upon existing capture and control systems to achieve a 98 percent overall control of organic HAP emissions from coating lines, we believe that most of these same facilities would need to fully replace existing capture and control systems to achieve the more stringent level of control.
We calculated the cost effectiveness (
For reasons discussed above, we selected the MACT floors for existing and new paper and other web coating lines as the appropriate level of control for this source category. The proposed level of control for existing sources is 95 percent overall control of organic HAP emissions from coating lines, alternatively stated as limiting emissions to no more than 5 percent of the organic HAP applied. The proposed level of control for new sources is 98 percent overall control of organic HAP emissions from coating lines, alternatively stated as limiting emissions to no more than 2 percent of the organic HAP applied.
Paper and other web coating facilities may be able to reduce the HAP content of the coatings applied on their coating lines. We consider such HAP reductions as pollution prevention and believe pollution prevention is a desirable outcome. To encourage further pollution prevention, we are also proposing emission limitations in two formats that reflect the MACT level of control, but would not require sources to use add-on controls to achieve that level.
Coating formulations and organic HAP content vary depending on the coating characteristics required for the products being produced. We evaluated the coating data available to us to establish a baseline organic HAP content for the coatings currently used in this source category. For existing sources, we reduced the baseline organic HAP content of coatings by 95 percent to establish the emission limitations of 0.20 kilograms (kg) of HAP emitted per kg of coating solids applied and 0.04 kg of HAP emitted per kg of coating applied. Similarly, for new sources, we reduced the baseline organic HAP content by 98 percent to establish the emission limitations of 0.08 kg HAP emitted per kg of coating solids applied and 0.016 kg of HAP emitted per kg of coating applied.
We believe these emission limitations, expressed in the proposed standard as both a HAP content limit and a HAP emission limit, are appropriately based on the MACT level of control. Compliance with the HAP content limits and equivalent HAP emission limits must be determined using the monthly average HAP applied on a mass solids or mass coating basis. Sources operating capture and control systems can comply with these emission limitations by determining the organic HAP content of the coatings applied on all their coating lines and factoring in the capture and control efficiency such that the monthly average controlled organic HAP emissions from the affected source meet these limits.
The proposed format for the emission standard is an overall percent reduction of emissions, taking into account both capture and control system efficiencies. Data available to us regarding the efficiency of capture and control systems used in this industry indicate that overall efficiency is typically determined by a performance test for capture systems and oxidizers and liquid-liquid material balance for solvent recovery systems. The proposed standard allows for determining overall control efficiency through a variety of mechanisms to be consistent with industry practices. We selected this format because it reflects MACT at all facilities and allows flexibility in the method selected for achieving the percent reduction limit.
The use of an allowable concentration of emissions in the exhaust gases discharged to the atmosphere was also considered. The major disadvantage of this format is its inability to identify the overall control efficiency of the capture and control system, and thus, the overall percent reduction of organic HAP emissions. The concentration of emissions in exhaust gases could be decreased by increasing dilution air through the capture and control system. Thus, we do not believe an exhaust gas concentration limit is appropriate for demonstrating the overall percent reduction of emissions.
To encourage the use of low- and no-HAP materials, two additional formats are proposed. These formats limit emissions to either mass of HAP per mass of coating solids applied, or mass of HAP per mass of coating material applied (both solids and liquid). Affected sources can use either low- or no-HAP coating materials to meet these limits or capture and control systems, or a combination of the two. These formats do not establish any certain percent reduction requirement for capture and control systems but do accurately reflect application of MACT. Thus, they can provide flexibility for a source to combine add-on control with use of low-HAP materials to achieve the emissions reductions.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The 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 obligation 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.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” because none of the listed criteria apply to this action. Consequently, this action was not submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866.
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
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule, EPA did consult with State and local officials to enable them to provide timely input in the development of 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 the OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments “to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.”
Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. No tribal governments own or operate paper and other web coating lines. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this action.
Executive Order 13045 (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 EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology performance and not on an assessment of health or safety risks. Furthermore, this rule has been determined not to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual cost of this proposed rule for any year has been estimated to be about $68 million. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business ranging from 500 to 750 employees; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. In accordance with the RFA, EPA conducted an assessment of the proposed standard on small businesses within the paper and other web coating industry. Based on SBA size definitions for the affected industries and reported sales and employment data, EPA identified 50 of the 103 companies owning affected facilities as small businesses. Although small businesses represent 49 percent of the companies within the source category, they are expected to incur only 25 percent of the total industry compliance costs of $63 million. There are only six small firms with compliance costs equal to or greater than 3 percent of their sales. In addition, there are only four small firms with cost-to-sales ratios between 1 and 3 percent.
The EPA performed an EIA to estimate the changes in product price and production quantities for the firms affected by this proposed rule. The analysis shows that of the 54 facilities owned by affected small firms, only one would be expected to shut down rather than incur the cost of compliance with the proposed rule. Although any facility closure is cause for concern, it should be noted that the baseline economic condition of the facility predicted to close affects the closure estimate provided by the economic model. Facilities which are already experiencing adverse economic conditions for reasons unconnected to this rule are more vulnerable to the impact of any new costs than those that are not. The facility predicted to close appears to have low profitability levels currently. The EPA also notes that, while economies of scale will require individual small firms to pay a somewhat higher proportion of revenues than large firms for compliance, the burden on most small firms is quite low nevertheless. The median compliance cost is well below 1 percent of sales for both small and large firms affected by the proposed standard (0.16 and 0.03 percent of sales for small and large firms, respectively).
In summary, this analysis supports today's certification under the RFA because, while a few small firms may experience significant impacts, there will not be a substantial number incurring such a burden. For more information, consult the docket for this project.
Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA has nonetheless worked aggressively to minimize the impact of this rule on small entities, consistent with our obligations under the CAA. We solicited input from small entities during the data-gathering phase of the proposed rulemaking. Section VIII of this preamble further describes the information we obtained. Many small entities, like other affected paper and other web coating sources, currently comply with regulations limiting emissions of VOC. These facilities currently limit VOC emissions using add-on control equipment or pollution prevention coatings (coatings with little VOC content). Some small entities raised concerns regarding potential overlap between VOC regulations and the NESHAP. To address these concerns and be consistent with the current VOC control techniques, our proposed compliance options, test methods, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements would allow small entities to comply with the proposed regulation using most of their existing VOC compliance procedures. We believe this will significantly reduce the compliance burden for small entities, thereby mitigating potential impacts and preventing any duplication of effort. In addition, we are proposing compliance options which give small entities flexibility in choosing the most cost-effective and least-burdensome alternative for their operation. For example, a facility could purchase and use low-HAP coatings (
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501,
The information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
The annual monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting burden for this collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the rule) for existing web coating facilities is estimated to be 155 labor hours per facility at a total annual cost of $14,414 per facility. This estimate includes a one-time submission of a start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan with semiannual reports for any event when the procedures in the plan were not followed; semiannual excess emission reports; notifications; and recordkeeping. The total capital/start-up cost component (including purchase of services component) annualized over its expected useful life is $121,000. The operation and maintenance costs component is $35,000 per year.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Comments are requested on EPA'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 (2822), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503 marked “Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.” Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after September 13, 2000, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by October 13, 2000. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) instead of government-unique standards in their regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical standards (
This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, during the proposed rulemaking process, EPA searched for VCS that might be applicable. The search for emissions monitoring procedures identified 18 VCS that appeared to have possible use in lieu of EPA standard reference methods. However, after reviewing the available standards, EPA determined that ten of the candidate consensus standards (ASME C00031 or PTC 19-10-1981), ASTM D3154-91, ASTM 3271-87, ASTM D3464-96, ASTM D3796-90, ASTM E337-84, and EN 1093-4:1996, EN 12619:1999, ISO 9096:1992, and ISO 10780:1994) identified for measuring emissions of HAP or surrogates subject to emission standards in the proposed rule would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, and validation data. Seven of the remaining candidate consensus standards (ASME/BSR MFC 12m, ASME/BSR MFC 13m, ASTM Z6871Z, ISO PWI 17895, ISO/DIS 11890-1, ISO/DIS 11890-2 and ISO/FDIS 14965) are under development or under EPA review. The EPA plans to follow, review and consider adopting these standards after their development and further review by EPA are completed.
The ASTM 3960-98 is practical for use in measuring the VOC content of surface coatings for this proposal. This standard uses the same techniques, equipment, and procedures as Method 24. Since this proposal allows the measurement of VOC content as a surrogate for HAP using Method 24, this is an acceptable method alternative to EPA Method 24 for VOC. Therefore, ASTM 3960-98 will be incorporated by reference into 40 CFR 63.14 by the EPA.
Six consensus standards: ASTM D1475-90, ASTM D2369-95, ASTM D3792-91, ASTM D4017-96a, ASTM D4457-85 (Reapproved 91), and ASTM D5403-93 are already incorporated by reference in EPA Method 24 and five consensus standards: ASTM D1979-91, ASTM D3432-89, ASTM D4747-87, ASTM D4827-93, and ASTM PS 9-94 are incorporated by reference in EPA Method 311.
The EPA takes comment on proposed compliance demonstration requirements proposed in this rulemaking and specifically invites the public to identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards. Commentors should also explain why this proposed rule should adopt these VCS in lieu of EPA's standards. Emission test methods and performance specifications submitted for evaluation should be accompanied with a basis for the recommendation, including method validation data and the procedure used to validate the candidate method (if method other than Method 301, 40 CFR part 63, appendix A was used).
Section 63.3360 of the proposed standard lists the EPA's testing methods and performance standards included in the proposed rule. Most of the standards have been used by States and industry for more than 10 years. Nevertheless, § 63.3360 allows for any State or source to apply to EPA for permission to use an alternative method in place of any of the EPA testing methods or performance standards listed in § 63.3360.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C., 7401,
2. Part 63 is amended by adding a subpart JJJJ to read as follows:
This subpart describes the actions you must take to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from paper and other web coating. Paper is one of several web substrates to which coatings are applied using a web coating line. This subpart establishes emission standards for web coating lines and specifies what you must do to comply if you own or operate a facility with web coating lines that is a major source of HAP. Certain requirements apply to all who must follow the subpart; others depend on the means you use to comply with an emission standard.
The provisions of this subpart apply to each new and existing facility that is a major source of HAP, as defined in § 63.2, at which web coating lines are operated.
(a) The affected source subject to this subpart is the collection of all web coating lines at your facility, except:
(1) Web coating lines that are stand-alone coating equipment under 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK, and the owner or operator includes such coating lines in its compliance demonstration under subpart KK.
(2) Web coating lines which are used for coating coil.
(3) Web coating lines which are research or laboratory equipment as defined in § 63.3310.
(b) [Reserved]
(a) All terms used in this subpart that are not defined below have the meaning given to them in the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and in subpart A of this part.
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation (including any operating limit) or work practice standard;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emission limitation (including any operating limit) or work practice standard in this subpart during start-up, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart.
(b) The symbols used in equations in this subpart are defined as follows:
(1) C
(2) C
(3) C
(4) C
(5) C
(6) C
(7) C
(8) C
(9) C
(10) C
(11) E = the organic volatile matter control efficiency of the control device, percent.
(12) CE = the organic volatile matter capture efficiency of the capture system, percent.
(13) G
(14) H
(15) H
(16) H
(17) H
(18) H
(19) H
(20) L = the mass organic HAP emitted per mass of solids applied, kg/kg.
(21) M
(22) M
(23) M
(24) M
(25) M
(26) M
(27) M
(28) M
(29) M
(30) n = the number of organic compounds in the vent gas.
(31) p = the number of different coating materials applied in a month.
(32) q = the number of different materials added to the coating material.
(33) Q
(34) R = the overall organic HAP control efficiency, percent.
(35) R
(36) S = the mass organic HAP emitted per mass of material applied, kg/kg.
(37) 0.0416 = conversion factor for molar volume, kg-moles per cubic meter (mol/m
(38) 12.0 = the molecular weight of carbon.
(a) If you own or operate any paper and other web coating affected source that is subject to the requirements of this subpart, you must comply with these requirements on and after the compliance dates as specified in § 63.3330.
(b) You must limit emissions to:
(1) No more than 5 percent of the organic HAP applied for the month at existing sources, and no more than 2 percent of the organic HAP applied for the month at new sources; or
(2) No more than 4 percent of the mass of coating materials applied for the month at existing sources, and no more than 1.6 percent of the mass of coating materials applied for the month at new sources; or
(3) No more than 20 percent of the mass of solids applied for the month at existing sources, and no more than 8 percent of the solids applied for the month at new sources.
(c) You must demonstrate compliance with this standard by following one of the procedures in § 63.3370.
(a) If you own or operate an existing affected source subject to the provisions of this subpart, you must comply by the compliance date. The compliance date is [3 years after publication of the final rule in the
(b) If you own or operate a new affected source subject to the provisions of this subpart, you must comply immediately upon start-up of the affected source, or after [the date of publication of the final rule in the
(c) If you own or operate a reconstructed affected source subject to the provisions of this subpart, you must comply immediately upon start-up of the affected source, or after [the date of publication of the final rule in the
Table 1 of this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A of this part that apply to you if you are subject to this subpart.
(a) A summary of monitoring you must do follows:
(b) Following the date on which the initial performance test of a control device is completed, to demonstrate continuing compliance with the standard, you must monitor and inspect each capture system and each control device used to comply with § 63.3320. You must install and operate the monitoring equipment as specified in paragraphs (c) through (f) of this section.
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(d)
(1)
(2)
(e)
(1) Each CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15-minute period. You must have a minimum of four successive cycles of operation to have a valid hour of data.
(2) You must have valid data from at least 90 percent of the hours during which the process operated.
(3) You must determine the hourly average of all recorded readings. Provided all of the recorded readings clearly demonstrate continuous compliance with the standard that applies to you, then you are not required to determine the hourly average of all recorded readings.
(4) You must determine the rolling 3-hour average of all recorded readings for each operating period.
(5) You must record the results of each inspection, calibration, and validation check.
(6) For each temperature monitoring device, you must also:
(i) Locate the temperature sensor as specified in § 63.3360(e)(3).
(ii) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance of 2.2 degrees Celsius or 0.75 percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger.
(iii) Shield the temperature sensor system from electromagnetic interference and chemical contaminants.
(iv) If a chart recorder is used, it must have a sensitivity in the minor division of at least 20 degrees Fahrenheit.
(v) Perform an electronic calibration at least semiannually according to the procedures in the manufacturer's owners manual. Following the electronic calibration, you must conduct a temperature sensor validation check in which a second or redundant temperature sensor placed nearby the process temperature sensor must yield a reading within 16.7 degrees Celsius of the process temperature sensor's reading.
(vi) Conduct calibration and validation checks any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating temperature range or install a new temperature sensor.
(vii) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic corrosion.
(f)
(1) The monitoring plan must:
(i) Identify the operating parameter to be monitored to ensure that the capture efficiency measured during the initial compliance test is maintained; and
(ii) Discuss why this parameter is appropriate for demonstrating ongoing compliance; and
(iii) Identify the specific monitoring procedures.
(2) The monitoring plan must specify the operating parameter value, or range of values, that demonstrate compliance with the standards in § 63.3320. The specified operating parameter, or range of values, must represent the conditions present when the capture system is being properly operated and maintained.
(3) You must conduct monitoring in accordance with the plan submitted to the Administrator unless comments received from the Administrator require an alternate monitoring scheme.
(a) The performance test methods you must conduct are as follows:
(b) If you are using a control device to comply with the requirements of § 63.3320, you are not required to conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance if one or more of the criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section are met.
(1) The control device is equipped with continuous emission monitors for determining inlet and outlet total organic volatile matter concentration, and capture efficiency has been determined in accordance with the requirements of this subpart, such that an overall organic HAP control efficiency can be calculated, and the continuous emission monitors are used to demonstrate continuous compliance in accordance with § 63.3350; or
(2) You have met the requirements of § 63.7(h) (for waiver of performance testing); or
(3) The control device is a solvent recovery system, and you comply by means of a monthly liquid-liquid material balance.
(c)
(1)
(i) Count each organic HAP measured to be present at greater than or equal to 0.1 weight percent for carcinogens and greater than or equal to 1.0 weight percent for noncarcinogens.
(ii) The weight fraction of each organic HAP shall be expressed as a value truncated four places after the decimal point.
(iii) Calculate the weight fraction of organic HAP in the tested material by summing the counted individual organic HAP weight fractions. The total HAP content shall be expressed as a value truncated three places after the decimal point.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(d)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(e)
(1) An initial performance test to establish the destruction efficiency of an oxidizer must be conducted such that oxidizer inlet and outlet testing is conducted simultaneously, and the data are reduced in accordance with the reference methods and procedures in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (ix):
(i) Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, must be used for sample and velocity traverses to determine sampling locations.
(ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, must be used to determine gas volumetric flow rate.
(iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, must be used for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight.
(iv) Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, must be used to determine stack gas moisture.
(v) The gas volumetric flow rate, dry molecular weight, and stack gas moisture must be determined for each run specified in paragraph (e)(1)(vii) of this section.
(vi) Method 25 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, must be used to determine volatile organic compound concentration, except as provided in paragraphs (e)(1)(vi)(A) through (C) of this section. You must submit notice of the intended test method to the Administrator for approval along with notice of the performance test required under § 63.7(c). You may use Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; if
(A) An exhaust gas volatile organic compound concentration of 50 ppmv or less is required to comply with the standards of § 63.3320; or
(B) The volatile organic compound concentration at the inlet to the control system and the required level of control are such that result in exhaust gas volatile organic compound concentrations of 50 ppmv or less; or
(C) Because of the high efficiency of the control device, the anticipated volatile organic compound concentration at the control device exhaust is 50 ppmv or less, regardless of inlet concentration.
(vii) Except as provided in § 63.7(e)(3), each performance test must consist of three separate runs; each run conducted for at least 1 hour under the conditions that exist when the affected source is operating under normal operating conditions. For the purpose of determining volatile organic compound concentrations and mass flow rates, the average of the results of all the runs will apply.
(viii) Organic volatile matter mass flow rates must be determined for each run specified in paragraph (e)(1)(vii) of this section using Equation 1:
(ix) Emission control device efficiency must be determined using Equation 2:
(2) You must record such process information as may be necessary to determine the conditions in existence at the time of the performance test. Operations during periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction will not constitute representative conditions for the purpose of a performance test.
(3) For the purpose of determining the value of the oxidizer operating parameter that must demonstrate continuing compliance, the average of the values recorded during the performance test must be computed according to the procedures in this paragraph (e)(3). For an oxidizer other than catalytic oxidizer, the owner or operator must establish as the operating parameter the minimum combustion temperature in the combustion chamber. This must be accomplished by locating the temperature sensor in the combustion zone. For a catalytic oxidizer, the owner or operator must establish as the operating parameters the minimum gas temperature at the inlet and the temperature rise across the catalyst bed. This must be accomplished by locating temperature sensors at both the inlet and outlet of the catalyst bed. You must collect temperature data every 15 minutes during the entire period of the 3-hour performance test and determine the average temperature over the 3-hour performance test by computing the average of all of the 15-minute readings.
(f)
(1) You may assume your capture efficiency, CE, equals 100 percent if your capture system is a permanent total enclosure. You must confirm that your capture system is a permanent total enclosure by demonstrating that it meets the requirements of section 6 of EPA Method 204 of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M, and that all exhaust gases from the enclosure are delivered to a control device.
(2) You may determine capture efficiency, CE, according to the protocols for testing temporary total enclosures that are specified in Methods 204 and 204A through F of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M. You may exclude never-controlled work stations from such capture efficiency determinations.
(3) You may use any capture efficiency protocol and test methods that satisfy the criteria of either the Data Quality Objective or the Lower Confidence Limit approach as described in appendix A of subpart KK of this part. The owner or operator may exclude never-controlled work stations from such capture efficiency determinations.
(a) A summary of how you must demonstrate compliance follows:
(b)
(2) You are in compliance with emission limits in § 63.3320(b)(2) and (3) if each coating material applied at an existing source is applied as-purchased and contains no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material or 0.2 kg organic HAP per kg solids, and each coating material applied at a new source is applied as-purchased and contains no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg coating material or 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg solids.
(c)
(1)
(i) Determine the organic HAP content or volatile organic content of each coating material applied on an as-purchased basis in accordance with § 63.3360(c).
(ii) Calculate the monthly average as-applied organic HAP content, C
or calculate the monthly average as-applied volatile organic content, Cavi, of each coating material using Equation 3b:
(2)
(i) Determine the as-applied solids content of each coating material following the procedure in § 63.3360(d). You must calculate the monthly average as-applied solids content of materials which are reduced, thinned, or diluted prior to application, using Equation 4:
(ii) Calculate the as-applied organic HAP to solids ratio, H
(3)
(4)
(5) The affected source is in compliance with emission limits in § 63.3320(b)(2) and (3) if:
(i) The organic HAP content of each coating material as-applied at an existing source is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material or 0.2 kg organic HAP per kg solids, and the organic HAP content of each coating material as-applied at a new source contains no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg coating material or 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg solids; or
(ii) The monthly average organic HAP content of all as-applied coating materials at an existing source are no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material or 0.2 kg organic HAP per kg solids, and the monthly average organic HAP content of all as-applied coating materials at a new source are no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg coating material or 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg solids.
(d)
(e)
(1) If the affected source has only always-controlled work stations and operates more than one capture system or more than one control device, you must demonstrate compliance in accordance with the provisions of either paragraph (n) or (p) of this section.
(2) If the affected source operates one or more never-controlled work stations or one or more intermittently-controllable work stations, you must demonstrate compliance in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (n) of this section.
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(1)
(i) Measure the mass of each coating material applied on the coating line or group of coating lines controlled by a common solvent recovery device during the month.
(ii) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied, organic HAP emission rate based on material applied, or emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the organic HAP content of each coating material as-applied, C
(iii) Determine the volatile organic content, Cavi, of each coating material as-applied during the month following the procedure in § 63.3360(d).
(iv) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied or emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the solids content of each coating material applied during the month following the procedure in § 63.3360(d).
(v) Measure and monitor the amount of volatile organic matter recovered for the month according to the procedures in § 63.3350(d)(2).
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x) You are in compliance with the emission limitations in § 63.3320(b) if:
(A) The volatile organic matter collection and recovery efficiency, R
(B) The organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied, L, is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg solids applied at an existing source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg solids applied at a new source; or
(C) The organic HAP emission rate based on material applied, S, is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg material applied at an existing source and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg material applied at a new source; or
(D) The organic HAP emitted during the month, H
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii) Determine the percent capture efficiency, CE, in accordance with § 63.3360(f).
(iv)
(v) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied, organic HAP emission rate based on materials applied, or emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, measure the mass of each coating material applied on the coating line or group of coating lines controlled by a
(vi) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied, organic HAP emission rate based on material applied or emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the organic HAP content of each coating material as-applied, C
(vii) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied or emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the solids content of each coating material as-applied, Casi, during the month following the procedure in § 63.3360(d).
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
(A) The organic volatile matter collection and recovery efficiency, R
(B) The organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied, L, is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg solids applied at an existing source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg solids applied at a new source; or
(C) The organic HAP emission rate based on material applied, S, is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg material applied at an existing source and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg material applied at a new source; or
(D) The organic HAP emitted during the month, H
(j) [Reserved]
(k)
(1) Demonstrate initial compliance through performance tests of capture efficiency and control device efficiency and continuing compliance through continuous monitoring of capture system and control device operating parameters as specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section:
(i) Determine the oxidizer destruction efficiency, E, using the procedure in § 63.3360(e).
(ii) Determine the capture system capture efficiency, CE, in accordance with § 63.3360(f).
(iii)
(iv) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied, organic HAP emission rate based on materials applied, or emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, measure the mass of each coating material applied on the coating line or group of coating lines controlled by a common oxidizer during the month.
(v) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied, organic HAP emission rate based on material applied, or emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the organic HAP content of each coating material as-applied, C
(vi) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied or emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the solids content of each coating material applied during the month following the procedure in § 63.3360(d).
(2) Convert the information obtained under paragraph (k)(1) of this section into the units of the selected compliance option using the calculation procedures specified in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(3) You are in compliance with the emission limitations in § 63.3320(b) if the oxidizer is operated such that the average operating parameter value is greater than the operating parameter value established in accordance with § 63.3360(e) for each 3-hour period, and the capture system operating parameter is operated at an average value greater than or less than (as appropriate) the operating parameter value established in accordance with § 63.3350(f); and
(i) The overall organic HAP control efficiency, R, is 95 percent or greater at an existing source and 98 percent or greater at a new source; or
(ii) The organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied, L, is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg solids applied at an existing source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg solids applied at a new source; or
(iii) The organic HAP emission rate based on material applied, S, is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg material applied at an existing source and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg material applied at a new source; or
(iv) The organic HAP emitted during the month, H
(l)
(1) Determine the as-purchased mass of each coating material applied each month, M
(2) Determine the as-purchased solids content of each coating material applied each month, in accordance with § 63.3360(d)(1), C
(3) Determine the as-purchased mass fraction of each coating material which was applied at 20 weight percent or greater solids content, on an as-applied basis, G
(4) Determine the total mass of each solvent, diluent, thinner, or reducer added to coating materials which were applied at less than 20 weight percent solids content on an as-applied basis each month, M
(5) Calculate the monthly allowable organic HAP emissions, H
(m) [Reserved]
(n)
(1)
(i) In accordance with paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (iii) and (v) through (vii) of this section if the coating lines controlled by that solvent recovery system have only always-controlled work stations; or
(ii) In accordance with paragraphs (i)(1)(ii) and (iii), (v) and (vi), and (o) of this section if the coating lines controlled by that solvent recovery system have one or more never-controlled or intermittently-controllable work stations.
(2)
(i) For each capture system delivering emissions to that solvent recovery system, monitor the operating parameter established in accordance with § 63.3350(f) to ensure capture system efficiency; and
(ii) Determine the organic HAP emissions for those coating lines served by each capture system delivering emissions to that solvent recovery system either:
(A) In accordance with paragraphs (i)(2)(i) through (iii), (v) and (vi), and (viii) of this section if the coating lines served by that capture and control system have only always-controlled work stations; or
(B) In accordance with paragraphs (i)(2)(i) through (iii), (vi), and (o) of this section if the coating lines served by that capture and control system have one or more never-controlled or intermittently-controllable work stations.
(3)
(i) Monitor the operating parameter established in accordance with § 63.3350(e) to ensure control device efficiency; and
(ii) For each capture system delivering emissions to that oxidizer, monitor the operating parameter established in accordance with § 63.3350(f) to ensure capture efficiency; and
(iii) Determine the organic HAP emissions for those coating lines served by each capture system delivering emissions to that oxidizer either:
(A) In accordance with paragraphs (k)(1)(i) through (v) and (vii) of this section if the coating lines served by that capture and control system have only always-controlled work stations; or
(B) In accordance with paragraphs (k)(1)(i) through (iii), (v), and (o) of this section if the coating lines served by that capture and control system have one or more never-controlled or intermittently-controllable work stations.
(4)
(5) Convert the information obtained under paragraphs (n)(1) through (4) of this section into the units of the selected compliance option using the calculation procedures specified in paragraphs (n)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(6)
(i) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source based on solids applied, L, is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg solids applied at an existing source, and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg solids applied at a new source; or
(ii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source based on material applied, S, is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg material applied at an existing source, and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg material applied at a new source; or
(iii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source during the month, H
(iv) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source was not more than 5 percent of the total mass of organic HAP applied for the month at an existing source, and no more than 2 percent of the total mass of organic HAP applied for the month at a new source. The total mass of organic HAP applied by the affected source in the month must be determined by the owner or operator using Equation 8 of this section.
(o)
(1) Determine the sum of the mass of all coating materials as-applied on intermittently-controllable work stations operating in bypass mode and the mass of all coating materials as-applied on never-controlled work stations during the month, M
(2) Determine the sum of the mass of all coating materials as-applied on intermittently-controllable work stations operating in a controlled mode and the mass of all coating materials applied on always-controlled work stations during the month, M
(3)
(4)
(p)
(1) The volatile matter collection and recovery efficiency, R
(2) The overall organic HAP control efficiency as determined by paragraphs (i)(2)(i) through (v) of this section for each coating line or group of coating lines served by that control device and a common capture system is at least 95 percent at an existing source and at least 98 percent at a new source; or
(3) The overall organic HAP control efficiency as determined by paragraphs (k)(1)(i) through (iii) and (k)(2)(i) of this section for each coating line or group of coating lines served by that control device and a common capture system is at least 95 percent at an existing source and at least 98 percent at a new source.
(a) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this subpart must submit the reports specified in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section to the Administrator:
(b) You must submit an initial notification as required by § 63.9(b).
(1) Initial notification for existing sources must be submitted no later than 1 year before the compliance date specified in § 63.3330(a).
(2) Initial notification for new and reconstructed sources must be submitted as required by § 63.9(b).
(3) For the purpose of this rule, a title V or part 70 permit application may be used in lieu of the initial notification required under § 63.9(b), provided the same information is contained in the permit application as required by § 63.9(b), and the State to which the permit application has been submitted has an approved operating permit program under part 70 of this chapter and has received delegation of authority from EPA to implement and enforce this subpart.
(4) If you are using a permit application in lieu of an initial notification in accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the permit application must be submitted by the same due date specified for the initial notification.
(c) You must submit a semi-annual compliance report according to paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Compliance report dates.
(i) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in § 63.3330(a) and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is the first date following the end of the calendar half immediately following the compliance date that is specified for your source in § 63.3330(a).
(ii) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the calendar half immediately following the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in § 63.3330(a).
(iii) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(iv) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
(v) For each affected source that is subject to permitting regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71, and the permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports pursuant to § 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or § 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established instead of according to the dates in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(2) The compliance report must contain the following information in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section:
(i) Company name and address.
(ii) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name, title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of the report.
(iii) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting period.
(iv) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations (emission limit or operating limit) that apply to you, a statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting period, and that no continuous monitoring system (CMS) was inoperative, inactive, malfunctioning, out-of-control, repaired, or adjusted.
(v) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit or operating limit) that applies to you that occurs at an affected source where you are not using a CEMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, the compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section, and:
(A) The total operating time of each affected source during the reporting period.
(B) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations (including unknown cause), if applicable, and the corrective action taken.
(C) Information on the number, duration, and cause for CPMS downtime incidents, if applicable, other than downtime associated with zero and span and other daily calibration checks.
(vi) For each deviation from an emission limit occurring at an affected source where you are using a CEMS to comply with the emission limit in this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iii) and (vi)(A) through (J) of this section.
(A) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(B) The date and time that each CEMS and CPMS, if applicable, was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(C) The date and time that each CEMS and CPMS, if applicable, was out-of-control, including the information in § 63.8(c)(8).
(D) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during a period of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period.
(E) A summary of the total duration (in hours) of the deviation during the reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting period.
(F) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting period into those that are due to start-up, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
(G) A summary of the total duration (in hours) of CEMS and CPMS downtime during the reporting period, and the total duration of CEMS and CPMS downtime as a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting period.
(H) A breakdown of the total duration of CEMS and CPMS downtime during the reporting period into periods that are due to monitoring equipment malfunctions, nonmonitoring equipment malfunctions, quality assurance/quality control calibrations, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
(I) The date of the latest CEMS and CPMS certification or audit.
(J) A description of any changes in CEMS, CPMS, or controls since the last reporting period.
(d) You must submit a Notification of Performance Tests as specified in §§ 63.7 and 63.9(e) if you are complying with the emission standard using a control device and you are required to conduct a performance test. This notification, and the site-specific test plan required under § 63.7(c)(2), must identify the operating parameters to be monitored to ensure that the capture efficiency of the capture system and the control efficiency of the control device measured during the performance test is maintained. Unless EPA objects to the parameter or requests changes, you may consider the parameter approved.
(e) You must submit a Notification of Compliance Status as specified in § 63.9(h).
(f) You must submit performance test reports as specified in § 63.10(d)(2) if you are using a control device to comply with the emission standard, and you have not obtained a waiver from the performance test requirement or you are not exempted from this requirement by § 63.3360(b). The performance test must be submitted as part of the notification of compliance status required in § 63.3400(i).
(g) You must submit start-up, shutdown, and malfunction reports as specified in § 63.10(d)(5), except that the provisions in subpart A of this part
(1) If actions taken by an owner or operator during a start-up, shutdown, or malfunction of an affected source (including actions taken to correct a malfunction) are not completely consistent with the procedures specified in the source's start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan required by § 63.6(e)(3), the owner or operator must state such information in the report. The start-up, shutdown, or malfunction report must consist of a letter containing the name, title, and signature of the responsible official who is certifying its accuracy and must be submitted to the Administrator.
(2) Separate start-up, shutdown, or malfunction reports are not required if the information is included in the report specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vi) of this section.
(a) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this subpart must maintain the records specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section on a monthly basis in accordance with the requirements of § 63.10(b)(1):
(1) Records specified in § 63.10(b)(2) of all measurements needed to demonstrate compliance with this standard, including:
(i) Continuous emission monitor data in accordance with the requirements of § 63.3350(d);
(ii) Control device and capture system operating parameter data in accordance with the requirements of § 63.3350(c), (e), and (f);
(iii) Organic HAP content data for the purpose of demonstrating compliance in accordance with the requirements of § 63.3360(c);
(iv) Volatile matter and solids content data for the purpose of demonstrating compliance in accordance with the requirements of § 63.3360(d);
(v) Overall control efficiency determination using capture efficiency test and oxidizer destruction efficiency test in accordance with the requirements of § 63.3360(e) and (f); and
(vi) Material usage, HAP usage, volatile matter usage, and solids usage and compliance demonstrations using these data in accordance with the requirements of § 63.3370(b), (c), and (e).
(2) Records specified in § 63.10(c) for each continuous monitoring system operated by the owner or operator in accordance with the requirements of § 63.3350(b).
(b) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this subpart must maintain records of all liquid-liquid material balances performed in accordance with the requirements of § 63.3370. The records must be maintained in accordance with the requirements of § 63.10(b).
(a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a State under 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (b) of this section must be retained by the Administrator and not transferred to a State.
(b) Authority which will not be delegated to States: § 63.3360(c), approval of alternate test method for organic HAP content determination; § 63.3360(d), approval of alternate test method for volatile matter determination.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in 1996, requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to establish criteria for a program to monitor unregulated contaminants and to publish a list of contaminants to be monitored. In fulfillment of this requirement, EPA published the Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) for public water systems on September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50556), which included lists of contaminants for which monitoring was required or would be required in the future. These lists included: List 1 for contaminants with analytical methods; List 2 for contaminants with methods that were being refined; and List 3 for contaminants with methods that were still being developed.
This rule proposes analytical methods for fourteen contaminants on List 2, and to require monitoring for those contaminants in drinking water. These methods and associated monitoring are proposed to support EPA decisions concerning whether or not to regulate and establish standards for these contaminants in drinking water. The intent of regulating and setting standards for any of these contaminants that may be found to occur at levels of health concern is to protect public health. Additionally in this rule, EPA proposes modifications to the UCMR (published September 17, 1999) that affect the implementation of monitoring for both List 1 and List 2 contaminants.
Comments must be received by October 13, 2000.
Send written comments to the Comment Clerk, docket number W-00-01, Water Docket (MC 4101), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC, 20460. Comments may also be hand delivered to the Water Docket at Room EB57 U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington DC. Please submit an original and three copies of your comments and enclosures (including references). The full record for this document has been established under docket number W-00-01 and includes supporting documentation as well as printed, paper versions of electronic comments. The full record is available for inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays, at the Water Docket, East Tower Basement, Waterside Mall, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington DC. For access to docket (Docket No. W-00-01) materials, please call (202) 260-3027 between 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Eastern Daylight Savings Time, Monday through Friday, to schedule an appointment. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
For technical information regarding everything but the analytical methods, contact Charles Job, Drinking Water Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (MC 4606), Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260-7084. For technical information regarding the analytical methods, contact David Munch, Technical Support Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr., Cincinnati OH, 45268, (513) 569-7948, or e-mail at Munch.Dave@EPA.gov. General information may also be obtained from the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline. Callers within the United States may reach the Hotline at (800) 426-4791. The Hotline is open Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
The regulated entities are public water systems. All large community and non-transient non-community water systems serving more than 10,000 persons are required to monitor under the revised UCMR. A community water system (CWS) is a public water system which serves at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents or regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents. Non-transient non-community water system (NTNCWS) means a public water system that is not a community water system and that regularly serves at least 25 of the same persons over 6 months per year. Only a national representative sample of community and non-transient non-community systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons are required to monitor. Transient non-community systems, which are systems that do not regularly serve at least 25 of the same persons over six months per year, are not required to monitor. States, Territories, and Tribes, with primacy to administer the regulatory program for public water systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act sometimes conduct analyses to measure for contaminants in water samples and are regulated by this action. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include the following:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in § 141.35(a) of the September 17, 1999 UCMR (see 64 FR 50556) and § 141.40(a) of the September 17, 1999 UCMR as amended by this rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult one of the persons listed in the preceding
SDWA section 1445(a)(2), as amended in 1996, requires EPA to establish criteria for a program to monitor unregulated contaminants and to publish a list of contaminants to be monitored. To meet these requirements, EPA published the Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for Public Water Systems on September 17, 1999, (64 FR 50556), which substantially revised the previous Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Program, codified at 40 CFR 141.40. The UCMR revised the regulations at 40 CFR 141.35, 141.40, 142.16 and deleted and reserved 142.15(c)(3). The rule covered: (1) The frequency and schedule for monitoring unregulated contaminants, based on PWS size, water source, and likelihood of finding contaminants; (2) a new, shorter list of contaminants for which systems will monitor, referred to as the UCMR (1999) List, which was divided into three lists based on analytical methods availability; (3) procedures for selecting and monitoring a nationally representative sample of small PWSs (those serving 10,000 or fewer persons), and; (4) procedures for entering the monitoring data in the National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD), as required under section 1445. This final rule included a list of contaminants to be monitored which was further subdivided into three lists: List 1 for contaminants with current approved analytical methods, List 2 for contaminants with methods being refined, and List 3 for contaminants with methods being developed in research. In a supplemental rule, published March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11371), the methods for two List 1 contaminants were established as were some technical corrections to the UCMR rule.
Sixteen contaminants were included on the UCMR (1999) List 2, with their analytical methods listed as “reserved”, pending the conclusion of EPA refinement and review of the analytical methods. Today's rule amends the 1999 UCMR to specify methods for monitoring for 14 contaminants (13 organic chemicals and one microorganism) on List 2. It adds one contaminant to List 2 (nitrobenzene, NOTE: Nitrobenzene is already on List 1 with a method that does not allow detection near the current health effects level) and moves one other contaminant (polonium-210) from List 2 to List 3. Today's rule, when final, will activate Screening Survey monitoring for these 14 contaminants, as described in § 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 2.
Today's rule also contains several minor changes to the September 1999 rule. Additionally, the preamble includes discussion of issues of a long-range nature that may affect the unregulated contaminant monitoring program in the future. These issues include: options for defining “contaminant” to more fully address the occurrence of related contaminants (for example, parent compounds and degradates); retention of data for contaminants also identified by the specified methods but not required to be reported under this regulation; synchronization of the UCMR with the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL); and the UCMR data reporting process.
Today's action proposes analytical methods for measurement of 14 contaminants in drinking water, which were included on the UCMR (1999) List 2. The sixteen 1999 List 2 contaminants and their sources, including amendments to List 2 proposed today, are presented in Table 1, Uses and Environmental Sources of UCMR (1999) List 2 Contaminants. This action also proposes modifications affecting the sample collection, analysis and reporting of both List 1 and List 2 contaminants. Please note that EPA is not requesting comment on any aspect of the September 1999 UCMR (as revised in March 2000) other than those changes proposed today; specifically, EPA is not requesting comment on the UCMR list of contaminants other than the two minor changes proposed today (adding one List 1 contaminant (nitrobenzene) to List 2 with a refined analytical method capable of lower detection levels and moving one List 2 contaminant (polonium-210) to List 3.)
The final UCMR, published on September 17, 1999, and subsequently revised on March 2, 2000, consisted of many program elements designed to enhance and improve the unregulated contaminant monitoring program in several important ways. The rule specifies (1) which systems must monitor, including a statistical approach to select a representative sample of small public water systems; (2) a list of contaminants for which systems must monitor; (3) the monitoring time, frequency, and location of sampling; (4) which methods are to be used for analyzing the contaminants; (5) quality control elements that must be followed in addition to those specified in each analytical method, (6) reporting requirements; and (7) State and Tribal participation concerning the implementation of the monitoring program.
EPA divided the list of contaminants for which systems must monitor into three separate lists based on the availability of analytical methods. List 1, Assessment Monitoring, consisted of 12 contaminants for which analytical methods were available. List 2, Screening Survey, consisted of 16 contaminants for which analytical methods would be developed by the time of initial monitoring in 2001. Pre-Screen Testing, List 3, had 8 contaminants for which analytical methods research is being conducted. Only the contaminants on List 1 must be monitored at all 2,774 large community and non-transient non-community public water systems serving more than 10,000 persons and at a representative sample of approximately 800 systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons. From this set of approximately 3,600 large and small public water systems, EPA will randomly select 300 large and small systems to monitor for List 2 contaminants. Today's rule specifies the analytical methods for fourteen List 2 contaminants. Methods for the other two List 2 contaminants, RDX and Alachlor ESA, need to be refined for analysis in treated drinking water.
The placement of the 16 contaminants on List 2 meant that their analytical methods were being further refined and not ready for the extensive monitoring that would occur for the List 1 contaminants. The evaluation of these new methods during monitoring for List 2 contaminants will include developing the data necessary to support the determination of practical quantitation levels, which are needed to support possible future regulations, as well as determining the occurrence of the analytes measured. Today's proposal would provide for monitoring of 13 List 2 chemical contaminants at the 180 small systems randomly selected (with the small systems doing the sampling and EPA conducting the testing and reporting) from the 800 small systems in the State Monitoring Plans beginning in January 2001. State Monitoring Plans (SMP) collectively specify the 800 randomly selected small water systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons and constitute the national representative sample of such systems. The SMPs also specify the randomly selected large systems that must monitor for List 2 contaminants. The 120 randomly selected large systems would begin List 2 chemical contaminant monitoring January 2002. A second Screening Survey for one List 2 microbiological contaminant will be performed in 2003 by 180 other small systems and 120 other large systems. The delay of the Screening Survey for the microbiological contaminant is allow laboratories to gain experience with the new method and have capacity available for large system testing. The proposed timing will allow monitoring of these List 2 contaminants at small systems concurrently with the List 1, Assessment Monitoring, contaminants. Small systems will monitor in 2001 for List 2 contaminants ahead of large systems in 2002 because EPA is paying for the small system monitoring and also desires to evaluate the performance of the methods to make any adjustments to them prior the large systems using the methods, which must be paid for by the large systems.
Methods are continuing to be refined for the remaining two List 2 contaminants. If methods are developed in a timely fashion for these contaminants, they may be added for monitoring in a separate action, probably in 2003, or during the next UCMR 5-year monitoring cycle which would begin in 2006 . (Please refer to preamble section II.C.2.d.)
As provided in the September 1999 rule, surface water systems will monitor quarterly for one year and as required in the recently revised regulations at 64 FR 50556 ground water systems will
The focus of the UCMR is on the occurrence or likely occurrence of contaminants in drinking water of community and non-transient, non-community water systems. For regulatory purposes, public water systems are categorized as “community water systems,” or “non-community water systems.” Community water systems are specifically defined as “public water systems which serve at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents or regularly serve at least 25 year round residents.” (40 CFR 141.2) A “non-community water system” means any other public water system. Non-community water systems include non-transient non-community water systems and transient non-community water systems. Non-transient non-community systems are those that regularly serve at least 25 of the same persons over six months per year (e.g., schools, industrial buildings). Transient systems are all other non-community systems, which typically serve a transient population such as restaurants or hotels. As explained in the September 1999 UCMR, EPA is excluding transient water systems from monitoring for unregulated contaminants, including those on List 2. The results from the very small community and non-transient non-community systems can be extrapolated to the transient non-community systems.
With respect to size, about 2,800 large systems (defined here as those serving more than 10,000 persons) provide drinking water to about 80 percent of the U.S. population served by public water systems. The SDWA does not provide for EPA funding of this monitoring. Under the UCMR program, all large systems will be required to monitor for List 1 unregulated contaminants. Only a representative sample of systems serving 10,000 persons or fewer will be required to monitor for unregulated contaminants. SDWA requires EPA to pay for the reasonable testing costs for the national representative sample of small systems.
As described in the September 17, 1999,
EPA will pay for the shipping, testing and reporting of results for samples from small systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons. Large systems must arrange and pay for the monitoring, shipping, testing and reporting of results of List 2 contaminants at laboratories approved for List 2 contaminant analysis. If large systems and/or their laboratories are testing for the chemical contaminants identified in List 2 that require use of EPA Methods 526 or 528, they can meet the List 2 certification requirements for EPA Methods 526 or 528 by being certified for use of EPA Methods 525.2 under § 141.28 prior to the analysis of the List 2 contaminants for which EPA Methods 526 or 528 are required. If large systems and/or their laboratories are testing for the chemical contaminants identified in List 2 that require use of EPA Method 532, they can meet the List 2 certification requirements for EPA Method 532 by being certified for use of EPA Methods 549.1 or 549.2 under § 141.28 prior to the analysis of the contaminants for which EPA Method 532 is required. Method 525.2 is a solid phase extraction GC/MS method as are both Methods 526 and 528. Methods 549.1 and 549.2 are solid phase extraction HPLC methods as is Method 532. Using this system of laboratory approval for the UCMR assures that the laboratories that perform these analysis are currently certified to perform compliance monitoring with methods that use the same technologies as those incorporated in the UCMR methods, while providing PWSs with the widest possible source of approved laboratories.
Large PWSs must arrange for the testing for
The contaminants for which EPA is proposing new methods, are listed in- § 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 2. This rule, when final, will activate the Screening Survey monitoring for these contaminants. The analytical methods were under development for these contaminants at the time the revised UCMR was promulgated. The purpose of the Screening Survey is to analyze for contaminants where the use of newly developed, non-routine analytical methods are required. The Screening Survey approach will allow EPA to maximize scientifically-defensible occurrence data for emerging contaminants of concern more quickly than could be obtained through a more standard unregulated contaminant monitoring effort. The Screening Survey will, for example, be useful in addressing questions concerning whether a contaminant of concern is in
The contaminants in UCMR (1999) List 2 will be monitored, as part of a Screening Survey, by a smaller, statistically selected sample of 300 systems which represent all (large and small) community and non-transient non-community water systems. As in Assessment Monitoring for List 1 contaminants, public water systems serve as a surrogate for the population potentially affected, and are a more efficient way to develop a sampling approach to estimate exposure to contaminants. These systems will be selected using a random number generator. The sample size needed for estimating frequencies of contaminant occurrence are smaller if the actual occurrence frequencies are close to 0 or to 100 percent. When a contaminant is consistently present or consistently absent, it requires fewer samples to determine its frequency with adequate statistical confidence than if it occurs about half the time. Only 300 PWSs are needed to determine if a contaminant is present 5 percent of the time or less frequently, at a 99 percent confidence level and with a 3 percent margin of error. (The same criteria require 1,844 samples when the frequency could be any number.)
If the contaminant occurrence findings are significant, EPA may include the contaminant in the next Unregulated Monitoring Rule (projected to be proposed in 2004 and promulgated in 2005 for additional monitoring. EPA currently considers positive results from 1 to 2 percent of systems as generally significant enough to warrant further monitoring. If the contaminant occurrence is not significant, then no further monitoring would be required. EPA believes that 1 to 2 percent (with the estimated margin of error) is consistent with the approach that this monitoring is a Screening Survey to determine whether the contaminant(s) are occurring in any public water system. One to 2 percent occurrence is equal to 3 to 6 systems for the sample, but mathematically this can be extrapolated to 690 to 1,380 systems out of all small systems in the United States that may have an occurrence of the contaminants. EPA considers this extent of occurrence to be significant and to warrant more extensive monitoring, perhaps even through Assessment Monitoring. EPA will, of course, evaluate other factors and not just the extent of occurrence before deciding to regulate a contaminant.
Another possible outcome of the Screening Survey may be regulatory development. For example, if the contaminant is observed extensively (in a higher percentage of PWSs, such as 5 percent or more) and EPA has health effects data for the contaminant that indicate a significant concern, then that specific contaminant may move directly to development of a national primary drinking water standard (NPDWR) without further monitoring. EPA believes that an occurrence of a contaminant in 5 percent or more of systems, for example, in the Screening Survey may be sufficient to determine whether or not to initiate regulation development. EPA may decide that it needs more information, in which case, EPA could include the contaminant to the next Unregulated Monitoring Rule for more extensive monitoring to inform the regulatory process. This may not always be necessary, however.
Additionally, EPA may conduct a further Screening Survey in this 2001-2005 round of unregulated contaminant monitoring if the analytical methods for the remaining contaminants can be developed and validated for use. The two remaining contaminants include: alachlor ESA and other acetanilide pesticide degradates, and RDX. This monitoring may occur during a twelve month period during the years 2002 through 2004.
With respect to funding the Screening Survey, EPA will pay for the shipping, testing, and reporting for systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons. Systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons will be responsible for sample collection and preparing the samples for shipment. EPA will pay for the shipping of these samples to an EPA-designated laboratory for testing and for reporting of monitoring results to EPA, with a copy to the State. Large systems, those serving more than 10,000 persons, must arrange and pay for the monitoring, shipping, testing, and reporting of results.
In today's proposal, EPA is proposing the use of three new EPA methods for the monitoring of 13 chemical contaminants on List 2. These contaminants and methods are listed in Table 2. In addition, EPA is proposing to add nitrobenzene to List 2. Methods for two chemical contaminants alachlor ESA and other acetanilide pesticide degradates and RDX are still being refined and remain reserved on List 2. EPA is also proposing to move polonium-210 to List 3. Finally, EPA is proposing a method and monitoring framework for
a.
(i)
•
(ii)
•
(iii)
•
(iv)
Summaries of these reviews and EPA responses to them are available at the Water Docket (MC 4101), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington DC, 20460, Docket number W-00-01.
(v)
For small systems, EPA will conduct a competitive solicitation and selection process during 2000 to select up to 8 contract laboratories nationally to analyze for List 2 contaminants under contract to EPA. All small system shipping and analysis costs will be payed by EPA. The laboratories must be able to demonstrate that they can meet the certification requirements specified in § 141.40 (a)(5)(ii)(G)(3).
Large systems selected for the Screening Survey will be notified by the State or EPA at least 90 days before the dates established for collecting and submitting samples to determine the presence of contaminants on List 2. For List 2 contaminants, large systems must send samples to certified laboratories (as specified earlier) and then report the results to EPA as specified in § 141.35.
b.
Since recent health effects information indicates that nitrobenzene may be of concern at concentrations lower than that measured in the assessment portion of the UCMR, EPA also continued additional methods development research. The analytical method (EPA Method 526) developed for the analyses of List 2 compounds diazinon, disulfoton, fonofos, 1,2-diphenylhydrazine, terbufos, and prometon can also reliably measure nitrobenzene at considerably lower concentrations than the purge and trap methods currently approved for the analyses of nitrobenzene in the Assessment Monitoring phase of the UCMR. However, EPA Method 526 was not available at the time that methods for Assessment Monitoring were approved and does not measure any other compound for which monitoring is required under Assessment Monitoring. EPA Method 526 has been developed and is being proposed to enable monitoring and testing of the listed compounds on List 2. Therefore, EPA is retaining the required monitoring for nitrobenzene in the Assessment Monitoring phase of the UCMR to collect national monitoring data, and it is also requiring monitoring for nitrobenzene in this Screening Survey phase of the UCMR to determine the occurrence of nitrobenzene at lower concentrations using the new multi-analyte EPA Method 526. This will permit the Agency to obtain a substantial amount of occurrence data for nitrobenzene at concentrations above 10 μg/L through Assessment Monitoring and also obtain a statistically significant estimate of nitrobenzene at much lower concentrations in the Screening Survey phase of the UCMR.
c.
(i)
Commenters representing the scientific community have criticized the proposed analytical method (Method 1605) for not identifying potentially pathogenic strains of
(ii)
EPA is currently evaluating two DNA sequence based methods for identifying
(iii)
(iv)
Sites selected for
In cases where water is purchased by another water system, distribution systems may be interconnected. In this case, all consecutive systems would be responsible for monitoring at the three specified locations for
Sample location descriptions for large distribution systems may not be
Three samples from different parts of the distribution system for the UCMR screening survey would provide additional information that would be useful for the next five-year cycle of assessment monitoring which is expected to begin in 2006, depending on the outcome of the screening survey. Due to the size of the screening survey (300 systems total) versus that of assessment monitoring (approximately 3,600 systems), any additional information acquired during the screening survey prior to the next cycle of Unregulated Contaminant monitoring would result in substantial savings. This sampling scheme would provide the best compromise to give a reasonable indication of the occurrence of aeromonads both seasonally and throughout the distribution system while not overburdening the systems with undue cost.
Factors relating to
EPA plans to conduct an in-depth survey at a few systems (a performance test that would precede the Screening Survey) after EPA analyzes the multi-lab statistics for EPA Method 1605 to verify that the previously described sampling and analysis scheme would provide useful data.
(v)
EPA invites public comment on the UCMR monitoring program for
d.
(i)
A few procedures have been identified from the literature and discussions with other agencies that have been used to analyze for particular alachlor degradates. In particular, USGS has utilized some research procedures to measure alachlor ESA in environmental water samples. These are still research procedures and the processes and instrumentation used, such as solid-phase extraction (SPE) with liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry or SPE and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, are not commonly available in laboratories performing drinking water analyses. Further, these procedures do not contain the preservation and dechlorination steps necessary to ensure analyte stability in drinking water samples. Such procedures need further refinement and field validation to ensure they would be suitable methods for routine sampling by public water systems or for routine laboratory implementation. For these reasons, EPA is not at this time including alachlor ESA and other acetanilide pesticide degradation products for UCMR (1999) List 2 monitoring. EPA has begun methods development work for acetanilide pesticide degradation products including alachlor ESA and OA, acetochlor ESA and OA, metolachlor ESA and OA, propachlor ESA and OA, and dimenthenamide ESA and OA. When validated methods are available, EPA may propose Screening Survey monitoring for these contaminants.
(ii)
There are also safety considerations which need to be addressed. Relatively pure samples of chemicals are used to make standards and spikes for calibration and laboratory quality
The methods for RDX and Alachlor ESA (as well as all the List 3 contaminants identified in the September 1999 Revisions to the UCMR) are currently under development and it is not certain when these methods will be completed. If these methods are completed before December 2001, additional rulemaking should be anticipated with those completed methods being proposed, public comment solicited, final promulgated for the method(s), and the defined monitoring schedule completed on or before December 2003. If these methods are still in development after December 2001, EPA will then begin to consider including these contaminants in the next five-year cycle of UCMR monitoring, currently planned to begin in January 2006.
e.
The reason that EPA proposes that polonium-210, unlike RDX and alachlor, be moved to List 3 is that for the other two organic chemicals, methods are available but are being refined. However, for polonium-210, the methods are not yet at a sufficient point to be used for drinking water analyses, let alone be refined for routine application. Thus, for drinking water analyses, the methods still require development, peer review and EPA approval. As a result, polonium-210 is more appropriately placed on List 3. EPA invites public comment on moving polonium-210 to List 3.
EPA is proposing to modify § 141.40(a)(7), which addresses monitoring for List 2 contaminants, to clarify that all List 2 monitoring must be done at entry points to the distribution system. The current UCMR allows systems that routinely sample at source (raw) water sampling points to sample List 1 contaminants at those points until an unregulated chemical contaminant is found. After such a detection, the system must generally initiate monitoring at the entry points to the distribution system for those contaminants detected (and at its discretion, the other contaminants in the detected contaminant's method, or for all the other UCMR List 1 and 2 contaminants (and their methods) for which it must test). Since EPA is seeking a representative result from the 300 systems (120 large and 180 small systems) that are required to monitor for List 2 chemical contaminants and is also limiting the timeframe for conducting this monitoring (1 year: 2001 for the first Screening Survey of small systems and 2002 for the first Screening Survey of large systems), all List 2 chemical contaminant monitoring at large systems should be done at entry points to the distribution system. Sampling beyond this year would jeopardize the data set's consistency. In States which require compliance monitoring in the source water, Assessment Monitoring for List 1 contaminants in source water is permitted since the approved compliance monitoring methods can simultaneously monitor for these List 1 contaminants and the cost burden is reduced. Contaminants included in List 2 are not included in methods currently used for compliance monitoring, and, consequently, monitoring in source water does not reduce costs and makes it difficult to obtain accurate exposure estimates. All List 2 chemical contaminant monitoring will be done using new methods, so there will not be problems of method applicability at a different sampling point for other compliance purposes.
Specifically, EPA proposes to clarify in § 141.40(a)(7) that List 2 chemical contaminant monitoring by the randomly selected 120 large systems, which is only to be conducted over 1 year (2002) (not any 12 months over the 3-year period, as with List 1 Assessment Monitoring), must be at the entry point to the distribution system for all systems for chemical monitoring, to provide for consistent results nationally. [Note that the 180 small systems randomly selected to monitor in 2001 for Screening Survey One for List 2 contaminants will conduct that monitoring with their Assessment Monitoring for List 1 contaminants, as indicated in this Preamble at 4. Implementation, a. Coordination of Assessment Monitoring and Screening Surveys.] The national data will then be consistent for future analyses. EPA invites public comment on this clarification.
a.
b.
This allocation ensures adequate coverage in both small and large system size and the source water categories.
c.
The sampling location for the chemical contaminants on List 2 is the entry point to the distribution system. For
The frequency of sampling for chemical contaminants on List 2 is the same as for List 1 Assessment Monitoring: four consecutive quarters for surface water systems and two times six months apart for ground water systems, with one of these sampling events (for both water source types) during the vulnerable time specified by EPA in the rule, or by the State in its State Monitoring Plan. For
d.
e.
EPA contract laboratories will generate small system results and will report the data into the EPA system. EPA will provide the small systems the opportunity to conduct a 30-day quality control review of the results before EPA reports them to the NCOD and before the 60-day quality control review by systems and States. During this 60-day period, EPA will also conduct its own quality control review.
Changes described in this section will affect monitoring and reporting for both List 1 and List 2 contaminants beginning in 2001.
EPA proposes to modify § 141.35(c) to recognize the updating cycle of the National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD). The existing rule provides for placing the data reported to EPA by systems in the NCOD after a 60-day quality control review period. Today's proposal will continue to provide for the 60-day quality control review by systems, States and the Agency. The proposed rule would require that EPA place the available unregulated contaminant occurrence data resulting from UCMR monitoring in the NCOD at the time of each update of the database, which currently is on the same quarterly update cycle as the Safe Drinking Water Information System. Since updating the databases incurs costs, being able to coordinate this update with an existing update process provides a lower level of expenditure for database maintenance. The NCOD would be updated four times per year, rather than six times. Because these data are for long-term analytical purposes, this change should not inhibit its principal use for regulatory determination and development. The data would still be regularly available to the public through the NCOD. The public should also see the results of detections of unregulated contaminants in their consumer confidence reports. EPA invites public comment on this proposed change in the updating cycle of the NCOD for unregulated contaminants.
In § 141.35(d), EPA identified the data elements to be reported with contaminant monitoring results. In the process of initiating implementation of the UCMR, including discussions with stakeholders, EPA realized that to facilitate communication in a rule for which EPA had direct implementation responsibility, the agency needed points of contact with public water systems and their analytical agents or organizations (laboratories). In today's proposal, EPA is amending § 141.35(d) to clarify that systems must provide “point-of-contact” information. The proposed rule would amend the UCMR to require on a one-time basis that systems and laboratories provide the following information: name, mailing address, phone number, and email address for: (1) PWS technical person (
In discussions with representatives of systems and laboratories concerning implementation of the UCMR, EPA found that the definitions of several data elements were not clear. EPA is proposing to change nine data element definitions to clarify the data to be reported so that they will be more useful for possible regulatory analysis. These data elements are: PWS facility identification number, sample identification number, sample analysis type, sample batch identification number, analytical precision, analytical accuracy, detection level, detection level unit of measure, and presence/absence. The proposed changes appear in § 141.35, Table 1. The proposed clarifications are as follows:
(a) PWS facility identification sampling point number is proposed to be a two-part number made up of the PWS facility identification number and a unique sampling point number within the PWS and assigned by the State, as well as the sampling point type, to allow for relationships between sampling points and other facilities to be reported and maintained, and for appropriate analyses to be made.
(b) Sample identification number is proposed to be changed to specify a sample or group of samples that are collected at the same time and place.
(c) Sample analysis type is proposed to be modified to address raw and treated field and duplicate samples to ensure that the full range of sample types can be reported.
(d) Sample batch number is proposed to be changed to clarify that an extraction or an analysis batch number are to be reported along with the laboratory identification number and analysis date.
(e) Analytical accuracy and analytical precision are both proposed to be modified to clarify the meaning of each variable identified in the current equations.
(f) The proposed changes appear in § 141.35, Table 1.
EPA proposes to modify both detection level and detection level unit of measure to provide additional reporting flexibility and to change their names to “minimum reporting level” and “minimum reporting level unit of measure,” respectively. PWSs are required to report all detections occurring at or above the minimum reporting level (MRL). Since some laboratories will be able to accurately and precisely measure some of these analytes at concentrations below the EPA established UCM MRL, EPA proposes to expand the definition of MRL to permit laboratories to establish their own MRLs as long as they are less than the UCM MRL listed in § 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, and that they adhere to the requirements established in Appendix A to § 141.40, paragraphs (2) and (3). These changes will permit PWSs to report data for analytes below the UCM MRLs without compromising the quality of the data reported.
(g) The presence/absence data element is being reserved for potential future use. All of the contaminants currently being monitored can be accurately and precisely quantified. Therefore, their presence or absence does not need to be reported. This data element is being reserved for contaminants and not deleted in order to permit the use of presence/absence measured if warranted in future regulations.
EPA invites public comment on these proposed changes in reporting for UCMR contaminants.
One option EPA has given States historically to number their system facilities is to notify EPA of the existence of the facility and have EPA's database automatically generate a number for the facility. EPA is considering requiring States to actually provide an identification number rather than have EPA's database generate a number on the State's behalf so that States are aware of the number and can respond to inquiries regarding it. EPA requests comment on this possible change.
EPA is also proposing to modify § 141.35 to modify the electronic process that EPA intends to implement for the large amount of data that is expected to be reported under the UCMR. As EPA evolves its electronic reporting approach Agency-wide, it is trying to learn from lessons in which it has attempted such streamlining in the past. Specifically, the electronic reporting that occurred under the Information Collection Rule resulted in a process whereby laboratories entered data electronically in formats they used, provided a hard copy of the report to the public water system, and then the system reentered the data to an electronic disc which was sent to EPA. This resulted in rekeying (data entry) errors and transmission errors, including loss of discs (through mail or damage). EPA is moving toward a “one-entry” approach for data reporting to improve reporting quality, reduce reporting errors, reduce the time involved in investigating, checking and correcting errors at all levels (laboratory, system, State and EPA), thereby making the data more useful earlier. Electronic reporting supports the President's overall regulatory reinvention goals of reducing the burden of compliance and streamlining regulatory reporting, as stated in his March 1996, Reinventing Environmental Information Report. Electronic reporting allows for improvements to the current submission process, such as additional data quality checks and electronic acknowledgments of data received by EPA. These opportunities provide EPA with the ability to better serve the systems as regulated entities and the public in general. For UCMR implementation, EPA has consulted with system and laboratory representatives concerning an approach that will allow the organization conducting unregulated
In light of these electronic reporting developments and experiences, EPA proposes to modify § 141.35(e) and (f) to clarify its format for reporting and to indicate that a system must instruct the agent or organization that conducts the testing and laboratory analysis for the unregulated contaminants (herein after referred to as “the laboratory”) to enter the data into the UCMR electronic reporting system. EPA will provide electronic forms via its Internet website or via “batch” electronic data transfer following a format specified by EPA. Such data entry also includes the sample collection and PWS information specified in Table 1 of § 141.35.
A public water system has choices for reporting the data to EPA: (a) The public water system can instruct its analytical agent (laboratory) to enter the UCMR results directly into the electronic template that EPA will make available on the Internet through the OGWDW Homepage. The PWS can then review the results on-line and electronically indicate its approval to submit the data to EPA. The advantages of the EPA electronic reporting system are that no duplicate data entry would occur, data quality would improve, access by systems and States would be in near real time and systems could reduce costs of data management for unregulated contaminant reporting. A disadvantage may be that EPA (and potentially the public) would have access to UCMR data entered by laboratories to the EPA electronic reporting system before a system approves submission of the data since the data would be in an EPA database network. However, while these data are subject to public requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), EPA does not intend to use these data in its regulatory determinations until they have been reviewed for quality control and approved for submission by the PWS. Until the PWS review and submission approval occurred, EPA would consider the data preliminary and usable for Agency decisionmaking.
(b) Systems may require their laboratories to receive their approval before the laboratories post data on the EPA electronic reporting system. In this case, the PWS can, of course, review the results prior to the laboratory's entry of the data into the UCMR electronic reporting system through its previous arrangements for receiving data from the laboratory. Typically, the laboratory has already entered the data into its electronic laboratory information management system (LIMS). Once the laboratory receives approval to submit the data from the PWS, it could electronically send the data in batch form from its LIMS to EPA's electronic reporting system.
(c) A system may determine that its laboratory does not have the capability to report electronically or does not have the capability to provide data to the system prior to submitting it to EPA without rekeying (option b above). In this case, the system may submit a request to EPA to use an alternate reporting format.
In any of the results to EPA within 30 days following the month the PWS receives the results. The single-entry, electronic reporting procedure will reduce concerns about quality control of reporting and is believed to be the most efficient, cost-effective approach since it eliminates potential re-keying steps possible under the current approach.
For small water systems, EPA would enter and report the results directly to its electronic reporting system through its contract laboratories. Since the samples, once sent to EPA by the small system, are in EPA's charge, EPA may make the data available to the public if requested prior to the system's review. Again, however, EPA would consider the preliminary and unreliable until they had undergone a quality control review by the system and EPA.
This proposal further clarifies that if a PWS chooses to report multiple results for a particular contaminant (for the same sampling location and same monitoring period) via the UCMR electronic reporting system, the highest) reported value will be used as the official result.
Additionally, for small systems in States requiring immediate reporting of contaminants found in PWSs, EPA will report these results to the State promptly after laboratory results are received to assist these small systems in meeting State reporting requirements, if this need is identified in the Partnership Agreement. However, EPA makes clear here that such a State requirement for systems to report more immediately any contaminants found is not a requirement on EPA and EPA bears no liability if such reporting by it for a system is beyond a State's reporting date for systems or if there are errors in the reporting of the information. The former situation might occur, for example, if the electronic reporting system were to go off line for any reason around the time specified by the State.
EPA invites public comment on its proposed revisions to the UCMR data reporting process.
At § 141.40(a)(1)(ii), the UCMR indicates that large public water systems not purchasing their water from another wholesale or retail public water system must monitor under the requirements outlined in the rule. However, at § 141.40(a)(1)(iii) and (v), it specifies monitoring requirements for large and small public water systems purchasing their water supply from a wholesale public water system only, with no mention of retail systems. This technical correction seeks to clarify and provide consistency in regards to wholesale and retail systems in the rule. The original intent was to address purchase of water from another system in these cases, whether or not it was a wholesale or retail system. Additionally, for small systems purchasing their entire water supply, the proposed rule changes the wording “wholesale” to “another” public water system to clarify that the selected small system may have to monitor, in particular in the distribution system, regardless of the type of system from which it purchases water.
At § 141.40(a)(5)(ii)(C), the UCMR allows systems in States requiring source (raw) water monitoring for compliance monitoring to conduct UCMR monitoring in the source water. However, once one or more contaminants on the UCMR list are found, the monitoring must also be done at the entry points to the distribution system. This requirement to move the monitoring activity was necessary to allow EPA to assemble a nationally consistent data set for UCMR contaminants. EPA proposes to clarify that should a system in a State requiring source (raw) water monitoring find a contaminant in the source water, the system must initiate monitoring at the entry point to the distribution system only for the contaminant(s) found, unless it desires to sample and test for all contaminants analyzed by that same method, or for all the contaminants, at its option. EPA is also proposing to clarify the rule to specify that the monitoring, once initiated at the entry point to the distribution system, must be conducted for the next 12 month period
At § 141.40(b)(1)(ix), the existing rule states that, if a State enters into a Memorandum of Agreement with EPA to implement the UCMR, the State must report the latitude and longitude of its systems' treatment plants when the systems report this information with the first Assessment Monitoring results for List 1 contaminants. This requirement under the UCMR is in addition to a preexisting requirement to report by January 1, 2000, either the latitude and longitude or the street address of each treatment plant location. The preexisting reporting requirement is based on 40 CFR 142.15(b)(1) (which requires States to submit inventory information concerning their public water systems, including location information, according to a format and schedule prescribed by EPA; the requirement for reporting latitude/longitude information for treatment plants was transmitted to States by memorandum of July 10, 1998, from Robert J. Blanco, Director, Implementation and Assistance Division, OGWDW, as “Revised Inventory Reporting Requirements for the Safe Drinking Water Information System,” June 1998, EPA 816-R-98-007, with a reporting date of January 1, 2000) and the EPA Locational Data Policy (published as Information Resources Management Policy Manual 2600, Chapter 13, April 8, 1991). The EPA Locational Data Policy specifies the content of latitude and longitude data that are to be reported by facilities and other entities required to report locational information. Today's proposal clarifies that the State may use the latitude and longitude of closely adjacent facilities at or near the same site, when the facilities are associated with the treatment plant(s). Specifically, the State may use the latitude and longitude of the intake or wellhead/field if the treatment plant is on the same site, or the latitude and longitude of the entry point to the distribution system if it is on the same site as the treatment plant. Other facilities located closely adjacent to the treatment plant and part of the PWS for which it has a latitude and longitude may also be used. As a guide, “closely adjacent” should be taken to mean not more than
The 1999 UCMR required systems to arrange for testing of the listed contaminants by a laboratory certified for compliance analysis using specified EPA analytical methods. Since the September 17, 1999 publication of the UCMR, EPA has approved a consensus organization method for compliance monitoring that is also approved for UCMR analysis. Therefore, EPA is revising section 141.40(a)(5)(ii)(G), “Testing”, to allow laboratories certified to perform compliance monitoring using any consensus method that is also approved for UCMR monitoring, as well as any EPA method, to be automatically approved to perform UCMR monitoring using that method.
During the public comment period for the UCMR (64 FR 50556), EPA received public comment recommending approval of purge and trap/photoionization methods, EPA Method 502.2 and Standard Methods 6200C, for the determination of MTBE in addition to the methods proposed and made final. At that time, EPA did not have data beyond that included in Standard Methods 6200C to support that recommendation. Since that time, EPA has received data from the Suffolk County Water Authority which supports the data contained in Standard Methods (SM) 6200C. Therefore, EPA is proposing the approval of EPA Method 502.2 and Standard Methods 6200C for analyses of MTBE, included on List 1 for Assessment Monitoring. For systems that want to report MTBE data collected prior to 2001 to meet the UCMR regulatory requirements, they will need to use the UCMR (1999) data elements as revised by this rule, when final, to meet the reporting requirements of the UCMR. Otherwise, the data will not meet EPA's minimum reporting requirements for UCMR data and will limit the use of the data in subsequent regulatory analyses. EPA is also proposing at § 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 1, footnote “n,” that sample preservation techniques and holding times specified in EPA Method 524.2 must be used by laboratories using either EPA Method 502.2 or Standard Methods 6200C. The sampling and holding time requirements of Standard Methods 6010B are not adequate for these determinations.
EPA invites public comment on the use of these additional methods for MTBE analyses to provide flexibility to systems and laboratories already using EPA Method 502.2 and SM 6200C for analyzing MTBE.
EPA proposes at § 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 1, to add methods for analysis of DCPA acid metabolites. Adding these methods will provide systems and their laboratories more flexibility in analyzing these UCMR contaminants and managing costs. The methods previously approved for the UCMR monitoring of DCPA mono-acid and di-acid degradates contained a solvent wash following hydrolysis. The DCPA parent is removed during this sample wash step. Since EPA Method 515.3 does not contain this solvent wash following hydrolysis and the DCPA parent is not hydrolyzed under the conditions specified in these methods, all three forms of DCPA are measured as a total value. Therefore, EPA Method 515.3 was not approved for UCMR monitoring. In this rule, EPA is proposing at § 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 1, footnote “j,” to permit the use of EPA Method 515.3 for the analysis of DCPA mono-acid and di-acid degradates in the UCMR with the following conditions:
1. When monitoring is conducted using EPA Method 515.3, only the results for DCPA mono-acid and di-acid degradates which are less than the UCMR MRL for these analytes may be reported.
2. If DCPA mono-acid or di-acid degradates are observed at greater than or equal to the UCMR MRL using EPA Method 515.3, then either a duplicate sample must be analyzed within the method specified sample holding time, or a replacement sample collected within the same month as the original sample, must be analyzed using one of the other methods approved for UCMR analysis of DCPA mono-acid and di-acid
EPA is also currently developing a revised version of EPA Method 515.3 titled EPA Method 515.4 which will include a wash step following hydrolysis. In this rule EPA is proposing that EPA Method 515.4 be approved for UCMR monitoring of DCPA mono-acid and di-acid degradates. EPA may also propose the approval of Method 515.4 for compliance monitoring in a future regulation. Until that time, EPA Method 515.4 is not approved for drinking water compliance monitoring. EPA Method 515.4 may be inspected at EPA's Drinking Water Docket, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 (Telephone: 202-260-3027), Docket Number W-00-01; or at the Office of Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
Today's proposal also clarifies that pH need not be reported as a water quality parameter for chemical contaminants. In the preamble to the proposed UCMR (64 FR 23398), EPA asked for public comment on the monitoring of routinely-tested water quality parameters for all water samples analyzed for UCMR contaminants. EPA proposed to collect these routinely tested water quality parameter data to provide for a more thorough scientific understanding of the occurrence of unregulated contaminants, and, specifically, to gather data that could facilitate the interpretation of UCMR results. The majority of public comments received on this topic generally agreed with EPA's approach, particularly with respect to microbiological contaminants. In the final Rule, EPA moved to require that pH be monitored when collecting samples for unregulated chemical contaminants, and pH, turbidity, temperature, free disinfectant residual, and total disinfectant residual be monitored when collecting samples for unregulated microbiological contaminants. While these chemical and physical parameters can be important indicators of water quality, based on EPA's continuing evaluation of the UCMR Program, EPA does not believe that analyzing the pH of finished drinking water will provide relevant data related to the occurrence of these UCMR chemical contaminants. The pH in the environment, particularly the wide variations in the soil-water environment at the source or during transport, can significantly alter the fate of some contaminants (Barbash and Resek 1996). The pH level can significantly affect both the absorption of contaminants to soil and rock materials (e.g., preventing transport) and the degradation of some organic chemicals by hydrolysis. Depending on the compound, at lower pH values, acid-catalyzed hydrolysis may occur, while at higher pH values, base-catalyzed hydrolysis may have a significant impact on the overall rate of hydrolysis (
Thus, for studies of the fate and transport of contaminants in raw water, pH can be a very important water quality parameter to be monitored. However, most of these transformation effects likely have taken place before the contaminant reaches a drinking water system. For drinking water, pH values tend to be near neutral, where the contributions of acid and base-catalysis to overall rates of hydrolysis are smaller. Perhaps most importantly, many common steps in water treatment can alter the pH, for softening or corrosion control, for example. Thus, for many systems, even if pH were a significant factor in determining the fate of a particular contaminant reaching the drinking-water supply, such correlations are lost in the finished water by the purposeful adjustment of the pH. Thus, the data generated by monitoring the pH for chemical contaminants would be of limited utility. For these reasons, EPA proposes eliminating pH as a water quality parameter for chemical contaminants.
While EPA is proposing the elimination of pH as a water quality parameter to be reported with chemical contaminant results under the UCMR, all the water quality parameters in § 141.40(a)(4)(i)(B), Table 2, Water Quality Parameters to be Monitored with UCMR Contaminants, must be reported for microbiological contaminants. The only microbiological contaminant required to be monitored under the 1999 UCMR is
EPA proposes in the Appendix to § 141.40 to remove the reference to the 136 Appendix B definition of Minimum Detection Limit (MDL) and instead to reference the MDL calculations listed in each method. The 136 Appendix B definition includes extensive reiteration of the MDL and does not specify that MDLs should be determined over a three day period. Maintaining the 136 Appendix B definition would be both inconsistent with the definition used in the List 2 analytical methods, and would result in both additional burden on the laboratories by requiring them to perform the reiterations, and in a less useful MDL estimate because it does not take into account day to day method variations.
Since EPA is proposing to add both an HPLC method for the determination of linuron and diuron, and a membrane filtration method for the analysis of
EPA has received some questions from representatives of PWS and laboratories concerning the quality control requirements specified for UCMR analyses. Therefore, EPA is proposing in the Appendix to § 141.40 to clarify the quality control requirements to indicate that by specifying quality control elements specific to UCMR analyses, EPA did not intend to change the methods requirements concerning the analyses of Laboratory Fortified Blanks or Laboratory Performance checks.
EPA offers the following guidance on resampling in response to questions about the 1999 UCMR since its publication last September. If laboratory or shipping problems cause the loss of a sample, then all efforts should be made to replace that sample at the earliest possible time (i.e., resample). EPA's preference is that the sample be replaced within the same month it was originally sampled. If this is not possible, EPA's next preference is within the same quarter. In all but one case, the schedule for future samples should not change: for example, if a surface water PWS is on a sampling schedule of January, April, July, and October and an April sample is lost, it should be resampled as soon as possible (i.e., in April or early May) and the next quarter's samples will still be taken in July. The only time this guideline should not be followed is when all the samples from the first sampling period are lost. In this case, the sampling frequency will be determined by when
EPA has refined the statistical sampling plan to select a representative sample of small systems for the UCMR, which was first presented in the April 1999 UCMR proposed rule. This discussion is an information update on the refinement in the selection process. The revised sampling plan has the same key features as the original plan: 800 small public water systems will conduct Assessment Monitoring of UCMR (1999) List 1 contaminants (64 FR 50556). The primary goal of Assessment Monitoring is to estimate the overall exposure fraction of each contaminant (i.e., the fraction of all customers of community and non-transient non-community water systems who are exposed to the contaminant at any time at detectable levels). The secondary goal is that the exposure estimates must be precise enough to yield a 99 percent confidence interval within 1 percent for the true exposure fraction when the estimated fraction of exposure is 1 percent.
Subject to the primary goal constraints and the secondary goal, EPA has revised its sampling plan to allocate the 800 systems in its sample as efficiently as possible. The secondary goal of the revised plan is to gather information about contaminant occurrence within the smaller sampling strata of very small (serving less than 500 people), small (serving 501-3,300 people), and medium-sized (serving 3,301-10,000 people) systems, and of ground water and surface water systems. The revised plan achieves this by reapportioning the probabilities of drawing each of the 800 systems from categories of system size, source water type, State or Territory, and community or non-transient non-community systems. Specifically, the probabilities are chosen to minimize the largest 99 percent-confident margin of error for the exposure fraction in any of the size-by-source-water-type strata, subject to a precise enough estimate of the overall exposure fraction. To meet the constraint for the overall exposure fraction, the revised sample is close to a population-weighted sample. However, compared to a population-weighted sample, the revised plan shifts some samples from ground water to surface water systems, and from larger to smaller system strata (i.e., to increase the confidence, the sample size is increased in the strata that would have few samples on a strictly population-weighted basis). As a result, the largest 99 percent-confident margin of error for the exposure fraction in any of the size-by-source-water-type strata is reduced from 12.1 percent under the strict population-weighted allocation, to 4.1 percent (for very small, surface water systems) under the revised plan.
The revised plan also solves a technical problem in the original plan: the original plan specified separately the sample allocations by State or Territory and by system size and type, but it did not specify the allocation within each stratum of State or Territory, system size, source water type, and community or non-transient non-community systems. The revised plan solves this problem by specifying the probability of selecting each system from each stratum.
The initial sampling frame for the national representative sample of small systems was derived from the inventory of PWSs contained in SDWIS and revised for the 1999 Infrastructure Needs Survey. Revisions were made to the sampling frame to minimize the number of inventory information discrepancies (e.g., population, and source of water). For a more detailed discussion on the sampling frame used to select the national representative sample of small systems, please see the “National Representative Sample of Small Systems: Statistical Design, Sample Selection, and State Plan” available at the Water Docket for this proposed rule, docket number W-000-01.
The small systems were first stratified by system type (CWS, NTNCWS), and all transient non-community water systems were removed from the sample frame, to ensure appropriate population exposure estimates. For this UCMR, purchased water systems were also removed. The remaining systems were then stratified by water source type (ground water or surface water, including ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI)), service size category (serving 25-500, 501-3,300, and 3,301-10,000), and State. Each U.S. Territory was considered as one individual “State,” while specified Tribal water systems together were considered as one “State” for the purposes of the system sample selection. Each “State” was allocated a minimum of 2 systems (except in the case of Guam, which had only one active eligible system in their inventory), one of which was a CWS.
The number of systems assigned to monitor within each State was based on the proportion of the population served in each strata (source water type, divided into the three service size categories). In addition, the number of systems in each strata was statistically adjusted to ensure that each had enough systems to maximize the statistical confidence in the results (as noted earlier). Once the number of systems in each strata was identified, then the primary list of systems for the initial representative sample was selected using a random number generator. Using the same methodology, two alternate systems were then selected for each system on the primary list. Finally, a general replacement list was selected, for the unusual case in which the primary system and both alternates are inactive, purchase their water, or have merged with another system. These general replacement systems were not picked based on their source water type or service size, but rather were randomly selected from all of the small systems remaining after the primary systems and two alternate systems were selected.
Table 5 shows the total number of small systems that were selected to conduct Assessment Monitoring for UCMR (1999) List 1 contaminants in each State, and the number of systems selected in each State for the Screening Surveys (UCMR (1999) List 2). The number of systems per State varies from one system in Guam to 71 systems in Texas. There is an average of approximately 14 systems per State in the national sample. There are no systems from Washington, D.C. in the national sample, since D.C. does not have any small CWSs or NTNCWSs.
Table 6 shows the number of CWSs by water source and size.
EPA is developing a template for electronically reporting UCMR results to the Agency, with a PWS regulated by the UCMR reviewing and approving submission of the results to EPA by the agent or organization conducting unregulated contaminant analysis (a laboratory). The template is being developed in both “batch” electronic data transfer and web-based “manual” entry formats. If the laboratory cannot enter the monitoring results using EPA's electronic reporting system, then the PWS must explain to EPA in writing the reasons why alternate reporting is necessary and must receive EPA's approval to use an alternate reporting procedure.
While § 141.35 (b) specifies that the PWS “must report the results of unregulated contaminant monitoring to EPA
If during the 60-day quality control review period, States find questionable data in the data set, EPA will discuss the data at issue with the State and system before determining the disposition of the data relative to placing them in NCOD. Confirmations for all positive results will occur promptly after testing shows a positive occurrence as part of the analytical method quality control, so reported data should be generally reliable.
EPA will be paying for the analysis of samples for small systems. The analytical methods used for the List 1 and 2 contaminants will routinely determine the presence of other contaminants for which testing is not required to be done and reported. The contaminants that are not required to be reported but are identified will become research data for EPA and may provide the basis of future Contaminant Candidate Lists. EPA intends to place these data in the NCOD since they would be considered reliable results for unregulated contaminants under the SDWA and, therefore, must be placed in the NCOD under SDWA Section 1445(g). One option considered in placing these data in NCOD is to create a special research section in the NCOD so that these data can be recognized as not required for reporting under the UCMR. A second option is to attach a special “flag” to these data that would indicate their research status. EPA seeks public comment on these and other options for storage and access to these data.
The current approach of listing specific contaminants for monitoring under the UCMR program does not address the complete effect of the individual contaminant on the environment and in drinking water. For example, a pesticide may have several degradates. Unregulated contaminant monitoring only for the parent pesticide may entirely miss potentially harmful degradates and by products. For example, the European Union treats several categories of contaminants as groups for the specification of monitoring requirements, such as “pesticides and degradates.” (European Union, 1997). EPA requests public comment on whether such an approach should be applied to unregulated contaminants to assess more completely the occurrence of such contaminants in source water and drinking water. The current CCL includes contaminants that are parent compounds, degradates and groups of degradates. Public input on the options may be incorporated in the development of the next CCL, as well as the subsequent UCMR List. Comments should address the following options of listing contaminants by:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Another approach to the concern for multiple contaminant groups occurring in drinking water would be to have all large and a representative sample of small systems divided into statistical groups to be tested for many contaminants overall, but any particular system not tested for more than the statutory limit of 30. This would give results for a broader set of contaminants and allow the CCL regulatory determination process to focus only on the most significant contaminants. EPA invites public comment on all these and other options for a more complete specification of unregulated contaminants for analysis in public water systems, particularly at low incremental costs to systems.
The current schedules for the development of the CCL and UCMR are February 1998 and August 1999, respectively, and then every five years after each of those dates. This scheduling means that the UCMR responds to the contaminant list of the CCL, rather than allowing the UCMR to anticipate contaminants for which the CCL deliberations could evaluate and decide whether or not to regulate. Given the current characteristics of the UCMR program and CCL process, EPA requests public comment on whether the UCMR monitoring list revisions could be promulgated at the same time as the publication of the revised CCL, indicating which contaminants would be on the Lists 1, 2 or 3 about 1
Another option would be for the UCMR to anticipate needs for contaminants to be included in future CCLs. Under this option, other possibilities might exist: (1) Contaminants not on the then current CCL would be proposed for monitoring, and (2) a list of many more contaminants may be proposed (more than 30) with systems divided into statistical groups that would allow
Today's proposed amendment to the UCMR (64 FR 50556) would add methods for monitoring the UCMR (1999) List 2 contaminants. The first set of List 2 contaminants may be collected during the same time as the Assessment Monitoring component of the UCMR program. As described elsewhere in this Preamble, the first Screening Survey will be conducted over a 2-year period from 2001 to 2002. One hundred eighty small systems randomly selected from the first 267 small systems monitoring in 2001 and 120 large systems randomly selected from the 2,774 large PWSs will monitor in 2002. During 2003, the second Screening Survey will be conducted by a different group of systems (180 small and 120 large systems).
Of the 16 List 2 contaminants, today's Rule establishes the analytical methods for 13 chemical contaminants and one microbiological contaminant. Estimated system and EPA costs are based on the analytical costs for these methods. EPA recognizes that these Screening Survey methods are new and will not coincide with other compliance monitoring. However, since the 13 List 2 chemical contaminants for the first Screening Survey may be analyzed by laboratories using water samples that are collected at the same time as the Assessment Monitoring contaminants, there are no significant additional labor costs anticipated related. The Agency assumes there is no measurable added labor burden associated with filling one more sample bottle. However, the collection of
In addition, today's proposed Rule makes several clarifications and technical corrections to the UCMR (1999) Rule. EPA believes that none of these clarifications and corrections would increase the costs or labor burden to public water systems or States. Most of these items were already included in the cost and burden analyses; their explanation is simply being clarified. These assumptions are discussed below.
Updating the NCOD on a quarterly basis rather than six times per year will not be an additional expense to systems or States, and will reduce EPA costs marginally. Requiring one-time reporting of system and laboratory points-of-contact will improve the implementation of the program by allowing EPA to convey important testing and reporting information to systems and laboratories, thereby enhancing the long-term data quality. Clarifying the data element definitions will provide more usable information by more clearly conveying the data that should be reported and should not be an additional cost to any entity. Clarifying the data reporting procedures through a “single-entry” electronic data reporting process, will reduce costs to systems marginally. Clarification of the source (raw) water monitoring alternative option does not increase the costs to systems beyond those that EPA had anticipated originally in adopting the alternative so that systems in States requiring source water compliance monitoring could coordinate unregulated monitoring with other monitoring. Providing options for reporting treatment plant latitude and longitude should marginally reduce costs to States which had not previously reported these locational data. Approval of EPA Method 502.2 and Standard Methods 6200C for the analysis of MTBE provides systems more flexibility to use methods that they may already be using to monitor for this unregulated contaminant, possibly providing cost savings to them. Approval of EPA Methods 515.3 and 515.4 for the analysis of DCPA mono-acid degradate and DCPA di-acid degradate provides flexibility to systems to use methods similar to those used in compliance monitoring and may reduce costs for testing and analysis of those unregulated contaminants. Eliminating the use of pH as a water quality parameter required for reporting chemical contaminant results will marginally reduce costs to systems for testing and analysis. Removing the reference to 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix B definition of Minimum Detection Limit is a technical change with no cost. Providing contaminant detection confirmation clarification for linuron, diuron and
As noted, additional non-labor costs from this Rule are solely attributed to the laboratory fees that will be charged for analysis of these contaminants and to additional shipping charges associated with the extra sample bottles. These costs will only be incurred by EPA and by large PWSs. EPA assumes that there will be additional charges imposed for analysis of the List 2 contaminants, since these contaminants will be analyzed under new methods or modifications of existing methods. EPA estimates that the average laboratory fee for the analyses for the 13 Screening Survey One chemical contaminants, using EPA Methods 526, 528, and 532 will be $560. The additional costs for Screening Survey One for laboratory analysis are calculated as follows: the number of systems multiplied times the number of entry or sampling points, multiplied by the sampling frequency, and then multiplied by the cost of analysis.
Sampling for
The details of EPA's cost assumptions and estimates can be found in the Information Collection Request (ICR, Number 1882.02) amendment prepared for this Rule (OMB number 2040-0208), which presents estimated cost and burden for the 2000-2002 period. Estimates of costs over the UCMR cycle of 2001-2005 are attached as an appendix to the ICR. It presents the total and the estimated additional annual cost and burden for Screening Survey component of the first 5-year cycle (from 2001 to 2005) of the UCMR. Copies of the ICR and its amendment may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at: OP Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137); 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, by email at: farmer.sandy@epa.gov, or by calling: (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be downloaded from the Internet at:
In preparing the UCMR Screening Survey ICR, EPA relied on standard assumptions and data sources used in the preparation of other drinking water program ICRs. These include the public water system inventory, number of entry points per system, and labor rates. EPA expects that States will incur no additional labor or non-labor costs associated with the Screening Survey component of the UCMR. Other assumptions are discussed below.
Over the UCMR implementation period of 2001-2005, EPA estimates that the average annual cost of the two Screening Surveys (including 13 chemical contaminants and
1.
2.
3.
4.
The estimated average annual (non-labor) cost is approximately $1,185 per large system.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866. Further, this proposed rule does not concern an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. This rule makes only clarifying changes to the September 1999 UCMR and establishes procedures for monitoring of the List 2 unregulated contaminants.
However, this Rule is part of the Agency's overall strategy for deciding whether to regulate the contaminants under the Safe Drinking Water Act (see discussion of the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) at 63 FR 10273). Its purpose is to ensure that EPA obtains data on the occurrence of contaminants on the CCL—specifically, 14 of the List 2 contaminants—where those data are currently lacking. EPA is also taking steps to ensure that the Agency will have data on the health effects of these contaminants on children through its research program. The Agency will use these occurrence and health effects data to decide whether to regulate these contaminants.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under UMRA section 202, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for the proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, UMRA section 205 generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative, if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under UMRA section 203 a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in
EPA has determined that today's proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or for the private sector in any one year. Total annual costs of today's Rule (across the implementation period of 2001-2005), for State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector, are estimated to be $505,200, of which EPA will pay $178,000, or approximately 35 percent. Again, States are assumed to incur no additional costs associated with the Screening Survey component of the UCMR. Thus, today's Rule is not subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202 and 205.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because EPA will pay for the reasonable costs of sample testing for the small PWSs required to sample and test for unregulated contaminants under this proposed rule, including those owned and operated by small governments. Screening Survey One samples will generally be collected coincident with Assessment Monitoring and therefore has minimal associated additional burden. The only costs that small systems will incur are those attributed to collecting the Screening Survey Two samples and packing them for shipping to the laboratory (EPA will pay for shipping). These costs are minimal. They are not significant or unique. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of UMRA section 203.
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The information to be collected under today's proposed rule fulfills the statutory requirements of section 1445(a)(2) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended in 1996. The data to be collected will describe the source water, location, and test results for samples taken from PWSs. The concentrations of any identified UCMR contaminants will be evaluated regarding health effects and will be considered for future regulation accordingly. Reporting is mandatory. The data are not subject to confidentiality protection.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and use technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
The cost estimates described below for the List 2 contaminants are solely attributed to additional contract laboratory fees. No additional measurable labor burden will be incurred during the ICR period because of the addition of analytical methods for the 13 chemical contaminants in Screening Survey One to the UCMR (1999) List 2. Screening Survey One sampling will be done coincident with Assessment Monitoring and the burden and costs for sample collection, packing, and shipping, and reporting were included in the original ICR for the UCMR (1999). For the first Screening Survey, 180 small water systems (from the national representative sample of systems serving 10,000 or fewer people) will collect and test during 2001, and 120 large public water systems will collect and test during 2002. During the ICR period, large systems and EPA will incur the additional laboratory fees for the analysis of the 13 List 2 chemical contaminants (
EPA will incur no additional labor costs for implementation of today's proposed rule. EPA's annual non-labor costs for the ICR period are estimated to be $212,700 for Screening Survey One, which consists of 13 chemical contaminants. The non-labor costs are solely attributed to the cost of sample testing and sample kit shipping for the 180 small systems.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
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 (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 in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after September 13, 2000, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by October 13, 2000. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility
The RFA provides default definitions for each type of small entity. It also authorizes an agency to use alternative definitions for each category of small entity, “which are appropriate to the activities of the agency” after proposing the alternative definition(s) in the
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, EPA considered small entities to be systems serving 10,000 or fewer customers because this is the size of system specified in SDWA as requiring special consideration with respect to small system flexibility. In accordance with the RFA requirements, EPA proposed using this alternative definition in the
For the UCMR, published on September 17, 1999, EPA analyzed separately the impact on small privately and publicly owned water systems because of the different economic characteristics of these ownership types. For publicly owned systems, EPA used the “revenue test,” which compares a system's annual costs attributed to the rule with the system's annual revenues. EPA used a “sales test” for privately owned systems, which involves the analogous comparison of UCMR-related costs to a privately owned system's sales. EPA assumes that the distribution of the national representative sample of small systems will reflect the proportions of publicly and privately owned systems in the national inventory. The estimated distribution of the representative sample for today's proposed rule, categorized by ownership type, source water, and system size, is presented below in SBREFA Table 1.
The basis for the UCMR RFA certification for today's proposed rule, which adds the Screening Survey contaminants and methods to the UCMR program, is as follows: the average annual compliance costs of the rule represent less than 1 percent of revenues/sales for the 180 small water systems that will be affected. The Agency estimates that EPA and small system costs for the first Screening Survey (during 2001 for small systems) will be approximately $638,220. Since the Agency specifically structured the rule to avoid significantly affecting small entities by assuming all costs for laboratory analyses, shipping, and quality control for small entities, EPA incurs the entirety of the non-labor costs associated with adding methods for monitoring the List 2 contaminants, or 97 percent of all costs. Small systems only incur labor costs associated with the collection and arranging for the shipment of
In addition, today's proposed Rule makes several clarifications and technical corrections to the UCMR (1999) Rule. EPA believes that none of these clarifications and corrections would increase the costs or labor burden to small public water systems. Most of these items were already included in the cost and burden analyses; their explanation is simply being clarified. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1993 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
The proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the Agency conducted a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards. However, we identified no such standards. Therefore, EPA proposes to use EPA Methods 526, 528, 532, and 1605. EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and specifically invites the public to identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.
Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (February 11, 1994), focuses Federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income populations with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities. By seeking to identify unregulated contaminants that may pose health risks via drinking water from all PWSs, this proposed regulation furthers the protection of public health for all citizens, including minority and low-income populations using public water supplies.
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. The objective of this Rule is to specify the approved analytical methods for 14 List 2 contaminants, thereby allowing these contaminants to be included in the UCMR Screening Survey program and to make other minor corrections to the September rule. The cost to State and local governments is minimal, and the rule does not preempt State law. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this Rule.
Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA did consult with State and local representatives in developing this rule.
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian Tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the Tribal governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected Tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian Tribal governments “to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.”
Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments. Only one Tribal water system serves more than 10,000 persons. All the other Tribal water systems serve 10,000 or fewer persons, and in today's Rule have an equal probability of being selected in the national representative sample of small systems, for which EPA will pay the costs of unregulated contaminant testing. Thus, these Tribal water systems will be treated the same as water systems of a State and the impact of the Rule on them will not be significant. In addition, there are no costs associated with the minor amendments that clarify the September 1999 UCMR.
This proposed rule will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on such communities either because, with the exception of the one large Tribal water system, the Federal government will provide the funds necessary to pay the potential direct costs incurred by Tribal governments in complying with the rule for the testing and reporting of contaminant occurrence of small systems. By statute, EPA must pay the reasonable testing and laboratory analysis costs for small systems selected to participate in this monitoring program. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this Rule.
Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. EPA invites public comment on how to make this proposed rule easier to understand. Comments may address the following questions and other factors, as well:
A. Has EPA organized the material to suit your needs?
B. Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
C. Does the rule contain technical wording or jargon that is not clear?
E. Would a different format (grouping or order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
F. Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
G. Could EPA improve clarity by using additional tables, lists or diagrams?
H. What else could EPA do to make the rule easier to understand?
EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water has developed a process for stakeholder involvement in its regulatory activities to provide early input to regulation development. Today's rule proposes to amend the September 1999 UCMR, by establishing
Analytical methods, Chemicals, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations, Microorganisms, Monitoring, Water supply.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.
2. Section 141.35 as revised at 64 FR 50611 (to be effective January 1, 2001), is proposed to be amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (c);
b. Revising paragraph (d) (including Table 1);
c. Revising paragraph (e); and
d. Revising paragraph (f).
The Revisions read as follows:
(c)
(d)
(i) PWS Technical Contact, the person at your PWS that is responsible for the technical aspects of your unregulated contaminant monitoring regulation (UCMR) activities, such as details concerning sampling and reporting;
(ii) PWS Official, the person at your PWS that is able to function as the official spokesperson for your UCMR activities; and
(iii) Laboratory Contact Person, the person at your laboratory that is able to address questions concerning the analysis that they provided for you.
(2) You must update this information if it changes during the course of UCMR implementation.
(3) You must report the information specified for data elements 1 through 16 in the following table for each sample with the exception that data element number 12, Minimum Reporting Level, and data element number 13, Minimum Reporting Level Unit of Measure, are optional and only need to be reported if the laboratory conducting the analysis has established a Minimum Reporting Level that is lower than the one established in § 141.40 monitoring requirements for unregulated contaminants:
(e)
(2) If you report more than one set of valid results (for example, because you have had more than one organization (e.g., a laboratory) analyze the samples collected under § 141.40, or because you have collected multiple samples during the monitoring period at the same sampling point), EPA will use the highest of the reported values as the official result.
(f)
3. Section 141.40 as revised at 64 FR 50612 (to be effective January 1, 2001), is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii) introductory text;
b. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(v) introductory text;
c. Revising Table 1, List 1, List 2 and List 3, in paragraph (a)(3);
d. Revising Table 2, in paragraph (a)(4)(i);
e. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(B) (including table 3);
f. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(C);
g. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(G);
h. Revising paragraphs (a)(7)(i) and (a)(7)(ii) and adding paragraph (a)(7)(iii);
i. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(ix);
j. In the Appendix to § 141.40 by revising paragraphs (2) and (9); and
k. Adding paragraph (11) to the Appendix to § 141.40.
The Revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii)
(v)
(3) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B)
(C)
(G)
(
(
(7) * * *
(i)
(A) Analyze the additional parameters specified in paragraph § 141.40(a)(4)(i), Table 2, “Water Quality Parameters to be Monitored with UCMR Contaminants” for each relevant contaminant type. You must analyze the parameters for each sampling event of each sampling point, using the method indicated, and report the results using the data elements 1 through 10 in Table 1, § 141.35(d), Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Reporting requirements;
(B) Review the laboratory results to ensure reliability; and
(C) Report the results as specified in § 141.35.
(ii)
(iii)
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
* * *
(2) Method Detection Limit. Calculate the laboratory method detection limit (MDLs) for each contaminant in Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, of paragraph (a)(3) of this section using the appropriate procedure in the specified method with the exception that the contaminant concentration used to fortify reagent water must be less than or equal to the minimum reporting level (MRL) for the contaminants as specified in column 4, Table 1, UCMR (1999) List, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. The calculated MDL is equal to the standard deviation times the Student's t value for 99% confidence level with n-1 degrees of freedom. (The MDL must be less than or equal to one-half of the MRL.)
* * *
(9) Detection Confirmation. Confirm any chemical contaminant analyzed using a gas chromatographic method and detected above the MRL, by gas chromatographic/mass spectrometric (GC/MS) methods. If testing resulted in first analyzing the sample extracts via specified gas chromatographic methods, an initial confirmation by a second column dissimilar to the primary column may be performed. If the contaminant detection is confirmed by the secondary column, then the contaminant must be reconfirmed by GC/MS using three (3) specified ion peaks for contaminant identification. Use one of the following confirming techniques: perform single point calibration of the GC/MS system for confirmation purposes only as long as the calibration standard is at a concentration within ± 50% of the concentration determined by the initial analysis; or perform a three (3) point calibration with single point daily calibration verification of the GC/MS system regardless of whether that verification standard concentration is within ± 50% of sample response. If GC/MS analysis confirms the initial contaminant detection, report results determined from the initial analysis.
* * *
(11) Method Defined Quality Control. As appropriate to the method's requirements, perform analysis of Laboratory Fortified Blanks and Laboratory Performance Checks as specified in the method. Each method specifies acceptance criteria for these quality control checks.
Bureau of the Public Debt, Fiscal Service, Treasury.
Interim rule with request for comments.
State and Local Government Series (SLGS) securities are offered to provide issuers of tax exempt securities with investments from any amounts that constitute gross proceeds of an issue, or assist in complying with applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code relating to the tax exemption.
We're publishing an interim rule amending the rules to allow you to submit SLGS subscriptions over the Internet to the Division of Special Investments (DSI), Bureau of the Public Debt (Public Debt), Department of the Treasury (Treasury).
Under the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), executive agencies must generally provide, where practicable, for the optional use and acceptance of electronic documents, record keeping and signatures by October 2003.
We are implementing the GPEA by offering SLGSafeSM, a secure site where Internet customers can submit subscriptions, change account information, and redeem securities.
We've also rewritten this part in plain language.
Effective September 13, 2000. To be considered, comments must be received on or before November 13, 2000.
You can download this interim rule at the following World Wide Web address: <http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov>. You may also inspect and copy this interim rule at: Treasury Department Library, Room 1428, Main Treasury Building, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20220. Before visiting the library, you must call (202) 622-0990 for an appointment.
Submit comments to Howard Stevens, Director, Division of Special Investments, Bureau of the Public Debt, Department of the Treasury, 200 3rd St., P.O. Box 396, Parkersburg, WV 26101-0396 or by e-mail at: <osas_dsi@bpd.treas.gov>. See
You may submit comments by sending electronic mail to: <osas-dsi@bpd.treas.gov>. Please identify the e-mail by the
This interim rule implements the last of a three-step process designed to improve the SLGS program. First, we centralized processing of SLGS securities in the Division of Special Investments (DSI), Bureau of the Public Debt (Public Debt), Department of the Treasury (Treasury). We published a final rule accomplishing the consolidation in the
Second, we made SLGS more attractive to State and local government issuers of debt obligations. After soliciting comments from market participants in an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
The third phase, the ability to file electronic subscriptions, was announced in a Proposed Rule published in the
SLGSafe
Before you submit transactions through SLGSafe
If your SLGSafe
This interim rule does not eliminate paper subscriptions. Non-Internet subscriptions may be sent to us by various methods: fax, carrier service, U.S. Postal Service (certified or registered mail), or other means. Non-Internet customers will receive transaction confirmations by fax only if requested. However, if you take advantage of Internet delivery through SLGSafe
The Summary of Amendments made in this interim rule, located in Section III, lists the amendments by section. Many of the amendments are plain
We request your comments on SLGSafe
Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998, require us to write this interim rule in plain language. We invite your comments on how we can make the final rule easier to understand.
All of the operating rules in the offering apply to electronic and paper transactions alike except for § 344.3, which applies exclusively to SLGSafe
This interim rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993, and is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804. Therefore, an assessment of anticipated benefits, costs, and regulatory alternatives is not required.
This interim rule relates to matters of public contract and procedures for United States securities. The notice and public procedures requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), are inapplicable. Since a notice of proposed rulemaking is not required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
This interim rule does not alter the collection of information previously reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget, under the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3507, under control number 1535-0091.
Because this interim rule relates to matters of public contract and procedures for United States securities, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is not required by 5 U.S.C. 553. In addition, we find under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) that there is good cause why a NPRM is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. First, the electronic subscription feature was announced in a Proposed Rule published in the
We find under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) good cause for making the interim rule effective immediately because of our plan to enroll customers by staggering the approval of SLGSafe
Bonds, Government securities, Securities.
26 U.S.C. 141 note; 31 U.S.C. 3102.
(a)
(1) Constitute gross proceeds of an issue; or
(2) Assist in complying with applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code relating to the tax exemption.
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(d)
As appropriate, the definitions of terms used in this part are those found in the relevant portions of the Internal Revenue Code and the Income tax regulations.
“We,” “us,” or “the Secretary” refers to the Secretary and the Secretary's delegates at the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), Bureau of the Public Debt (Public Debt), and Division of Special Investments (DSI). The term also extends to any fiscal or financial agent acting on behalf of the United States when designated to act by the Secretary or the Secretary's delegates.
(a)
(1) The electronic transactions and funds transfers provisions for United States securities, part 370 of this subchapter, “Electronic Transactions and Funds Transfers Related to U.S. Securities”, and
(2) The Appendix to subpart E to part 306 of this subchapter, for rules regarding computation of interest.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) It is impermissible to subscribe for SLGS securities for deposit in a defeasance escrow of fund if at any time between the close of business on the date of subscription and the close of business on the date of issue, the amount of SLGS securities subscribed for, plus the amount of any other securities already in such escrow or fund, plus the amount of other securities the issuer has acquired, or has the right to acquire for deposit in an escrow or fund, exceeds the total amount of securities needed to fund such escrow or fund.
(2) For paragraph (f)(1) of this section, do not include in the computation any securities held in the escrow or fund that are not subject to an agreement conditioned on changes in the interest rate on open market Treasury securities on or before the issue date of the SLGS securities. An adjustment in the subscription amount under § 344.5(b)(4)(ii) will not in and of itself make the transaction impermissible.
(3) The following examples illustrate certain permissible and impermissible practices:
(i) In order to fund an escrow for an advance refunding, the issuer simultaneously enters into a purchase contract for open market securities and subscribes for SLGS securities, such that either purchase is sufficient to pay the cash flows on the outstanding bonds to be refunded but together, the purchases are greatly in excess of the amount necessary to pay the cash flows. The issuer plans that, if interest rates decline during the period between the date of subscribing for SLGS securities and the requested date of issuance of SLGS securities, the issuer will enter into an offsetting agreement to sell the open market securities and use the bond proceeds to purchase SLGS securities to fund the escrow. If, however, interest rates do not decline in that period, the issuer plans to use the bond proceeds to purchase the open market securities to fund the escrow and cancel the SLGS securities subscription. This arrangement in effect allows the SLGS program to provide a cost-free option to the issuer. This transaction is prohibited.
(ii) The existing escrow for an advance refunding contains open market securities which produce a negative arbitrage. In order to reduce or eliminate this negative arbitrage, the issuer subscribes for SLGS securities at a yield higher than the yield on the existing escrow, but less than the permitted yield. At the same time, the issuer agrees to sell the open market securities in the existing escrow to a third party and use the proceeds to purchase SLGS securities if interest rates decline between the date of subscribing for SLGS securities and the requested date of issuance of SLGS securities. The issuer and the third party further agree that if interest rates increase during this period, the issuer will cancel the SLGS securities
(iii) Under the same facts as in paragraph (f)(3)(ii) of this section, except that in this case, the agreement entered into by the issuer with a third party to sell the open market securities in order to obtain funds to purchase SLGS securities is not conditioned upon changes in interest rates on Treasury securities. No option is created. This transaction is permissible.
(iv) The issuer subscribes for SLGS securities fifteen days before the settlement date of its bonds at the maximum rates on such day, but the resulting yield in the escrow is less than the permitted yield. The rates on the SLGS securities rise over the next few days, and, within the time periods permitted for cancellation of a subscription under § 344.5(b)(1) and § 344.8(b)(2), the issuer cancels the earlier subscription and resubscribes at the higher rates. This transaction is permissible.
(v) The issuer holds a portfolio of open market securities in an account that produces negative arbitrage. In order to reduce or eliminate this negative arbitrage, the issuer subscribes for SLGS securities for purchase in sixty days. At the same time, the issuer sells an option to purchase the portfolio of open market securities. If interest rates increase, the holder of the option will not exercise its option and the issuer will cancel the SLGS securities subscription. On the other hand, if interest rates decline, the option holder will exercise the option and the issuer will use the proceeds to purchase SLGS securities. This arrangement uses the SLGS program to provide the issuer with a cost-free option. This transaction is prohibited.
(g)
(h)
(1)
(2)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(1) To reject any SLGSafe
(2) To reject any electronic or paper transaction request (including requests for subscription and redemption, and changes to subscriptions) that is unsigned, inappropriately completed, or untimely submitted;
(3) To refuse to issue any SLGS securities in any case or class of cases; and
(4) To revoke the issuance of any SLGS securities and to declare the subscriber ineligible thereafter to subscribe for securities under the offering if the Secretary deems that such action is in the public interest and any security is issued on the basis of an improper certification or other misrepresentation (other than as the result of an inadvertent error) or there is an impermissible transaction under § 344.2(f).
(n)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) SLGSafe
(2) Public Debt's Certificate Practice Statement; and
(3) SLGSafe
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) Submit to DSI a completed Treasury form, PD F 4144-5, SLGSafe
(2) Appoint a SLGSafe
(3) Ensure only authorized users are reflected on the SLGSafe
(4) Await our written approval of your SLGSafe
(g)
(1) Issue a digital certificate with an associated authorization code to each user you authorize on your approved application; and
(2) Provide access to your existing portfolio of SLGS securities, if any, to enable you to access the SLGS securities through SLGSafe
(h)
(1) Sign, and send to DSI, a User Acknowledgment regarding the use of the digital certificate and authorization code;
(2) Have and maintain the compatibility of your computer(s) and associated equipment and software so that you can send electronic messages and permit us to send an automatic confirmation receipt of each transaction, and any other information, to you on a timely basis throughout the day;
(3) Assume the sole responsibility and the entire risk of use and operation of your electronic connection;
(4) Agree that we may act on any electronic message that we authenticate as yours under Public Debt's Certificate Practice Statement, and any other Certificate Policy that Treasury may issue, to the same extent as if we had received a written instruction bearing the signature of your duly authorized officer;
(5) Submit electronic messages exclusively through SLGSafe
(i) Are unable to do so; and
(ii) Notify us before submitting transactions by other means; and
(6) Agree to submit transactions by other means if we notify you that problems with hardware, software or data transmission delays, or any other reason, prevent our sending or receiving electronic messages.
(i)
Time deposit securities are issued as certificates of indebtedness, notes and bonds.
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) On the Internet at Public Debt's website; or
(ii) By calling DSI at (304) 480-7752.
(c)
(a)
(b)
(1)
If SLGS securities totaling $10 million or less will be issued on March 16th, DSI must receive the initial subscription no later than March 11th. If SLGS securities totaling more than $10 million will be issued on March 16th, DSI must receive the initial subscription no later than March 9th.
(2)
(3)
(i) The total principal amount;
(ii) The issue date;
(iii) The name and the Taxpayer Identification Number of issuer eligible to purchase SLGS securities;
(iv) The date; and
(v) The signature and title of an official authorized to purchase SLGS securities.
(4)
(i) You cannot change the issue date to require issuance earlier than the issue date originally specified. The issue date can be changed up to seven days after the original issue date. If you make such a change, you should notify DSI as soon as possible, but no later than 3:00 p.m., Eastern time, one business day before the original issue date;
(ii) You may change the aggregate principal amount specified in the initial subscription up to $10 million or ten percent, whichever is greater;
(iii) You can change an interest rate provided it does not exceed the maximum interest rate in the SLGS rate table that was in effect for a security of comparable maturity on the date the initial subscription was submitted (unless the issuer obtains a higher rate by canceling and resubscribing in compliance with this section); and
(iv) If you submit an untimely change, Treasury, in its sole discretion, can accept the change on an exception basis under § 344.2(n). Whether we accept the change before or after the issue date, the amended information will be applied to the securities. The six-month penalty will be imposed under § 344.2(h). If Treasury waives the six-month penalty, you will be charged a late payment assessment under § 344.2(h)(2).
(5)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(i) be dated and signed by an official authorized to make the purchase;
(ii) include the Taxpayer Identification Number of the issuer;
(iii) be accompanied with a copy of the initial subscription (or if a SLGSafe
(iv) separately itemize securities by the various maturities, interest rates, and first interest payment dates (in the case of notes and bonds);
(v) not be more than $10 million or ten percent, whichever is greater, above or below the aggregate principal amount specified in the initial subscription; and
(vi) not be paid with proceeds that are derived, directly or indirectly, from the redemption before maturity of SLGS securities subscribed for on or before December 27, 1976.
(3)
(4)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1)
(2)
(e)
(1)
(2)
(f)
(1)
(2)
(g)
(1)
(i) One-eighth of one percent times the number of months from the date of issuance to original maturity, divided by the number of full months elapsed from the date of issue to redemption; or
(ii) One-fourth of one percent.
(2)
Demand deposit securities are one-day certificates of indebtedness that are automatically rolled over each day until you request redemption.
(a)
(b)
(1)
(i) First, you calculate the annualized effective demand deposit rate in decimals, designated “I” in Equation 1, as follows:
(ii) Then, you calculate the daily factor for the demand deposit rate as follows:
(2)
(c)
(1) Payable at maturity;
(2) Redeemable before maturity, provided funds are available for redemption; or
(3) Reinvested in demand deposit securities.
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(i) Be dated and signed by an official authorized to make the purchase;
(ii) Include the Taxpayer Identification Number of the issuer; and
(iii) Specify the principal amount to be invested and the issue date.
To redeem a demand deposit security, follow this section.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Special zero interest securities were issued as certificates of indebtedness and notes. Provisions of subpart B of this part (Time Deposit Securities) apply except as specified in subpart D of this part. Special zero interest securities were discontinued on October 28, 1996. The only zero interest securities available after October 28, 1996, are zero interest time deposit securities that are subject to subpart B of this part.
Follow the provisions of § 344.6(a)-(g) except that no market charge or penalty will apply when you redeem a special zero interest security before maturity.
(a) The amount of the market charge for bonds and notes subscribed for before October 28, 1996 can be determined by the following formula:
(b) The application of this formula can be illustrated by the following example:
(1) Assume that a $600,000 note is issued on July 1, 1985, to mature on July 1, 1995. Interest is payable at a rate of 8% on January 1 and July 1.
(2) Assume that the note is redeemed on February 1, 1989, and that the current borrowing rate for Treasury at that time for the remaining period of 6 years and 150 days is 11%.
(3) The increased annual borrowing cost is $18,000. ($600,000)x(11%-8%)
(4) The market charge is computed as follows:
(c) The amount of the market charge for certificates of indebtedness subscribed for before October 28, 1996 can be determined by the following formula:
(d) The application of this formula can be illustrated by the following example:
(1) Assume that a $50,000 certificate of indebtedness is issued on March 1, 1987, to mature on November 1, 1987. Interest is payable at a rate of 10%.
(2) Assume that the certificate of indebtedness is redeemed on July 1, 1987, and that the current borrowing cost to Treasury for the 123-day period from July 1, 1987, to November 1, 1987, is 11.8%.
(3) The increased annual borrowing cost is $900. ($50,000) x (11.8%-10%)
(4) The market charge is computed as follows:
(a) This formula results in a premium or discount to the issuer depending on whether the current Treasury borrowing rate at the time of early redemption is lower or higher than the stated interest rate of the early-redeemed SLGS security. The total redemption value for bonds and notes can be determined by the following two steps. First, calculate accrued interest payable in accordance with § 344.6(d)(1) using the following formula:
(b) The application of this formula can be illustrated by the following examples:
(1) The first example is for a redemption at a premium.
(i) Assume that an $800,000 2-year note is issued on December 10, 1996, to mature on December 10, 1998. Interest is payable at a rate of 7% on June 10 and December 10.
(ii) Assume that the note is redeemed on October 21, 1997, and that the current borrowing rate for Treasury at that time for the remaining period of 1 year and 50 days is 6.25%.
(iii) The redemption value is computed as follows. First, the accrued interest payable is calculated as:
Then, the redemption value is calculated as:
(2) The second example is for a redemption at a discount and it uses the same assumptions as the first example, except the current Treasury borrowing cost is assumed to be 8.00%:
(i) Assume that an $800,000 2-year note is issued on December 10, 1996, to mature on December 10, 1998. Interest is payable at a rate of 7% on June 10 and December 10.
(ii) Assume that the note is redeemed on October 21, 1997, and that the current borrowing rate for Treasury at that time for the remaining period of 1 year and 50 days is 8.00%.
(iii) The redemption value is computed as follows.
First, the accrued interest payable is calculated as:
Then, the redemption value is calculated as:
(c) The total redemption value for certificates of indebtedness can be determined by the following two steps. First, calculate accrued interest payable in accordance with § 344.6(d)(1) using the following formula:
Second, calculate the redemption value per § 344.6(d)(2) using the following equation:
(d) The application of this formula can be illustrated by the following examples.
(1) First, for a redemption at a premium:
(i) Assume that a $300,000 security is issued on December 5, 1996, to mature in 151 days on May 5, 1997. Interest at a rate of 5% is payable at maturity.
(ii) Assume that the security is redeemed on April 9, 1997, and that the current borrowing rate for Treasury at that time for the remaining period of 26 days is 4.00%.
(iii) The redemption value is computed as follows.
First, the accrued interest payable is calculated as:
Then, the redemption value is calculated as:
(2) Secondly, for a redemption at a discount:
(i) Assume that a $300,000 security is issued on December 5, 1996, to mature in 151 days on May 5, 1997. Interest at a rate of 5% is payable at maturity.
(ii) Assume that the security is redeemed on April 9, 1997, and that the current borrowing rate for Treasury at that time for the remaining period of 26 days is 6.25%.
(iii) The redemption value is computed as follows.
First, the accrued interest payable is calculated as:
Then, the redemption value is calculated as:
Bureau of the Public Debt, Fiscal Service, Department of the Treasury.
Final Rule.
The Department of the Treasury (“Treasury,” “We,” or “Us”) is issuing a rule in final form that governs the acceptability and valuation of all collateral pledged to secure deposits of public monies and other financial interests of the Federal Government under Treasury's three Fiscal Service collateral programs. These programs are titled and described in existing parts of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) as: Depositaries and Financial Agents of the Government (31 CFR part 202); Payment of Federal Taxes and the Treasury Tax and Loan Program (31 CFR part 203); and Acceptance of Bonds Secured by Government Obligations in Lieu of Bonds with Sureties (31 CFR part 225). We are establishing a new part in the CFR for this purpose. This final rule provides a central location for the acceptability and valuation provisions for Treasury's collateral programs without substantive changes.
October 13, 2000.
You may download this final rule from Treasury's Bureau of the Public Debt website at www.publicdebt.treas.gov. It is also available for public inspection and copying at the Treasury Department Library, Room 1428, Main Treasury Building, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220. To visit the library, call (202) 622-0990 for an appointment.
Lori Santamorena (Executive Director), Kurt Eidemiller (Senior Financial Advisor), or Nadir Z. Isfahani (Government Securities Specialist), Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt, Government Securities Regulations Staff, (202) 691-3632.
We are publishing this final rule governing the determination of the acceptable types of collateral and their assigned values when pledged to secure deposits of public monies and other financial interests of the Federal Government under Treasury's three Fiscal Service collateral programs. We are centralizing these collateral provisions and establishing a new part 380 of Title 31 of the CFR for this purpose.
Treasury's Fiscal Service administers three financial programs that involve the pledging of specific collateral. These programs are governed by 31 CFR part 202 (Depositaries and Financial Agents of the Government), 31 CFR part 203 (Payment of Federal Taxes and the Treasury Tax and Loan Program), and 31 CFR part 225 (Acceptance of Bonds Secured by Government Obligations in Lieu of Bonds with Sureties). The Financial Management Service (“FMS”), a bureau within Treasury's Fiscal Service, administers these programs, which are handled operationally by the Federal Reserve System, acting as the fiscal agent for Treasury. FMS will continue to be responsible for administering and amending the regulations for these programs and providing operational oversight. The Bureau of the Public Debt (“Public Debt”), another bureau within Treasury's Fiscal Service, will administer 31 CFR part 380, pertaining to the acceptability and valuation of the collateral in these programs and will provide guidance accordingly.
On October 29, 1999, we published a proposed rule for public comment that laid out our intent to centralize the acceptability and valuation standards for collateral pledged to Treasury's three Fiscal Service financial programs.
In response to the proposed rule, we received one comment letter and the commenter was supportive of the proposal.
Certain fixed income securities are currently acceptable collateral for pledging in these programs. Obligations of the U.S. government, government-sponsored corporations, and those issued by certain international development banks, such as the Inter-American Development Bank or the World Bank, are acceptable for part 202. Acceptable collateral for Part 225 is statutorily limited to public debt obligations of the United States and those obligations “whose principal and interest is unconditionally guaranteed by the Government.”
We have decided to adopt this rule to establish a different regulatory structure to centralize the acceptability and valuation standards for Treasury's three financial programs that require the pledging of collateral. The final rule adopts the proposed rule without significant changes. The only change that has been made is to reference current Treasury guidance rather than set out the acceptable classes of collateral and respective valuations in the regulation, as we had considered in the preamble to the proposed rule.
The office responsible for implementation of part 380, including interpretations, is the Office of the Commissioner, Bureau of the Public Debt. FMS and Public Debt are coordinating on the issuance of their respective rules. FMS is simultaneously publishing its corresponding regulatory amendments to parts 202, 203, and 225 of Title 31 of the CFR, removing current references to collateral acceptability and valuation and replacing them with references to 31 CFR part 380.
This final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. We certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation provides a central location, without substantive change, for regulatory provisions that currently appear in three separate sets of regulations for Treasury's collateral programs. Accordingly, we are not required to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis. Finally, this final rule contains no new collection of information. Therefore, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply.
Collateral, Depositaries, Government obligations, Government securities, Securities, Surety bonds.
12 U.S.C. 90, 265-266, 332, 391, 1452(d), 1464(k), 1767, 1789a, 2013, 2122, 3101-3102; 26 U.S.C. 6302; 31 U.S.C. 321, 323, 3301-3304, 3336, 9301, 9303.
The regulations in this part govern the types of acceptable collateral that you may pledge to secure deposits of public monies and other financial interests of the Federal Government, as well as the valuation of that collateral. Specifically, the regulations in this part apply to the programs governed by the Department of the Treasury's regulations at 31 CFR part 202 (Depositaries and Financial Agents of the Government), 31 CFR part 203 (Payment of Federal Taxes and the Treasury Tax and Loan Program), and 31 CFR part 225 (Acceptance of Bonds Secured by Government Obligations in Lieu of Bonds with Sureties). The regulations in this part apply only to the acceptability and valuation of collateral that may be pledged under these programs. 31 CFR parts 202, 203, and 225 continue to govern the respective programs themselves.
Special definitions that may apply to this part are contained in 31 CFR parts 202, 203 and 225.
Unless we specify otherwise, we will list the types and valuation of acceptable collateral in Treasury procedural instructions. We will also post updated information and guidance on Treasury's Bureau of the Public Debt website at www.publicdebt.treas.gov.
Unless we specify otherwise, we will list the types and valuation of acceptable collateral in Treasury procedural instructions. We will also post updated information and guidance on Treasury's Bureau of the Public Debt website at www.publicdebt.treas.gov.
Unless we specify otherwise, we will list the types and valuation of acceptable collateral in Treasury procedural instructions. We will also post updated information and guidance on Treasury's Bureau of the Public Debt website at www.publicdebt.treas.gov.
You can find a current list of acceptable classes of securities, instruments and respective valuations on Treasury's Bureau of the Public Debt website at www.publicdebt.treas.gov. You may also contact the Office of the Commissioner. We can be reached by postal mail at: Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt, Office of the Commissioner, Government Securities Regulations Staff, 999 E Street, NW., Room 315, Washington, DC 20239-0001, or by e-mail at govsecreg@bpd.treas.gov.
Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Treasury.
Final Rule.
The Financial Management Service (FMS) is issuing this final rule which governs the designation of Depositaries and Financial Agents of the Federal Government; their authorization to accept deposits of public money and to perform other specific services; and the securing of public money. This revision removes current references to collateral acceptability and valuation and replaces them with references to the new rule of the Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD), codified at 31 CFR part 380, governing collateral acceptability and valuation. The revision is necessary because the responsibility for determining the acceptability and valuation of collateral under 31 CFR part 202 was recently transferred from FMS to BPD.
October 13, 2000.
Mary Bailey, Financial Program Specialist, at (202) 874-6749; Walt Henderson, Senior Financial Program
Depositaries accepting deposits of public money and providing other financial agency services to the United States (depositaries) are required to pledge adequate acceptable securities as collateral, as directed by the Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary). The Secretary previously promulgated regulations, codified at 31 CFR part 202, setting forth general requirements for designating depositaries and the pledging of collateral.
While FMS continues to be responsible for all other operational and regulatory oversight of programs under 31 CFR part 202, responsibility for determining the acceptability and valuation of collateral pledged for programs under this regulation was recently transferred from FMS to BPD, another bureau within the Fiscal Service of the Department of the Treasury (Treasury). BPD has promulgated a regulation, codified at 31 CFR part 380 and published elsewhere in this issue of the
It has been determined that this regulation is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a Regulatory Assessment is not required.
Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998 require each agency to write all rules in plain language.
We invite your comments on the clarity of this rule. Please send any comments to the Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Cash Management Policy and Planning Division, 401 14th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20227.
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply.
Because this regulation merely affects internal agency organization and does not substantively change the current rule, no notice of proposed rulemaking is required by 5 U.S.C. 553.
Banks, Banking.
12 U.S.C. 90, 265-266, 391, 1452(d), 1464(k), 1789a, 2013, 2122 and 3101-3102; 31 U.S.C. 3303 and 3336.
(b)
Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Treasury.
Final rule.
The Financial Management Service (FMS) is issuing this final rule which governs the processing of Federal tax payments by financial institutions and the Federal Reserve Banks using electronic payment or paper methods; the designation of Treasury Tax and Loan (TT&L) depositaries; and the operation of the investment program of the Department of the Treasury (Treasury). This revision removes current references to the acceptability and valuation of collateral pledged to secure deposits of tax payments through the Treasury Investment Program, and replaces them with references to the new rule published by Treasury's Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD), codified at 31 CFR part 380, governing collateral acceptability and valuation. The revision is necessary because the responsibility for determining the acceptability and valuation of collateral was recently transferred from FMS to BPD.
October 13, 2000.
Mary Bailey, Financial Program Specialist, at (202) 874-6749; Walt Henderson, Senior Financial Program Specialist, at (202) 874-6705; Cynthia L. Johnson, Director, Cash Management Policy and Planning Division, at (202) 874-6590; or Marc Seldin, Senior Attorney, at (202) 874-6680. A copy of this final rule is available on FMS' web site at the following address: www.fms.treas.gov/regs.html.
The TT&L program encompasses two separate components—a depositary component through which the Treasury collects Federal tax deposits and payments from business taxpayers for employee withholding and other types of taxes, and an investment component through which the Treasury invests short-term operating balances not needed for immediate cash outlays. More than 1,500 of the TT&L depositaries borrow excess short-term Treasury operating funds by participating in the investment component of the TT&L program. Through agreements, participating depositaries borrow Treasury funds in the form of a note secured with collateral pledged to the Treasury and pay interest to the Treasury on these balances. The Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary) previously promulgated regulations, codified at 31 CFR part 203, governing the TT&L program and the pledging of such collateral.
While FMS continues to be responsible for any other operational and regulatory oversight of programs under 31 CFR part 203, responsibility for determining the acceptability and valuation of collateral pledged for programs under this regulation was recently transferred from FMS to BPD, another bureau within the Fiscal Service of the Department of the Treasury (Treasury). BPD has promulgated a regulation, codified at 31 CFR part 380 and published elsewhere in this issue of the
It has been determined that this regulation is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a Regulatory Assessment is not required.
Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998 require each agency to write all rules in plain language. We invite your comments on the clarity of this rule. Please send any comments to the Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Cash Management Policy and Planning Division, 401 14th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20227.
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply.
Because this regulation merely affects internal agency organization and does not substantively change the current rule, no notice of proposed rulemaking is required by 5 USC 553.
Banks, Banking.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 31 CFR part 203 is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 203 continues to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 90, 265-266, 332, 391, 1452(d), 1464(k), 1767, 1789a, 2013, 2122 and 3102; 26 U.S.C. 6302; 31 U.S.C. 321, 323 and 3301-3304
2. Amend § 203.24 to revise paragraph (d) to read as follows:
(d)
Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Treasury.
Final rule.
The Financial Management Service (FMS) is issuing this final rule which governs the acceptance of bonds secured by Government obligations in lieu of bonds with sureties. This revision adds references to the new rule of the Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD), codified at 31 CFR part 380, governing collateral acceptability and valuation. The revision is necessary because the responsibility for determining the acceptability and valuation of collateral was recently transferred from FMS to BPD.
October 13, 2000.
Mary Bailey, Financial Program Specialist, at (202) 874-6749; Walt Henderson, Senior Financial Program Specialist, at (202) 874-6705; Cynthia L. Johnson, Director, Cash Management Policy and Planning Division, at (202) 874-6590; or Marc Seldin, Senior Attorney, at (202) 874-6680. A copy of this final rule is available on FMS' web site at the following address: www.fms.treas.gov/regs.html.
Persons required by Federal law to give an agency a surety bond instead may provide a bond secured by Government obligations. To assist agencies in reviewing and accepting such bonds, the Secretary of the Treasury promulgated regulations codified at 31 CFR part 225, which set forth requirements applicable to bonds secured by Government obligations in lieu of bonds with sureties. While the FMS continues to be responsible for all other operational and regulatory oversight of programs under 31 CFR part 225, responsibility for determining the acceptability and valuation of collateral pledged under this regulation was recently transferred from FMS to BPD, another bureau within the Fiscal Service of the Department of the Treasury (Treasury). BPD has promulgated a regulation, codified at 31 CFR part 380 and published elsewhere in this issue of the
It has been determined that this regulation is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a Regulatory Assessment is not required.
Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998 require each agency to write all rules in plain language. We invite your comments on the clarity of this rule. Please send any comments to the Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Cash Management Policy and Planning Division, 401 14th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20227.
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply.
Because this regulation merely affects internal agency organization and does not substantively change the current
Banks, Banking.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 31 CFR part 225 is amended as follows:
1. Revise the authority citation for part 225 to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 391; 31 U.S.C. 321, 9301 and 9303.
(e)